250) THE CHANGING STATUS OF THE CONVERT IN TOSAFIST LITERATURE:

Part I:

INTRODUCTION:

RABBEINU YITZCHAK OF DAMPIERRE:

Research into the status of converts to Judaism, within Tosafist literature, paradoxically reveals both a positive tolerance, and a surprising negative resistance, to their acceptance as equal amongst Jews. The Tosafists were active in Northern France and Germany between 1040 and 1293.[1]

In this essay, we will show how early Tosafists like Rashi[2] (1040-1105) and his grandson Rabbeinu Tam[3] (1100-1171) had downgraded the status of the convert; while Rabbeinu Yitzchak of Dampierre, known as the Ri haZaken[4] (1115-1184) - who happened to be Rabbeinu Tam’s student and nephew – boldly challenged his uncle’s and his great-grandfather’s denigration of the convert and, instead, began to raise the dignity of the convert to be correspondent to that of a Jew.

Rabbeinu Yitzchak of Dampierre is quoted on most pages of Tosefot commentary, and he was responsible for completing Rashi’s commentary on the Talmud.

I have drawn from the writings of Professor Avraham (Rami) Reiner[5] who specializes in the history of Halachic and Talmudic exegesis in Medieval Europe.

THE SUICIDE OF YAKOV BEN SULAM:

In 1096, the Jewish chronicler, R. Shlomo ben Shimshon, wrote about a shocking incident which took place in Mainz, Germany. A certain Yakov ben Sulam, described as a “very kind man” - whose mother had converted to Judaism - was not treated very well by the community, and he was regarded as somewhat inferior. Eventually, after enduring much abuse, he took a knife in his hands and, before killing himself, he declared:

“So far you have done nothing but disgrace me and now behold what I shall do.”

DOES THE ‘KIDDUSH HASHEM’ OF A GER COUNT?

Another incident also involving a suicide took place in that same year in the German city of Xanten,[6] this time regarding an unnamed convert. This episode, however, was related to the persecutions of the First Crusade when Jews often committed suicide as a final act of defiance against the Crusaders rather than submit to forced Baptisms.

This unnamed convert asked R. Moshe Cohen Gadol whether - being a covert -  his proposed suicide in the face of such persecution would qualify as a ‘sanctification of G-d’s name’; and whether his last stand as a Jewish martyr would be acceptable considering his non-Jewish origins.

The rabbi responded in the affirmative saying:

 “You shall dwell with us [in the afterlife].”

From the fact that the convert remains nameless; and from the fact that he was unsure of his true status as a Jew despite being referred to as a ‘ger tzedek’ (a righteous convert) who kept the Law and was prepared to die as a Jew - one can assume that converts were not fully integrated into the Judaism of 11^th century Germany.

Avraham Reiner shows how in the local Jewish records of Koln, which documented those who died in the persecutions of 1096, two converts are mentioned; one, a woman called Hatziva, and the other (also) an unnamed and anonymous man, simply referred to as a ger or convert. 

CONVERSION IN THE FACE OF ANTI-JEWISH SENTIMENT:

Later, in the 12^th century, conditions deteriorated even further for the Jews, who were regarded by much of Christendom as ‘lepers and heretics’. This made it very unappealing, never mind dangerous, for a non-Jew to even think of converting to Judaism, and one would have imagined that those who did, would have been treated with a little more dignity by the early Tosafists.

TALMUD BAVLI:

The negative status of the convert has its roots in earlier Talmudic times. The question arose: -can a convert, who brings the Bikkurim or first fruits to the Temple on the festival of Shavuot, recite the formula concerning the Holy Land “which G-d had sworn to our ancestors to give to us”?

The issue is, of course, that the convert’s non-Jewish ancestors were not promised the Land.

The Mishna[7] states that a convert may bring the first fruit offering to the Temple but may not recite the declaration because he is disqualified from making reference to the promise of the ‘G-d of our fathers’.[8]

Accordingly, a convert cannot claim a share in Jewish spiritual ancestry.

TALMUD YERUSHALMI:

However, in the Jerusalem Talmud (Yerushalmi) on the same topic, R. Yehuda says the exact opposite: - a convert may, while bringing the offering of first fruit to the Temple, recite ‘our ancestors’ like any other Jew!

R. Yehuda’s proof text is Genesis where G-d tells Avraham that he is to be the “father of a multitude of nations.”[9]

THE TIDE BEGINS TO TURN:

Moving ahead some centuries to the Tosafists, it is interesting to see that the younger generation of Tosafists, the contemporaries of Rabbeinu Yitzchak – began to reject the views of the older generations who based themselves on the Babylonian Talmud (Bavli). This new generation adopted a more accepting position regarding converts. As a result, we see many more conversions taking place in Northern France and Germany at this time.

The changing tide regarding the status of the convert is vividly reflected in the Halachic debates between the early and later Tosafists:

GRACE AFTER MEALS AND ‘ANCESTRAL RIGHTS’:

A question was posed to the Tosafists regarding whether or not a convert can recite the section in the bentching (grace after meals) which refers to thanking G-d for giving such spacious land to ‘our ancestors’.[10]

Rabbeinu Tam - based on the mishna - said no!

Rabbeinu Yitzchak - based on the Talmud Yerushalmi - said yes!

