Between Bar Kamza and Bar Kamzora

BS”D

Though it’s not totally related to the former comparative studies of the Talmuds, this post is sort of related, though the comparison will be between a story, as it is presented in the Eichah Rabbah 4,2 (Midrash to Lamentations) and in Talmud Bavli, Gittin 55b-56a.

The story is about why the second Temple was destroyed, or at least so it appears. The two stories do put weight on different details though, and these details interest me, so I thought it fitting to share it with the rest of you. In order to make it easier to read and keep it somewhat concise, I will go through it three parts, first presenting the Midrash, then the text from the Talmud, and then finally comparing them.

Now, the Eichah Rabbah is – as the Talmud – a rabbinic text, being one of the oldest Midrashim, from the first part of the fifth century, so it’s dating from the same time as the Talmud more or less, which makes the two approaches to the story even more interesting.

I’m not sure whether the whole account presented in the Midrash is authored at the same time, since three of the sentences are written in Hebrew, whereas the rest of the account is written in Aramaic. I’ll point it out when we get there. The Midrashic account goes like this:

A tale is told of one of the wealthy men of Jerusalem who made a banquet, inviting everyone.	מעשה באדם אחד מגדולי ירושלים שעשה סעודה והיזמין את הכל.
He said to his servant, “Go and bring me my friend Bar Kamza.”	אמ’ לטלייה: זיל ואייתי לי בר כמצא רחמי.
He went and brought him his enemy, Bar Kamzora.	אזל ואייתי ליה בר כמצורא סנאיה.
He entered (the banquet) and found him sitting among the guests.	על ואשכחיה דיתיב בין אריסטייה.
He said to him, “Get up and get out of here.”	אמ’ ליה: קום פוק לך מן הכה.
He replied, “I will pay the cost of the meal; but don’t throw me out in shame.”	אמ’ ליה: אנא יהב טימי דסעודה ולא תפקין בבוסרן.
He said to him, “You have no choice but to get out of here.”	אמ’ ליה: לית אפשר דלא נפקת מן הבא.
He replied, “I will pay for the entire banquet; but don’t throw me out in shame.”	אמ’ ליה: אנא יהב טימי כל הדין אריצטון ולא תפקין בבוסרן.
He said to him, “You have no choice but to get out of here.”	אמ’ ליה: לית אפשר דלא נפקת מן הבא.
He replied, “I will pay you double; but don’t throw me out in shame.”	אמ’ ליה: אנא יהב בדיפלה ולא תפקין בבוסרן.
He said to him, “You have no choice but to get out of here.”	אמ’ ליה: לית אפשר דלא נפקת מן הבא.
R. Zecharia b. Avqulos, who was capable of protesting, was there, but he didn’t protest.	והיה שם ר’ זכריה בר אבקליס שהיה ספיק בידו למחות ולא מיחה.
Upon leaving, he said, “I get thrown out in shame, and let them sit there in peace?!”	מן דנפיק אמ’: מה אנה נפק בבוסרן ושביק להון יתבין שליות!?
He went down to the king; and said to him,	נחת ליה לגב מלכה.
“Those sacrifices that you send them – they eat them.”	אזל ואמ’ ליה: אילין קורבניא דאת משלח להון – אינון אכלין להון.
He rebuked him saying, “That’s slander; you wish to denigrate them.”	נזף ביה. ואמ’ ליה: מילא בישא אמרת, דאת בעי למימר שם ביש עליהון.
He said to him, “Send the sacrifices with me, and send along a trustworthy man, and you’ll find out the truth.”	אמ’ ליה: שלח עימי קורבניאושלח עימי ברנש מהימן ואת קיים על קושטא.
He sent a trustworthy man with him along with the sacrifices.	שלח עימיה ברנש מהימן ושלח עימיה קורבניא.
He arose at night and placed unnoticeable blemished on (the sacrifices).	קם הוא בליליה ויהב בהון מומין דלא מנכרין.
When the priest saw them, he didn’t offer them as sacrifice, saying,	כיון דחמא יתהון כהנא לא קריבינון
“I’m not offering them (now); tomorrow I will offer them.”	אמ’ ליה: לית אנה מקריב להון, מחר אנה מקריב להון.
A day went by, and he didn’t offer them; another day went by, and he didn’t offer them.	אתא יומא ולא קריבינון. אתא יומא ולא קריבינון.
At which he sent word to the king, “What that Jew told you is true.”	מיד שלח ואמ’ למלכא: ההיא מילתא דאמר לך ההוא יהודאה קשיט הוא.
Immediately he sent out to destroy the Temple.	מיד שלח ואחריב היכלה.
That is what people say, “Between Kamza and Kamzora was the sanctuary destroyed.”	היא דא דביריאתא אמרין: בין כמצא ובין כמצורא חרב מקדשא.
R. Yose said, “The timidity of R. Zecharia b. Avqulos burned down the temple.”	א’ ר’ יוסי: עינוונות של ר’ זכריה בר אבקליס היא רפה את היכל.

We have a number of persons being presented for us here: A man being among the upper class in Jerusalem, his servant, Bar Kamza, Bar Kamzora, R. Zecharia b. Avqulos, the king, and the priest.

The priest is most likely R. Zecharia b. Avqulos, who himself was a priest[1], which would explain R. Yose’s statement being stated here in two forms.

