Imagen de portada del espectáculo Dr. Nehemia Gordon - Bible Scholar at NehemiasWall.com

Dr. Nehemia Gordon - Bible Scholar at NehemiasWall.com

Podcast de Nehemia Gordon

inglés

Historia

Oferta limitada

2 meses por 1 €

Después 4,99 € / mesCancela cuando quieras.

  • 20 horas de audiolibros / mes
  • Podcasts exclusivos
  • Podcast gratuitos
Empezar

Sobre Dr. Nehemia Gordon - Bible Scholar at NehemiasWall.com

Nehemia Gordon uncovers ancient Hebrew sources to empower people with information to defend the Word of God and build their faith.

Todos los episodios

510 episodios

Portada del episodio Hebrew Voices #249 – Ginsburg’s Lost Masorah

Hebrew Voices #249 – Ginsburg’s Lost Masorah

[https://i0.wp.com/www.nehemiaswall.com/wp-content/uploads/HV-249-1920x1080_20260520_181005_0000.png?resize=584%2C329&ssl=1]https://www.nehemiaswall.com/ginsburgs-lost-masorah-1 In this episode of Hebrew Voices #249 - Ginsburg's Lost Masorah: Part 1 [https://www.nehemiaswall.com/ginsburgs-lost-masorah-1], Nehemia Gordon sits down with Dr. David Moster, Director of the Biblical Hebrew Program at the Jewish Theological Seminary, to trace the remarkable detective story behind his peer-reviewed article "A Chance Discovery." Together they unpack the world of Christian David Ginsburg, who became the unlikely founder of modern Masoretic studies, and reveal how a four-volume, 2,500-page monument of biblical scholarship turned out to be hiding a secret in plain sight! I look forward to reading your comments! PODCAST VERSION: Download Audio [https://audio.nehemiaswall.com/Downloads/Hebrew-Voices-249-Ginsburgs-Lost-Masorah-Part-1.mp3] Transcript Hebrew Voices #249 – Ginsburg’s Lost Masorah You are listening to Hebrew Voices with Nehemia Gordon. Thank you for supporting [https://www.nehemiaswall.com/support] Nehemia Gordon's Makor Hebrew Foundation. Learn more at NehemiasWall.com [https://www.nehemiaswall.com]. David: Jews and Christians can sit down next to each other and study at the same time without… and it makes it better for everyone, in my personal opinion. So… Nehemia: Is this an example of diversity is our strength? In other words, that motto actually has something profound behind it, which is that, if everybody has the same view on the world, you’re going to have blind spots. But where diversity really is powerful (and this is, I think, a very Jewish idea) is where you have lots of different perspectives and beliefs and approaches, and you have conversations where, maybe at first you’re talking past each other, because you have a set of assumptions, they have a set of assumptions, and you realize, “Oh, I never thought that somebody else would see the world that way.” — Nehemia: Shalom, and welcome to Hebrew Voices. I am here today once again with Dr David Moster. He is the director of the Biblical Hebrew Program at the Jewish Theological Seminary, the JTS, in New York. He’s also the director of the Institute for Biblical Culture. David, what is the Biblical Hebrew Program at JTS at the Jewish Theological Seminary? Does somebody have to be a student at JTS to participate in that? David: No, we actually created it for anyone and everyone. It’s all on Zoom; it’s for people at different levels. Right now, for example, we’re running 10 courses with 150 different people, and they are at levels beginning with the Aleph–Bet, reading to learn, and then we have in our more advanced classes, people reading four or five, six chapters of Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible, at one time. Nehemia: Wow. David: So, we really have from Aleph to Tav, not A to Z, we have from Aleph to Tav, all at the same time. It’s all on Zoom, and everyone is welcome to check out our website at the Jewish Theological Seminary. Nehemia: So, I’ll just share a little story about that. We had a member of what we call our Scholar Club write through my website and contact Lynell and say, “I’m looking for a biblical Hebrew program.” So, I told her to ask you, and now she’s taking it. She’s about to sign up for it. So, she’s like, “Wait a minute, why wouldn’t I do this? This is online. I’m going to learn something here.” She went to Israel and did the Aleph program about two or three years ago. Well, it was actually 2023, just before the war. So, she was there for six weeks at Hebrew University, very intense, but she hasn’t been able to get back to it. So, she’s going to do the online course. What is JTS, for those who don’t know? It’s actually a flagship of Jewish learning. David: It’s the Jewish Theological Seminary. It’s on Broadway and 122nd Street in New York. Nehemia: You’re such a New Yorker. That means nothing to most of my audience. David: It’s the upper, upper West Side, right near Columbia University, and it has been there for more than a hundred years. It’s a really important institution in, not only scholarship in America, Jewish scholarship, but as well, also, synagogue life and Jewish life. So, it organizes a lot of different synagogues and camps and things like that. So, it’s really a multifaceted institution. Nehemia: It really is a flagship of Jewish learning. I would put it up there with Yeshiva University and Hebrew Union College. What is the significance of it being on Broadway? I literally don’t know why that’s important. Is there a lot of music there, or something? David: Everybody knows Broadway, so there you go! It’s like, you know, everyone will ask you, “Where do you live?” You want to tell them you live by some kind of landmark. So, I guess we’re on Broadway. Nehemia: So, I grew up in Chicago, and for decades after, I would meet people from like, you know, I don’t know, Skokie or Evanston, and they would say with a straight face they were from Chicago. And I’d be like, “No, you’re not. I’m really from the city.” David: Skokie’s suburb, yeah. Nehemia: I mean, it’s whatever, it’s like a couple miles from where I grew up, so it’s six of one, one-half dozen of the other. But if you’re from there, it’s like Broadway is important, and West Rogers Park is important. Okay, so, I wanted to ask you to come on today because you have a journal article that just came out, and it is in a journal called Sfarad, which is very interesting because Sfarad is sort of the ancient Hebrew word for Spain. I say sort of because it appears in the Tanakh, and in the Tanakh it doesn’t refer to Spain. Well, I don’t know, if it does or doesn’t is perhaps a matter of debate. But generally, it’s thought it doesn’t. But Sfarad is Spain in the Middle Ages, and it’s the modern Hebrew word. When we talk about Sephardic Jews, it means that they’re associated with the culture of Jews that were expelled from Spain in the 14th and 15th century. It’s funny, I once had this encounter online, there was a person saying he was a Sephardic Jew, and one of these online scholars (meaning someone who doesn’t know anything) said, “Oh, what is he? His grandmother must be 500 years old. How could she be from Spain?” And I’m like, “Really, guys? Really?” Like, no, Jews whose ancestors were in Spain for some period of time, or not necessarily in Spain, were associated with Spain. You could be from Morocco as well. They are called Sephardic Jews. All right, so I’m going to share my screen here. I’m actually going to start with that. And you have this journal article here. And a lot of times when I’m doing the interviews, it’s before the journal article comes out. So, this is actually… I think when we scheduled this, it was before the article came out, where we first discussed it. And it’s called, “The Chance Discovery: Christian David Ginsburg’s Notes on Two Historic Codices,” which, guys, it’s actually an amazing piece of modern-day detective work. So, can we start out with, who is Christian David Ginsburg? It’s a bit of, almost like, a self-contradiction, because Ginsburg and David are Jewish names, and Christian is… I guess you couldn’t have a more Christian name. Who is Christian David Ginsburg? Why is he important for the Jewish Theological Seminary? David: Before we get to that, I need to give a spoiler. The reason this article is in Sfarad, which is about Spanish Jewry and their descendants, is because this little detective work is going to lead to two very old ancient books that come from there. So, we’re going to get there eventually. So, that’s what the Sfarad was, really, an important key to this. Now, in terms of Christian David Ginsburg, he was a fascinating person. He was living in Warsaw. He was a rabbinical student in the late 1800s, and he basically came in contact with some Christian missionaries in Warsaw. And he started arguing with them (and I’ve rarely heard this) he actually, basically, was arguing to try and convince them to Judaism, whereas they convinced him to Christianity. And he was literally in rabbinical school, and he’s like, all of a sudden leaving rabbinical school and his life behind. He even had a kid. I imagine his whole family disowned him, and he became a believing Christian. I originally thought that maybe he had converted to Christianity to be able to move up in society. There are cases like this in the historical record, of people who converted from Judaism to Christianity to move up in society, and Christian David Ginsburg certainly did that, but by all indications he was a devout believer. The cherry on top was that he was able to move up. He moved to London where his mother was from, and he was able to move through society and really become an important figure in Victorian England. And so, the period we’re going to be talking about with him is going to be in the 1880s. Nehemia: So, guys, this is important background. Jews in the 1800s, and in Russia up until 1917, were by law second-class citizens, and oppressed and persecuted. And if a Jew wanted to become a professor at a university, he would often, in many countries, have to convert to Christianity. And it’s almost… I don’t know, is it comical? Meaning, many of these Jews who converted to Christianity didn’t believe in Judaism, and believed no more in Christianity… David: Right. Nehemia: …and frankly, neither did most of the Christians around them. So, they were looking at these socioeconomic boundaries, saying, “You can’t become a professor because you are a Jew,” and he’d be like, “I don’t even believe in Judaism.” And they’re like, “Well, we don’t believe in Christianity. So, just say you’re a Christian, be baptized formally and officially,” that’s a legal act in Europe at the time, “and then you can advance in society. Yeah, we’ll still call you dirty Jew for sure, of course we will, to your face, not just behind your back, but you’ll be able to be a professor, and you’ll be able to advance.” And you’re saying Christian David Ginsburg… So, he took the name Christian. He wasn’t given that name, he took that name when he converted. David: You said a lot of people didn’t believe in Judaism or Christianity. Nehemia: Yeah. David: I think Ginsburg believed in both. Nehemia: Right. David: He believed in Judaism, and after, Christianity. Nehemia: So, that’s what’s so interesting about him. In other words… I mean, I’ve encountered people who are leaders of churches who don’t believe in Christianity. And I’ve encountered people who are leaders of synagogues who don’t believe in Judaism, let’s say according to the traditional formulations. Let’s be fair there, right? And so, that’s a phenomenon that still happens today. But in the 19th century, in the 1800s, that was the difference of, you know, are you some pulpit rabbi who is barely eking out a living? Or are you a respected professor at a university? That could be the difference. David: Right. And so, Ginsburg went to England, and he became a scholar of, interestingly, people on the fringe of Judaism; the Essenes, the Karaites. He wrote a commentary on the Book of Daniel, all these different kinds of things which are really on the fringes in terms of apocalyptics and all that other stuff that’s going on, which isn’t normally in the mainstream of Judaism. But eventually he settled on something that is where I come in, and he basically wrote a four-volume encyclopedia. And it’s not a regular encyclopedia, where it’s just alphabetical and it’s just different topics. What he did was, he went through tens if not hundreds of thousands of handwritten manuscript notes (and these are all on the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible) and what he did was, he made sense of them and put them all in order. And that’s his magnum opus, this four-volume work, which if you have it, you all of a sudden can open it up and really have access to dozens and dozens of manuscripts, all at one shot. Nehemia: And I was just working on something recently, related… not related to this per se, but related to this whole idea that, up until recently, the greatest scholars in the world didn’t have access to manuscripts, they had to rely on what other scholars said. And today, most people, even if they had access to the manuscript, they wouldn’t know what they were looking at. And so, what he’s done… and I’ll share the screen here. This is available on archive.org, the full scan of the text. And here he wrote this book called The Masorah. And guys, what is Masorah? Masorah is something like… it means the transmission, so we’ll say something like textus receptus, or the received text… which in Hebrew slash English we call the Masoretic Text, meaning the transmitted text preserved by Jews. That’s what Masoretic Text is. Well, maybe you have a different understanding of Masorah. I’ll let you explain in a minute. David: Nehemia, tell them how many pages there are at the bottom left. It says you’re on page 6 out of… Nehemia: 2,537! David: This is a whopper! This is one of the biggest books you could ever get in both height and in thickness. It’s 2,500 pages long. Nehemia: Let’s have a look at something here. So, the Masoretic notes are these thousands or maybe like you said, tens of thousands (I don’t know that we’ve counted them) notes that have different details. So, for example, here is note 447 under the letter Mem, and it has some detail of… we could look at this and, I don’t know… David: Do a different one. That’s not… yeah. Nehemia: Okay, let’s do a straightforward one, where we won’t completely lose the audience. Let’s see, let’s find an easy one. No, that’s also too complicated for most people. Basically, it’s all kinds of minutiae of spelling, and when we say it’s the transmitted text, what it really means is, there was an attempt to preserve these details. Down to very fine details. David: Right, like right there, it says… Nehemia: Oh! This is a beautiful one. I believe Daniel Mynott gave a lecture or something related to this. So, “There are three Heys in the Torah,” “hanir’in tmuhot ve’einan tmuhot,” “which appear questionable but are not questionable.” That’s not what it means. They appear to be interrogative Hey. In other words, Biblical Hebrew has two types of… the letter Hey means the, but there’s also a Hey that introduces a question. So, in other words, you begin with… yeah. David: And Nehemia, for those of us who want to learn this, this is our second class in our class on Biblical Hebrew. Nehemia: Is it? Okay. David: It’s prefixes. So, you have one prefix, which means the, and another one which is a question mark. Nehemia: Beautiful. So, here we have ha’nefesh, which means the soul, “ha’nefesh ha’chotet hi tamut,” “the soul that sins, it shall die,” that is from Ezekiel 18:20. And then, here is a Hey that, in principle, should be a question. “Ha’shofet kol ha’aretz?” “Is it so that the judge of all the earth?” “Ha’echad ba lagur?” “Is it so that one will come to live among us?” So, this Masoretic note is saying, “These three Heys appear to be interrogative Heys, Hey ha’she’ela, the Hey of questioning, but it’s not really a Hey of questioning.” Why does it tell you that? Because a scribe copying this will come along and say, “Wait a minute; there’s no question here. I’m going to change the vowels…” David: Change it… Nehemia: “…to the regular Hey, not the Hey of a question.” So, that’s a very important note. So, my approach to these notes (by and large, there’s exceptions) but most of these notes, I understand them as sort of proofreading notes, that they’re notes for the scribe. That the next copyist (or maybe the original copyist as well, right) that when he comes to it, he doesn’t make a correction, because it’s the impulse of scribes to correct what they see as mistakes. And so, this is a sort of controlling mechanism to prevent them from making a mistake. David: Right, and it could be these are mistakes, but we keep them. That’s what it’s saying. Nehemia: Right. That’s interesting. David: “Just because you think it’s a mistake, we know it could be. It doesn’t matter. This is what we got.” Nehemia: This is how the text has come down to us… David: Come down to us. Nehemia: …and we’re going to continue transmitting it that way, and that’s what we mean by Masoretic Text. Go ahead. David: So, almost two years ago, I turned 40, and my in-laws wrote me a check. And they said, there was a condition on it for my birthday. They said, “David, you can’t use this to pay the electric company. You got to get something you like. Okay? You got to get something you like.” So, I said, “I want to get a copy of Christian David Ginsburg’s The Masorah, the 2,500-page whopper.” That’s what I wanted. Nehemia: Even though it’s on archive.org, you wanted a physical copy. David: Yeah. Anybody who’s used PDFs knows that there’s good things, but there’s bad things. You can’t really move quickly through a PDF, especially if it’s an encyclopedia. You’re not reading through, you’re jumping around… Nehemia: About a year ago, I was looking at some very fine detail in this book, in Ginsburg’s Masorah, based on the archive.org scan, and I actually couldn’t tell what the accents and vowels were, and I wrote to you and I said, “Can you send me a photo from your phone of the physical copy,” because you’re one of the few people I know personally who has a physical copy. And I all of a sudden saw, “Oh, I thought there was a patach and it was a tzere,” or something, I don’t remember. But the printing isn’t amazing, and on top of that, the scan is less amazing. So, if you take a photo with your phone, there’s details you can see. Like even here, I’ll share this again. Are these tzeres or patachs? I mean, I know from the context this is heisir, but that could have been a patach. How do I know it’s a tzere? Because I know Hebrew, right? But if I didn’t know the context, if there was ambiguous context, which was the case what we were dealing with… David: Right. Nehemia: …I would need the physical copy or a better scan, right? David: And even then, these were actually printed… and he says London on the front page. London. But it was really printed in Austria or Germany. Nehemia: Really? David: And he wasn’t the print setter. So, there are mistakes that crept in. Nehemia: But here, even if it’s not a mistake, I don’t know what he printed, or what was printed, because it’s not the greatest scan ever. And to begin with, in these 1800s (I have some printed books in the 1800s) it’s often hard to tell the difference between Hey and Chet, and very similar letters and symbols. David: Right. So, what happened was, I took the money and I said I’m going to buy this really old book. They have some reprints, which are almost as much as the books cost me, and so, I just went for the original. And it was funny, because there was this guy on eBay selling them for about six-and-a-half thousand dollars. And I wrote the person, I said, “Listen, the last time these sold at auction, it was for six hundred dollars. So, like, why are you asking so much money, that you’re going to… that’s what you want?” And he said, they’re signed; they’re signed copies. So, I said, “Okay. It doesn’t matter to me. I’m going to use these. I don’t care that they’re signed.” Nehemia: But for a lot of book collectors… David: Then I found on a website… Nehemia: Wait, hold on. So, for a lot of book collectors a signed original copy is worth more than not unsigned. So, if you have an original, I don’t know, The Hobbit, First Edition, signed by J.R.R. Tolkien, it’s worth thousands or more dollars. I don’t know how much it’s worth. It’s worth a lot of money. If it’s in good condition. David: Right. But I was going to be using these books, so like, it didn’t… Nehemia: So, for you, it’s functional. You don’t care if it’s something… David: Yeah. Sure, when people from your podcast come to visit my home, I’ll show them. People are interested. But for most people, it’s not the biggest deal. So, I found on a website called ABE Books… Nehemia: ABE Books. Yeah, I assume. David: I used to think it was “Abe” Books. It was A-B-E, ABE Books, and I found on there, there was a copy in Cleveland that was going for 1,100 dollars, and it was not signed. Nehemia: Okay. David: And so, that is the copy that I got. I got them to come down a little bit, but that was the copy that I got. Nehemia: Because it wasn’t signed, you got it for less. David: Yeah. There’s the six-and-a-half for the signed, and the unsigned one was just about 1,100 dollars. If you could show on your screen what it looked like. Nehemia: Ah, from your article. David: Yeah. Nehemia: “My well-worn copy of the Masorah,” it says. David: And so, Nehemia, for those who are just listening, can you describe the condition of the book? Nehemia: So, there’s four cloth-bound volumes. I believe that’s cloth. The binding is kind of tattered, torn, literally in some places torn. In one place, it looks like a little bit of it is missing. These, for collectors, would not be worth a whole lot of money. And it just goes to show 1,100 dollars instead of 6,500 dollars. David: Right. You go get a re-bound, it’s beat up. It’s like someone’s used this. Nehemia: Or a lot of collectors would just say, “No, I’m going to buy a better one. If I want one in my collection, I want one that…” Like, I saw an explanation where, like, this little thing at the top of the… what is it they call that, of the back of the binding? If this is split… or here, like for example, here it’s bent back, the difference of that, of, like, a first edition of… I don’t know, of Dickens or something, would be the difference between hundreds and maybe tens of thousands, especially if it’s signed, right? David: Right. But for me, didn’t matter. Nehemia: What do you care? Right. You’re interested in the contents. David: Right. I’m using this book. So, let’s scroll down… this is… Nehemia: Okay. David: Yeah, so you can see here that it wasn’t signed. Nehemia: So, it says on the front of volume 1, name of subscriber is left blank, name of copy is blank, and signature of the author. So, what does that mean, subscriber? We don’t think about that today. We go to Amazon and we buy a book… David: Yeah. Nehemia: What’s a subscriber? David: Yeah, so, the idea was that it cost a lot of capital to publish a book. So, before you would publish it, you would go around to all the seminaries, the churches (in this case, the synagogues) and you might say, “Hey, are you going to want to buy a book?” And then you pay in advance. And I bet… Nehemia: Look, we have something like that today. It’s called Kickstarter, but basically… David: We did! Is that still around? Nehemia: I don’t know if it’s still around or not, but I once bought something on Kickstarter and I regretted it later. But it looked so amazing. But you never know, there are some amazing things that came off of Kickstarter. So, the idea was… and here was an unusual situation, but maybe not so unusual for Jewish books; Ginsburg had to pay for the printing himself. David: Right. Nehemia: And he didn’t have any money! Right? It could be… I don’t know what it would have been; a lot of money. And I’ve printed books. It’s very expensive. Now we have print on demand, which requires a lot less capital. Right? You can do it up front for, relatively inexpensive, and then each one costs more to print. But back then, you would go to a printer and say, “I want 500 copies.” You probably didn’t have more than 500 copies, I would guess. I don’t know. Look, even 20 years ago, when I was working on some publications that were being printed by Oxford University Press and Brill, I asked the question, “How many copies do you guys print?” And one of them was 850 copies. I’m like, “How is that possible? I wrote a popular book, not an academic book, and I did 3,000 copies.” And I was told by the printer, “Are you sure you even want to do this? Is it even worth it for you?” “Yeah, it’s worth it for me. I know it costs a lot of money, but it’s worth it, because I want to get this stuff out.” And then, when I reprinted, I did 5,000 copies. Brill was an Oxford University Press. I think it was Brill, was doing 850 copies for a semi-popular book, meaning it was an academic book but meant for the broad public. So, in the 1800s, I don’t know how many copies he made. Maybe it was 100, maybe it was 500. It wasn’t tens of thousands of copies. And so, he would collect money. He would collect subscriptions and say, “Oh, you want a copy?” And if he had enough subscriptions, he could print ones maybe that weren’t subscription, I guess. I’m not really sure how it worked. David: Yeah, it was hard to get a copy. There’s a story that the tsar of Russia, who had a lot of manuscripts (and if you have Hebrew manuscripts, this book is really important) wrote a letter to the ambassador of England saying, “Hey, can you get me Ginsburg’s The Masorah?” So, yeah, it was… Nehemia: Was he able to get it? David: I imagine so. You would know better, Nehemia, because you went to St. Petersburg. Nehemia: Well, we’d have to look it up in the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg. So, that’d be an interesting question for someone to go look up; did the Tsar ultimately get it, and is his a signed copy? So, why was the copy signed? That’s a weird thing to us today. In other words, so, here’s an important thing; if you have a signed copy of Charles Dickens Nicholas Nickleby, or something he wrote, I don’t think it was signed originally. Somebody bought the book from a commercial bookseller or commercial publisher (the publisher sold it to booksellers who, then, you bought the book from them) and then you would maybe meet the author, and you would ask him to sign it. Here it’s completely different. How did these get signed, and why? David: Well, I think they were signing it almost as, like, a thank you. And like, “Hey, you signed up for this. Thank you.” And also, to make sure that you’re getting my copy, that nobody else is pirating it. Nehemia: So, this is an interesting concept. David: Yeah, like we think of pirating. Nehemia, you and I remember, I don’t know how many of your listeners remember Napster, pirated music, and all that. Like, this was going back way before the digital age; people were pirating books and selling them. Nehemia: So, here’s an interesting thing. Before the French Revolution, one of the tightest censorship systems was France, the kingdom of France. And every certain period, the French government would put out a list of books that were censored. And all of the printers around France, and Belgium, and the Netherlands, and Germany, would get that list, and they’d say, “Oh, these are the books we should print because we have no competitors.” And so, they would print pirate copies of the books that were illegal to print in France, smuggle them into France, and people would buy them. And so, we don’t think about this today (many people don’t) that there were pirated books back… There are pirated books today, right? I mean, I use this service called Otzar Chochma, where they have this online database for all these traditional Rabbinical books, some of them recent books from the last few years, and there’ll be a thing at the front page that will say, you know, “If you’re not seeing such and such, this is a pirated copy.” Today we see that kind of thing! David: People pirate my videos. There’s a guy in India that takes my videos and then just does his voiceover of exactly the same thing. And, like, yeah, it’s totally normal. So… Nehemia: So, I was once in the Philippines, in 2014, and I was asked there to speak. I spoke at this church, and this lady walks up to me and asks me to sign my book. And it’s spiral-bound. And I’m like, “Wait, I know I didn’t print a spiral-bound book.” So, she had asked me to sign a pirate copy that I guess she made herself because she couldn’t afford it. And… all right. David: You signed it. Nehemia: I absolutely signed it, and I was touched that she thought my book was important enough to pirate. She wasn’t doing it for commercial purposes. These pirates generally are doing it… In other words, they’re saying, “Wait a minute; other people want to buy Ginsburg’s book as well. Let’s make a pirated copy and we’ll sell it for a lot of money, and when he runs out of his subscription sales, we’ll pick up the slack.” David: But this was important to me, because this was my first indication that something was weird about my book. Nehemia: That it wasn’t signed. David: It wasn’t signed. So, the guy on eBay, his is signed. How come mine’s not? It’s supposed to be signed. And then… so, all of a sudden, I started opening up the book, and I noticed two things at the same time. The first thing was that all 2,500 pages had pencil scorings down the line in the margins. Nehemia: What does scorings mean? David: So, each page has two margins; let’s say, the right-side margin and the left-side margin. Nehemia: Yeah. David: Someone took a pencil and drew a line down both sides of every single page, 2,500 pages. Nehemia: So that they could write notes or something. David: Something. We don’t know. And then so that was, like, “Okay, I have no idea what’s going on here.” So, you know, now I’ve got two weird things with this book. And then, the third thing was where things actually got extremely weird. In this book, the two most important volumes are one and two. Those are really where the greatest mass of information is. And so, in one and two, every time I would go to two, I would notice these little handwritten notes, and just, like, move away from them because I didn’t understand them. But as time… remember, I’m using this every day. This is, like, on my desk. All of a sudden, I can’t ignore these notes. So, Nehemia, could you please pull up, and let’s take a look at what some of these notes look like. Nehemia: And guys, just to think about this; 2500 pages, and every single page somebody took a ruler and put a pencil mark to sort of make boundaries where they could… David: Yeah. Next time somebody asks me, “Can you do something for me?” And I go, “Oh, I don’t know if I have the time,” I’m going to think of this, Nehemia. Hey, you know, somebody… Nehemia: So, this is an example of one of these… I call these ruling lines. David: Yeah. Nehemia: Because they’re made with a ruler. David: Yeah. Nehemia: So, here are these lines. And this was made by hand in pencil on 2,500 pages. David: Scroll up for just a little bit. Nehemia: More here. David: Okay, no, scroll down… good. And so, let’s just see at that top image there. What we see over here is, we’re looking at one of the encyclopedia entries, and on the left-side margin there’s a pencil line, and then there are notes. Nehemia: By the way, I downloaded this from Sfarad. There’s a mistake here that you have to ask them to fix. They’re using Arabic numbers instead of Arabic numerals. I mean these are… David: Yeah, something happened. That’s a mistake. Nehemia: So, let’s ask them to fix it. They can fix that. At least online they can. David: Okay so, what we’re looking at here is that there are notes, and they’re cryptic. 