Clearly Rabbeinu Tam, as can be seen by his other responsa literature as well, denies the convert the right to claim Jewish ancestry and equal Jewish status – while Rabbeinu Yitzchak affords ‘ancestral rights’ to the convert.

THE CONVERT’S FAMILY TIES:

Reiner points out that the manner in which the convert was perceived was not just of moral or theological concern, but it also had serious monetary implications as well:

R. Moshe of Pontoise wrote to Rabbeinu Tam requesting clarity on the status of a certain convert whom his[11] brother had taught “Torah and mishna night and day.” Having established the bone fides of the covert, R. Moshe went on to explain that the convert was old and dying and wanted to leave a considerable amount of money to his[12] nephew (who was also a convert). 

The convert had, in the interim, deposited the money with his teacher (R. Moshe’s brother) for safekeeping until the matter was resolved.

The problem was that according to the Talmud, once a person converts, all their previous family connections lose their legal significance. Thus the natural heirs of a convert’s estate are no longer considered legal heirs.[13]

The question was, therefore, whether the teacher was obligated to fulfil the request of the dying convert and give the money to the nephew, or whether the money was technically hefker, or ownerless, and since already in the possession of the teacher, the teacher could keep it.

Rabbeinu Tam ruled according to the classical Talmudic view that money could not be bequeathed to the nephew and that it was indeed ‘ownerless’.

However, Rabbeinu Yitzchak ruled against convention and, as Reiner puts it:

“[Converts] are able to transfer their assets easily to their natural heirs de facto, although he does not seek to change their status in this respect de jure...

[Rabbeinu Yitzchak] encouraged the recognition of the convert’s family as normative within the Jewish community.”

‘SANITIZING’ EARLIER TALMUDIC STATEMENTS:

The Talmud, in various places, had some harsh pronouncements to make about converts. Centuries later, Rabbeinu Yitzchak and his students tried to ‘sanitize’ some of these statements.

 Reiner writes:

“[Rabbeinu Yitzchak’s] project of legitimizing gerim [converts] was not restricted to the practical sphere of halakha. He invested similarly intense effort, as did his disciples, in revising the meaning of popular Talmudic aphorisms [sayings][14].”

One such saying equated the existence of converts to ‘leprous scabs’ on the skin of a Jew:

THE ‘LEPROUS SCAB’:

The Talmud quotes R. Chelbo who refers to converts as a “hard (painful) leprous scab”[15]:

This statement appears four times in the Talmud.

Although Reiner does not bring the following Rashi, I have included it for clarity on Rashi’s views on this matter:

Rashi[16] explains that in Hebrew ‘scab’ is an expression of ‘clinging’[17], and as the scab clings to the skin, the converts will eventually cling to their old ways; and furthermore, they exert a negative influence on Jews; and they cause halachic standards to drop.

Rabbeinu Yitzchak, on the other hand, remarks in a Tosafot commentary that the Talmudic reference by R. Chelbo to ‘scabs’ would only apply in a case where the convert was insincere or even misled - but where the covert is sincere, he or she would certainly not be regarded as a ‘scab’, nor be prevented from freely marrying other Jews.

Another reinterpretation of the ‘leprous scab’ is offered also in a Tosafot commentary[18] by ‘Avraham Ger’ (Avraham the convert) who was a contemporary of Rabbeinu Yitzchak. He believes we should interpret R. Chelbo’s statement to mean that since converts are meticulously careful in their fulfilment of the commandments – even more so than other Jews – the comparison puts Jews in a bad light. This is why the converts are viewed as ‘painful’ for the Jewish people, as they embarrass them.

According to Reiner, the younger generations such as Rabbeinu Yitzchak and his students had effectively began to change the negative mindset regarding converts which was so prevalent in the literature of the early Tosafists:

“Subsequent commentaries in the Tosafot literature on Rabbi Helbo [Chelbo][19] attest to the popularity of Rabbi Yitzchak’s approach.”

WOE AFTER WOE:

In a further biting statement, R. Chelbo continues his anti-convert sentiment:

“Woe after woe shall befall those who accept converts.”

Rabbeinu Yitzchak is again quick to come to the defence of converts by saying that this statement only applies to converts who are insincere, but if they are sincere, then they must be accepted wholeheartedly.

PERSECUTIONS OF 12^th CENTURY FRANCE:

It must be remembered that in the climate of the persecutions of 12^th century France - where Rabbeinu Yitzchak abided - the vast majority of the converts he would have encountered, would have been extremely sincere as they were risking their lives by becoming Jewish.

RABBEINU YITZCHAK’S INFLUENCE ON CHASIDEI ASHKENAZ:

As noted, Rabbeinu Yitzchak’s French Tosafist school appears to have been quite influential in favourably changing the earlier perceptions regarding converts, and it seems that his influence may even have reached the community of Chasidei Ashkenaz in Germany.

The leader of Chasidei Ashkenaz, R. Yehuda heChasid (1150-1217) wrote:

“Any kindhearted man who takes a kindhearted gioret (female convert) – who comes from stock that are modest, charitable and pleasant in commerce – it is better to marry with their seed than marrying Israelites who do not possess such virtues, for the seed of the ger [convert][20] shall be upright and kind.

RABBEINU YITZCHAK’S INFLUENCE ON MAHARAM OF ROTHENBURG:

A century later, R. Meir of Rothenburg[21] (d. 1293) even developed a very mystical explanation for the purpose of the convert:

“The son of David [Messiah] does not arrive before all souls expire in the body."