What is going on here? We see the wealthy man, without name, wanting to make a banquet. He tells his servant to bring an invitation to his friend, Bar Kamza, but by mistake the servants confuses Bar Kamza and Bar Kamzora, who then comes instead. When the man sees Bar Kamzora, he tells him to leave, something that is shameful to Bar Kamzora, and he in return offers to pay for his meal, the banquet and double the price of the banquet, but to no vain. Apparently that is too much for him, so he decides to bring them in discredit with the king, who at first doesn’t believe in his intentions, but accept to check out if Bar Kamzora’s claim, that the guests are eating the king’s sacrifices, instead of sacrificing them, is really true. At night Bar Kamzora makes blemishes on the sacrifices, making them unfit for sacrifices. When checking the animals, the priest denies to sacrifice them, but instead of stating that outright and explain why, he tells them that he will do it the next day, which he does not do in the end. After a couple of days, the man going with Bar Kamzora, returns to the king and tells him that Bar Kamzora was right, which angers the king enough to send people out to destroy the Temple.

There are some notes that have to be added here.

• The king is most likely the Roman prefect.
• Regarding the sacrifices, when they were brought to the Temple, they had to be without wounds. Even a small unseeing wound, would be enough to render it unfit for slaughter. It was practice to bring sacrifices for the Roman emperors during the time of the Second Temple, not for his divinity, but for his success and health.
• The first verse, and the two verses mentioning R. Zecharia b. Avqulos are in Hebrew, whereas the rest of the text is in Aramaic. I have a feeling that the Hebrew verses are put in later, in order to give a teaching, though the sentences themselves might be older than the text, at least the ones about R. Zecharia. We see for example a version of the texts, which appears in the Tosefta (in tractate Shabbat 21:3), though in a slightly different version and a different context.

If we leave out the Hebrew parts, then the text is stating that the confusion between Bar Kamza and Bar Kamzora is what brought the destruction of the Temple, though one could point to Bar Kamzora’s need for revenge, the wealthy man’s stubbornness, or the priest’s lack of explaining what was wrong (and, I might guess, though it probably is influenced by me being rather moderate in comparison, the king’s overreaction on the news).

With the Hebrew text though, the “blame” changes, being more or less directly and totally put on R. Zecharia, who first didn’t react to the humiliation of Bar Kamzora, and later was overly zealous in his denying to bring the sacrifice to the altar.

Saying all this I have to admit that there are points which I haven’t dealt with, which I have somehow answered, based on material and knowledge I haven’t shared with you yet, but that will come from the coming posts, so bear over with me.

All the best

---

[1] See for example Josephus’ ”War of the Jews,” where he mentions ”a certain Zacharia, son of Amphicalleus, being of priestly descent.” The Hebrew name of the rabbi is ‘ben Avqalis’ or “son of Avqalis,” which in its Latin form is changed to Amphicalleus.

Writer for Religion.dk

BS”D

Good news for my Danish-languaged readers.

Recently I got a mail from the board on the Danish interfaith portal, Religion.dk, asking me if I want to be part of their “expert panel” on Judaism. I – of course – said yes, so from now on you’ll have the opportunity also to read me on Danish, though it still won’t be as often as here, nor do I choose the subjects.

My first post actually came in December, where I wrote an article on the meaning of life, “Vær Tyranner!”, though it wasn’t my first official article. That “honor” will go to an article I will write about one or more rituals, which mean/s something special for me.

 

I’ll probably also take the questions I will get and write about them here, if the time is for it.

 

So, good news I suppose, hope you’ll enjoy it.

 

All the best.

The Death of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi

BS”D

 

Thought I wanted to share this short written assignment I did for my class in Classical Jewish texts, which also can be seen in context of my comparative studies of the Talmud.

I am thinking about expanding it and adding parts of the analysis I didn’t find room for in the assignment, if anybody would be interested. Let me know.

 

The death of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi – as it appears in Talmud Bavli, Ketubot 104a and in Talmud Yerushalmi, Kilayim 9:3

 

 

The death of an authority like R. Yehudah HaNasi certainly would not happen without some attention, which is reflected in the two accounts presented for us in the Babylonian and Palestine Talmud. Both accounts give an interesting understanding of how the news of his death was accepted (or not accepted), his role and significance among the Jews of his time, as well as how later authorities viewed him, since though the accounts are prescribed his immediate surroundings, I would expect the written and presented accounts to be much later, and thus have changed in some regards, though these might not be so obvious.

Since I do not wish to make too an extensive an analysis, caused by the lack of space and time, I will only attempt to deal with the most obviously similarities and differences in the two accounts.

 

Similarities:

 

First and most obvious, both accounts deal with the death of the great compiler of the Mishnah, Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi, as his title is in Hebrew[1]. Both accounts have reactions to his death, which show people taking the news rather bad, having people stating that whoever tells of his death, would be killed. Both accounts have Bar Qappara involved as the one giving the news, though he denies answering the question of R. Yehudah haNasi’s death directly. Both accounts have Bar Qappara telling about his death in a parable, mentioning the struggle between the “ones below” and those who “fly on high” for either the tablets of the commandments (the two Luhot haBrit, as they are called in Hebrew), or the Holy Ark (the Aron haQodesh), the two of them clearly symbolizing R. Yehudah HaNasi, and the “ones below” the living world, while those who “fly on high” would be the angels, which hints at his struggling with the illness he died with, having to give up his breath in the end.