277A… what I first thought was 376… you see in the red there Nehemia. If you could highlight it… Nehemia: All right, so here… okay. So, wait, hold on, let’s back up here. So, this is volume 2, page 243, and it’s under letter Mem, and that in Arabic says 718, which is over here. 718 in Arabic numerals, and these are in Arabic… David: Yeah, that was a font issue. Nehemia: They’ll fix the font, hopefully. And then here in Hebrew, it’s Tashiach, Tav-Shin-Yud-Chet, which comes out to 718. So, in other words, this is list number 718 under the letter Mem. David: Mem. Nehemia: And this is based on him comparing a bunch of different manuscripts, and it says here Isaiah 60:13. David: And next to it… Nehemia: And that’s in print. And then to the left, in red pen, it says 277A. The next line says, Psalms 26:8. And to the left of it in red pen, it says 370… it looks like a 6, but I assume that’s a B. And then, to the left of the vertical pencil line, it says… is that in blue pen or black pen? David: Purple, 151A. Nehemia: Okay, 151A, and below that 237B. So, yeah. David: So, automatically, I’m saying to myself… and you can scroll down. You’ll see on this one page 18 of these. Nehemia: Somebody went through a lot of trouble to add notes to a printed volume, giving what appear to be, if I had a guess, not knowing any… well, I heard your lecture so I’m cheating… David: No, that’s fine, say it, yeah. Nehemia: …but if I didn’t know anything, I would say, “Oh, these are page numbers in a manuscript that has…” David: Or early printed, because… Nehemia: Or could be early printing, yeah. David: …the first books didn’t have page numbers like we do. They had side A and side B. Nehemia: Well, to this day in Rabbinical books, they’ll say, you know, Aleph and Bet; side A and side B. David: Yeah, in the Gemara, 100 percent. Nehemia: So, in other words, we say, you know, page 55. They would say, “Oh, that’s page…” I don’t know, 22B, right? David: Right. Nehemia: So, in other words, they’re actually not counting pages technically, they’re counting folios. David: Yeah. Nehemia: A folio in Latin is a leaf, or in English now it’s a leaf, meaning it’s the physical page, which has a front and a back, Aleph and Bet. Or in Latin they’ll say recto and verso. Okay. David: So, I have on my bookshelf a really fascinating little copy of a biblical book by someone named Seligman Bayer in the 1800s, and it has notes all over it. Notes in Greek, notes in Hebrew. It’s an amazing notes thing. But I could tell very clearly that this was somebody commenting on Scripture. Nehemia: Okay. David: Whereas with this one here, it almost felt like this was explaining the book. Like, why would you put a cryptic note here unless you knew something about this book that nobody else knew? Nehemia: Who would this help? David: And I was kind of thinking, maybe these were the sources. You know, perhaps somebody’s trying to undo Ginsburg and argue against him. I wasn’t quite sure. So, the next step for me was trying to figure out who wrote these notes. That, for me, became the big issue. Nehemia: Well, I mean, I would say there’s two questions here. The bigger question I would ask, and I know you asked it, so, again, I’ve heard the lecture and I’ve read the article… so, the bigger question is, what are the manuscripts they’re referring to? Right? Because that, actually, could be really useful. And then secondly, who wrote this and why? David: Right. So, you have to say… so, in the 1800s, only a few people on earth had access to manuscripts, or at least a number of manuscripts. And so, Ginsburg was one of those people. Now you start saying, “Well, who else?” And you can probably count them on your hands, you know, and try and cross them out. But for me, the big question was, was it Ginsburg? Right? It’s his book. Nehemia: Just so people understand the significance of not having access to the original manuscript. So, there’s a famous case of the Karaite Abraham Firkovich, who went around the Middle East and the Russian Empire, and he was a manuscript collector. The Firkovich Collections in St. Petersburg were collected by him. That’s at the Russian National Library today, which is considered the greatest collection of early Masoretic Bible manuscripts in the world. So, one of the things he was accused of was being a forger. And what was the nature of his forgery? So, he would write a letter, a handwritten letter, to some scholar, and say, “I found a manuscript, and here’s what it says in this manuscript.” And eventually, people said, “That sounds too good to be true. Show us that manuscript.” And he couldn’t come up with it. And they said, “Okay, he sent us a copy of what it says. How do we know it really says that? Maybe he just made that up.” And in some instances, he… based on what I know today, almost certainly made it up. In one instance, after he died, the librarian in Saint Petersburg said, “I couldn’t find this document. He lied and made up the document.” About 10 or 20 years ago they found it. David: Wow. Nehemia: So, for over 100 years it was a fact that he was a forger, because this unbelievable document that he says he found wasn’t… and why didn’t they find it? Because there are hundreds of thousands or millions of documents in the Russian National Library. Or, back then it was the Russian Imperial Library. That was the tzar’s library, right? And, you know, they couldn’t find something. I’ve gone to libraries in the 21st century, and I said, “There’s such and such thing in your catalog. I’d like to see it,” And they can’t find it. And I’m talking about manuscripts. And I’m like, “Wait, you’re saying you misplaced a manuscript?” This happens particularly with scrolls, because scrolls don’t fit so neatly onto a shelf. David: They’re huge. Nehemia: Right. So, they’ll stick it up like you see here. This is a library, this photo, a famous one behind me… David: Yeah. Nehemia: …is a library in Bologna. Bologna University Library took this photo. So, imagine you have a scroll and you don’t know where to put it, so you stick it up here. And then, you retire, and two librarians later, they’re like, “I don’t know where that is. It’s somewhere in the library. We’ll find it one day. Maybe.” So, this happens today, especially with scrolls, but not just scrolls, with Codices. Like, priceless manuscripts are misplaced even today. So, all right, I forget why I mentioned that. David: So, you were going to say that Ginsburg, he never told us which manuscripts used… Nehemia: Oh, so Ginsburg had access to the manuscripts, but he didn’t always… well, in his introduction, he says which manuscripts he used, right? But here was one… David: He only mentions a few. He never… Nehemia: Ah, he doesn’t give the full list. David: He doesn’t tell you which he gets from which. So, if he’s using 40 manuscripts, you have to now go through all 40. Nehemia: So, let’s look at an example of what we’re talking about here from your article, okay? And you have a page here from Ginsburg, and there’s a note here, note number 390, under Kaf. It says “la’kna’ani, three times in Scripture, and they are…” and then it lists the three times that that form appears. And then, somebody writes a note, handwritten, 156a. David: So, what… Nehemia: And what we don’t know from Ginsburg is, where did Ginsburg get this note? David: Get this note. He got it from either one or more manuscripts… Nehemia: But we don’t know that from the book. David: He could have got it from all 40. But we don’t know. Nehemia: So, somebody actually did a PhD dissertation, a student of Yosef Ofer, Anat Hayut, where she went through a bunch of manuscripts (I want to say they were in London, at what is today the British Library; back then it was the British Museum Library, in the time of Ginsburg) and she found the sources of a bunch of the notes. David: Yeah, and what she basically did was, about a third of the notes she was able to find in these two or three or even four key matches… Nehemia: And some of the notes she couldn’t find, right? David: Yeah like, 60 to 70 percent; they’re not there. So, my thought was, “Wait a minute. Is this the source?” Nehemia: Hmm. David: And then, that would be very helpful to people like Nehemia and me, and hopefully some of your viewers, to say, “Well, wait. I want to look it up.” Nehemia: And here’s why it’s important to look it up. So, back in the day of Ginsburg, if I wanted to know what the note in the Masorah was (and I almost say Masorah in air quotes) on the word la’kna’ani, I had to do one of two things: I had to travel around the world looking at manuscripts, or I could look in Ginsburg. David: Right. Nehemia: And today, because the manuscripts (many of them, not all of them) have been digitized, we can look up and we can see, “Oh, you know, Anat Hayut found these four manuscripts have 30 percent of the notes. Is this in there?” And by the way, where do you look for it? Well, you would look in Joshua 13:3. You’d look in Ezra 9:1. You’d look in Proverbs 31:24. Right? So, you’d have to look in three different passages, maybe in a fourth, because maybe this note appears somewhere else in some of the manuscripts, I don’t know. And then, here’s where it’s very hard to prove the negative, right? Let’s say someone were to come today and say that Ginsburg was a forger. It’d be very, very difficult to prove. I don’t think he was, by the way. But if you wanted to prove that, back then it would be almost impossible to prove. So, he was on the honor system, in many respects. But maybe he made mistakes. And there’s no way to know if he made… or the printer might have made a mistake. David: Right. Nehemia: And there’s no way to know if the printer or he made a mistake without looking in the manuscript and checking for yourself. Where do I start? David: Right. And often, just looking at a manuscript, you see things that aren’t included on the page… Nehemia: Because they can’t include everything. They have to be selective, right? Because even today, when you look in a critical edition of the Tanakh, or any book, they can’t include everything. Right? David: Right. Nehemia: Right. So, they’re including what they think is important. Maybe there’s other things they thought weren’t important that you think is important. David: All right. So, now we’re up to the key moment. So, we’ve got this massive book, this four-volume, 2,500-page book, that has no sources. There’s no footnotes, there’s no endnotes, there’s no bibliography. We don’t know where all these mountains of information comes from. And are these notes, possibly Ginsburg himself, telling you? So, Nehemia, could you please share the next picture, where I compared Ginsburg’s handwriting, as we know it in Cambridge, with the handwriting in my book? Nehemia: Okay. All right. All right. Here we have the Kaf manuscript. Should I tell what the Kaf Manuscript is, or do you want to…? David: Sure. Nehemia: So, I was at the Wren Library at Trinity College in Cambridge, and I was there to look at some Torah scrolls and some other manuscripts. And the librarian comes up to me, and he says he’s been going through some boxes, and in the boxes, he found a bunch of unpublished manuscripts. Are they of any importance? And I look at some of them, and I’m like, “Yeah, not particularly.” And then I look at this, and I see the Kaf. And what is Kaf? So, they’re alphabetical, the way Ginsburg arranged the Masoretic notes. And then he has a volume where he gives an English sort of explanation of what the various notes are, and he gets through Aleph through Yud. And he says something like, “When I have more money, I’ll do Kaf and on. Kaf through Tav, which I’ve already prepared.” And he never printed it. So, this librarian finds Kaf and shows it to me. I’m like, “Yes! This is very important.” And I send it to Prof. Ofer, who right now is working on an edition of it. And by the way, how did it end up in the Wren Library at Trinity College? So, Ginsburg needed money. Let me tell this; it’s worth telling the story. Ginsburg needed money for various things. He was deeply in debt for printing his books. He took subscriptions but it wasn’t enough. By the way, I know a story, which I won’t go into details of names, but I have a story, a very famous story in a certain community, where somebody did the exact same thing. He took subscriptions for a book that he was working on, and then he fell into debt, and he took the money to pay his debts. And the book was never printed. So, this happens. It happens in the 21st century, or maybe that was the 20th century. It might have been in the 90s. I don’t remember. So, Ginsburg falls into debt. He’s not going to steal the money from the people who subscribe. So, what does he do? He goes to Aldous Wright, who is… I don’t know if at that time he was at Trinity College, but at some point, he… and he says, “You give me the money, and when I die, you can have my library.” And when Ginsburg died, the library was turned over to Aldous Wright. And then Aldous Wright donated it to Trinity College. So, his library includes boxes of handwritten documents, including the Kaf Manuscript. Where is Lamed through Tav? Nobody’s found that yet. Could still be at Wren Library. David: So, everyone should be aware; because of Nehemia, this was put online. His handwriting was put online. And it wasn’t just like one, “Dear mom, hope you’re doing well,” note, it was 100 pages of dense handwriting. Nehemia: Yeah, so, he prepared it for the typesetter, right? Meaning, he prepared it for printing, not necessarily for the typesetters. David: And so, Nehemia, because of you, I was able to now compare his handwriting easily to mine. So, why don’t we take a look at it? Nehemia: Okay. And Prof. Ofer convinced him to put it online, but I sent photos of it to Prof. Ofer. Yeah, all right. So… David: So, let’s do the middle column. Let’s go for that. Nehemia: Okay. Yeah, there’s no question that this is the same hand. And what’s important here, guys… and you’ve really done amazing pieces of detective work here, David. What David did here is, he took the same words written in cursive, and in the case of the numbers, they’re, you know, numbers; but he took the same exact words from the Kaf Manuscript that we know was written by Ginsburg, and from his personal copy of this book, under the idea that maybe Ginsburg is the one who wrote all these tens of thousands or however many notes. And when you look at the handwriting, like the word Deuteronomy, if you just took like an E or something, who knows, right? Or a T. But when you take the full set of words, you see how he writes Genesis and Exodus, these abbreviations, Numbers. Look at the shape of the N, a little curl on the left side of the N. Right? This is clearly written by Ginsburg. David: So, my little cheap, quote-unquote cheap, which was very expensive, the most expensive book I’ve ever bought, you know, my inexpensive copy, all of a sudden didn’t have Ginsburg’s signature, but it had tens of hundreds of hours of his notes, of handwritten notes. Nehemia: So, in other words, this is Ginsburg’s personal copy, where he’s adding notes. And when he says it’s on page 163a of a certain manuscript, he knows that, because he must have some other notes. Maybe those are still at Wren Library at Trinity College. But he must have some other notes of what he sent to the typesetter, and the typesetter didn’t include those. And it could be he had index cards, right? In other words, what they would do… we don’t know that Ginsburg did this, but what many, many scholars would do back in the day, and in fact, until relatively recently, is, they would have an index card, a three-by-five or something index card. I don’t know what size they used. And on that, they would say, “Okay, there’s this note in this manuscript,” and they’d write the page number, they’d write the note, and then they’d organize those index cards alphabetically. And they’d say, “Oh, these two manuscripts have the same note. It’s slightly different wording. Now I, Ginsburg, am going to decide which of the wordings to use.” And that’s why this is important for me, because, when I see this, you know, verbiage, well here’s, you know, “va’yikana gimel ve’simanhon”, I don’t know that that’s in any manuscript. In other words, he might have found that in four different manuscripts, and each one had slight differences, and he’s giving… I don’t know, right, he might be giving what we would call an eclectic version. An eclectic version means he’s taken the four different index cards, and he says, “Okay, in this one, they misspelled one of the words. In this other one they left out this word. I’m going to give you my version.” Why? “Because it’s all kind of the same thing.” Well, but it’s not the same thing. Right? Or maybe it is, maybe it isn’t, right? David: Yes, so, here we had the exciting opportunity to see his sources. And so, for me now, the question was; well, remember that pencil line down the middle of the margins? Nehemia: Yeah. David: That was differentiating between two manuscripts, between the purple, and the red and black. Nehemia: And again, guys, just to understand here, somebody wrote a PhD dissertation. That’s an investment of three to five years… David: Yep. Nehemia: …trying to identify the source of notes, and she found, you said 30 percent of the notes. I don’t remember that. David: Yeah. Nehemia: Something like 30 percent of the notes in four of the manuscripts, and here Ginsburg is telling you not only what manuscript it is, but what page it is. But he doesn’t tell you what manuscript; you just have to figure out based on the page numbers. David: Right. Nehemia: You have to reverse engineer it. How do you do that when there’s 40 manuscripts he used? David: Right. Nehemia: So, if you can find which manuscript has a certain note on page 163A and then you check it, because it could be a coincidence, right? You check it across a bunch of different notes. Then you say, “Oh, this refers to manuscript X and this refers to manuscript Y.” So, that’s an incredible piece of scholarly sleuthing, I would call that. That’s an incredible piece of scholarly Sherlock Holmesery to try to find that kind of thing. David: Right. Nehemia: Did you find it? We’re on the edge of our seat. David: So… Nehemia: So, wait, wait. The first big lead is what they call the burying lead, David. You discovered Ginsburg’s personal copy. And guys, let’s back up. Christian David Ginsburg was a Jewish convert to Christianity. He was a true believer both in Judaism and Christianity; certainly, in Christianity he was a true believer. We know that from a bunch of different sources. And he is, to this day, considered the founder of Masoretic studies, what I spend my life on, as a modern scholarship, right? Meaning, like modern, in the sense of modern critical scholarship, right? Meaning, we have a scholar in like, what is it, the 16th century, Eliyahu B’chur, who kind of, or Elijah Levitas, they call him, who is a scholar of the Masorah, but he’s not a modern scholar using modern approaches. Christian David Ginsburg is, meaning, he’s comparing manuscripts and he’s doing it critically, and sometimes that’s good, sometimes that’s bad, right? But in any event, he’s the founder of Masoretic studies and he is a Jewish convert to Christianity. And although you are the director of the Biblical Hebrew Program… So, let’s address this. You’re the director of the Biblical Hebrew Program at the Jewish Theological Seminary, yet you’ve written an article about a Jewish convert to Christianity. Is that controversial, and why not? David: It’s certainly not controversial. Nehemia: Okay. David: Listen, in the world we live in, there’s always going to be people on the edges of… Nehemia: Like me! David: …of groups who are moving back and forth and back and forth, and Christian David Ginsburg is one of those fascinating people. He’s really… you said, like you. It’s interesting, Nehemia, some of the things that he’s studied are the kinds of things that are the most exciting parts of biblical studies. Nehemia: Hundred percent. David: Right, the Karaites, the interpretation of… the Essenes… Nehemia: Why do you think he focused on these edge cases? I have an idea, but what do you think? Why do you think he would… Even the Masorah, in a sense, is an edge case. Meaning, when he’s at yeshiva, they’re not sitting there studying Masorah. David: Right, they’re not. I really want to point out that what he did was not easy. Nehemia: No. David: We were at the conference this year, Nehemia, when somebody… Nehemia: SBL, Society of Biblical Literature, yeah… David: At the Society of Biblical Literature, somebody gave a presentation about his life and mentioned how he had left a child behind in Europe, in Poland, and started life anew in England, and never had any contact back again. And that really troubled me. Like, why would he have done that? Why would he abandon his child? And then somebody raised their hand and said, “Well, how do you know he wasn’t exiled?” He probably was. Nehemia: I mean, it’s a no-brainer to me. When somebody converts to Christianity, certainly in the 1800s in Europe… David: Yeah, their family is not going to speak to them. Nehemia: Not just, they don’t speak to them, they sit shiva. Meaning, they literally sit on the ground for seven days… David: Yeah… Nehemia: … which is what you do when somebody dies. Look, my father went to his rabbi, and said, “My son has become a Karaite. Do I have to sit shiva?” In other words, does my father (of blessed memory) did he have to treat me as if I had died because I no longer accepted the Oral Law? And his rabbi’s response would have been binding to him, in his eyes. And his Orthodox rabbi said to him, “Well, at least he’s not Reform.” And what did he explain? He said, “The Reform deny both the Written Torah and the Oral Torah, your son just denies the Oral Torah. He still accepts the Written Torah.” So, that was a very, let’s say, moderate response. There’s many Orthodox rabbis today would say, “Of course you have to sit shiva.” And if he was a Christian? Not he. If I had converted to Christianity or Messianic Judaism, then my father wouldn’t have asked the question, he would have known he had to sit shiva. So, in other words, his wife treated him as if he’s dead… David: You can imagine… Nehemia: His child probably didn’t have a say in it. And here, we don’t know this for a fact, but it’s reasonable to infer that that’s what happened. David: Yeah, so, the fact that he’s doing this is not without cost. Nehemia: Right, personal cost, where you decide to become a Christian knowing that you’ll never see your child again. David: Or your family. Nehemia: As far as your child knows, you might be dead. Look, I have a story from about 10 years ago, no, seven years ago. I was working on my PhD, and I went to a certain library, I won’t say which, and the librarian comes out to me, and we’re talking about Moses Shapira of the famous Shapira Scrolls. I did an episode with Edan Dershowitz about it. And the librarian says to me… and we’re speaking in Hebrew; she says, “Do you know he was a meshumad, an apostate?” And I thought, “What a strange thing for a scholar to say. That’s highly inappropriate. Like, why is that relevant?” But here’s what she really meant, right? Because Shapira was accused of being a forger. And really the subtext there is: what do you expect from an apostate? His whole life is a lie. And it really shocked me that someone in the 21st century, someone with a PhD, someone who’s a scholar, someone who’s a respected academic, still has this sort of prejudice against somebody who converts to Christianity. And this is a secular person, right? Imagine now an Orthodox Jew in 19th century Poland, right? And imagine the social cost for Ginsburg to say, “I’m going to walk away from my family, from my child, from my community, because I feel,” Christians say, “convicted by this belief.” I mean… David: Yeah. And so, in a certain sense, that’s a really fascinating person; a person who’s really navigated two different worlds and went from one to the other. So, yeah, I don’t see in any way is that an issue, personally. I will say, Nehemia, I understand that you got that comment, and maybe your father’s rabbi might have said that, but not everyone feels that way. Nehemia: No, a hundred percent, no. No, no. Look, but even my father’s rabbi said, “No, you can have a relationship with your son. You don’t have to treat him as if he’s dead.” That was a very big deal. You know, my father would have done whatever the rabbi… David: Right. Nehemia: …said, whatever he gave him as a… like, it was a she’ela. It was a formal question, right? David: Right. Nehemia: And he gave him a formal response, right, which was considered binding by my father, at least, and by the rabbi. And he didn’t. Look, I mean, I know a lot of people in, I’ll just call them Christian denominations without giving details, who remained Christians, but were no longer dues-paying members of that denomination, and their parents have to shun them. Or their children have to shun them, meaning treat them as if they’re not allowed to speak to them, they’re not allowed to interact with them. So, this happens today. David: This happens. Nehemia: Look, it happens in some ultra-Orthodox denominations today. David: But in a certain sense, it could be what led him, as you say, to the Masorah, because these notes, they’re there, but rabbis don’t study them. And so, it’s also, they were written by people who, you might agree with me on this, were most likely Karaites. And so… Nehemia: I don’t think any of the manuscripts he worked with were copied by Karaites, let’s put it that way. And some of the notes… David: 4445? You don’t think so? Nehemia: Oh, okay, all right. So, that one may be. David: That’s old… Nehemia: Right. All right, so, that one may be. But most of his manuscripts were… and that one we don’t know for sure. Most of his manuscripts were relatively late, or we would consider them late today. David: So, he has a little paragraph here, and the second part of the paragraph says, “The list of donors and subscribers for whom the work is printed will be given in the third volume.” And here’s the key part. “Each volume has on it the name of the subscriber and a number, as well as the signature of the author. Copies without these marks will be considered pirated. Christian David Ginsburg.” Nehemia: Okay. David: And so, that’s the eBay volume, which for 6,500 dollars was saying, “Hey, we’ve got it. We’ve got the author’s signature.” Whereas mine did not. Nehemia: So, in other words, the reason yours didn’t have a signature, based on this, we can infer, is because it wasn’t purchased by a subscriber, it belonged to the original author. He only signed the ones that he sent off to subscribers. David: Right. Nehemia: Along with a number. Yours wouldn’t be numbered because it belonged to him. It was his personal copy. David: Right. Nehemia: What’s interesting, by the way, is, he also writes this in Hebrew, and the word for pirated here is ganuv, stolen. That’s interesting! David: Yeah. Nehemia: Very cool. That’s very, very cool. All right. Beautiful. Wow. So, wow, very interesting. David: Okay, but let’s do some sleuthing. You ready for some more sleuthing? Nehemia: Let’s do some sleuthing. This is exciting. All right. David: Okay. All right. So, I needed to figure out what these purple notes are and what these red notes are. Nehemia: Are they consistently purple when they’re in the outer margin? David: Outer margin is purple. Nehemia: Always? David: Always. And inner margin is red or black. And I didn’t know if red and black were two different manuscripts, but I was able to determine that the red only goes up to, like, page 80, and then 81 is black. So, it’s really one manuscript. Nehemia: And this is just a question that I don’t know the answer to. I don’t know that, on my computer, I can tell that that’s purple. David: Yeah, but it is purple. Nehemia: No, no, I believe you. David: No, no, no, yeah. Nehemia: So, here’s an example, guys. I did an interview with a guy who’s a scholar of Mormonism, and he made a statement which I think is profound, and it’s something that many people who deal with manuscripts know. But he put it really, really clearly. He said, all photographs lie. Right? So, here you have the original handwritten notes, and this is a photograph of the notes, and you can see details that aren’t necessarily obvious. David: Yeah, because… so, for everyone to just kind of think about the lighting on this. Nehemia: Right. David: I’m not a professional photographer. This was from my iPhone. Nehemia: Okay. David: The second thing is, the paper isn’t white. It’s yellow from age. Nehemia: Yes. David: And then the third thing is, the purple has faded. Nehemia: Yeah. David: So, like, it’s there, but it’s a weak purple… but it’s there… Nehemia: And now that you’re telling me it’s purple, I believe you and I can see it, but I don’t know that I would know that that was purple. I would bet (and I don’t know the answer to this) but it would be interesting to open this up in photoshop from the PDF, because that’s what most people have access to, and use the eyedropper tool and see if it identifies it as purple. Guys, I’m only mentioning this because it’s important to know that, when you look at a photograph of a manuscript, you have to take into account that there is something called a white balance that… I just spent weeks working on a question related to this in Berlin; the imaging software does things that it doesn’t always tell you, that are a black box. So, just… it’s important to know that. David: All right, and I would like everyone to know that Nehemia has an open invitation to my home in Yonkers, New York, and Nehemia will update you if it’s a different color. Nehemia: I’m the worst person to tell you about what colors are. I famously once went out of the house wearing one black Croc and another that was navy blue, and when someone pointed it out, I looked down at my feet, I said, “Oh yeah, now I see it.” But I hadn’t noticed it at home. And then I bought a black car which turned out to be very dark green. And now, every time I look at it, I’m like, “Yeah, obviously it’s green.” But you know, in the lighting that I bought it, I did not notice that. So, anyway. David: Okay, so, back to sleuthing. Nehemia: Yes. David: Here we go. So, Nehemia, I had about two, three thousand notes, and I didn’t know how to make sense of them. So, the first thing that I did was try and look up all those… Nehemia: Oh, wait, this is really cool. Here you have volume 2, page 143, it’s in your article on page 5. You have a black note, you have two purple notes, and you have a red note. David: Right. And I put that in because it’s not clear, the color… Nehemia: It’s definitely not clear, yeah. David: Right. So, I started with the purple notes. I said, I want to figure these things out. And the moment of insight came to me was something that I rarely use well, is Microsoft Excel. Nehemia: Okay. David: I said, “These are numbers. Why don’t I just start plugging in the numbers?” And so, if the number is 100A and it’s on verse Ecclesiastes 12:6, I would put in Ecclesiastes 12:6, 100A. And then by doing that, what I was able to do was rearrange all the thousands of notes in a way that made sense, and something jumped at me on the screen. Nehemia: What was that? David: So, your listeners probably have heard of the term Tanakh. Nehemia: Yeah. David: Tanakh, which stands for the Torah, the Nevi’im, the Prophets, and the Ketuvim, the Writings. Nehemia: And just as a side note, if people want to learn the Hebrew of the Tanakh, known as Biblical Hebrew, where can they do that? David: At the Jewish Theological Seminary Biblical Hebrew Program. Thank you, Nehemia. Nehemia: Of which you’re the director. And you could learn online. And it’s for someone who doesn’t even know the Aleph–Bet. And guys, I don’t know if you realize what an opportunity this is to study at JTS’s program, Biblical Hebrew. David: Right. Nehemia: Let me ask a question here. So, it’s the Jewish Theological Seminary. Do they have to be Jewish to study in the program? David: Absolutely not. What we’re talking about with Ginsburg is, I think, a great example. You could be a Rabbinic Jew, you could be a Karaite Jew, you could be a believing Christian of any denomination, et cetera. We study Tanakh together, we read together, and people from all backgrounds have insights and teach me and teach each other about studying the Tanakh. So, it’s open to everybody, and I think this study that we’re talking about… I’m not bothered by Christian David Ginsburg. Neither are you, right? It’s not a big deal. Jews and Christians can sit down next to each other and study at the same time, and it makes it better for everyone, in my personal opinion. So… Nehemia: Is this an example of diversity is our strength? In other words, that motto actually has something profound behind it, which is that if everybody has the same view on the world, you’re going to have blind spots. But where diversity really is powerful, and this is, I think, a very Jewish idea, is where you have lots of different perspectives and beliefs and approaches, and you have conversations where maybe at first you’re talking past each other, because you have a set of assumptions, they have a set of assumptions, and you realize, “