In other words, there is now a mystical imperative for some souls to convert to Judaism as it will hasten the Messiah who can only come after all root-souls have been in a Jewish body.

"There is a chamber in the heavens called guf [body] housing all souls destined to enter humans, and an angel appointed to oversee pregnancies takes [souls] from that chamber and implants them in woman’s bellies.

Occasionally [the angel] errs and places a soul worthy of a gentile in a Jewish woman’s intestines and her baby becomes meshumad [apostate].

And occasionally he places a soul worthy of a Jew in a gentile woman’s intestines and her baby becomes a ger [Convert].”

If one contemplates this statement, a fascinating theolosophical stance has been proposed by R. Meir of Rothenburg who significantly happened to be the last of the Tosafists; namely, that all converts were intended and destined to be Jewish, but for literally an ‘accident’ of birth.

This is a far cry from the position of Rashi - the first of the Tosafists - and his grandson Rabbeinu Tam.

HISTORIC CONDITIONS:

Reiner makes a final ‘strategic’ observation:

“It seems reasonable to conclude that such halakhic creativity was motivated, at least in part, by historical conditions...

...in the 12^th century...[a] significant number of Jews converted to Christianity and actively represented their new community, serving Christian interests not only with argumentation grounded in Jewish knowledge, but by becoming living examples of the veracity [i.e., truthfulness] of Church dogma.

[For an example of how Jews who converted to Christianity used their previous Talmudic knowledge to attack Judaism, see The Dangers of Translating Hebrew Texts.]

This phenomenon was matched on the Jewish side of the fence by the increasing acceptance of gerim [converts],[22] who in later periods became an asset to Jewish propaganda.”

CONCLUSION:

We began with the 1096 story of an unnamed and anonymous righteous convert in Xanten who was unsure if he was worthy of dying al Kiddush haShem (a martyr, sanctifying G-d’s name) in the face anti-Jewish persecution. He was a less commemorated version of the modern ‘unknown soldier’[23] in a culture of anti-convert sentiment perpetuated by the early Tosafist establishment.

We shall conclude with another, more positive, account - less than two centuries later - about a man whose name is known and perpetuated, who left a Christian monastic order to become a convert to Judaism and eventually a rabbi:

“Rabbi Avraham bar Avraham Avinu of France, [a previous] leader of the barefooted [monks][24], who came to reject idols and came to dwell under the wing of the Eternal Soul, and died sanctifying the Name.”

This glorious epithet is a far cry from the nameless, faceless, if not inglorious, martyr of Xanten; and from Yakov ben Sulam who killed himself after being humiliated as a son of a convert.

This paradigm shift in halachic ethos within the Tosafist period was brought about essentially because of the bold efforts of Rabbeinu Yitzchak of Dampierre - who felt justified to stand up to none less than both his uncle Rabbeinu Tam, and his formidable great-grandfather Rashi.

ANALYSIS:

What was it that made Rabbeinu Yitzchak break so dramatically from the ethos of the earlier Tosafists when it came to converts? 

It is hard to say with certainty but I did notice that according to Ephraim Urbach[25], Rabbeinu Yitzchak had strong connections with the very mystical group of Chasidei Ashkenaz referred to above. 

He was associated with R. Yehudah heChasid - and his student R. Eleazar of Verona (or by some accounts he himself) was related to R. Eleazar of Worms (also part of the mystical Chasidei Ashkenaz group).

[See Mystical Forays of the Tosafists.]

It is possible that because of this apparent intense mystical association, Rabbeinu Yitzchak viewed converts - and tried to make sense of their origins, journeys and destinies - more from the perspective of the Spirit and Soul than the prevailing culture and Law. [26]

---

[1] The Tosafist period - spawned by Rashi (1040-1105) - lasted about two hundred years, encompassing the 12^th and 13^th centuries, and ending with R. Meir of Rothenburg (d. 1293). The term Tosafists generally refers to the rabbis of the early period of the Rishonim (1038-1500) who lived specifically in Ashkenaz (Northern France and Germany). We know the names of 44 Baalei haTosafot.

[2] R. Shlomo Yitzchaki.

[3] R. Yaakov ben Meir.

[4] R. Yitzchak ben Shmuel of Dampierre. He was called Ri (R. Yitzchak) haZaken (the Elder) to differentiate between him and R. Yitzchak ben Avrahan haBachur (the Younger), also known as Riba or Ritzba.

[5] Tough Are Gerim, Conversion to Judaism in Medieval Europe.

[6] Pronounced ‘Zanten’.

[7] See Mishna Bikkurim 1:4. The verse is from Devarim 26:3.

[8] The Mishna continues:

“If his mother is Jewish (but his father is not), then he can recite the declaration in full.

When the convert prays his everyday prayers alone in private, he also can’t say ‘our fathers’ but must say ‘G-d of the fathers of Israel’.

When the convert is in the synagogue he must say ‘G-d of your fathers’.

If the mother is Jewish (but the father is not), then he can recite it in the full.”

[9] Genesis 17:5.

[10] ’Al shehinchalta la’avoteinu eretz chemda tova uveracha...’

[11] I. e., R. Moshe’s.

[12] I.e., the convert’s.