 

Differences:

 

There are differences both in length and content. Even though both accounts have the overarching theme in similarity, the account as it is told differs strongly, and would not have a hard time telling which account is told, should he be told it. The account of the Palestinian Talmud is much more concise, only telling of the “people of Zipori” not wanting to accept the death of R. Yehudah HaNasi, then having Bar Qappara visiting them, already having his head covered and clothes rent[2], giving them the parable of the “ones below” and the ones who “fly on high” fighting for the tablets, with the latter winning this one, to which the people of Zipori ask whether Rebbe[3] has died. Knowing well the danger involved by giving news of his death, Bar Qappara answers “you said it,”[4] making them accept the news, and then mourn over him, a mourning powerful enough to be heard in Pepta three miles away.

The account in the Babylonian Talmud is much longer, double the length, introduced with the information that R. Yehudah HaNasi was ill, and therefore the scholars declared a fast “to ask for mercy,” while in the same time stating that everyone telling of his death, will be “stabbed with a sword”. It further adds an account of R. Yehudah haNasi’s maidservant going to the roof, stating that the “ones above and the “ones below” are asking for him, and that may it be the will of God to listen to the ones below, but when seeing how he suffers, she asks that the “ones above” may win, so he would be relieved from his sufferings. From there we jump to the Sages, who were continuous praying for his recovering, which – understood from the context – would be them engaged in the struggle to keep him alive, making them the “ones below,” until a vessel certainly was taken up and dropped, disturbing them enough to interfere their prayer, and letting R. Yehudah HaNasi give up his breath. They then send Bar Qappara to investigate his state, who finds out that he had died, and then we return to the account of Bar Qappara giving news of his death, still with the difference that here he turned his cloak around so it would not appear what had happened. Also in this account we are not told how they react from the news, ending with Bar Qappara’s indirect answer.

 

Seeing how the Babylonian account have so much extra material interwoven, I would imagine that this account is a later than the Palestinian, wanting to tell what the Palestinian account is leaving out and explain what was going on. The parable about the “ones below” and the “ones above” becomes much more concrete in the Babylonian account, while the question on why God would let him die, when righteous men are praying for him also is being answered. R. Yehudah HaNasi is also elevated to a higher status in the Babylonian account that in the Palestinian one, concluded on the context of the narratives, though the Palestinian account in no way gives the impression that it was “just a rabbi” who died here, highlighted by the response to the news of his death.

 

What I have not focused on so much here, is the style of the accounts, nor the elements, only going through the accounts as they are told, and by that comparing them. I have mentioned the latter indirectly though, pointing out material that is added in the Babylonian account, but more could be said about that.

---

[1] His name -  being the son of Rabbi Shim’on ben Gamliel – would be Yehudah ben Shim’on.

[2] A sign of mourning.

[3] R. Yehudah HaNasi.

[4] Taking him to court it would be impossible for them to claim that he said that R. Yehudah HaNasi was death, since he never claimed that, but they would still understand what had happened.

Freedom of Speech (?)

 

In Denmark we have a radio program called Radio24syv (radio 24-7), which have had some incidents making it look not too pro-Jewish.. Last year one of the hosts talked about the “damn Jew-lobby” and last week there was another incident, where the guest and a caller had a conversation lasting several minutes, talking about Nazism being a “beautiful” thing and that the existence of the “Mosaic society” should be discussed publicly, among other things, without the host reacting to it at all.

Of course does this not sit well with me, it’s not only being critical but rather hateful against  people like me, not because of what we do, but because of what we are, and only because of that. Stating that “Nazism is a beautiful thing” is crossing my borders, I have to admit.

But some people, commenting this, stated that it’s freedom of speech, that people have the right to speak their minds, but do they really?

I’m personally for freedom of speech, at least until the point where we are going from being critical and stating that, till the point where we are indulging in a discussion that speaks or encourage the killing or damaging of others. Also recently in Denmark we had an artist (artist for some at least), named Kidd, who wrote on his Twitter that he hoped something would kill the head of DF (Danish Popular Party), which did attract criticism, but he (and others) defended himself by saying that he didn’t want to do it, that is, kill her, but rather that he hoped someone would. Now, is that encouraging violence or is it simply stating his opinion, and should he be free in doing so?

We also have other cases, where people are being taken to court for hateful speech, for example the artist and blogger Firoozeh Bazrafan, as well as some neo-Nazis (who were deemed innocent) – not to compare Firoozeh and the neo-Nazis.

The question is, where do we draw the line? Should we – in the name of freedom of speech – accept every statement? Should, as another example, accept that an editor of an American newspaper write in his editorial that one option for Israel, should be to kill the president of the USA, or should that be considered a threat, encouragement to violence or the like?

And should we accept excuses such as religion? Would a rabbi, who stated that homosexuality is basically wrong, be freed while a non-religious person, stating the same, whether in a different phrasing, be punished?

 

Where do we draw the line?

Ibrahim, A”S, and the Idolaters, the Quranic account

BS”D

As stated earlier I have to be focused in my attempt to get to a closer understanding of Ibrahim as a (early) monotheist, so I have – besides my focus on Ibrahim being a Hanif and what that means – chosen to focus on a certain part, namely his meeting/conflict with the idolaters, the Mushrîkin, in his homeland, which also includes his father.