22 de jul de 2026 - 1 h 45 min
Portada del episodio SNEAK PEEK! Midrash for the Modern Day: Part 2

SNEAK PEEK! Midrash for the Modern Day: Part 2

[https://i0.wp.com/www.nehemiaswall.com/wp-content/uploads/STS-SP-Midrash-for-the-Modern-Day-1920.png?resize=584%2C329&ssl=1]https://www.nehemiaswall.com/sp-midrash-for-the-modern-day-part-2 Watch the Sneak Peek [https://www.nehemiaswall.com/sp-midrash-for-the-modern-day-part-2] of this Support Team Study - Midrash for the Modern Day: Part 2. Nehemia continues his discussion with Dr. Stephen Arnoff about how midrash can be compared to modern events, used in Christianity and Islam, and leveraged for both good and evil. I look forward to reading your comments! PODCAST VERSION: Download Audio [https://audio.nehemiaswall.com/Downloads/SP-Midrash-for-the-Modern-Day-Part-2.mp3] https://www.nehemiaswall.com/support-team-members-only-contentWATCH THE FULL EPISODE TOMORROW PLUS HUNDREDS OF HOURS OF OTHER IN-DEPTH STUDIES BY BECOMING A SUPPORT TEAM MEMBER! [https://www.nehemiaswall.com/support-team-members-only-content] Midrash for the Modern Day: Part 2 [https://i0.wp.com/www.nehemiaswall.com/wp-content/uploads/STS-Midrash-for-The-Modern-Day-1920.png?resize=584%2C329&ssl=1]https://www.nehemiaswall.com/support-team-members-only-content ---------------------------------------- SHARE THIS TEACHING WITH YOUR FRIENDS! https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nehemiaswall.com%2Fsp-midrash-for-the-modern-day-part-2&linkname=SNEAK%20PEEK%21%20Midrash%20for%20the%20Modern%20Day%3A%20Part%202https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/telegram?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nehemiaswall.com%2Fsp-midrash-for-the-modern-day-part-2&linkname=SNEAK%20PEEK%21%20Midrash%20for%20the%20Modern%20Day%3A%20Part%202https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nehemiaswall.com%2Fsp-midrash-for-the-modern-day-part-2&linkname=SNEAK%20PEEK%21%20Midrash%20for%20the%20Modern%20Day%3A%20Part%202https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nehemiaswall.com%2Fsp-midrash-for-the-modern-day-part-2&linkname=SNEAK%20PEEK%21%20Midrash%20for%20the%20Modern%20Day%3A%20Part%202https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/whatsapp?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nehemiaswall.com%2Fsp-midrash-for-the-modern-day-part-2&linkname=SNEAK%20PEEK%21%20Midrash%20for%20the%20Modern%20Day%3A%20Part%202https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/x?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nehemiaswall.com%2Fsp-midrash-for-the-modern-day-part-2&linkname=SNEAK%20PEEK%21%20Midrash%20for%20the%20Modern%20Day%3A%20Part%202https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/copy_link?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nehemiaswall.com%2Fsp-midrash-for-the-modern-day-part-2&linkname=SNEAK%20PEEK%21%20Midrash%20for%20the%20Modern%20Day%3A%20Part%202https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nehemiaswall.com%2Fsp-midrash-for-the-modern-day-part-2&title=SNEAK%20PEEK%21%20Midrash%20for%20the%20Modern%20Day%3A%20Part%202 ---------------------------------------- Subscribe to "Nehemia Gordon" on your favorite podcast app! Apple Podcasts [https://geo.itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/nehemias-wall-podcast/id935092991?mt=2] | Amazon Music [https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/f059eda6-8a58-4e8d-9ba1-290ffb0dd613/dr-nehemia-gordon---bible-scholar-at-nehemiaswall-com] | TuneIn [http://tunein.com/radio/Nehemias-Wall-p888757/] Pocket Casts [https://pca.st/Y4ZW] | Podcast Addict [https://podcastaddict.com/podcast/dr-nehemia-gordon-bible-scholar-at-nehemiaswallcom/4574109] | CastBox [https://castbox.fm/channel/Dr.-Nehemia-Gordon---Bible-Scholar-at-NehemiasWall.com-id384877?country=us] | iHeartRadio [https://www.iheart.com/podcast/256-nehemias-wall-podcast-31110272/] | Podchaser [https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/dr-nehemia-gordon-bible-schola-142019] | Pandora [https://www.pandora.com/podcast/dr-nehemia-gordon-bible-scholar-at-nehemiaswallcom/PC:53432] ---------------------------------------- SUPPORT NEHEMIA'S RESEARCH AND TEACHINGS (Please click here to donate) [https://www.nehemiaswall.com/support] Makor Hebrew Foundationis a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Your donation is tax-deductible. [https://i0.wp.com/www.nehemiaswall.com/wp-content/uploads/Support-the-Mission-Choosen.png?resize=512%2C342&ssl=1]https://www.nehemiaswall.com/support ---------------------------------------- [https://i0.wp.com/www.nehemiaswall.com/wp-content/uploads/webstore-banner-big.png?resize=584%2C307&ssl=1]https://store.nehemiaswall.com The post SNEAK PEEK! Midrash for the Modern Day: Part 2 [https://www.nehemiaswall.com/sp-midrash-for-the-modern-day-part-2] appeared first on Nehemia's Wall [https://www.nehemiaswall.com].

14 de jul de 2026 - 5 min
Portada del episodio Hebrew Voices #248 – Midrash for the Modern Day: Part 1