[13] I’m not sure why the dying convert could not simply have given the money to any person of his choice as a gift, and not technically as an inheritance. Perhaps the answer is that the convert had already stipulated that it was indeed an inheritance for his nephew.

[14] All parentheses mine.

[15] Yevamot 47 b. This is a play on Isaiah 14:1:
 “And the stranger shall join himself with them [Israel] and they shall cleave [nispechu] to the house of Jacob.”  

[16] Yevamot 47b.

[17] That is, ‘sapachat’ = ‘nispechu’.

[18] Kiddushin 70b.  Another explanation is that the Jews were exiled amongst the nations specifically so that they would interact with non-Jews who would then become inspired to join the Jewish nation. In this sense, the converts were the ‘cause’ of the exile and hence regarded as painful to the Jewish people.

[19] Parenthesis mine.

[20] Parenthesis mine.

[21] Also known as the Maharam of Rothenburg.

[22] Parentheses mine.

[23] The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier is at Arlington National Cemetery. In 1921, Congress approved the burial of an unidentified World War I soldier to commemorate and represent all unknown fallen soldiers.

[24] Parentheses mine.

[25] Baalei haTosafot, by E. E. Urbach (Hebrew), p. 237 and 433.

[26] If this hypothesis is correct then the influence may have been from Chasidei Ashkenaz to Rabbeinu Yitzchak, and not the other way round.

199) ASTROLOGY – IGNORED BY THE YERUSHALMI, EMBRACED BY THE BAVLI:

BABYLONIAN INFLUENCES ON THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD PART III:

STAR WARS:

INTRODUCTION:

This is the third article on the influences of general and popular Babylonian culture on the Babylonian Talmud.

We will explore the assertion that the Talmud Bavli (compiled in Babylonia between 180-500 C.E.) contains many references to the supernatural world of angels, demons and astrology - something which is largely absent from its sister work, the Talmud Yerushalmi (compiled in Eretz Yisrael 180-420 C.E.).

While our focus will be specifically on astrology, it must be pointed out that this is not an attempt at either supporting or rejecting its truth or efficacy, but simply to show how it was embraced by the Bavli and ignored by the Yerushalmi.

I have drawn from a scholarly article by Professor Richard Kalmin - who contributed to a journal dedicated to the memory of Rabbi Professor Yaakov Elman of Yeshiva University, who was one of the pioneers in the field of Babylonian influences on the Bavli. [1]

EARLY INFLUENCES:

As we saw in the previous article, towards the end of the Talmudic period, from about 400 C.E., Greco-Roman influences began to make inroads into Babylonia, from the Holy Land (then known as Syria Palaestina 135-390 C.E.) This influence was particularly felt in the area of Machoza, which was a centre for the very crucial and lengthy process of editing the Bavli.

The editing lasted for at least one and a half centuries – “until the advent of Islam drastically altered the cultural landscape”[2]  - and possibly closer to five centuries according to Rav Sherira Gaon (see here).

We also saw in the previous article, how the anonymous Savoraim (500-650 C.E.) and Stammaim or Editors of the Bavli, may have been very influenced by a particular agonistic Greco-Roman style of debate which framed the way they preserved and presented the Bavli to the future generations.

Could they have done the same thing with astrology?

ASTROLOGY IN THE BAVLI AND YERUSHALMI:

Professor Kalmin writes:

“To be specific, the BT [Babylonian Talmud] creates room for astrology within Judaism rather than belittling it or erecting a firm barrier around it to keep it out, as is generally the case in post-tannaitic Palestinian compilations [such as the Talmud Yerushalmi].”

THE BAVLI’S ‘ASTROLOGICAL CHART’:

The Babylonian Talmud discusses (see Appendix for full text) how the day of one’s birth as well as planetary influences, determine the outcome of one character.[3]

For example, R. Yehoshua ben Levi wrote on his pinkas, or tablet, that if one was born on a Wednesday, he will be ‘wise’ because the ‘luminaries of heaven’ were created on that day:

 טעמא משום דאיתלו ביה מאורות האי מאן דבארבעה בשבא יהי גבר חכים ונהיר מאי        

If one is born on a Monday, he will be short-tempered because the waters were divided (and became so to speak, contentious):

האי מאן דבתרי בשבא יהי גבר רגזן מאי טעמא משום דאיפליגו ביה מיא

The text continues with many other similar examples.

DELVING DEEPER BEHIND THE TEXT:

While some may find these examples rather disturbing or perhaps interesting and entertaining, a completely different picture begins to emerge when one analysis the subtle nuances of the text.  

           

Here is a case in point:

Our text says that if one is born on a Friday, being Erev Shabbat, he will always be bus‎y.

Rav Nachman qualifies that by stating that ‘busy’ means ‘busy fulfilling mitzvot’.

האי מאן דבמעלי שבתא יהי גבר חזרן אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק חזרן במצות

Professor Kalmin begins to unpack a hidden layer of highly charged and agenda driven insertions, hidden within the text. This is easily missed if one is not aware of the ideological conflict regarding astrology which was taking place between the Babylonian and Palestinian Sages.

The sentence begins with a benign statement that if one is born on a Friday, one is destined to be a busy individual (implying that Friday is always a rush to get ready for Shabbat).

Then a qualifying statement is added where Rav Nachman is quick to point out that if we thought ‘busy’ means simply being active and in rush, one would be mistaken because ‘busy’ specifically means ‘busy doing mitzvot.’