I have found the account being mentioned six times in the Quran, namely in the suwar An-Nabiya (21), Ash-Shuara (26), Al-Ankabût (29), As-Saafat (37), Az-Zukhruf (43), and Al-Mumtahina (60). They don’t all deal equally extensive with the matter, An-Nabiya being the one covering the most, but all of them deal with parts of the account.

I have found seven parts in the account, all of them only being dealt with in An-Nabiya, which can be named as “Discussion with the idolaters,” “Confronting the idols,” “In the court,” “Thrown into the fire,” “Saved by Allah,” “Further Scheeming,” and “Leaving the country.” All the Suwar deals with the discussion, while only Surat An-Nabiya deals with all the parts. I have attached a PDF, Comparative Analysis of the Account in the Quran, where I have systemized the account and the Suwar. The translation used is Yusufali.

The Discussion with the idolaters.

As said, all the Suwar deals with this part. Ash-Shuara is the longest with eight verses (âyât, âyah in singular), followed by An-Nabiya and As-Saafat with six âyât each, then Al-Ankabût (three âyât), Az-Zukhruf (two âyât), and Al-Mumtahina (one ayah). The three longest of the Suwar present an actual discussion with a dialogue between Ibrahim and the idolaters, while the three shortest let Ibrahim be the only one speaking, more stating an opposition to idol worship than entering a discussion. Among the three shortest there is another difference, one of them (Al-Ankabût) having Ibrahim encouraging the idolaters to give up their idol worship, whereas the two others (Az-Zukhruf and Al-Mumtahina) shows a more hostile Ibrahim, declaring himself to be “clear” of them, that is, he distance himself totally from their idol worship.

If we take a look on the three longest Suwar, An-Nabiya, Ash-Shuara and As-Saafat, we can find even more parts in the discussion, though they differ in them. I have tried to organize it in order to see which parts are present, as well as which parts they have in common.  It can be organized like this:

An-Nabiya (21)		Ash-Shuara (26)		As-Saafat (37)
Ibrahim inquires	52: Behold! he said to his father and his people, “What are these images, to which ye are (so assiduously) devoted?”	Ibrahim inquires	70: Behold, he said to his father and his people: “What worship ye?”	Ibrahim inquires	85: Behold! he said to his father and to his people, “What is that which ye worship? 86: “Is it a falsehood- gods other than Allah- that ye desire?
Idolaters answer	53: They said, “We found our fathers worshipping them.”	Idolaters answer	71: They said: “We worship idols, and we remain constantly in attendance on them.”	Idolaters questions him	87: “Then what is your idea about the Lord of the worlds?”
He corrects them	54: He said, “Indeed ye have been in manifest error – ye and your fathers.”	Ibrahim questions the idols	72: He said: “Do they listen to you when ye call (on them)?” 73: “Or do you good or harm?”	Ibrahim wonders	88: Then did he cast a glance at the Stars. 89: And he said, “I am indeed sick (at heart)!”
They question him	55: They said, “Have you brought us the Truth, or are you one of those who jest?”	They confirm him	74: They said: “Nay, but we found our fathers doing thus (what we do).”	The idolaters leave him	90: So they turned away from him, and departed.
He points to Allah	56: He said, “Nay, your Lord is the Lord of the heavens and the earth, He Who created them (from nothing): and I am a witness to this (Truth).	He corrects them	75: He said: “Do ye then see whom ye have been worshipping,- 76: “Ye and your fathers before you?-
He focuses on the idols	57: “And by Allah, I have a plan for your idols – after ye go away and turn your backs”..	He focuses on the idols	77: “For they[1] are enemies to me….

There are differences when we put these three Suwar next to each other, one of them having less parts than the other two, while the other two don’t have the same parts. But I don’t think that they are contradicting each other, rather they supplement each other. One fills holes found in the others, and so on.

In all three of these Suwar it ends with the idolaters leaving Ibrahim, and him turning his attention to the idols.

Confronting the Idols.

Only two Suwar deals with Ibrahim confronting the idols, namely An-Nabiya and As-Saafat. Âyah 58 in An-Nabiya, being the only âyah dealing with this part, only tells of him smashing all the idols except the biggest of them, in order for him to put a trap for the idolaters, while As-Saafat have three âyât dealing with this incident. In As-Saafat we see Ibrahim mocking the idols, asking why they don’t eat their sacrifices and not answering, knowing fully what he is standing with here, before he smashes the idols. Unlike An-Nabiya we don’t see him leaving the biggest idol here.

The Court.

We also only have two Suwar dealing with this incident, again An-Nabiya and As-Saafat, though only An-Nabiya – which deals extensively with this incident – actually has a court presented.

In An-Nabiya the idolators find the smashed idols, and wonder who could have done this. They soon put their minds on Ibrahim, who are brought in front of “the eyes of the people.” When questioned on whether he did this, smashing the idols, he denies, pointing at the idol still standing and claim that that must have been the one doing it, proposing them to question it, leaving the idolaters in confusion, but soon – shamefully – regain their wits, answering him that he fully well know that the idols cannot talk. Ibrahim answers this by asking why they worship the idols, when they know that they cannot do them neither good nor harm, rebuking them for doing so, something that they – apparently – don’t take so well.

As-Saafat is more concise, only letting the idolaters face him, while he asks them why they worship that which they have created themselves, instead of worshipping Him Who created them.

The Punishment.