Hebrew Voices #248 – Midrash for the Modern Day: Part 1

[https://i0.wp.com/www.nehemiaswall.com/wp-content/uploads/HV-248-1920x1080-1.png?resize=584%2C329&ssl=1]https://www.nehemiaswall.com/midrash-for-the-modern-day-1 In this episode of Hebrew Voices #248 - Midrash for the Modern Day: Part 1 [https://www.nehemiaswall.com/midrash-for-the-modern-day-1], Nehemia brings on Dr. Stephen Arnoff to talk about the art of midrashic interpretation, how the “secret sauce” works, and why it exists in the first place. I look forward to reading your comments! PODCAST VERSION: Download Audio [https://audio.nehemiaswall.com/Downloads/Hebrew-Voices-Midrash-for-the-Modern-Day-Part-1.mp3] Transcript Hebrew Voices #248 – Midrash for the Modern Day: Part 1 You are listening to Hebrew Voices with Nehemia Gordon. Thank you for supporting [https://www.nehemiaswall.com/support] Nehemia Gordon's Makor Hebrew Foundation. Learn more at NehemiasWall.com [https://www.nehemiaswall.com]. Stephen: That is a massive intellectual theological claim. That’s why midrash is so important, because midrash is the technical system. It’s the technique which is running all the way through the story of scriptural peoples from the time where midrash becomes very much prevalent as a way of understanding commandment, law, community, purpose, the divine. — Nehemia: Shalom, and welcome to Hebrew Voices. I’m here today with Dr. Stephen Daniel Arnoff. He is the CEO of the Fuchsberg Center in Jerusalem, Israel, which is an educational, spiritual, and cultural center in the heart of Jerusalem. He wrote his PhD dissertation on a topic that we’re going to get into today. It’s called Memory, Rhetoric, and Oral Performance in Leviticus Rabbah, which is an ancient midrash, and he’ll explain what midrash is. He’s got a sub-stack. He’s got a website, which, we’ll link to this on Nehemiahswall.com, but it’s stephendanielarnoff.com. And you can also find out about him at thefuchsbergcenter.org. Shalom, Dr. Aronoff. Shalom, Stephen. Stephen: Shalom, shalom, Nehemia. Nice to see you. Thanks for having me here. Nehemia: Yeah, I’m excited. So, we were speaking last week and trying to decide what we’re going to talk about, and you mentioned that you did your dissertation on midrash. I’m like, “Okay, that’s it. I love texts. And the midrash, number one, it’s a text, but it’s also a response to a text or texts.” So, what is midrash? Let’s start with that. And then ultimately, we want to ask the question; what is the relevance and application today for people, with midrash? Stephen: Amazing. Well, I should say that you’re in rare company actually asking me about midrash. That question is not asked enough. I think midrash is the special sauce that runs all the way through monotheism as we know it. Really do. Nehemia: Wow, that’s a heavy lift… a big statement. So, you have to explain that. Stephen: I’m confident in the statement. And I’m pretty good in the kitchen, so it’s a metaphor that I would stand by, “the special sauce.” The concept of midrash is essentially a kind of scriptural technology. It is the art of interpreting sacred text. It’s the art of interpreting sacred text. Nehemia: Okay. Stephen: So, even in the Hebrew Bible itself there is midrash. Deuteronomy is a midrash on the four books that precede it because it is a retelling, a second telling of a sacred text. In the same way that Chronicles, in certain ways, is a midrash, a retelling, of the narratives that preceded it. There is within the Hebrew Scriptures an inclination to reimagine or to interpret events, figures, concepts, that have occurred previously. The midrash, as it develops out of the world of the Hebrew Bible, is a late Second Temple phenomenon, which we see in a variety of forms of literature and structure. It actually probably emanates in some ways from the world of scribes, who are in the realm of manuscripts, both oral traditions and written traditions, and passing them down from generation to generation. And at a certain point, there’s a coalescence of a kind of set of rules about how one does interpretation. Some of those rules come from the world of Greco-Roman literature, where the understandings of what particular materials mean are interpreted by scholars, sages, poets, who are trying to parse the meaning of a received text. And some of these technologies, or these techniques, that become midrash are unique, or at least unique in the way they’re used in Rabbinic tradition, moving into late antiquity. In a sentence, midrash is the art of imagination which interprets received texts and ideas. You can say that there is a midrash, so I am doing an interpretation. It is a midrash. It is a singular moment or structure, engagement of text with interpretation. But we can also say Midrash, meaning the whole body of materials that do that. There’s a library of Midrash, and there’s also a singular midrash. And we can talk about all the different pieces of the puzzle and the comment that I began with about the secret sauce of monotheism. But that’s an introduction. Nehemia: Okay. So, help my audience who may have no background in this, some of them. Stephen: Sure. Nehemia: What does the word midrash mean? Let’s just start with the most basic thing. Stephen: Midrash comes from a Hebrew word in the Scriptures which seems to be something like asking a question, akin to asking a question of an oracle. The idea that one would take that three Hebrew letter form, Dalet-Reish-Shin, which in a verb is lidrosh, or, to ask. The framing is, is asking for understanding, for meaning, or asking a question that comes from some other place, where the answer is going to come from some other place. And as the way that languages sort of evolve over time, that understanding that midrash is asking some unique entity for an answer to the question becomes, not asking an oracle, not asking a prophet, but asking the text what it means. Asking, demanding, from the text what its intention is. Nehemia: Okay. Is that the question, what its intention is? Okay, now you just said a very important statement, which… Okay. So, I’ve explained to the audience many times that semitic languages, including Hebrew, are built on these three-letter roots, and here the three-letter root is Dalet-Reish-Shin, which means to seek. And I just pulled up here in my bible software… and so, we have Genesis 25:22 is, Rebecca goes “lidrosh et Yud-Hey-Vav-Hey.” She’s going to seek God, because there’s these two children in her womb, and she’s like, “What’s going on here?” Stephen: Right. So, you can hear in that… I’m not implying that the systems are parallel… the system’s going to Delphi and going to Yud-kay-Vav-kay, right, to go to the Lord, to go to the divine, but the idea is that one needs to go to a force outside of oneself to ask a question that’s a faithful question. Nehemia: Well, but then here it’s maybe used in a more, I would even call, like, a secular daily sense. Maybe secular is definitely not the word here, but where God says that, if somebody commits murder, He says, “And their blood I will seek.” Right? So, in other words, if you murder a person, then God’s going to seek the blood of that person from the person who committed the crime. Stephen: Right. But it’s a unique valence, right, it’s a unique usage. Because there are lots of other verbs that could be used to find out something, to understand something. And it’s a very rarely used verb. So, in this sense, it shows that it is at a level of… almost like a level of unstoppable mystery or something that is a reversal. Rather than you going to the oracle to get something that you don’t understand, the oracle itself is going to come to you. There is no way you will not be found out. Right? An immovable force is coming to… Nehemia: So, here I have an example. Again, I’m just pulling up examples here. It’s talking here about a certain thing in Deuteronomy 13, and it says… let me just pull up the JPS translation here. “You shall investigate and inquire and interrogate thoroughly. If it is true, the fact is established that an abhorrent thing was perpetrated in your midst,” et cetera. And the word investigate here is, ve’darashta, you will darash. So, in other words, it means to seek and investigate. It can mean to seek, like for example, in Deuteronomy 18 famously, it’s “doresh el ha’metim”, where you’re seeking the dead. Which may be some kind of a prayer, or like you said, maybe it’s an oracle, where you’re expecting to actually hear an answer from… one version is there’s a skull, then the diviners would talk to the skull. I don’t think it originally necessarily meant that. But the point is, doresh is to seek, and you’re saying it could be to seek some sort of a, well, you said oracle, so we’ll stick with that terminology. Okay, but it doesn’t mean that in the Jewish context of… and it has different meanings. This is where people get confused, right? They’ll say, “Oh, there’s a beit midrash, and the beit midrash,” which you guys have at the Fuchs Center in Jerusalem… so, a beit midrash is where you study, and it’s a very broad thing of what you study. Right? Am I right? Meaning, you could be studying Talmud, you could be studying Tanakh, you could be studying different things. You could be studying ethical musar, or ethical studies. So, there’s midrash in that sense, and then there’s midrash like Leviticus Rabbah, what you wrote your dissertation on, which is a collection of midrashim, and that’s called midrash. And then you have the action of midrash. So, talk to me about the action of midrash in Second Temple times. What is that? Stephen: True. We’ll talk about the action of midrash, but I think the framing is important. The concept here is that any act relating to midrash is a religious or spiritual act. That this is not a classroom; a beit midrash is not a classroom. Nehemia: Okay. Stephen: You can study midrashim in a classroom, but it’s not a beit midrash. A beit midrash is intentional. The intent is that there is something which is divining. It is about an element of holiness in the act of engaging with the sacred text. It is, in some way… and when we think about this as sort of midrash emerging, and when it emerges, the beit midrash is, in some ways, the replacement of the Beit ha’Mikdash, which is the Temple. The house of study is emergent after the Second Temple is destroyed, and the beit knesset, which is the synagogue, the place of gathering, is also emergent after the destruction of the Second Temple. There were betei midrash, there were houses of study, in some form, while there was a Second Temple. And there were synagogues in some form during the period of the Second Temple. But as a cultural phenomenon, this idea that the study of sacred text is a holy act which carries with it an element of relationship between human and divine through text, is something that carries through all the way to today. And it’s carried through, in some ways, somewhat democratically, in the sense that, in ancient times, in Temple times, who had access to holiness? Holiness was centered in the Temple and there was a cast of characters and a cast of officiants who were responsible. And people used them as a vessel to engage with the holy. In the world of the beit midrash, if you are committed to learning in an environment where, you know, whomever wishes to learn can learn, you are entering into an engagement with holiness, with religious activity, which is akin to engaging with the divine through the study of text. So, the framing for that as a religious act is really important. And then the specific question of how that works in practice, which you asked, is essentially, as a person who is engaged in midrash, who is using midrash with a sacred text, I am asking what the text means in many, many different ways. Let’s imagine, for example, that there’s a character, and it’s not clear who is speaking in a particular passage. Or if there’s a character that is not named as a character, or if there’s a possibility that a verb could mean more than one thing in a passage. Or a question as to why a passage appears when it does, or if there is a misunderstanding about whether the scribal transmission of that particular passage, if there may be some questions around transmission. All of these are what could be called an irritant, a textual irritant, that’s calling out for interpretation. And it literally says, darsheni. Darsheni, which means interpret me, interpret me. Nehemia: Or perhaps literally, drash me, investigate me. Stephen: Drash me out. Nehemia: So, you said a lot of things there, and I think I want to start with, there’s a linguistic concept called false friends. False friends is where you have the same word in two different languages, and they actually come from the same root, like I say, a common root, but they mean different things. So, my favorite example is in Hebrew, lechem is bread, and in Arabic, lahm is meat. So, here we have a false friend that you used. And I think the audience might have missed it, so I want to make sure it’s explained. You use the word learning. And learning in standard American English doesn’t mean what it means in, I’m going to call it Judeo-English. Stephen: No kidding. Nehemia: No, and I’m serious. Stephen: Yeah. Nehemia: People have written about this, entire dissertations. When a Jew says, “I’m learning Torah,” it doesn’t mean the same thing as when a non-Jew says, “I’m learning accounting,” or something. You used that word, and I think you used it just as part of Judeo-English. What does it mean in standard American? What is learning? Stephen: You’re an excellent listener, and it’s a great point. And I often say to my kids, some of whom were born in the U.S., but all of whom grew up here, they’ll often say about their homework, “I’m learning math.” And I’ll say, “You’re actually not learning math, you’re studying math.” You might learn math in some form, but we’ll talk about what the difference is, just as you had posed it. Learning is the religious act of studying sacred text. One goes to learn. It means one is going to have a concentrated experience which has an element of holiness in it. Studying, as you said, one could study engineering. Very difficult to make a case for one learning engineering, in Judeo-English, as you said. Because there’s a… Nehemia: And there’s a term for this. This is called “semantic loan.” I just looked it up. So, semantic loan is where, like, there’s the example that some Americans who were immigrants from Germany, if they didn’t know what you said, they would say please. And that was in the sense of, repeat what you just said. Which we don’t say in American English, so maybe it’s not semantic loan because that’s a translation of the word bitte. Which means, please may you do something, but also please repeat what you said. So, here, learning comes from the Yiddish learning. So, explain to the audience what it means to learn Torah, because it’s a whole world of meaning there that’s not part of standard… Stephen: Yeah. Learning Torah, and this is true for every realm of Jewish life, Sephardic, Ashkenazi, and every form, to learn means talmud Torah. Talmud Torah is the studying of sacred text. Nehemia: So, in this sense, it’s a calc. In other words, there’s a Hebrew concept, lomed talmud, which is translated into Yiddish. And then from Yiddish, because it has the same root, it comes over into English, unsuspecting, without people realizing it has a completely different meaning in English. Not a completely different meaning, but there’s nuances that are lost. Stephen: Well, I’m not an expert in Yiddish, so I wouldn’t be able to say. Nehemia: But when you’re saying learning Torah, you’re using the Yiddish meaning, which comes from the Hebrew meaning. Stephen: Right, but if I were to walk in, you know, seven or eight blocks from here to, you know, a Sephardic beit midrash, house of study, and say, “What are you learning?” They wouldn’t think, “Why are you speaking, you know, in a phrase that comes…” Nehemia: No, no, they would go directly back to the Hebrew word. Stephen: They’d understand that the point was, “What are you studying today? What part of Torah are you studying today? Where are you in Talmud?” Nehemia: So, I once had this encounter with someone who was… I won’t give the details. There was a discussion about something in the Book of Shoftim, of Judges, and I could see he clearly was unaware of anything in the Book of Judges, and I said, “Have you ever read the Book of Judges?” He said, “I don’t read Tanakh, I learn it.” I said, “Okay, did you ever learn the Book of Judges?” And he said, no. Right? But it struck me about that semantic distinction. So, still, what is learning in the Talmud Torah sense? Stephen: It’s a religious act of engaging with sacred text. Learning is considered one of the highest, if not the highest acts that a person can do. We say in tradition, in a litany of listing the mitzvot, “talmud Torah keneged kulam.” “Talmud Torah learning is higher than any of them combined.” So, this has all kinds of sociological aspects over time, including the fact that in Israel there is a kind of protected class of learners, of students of Torah, ultra-Orthodox men who make the claim that it is of national security significance that Torah is learned. Even to the extent that, during recent conflicts here in Israel, the case has been made in the headlines of papers, right, that we must not interrupt the learning of the ultra-Orthodox yeshivot, houses of study, yeshivas, because they are the highest, most important thing that can be done in any time for the Jewish people. So, it’s a real phenomenon which goes back to the sanctification of learning as being a high, if not the highest, act that a person can engage in. And that is related, of course, to the fact that we’re talking about a tradition that goes back thousands of years which holds the Hebrew Scriptures as immutable, and the ultimate expression that humans can engage with, to engage with the divine, to engage with the oracle, if you will, forgive the parallel. But there’s a second lane in that highest place, and that is Oral Torah. Written Torah is the received Torah of the Hebrew Scriptures, which is considered perfect and immutable, but there is also Oral Torah, which is the world of midrash, which is the world of interpretation. There is an understanding that there is an entire world of interpretive acts, of interpretation of text, of the parsing of text, of the use of midrash and other techniques, which is as holy and as necessary as the written text. And so, the culture develops in two lanes, the Written Torah and the Oral Torah, and the house of study, the beit midrash, is where they meet. That is where those lanes meet. That is the intersection of spiritual, intellectual life emergent in late antiquity. That doesn’t mean that the synagogue, the beit knesset, isn’t critical or doing the commandments, the mitzvot, isn’t critical. There are many other ways to do what’s considered the highest and best use of Jewish life, right? But in terms of the map of Jewish life, there are two lanes in the map; Written Torah and Oral Torah. Written Torah, in the most simple terms, and I’m truly simplifying here, Written Torah is what the Oral Torah is bringing light to. And you don’t have Oral Torah without the Written Torah. But without the Oral Torah, the Written Torah… we don’t say it, but it’s implied; is incomplete. You need both. And that is a massive intellectual, theological claim. That’s why midrash is so important, because midrash is the technical system; it’s the technique which is running all the way through the story of scriptural peoples from the time when midrash becomes very much prevalent as a way of understanding commandment, law, community, purpose, the divine. Nehemia: Okay, so, the way I’ve heard it described, and tell me what your thoughts on this are, is that the Written Torah is like, if you were to hear a lecture in the university, you know, setting, you hear your professor giving a lecture and you write down notes, and then somebody comes and they read your notes. Well, there’s pieces of the puzzle they’re missing. There might have been a slide up on the screen that you don’t see in the note, and the Oral Torah brings in all the information that elucidates, what are these notes really saying? Do you accept that explanation? That may come from a particular, like, maybe ultra-Orthodox perspective, I’m not sure. Stephen: I think it’s part of the description, but it’s not complete. As I understand Oral Torah (and I’m limited by my own brain, and studies, and learning, and all the rest) but the concept is that the Oral Torah, as it’s described, for example, in the Ethics of the Fathers, in the mishnaic text, which is known as Pirkei Avot, which is a brief kind of litany of the chain of tradition and a variety of teachings, the Oral Torah is received by Moses and passed down from generation to generation as if the Oral Torah already existed in total, totally and completely at the beginning, in the same way that the Written Torah existed in total at the beginning. So, conceptually, there’s an idea that there is an entire universe of Oral Torah that is passed down from generation to generation and is revealed through study. Now, that being said, I think it’s historically viable and practically fair to assume, even if you have a mystical, faith-based understanding that all Torah, whether it’s Written or Oral Torah, is complete and perfect and just discovered by humans in the Beit Midrash, as we see it in action in the classic texts of midrash and in the Talmud and all the way through to the present day, it looks a lot like people coming up with great ideas based on study, right? So, whether it is predestined that that note that someone took in the class on the lecture already existed, and they’re just doing the act of being a scribe, inscribing it, and writing down Oral Torah, right? Writing down their oral Torah, even if they’re actually writing down something that is essentially new, that’s a question for mystics and prophets to determine, not me, obviously. The point being that my impression of what it means to engage in the world of midrash is that it is a creative act. Nehemia: Okay, midrash is a creative act. A creative act (I’m writing it down) to engage the sacred text. So, you said midrash is a technique, and this technique is creative. So, tell us more about that. For someone who has no idea what you’re talking about. Stephen: Oh, sure. Well, I’ll pretend that I do. Nehemia: No, I’m saying someone… for the audience who’s hearing here the word midrash for the first time. Stephen: I am also the audience. Nehemia: Oh, I see! Stephen: … to assume that they know truly and deeply, completely what they’re talking about is already a sign that they probably don’t. I mean, there’s knowing and then there’s knowing, right? Nehemia: Gotcha. Stephen: So, I know what I know, and I can describe it as I’m able to. But these topics are so vast and incredibly multifaceted that we’ve got to enter them with a level of humility. Nehemia: Okay. Fair enough. Stephen: And I’m going to endeavor to do that. The way I would describe midrash is that there are playbooks for midrash, right? There is the equivalent of the basic plays that one can play in the world of midrash. There are certain terms, kal va’chomer, or gozer hashava, or heikeshim, which are actual formulaic ways that you engage in a meaning of a text. So, kal va’chomer, for example, is part of a list, an early list, of the types of techniques that one can use, and it’s basically an a fortiori argument, right? Nehemia: Which is Latin. So, what is that in English? Stephen: Well, I’m hoping that some of our Latin scholars listening in will correct me if I’m wrong, but essentially it’s the relationship between what you would call a minor argument and a major argument, a smaller case and a larger case. So, if it’s true in small letter a, then it stands to reason that it’s going to be true in large letter A, right? There’s going to be, alike grows into even more alike, and there’s a relationship. And there’s a whole list that comes in a couple of different forms (the list gets bigger) of what are the acceptable techniques that one can use to do midrash, in the same way that, if you’re playing basketball, there’s a lot of things you can do with the ball, but you cannot take a shot from a seat in the arena. That’s not part of the game. But you can do all kinds of things on the court as long as you follow the rules. Midrash functions in a similar way, in that there’s a court that becomes defined; here are the rules. Here’s what you can do with the ball, which is the sacred text, in order to advance it down the floor, right, and to score. Which is to enlighten your community. Which is to make a higher meaning, a meaning that suits and fits and is engaged with the problem you’re trying to solve. But also, above anything else, fully immerses you in the game, right? Midrash is about problem solving for Halacha, for legal reasons, for literary reasons, for religious practice reasons. There are a lot of reasons why people come to the written text and say, “We’ve got to figure out what this means.” That’s a reason why my midrash is used, because there are no oracles, right? There are learned people who have to answer questions. “What does this text mean if I need to know whether I can turn my lights on during Shabbat or not,” right? Or whatever the question is going to be, right? Bad example, but the concept is that I need to solve a religious practice problem from written text into oral text, to oral tradition, in order to make sense, to know how to live religiously. But there’s another reason why midrash is engaged, and that is simply for the love of the game. Right? Sometimes it’s to win the game, to use the basketball metaphor, and winning the game means knowing what to do, and sometimes it’s just because you love to play the game. Because you love to learn, you love to study, you love to engage in sacred texts, and the house of study is a house of problem-solving and a house of love. Love of study, problem solving for religious problems; it’s both. Midrash does both things, and that’s why, in general terms, you divide the worlds of midrash into Midrash Aggadah, which is the midrash of narrative and story (what’s this story saying?) and Midrash Halacha, which is the midrash that has legal implications. Now, many times it’s hard to see the difference because a story can lead to a legal implication. But the essential division of the types of texts are Midrash Aggadah texts, which are primarily focused on the narrative, and Midrash Halacha texts, which are primarily focused on the legal implications of the interpretations. Nehemia: Okay, so, I want to try to have you bring some concrete examples, maybe from Leviticus Rabbah that you wrote your PhD dissertation on. Let’s start with Aggadah, which is the story, meaning the narrative side of midrash. Well, actually, before we get to that, can you say something about… and my audience has heard the term pshat before. What is the relationship? Because you say midrash is a technique, there’s another technique called Pshat, unless you’re using the terminology differently. So, that’s a question I’m going to throw out and let you deal with, or discuss. Stephen: Midrash is, you know, it’s kind of like, you know… imagine cars; you start out with carburetors, and you get to electric vehicles. I mean, there’s layers of how the technology advances. So, pshat is part of a sort of a four-layered approach to interpreting text, which is pshat. I don’t know if you’ve gone through this with the… Nehemia: They’ve heard of Pshat, Remez, Drash, Sod, but why don’t you explain it from your perspective? Stephen: So, the idea of the PaRDeS, which is Pshat, Remez, which is literally the hint, Drash, and Sod, which is esoteric. And drash, maybe we’ll call it symbolic. Okay? Nehemia: Okay. Stephen: So, the idea is that pshat, the first level, the level that’s quote-unquote easiest to access, and pshat is from that root, like pshut, which means simple, or basic, or unencumbered, is the literal meaning of the text. What is the literal meaning of the text? So, the literal meaning of the text is different than the remez, which is the suggested meaning of the text. Okay? Which is different than the drash level of the text, which enters into the realm of the symbolic, or the associative perhaps, which is different than the quote-unquote highest level, which is sod, which is esoteric, which you probably can only learn from a master, okay? In terms of examples of how an aggadic, or narrative-focused midrash works, let’s take something actually from Bereshit, from the Book of Genesis, because it’s a famous example. And it’s a good one; the story of Abraham smashing the idols in his father’s workshop. Is it in the Hebrew bible? Or is it midrash? Nehemia: You’re asking me? No, it’s not in the Hebrew bible. It’s not explicitly anywhere in the text. Stephen: Three points for Dr. Gordon. For House Gordon. It’s not in the Hebrew bible. Nehemia: Before you explain that… So, using the word midrash, and I’m not sure; are you using the word midrash to include all of pardes? In other words, is phsat part of midrash technique? Or is it one technique within midrash in the way you’re using it? Because other people would use the word midrash as a synonym for drosh. So, I want to clarify that. Stephen: Yeah, well… Nehemia: Or is it multiple meanings? Stephen: The realm of the four-level interpretation, which is something that seems to be present in, I believe, Origen, early Church Fathers; there’s elements of this in late antiquity at the same time, that sort of classical midrash is really starting to heat up. The industry is moving, you know, 3rd, 4th, 5th century. This is something that becomes very important in Kabbalah, in mystical interpretations of sacred texts, the idea that there are these four levels going from the simplest meaning to the most esoteric meaning. And it’s an area that, you know, I’m not in any way an expert in, but it’s something that evolves over time. It’s using the midrashic system for another kind of theological approach to text, and it develops over centuries. The idea of pshat, the simple meaning, that is, I think, an inclination that one would see in all kinds of collections of midrash, but sometimes you’ll see one interpretation after another and none of them are privileged over the other. They will just come as a kind of encyclopedia entry or a dictionary, a lexicon, what the word could mean, what the phrase could be, as a kind of collection. And that’s probably what the collections of midrash were. They were almost like an encyclopedia in which Jewish knowledge was contained and hooked onto the particular text. We can talk about that. Nehemia: Hooked is a good example, or good phraseology. Let’s now talk about Abraham smashing the idols. If it’s not in the book of Genesis, where does it come from? Stephen: It comes from Midrash Aggadah. It comes from the attempt to explain something about, who is Abraham? What motivates him? It’s the liner notes to the album. It’s what the dramaturge knows about the character that’s not written into the play. Nehemia: Whoa, whoa, whoa. I don’t know what a dramaturge is. Help me out with that. Stephen: The dramaturge has to understand the guts, the heart, the motivations of the script, of the actors, of the staging. Nehemia: What is a dramaturge? Is that like a director, or something? I don’t know what that is. Stephen: It’s part of the team that creates a play. Nehemia: It’s called the dramaturge? Stephen: An easier example is, imagine that the student of the Hebrew Scriptures has come to be reading passages on Abraham and asks a question like a method actor, right? What’s Abraham’s motivation? We know that Abraham’s been told what to do by God, but, you know, maybe I’ve been told what to do by God sometimes, and it’s not so easy. Who is this person who was so brave to leave his homeland, and leave his family, and leave his customs, and go off and, according to tradition, to be the first monotheist? What motivated him? What was he like when he was a kid? What was his family like? Nehemia: So, I looked it up here. Dramaturge is (according to Google, take it with a grain of salt) a literary editor on the staff of a theater who consults with authors (that’s interesting) and edits texts. And you’re saying the dramaturge’s job (I love that. I’ve learned a new word here) the dramaturge’s job is to help the actor say, “Okay, when you speak this line, here’s what’s going through the head of the character.” And you mentioned method acting, which if I understand correctly, is basically, they’re not just reciting lines, they’re like, “Okay, I’m talking about, the character’s mother died. I have to think about the worst thing that ever happened in my life so I can feel the emotion of what it’s like, as close as I can for my mother.” Stephen: I know the motivation of the character I’m playing. Right. What’s Abraham’s motivation? So, in some sense, you know, there’s a linkage between the reader and the actor, right? In this case, the reader, the student, the student of the text, is trying to understand the text from the inside out. Nehemia: But if the text doesn’t tell us what Abraham’s motivation is, and you called midrash a creative process or creative technique, creative process, help the audience understand; are you just making it up? That’s the question. Stephen: You may just be making it up in practice, but the fact of the matter is, there are rules about how you can make it up as midrash develops. You can’t just come and say, “Abraham was like that because he had high cholesterol.” “Abraham was like that because he was chased by a dragon out of his homeland.” You have to tie it to something in the text. Nehemia: Oh, beautiful. Okay. Stephen: It could be a letter; it could be a curlicue on top of one of the letters. It could be the fact that a word sounds like a different word, and if you change the letter Sin and the letter Samekh, you get a different meaning. It could be you create a fault. You see a false friend and you make something of it. It could be because of the context of where the text appears. It occurs in a passage which has something before or after. It could be, even more broadly, because somewhere in the Book of Prophets, there’s a mention of Abraham saying that he had a temper. And you come and say, “Oh, we know that he must have had a temper.” How did he have a temper? He had a temper because he did the following, based on this inference that I make from the text. So, you are inferring from the text. You are looking for a hook to hang an interpretation on, or you are seeing the hook. You are seeing where there’s a discrepancy; you’re seeing where there’s something unusual in the text, and you’re trying to explain it. Nehemia: Okay. So, explain to the audience where they get the idea that Abraham smashed his father’s idols when there’s no verse that said, “And Abraham came down from the upper loft, and he smashed the idols, and he placed the hammer into the hand of the largest one.” There’s no verse like that in the Tanakh, in the Hebrew Bible. So, where do you get that from? Stephen: I would have to sit right here with the text in front of me and show you. And we could pause and try to do that. Or I think we could leave it as a sort of rule of how midrash works, which is that midrash can be highly speculative and associative and imaginative and creative, but it cannot disconnect itself from the text. Nehemia: So, I looked this up. So, I think it’s worth looking at and discussing with you and getting your input on. So, it’s Genesis 15:17, and it says, “Va’yomer elav, ani Yud-Hey-Vav-Hey asher hotzetikha mi’Ur Kasdim. “I am the LORD who took you out of Ur Kasdim.” And Ur, in ancient Hebrew actually is a word that means a furnace. And so, “I am the LORD who brought you out of the furnace of the Kasteans,” or the Chaldeans. And then what midrash does is, it basically, I mean, obviously it takes the story from the Book of Daniel, of Hananiya, Mishael, and Azariah, or I think in English it’s Shadrach, Mishael, or how do they say that? And Abednego, or something. So, in other words, they’re like, “Oh, God took Abraham out of a furnace.” And they know in the context, Ur Kasdim is the name of a place because it appears repeatedly. But I guess they’re employing the technique that you described. They want to understand; how did Abraham come to know God and how did that manifest itself? Right? And so, they’re like, “All right, God took him out of a furnace. You get thrown into a furnace by pagans because you do something against their idols.” Right? Stephen: Well, so throw their idols into a furnace. If they’re clay idols, you have to put them in the kiln. Nehemia: Fire them, that’s true. Stephen: It provides specificity; it is specific where things are amorphous. So, if I can take a text like Ur Kasdim, and I can say, “Okay, every word, every letter, or as we say in one of the sayings, every jot and tittle of text is significant.” There is no element of the immutable, perfect Written Torah that is extraneous. So, I can interpret anything, which includes saying, why is Abraham the way he is? He came from Ur Kasdim. What do I learn from that? I learn from that that there was an element of him coming out of the furnace. What does that mean? He differentiates himself from those who put something that’s meant to represent the divine in the furnace and comes out and he sees that. He says, “No, no, no. I am in the image of God. Be’tzelem Elokim.” Right? “I am a son of God. I am…” You can interpret that by focusing, not on what you feel or think, but bringing what you feel and think to a word. It has to be locked down in an interpretive act. It’s not enough for me to dream up some weird story about the first monotheist smashing a bunch of idols. I need to tie it to a specific inference from the text, and then I can go as far as I want with it. But it’s got to be tied to it. Nehemia: Talk about that, “I can go as far as I want.” And actually, just let me… I pulled up here on my Bible software program, Accordance. So, Targum Pseudo Jonathan translates Genesis 15:7. “Then He said to him, I am the Lord who brought you out of the fiery furnace of the Chaldeans.” And then we have something called the fragmentary Targumim, which has the same thing. “I am the Lord who brought you out of the furnace of fire of the Chaldeans.” So, a slightly different order of words. But in both cases, they’re interpreting Ur as basically a double interpretation; it’s both a furnace and a fiery furnace, right? So, this is an ancient interpretation which gets elaborated on, or you could say maybe the full story was known to the translator of Pseudo Jonathan and he’s putting up as much into the text as he can, right? He can’t put the whole story. I guess he could, right? But it’s going to be a push to put the whole story of the smashing the idols in. So, talk to me about this; you can go as far as you want. I’d like my audience to understand that, because it’s not as far as you want, right? You can’t say anything you want, right? Or can you? I don’t know what… you said, it’s a creative process. Stephen: Mm-hmm. Nehemia: So, how do we get from ‘there’s a furnace’ to ‘he smashed his father’s idols?’ Because part of that, you could say, is… and here I’ll use these big fancy terms. I apologize to the audience. I try to get them to understand the terms eisegesis and exegesis. Exegesis is, you read meaning out of something, and eisegesis, from the word eise in Greek, is you read meaning into something. And so, you could argue that it’s exe-gesis, reading the meaning out, to say that ur means furnace, even though maybe it’s clearly not in the context, but the story of the smashing of the idols is entirely eisegetical. There’s nothing in the text about that, even hinted at. Stephen: Well, I didn’t prepare the text in advance, and I don’t want to… Nehemia: Okay, so maybe bring a different example. Stephen: I would say that if we went line by line, I’d be willing to bet, because midrash works this way, that it is eiso and exo. Midrash is eisegesis and exegesis, but you cannot have only eisegesis, right? You can call it the Midrashic imagination, perhaps, certainly in contemporary terms, and say, “Well, I’m doing midrash because I’m interpreting Jonah as a teenager who slams the door on his parents, and he’s so angry, he’s like a teenager.” You know? I mean, you can say that, and it does have a nice midrashic feel to it, but classical midrash would require you to find something referencing Jonah behaving like a teenager in the text. Exe-gesis, right? So, an example of this idea of going as far as you want or you can. There’s a concept in midrash, and there are different forms of midrash, and one of the forms, a very popular form, is called the Petichta. Petichta. The Petichta is a homily, or an interpretive narrative, which is basically designed to go between two verses, a near verse and a far verse. Okay? So, let’s say that I’ve chosen a verse from somewhere in the wisdom literature. Let’s say I’m choosing something from the Book of Job. I choose a verse, and a Petichta is where I show you how I put together a chain of interpretations, which are exegetical, which are coming out of the text, to link between that verse from the Book of Job all the way to something from Proverbs or Psalms. It doesn’t matter. The point is that I can show you that everything is connected through exegetical interpretation. This is a performance. If I am in a synagogue in 5th century Galilee, and it is time for a sermon, I do not get up and talk necessarily about politics, or the way we would see a sermon in a synagogue or a church or a mosque necessarily in contemporary times. I would perform the feat of linking together as many verses as possible. That’s my Petichta. So, imagine it like a jazz musician. Okay? A jazz musician is taking a jazz standard, Summertime, okay? Which is not even a jazz standard, it’s just a popular song that was made into a jazz standard. And the job of the jazz musician, who’s a virtuoso, is to go crazy on that melody. Now, they’re limited by how great they are, because some jazz musicians can even play atonal things that sound right. They can bang on the side of their cello, and it fits perfectly. They can pluck the strings, they can bow the strings, they can bump the cello on the ground and have a cacophony of sound. And if they’re a really great musician, it somehow all fits together, and is connected back to when they come back around to the melody. And here comes the melody of the song that I’m interpreting again. It’s the same concept with the Petichta, or with midrash in general. It’s about a virtuoso act of engaging as much content as you can in that performative space, right? To amplify, embellish, raise up the core text by a virtuoso performance of the text and showing how it’s all connected. So, you can go all the way through the Torah and come back to where you started if you can link text to text to text to text because the basic understanding of what the Written Torah is, and what the Oral Torah does, is that it is all perfect. It all makes sense. There are no holes. You’re just to bring all your mind, all your heart, all your soul to the learning you do with it. And not only are you a better person because you’ve done that, not only, perhaps, have you solved some halachic problem because you’ve done that, but you’ve immersed yourself in something that is akin to being connected to the divine by being able to so deeply engage yourself in the Torah, through your interpretation of it, that it’s like your perfect prayer. It’s like doing all 613 of the mitzvot. It’s like very, very high level. So, midrash goes from being a way to make sense of narrative, Aggadah, or law, Halacha, to becoming a dance for dance’s sake, for playing that perfect virtuosic solo, for a jazz player, right? Because it’s not solving anything. It’s just an incredible homily that is showing the beauty and perfection of the sacred text. Midrash can be a problem solver. It can be art. Nehemia: So, tell me, in your dissertation, you have the phrase oral performance. Tell us how that plays in. What does it mean in this context? I know that that’s terminology that comes from an entire world of academic literature. Stephen: Right. Nehemia: And so, it’s a… what do you call that? A term to art, right? In other words, it’s like a technical term. What is oral performance here? Stephen: So, I learned the terminology from sort of… the classic text on this is the Singer of Tales, Albert Lord, who was collecting epic songs from essentially uneducated Slavic epic poem singers and analyzing that, and it led him to understand that memory of epic tales was a function of creating what had already been heard, not rote memorization. Okay? What it means is that, when we think about Homeric epics, we think about the Odyssey. And then, when we think about ancient tales, Gilgamesh, and when we get into the world of sacred texts like the Hebrew Bible, there’s a line between what’s written and what’s performed. It’s complicated as heck to try to explain that vis-a-vis the Hebrew Scriptures, but, you know, people have tried to do it. And the point is that, a poet, and we’re not talking about poet in the sense of someone sitting at their desk and writing poetry, we’re talking about someone who is basically the messenger of tradition; they’re somewhere between a scribe and a prophet. They are carrying those 100,000 lines of the Odyssey. Their immersion in the core text is recreated by them every time they perform it. So, I am not standing like an actor reciting lines in a play, but I am also not improvising. I am only using received content, and I am assembling it for you in real time. I am performing the epic. Nehemia: That’s the oral performance? Stephen: So, the study of oral performance theory, or the study of oral performance, is studying the ways that traditions are carried over generations, hundreds of years, thousands of years, by figures who are the performers. And then the small ways that all of us use oral, O-R-A-L, performance as a way of conveying knowledge, as a way of conveying culture. The way it comes into play in midrash is that you can imagine… here we’ll go from jazz to blues. There are certain phrases… Nehemia: And guys, Stephen here has a musical background, which I don’t know the first thing about, but go ahead. Jazz to blues. Stephen: Can you think, Nehemia, of a phrase from the blues? If I say, “Give me a classic blues phrase. A phrase from the blues.” Nehemia: I don’t even know what phrase means in the concept of blues. Is a phrase like words? Stephen: Yeah, like a couple words that fit together. Nehemia: So, if you asked me to list three blues songs, I couldn’t. If you played them to me and said, that’s blues, I’d say, “Oh, okay. That’s what you mean by blues.” I know almost nothing about music. Stephen: Okay. So, let’s take an example of… let me think of one that’s kind of new. Nehemia: What’s the most famous blues song my audience would have heard of? Stephen: I don’t know. Nehemia: What’s your favorite blues song? Stephen: I’m a big B.B. King fan. I’m trying to grab one from there. “Nobody loves me but my mother, and she might be jiving too,” okay? There’s a ream of blue songs that relate to the mother, okay? There’s a whole semantic domain (that’s a biblical phraseology, right) of songs about mothers, phrases about mothers. Okay? So, if I am standing up to present my performance, right, I’m not going to be making up new phrases about mothers, I’m going to be using phrases that I already know. Just like when the midrashist came to engage with the question of why Abraham was the way he was, just as you said. You said, or you mentioned Pseudo Yonatan, the Targum, the translation. I am actually drawing on my reservoir of phrases and stories and vocabulary that I picked up in my culture and assembling them. In Greek, the word for, to say, to speak, is lego. We use Legos to put together… Legos to make a design. Imagine texts like Legos. They are spoken, but they are assembled. I do not sit at home and create blocks of Legos out of plastic with the right little tabs so that they fit together. I go to the place where the Legos are sold in the store. They’ve been produced, they are the received tradition, and then I can assemble from them all kinds of things. I could assemble from them a picture that the Lego tells me exactly what to make, or I could make something out of them that I want to make. Okay? The idea is that there is a core vocabulary in traditions, in cultures, that are assembled to meet the moment of what the interpretation demands. So, in oral performance theory, we think about midrash, we know that there are going to be certain characters, certain phrases, certain descriptive terms, which are used over and over again, that are used for the particular interpretive moment that comes into play. And that what we have in the texts that we have, the compendiums of midrashic texts that we have, these are in some ways an attempt to replicate what those creative moments were like, what those associative moments were like. Imagine it as trying to look at, like, a snapshot of what some of those conversations, or study sessions, might have been like. That’s one way of thinking about midrash. Another way of thinking about midrash is, because no one really knows how these Midrashic collections, where they came from… you know, behind you, you have a collection of many, many old books, right? Nehemia: It’s a photo from the Bologna University Library, but yeah. Stephen: All right. Well, some of those are probably encyclopedias, right? Nehemia: Could be, yeah. Stephen: Let’s imagine that a Midrashic collection (just imagine for a sec) is like an encyclopedia. Vayikra Rabbah, Leviticus Rabbah, which I did my dissertation on, is an interpretation of the Book of Leviticus. How many verses, percentagewise… how many verses do you think of the Book of Leviticus, you know, the ultimate midrashic interpretation of the Book of Leviticus; what percentage of verses are covered in that massive encyclopedia of Leviticus Rabbah? What percentage do you think? Nehemia: I’m going to guess at 10 percent. Stephen: You under guessed, but you were not far off. It’s like around 18, 20 percent, okay? Nehemia: Okay. Stephen: Now, how can… Nehemia: In other words, this is important, guys. It’s not a systematic commentary, like, let’s say Rashi, who goes through pretty much every verse, right? “The Lord spoke to Moses saying,” he probably doesn’t have much to say. But almost every verse, his aim is to… anything that’s not clear, he’s going to try to explain. That’s the approach of, certainly, a medieval commentary. So, in one sense, it’s a commentary, but in another sense, it’s not. Stephen: That’s where the hook idea comes in, again, to go back to a previous, I guess, metaphor that we used. Imagine that I am a 4th century Rabbinic Jew who has a distant memory of a Jewish world with a Temple, where everything was centralized, more or less, who is now seeing that Christianity is the emergent dominant form of monotheism and no longer needs people to become Jewish to become Christian. And Christianity is taking over the Roman Empire. I’ve got a small community which is scattered across certain places in Israel, and, you know, you’ve got communities in different places, maybe in North Africa, in Rome. You’ve got Jewish communities, but the continuity has been snapped, okay? I don’t have anywhere where I can go to tell me what Judaism is. I have the Holy Bible, right? But my community’s been shattered. There’s no longer a Temple. The Temple was the center, right? So, what do I do? How do I teach my people what it is that we are? Well, I have all kinds of ideas. I have legal ideas. I have philosophical ideas. I have jokes. I have customs. I have all that. Where am I going to keep it? What epic poem will I use to carry the layers that I want to pass on to the next generation? I know what I’ll use. I’ll use Hebrew Scriptures, because Hebrew Scriptures have been around for thousands of years, right? And people have memorized, actually memorized Hebrew Scriptures, and we have a written version of it, which is really rare, because there’s very few books. Very few books. So, what do I do? I store the things that are important to me in the text. Imagine that the Hebrew Scriptures are like a locker where I can keep the things that are important to my culture. I know that a lot of people know the Hebrew Scriptures well, and I know that a lot of people can read Hebrew Scriptures, because it’s actually a fairly highly literate community, by those standards, because we read the Scriptures in synagogue. People know it. They certainly know it orally. And it’s done year after year, same day, same reading, et cetera. But there’s more that I need to convey. It’s not enough for me just to convey what’s in the Hebrew Scriptures, I need to convey all this other halakhic, this legal knowledge, all this customs knowledge, linguistic knowledge. I have languages that I’m speaking that… you know, I have Greek, I have Aramaic, right? So, I use the hook of the text to hang on it all kinds of other stuff that I want you to know. It’s not important for me in Vayikra Rabbah, in Leviticus Rabbah, in the, let’s say, the 4th century, to interpret every single verse of Leviticus, but it is important for me to cram into it as much as I can about what I want carried on from my culture. And that is a role the midrash plays. It is giving you the place, the character, the language, the art, the custom, the jokes, the humor (because there’s a lot of humor in there) on the hook of the Scriptures. So, midrash comes to be, both a way to carry through like a Trojan horse, right, all kinds of other stuff within it, but it also remains, remains, a tool for solving real problems. Nehemia: So, when you say there’s this hook that you’re hanging all these ideas on and all this information on, I want you to comment on this; does this mean that the person producing the midrash, or performing the midrash, however you want to call it, that they know very well that that doesn’t come from the text, but if they can connect it to the text, it can survive and live in a sense? Stephen: Imagine the midrashist as a combination of a scribe and a prophet. The scribe and the prophet are both deeply connected to the text. When Ezekiel comes to speak, Ezekiel is bringing reference back to the Scriptures all the time, and is engaged in interpretation, not just declaiming whatever Ezekiel wants to declaim. Ezekiel is coming out of a tradition. The scribe is obligated to copy down the text. So, there’s a way that the Rabbinic tradition sort of combines the role of the transmitter, of the core map, which is the Hebrew Scriptures, and the spirit of it, the launching of it, which is prophetic, in a kind of role that does both. But it’s also a bit of the judge, right? The judge is there too, because someone has to adjudicate what this text means. The prophet can tell you what is the, quote-unquote, right thing to do, or invoke, or inspire, or disparage you. The scribe can give you the best record possible. But who’s going to tell you what to do? If you’re coming with an injured goat and you need to know whether or not it can be sacrificed, in theory, right? Or if you are dealing with issues of property ownership, and you want to follow the law, but it’s not clear what the law is, who’s going to help you? So, the Midrashist is a judge, they’re a prophet, they’re a scribe, in a sense, and they’re also something else; they’re a performer. They’re an entertainer. They’re a magician. Nehemia: A magician? Stephen: Magician. Magician. Nehemia: How so? Stephen: In a sense that… because, watch this magic act I can do. I can go from a text in Job all the way to a text in Mishlei without missing a beat. I can impress you with this incredible tour de force of showing you the magic, the incredible nature of this universe of text that we live in. I’m going to wow you with it. Nehemia: Does it involve exegetical sleight of hand? In other words, you used the word magician. I’m trying to wrap my head around what you mean by that. Stephen: Because there’s magic in the text. There’s magic, not in the sense of occult. I mean, that’s not my area, right? Nehemia: Well, no, I said sleight of hand. Stephen: Magic in the sense of electricity, incredible energy. Wow. There’s a wow, this incredible text, and there’s a wow in linking the text together and seeing how the text plays with words in different places and different times in the text, to suddenly see, you know, as the story goes of, you know, Moshe Rabbeinu, of Moses. There’s a midrash that has Moses transported by the powers of time into Rabbi Akiva’s classroom. Rabbi Akiva, who’s an early Rabbinic figure, a famous one. And Moses is sitting in the back of the class, and he has no idea what’s going on. And he’s saying, “I don’t understand how it could be that I, Moses, have no understanding. This is the text that I brought. Who are these people? Right? What’s happening here?” And there’s this idea that there’s a linkage between the generations, right? And you can be linked through the text, and the text can still be the text, and it can continue to evolve. And there’s something that goes beyond any human being, even the most versatile, brilliant human being, the text is what wins the day, because all that we’re doing is coming out of it. So, you know, the tradition, the tradition, one can carry it far and wide, but ultimately the grounding for that, the force, the power, the magic, is embedded within the text itself. You can be an incredible scribal, prophetic, adjudicator, performer of the text, but just like a jazz artist or a blues musician, they will always tell you about the tradition of the blues or the tradition of the jazz. You are a servant of your genre. You are a servant of the artistry of the tradition that you’re interpreting. So, that levels an element of humility on the whole midrashic process, because as great as you can be, as far as you can travel with midrash, you can only travel as far as you know the text. That’s the number one… The most important quality of a midrashist is not imagination, it’s knowledge. But then, when you combine imagination and knowledge, then you have the amazing midrash. — Nehemia: So, I remember back a long time ago, there was this discussion in American political sphere about the meaning of the phrase crimes and misdemeanors. This was when Bill Clinton was being put up on charges of… I’m not sure what the terminology is correctly, but they were trying to have an impeachment trial. There’s what I think they call, like, the French approach, which is, “No, the law is this clay from which I mold what I want it to be.” And then there’s the originalist approach, which says, “I have to find out what they thought it meant, the people who formulated this law.” Where does midrash come into those two approaches? You have been listening to Hebrew Voices with Nehemia Gordon. Thank you for supporting [https://www.nehemiaswall.com/support] Nehemia Gordon’s Makor Hebrew Foundation. Learn more at NehemiasWall.com [https://www.nehemiaswall.com]. We hope the above transcript has proven to be a helpful resource in your study. While much effort has been taken to provide you with this transcript, it should be noted that the text has not been reviewed by the speakers and its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. If you would like to support our efforts to transcribe the teachings on NehemiasWall.com, please visit our support [https://www.nehemiaswall.com/support] page. All donations are tax-deductible (501c3) and help us empower people around the world with the Hebrew sources of their faith! SHARE THIS TEACHING WITH YOUR FRIENDS! https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nehemiaswall.com%2Fmidrash-for-the-modern-day-1&linkname=Hebrew%20Voices%20%23248%20%E2%80%93%20Midrash%20for%20the%20Modern%20Day%3A%20Part%201https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/telegram?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nehemiaswall.com%2Fmidrash-for-the-modern-day-1&linkname=Hebrew%20Voices%20%23248%20%E2%80%93%20Midrash%20for%20the%20Modern%20Day%3A%20Part%201https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nehemiaswall.com%2Fmidrash-for-the-modern-day-1&linkname=Hebrew%20Voices%20%23248%20%E2%80%93%20Midrash%20for%20the%20Modern%20Day%3A%20Part%201https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nehemiaswall.com%2Fmidrash-for-the-modern-day-1&linkname=Hebrew%20Voices%20%23248%20%E2%80%93%20Midrash%20for%20the%20Modern%20Day%3A%20Part%201https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/whatsapp?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nehemiaswall.com%2Fmidrash-for-the-modern-day-1&linkname=Hebrew%20Voices%20%23248%20%E2%80%93%20Midrash%20for%20the%20Modern%20Day%3A%20Part%201https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/x?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nehemiaswall.com%2Fmidrash-for-the-modern-day-1&linkname=Hebrew%20Voices%20%23248%20%E2%80%93%20Midrash%20for%20the%20Modern%20Day%3A%20Part%201https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/copy_link?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nehemiaswall.com%2Fmidrash-for-the-modern-day-1&linkname=Hebrew%20Voices%20%23248%20%E2%80%93%20Midrash%20for%20the%20Modern%20Day%3A%20Part%201https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nehemiaswall.com%2Fmidrash-for-the-modern-day-1&title=Hebrew%20Voices%20%23248%20%E2%80%93%20Midrash%20for%20the%20Modern%20Day%3A%20Part%201 ---------------------------------------- Subscribe to "Nehemia Gordon" on your favorite podcast app! Apple Podcasts [https://geo.itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/nehemias-wall-podcast/id935092991?mt=2] | Amazon Music [https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/f059eda6-8a58-4e8d-9ba1-290ffb0dd613/dr-nehemia-gordon---bible-scholar-at-nehemiaswall-com] | TuneIn [http://tunein.com/radio/Nehemias-Wall-p888757/] Pocket Casts [https://pca.st/Y4ZW] | Podcast Addict [https://podcastaddict.com/podcast/dr-nehemia-gordon-bible-scholar-at-nehemiaswallcom/4574109] | CastBox [https://castbox.fm/channel/Dr.-Nehemia-Gordon---Bible-Scholar-at-NehemiasWall.com-id384877?country=us] | iHeartRadio [https://www.iheart.com/podcast/256-nehemias-wall-podcast-31110272/] | Podchaser [https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/dr-nehemia-gordon-bible-schola-142019] | Pandora [https://www.pandora.com/podcast/dr-nehemia-gordon-bible-scholar-at-nehemiaswallcom/PC:53432] ---------------------------------------- SUPPORT NEHEMIA'S RESEARCH AND TEACHINGS (Please click here to donate) [https://www.nehemiaswall.com/support] Makor Hebrew Foundationis a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Your donation is tax-deductible. [https://i0.wp.com/www.nehemiaswall.com/wp-content/uploads/Support-the-Mission-Choosen.png?resize=512%2C342&ssl=1]https://www.nehemiaswall.com/support ---------------------------------------- VERSES MENTIONED Genesis 25:22 Genesis 9:5 Deuteronomy 13:14 Deuteronomy 18:11 Mishnah Pirkei Avot Genesis 15:7 Babylonian Talmud Menachot 29b BOOKS MENTIONED The Singer of Tales (@57:31, Pt 1) Amazon.com: About Man and God and Law: The Spiritual Wisdom of Bob Dylan [https://www.amazon.com/About-Man-God-Law-Spiritual/dp/1631956884/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=8-1] RELATED EPISODES Hebrew Voices Episodes [https://www.nehemiaswall.com/category/media/audio/hebrew-voices] Hebrew Voices #245 – Secrets of the Jots and Tittles: Part 1 [https://www.nehemiaswall.com/secrets-jots-tittles-1] Support Team Study - Secrets of the jots and Tittles: Part 2 [https://www.nehemiaswall.com/secrets-jots-tittles-2] OTHER LINKS Fuchsberg Jerusalem Center [https://fuchsbergcenter.org/] Stephen Daniel Arnoff | Discover. Grow. Inspire — Get Started Today [https://www.stephendanielarnoff.com/] [https://i0.wp.com/www.nehemiaswall.com/wp-content/uploads/webstore-banner-big.png?resize=584%2C307&ssl=1]https://store.nehemiaswall.com The post Hebrew Voices #248 – Midrash for the Modern Day: Part 1 [https://www.nehemiaswall.com/midrash-for-the-modern-day-1] appeared first on Nehemia's Wall [https://www.nehemiaswall.com].