Thus Rav Nachman, the Babylonian Sage “attempted to rabbinize” the preoccupation with the stars and to bring popular astrology more in line with Jewish values. Hence through his specific reference to mitzvoth, he is ‘normalizing’ astrology for Jewish consumption.

It is interesting to note that Rav Nachman (d. 356 C.E.) was living in cosmopolitan Machoza (Baghdad), a city which was subject to a confluence of influences and he was known to have integrated many of those ideologies into his pronouncements (see here). On the other hand, his polar opposite, Rav Yehuda was in rural Pumpadita (Fallujah) and was more of an isolationist. It is no coincidence that Rav Nachman is keen to integrate aspects of Babylonian astrology with Judaism – while Rav Yehuda claims that astrology has no influence on a Jew:

ואף רב סבר אין מזל לישראל דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב מניין שאין מזל לישראל שנאמר

Another example is R. Yehoshua ben Levi maintaining that if one is born on Shabbat, he will die on Shabbat because he caused others to desecrate the Shabbat because of him.

But this statement is neutralised by Rabbah bar Shilla who again squares off with normative rabbinic tradition that Shabbat is a sacred day (and one may desecrate the Shabbat if one’s life is at risk and therefore one cannot be considered responsible for causing others to transgress the law):

האי מאן דבשבתא יהי בשבתא ימות על דאחילו עלוהי יומא רבא דשבתא אמר רבא בר רב שילא וקדישא רבא יתקרי

DETERMINISM:

Upon further study, it appears that popular Babylonian astrology was quite fatalistic and deterministic. That did not mesh well with Jewish philosophy because it excluded the notion of freedom of choice.

As a result, the Talmud Bavli develops the idea that astrology or mazal is not absolutely deterministic: Thus, Mazal may determine whether one becomes a leader, for example, but the choice remains with the individual as to whether he becomes a good or a bad leader.

The text states that if one is born on a Sunday, the first day of the week, one will be an ‘extreme’ individual because on the first day of creation, the light was separated from the darkness. It is noted that both Rav Ashi (the sage) and Dimi bar Kakuzta (the head of thieves) were born on a Sunday – emphasizing that freedom of choice still plays a role within Jewish astrology and it is not completely fatalistic:

כתיב אפינקסיה דרבי יהושע בן לוי האי מאן דבחד בשבא יהי גבר ולא חדא ביהמאי [ולא חדא ביה] אילימא ולא חד לטיבו והאמר רב אשי אנא בחד בשבא הואי אלא לאו חדא לבישו והאמר רב אשי אנא ודימי בר קקוזתא הוויין בחד בשבא אנא מלך והוא הוה ריש גנבי אלא אי כולי לטיבו אי כולי לבישו מאי טעמא דאיברו ביה אור וחושך

In fact, the idea of “negative determinism” is limited so that one’s day of birth no longer guaranteed that the individual would have negative character traits – and instead, “positive determinism” is emphasized.

Again, the Bavli draws popular astrology closer towards rabbinic norms.

R. Yehoshua ben Levi, ironically, was a Palestinian Sage, and the use of the term pinkas (the ‘tablet’ mentioned above) is significant as, according to Kalmin, it was known to refer specifically to an astrological chart.[4]

But instead of distancing itself from astrology - as is the case in most of the Yerushalmi - the Bavli builds upon it to suggest that these notions were part and parcel of normative and mainstream Judaism.

Thus, the reasons for the various character traits were not linked directly and solely to the planets, but the Bavli made the effort to show that it was G-d who had “hard wired this connection into the cosmos at creation.”

THE GREAT DEBATE – ARE JEWS SUBJECT TO ASTROLOGICAL INFLUENCES?

In fairness, it would be incorrect to portray the Babylonian Sages as unanimously ascribing to an, albeit Judaized, version of astrology.  The efficacy of astrology for Jews is, in fact, subject to a debate in the Bavli itself.

R. Chanina[5] says “Mazal makes wise, mazal makes rich and Israel has [i.e. is subject to] mazal.”

On the other hand R. Yochanan distances Jews from astrological influences:

איתמר רבי חנינא אומר מזל מחכים מזל מעשיר ויש מזל לישראל רבי יוחנן אמר אין מזל לישראל

SUGGESTIONS OF LATER EDITING:

Evidently, the linking of the day of the week on which one is born to the corresponding day of creation (certainly the first day) is an editorial addition “by the anonymous editors” and is not found in the earlier manuscripts. This is indicated by the parenthesis in the text:

Professor Kalmin explains:

“...the presence of manuscript variants is a sign of late composition, particularly when accompanied by other indications of lateness.”

This would coincide with the time Greco-Roman influences were beginning to percolate down to Babylonia.

THE DATING OF THIS SUGYA (TEXTUAL SECTION):

Professor Kalmin points out that the Babylonian rabbis mentioned in this section are either late third or early fourth century which again reinforce the notion that these influences from Greco-Roman Palestine began to infiltrate down to Babylonia towards the end of the Talmudic period.

According to this approach, the editors or Stammaim who later followed and build on this influence were therefore readily able to portray a normalized acceptance of the role of astrology within Judaism. And once again, this was largely absent from the Yerushalmi because: a) it countered and opposed the popular notions of cultural astrology taking place in Palestine at that time, and b) it did not undergo an extended subsequent process of editing (if at all).