Both An-Nabiya, Al-Ankabût, and As-Saafat have the punishment, all of them only mentioning it with one âyah. There are not much of a difference, all three âyât mentioning that they want to burn him, only that An-Nabiya mentions that they should burn him in order to protect their gods (if doing anything at all), while Al-Ankabût gives the option to slay him, besides burning him.

Salvation.

Again only two Suwar mention this, namely An-Nabiya (one âyah) and Al-Ankabût(two âyât). An-Nabiya informs that Allah saved Ibrahim by making the fire cold, in order that it would not burn him, while Al-Ankabût only mentions that Allah saved him, but then informing that this should be a sign for the believers, and that those who do not believe themselves would end in the fire on the Day of Judgment.

The Idolaters Planning against Ibrahim.

Also here only mentioned by two Suwar, An-Nabiya and As-Saafat, we see that the idolaters didn’t become discouraged by seeing Ibrahim surviving the furnace, since they kept on their plotting against him, though Allah again played the upper hand, making the idolaters the “losers.” Exactly what they were planning and how Allah prevented it.

Ibrahim leaving the Country.

Only An-Nabiya has this part, shortly mentioning that Allah made Ibrahim, and Lut with him, leave his home and for the land which Allah had “blessed for the nations.”

---

[1] I’m fairly sure that ”they” are the idols, since he relates the idolaters towards what they have been worshipping and then – in that respect – mention this as his enemy.

Ibrahim il-Hanif

BS”D

 

The other day I presented you for something looking like a comparative analysis of Josephus on the Bible, as part of my quest for an understanding of views on Abraham, A”S. Today I will present you for yet a comparative analysis (or at least it’s meant to be so), though this time within the boundaries of Islam (finally getting closer to the real focus in this assignment).

The main focus in my assignment is to see influences on and evolution in Islamic views on Abraham, or rather – should I say – Ibrahim. Part of this is by researching pre-Muslim Jewish material on Abraham, see how or whether it is represented in later Islamic material, and then finally see if there is any changes in the various Islamic sources I have used, which will primarily be focused on the Quran and al-Tabari’s History (Volume II – Prophets and Patriarchs).

In order to keep it concise – I’m not going to write a book after all – I will be focusing on Ibrahim as a Hanif/early Monotheist, and in getting an understanding about him in this context, I have been trying to get to a deeper understanding of what it means when Ibrahim is called “Hanif.”

A question on analyzing a term is how to do it, which approach to take. When it comes to Hanif, one could research the etymology of the word, comparing it to the meaning of the same root in other Semitic languages (e.g., in Syrian the root has – as is the case in Arabic – the meaning of someone inclining or declining, though where it is considered in a positive sense in Arabic, it is negative in Syrian, designating someone who turns away from the right path. Also in Rabbinic literature, in Hebrew, it has a negative meaning, being used about pagans who outwardly embraced Monotheism, but actually stayed polytheists. A sincere thank you to Rabbi Benyamin Abrahamson, who explained this to me. Today in Hebrew the root appears as an adjective, meaning someone who flatters or fawns).

One could also simply look it up in a dictionary and finish there, which would make things much easier, but at the same time leave me with nothing to write.

I have chosen to focus on the Quranic verses (suwar; sura in singular), where the term appears, analyze them in two ways; 1) by comparing them to other keywords in the verse and 2) compare how it is translated by a number of English translations, namely Yusufali, Pickthal and Shakir.

 

The term is mentioned twelve time in the Quran, ten times in the singular form, Hanif (حنيف‎)[1], and twice in the plural form, Hunâfa (حنفاء)[2]. Eight times it is used to describe Ibrahim.[3]

 

In the analyzed verses I have found following keywords (besides Hanif):[4]

Religion, Milah (ملة) – Verses 2:135,3:95, 4:125, 6:161,

Idol worshiper, Mushrik (مشرك) – Verses 2:135, 3:67;95, 6:79;161, 10:105, 16:120;123, 22:31

Muslim (مسلم) – Verse 3:67

Well doer, Muhsin (محسن) – Verse 4:125

A close friend, Khalila (خليلا) – Verse 4:125

Religion, Dîn (دين) – 6:161,10:105,30:30, 98:5

Worthy, Qiyam (قيم) – 6:161, 30:30, 98:5

Nation, Umah (امة) – 16:120

 

As the words stand above they might not make so much sense, but in the context of their appearance they do give quite a lot meaning.

The word Milah, which means religion, is presented as Ibrahim’s religion and only appears as such. This is interesting since it isn’t the only word for religion, the other being Dîn, which in turn is used either “worthy religion” (with Qiyam as adjective) or in connection to Allah (“My Religion”). The differences in understanding might be perceived from the translations, Yusufali translating Milah as “religion,” “way,” and “path,” while Pickthal translates it as “religion,” “tradition,” and “community,” and Shakir translates it as “religion,” and “faith.” The word Dîn they translate as “religion,” “faith,” and “sincere devotion” (Yusufali), “religion” solely (Pickthal), and “religion,” and “sincere obedience” (Shakir). Looking at the differences we can understand both words as surely meaning religion, but Milah having an understanding as being something based on practice, tradition, which might hint to a set practice performed by Ibrahim, whereas Dîn is being on a somewhat higher level, being understood in a more spiritual sense.