8 de jul de 2026 - 1 h 18 min
Portada del episodio SNEAK PEEK! Talmudic Judaism & the New Testament

SNEAK PEEK! Talmudic Judaism & the New Testament

Sneak Peek! Talmudic Judaism & the New Testament [https://i0.wp.com/www.nehemiaswall.com/wp-content/uploads/STS-SP-Talmudic-Judaism-the-New-Testament1.png?resize=584%2C329&ssl=1]https://www.nehemiaswall.com/sp-talmudic-judaism-new-testament Watch the Sneak Peek [https://www.nehemiaswall.com/sp-talmudic-judaism-new-testament] of this Support Team Study: Talmudic Judaism & the New Testament, where Nehemia and Prof. Lawrence Schiffman discuss the importance of the New Testament as a witness to Jewish history, as well as how the Talmud has been abused against the Jewish people. I look forward to reading your comments! PODCAST VERSION: Download Audio [https://audio.nehemiaswall.com/Downloads/SP-Talmudic-Judaism-New-Testament.mp3] https://www.nehemiaswall.com/support-team-members-only-contentWATCH THE FULL EPISODE TOMORROW PLUS HUNDREDS OF HOURS OF OTHER IN-DEPTH STUDIES BY BECOMING A SUPPORT TEAM MEMBER! [https://www.nehemiaswall.com/support-team-members-only-content] Talmudic Judaism & the New Testament [https://i0.wp.com/www.nehemiaswall.com/wp-content/uploads/STS-Talmudic-Judaism-the-New-Testament1.png?resize=584%2C329&ssl=1] ---------------------------------------- SHARE THIS TEACHING WITH YOUR FRIENDS! https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nehemiaswall.com%2Fsp-talmudic-judaism-new-testament&linkname=SNEAK%20PEEK%21%20Talmudic%20Judaism%20%26%20the%20New%20Testamenthttps://www.addtoany.com/add_to/telegram?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nehemiaswall.com%2Fsp-talmudic-judaism-new-testament&linkname=SNEAK%20PEEK%21%20Talmudic%20Judaism%20%26%20the%20New%20Testamenthttps://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nehemiaswall.com%2Fsp-talmudic-judaism-new-testament&linkname=SNEAK%20PEEK%21%20Talmudic%20Judaism%20%26%20the%20New%20Testamenthttps://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nehemiaswall.com%2Fsp-talmudic-judaism-new-testament&linkname=SNEAK%20PEEK%21%20Talmudic%20Judaism%20%26%20the%20New%20Testamenthttps://www.addtoany.com/add_to/whatsapp?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nehemiaswall.com%2Fsp-talmudic-judaism-new-testament&linkname=SNEAK%20PEEK%21%20Talmudic%20Judaism%20%26%20the%20New%20Testamenthttps://www.addtoany.com/add_to/x?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nehemiaswall.com%2Fsp-talmudic-judaism-new-testament&linkname=SNEAK%20PEEK%21%20Talmudic%20Judaism%20%26%20the%20New%20Testamenthttps://www.addtoany.com/add_to/copy_link?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nehemiaswall.com%2Fsp-talmudic-judaism-new-testament&linkname=SNEAK%20PEEK%21%20Talmudic%20Judaism%20%26%20the%20New%20Testamenthttps://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nehemiaswall.com%2Fsp-talmudic-judaism-new-testament&title=SNEAK%20PEEK%21%20Talmudic%20Judaism%20%26%20the%20New%20Testament ---------------------------------------- Subscribe to "Nehemia Gordon" on your favorite podcast app! Apple Podcasts [https://geo.itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/nehemias-wall-podcast/id935092991?mt=2] | Amazon Music [https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/f059eda6-8a58-4e8d-9ba1-290ffb0dd613/dr-nehemia-gordon---bible-scholar-at-nehemiaswall-com] | TuneIn [http://tunein.com/radio/Nehemias-Wall-p888757/] Pocket Casts [https://pca.st/Y4ZW] | Podcast Addict [https://podcastaddict.com/podcast/dr-nehemia-gordon-bible-scholar-at-nehemiaswallcom/4574109] | CastBox [https://castbox.fm/channel/Dr.-Nehemia-Gordon---Bible-Scholar-at-NehemiasWall.com-id384877?country=us] | iHeartRadio [https://www.iheart.com/podcast/256-nehemias-wall-podcast-31110272/] | Podchaser [https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/dr-nehemia-gordon-bible-schola-142019] | Pandora [https://www.pandora.com/podcast/dr-nehemia-gordon-bible-scholar-at-nehemiaswallcom/PC:53432] ---------------------------------------- SUPPORT NEHEMIA'S RESEARCH AND TEACHINGS (Please click here to donate) [https://www.nehemiaswall.com/support] Makor Hebrew Foundationis a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Your donation is tax-deductible. [https://i0.wp.com/www.nehemiaswall.com/wp-content/uploads/Support-the-Mission-Choosen.png?resize=512%2C342&ssl=1]https://www.nehemiaswall.com/support ---------------------------------------- [https://i0.wp.com/www.nehemiaswall.com/wp-content/uploads/webstore-banner-big.png?resize=584%2C307&ssl=1]https://store.nehemiaswall.com The post SNEAK PEEK! Talmudic Judaism & the New Testament [https://www.nehemiaswall.com/sp-talmudic-judaism-new-testament] appeared first on Nehemia's Wall [https://www.nehemiaswall.com].

30 de jun de 2026 - 5 min
Portada del episodio Hebrew Voices #247 – Dead Sea Scrolls & the War of Light vs. Darkness