Kalmin continues:

“The ensuing discussion argues that this [astrological[6]] expression and/or idea reached Babylonia from the west [Eretz Yisrael[7]], further supporting my claims that the mid-fourth century was a turning point in the history of Jewish Babylonia...”

Although astrological expression originated in Greco-Roman Palestine, it must be remembered that it was actively suppressed by the Yerushalmi as being on non-Jewish origin.

ANOTHER EDITORIAL INNOVATION:

Our section under study also expresses a view that the mere fact that one is born of the Jewish faith is not sufficient to preclude one from the power of the stars. Rather, to qualify for protection, one needs the added benefit of observance of mitzvot.

כי מטאי לגביה שואי נפשאי כמאן דשקילי מיניה כי היכי דלא ליכסיף אמר ליה מצוה עבדת נפק שמואל ודרש וצדקה תציל ממות ולא ממיתה משונה אלא ממיתה עצמה

 “According to this understanding, the anonymous Babylonian editors took the statement ‘Israel has no mazal’, which sounds like a general rule that admits no exceptions, and made it the introduction to the story, thereby changing the statement’s meaning. The message of the story and the statement combined is not that that the stars have no power over Jews, but only that the stars have no power over a Jew who does righteous deeds.”

Thus we see that “later Babylonian amoraim and anonymous editors inherited traditions that took the efficacy of astrology for granted and acknowledged astrology’s power over Jews as well as non-Jews, and adopted a variety of strategies to blunt their force [such as that the performance of mitzvot alleviates its effectiveness[8]].”

EVEN THE CHURCH WAS GRAPPLING WITH SIMILAR ISSUES:

Interestingly, it wasn’t only the Jews who were generally trying to distance themselves from preoccupation with astrology at this time, but also some Christians. Bishop Epiphanius of Salamis (d. 403 C.E.) speaks of Aquila (possibly Onkelos 35-120 C.E.) who he says was originally a Christian but was expelled from the Church because he refused to renounce astrology. 

He then converted to Judaism and produced a Greek translation of the Torah which rivalled the Septuagint (and his translation was considered by Christians to be superior to that of the Septuagint).

ASTROLOGY IN THE HOLY LAND:

The impression should not be created that there was no dabbling into astrology in Jewish Palestine. On the contrary, astrological texts have been discovered in Palestinian Aramaic which show that astrology was also alive and well in Eretz Yisrael - but they were intentionally not incorporated within the Talmud Yerushalmi.

This shows that the raw and unedited text of the Yerushalmi was inherently disinclined to perpetuate the notion that astrology was compatible with Jewish values.

“There is also reason to believe that post-tannaitic Palestinian compilations [including Talmud Yerushalmi[9]] suppressed rabbinic traditions that were (1) favourable to astrology and (2) that depicted rabbis acting as astrologers, or at least reporting astrological predictions.”

Furthermore, R. Yehoshua ben Levi who initiated this whole discussion, as well as R. Chanina (who held that Jews were subject to mazal), were ironically  Palestinian Sages – yet this story is only recorded in the Talmud Bavli and does not occur in the Talmud Yerushalmi!

This sends a strong message that the Yerushalmi was actively disenchanted with the views of their own countryman on this matter and it was only in Babylonia that such views found open expression.

ANALYSIS:

What is fascinating about this research is that it changes an aggadic or non-legal section of Talmud into a fundamentally compelling piece hashkafic or ideological literature, with tremendous implications.

Often it is exactly sections such as these that are selected by teachers to pique the interest of their students and to make Talmud study more entertaining. A student may know the day on which he was born and compare what he knows about himself with the personality he is ‘destined’ to assume.

This will either evoke a favourable response or leave the student shaking his head in disbelief.

However, an understanding of the underlying ‘Astrology Wars’ between the Bavli and Yerushalmi changes everything. 

Observation of agenda driven comments, including knowledge of the relevance of dates and their corresponding milieus - turns a relatively entertaining piece of Talmud into an ideological game changer.

This hits at the essence of the concept of Judaized astrology, which many take for granted as being an original and unassailable Torah value.

..........................................................................

[1] A Late Antique Babylonian Rabbinic Treatise on Astrology, by Richard Kalmin.  [Shoshanat Yaakov.]

[2] According to contemporary research by scholars including Richard Kalmin.

[3] Shabbat 156a.

[4] I did notice, however, that the same word, pinkas, is used in a non-astrological context earlier on in the text with regard to other sages as well. It is possible that because R. Yehoshua ben Levi was from Palestine, the term pinkas took on an added innuendo in this context.

[5] R. Chanina and R. Yehoshua ben Levi - two key participants in this discussion - were ironically Palestinian Sages. Later we shall see that their views are (intentionally?) not recorded in the Yerushalmi and were only given expression in the Bavli.

[6] Parenthesis mine.

[7] Parenthesis mine.                                                                                                      

[8] Parenthesis mine.

[9] Parenthesis mine.

.............................

APPENDIX:

THE FULL TALMUDIC TEXT FOLLOWS:

(Sefaria Shabbat 156a and b)

כתיב אפינקסיה דרבי יהושע בן לוי האי מאן דבחד בשבא יהי גבר ולא חדא ביה

              

After citing relevant halakhot written in the notebooks of various Sages, the Gemara relates that it was written in Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s notebook: One who was born on the first day of the week, Sunday, will be a person and there will not be one in him.