Mushrik, which is translated as “one who join gods to Allah,” “pagan,” and “unbeliever” by Yusufali, as “idolater,” and “one who ascribes partners to Allah,” and “polytheist,” and “one who associates others with Allah” by Shakir, is always presented as an opposite to Ibrahim, as well as the usage of Hanif in general, deeming this something that should not be encourage.

The word “Umah” is used about Ibrahim once, being translated as “model” (Yusufali), “nation” (Pickthal) and “exemplar” (Shakir), and though “nation”[5] is the correct translation, it seems that there is an understanding of the term here as something being a good examples (relating to Yusufali and Shakir). I would think that there is a combined sense here, stating that by having people following the example of Ibrahim, he became a nation.

Ibrahim is further described as a Muslim and a Khalila of Allah, one who succumbed to Allah and was chosen by Him to be a dear and close friend. As far as I am aware, Ibrahim is the only one being described as Khalilat Allah in the Quran. I would suppose that he is also considered Muhsin, though it is used about those who follow his Milah.

Regarding the word Hanif, then we see three different understandings. Yusufali is translating it as being “true”, especially in faith. Pickthal is translating it as being “upright”, especially as something born, by nature upright, and Shakir translates it as “upright.” I think we can establish an understanding of the word Hanif, especially in the meaning of “inclining, declining,” as being someone who turns away from doing wrong, being upright/true in his approach to Allah and the world.

Besides this there are two keywords which I haven’t related to, namely Jew and Christian. Though these two are not connected to being Mushrîkin, idolaters, it is still stated that Ibrahim is neither a Jew nor a Christian (Verses 2:135 and 3:67).

All that said, it seems to me that we can conclude – at least in context of Ibrahim being a Hanif – that he had his own religion, he was a dear friend of Allah, a good example, becoming a nation, and standing opposed to the polytheists. A Hanif is one who is upright and true, inclining towards Allah, does good to others, and is denying idol worship, nor is he a Jew or a Christian.

---

[1] Suwar 2:135, 3:67;95, 4:125, 6:79;161, 10:105, 16:120;123, 30:30.

[2] Suwar 22:31, 98:5.

[3] Suwar 2:135, 3:67;95, 4:125, 6:79;161, 16:120;123.

[4] I hope that any Arab speaker will forgive me for any mistakes in how I present/spell/translate the words. If you have any corrections, then please let me know. The translations I have based on the three previous mentioned translations.

[5] The word cannot be understood in the modern sense of nation/state, for which would be used Dawla. Rather it is, as the Hebrew word ‘Am or Um, understood as a greater group of people accepting the same body of laws.

Josephus Flavius on Genesis 11:26-12:5

BS”D

As part of my final assignment in the course on entertainment, history and religion in the Medieval Muslim Middle East, I’m working on Abraham as he appears in Jewish sources, and how they are reflected in Islamic sources later on.

Right now I’m writing on the rewritten Bible literature, just finished the part of Josephus, which I thought I wanted to present you for. It is not going to be exactly like this in my assignment, that would take way too much space and focus, but it’s serving as a base for my later presentation of background literature.

I have used the Kindle Edition of ”Josephus, Flavius; Antiquities of the Jews – a history of the Jewish people” by Mark Oxford as source material.

Let me hear your thoughts.

In his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus deals with the account of Terah as well as the first encounter between G-D and Abraham. But there are differences between the Biblical account and the one of Josephus, both where Josephus attempts to fill the gaps, but also where he should not have felt the need. One interesting difference in the two versions, is the generations, where Terah – according to the Biblical text – is the father of Abraham, Nahor and Haran (Genesis 11:26-27), but according to Josephus, Terah is only the father to Abraham, whereas Nahor is the father to Haran (Antiquities Chapter 6, fifth paragraph). Nevertheless, a little further on Josephus does state that Abraham had two brothers, Nahor and Haran, but it is not clear why he didn’t mentioned this in the first case, leaving the impression that Terah and and Haran were brothers, but it might be cause by confusion from his side.[1] Also according to Josephus does Haran die in Ur Casdim, but here his death plays a crucial role in Terah’s, and hence Abraham’s , leaving of Ur. According to Josephus Haran had a monument raised, which can be “seen to this day” (Antiquities, chapter 6, fifth paragraph). How he died is not explained by Josephus, but somehow it left Terah with hate to the Chaldean, which is the reason he left Ur (Antiquities, chapter 6, fifth paragraph), hence answering why Terah left the city in the first place. Josephus ends the sixth chapter by recounting the generations of Nahor down to Rebecca and Laban.

Why did Lot follow Abraham? Why the inconsistence between Genesis 11:31 and Genesis 12:1? It seems like Josephus had these two questions in mind, when he introduced the seventh chapter in his Antiquities, at least he answers them. Lot was adopted by Abraham, since he himself did not have any sons and Lot’s father already dead (Antiquities chapter 7, first paragraph). Thereafter Abraham took his adopted son and his wife, and left the land of the Chaldeans (Antiquities, chapter 7, first paragraph), differing between city and land of the Chaldeans, so according to Josephus, even though Abraham indeed did leave Ur of the Chaldeans with his father, he was still living in the land of the Chaldean. That explains the inconsistency of the Biblical accounts, but creates a new. If Terah had to leave Ur because of his hatred to the Chaldeans – and what happened with Haran, since he hated them so much – then why did he still choose to stay in their land? These new questions are not answered.