Hebrew Voices #247 – Dead Sea Scrolls & the War of Light vs. Darkness

[https://i0.wp.com/www.nehemiaswall.com/wp-content/uploads/HV-247-1920x1080-1.png?resize=584%2C329&ssl=1]https://www.nehemiaswall.com/dead-sea-scrolls-war-of-light In this episode of Hebrew Voices #247 - Dead Sea Scrolls & the War of Light vs. Darkness [https://www.nehemiaswall.com/dead-sea-scrolls-war-of-light], Nehemia sits down with Professor Lawrence Schiffman, NYU's leading Dead Sea Scrolls scholar, to explore the sectarian battles that gave rise to these mysterious texts. From the War Scroll's apocalyptic vision to Sadducean and Pharisaic clashes over control of the Temple itself, they uncover what the scrolls reveal about ancient Judaism, drawing surprising parallels to today's Middle East conflicts. I look forward to reading your comments! PODCAST VERSION: Download Audio [https://audio.nehemiaswall.com/Downloads/Hebrew-Voices-247-Dead-Sea-Scrolls-the-War-of-Light-vs-Darkness.mp3] Transcript Hebrew Voices #247 – Dead Sea Scrolls & the War of Light vs. Darkness You are listening to Hebrew Voices with Nehemia Gordon. Thank you for supporting [https://www.nehemiaswall.com/support] Nehemia Gordon's Makor Hebrew Foundation. Learn more at NehemiasWall.com [https://www.nehemiaswall.com]. Nehemia: So, if you went to a synagogue in the year 1,500 in Marrakesh or in Lithuania, you wouldn’t hear a sermon, you’re saying, on Shabbat? Prof. Schiffman: Not on a regular Shabbat. Nehemia: Wow. And you’re saying it’s Christian influence to have a sermon in the synagogue. Prof. Schiffman: Yeah, yeah. Nehemia: Wow! Prof. Schiffman: So, I want to say something about jihad. I think the West doesn’t want to face the reality of what jihad really is. That’s why they can’t understand. And people ask them, “What good did it do to destroy the World Trade Center? All you did was kill people.” No, that is the idea, to kill people. — Nehemia: Shalom, and welcome to Hebrew Voices. I’m here today with Prof. Lawrence Schiffman. He is the Global Distinguished Professor of Hebrew and Judaic Studies, Director of Graduate Studies for the MA program at New York University, NYU. He’s a specialist in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Judaism and Late Antiquity, the History of Jewish Law and Talmudic Literature. And he’s given an audio lecture, which I love the title, The Dead Sea Scrolls – The Truth Behind the Mystique in the Hebrew Bible. I found that on your website. Shalom, Prof. Schiffman. Prof. Schiffman: Hi, shalom. How are you? Nehemia: I’m doing well. I know you were just over in Israel when the war with Iran started, and before the recording you started to tell me. I said, “Save this for the guests.” What happened when you were in Israel and the missiles started flying? Prof. Schiffman: Yeah, we were in the synagogue on Shabbat morning… Nehemia: Okay. Prof. Schiffman: …when suddenly you had some kind of people, I don’t know, milling around and saying things to one another, right? And then, before maybe two or three minutes went beyond that, everybody knew what was going on. Apparently, some officers had been paged, and so they told everybody else what was going on. And at that point, the question was, how long are we going to get on with the service before we have to go to a shelter? But actually, we made it through the whole service before we had to go to shelters later on. So, that was the first beginning of the war. Then, of course, we have an apartment. I was in our apartment with its own shelter. So, I was, of course, in and out of the shelter like everybody else. Actually, that Shabbat I was at my son’s, and we were all in his shelter once or twice. And that was no worse than the sad fact that some people really have missiles hitting either where they are or very close. So, we just, so to speak, suffered running in and out of a shelter. And then I went back to Jerusalem, spent a few days there. But I had a problem because I ended up canceling one day of classes. I teach all my classes on one day. I ended up canceling them after consulting with people at NYU because I really didn’t have the right stuff to make it into an internet class. I didn’t have any of the materials with me because I expected to be home. Nehemia: Ah, so your flight was canceled and you couldn’t make it home to New York. Prof. Schiffman: Yeah, all the flights were canceled because it’s dangerous. Then NYU went into action with a company, that’s a security company that they use that specializes in evacuations, and I and a colleague, his wife and son, were, in quotes, “evacuated”, close quotes, by going to Egypt, and we drove to Egypt. We had security guards (which in Israel you don’t really need, but in Egypt you do need) but in any case, we drove to Taba, which is at the border. We made a perfectly normal, orderly border crossing into Egypt, along with a lot of other people doing the same thing, one way or the other, and we crossed into Egypt. And we had a car that picked us up, again, with security. We drove to Sharm el-Sheikh. We spent seven hours in a very fancy hotel, and I found out the hotel was only 150 dollars. You could say… sort of a privilege. They were constantly writing us, you know, “Where are you, you know, are you moving on?” So, each stage of the trip… so, I joked with her later that you only put us in 150 dollar hotel, it turns out that it’s very cheap to go to Sharm el-Sheikh in the most luxurious hotel! And we were there for seven hours, got a little sleep. Twelve midnight, left for our airport to make our three o’clock flight, and then, because we wanted to get back before Shabbat, they couldn’t really get us a very good flight. So, we flew from Sharm el-Sheikh to Istanbul. We went from there to Amsterdam, Amsterdam to New York, but all those were regular flights, you know, normal, sitting in the airport, waiting, getting on the plane, you know, moving on. And that was what happened. And it was really, actually turned out to be, for me, to be a great opportunity to see a part of Egypt I hadn’t seen. I was in Egypt; my wife and I were there in 1979 between Sadat’s visit to Jerusalem and the peace treaty. And so, it was a chance here to see Sharm el-Sheikh, Sinai on the right, the desert on the right (you get a sense what it’s like) and on the left, the shore of the Red Sea, the western shore of the Red Sea. I had only seen that from a boat many years ago when I was on a cruise that went to Aqaba. And when we went to Petra and got to spend one day at Petra on horseback with some Arab driver with a rifle, and it was a lot of fun. So, anyhow, the bottom line, right, the evacuation was not bad and provided me some interesting opportunities. And I can only say that we have to be concerned for people who are suffering, but I would not put myself in that classification. Nehemia: Yeah, okay. Well, yeah, and I have a lot of family over there, and they’re… Prof. Schiffman: Yeah, everyone seems to be… our family’s in and out of shelters, but as they say, if you follow directions, you’re almost 100 percent safe. Nehemia: I saw a video the other day of this guy, he was alone in his house, and he said, “Look, my wife’s not even here, I’m not going to run into the shelter. I mean, nothing’s going to happen anyway.” And he said, “You know what? If I don’t run in the shelter, my wife will be upset with me.” He runs into the shelter, and his entire house is obliterated. The shelter is in perfect condition. Prof. Schiffman: Yep. Nehemia: So, I mean, this is happening. So, you know, I asked my sister and my mother the other day, “So, are you getting used to this? Is it becoming normalized?” And they both said, “There’s nothing normal about this. It’s surreal.” Prof. Schiffman: Yeah. I think… Nehemia: So, one of them said it’s like having a baby that wakes you up in the middle of the night, but the baby’s trying to kill you. Prof. Schiffman: But, you know, I want to point out here that the events of this war and what led up to it starting the Gaza War, et cetera; this is sort of on the scale of the Six Day War in terms of major, major change in the whole power structure. I mean, when you think about it, that Israel is clearly the main military power. And, you know, Turkey is staying out, wisely. They are a serious military power, but they know that they’re certainly not a competitor, and they’re not interested in the whole thing. So, what happens by the time this is over is that Israel unquestionably is the main military power, and you’ve got, right now, Arab nations being protected in different ways by Israel. And forgetting for a moment about the constant discussion about diplomatic relations, the fact is that the relations between Israel and their neighbors, and those countries that used to be their enemies, are just radically different. And even if they’re not the ones that we would best prefer, that these differences are really important. I think the big deal that we have to wait to see is what happens with the government of Iran. And I know that Israel has backed down from claiming that they’re there to overthrow Iran, but it would be a great shame if Iran didn’t return to being the great country that it used to be. And I’d love to visit. That’s another thing. And by the way, I live on a street where most of the people living on the street are either people who had their childhood in Iran, or, if they didn’t have their childhood in Iran, they were born in America shortly after the parents’ arrival from Iran. I mean, most of the families on my street are Persian Jews. So, you know, I’m sort of, like, in closer contact with what’s going on there. It would be a shame if it didn’t go back to being a great country. Nehemia: Yeah. Prof. Schiffman: And what’s really interesting about Iran is how they can talk the way they can talk, begging the U.S. and Israel to attack them, when they have no resources at all. Very strange. Nehemia: So, this is a good segue to your field of expertise, which is the Dead Sea Scrolls. And what comes to mind here is milchemet b’nei or u’bnei choshekh; the war of the sons of light and the sons of darkness… Prof. Schiffman: Yeah. Nehemia: …who, you had another group of people who perhaps weren’t living quite in reality, who thought they were going to fight an apocalyptic war against a foreign adversary, although those were Jews wanting to fight the Romans. So, this is really an interesting parallel. Is the mindset of these people in Iran, these fanatics; how does that compare to the people who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls? In other words, you can’t possibly defeat the Romans. What are you thinking? Prof. Schiffman: Right. So, I would go back for a second and say there are two different questions to discuss here. One question is the one you’ve already hit on, which is simply the question, how does a group, and this happened with the Jews in the revolt against Rome. It happened several times. These guys expected to revolt. They prayed to revolt. They wrote a text to revolt, but they didn’t do it. Now, imagine what happens. We have, first of all, 63 BC, the Romans conquered the place. Then you’ve got the two revolts of 66 to 73, 132 to 5, which are totally hopeless from the start. Josephus has the speech of Agrippa that says they’re totally hopeless. So, our friends at Qumran, they share with a lot of other people the hope to overthrow Rome and be independent, even if it’s literally messianic. And even in the case of two revolts, if it fails. So, that is something they do indeed share with our friends, apparently, in Iran, who thought that they could overpower the great powers. Nehemia: What do you mean by “it’s literally messianic?” I’m not sure that my audience knows… That’s an Israeli term that I think means something different to most of the world. Prof. Schiffman: No, I think it’s something that’s very important to realize. Now we’re back to what I was going to say is the second thing. The second thing is that the type of Islam, this particular Sunni Islam and its Iranian variety, believe in a messianic redemption, which is not the case in most forms of Islam. Now, the Mahdi is supposed to come after great suffering of the people. So, you have a kind of ascetic messianism here, which seems to be part of this kind of Islamism. Now, when we go to the Dead Sea Sectarians, you have an apocalyptic form of Judaism, but I don’t know whether or not the almost suicidal desire to suffer along the way is part of that. There’s an assumption when you read the War Scroll and some of the other texts that they’re simply going to win a gigantic battle against the enemies of good who represent, as you said earlier, the children of darkness, sons of darkness. So, I think in each case, there is a certain form of apocalypticism that is motivating them. One can sort of jokingly say that the Qumran Sectarians were smart enough, apparently, not to start the war that the Iranians started, right? Nehemia: So, this raises a really interesting… and you said messianism, and I want you to define that because I think a lot of my audience will not understand. So, in Israel, we’ll talk about, you know, something being meshichi, messianic, but it doesn’t mean the same thing in Jewish culture as it does outside of Jewish culture. So, what do you mean by “there’s a messianism?” Prof. Schiffman: Well, I think the point is like this; that in a messianic ideology, messianic ideologies of Judaism come in two forms, the restorative and the utopian. This is something the great scholar Gershom Sholem worked out, and Shemaryahu Talmon wrote about it also for Dead Sea Scrolls. I wrote about it. The idea is like this: that in restorative messianism, that’s a kind of natural thing. That there once was a great empire, and you want to restore it. So, you work to re-attain the greatness of the empire that you had before. And you have a vision of restoring this greatness after having lost it. This is a rational thing, because this goes along with trying to make all the improvements, what they call in Kabbalah “tikkun”, to try to make the world better and better, and to bring about a redemptive state. But then you have the other form. The other form, which is the utopian, is looking to create a society that never existed. That society that never existed is going to be created, usually, after some kind of violent war. This violent war is going to lead to an overturning of the whole world order. Now, it is expected that this type of violent war will lead to the destruction of all evildoers. This is the war of the sons of light against the sons of darkness. The destruction of all the evildoers, and in the end, the group itself is the remaining, so to speak, winners in this apocalyptic process. Now, both are messianic. This is a messianic-type view which we would probably use the word apocalyptic, despite the tremendous scholarly debate about what that word really means. I like to use the word the way the dictionary uses it. I think that’s sometimes the best thing to do. Nehemia: Which is what? So, what does apocalyptic mean? Prof. Schiffman: Looking at that, that’s a kind of messianism which they usually mean when they say something is messianic, because it’s not realistic. And it’s not realistic and expects that something is going to happen to provide some kind of ideal situation that never existed. Like when the Jewish sources say there’ll be no disease, in some sources, at the end of days. That would be absolutely phenomenal. Nehemia: Mm-hmm. Prof. Schiffman: But we realize that the rational type messianists, like Maimonides, will come and say, “No! What are you talking about? Of course there’ll be disease. But people will be better people, and they’ll try and help the diseased person more. The guy will never have to wait to get someone to cross the street for him if he can’t walk. But the fact of the matter is that there’ll still be natural order.” So, the utopian type of messianism is what you’re talking about in the Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness. And that’s the type of messianism which is part of, I say part, of the Iranian type view, because we can never discount the fact that the Iranians have taken over the whole heritage of Islamism and reshaped it in their own Sunni variety. So, it’s not the same as the Muslim Brotherhood because they’re influenced by Shi’ism. The two groups are influencing one another, but the fact is that what we call Islamism involves a commitment to a violent overthrow of the reality that we have today. And that’s where there’s some kind of continuity here, where… Nehemia: So, I guess maybe I have a little bit of a different question. So, I’m young enough where, when I was growing up, there was this new movement, which was when Chabad started the chanting, “We want Mashiach now, we don’t want to wait.” But even Chabad didn’t mean “we’re going to implement,” I don’t think they meant, “we’re going to implement actively some of the things that we expect to,” let’s just say it. Meaning like, in other words, part of the Mashiach coming in Judaism is that the Third Temple is rebuilt. But nobody in Chabad in the 1970s was saying, “Oh, let’s go tear down the mosque,” because that will require some kind of supernatural intervention. Prof. Schiffman: Right, right. Nehemia: And the difference is, so in Judaism, at least as I’ve experienced it, this messianism is somewhat hypothetical. And then in Israel, when they’ll say meshichi, messianic, what they mean is somebody who takes it from the hypothetical to the active and says, “Okay, we’re going to go and settle on a hilltop in Judea because that will bring closer the coming of the Mashiach.” And I’m not saying whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing, let’s leave those politics aside. Prof. Schiffman: Right, right, right. Nehemia: And I heard this from Haviv Retig Gur in a video he did where he was talking about that Twelver Shi’ism was very passive. Right? You would fast for the coming of the Mahdi and you would pray for the coming of the Mahdi. And then Khomeini comes in the 70s and says, “No, let’s make this happen…” Prof. Schiffman: Right. You got it. Nehemia: “…by triggering a world war.” So, to what extent was the people who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, when they wrote The War of the Sons of Light and Sons of Darkness, was this Chabad saying, “We want Mashiach now, we don’t want to wait?” Or was this, “No, let’s trigger this war?” That’s my question. And do we know? Prof. Schiffman: Well, it looks… here’s the problem. The problem is that we still can’t figure out the extent to which the War Scroll is a kind of theoretical hope or something realistic. First of all, we need to remind people that in the War Scroll, there is a whole system of scheduled battles one after another with the nations around Israel, who are the ancient biblical enemies of the Jewish people. And each one is getting defeated one by one. Now, of course, we know that no war actually would work that way. So, there’s something idealistic about the way they pose the war. And then there are idealistic legal rulings that the text has regarding fulfilling the laws of war of Deuteronomy and ritual purity and other stuff like that, that does make it seem that it’s some kind of theoretical framework. And of course, as everybody knows, they were apparently not collecting arms. Or at least none were found at Qumran in the excavations. Somebody took one knife that he found there and made a big deal about it, “Well, maybe this is the war.” No, that doesn’t make any sense. You’re not making a war with one knife. So, the point is, these are not the people of Masada (even if some of them may have run away there during the destruction of Qumran) but it’s not the people of Masada who are actively involved as the Sicarii in a revolt against Rome. So, it seems that what you’re dealing with here is a theoretical framework, and whether they really thought this framework would come about soon or not, I think they thought that there would be, soon, a divinely inspired messianic revolution. But there are others who think the opposite. The difference, however, is, if we come back to the Israeli example, I think virtually all, if you want to call them more messianic forms of Israeli Judaism, have certain lines that are created by Jewish law which prevent certain types of actions. And once in a while, they may be violated. And there also may be some very confused people, because some of these groups do indeed have very confused people who do think that they should take actions that Judaism basically doesn’t think they should take. Nehemia: What are some of those laws? Because you’re an expert on Jewish halakha historically. Prof. Schiffman: Yeah, so I’ll give you an example of what I’m talking about. I teach a class almost every morning in our synagogue between two morning services. That is to say, people go to one or the other, and depending on where you’re going, you can stay after for the class or come early for the class. And it’s in the Sefer Hachinukh, which is a work that goes through the entire 613 commandments and laws pertaining to them, et cetera. Now, we are almost done with this book, having started in 2019. We used a 10-volume edition, and we are now on commandment 604. Nehemia: Oh, wow. Prof. Schiffman: Now, why do I mention this? Because we right now are on the destruction of Amalek. Now, this is a perfect example that a crazy messianist might think he’s supposed to destroy Amalek. Guess what? According to Jewish law, you may not destroy. Yes, you must remember. Yes, you must read a portion in the Torah that reminds you what Amalek did to the Jewish people, but you’re not allowed to kill an Amalekite because, A, we don’t know who the Amalekites are, and B, you’re not allowed to kill anybody without giving them a right to surrender or run away. Now, the point is that here you see Jewish law coming and making, obviously, a crazy messianist would think the end of days is a great way to kill all the bad guys. So, who’s Amalek? So, we can all make our own judgments. I think today many Jews tend to associate a certain group of people, a certain subgroup of that group as Amalek, right? And you can’t just kill them! Nehemia: In other words, this is a law… Prof. Schiffman: … a person in a Hamas uniform who’s just standing there, right, and think, “Oh, I think he’s Amalek, I’ll kill him,” right? You may not do that. If he shoots at you, sure, right? But the point I’m making is that Jewish law has cut off the ability to put this almost messianic idea of destruction of all evil. To do it. You can’t do it! Or the conquering the seven nations. You can’t decide that the Palestinians are the Seven Nations, and therefore that you can kill them to get them off the land. Now, we see in the news there are some very unfortunately sick individuals who seem to be perpetrating crimes against innocent Palestinians. But of course, we all know that any sensible person thinks that this is horrible and thinks they should be arrested and thrown in jail or whatever else. So, the point that I’m making is that Jewish law, in that example, stops you from putting through what someone might think is messianic. Now, when it comes to the Temple, according to Jewish law, most people believe you’re not even supposed to go on the Temple Mount because of our ritual impurity. So, you can’t just go up there and destroy the mosque, et cetera, et cetera. This is not to mention minor issues, if you want to call it that, like Jewish legal restrictions on destroying someone else’s property. There’s a building there. Who are you? So, the point is, what happens in all these situations is that it gets put off for a real Messiah, where we will really believe this person is divinely sent, and the whole world will turn to worship God and want this to happen. That’s the point. Nehemia: So, what’s interesting here is… Prof. Schiffman: Your point is right. These things are put off in a way that certain actions can’t be taken. But other actions, and we’ll go back to Chabad for a second… Nehemia: Mhm. Prof. Schiffman: …trying to create a world, which is a perfect world in which we have brought about the messianic era, that you should do. That’s the difference. Nehemia: But they do it not by killing people, they do it by saying, “We’re going to put on tefillin, phylacteries every morning…” Prof. Schiffman: Right. Nehemia: “…we’re going to keep Shabbat perfectly,” right? That’s Chabad’s strategy, which is a very different strategy… Prof. Schiffman: I’ve often made a not-nice joke… Nehemia: Okay, what’s that? Prof. Schiffman: There’s one group of people where, if you’re really very, very religious you kill people. And there’s another group of people where, if you’re really very, very religious you study Torah all day and don’t work, and that’s a very big contrast. Because I’ll take the second one over the first one anytime. And it’s a very important contrast, because sometimes we like to criticize some Jewish brethren who have become very fanatical. Nehemia: Mm-hmm. Prof. Schiffman: But at least the fanaticism almost always is limited to that type of activity. And when it’s not, the Jewish community opposes them. For example, that crazy sect that was mistreating children and marrying the… Nehemia: Lev Tahor in Guatemala, or something… Prof. Schiffman: …but they’re condemned by everybody, right? I remember a very interesting thing. When they were in Montreal, the government in Montreal wanted to take away the children. Who was ready to take in the children? The Belzer Hasidim. Why? Because these are Hasidim, they like the same clothes, but, of course, they were completely against the sick behavior of these people. So, the point I’m making is that, within the Jewish community, when somebody doesn’t understand where the proper lines are for this type of activity, the community comes and says, “You’ve gone overboard. Sorry, you can’t do this.” Nehemia: So, this is a really important point. It’s a bit beyond the Dead Sea Scrolls, but I think it’s a really important point. So, leading up to October 7th, there were all these broadcasts on Al Jazeera. I watched a lot of them. And they were showing Jews, particularly in the context of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, or it’s actually the Dome of the Rock, because most Jews don’t care about the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Prof. Schiffman: You’re right. Nehemia: So, there’s a confusion there on their part. They don’t know the difference. But in any event, they were saying, “Well, the Jews want to build their temple. They’re going to destroy our mosque, and we have to go defend it.” Right? Prof. Schiffman: Right, they do that all the time… Nehemia: They were whipping up the Palestinian population, because I think a Qatari likes nothing more than a dead Palestinian, unfortunately. So, Al Jazeera is whipping them up into this frenzy. And what they don’t understand is, and I want you to comment on this; I think it kind of fits with what you’re saying. The prayer for Jews to rebuild the Temple is, “Well, God’s going to have to do that. We’re not going to tear down any mosque.” But in the Muslim mind, and this is interesting, so, this is a debate within Islam; is jihad an individual obligation or is it an umma, a national obligation? And people like bin Laden were saying it’s an individual obligation. If you see a Jew… or ISIS in particular, they literally said this. They put out things to the Muslims of America. They said, “You have these gun shows. Go buy the guns and start killing people. What’s wrong with you?” And a rational Muslim says, “Wait a minute. Yes, maybe there’s some obligation to wage war in the name of Allah, but I’m not individually going to do that!” Is there any Jew… and of course, maybe there’s crazy people, right? But most Jews are not looking and saying, “Oh, we should go personally tear down the mosque.” The world will decide that when… Prof. Schiffman: That’s right. There’s something also very important to understand, and this is going to sound a little funny. The government of the State of Israel exercises a certain legal control, which makes very clear to people that certain activities are not going to be permitted. So, just as an example, the people who want to bring an animal for Passover onto the Temple Mount and sacrifice, will not get onto the Temple Mount with that animal. On the other hand, the government has decided that if a Jew wants to open a prayer book on the Temple Mount, they should be allowed to. Because they decided this now. They used to forbid it. Now, the point I want to make, though, is that the government and its laws exercise a certain control which is there, besides the inner religious control. So that if a person is going to go overboard in some of these things, the government will say this is not right. Now, these other governments are telling their citizens that they should kill people! So, I want to say something about jihad. I think the West doesn’t want to face the reality of what jihad really is. That’s what they can’t understand. People ask them, “What good did it do to destroy the World Trade Center? All you did was kill people.” No! That is the idea, to kill people. Now, this is something we have a lot of trouble with, right? We don’t totally understand why someone thinks that simply killing people is a good thing. And we have to face reality that some of the Islamist groups are at that level of commitment to a type of jihad which may be destructive. Now, in the Jewish messianic idea, the idea is to be constructive. So, that also is going to affect the whole scene. But the problem about the jihadist is, the jihadist doesn’t care if it’s destructive. And I think, you know, with ISIS, you see this functioning in the extreme. But I think it’s important to understand that, like, I’ve got to tell you that people don’t realize this, that the type of Islamist point of view that has now become what we call Islamism, in reality is encouraging, as you saw on the TV, this type of stuff. And as you said, the rational Muslim knows better, because it doesn’t accomplish anything. Or wants to live according to classical Islam, in which the Jew and the Christian is a protected minority. Nehemia: So, there’s a really important point here that I think some of my audience will miss. I’m familiar with the terminology, but they might not be. You use the term Islamism, and then Islam or Islamic, and there’s a difference. Prof. Schiffman: Yes. Nehemia: Would you explain that? Because… Prof. Schiffman: Okay, there’s this person called a Muslim, okay? That’s a person who believes in Islam. Islam is the correct name for the religion, like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. However, Islamic today is used in one and two different ways. I usually avoid using it for that reason, because it’s sometimes used just to describe what is the adjective Muslim would describe, but sometimes it refers to what we call Islamists. Now, Islamists are people who believe in what we consider to be a fanatical form of Islam in which jihad is a central idea. Now, this is complicated because it comes in different varieties. Because the main varieties of it are, I would say, maybe now three. You have, I guess what we could call the most crazy, ISIS, right, which is almost dead, but not totally dead. It’s still operating in the Syrian desert. You know, I was in Syria for two days. I have now my passport… Nehemia: You were in Syria for two days? Prof. Schiffman: Yeah, I was in Syria for two days in September. It was great, fascinating. Nehemia: What… Prof. Schiffman: We were guests of the government. It was a wonderful, wonderful experience. Nehemia: Wait, wait, hold on. You were openly a guest of the government of Syria for two days? In 2025? Prof. Schiffman: Correct. My wife, too. And a group of 12 Jews. Another group went in December, but we were guests… Nehemia: Wow. Prof. Schiffman: And from our point of view, we got to see the Dura-Europos paintings up close. Nehemia: Oh, wow! Prof. Schiffman: They’re sitting on… from the 3rd century. To go back to the question now… Nehemia: Wow. Prof. Schiffman: …so, Islamist refers to what we consider to be fanaticism. I mean, where you have a guy giving his eight-year-old kid a gun to shoot someone in the head, right, in front of a video, which I never watched one of those videos. I am a strict observer of the Jewish law