מאי [ולא חדא ביה] אילימא ולא חד לטיבו והאמר רב אשי אנא בחד בשבא הואי אלא לאו חדא לבישו והאמר רב אשי אנא ודימי בר קקוזתא הוויין בחד בשבא אנא מלך והוא הוה ריש גנבי אלא אי כולי לטיבו אי כולי לבישו מאי טעמא דאיברו ביה אור וחושך

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: There will not be one in him? If you say that there is not one quality for the best, that cannot be, as Rav Ashi said: I was born on the first day of the week, and one cannot say that there was nothing good about him. Rather, it must mean that there is not one quality for the worst. Didn’t Rav Ashi say: I and Dimi bar Kakuzta were both born on the first day of the week. I became a king, the head of a yeshiva, and he became the head of a gang of thieves, clearly a negative quality. Rather, one born on a Sunday is either completely for the best or completely for the worst. What is the reason for this? It is because both light and darkness were created on the first day of Creation.

האי מאן דבתרי בשבא יהי גבר רגזן מאי טעמא משום דאיפליגו ביה מיא האי מאן דבתלתא בשבא יהי גבר עתיר וזנאי יהא מאי טעמא משום דאיברו ביה עשבים האי מאן דבארבעה בשבא יהי גבר חכים ונהיר מאי טעמא משום דאיתלו ביה מאורות

One who was born on the second day of the week, Monday, will be a short-tempered person. What is the reason for this? It is because on that day, the second day of Creation, the upper and lower waters were divided. Therefore, it is a day of contentiousness.
One who was born on the third day of the week will be a rich man and a promiscuous person. What is the reason for this? It is because on that day, the third day, vegetation was created. It grows abundantly but is also mixed together without boundaries between the grass and the plants.
One who was born on the fourth day of the week will be a wise and enlightened person. What is the reason for this? It is because the heavenly lights were hung in the heavens on that day, and wisdom is likened to light.

האי מאן דבחמשה בשבא יהי גבר גומל חסדים מאי טעמא משום דאיברו ביה דגים ועופות האי מאן דבמעלי שבתא יהי גבר חזרן אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק חזרן במצות האי מאן דבשבתא יהי בשבתא ימות על דאחילו עלוהי יומא רבא דשבתא אמר רבא בר רב שילא וקדישא רבא יתקרי

One who was born on the fifth day of the week will be a person who performs acts of kindness. What is the reason for this? It is because on that day the fish and fowl were created, and they do not receive their sustenance by performing work for people. They are sustained by the kindness of God alone.
One who was born on the sixth day of the week will be a seeker. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that this means that he will be one who seeks out mitzvot, as most of the activity on Friday involves preparation for Shabbat.
One who was born on Shabbat will die on Shabbat, because they desecrated the great day of Shabbat on his behalf. Rava bar Rav Sheila said: And he will be called a person of great sanctity because he was born on the sacred day of Shabbat.

אמר להו רבי חנינא פוקו אמרו ליה לבר ליואי לא מזל יום גורם אלא מזל שעה גורם האי מאן דבחמה יהי גבר זיותן יהי אכיל מדיליה ושתי מדיליה ורזוהי גליין אם גניב לא מצלח האי מאן דבכוכב נוגה יהי גבר עתיר וזנאי יהי מאי טעמא משום דאיתיליד ביה נורא האי מאן דבכוכב יהי גבר נהיר וחכים משום דספרא דחמה הוא האי מאן דבלבנה יהי גבר סביל מרעין בנאי וסתיר סתיר ובנאי אכיל דלא דיליה ושתי דלא דיליה ורזוהי כסיין אם גנב מצלח האי מאן דבשבתאי יהי גבר מחשבתיה בטלין ואית דאמרי כל דמחשבין עליה בטלין האי מאן דבצדק יהי גבר צדקן אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק וצדקן במצות האי מאן דבמאדים יהי גבר אשיד דמא אמר רב אשי אי אומנא אי גנבא אי טבחא אי מוהלא אמר רבה אנא במאדים הואי אמר אביי מר נמי עניש וקטיל

Rabbi Ḥanina said to his students who heard all this: Go and tell the son of Leiva’i, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: It is not the constellation of the day of the week that determines a person’s nature; rather, it is the constellation of the hour that determines his nature.
One who was born under the influence of the sun will be a radiant person; he will eat from his own resources and drink from his own resources, and his secrets will be exposed. If he steals he will not succeed, because he will be like the sun that shines and is revealed to all.
One who was born under the influence of Venus will be a rich and promiscuous person. What is the reason for this? Because fire was born during the hour of Venus, he will be subject the fire of the evil inclination, which burns perpetually.
One who was born under the influence of Mercury will be an enlightened and expert man, because Mercury is the sun’s scribe, as it is closest to the sun.
One who was born under the influence of the moon will be a man who suffers pains, who builds and destroys, and destroys and builds. He will be a man who eats not from his own resources and drinks not from his own resources, and whose secrets are hidden. If he steals he will succeed, as he is like the moon that constantly changes form, whose light is not its own, and who is at times exposed and at times hidden.
One who was born under the influence of Saturn will be a man whose thoughts are for naught. And some say that everything that others think about him and plan to do to him is for naught.
One who was born under the influence of Jupiter [tzedek] will be a just person [tzadkan]. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And just in this context means just in the performance of mitzvot.
One who was born under the influence of Mars will be one who spills blood. Rav Ashi said: He will be either a blood letter, or a thief, or a slaughterer of animals, or a circumciser. Rabba said: I was born under the influence of Mars and I do not perform any of those activities. Abaye said: My Master also punishes and kills as a judge.