Also according to Josephus is Abraham commanded to go to Canaan, but Josephus attempts to answer why G-D suddenly chose him. Abraham was “a person of great sagacity, both for understanding all things and persuading his hearers, and not mistaken in his opinions; for which reason he began to have higher notions of virtue than others had…” (Antiquities, chapter 7, first paragraph).  That is, Abraham had an insight and understanding that no one else could show. And even did what no one had done before him, he “…ventured to publish this notion, That there was but one God, the Creator of the universe; and that, as to other [gods], if they contributed anything to the happiness of men, that each of them afforded it only according to his appointment, and not by their own power” (Antiquities, chapter 7, first paragraph). He then continues by giving an account on how Abraham ended with the knowledge of one G-D, explaining how he first derived his opinions “from the irregular phenomena that were visible both at land and sea, as well as those that happen to the sun, and moon, and all the heavenly bodies…” (Antiquities, chapter 7, first paragraph), and then letting Abraham himself explain how it would be logical that if these bodies indeed were gods, then they would correct their own irregularities, before dealing with men (Antiquities, chapter 7, first paragraph). By stating this, Chaldeans and other people in Mesopotamia raised against Abraham, leading to Abraham’s decision of leaving the land of the Chaldeans, and thus being commanded to settle in Canaan by G-D. Hence the order of initiative is changed from Abraham being ordered to leave his land, his place of birth, by G-D, Who discovered Abraham before Abraham discovered Him, to Abraham making a logical deduction that there can be only one G-D, stating it publicly which lead to an outcry against him, and by that forcing him to leave his land, where after  G-D appears, and orders him to enter Canaan. Where G-D discovers Abraham in the Biblical account, Abraham discovers G-D in Josephus’ account.

---

[1] Terah’s father was also called Nahor, but it it still not clear why Josephus mentions Haran (or a Haran) as Nahor’s son, since nothing in the Biblical account leaves room for this.

Gay rights and Religion

BS”D

Recently I’ve read a couple of articles on being religious and homosexual, as well as discussing the subject.

Mostly it has been related to the discussion on the subject in Denmark, where the new minister of the church has proposed himself as a frontier soldier for the rights of the gay community to be married in the church (in Denmark the state and the church is still connected), but some of the articles and discussions have also been related to Judaism and acknowledging homosexuals, see for example Los Pumbedita’s post on the subject.

Anyway, some have asked me how I feel about it, and though my opinions are pretty clear when it comes to Halachah (Jewish religious law), that is – I stick to Halachah, then I’m also aware that we are dealing with human beings, who are going through something most of us couldn’t imagine. Of course, some places it’s easier than other to come out or living as a homosexual, though I’m still not aware of any place where it isn’t presenting some challenges.

Regarding Halachah, I still haven’t seen anything that remotely opens up for gay marriages, and I have been spending some time looking into it. I certainly don’t agree with Reform Jews in their approach, going outside the boundaries of Halachah, in order to change Halachah, so it conforms with their thoughts on how Halachah is supposed to be, because then we’re basically left with something that is solely based on what we feel and think would be right, and not Halachah. It would be something else.

That aside, within Halachah, the ethical aspect of the law, though I do find that homosexuality – the act – are not allowed, I’m still obliged to love the person. I have a great respect for a person, who by staying true to what he/she is, still dare to stand out and being honest by it. And honest, when I look around in our societies today, people who are living in openly homosexual relations are far from the “worst” (I find it hard to describe homosexuals as bad people, it’s not their personality we’re dealing with, it’s a natural urge) people I see. There are things that are far worse than living as a homosexual, such as slander, encouraging hatred, gambling with other people’s money and so on. Seriously, I would think that those things are much graver than any homosexual act to be ignored. What homosexuals choose to do in their private lives, have no interest for others, that is totally between the two (or more) of them, but people spreading slander, encouraging hatred and so on, are not just dealing with their own lives, they are hurting and damaging the lives of others. I’m even finding it hard to make this comparison, since a gay person isn’t even a bad person, but one who is struggling, succumbing, living with, whatever you choose to call it, his/her inclinations. People who are spreading slander, encouraging hate, and so on, are people who destroy.

And honestly, if we look at ourselves don’t we have flaws that we should correct, before we begin to look for flaws in others?

Another aspect is the aspect of being a citizen in a secular society. I saw an interview with Ricky Martin, where he stated something true, that as a citizen in the US, who pay taxes, why is he not entitled to the same rights, as anybody else? I differ strongly between Halachah and the laws of a secular society. I basically don’t know of any country which is ruled by Halachah, not even Israel, which might implement Halachah in parts of its secular law, but is far from being ruled by Halachah. Actually the specific law in Israel is termed as Mishpat ‘Ivrit, “Hebrew Law”, which not being something completely remote, then still different enough from Halachah to not being the same. Halachah is based on Torah and the Sages’, Z”L, interpretation of the Torah, Mishpat ‘Ivrit is based on part Israeli jurisdiction, Ottoman and British law, as well as Halachah. Halachah is Divinely inspired, Mishpat ‘Ivrit is rationalized and compiled by various groups of law.

In a secular society, even Israel, the law of the land is law, and though I certainly encourage a role of Halachah in Israel, I think it should be up to the single individual whether he/she will succumb to Halachah, and to how great an extent it should be covering his/her life. And I will leave out the discussion on who should define the Halachah for another time.