that you may not get benefit from a dead body. I do not watch videos of people being killed. However, here’s what I want to say; that that’s the extreme extreme, right? Where violence becomes even just, you know, completely out of sight. Then you’ve got the problem of the two forms; the Muslim Brotherhood, which of course is Hamas, et cetera, in which, again, however, violence that’s normally prohibited by Islamic law becomes permitted. Namely violence against non-military personnel. And you see that with October 7th. But you also see the sickness of it when you get to baking babies and all these raping dead women, and a guy calling his mother to say he killed 10 people. It’s “good news,” you know. Okay. Then you’ve got the Shiite Islamism of a country, Iran, that is willing to dedicate the entire country, strangely to supporting other Islamists who are Sunnis, right, to somehow or another upset the whole world, and, at least they claim, destroy the State of Israel. Now, nobody believes that’s real, that they could destroy the State of Israel, but having them build an atomic bomb when they say they want to use it? I don’t know. It’s worse than North Korea, because North Korea, they don’t intend to use the bomb, right? They’re not intending to use it. Nehemia: North Korea has the bomb for the purpose of remaining in power… Prof. Schiffman: Right. Nehemia: Iran openly says they have the bomb for the purpose of destroying Israel… Prof. Schiffman: Openly says, they’ll use the atomic… So, the point is that these are forms, these three forms, Muslims that are prominent today. Muslim Brotherhood, which in a certain sense, that and Hezbollah is the organization of massive guerrilla war, right? Then you got the ISIS thing, which is almost dead, but the U.S. is pulling out of the Syrian desert, so who knows whether the Syrian government will be able to keep them under control. They’re trying. And then you got this Iran thing. Now, the Iran thing, as they called it, was the octopus that fed the others. But ideologically, they’re not exactly the same. Even though they’re not exactly the same, they all constitute a massive danger to what we call the civilized world. Now, here’s the point I want to make. That’s what we call Islamism. As opposed to the regular religion, which may see some of these things in its ideal system, but isn’t doing them. That’s more similar to your example of the Jewish system, where the guy who’s pumping gas, who came to the U.S. from Pakistan or driving the Uber car, is not interested in any of that. He just wants to support his family, and he wants to go to the mosque and worship God. And observe the holidays and stuff like that. And so, that guy is not in this. So, that’s what we distinguish between Islam and Islamism. That’s the way the terminology works. Nehemia: Okay. So, now let’s go backwards 2,000 years. Prof. Schiffman: Yeah! Nehemia: Who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls? I was taught years ago that it was the Essenes, but what is your view? Prof. Schiffman: The first question that I always have to point out about this is the word “wrote”. I don’t use this word and I’ll tell you why. Because there are several issues. There’s the composition and the copying. Now, about one-third of the material found in Qumran is the Hebrew Bible. Nehemia: Okay. Prof. Schiffman: So, who composed? You know, anybody from Moses to Ezra, right? So, it’s got nothing to do with the people living there, they just copied and owned these manuscripts. Then we get to the question of who composed, which is what you really want to know, the Sectarian Scrolls. Because remember, there’s Second Temple literature composed by other Jews and either physically brought to the Sectarian center at Qumran, or maybe just copied at the Sectarian center at Qumran. But they weren’t composed by the people there, they were “written”, in quotes, when they copied them. So, good. Now we get to, who composed the Sectarian? So, the dominant view is the Essenes. The question that we have to ask is a funny question; who are the Essenes? We have the descriptions in Josephus and Philo. They tell us certain things about the practices, and a few other places, but that’s the main thing. But what’s very important is Pliny the Elder, because Pliny the Elder says that there was a sect at a place north of En Gedi, of Essenes, and that is why most people think that Qumran was occupied by the Essenes. Now, the problem is, as I say, who are the Essenes? Because the word Essene… we don’t know what it means in Hebrew, right? It’s never found in Hebrew, except from the Renaissance on, when Jews started reading Greek texts. They read about it in Josephus and Philo. But before that, it’s never mentioned. It’s not in the Talmud. It’s not in the New Testament. So, the question is, is that the correct word for the people we’re talking about? Khirbet Qumran? Or is it then… We don’t know what the word means. Somebody put an article together; he mentioned 22 possible explanations of the word Essene. Nehemia: Wow. Prof. Schiffman: And actually, the guy advocated a strange one; a beekeeper from a cult of Artemis on some island in the Aegean, and he advocated that they’re beekeepers. But there are no bees found in the Qumran caves that we know about, so it was pretty funny. But leaving aside the humorousness of this, we don’t know! Now, a funny fact is that the word Isi’im in modern Hebrew has come to mean the Sectarians of Qumran. So, I once was giving a lecture to an Israeli audience in a Hebrew program somewhere, and a woman raised her hand she said, “Ha’im ha’Isi’im hayu ha’Isi’im?” “Were the Essenes the Essenes?” Were the Dead Sea Scrolls the Essenes? Now, what I want to say about this is, there are two possibilities… Nehemia: Okay. Prof. Schiffman: …and this is a kind of simplistic way of putting it. Either they are the Essenes, and we have to change the way we understand the Essenes in accord with the Qumran materials, as the main sources about the group. Or the word Essene may refer to a whole variety of groups of which the group who left us the scrolls may be one of them, that therefore shares certain things with the ones that Josephus and Philo described, but they’re not exactly the same group. But you can’t throw out the fact that Pliny says that they were located above En Gedi. Now, a funny fact is that somebody tried to come up with the idea that “above En Gedi” meant up on the hill above En Gedi. And the late Yosef Aviram, who was working until he was like 104, told me that when he was like 102, he went on a tour to see this place that they claimed was really the Essene settlement. And when he got there, he said all the pottery was Byzantine, and he didn’t know what the heck they were talking about. Nehemia: So, I’ve done that hike from the entrance to the Ein Gedi reserve. You go up the mountain… Prof. Schiffman: Right. Nehemia: …over the mountain, down the mountain, and you come out at, I believe it’s Nachal Arugot. Prof. Schiffman: Yeah. Nehemia: It’s said to be a seven-hour hike. I was in much better shape about 15 years ago… Prof. Schiffman: [Laughter] Nehemia: …and I did it in five hours. But I don’t think… I wouldn’t make it today. Prof. Schiffman: [Laughter] Nehemia: So, I can’t imagine anyone… But there are water sources about, maybe like halfway up. That’s where the Ein Gedi Water Company gets their water from. Prof. Schiffman: Yes. Well, they make believe they get it from there. Who knows? Nehemia: Or it’s from the tap, but they put the label on that it’s from there. Prof. Schiffman: Well, I don’t think… Someone pointed out to me, the genius that started selling water in bottles. I only buy a water bottle if I need an ice water somewhere. I’ll tell you a funny story. NYU had a project. We did a lot of research, together with the Israel Antiquities Authority and Tel Aviv University, about Caesarea. So, I went with my wife to spend a day, an entire day in Caesarea. I wanted to see every single thing there from the beginning to the end. So, they sell water there for a fortune, but it’s ice water. And if you’re in Caesarea in July and you’re there the whole day, it’s well worth buying the ice water. So, we bought the ice water for four times the price, bottle after bottle after bottle, and it didn’t bother me. But normally, I would never buy water. Nehemia: That’s supply and demand, is what they call it. Prof. Schiffman: Yeah… Nehemia: So, all right, so, back to who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls. Prof. Schiffman: Yeah! Nehemia: So, Rachel Elior famously says it was the Sadducean Temple Library. Prof. Schiffman: Right. Nehemia: What is your thought on that? Prof. Schiffman: Yeah, so, here’s a problem about this. I’ve advocated the fact that the halakhic system of the scrolls is based on Sadducean approach. This seems to me to be proven without any question from a whole variety of places, in which case it gives us an opening to understand the exegesis in the Temple Scroll as an example of how Sadducean exegesis would have worked, and let us understand much better Rabbinic references, which are very partial and very unclear, et cetera. So, that part of this… here’s the irony; I think that’s correct, but she didn’t know that I wrote that. Nehemia: Okay. Prof. Schiffman: She didn’t know that anybody ever discussed any of this, because she never read the literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls field. Now, the problem is when you go one step further and you say “the Sadducean Temple Library”, because the material is anti the Temple… Nehemia: So, how could it be the Temple Library? Prof. Schiffman: …the Temple Library have only works against the Temple, saying it’s not kosher! It makes no sense. They would have works that support the Temple. Nehemia: Can we back up a little bit and do a little bit of order? Who are the Sadducees? Prof. Schiffman: Okay, good. Nehemia: Let’s assume the audience doesn’t know anything beyond what they read in one of the New Testament books. Who are the Sadducees? Prof. Schiffman: Okay. Right. So, Sadducees are in the New Testament. So, anyhow… By the way, the New Testament is a great source for the history of Judaism. People don’t understand that. Nehemia: Right. Prof. Schiffman: Right? Really a great source. Now, there were, at this time, according to Josephus, three main Jewish sects. He discusses this starting in about 150 BCE, when he gets to that point in his history. He says, “And there were three Jewish sects.” The Pharisees are the forerunners of the Talmudic rabbis. That means that they are the forerunners of the Judaism of today, because all forms of Judaism today, with the exception of Karaism and Samaritanism, are based on the Pharisaic-Rabbinic approach. And it doesn’t matter whether it’s Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, it’s all based on Pharisaic-Rabbinic approach. Nehemia: Is that a controversial position? Because I’ve heard people say, “Rabbis have nothing to do with the Pharisees, and the rabbis of the Mishnah didn’t consider themselves Pharisees,” and I think that’s kind of a… Prof. Schiffman: Yeah, this is because people want to say something that sounds exciting. But the reality of the situation is, it’s not that they consider themselves Pharisees, they consider the Pharisees to be their forerunners. That’s not the same thing as considering yourself a Pharisee… Nehemia: Well, when they talk about the zugot, the appearance… those are the Pharisees… Prof. Schiffman: In other words… when we go into our university office, we’re doing something that started out in monasteries. Monasteries became universities. Does that mean if I say that that I think I’m in a monastery? Of course not, right? So, I mean, this is a… right? The argument that Pharisaism is not the origin of the Rabbinic movement is a bit specious. Though people say it. Nehemia: Okay. Prof. Schiffman: The second group that we need to talk about, we’ve already talked about the Essenes, whether they are the Dead Sea Scroll sect, but we need to talk about the Sadducees. The Sadducees represent the high priestly elite, and we know that they had specific beliefs that differed from those of the Pharisees. We know this from Josephus, and they had specific legal rulings in Jewish law and sacrificial law that differed from the view of the Pharisees. And certainly differed from views later on in Rabbinic sources, who in a later period retroactively disagreed with the Sadducees. Nehemia: Okay. Prof. Schiffman: So, this group of Sadducees, however, seems to have imparted its view on Jewish law to the Dead Sea Sectarians and some other groups as well, because Samaritanism and Karaism ultimately trace back to that kind of approach to Jewish law. To put it another way, there are two main approaches to Jewish law historically… Pharisaic Rabbinic on the one hand, and on the other hand, the one which starts with the Sadducees and is, besides being Sadducean, has tremendous influence on Samaritan and Karaite law. Nehemia: So, can you just give an example? That’s interesting to me. What sense does the Sadducee approach influence the Samaritan law? Prof. Schiffman: I’m going to have to remember these examples, I don’t remember them too well. There’s this guy, Boyd, who wrote about this. And what happens is that you have this tremendous stringency about menstrual impurity, and the actual separation of the menstruant, right? Which it also shares with Karaism. Nehemia: And the Ethiopian Jews have that as well. Prof. Schiffman: Yes, that’s right. Now, there is one manuscript of the Mishnah that seems to indicate that there may have been some regular Jews who did this. But the Temple Scroll has it. And so, it’s in Qumran, it’s in Samaritanism and Karaism. Now, we went on a visit to the Karaite synagogue in Jerusalem. You’ll like this story. So, first of all, the rabbi, whose name was Hefetz Hayim… Nehemia: Oh, that’s a very long time ago. Okay. Prof. Schiffman: Yes, yes. Nehemia: Like, you’re talking about the 80s or 90s? No, 90s, it would have to be. Prof. Schiffman: Yeah. Any women who are ritually impure should not go in, because that’s the rule of Karaites, something which tried to spread to Rabbinic Judaism, but didn’t make it, right? Nehemia: Hmm. Prof. Schiffman: However, not one woman didn’t go in, because what Rabbinite Jewish woman is going to admit in a public place that she’s ritually impure? So, they all went in. Okay. And the point I want to make is that he told us that the way in which they operate is that menstruation, because of the separation thing, is not private. So, you call your friend up and you say, “Would you like to go out for pizza tonight?” Obviously, he means with their wives, right? And the guy says, “No, my wife can’t come because she’s nida.” She’s menstrually impure. Now, in a Rabbinite thing, why can’t she go have pizza? But this particular approach was to separate the woman, although they treated the woman luxuriously during this period (he explained that to us also) that the woman would be served, everything in bed, and taken care of, as if she was literally a sick person. Whereas, of course, in Rabbinism, you ignore the whole thing. Now, this comes up in New Testament studies, because you have in the New Testament an example of this woman who’s impure, and many of the commentators mistakenly believe that in the Pharisaic type of world of Jesus, that she would have been separated. But she’s not separated at all, because she’s part of the community. Nehemia: So, that’s really interesting. Are you saying that the Sadducee approach, and I guess we’re saying Sadducee in a very broad sense, perhaps… Prof. Schiffman: Yeah, yeah. Nehemia: So, this broader Sadducean approach influenced, can we say, early Jewish Christians? Or I don’t know what the terminology here is… Prof. Schiffman: No, I would say it like this; what it influenced was the exegetes of the New Testament who didn’t understand that, in Rabbinic Judaism, the impurity of the woman extends only to going to the Temple, having relations with her husband (which is forbidden in that period) and/or making a sandwich for someone who’s going to the Temple because it’ll be impure. And other than that, there’s no restriction. She could go to work, take your kids to school, go to a social occasion, go out for pizza. I don’t know, could you believe there was a time before pizza? I actually saw somebody suggesting that, you know, tuna’s in the Talmud, tuna fish, right? So, maybe that pizza was invented by Jews. Nehemia: Well, I mean, they had some early form of pizza, presumably without tomato sauce. But I was just over in Rome, and I had a bunch of pizza that had no tomato sauce, so… Prof. Schiffman: [Laughter] Nehemia: …anyway. So, even today, pizza potentially could be… it’s not necessarily New York style. Prof. Schiffman: Yeah, yeah. Nehemia: So, you’re saying this broader Sadducean approach is embedded in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Prof. Schiffman: Right. Now, I want to point out something else, which is interesting. I mentioned before that the idea that a menstruant woman shouldn’t come to the synagogue sort of tried to make it into Rabbinic Judaism. Nehemia: Aren’t there some Rabbinical sources that have that idea? Am I wrong about that? Prof. Schiffman: Well, you have some later discussion in the time of the Ga’onim, the early Middle Ages. Now, the reason I mention this… this is just a small example of the fact that, we have to reckon with cross-fertilization of all Jewish groups, all the time, over time. How this happens, why it happens, whatever, right? We have to do that. And there are some funny examples that you can come up with, even in modern times. But one example that I like is reciting the Kiddish prayer on Saturday morning in the synagogue when everyone is going to go downstairs to eat it or outside to eat it in another room. Right? Which started in reform synagogues, spread to conservative synagogues, and spread to Orthodox synagogues, as opposed to letting everybody say it himself and make his own blessing when he gets to the place where they’re serving what used to be cake and wine and now became more extensive. Here, you see it moving; Reform, Conservative, Orthodox. And there are other examples like that, and maybe the best example of that is the sermon on Saturday morning. So, in modern times, we also see that Jewish groups exchange, even when they claim to disagree greatly with one another, they exchange ideas, no matter what you say. Nehemia: Wait, so tell us about the sermon. I assume my audience doesn’t know what the significance of that is. Is that something that comes from outside Judaism? Or, what’s the significance? Prof. Schiffman: The sermon is originally a Christian thing that became part of Reform Judaism when it came into being in the 1820s through 40s in Germany and then began to become a serious movement. And then, when the Conservative movement came into being, it picked up the sermon and then the sermon made it into the Orthodox community. There used to be two sermons a year in Orthodox synagogues, not during the services, held in the afternoon. Nehemia: When were the sermons? When were the sermons? Prof. Schiffman: So, that’s where it comes from. Nehemia: No, when were the two sermons a year? I didn’t know this. Prof. Schiffman: The two sermons of the year were on Shabbat Shuvah, the Sabbath between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, and before Passover, the Sabbath before Passover. Nehemia: Wow. So, you’re saying if you… Prof. Schiffman: And the rabbi gave two sermons! And they were very… Nehemia: So, if you went to a synagogue in the year 1500 in Marrakesh, or in Lithuania, you wouldn’t hear a sermon, you’re saying? On Shabbat? On a regular Shabbat? Prof. Schiffman: Not on a regular Shabbat. Nehemia: Wow. And you’re saying it’s Christian influence to have a sermon the synagogue. Prof. Schiffman: Yeah, yeah. Nehemia: Wow! Prof. Schiffman: So, that’s how it became. It’s… you know. Look, the wedding procession is a Christian thing, the white dress is a Christian thing, right? So, the point is that the influences go back and forth. Nehemia: There’s a thing recently that the… Prof. Schiffman: So, I just wanted to make the point… Nehemia: Go ahead, yeah. Prof. Schiffman: …you can’t talk about the Pharisaic and Sadducean-like Jewish legal systems as if they don’t have any influence on one another. They do. Nehemia: Were there things in the Sadducean system… Do you have an example of something in the Sadducean system that influenced Rabbinical Judaism, other than the whole thing of the menstruant woman? Is there anything like that? Prof. Schiffman: I think it’s mostly in the stringencies of menstruation. That’s really where it was. I don’t think we can document much more than that. But I just gave the one example of women coming to the synagogue. There are some texts in the Middle Ages that tried to make menstrual impurity even stricter, and these things somehow didn’t make it. But there are other examples of this, like preparing food and stuff like that, revival of some of these purity laws from Temple purity. Because, remember one thing very important; in the origin of all this, Sadducean-type law wants to take Temple purity laws in daily life. But Pharisaism does too, they just don’t want as much. Sounds funny, right? Nehemia: Isn’t there something about the… Prof. Schiffman: Each one wants to take over Temple purity. So, Pharisaism wants to take over Temple purity a certain amount. And Sadduceism seems to want to take over much more of it and put it into the regular system of life. And so, you get greater stringencies on these issues. Nehemia: So, in other words, there are certain things in the Torah apply to sacrificial contexts, and you’re saying both the Pharisees and Sadducees wanted to extend those outside the Temple. Prof. Schiffman: A perfect example of this is purity, not kosherness, but purity of food. Now, purity of food, the Pharisaic Rabbinic law, in the end, when it completely stopped after the destruction of the Temple, got left with one thing; washing the hands before eating bread. Nehemia: So, what’s the origin of that? That’s a fascinating topic for the audience. What is the origin of… Because that’s not in the Torah, right, in the written Torah. Prof. Schiffman: That’s not in the Torah. Washing your hands before eating bread is mentioned in Mark 7. I joke sometimes if I’m at a dinner with some Christians and I’m about to go and wash my hands before eating the bread, say, “Excuse me, I have to go fulfill what it says in Mark 7.” They may or may not know what I’m talking about, right? Nehemia: All right. So, what’s the origin of that, if it doesn’t come from the Torah? Prof. Schiffman: What is… it’s like this. It’s that the priests had to wash their hands, purify their hands, before eating the truma, which was the holy offerings that they got to support them. So, they and their families had to be ritually pure in order to share in this food. Now, in order to do this, right, so, one of the things they had to do was wash their hands. So, Jews, to this day, wash their hands before eating bread. Now, we’re not talking about cleanliness, right? Because people wash their hands for cleanliness, too. But they wash their hands for ritual purposes, even if they just washed them, you know, 20 minutes of soap and water, like they tell you to make sure you don’t get a disease. I’d like to see anybody washing his hands for 20 minutes. I mean, by the time you get finished… Nehemia: You’ll be flaking skin by the time you’re finished. Prof. Schiffman: Yes, it would be kind of tiring, also, right? But anyhow, jokes aside, right, irrespective of personal cleanliness (which is, by the way, required in Jewish law) you wash your hands to fulfill this ritual because the priests used to do this in the Temple when they ate the truma. So, you’re doing a Temple ritual, but you’re doing a Temple ritual when you carry a lulav and etrog in a synagogue, right, on Sukkot, because the main ritual was in the Temple, and that’s where it was required by the Torah. So, there are quite a number of things in regular Rabbinic Judaism that emerges out of the Pharisee tradition that imitate Temple worship. Okay. But the Sadducees seem to be stricter about this. And also, of course, the stricter way of understanding the words of the Torah more literally, which comes out in quite a number of examples. So, a lot of people think, you know, Sadduceism just died when the Temple was destroyed. But it didn’t die when you see its legal tradition affecting these various groups. By the way, people who want to get a really interesting experience should see the movie about the Samaritans that accompanied the exhibit in the Museum of the Bible. The exhibit was arranged by Prof. Stephen Fine of Hebrew University, but the movie was fascinating, about Samaritans marrying women from the Ukraine because there are too few women. But the most interesting thing to me there was, you know, they do the paschal sacrifice. They actually slaughter the lambs. And there was a woman talking about how the tremendous joy that she experiences when she hears the noise of the animals being slaughtered. And it made me realize that we are so far away from the idea of sacrificial worship that, even if we study it in the most open way, we don’t totally understand how it works. And here’s a woman speaking Hebrew, right, wearing modern clothes, a nice up-to-date type person, explaining the tremendous joy at hearing the animals as they’re being slaughtered. Very interesting. Nehemia: That’s really interesting, because there’s an experiential side of religion, I’ll call it. Prof. Schiffman: Yeah, but we’re not used to it. Nehemia: Well, not just that we’re not used to. So, you’re obviously, I’m going to make some assumptions here, a religious person. But I have some colleagues who are scholars who are just avowed atheists… Prof. Schiffman: Yeah. Nehemia: …and I think there’s a side of religion that they don’t understand. And then they look at… especially they look at Islam, and they just have no idea what’s going on. They’re like, “Oh, well, they’re going to surrender if Gaza is blown up.” And I’m like, “You don’t understand how, certainly, a religious fanatic thinks. You clearly do not understand.” Prof. Schiffman: I think, though… this is a little bit different, because no matter how much a Jewish person could be… I’ll use this word with a small f, fanatically, involved in fulfilling Jewish practices, I think that they still wouldn’t understand the Islamism in its conceptual framework. So, I think they understand Muslim religious practice, yes. But the other thing about what you’re saying, which is important, is to realize, I think when it comes to something like the sacrificial system, any modern person would not have a very good sense of how to understand it, simply because we don’t experience it no matter what. Nehemia: Well, in Islam, they have, I want to say it’s Eid al-Fitr, but someone will correct me in the comments, and they slaughter a lamb or a goat… Prof. Schiffman: Yes. Nehemia: …if I’m not mistaken, and the whole family consumes it. And it’s obviously modeled on the Passover sacrifice. Prof. Schiffman: Yeah. Nehemia: So, they probably understand it, maybe better than we do. Prof. Schiffman: That may be the case. Nehemia: Because I’ve never participated in an animal sacrifice. I once went to see the Samaritans do it, but I’m a tourist there, it’s not the same thing. Prof. Schiffman: Yeah. Well, I watched it on TV once. It was in Israel. It was a different night from the Jewish Passover. But you see in this movie, you get to see much of it, and it’s quite interesting. And they interview the woman afterwards. There’s a lot of interesting stuff in the movie Nehemia: So, on the one hand you say the Dead Sea Scrolls reflect Sadducean Halakha… Prof. Schiffman: Legal tradition, right. Nehemia: Legal tradition. But on the other hand, they’re opposed to the Temple, the people who wrote… the Dead Sea Scrolls, most of them, or many of them are… Prof. Schiffman: Yeah… Nehemia: …avowedly opposed to the Temple, right? There’s the famous… the wicked priest… Prof. Schiffman: Yes. Nehemia: …attacked the teacher of righteousness in the day of his Yom Kippur… Prof. Schiffman: Yes. Yes. Nehemia: Pesher Habakuk. So, how is it that you have this quasi-Sadducean belief, or ritual, that’s opposed to the Temple, which is dominated by the Sadducees? What am I missing? Prof. Schiffman: Okay, so, I personally think… now we’re not talking about something that everyone agrees to. I got to admit that. I personally think that what happened is, in 152 BCE, when Jonathan the Hasmonean gets the approval, basically, to rule over Judea from the Seleucids, this is the real end of the Hanukkah story, not the lighting of the menorah. Because after those events, right, and the conquest by Judah the Maccabee, we see that the Temple was taken back by Hellenistic forces. So, Jonathan, only in 152, gets the right to rule, and that’s the beginning of the Hasmonean Empire. And my assumption is that, because the Sadducees were seen as responsible for everything that went on leading up to the Hellenistic reform and everything that went on there, that he basically threw them out and priests who agreed with the Pharisees were in control in that point. Nehemia: From 152 BCE… Prof. Schiffman: And therefore, the Qumran Sectarians leave the Temple. At least their priestly leadership, leaves the Temple and sets up this sectarian group in opposition to the Temple that they no longer approve of, because it’s following halachic rulings that they think are incorrect. Nehemia: I’m having trouble following here. So, 152 BCE, Jonathan the Hasmonean, who, I think we have coins of his in Paleo-Hebrew… so, he adopts Pharisaical halacha? Is that what you’re saying? Prof. Schiffman: It’s not a question of what he adopts. He puts priests in control of the Temple who are going to follow what we later would call the Pharisaic-Rabbinic or Pharisaic way, rather than the Sadducees, whom he blames for the extreme Hellenism that went on in the Temple. Remember, they even had an idol in there! Nehemia: But if Sadducees are so strict in their observance of the Torah law, how were they having idols in the Temple? Prof. Schiffman: Well, because they were corrupt. The people who did it, obviously, were corrupt extreme Hellenizers. Now, here we’ve got to get into something else very important. It seems that there are two different kinds of Sadducees. There are pious Sadducees who do what you’re supposed to do according to Sadducean way of understanding the Torah, and these are your middle-level priests. And then there are these big-shot, highly Hellenistic people who are part of the Sadducean group. And the one group is constantly, in Josephus’ stories, leading people down the wrong path. And the other group is the real pious people, who when, whoever takes over in the aftermath of the Hasmonean Empire coming into existence with Jonathan in 152, our group opposes them. And that you can see from the so-called MMT Text in which they write a letter to the mainstream guys running it and say, “If you’ll do X, Y, and Z, we’ll come back. But you know we’re right, and we are following the true way.” Nehemia: Can you talk a little bit about 4QMMT? That’s a really important… miktzat ma’asei torah. Prof. Schiffman: Yes. Nehemia: Can you talk about… That’s a really important text. Prof. Schiffman: Yes, in which presumably the Sectarians are writing to the leadership in Jerusalem and to these priests that are now running it, and saying, “You’re doing it all wrong!” And this becomes a matter of laws, sacrificial law, impurity law, that it’s all being done not according to the way the Sectarians think. Why? Because they’re following a Pharisaic approach. Nehemia: So, 4QMMT clearly aligns with Sadducean Halakhah as it’s brought down in the Talmud in particular, right? Prof. Schiffman: Yeah, that’s right? Nehemia: Okay. And so, this is why I think maybe you’re saying there’s two Sadducean varieties… Prof. Schiffman: Two kinds of… Nehemia: There’s one that very much cares about the Torah, and there’s another one that’s like, “Eh, an idol that’ll make our masters happy and…” Prof. Schiffman: I want to give you an example of the same phenomenon. You know that the term Reform Jew is used for two kind of people;