איתמר רבי חנינא אומר מזל מחכים מזל מעשיר ויש מזל לישראל רבי יוחנן אמר אין מזל לישראל ואזדא רבי יוחנן לטעמיה דאמר רבי יוחנן מניין שאין מזל לישראל שנאמר כה אמר ה׳ אל דרך הגוים אל תלמדו ומאותות השמים אל תחתו כי יחתו הגוים מהמה הם יחתו ולא ישראל

It was stated that Rabbi Ḥanina says: A constellation makes one wise and a constellation makes one wealthy, and there is a constellation for the Jewish people that influences them. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: There is no constellation for the Jewish people that influences them. The Jewish people are not subject to the influence of astrology. And Rabbi Yoḥanan follows his own reasoning, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From where is it derived that there is no constellation for the Jewish people? As it is stated: “Thus said the Lord: Learn not the way of the nations, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the nations are dismayed at them” (Jeremiah 10:2). The nations will be dismayed by them, but not the Jewish people.

ואף רב סבר אין מזל לישראל דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב מניין שאין מזל לישראל שנאמר ויוצא אותו החוצה אמר אברהם לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא רבונו של עולם בן ביתי יורש אותי אמר לו לאו כי אם אשר יצא ממעיך

And Rav also holds that there is no constellation for the Jewish people, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: From where is it derived that there is no constellation for the Jewish people? As it is stated with regard to Abraham: “And He brought him outside, and said: Look now toward heaven, and count the stars, if you are able to count them; and He said unto him: So shall your offspring be” (Genesis 15:5). The Sages derived from this that Abraham said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, “Behold, You have given me no offspring, and one born in my house is to be my heir”(Genesis 15:3). The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: No. “And, behold, the word of the Lord came to him, saying: This man shall not be your heir; rather, one that will come forth from your own innards shall be your heir”(Genesis 15:4).

אמר לפניו רבונו של עולם נסתכלתי באיצטגנינות שלי ואיני ראוי להוליד בן אמר ליה צא מאיצטגנינות שלך שאין מזל לישראל מאי דעתיך

Abraham said before Him: Master of the Universe, I looked at my astrological map, and according to the configuration of my constellations I am not fit to have a son. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: Emerge from your astrology, as the verse states: “And He brought him outside,” as there is no constellation for Israel. What is your thinking?

156b

דקאי צדק במערב מהדרנא ומוקמינא ליה במזרח והיינו דכתיב מי העיר ממזרח צדק יקראהו לרגלו

Is it because Jupiter is situated in the west that you cannot have children? I will restore it and establish it in the east. And that is the meaning of that which is written with regard to Abraham: “Who has raised up one from the east, he will call justice [tzedek] to his steps [leraglo]. He gives nations before him, and makes him rule over kings; his sword makes them as the dust, his bow as the driven stubble” (Isaiah 41:2). God established Jupiter [tzedek] in the east on behalf of [leraglo] Abraham.

ומדשמואל נמי אין מזל לישראל דשמואל ואבלט הוו יתבי והוו קאזלי הנך אינשי לאגמא אמר ליה אבלט לשמואל האי גברא אזיל ולא אתי טריק ליה חיויא ומיית אמר ליה שמואל אי בר ישראל הוא אזיל ואתי אדיתבי אזיל ואתי

And from that which transpired to Shmuel, one can also conclude that there is no constellation for the Jewish people. The Gemara relates that Shmuel and the gentile sage Ablet were sitting, and they saw these people were going to the lake. Ablet said to Shmuel: This person will go and he will not return, because a snake will bite him and he will die. Shmuel said to him: If he is a Jew, he will go and come back. As they were sitting for a while, the person they discussed went away and then returned.

קם אבלט שדיה לטוניה אשכח ביה חיויא דפסיק ושדי בתרתי גובי אמר ליה שמואל מאי עבדת אמר ליה כל יומא הוה מרמינן ריפתא בהדי הדדי ואכלינן האידנא הוה איכא חד מינן דלא הוה ליה ריפתא הוה קא מיכסף אמינא להו אנא קאימנא וארמינא כי מטאי לגביה שואי נפשאי כמאן דשקילי מיניה כי היכי דלא ליכסיף אמר ליה מצוה עבדת נפק שמואל ודרש וצדקה תציל ממות ולא ממיתה משונה אלא ממיתה עצמה

Ablet stood up, threw down the person’s burden, and inside he found a snake cut and cast in two pieces. Shmuel said to him: What did you do to merit being saved from death? The person said to him: Every day we all take bread together and eat from the bread. Today, there was one of us who did not have bread, and when it came time to gather the bread, he was embarrassed because he did not have any to give. I said to the others: I will go and take the bread. When I came to the person who did not have bread, I rendered myself as one who was taking from him so that he would not be embarrassed. Shmuel said to him: You performed a mitzva. Shmuel went out and taught based on this incident that even though it is written: “And charity will save from death” (Proverbs 10:2), it does not only mean that it will save a person from an unusual death but even from death itself.

---