In a secular society any citizen should have equal rights, within the boundaries of reason, and two mature individuals should be allowed to build their lives together if they so wish, whether man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman.

Basically this post is not so much about promoting/defending homosexual’s rights, as it is a post for any individual’s rights in a secular society. If we only allow equality to those we agree or sympathize with, then we’re not talking about equality at all. We have to establish some basic understandings of the rights for all citizens, if we want to create societies not defined by a distinct group, but rather defined as a society for all its citizens. If we want to live in democratic secular societies, then we need to live up to the demands of such societies, and if we want to encourage others to accept Halachah (or any other religious body of laws), then we – as individuals – should live up to the demands of it ourselves before we demand that others succumbs to it.

All the best.

Long live the Queen!

BS”D

 

Okay, this might be a little out of the ordinary, but everyone has interests, besides the most obvious.

 

I don’t know if I’ve ever told a lot about my background, but I might have mentioned that I’m from Denmark originally, and though I’m now living in Israel and being Jewish, I’m still proud of my Danish background and our history (at least part of it). Why, you might ask. Well, at least for being part of a country, who never really jumped on the anti-Semitic idea, having the worst persecutions of Jews being narrowed to one incident of physical attacks on Jews (I’m here talking about a national outbreak, and even that might be too much). That happened in 1919, and the then king sent troops out to stop the attacks on his Jewish citizens.

More famous might be the story of Christian X, wearing a yellow star during the second world war. This is not quite true though, since the Jews never wore the star in Denmark, but one more creditable  account tells of a conversation between him and one of the ministers, where they are discussing the demand for Jews to wear the star in Denmark, where he notes that then all of the Danes, himself included, will be wearing it.

As a Danish Jew, I also remember how Danes helped Jews out of Denmark, when the Nazis finally decided to kill Danish Jews as well, though it wasn’t too weird to see people “help” Jews out of their countries, and there certainly were Danes who had other motives, than pure hearts and worries. But the exodus from Denmark to Sweden isn’t the most amazing thing, the amazing thing is how they were welcomed back to Denmark after the war, being told and shown that they are as Danish as any Dane is it.

 

With these, and others – for Jews at least – amazing memories on Danish support and care, especially from the royal house, it can’t be a big surprise that Danish Jews in general probably are more royalist than most other Danes, and I too have a rather big affection for our royal house, so it was with joy and feeling proud that I could follow the 40 years of sitting as queen yesterday for our queen, Margrethe II. And though some anti-royalist voices are demanding that she be the last royal regent of Denmark, I hope for her many years more, and that the Danish royal house will be standing strong in the future.

 

I will take the chance at hand and also present you for another Scandinavian queen, though not royal, namely Eivør Pálsdóttir, a Faroese artist, who also holds Danish citizenship, since the Faeroe Islands also are under the Danish crown. She has if not the greatest, then at least one of the greatest voices in Denmark. And I believe that she, as most Faroese people, also holds high regards for the Danish royal house, at least I still have to meet the first Faroese anti-royalist, but that might still come. Eivør isn’t the only great Faroese performer, some others having to be mentioned is Teitur and Simon Kvamm from Nephew. Though some Danes forget it now and then, we do enjoy quite a lot of good things from the people of Faeroe Islands, especially those who take part in the general live of Denmark.

Eivør normally sings Scandinavian folksongs, or folksong-inspired songs, and she does that very well. Yesterday she performed for the queen, with the song “May it be” from the Lord of the Rings, and may I say that she did it amazingly. I will give you a chance to judge for yourself, both in her performance, and in a studio record of one of her songs, Dansadu Vindur, performed in Icelandic, just one of the languages she performs in, the others being Faroese, Norwegian and Danish, as well as English. Please enjoy:

 

Eivør performing for Queen Margrethe II

Dansadu Vindur

 

Long live the Queen!

Examination time!

BS”D

Examination time is nearing with VERY fast steps, and I’m getting a little stressed, honestly. Normally I love the exams, but there is a clear difference between having to write exams in two-three courses with time dedicated for exams, and now five courses, while still having to follow the normal studies and work. Anyway, I take it as a challenge.

So far I have found the subjects in two of the course, the course on Islamic entertainment, history and religion, and the course on early Islamic texts and the formation of the Muslim community.

In the first I will be focusing on Abraham and Ishmael, trying to show how Jewish material, Biblical and Midrashic respectively, is going again in Islamic material. Let me be clear, it is not an attempt to show that “Islam is basically just a rip-off from Judaism”, but instead to focus on accounts being popular and widespread in the Arab world, figuring out how much Jewish material is going again in the Qur’an and later Islamic materials respectively, and seeing how much can be said to be “purely” Islamic.

In the other course I will be focusing on “Hagarism”, the theories of Patricia Crone and Michael Cook, in order to be able to explain one of the modern approaches to the formation of the first Muslim community/ties. It won’t be my final exam in this course though, which will be in the summer, where I will be writing a seminar paper on the woman’s status in education according to al-Shafi’i, maybe compared to Hanbali, I haven’t figured that one out completely yet.

So the next couple of weeks or so will be in the light of Islamic studies, it seems like. Not totally, since I also have a course in early Christianity and Classical Jewish texts respectively, so there will also be some Christianity and Judaism. So now you’re warned. I sincerely hope that you will participate in my studies, at least those I share, and discuss some of the issues and things I will put up here.

Take care.