24 de jun de 2026 - 1 h 14 min
Soy muy de podcasts. Mientras hago la cama, mientras recojo la casa, mientras trabajo… Y en Podimo encuentro podcast que me encantan. De emprendimiento, de salid, de humor… De lo que quiera! Estoy encantada 👍
Soy muy de podcasts. Mientras hago la cama, mientras recojo la casa, mientras trabajo… Y en Podimo encuentro podcast que me encantan. De emprendimiento, de salid, de humor… De lo que quiera! Estoy encantada 👍
MI TOC es feliz, que maravilla. Ordenador, limpio, sugerencias de categorías nuevas a explorar!!!
Me suscribi con los 14 días de prueba para escuchar el Podcast de Misterios Cotidianos, pero al final me quedo mas tiempo porque hacia tiempo que no me reía tanto. Tiene Podcast muy buenos y la aplicación funciona bien.
App ligera, eficiente, encuentras rápido tus podcast favoritos. Diseño sencillo y bonito. me gustó.
contenidos frescos e inteligentes
La App va francamente bien y el precio me parece muy justo para pagar a gente que nos da horas y horas de contenido. Espero poder seguir usándola asiduamente.

Elige tu suscripción

Más populares

Oferta limitada

Premium

20 horas de audiolibros

  • Podcasts exclusivos

  • Disfruta los podcast de Podimo sin anuncios

  • Cancela cuando quieras

2 meses por 1 €
Después 4,99 € / mes

Empezar

Premium Plus

100 horas de audiolibros

  • Podcasts exclusivos

  • Disfruta los podcast de Podimo sin anuncios

  • Cancela cuando quieras

Disfruta 30 días gratis
Después 9,99 € / mes

Prueba gratis

Sólo en Podimo

Audiolibros populares

Preguntas frecuentes

Más preguntas y respuestas
Empezar

2 meses por 1 €. Después 4,99 € / mes. Cancela cuando quieras.