The Rabbinical Laws of Idolatry in the Second and Third Centuries in the Light of Archaeological and Historical Facts

Author(s): E. E. URBACH Reviewed work(s): Source: Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 9, No. 4 (1959), pp. 229-245 Published by: Israel Exploration Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27924798 . Accessed: 04/11/2012 09:24
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Israel Exploration Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Israel Exploration Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

The

Rabbinical

Second

of Idolatry in the and Third Centuries in the Light and Historical Facts*
E.E.URBACH
Hebrew University, Jerusalem

Laws

of Archaeological

The

was numberof Jewishcraftsmen relatively but the largercommunity small,

and consumers was also daily faced with economic problems

of merchants

an the products of supplied craftsmanship indispensable need. Jews were and On an extant spiritual scrap-merchants scrap-importers. Greek there ismention of 'Justus the son of Reuben of Alexandria inscription environment where the scrap-merchant ( )'.62 The scrap in question consisted of frag

were living in a gentile similar to those of the craftsmen,in so far as they

was made new utensils,63 and the Halakhah deals worship. This scrap up into with the questions arising from the sale of such re-made articles. In theMishnah we find the a man found are following ruling: 'If fragments of images, these foot, these are forbidden, the

ments of objects bearingfiguresof gods, and also of statues intendedfor idol

permitted.If he found (a fragmentin) the shape of a hand or the shape of a

opinion of Samuel, explains the last section of the Mishnah In since an object the like of these is worshipped/64 the term 'images' here includes even an idol, and he as

a hand or a the meaning shape of i.e. which were made foot which are standing on their pedestal, specifically for idolatrous purposes and are not fragments. Hands of this kind have been found on various sites. They were of divine or human power, on altars and as emblems worshipped or as symbols of alliance and were friendship; they placed

to also tokensof thanksgiving, particularly Asclepius for thehealing of diseased

* Concluded S.Klein: from IE], 9, 1959, pp. 149-165.

The 1920, p. 135; S. Lieberman: Inscriptionum. Wien, Talmud 1931, p. 14 (Hebrew). Jerusalem, of Caesarea. 93 a vessel... Mishnah Kelim from fragments of vessels taken from scrap/ Cf. xi, 3: 'he who makes 64 2. Abodah Zarah i, 3. Tosejta, Kelim, Baba Mezia, iii, J?disch-Pal?stinisches Corpus

229

230 limbs. The leg was

E.

E.

URBACH

connected with the cult of Serapis.65 Since the scrap-mer came upon such course of their business, it chants frequently fragments in the a man found is clear that the words of theMishnah?'if fragments of images'? refer to them, and not to anyone who made a chance find of this kind. Indeed,

theTosefta explicitlystates:
idol amongst

? who buys scrapfromtheGentiles and findsan

as for the rest, it is permitted/ In the same

Baratta the idol itselfispermitted:If an Israelitefindsan idol, before it comes

into his possession, he tells the Gentile and desecrates it. For the Gentile may desecrate an idol, whether his own or his friend's, whether he has worshipped or or it or not, whether whether under compulsion wilfully, inadvertently voluntarily.'66 demand

it, throws it away;

entitled to examine his purchase and, if he found idolatrousobjects in it, to

their desecration.

According

to this, the purchaser Apparently

of scrap from a Gentile sellers were

was

accept this condition.Behind thisnotion of desecrating an idol lies the fact

who made idolatrous objects, but did not worship them and did not intend them to represent any god. The biblical verse 'the graven im lows: 'thatwhich is treated as a god is forbidden, but thatwhich is not treated as that there were Gentiles

the gentile

prepared

to

with fire' (Deut. vii, 25) was expounded as fol ages of their gods you shall burn

a god is permitted'.67 Rabbi extended the limits thedispensationprovided by of

this desecration both his own of idols and, in his youth, ruled that 'a Gentile may desecrate and an Israelite's that came idol',68 i.e. the idol of a Gentile

into the possession of an Israelite.69 Rabbi also gave a more lenient interpreta tion than his to R. Meir of what constituted desecration. According predecessors
etc. N?rnberg, See H. Blaufuss: und Symbole 1910, pp. 15-19; Elmslie, G?tter, Bilder op. cit. . 19), p. 45; op. cit. (above, n. 2), IV, p. 16, n. 65. Goodenough, (above, 66 Tosefta, Abodah Zarab v, 3. 07 6. In Jer. Talmud, Abodah Zarah in the name of Ibid., Halakhah iv, 4, R. Johanan expounds, are not to covet and take, but others 'You shall not covet the gold and silver on them. You R. Jannay: covet and you take.' 68 ibid, iv, 4. Cf. J.N. Epstein: Mishnah Abodah Zarah ibid. 52b; and Jer. Talmud, iv, 4; Bab. Talmud, to the Text of the Mishnah. Introduction ments to Seder Nezikin. 1953, Jerusalem, 69 In Tosefta, ibid., Halakhah 7, the words dissents and But R. Simeon ben Menasia to be understood of an idol which Jerusalem, p. 491 1948, pp. 22-24 (Hebrew) ; Ch. Albeck: Supple (Hebrew). in his youth are taught as the opinion of the Sages. of Rabbi and this is says 'the idol of a Jew can never be desecrated', 65

a Jew made In Bab. Talmud, and gave to a Gentile. ibid. 52b: a Jew worships the of his own initiative', at the instigation of a Gentile... Jew worships of idols. But, surprisingly enough, the words of R. Hillel reference is evidently to an actual worshipper of an idol the son of R. Valas 'this ruling only applies when he is a partner to it', are understood the Jew's part also being worshipped shared by a Jew and a Gentile, by the Gentile but remaining the property of the Jew. The Gentile may then desecrate and render non-idolatrous the part belonging to

THE

RABBINICAL

LAWS

OF

IDOLATRY

231

an idolwas desecratedby 'hittingitwith a hammer and spoiling it', and this

R. i.e. disfiguring the idol. of the root phs used in our Mishnah, 'even if he only pushed it and knocked it of the opinion that and it fell, it is desecrated'. Rabbi was more liberal than both these Sages and is the meaning Simeon was

was desecrated maintained thatthe idol merely bybeing sold or given inpledge, since theseactionsproved that theGentile intendedto divest the shape of the
object of any divine significance.70 It is true that the Sages did not to some of the first Amoraim, Rabbi's accept Rabbi's opinion. But according idolatrous smith, while

in the case of its sale to a Jewish smith, 'all agreed that it was desecrated'.71 For, since this latter sale was considered to be made for the purpose

disciples, this disagreementapplied only to the sale of an idol to a gentile

appear to be based on different actual experiences. on the are forbidden, because they R. Meir proceeds principle that 'all images are once a year'. His basic is that it is in the nature worshipped assumption even if only once a year; and if there is no of images to be worshipped, proof in the great city of Rome, Hence, the desecration of an idol they are worshipped Rabbi, on the contrary, was of requires visible proof, namely?disfigurement. the same opinion as those Sages who disagreed with R. Meir and who argued

constituted an idol and would

were no longer any grounds for supposing that of disfiguringthe idol, there to the Gentile continuedto attribute efficacy the idol. The divergent any opinions of R. Meir and Rabbi are explained by theirdifferent conceptionsof what

have beenworshipped in theplace where theystand, it is enough that that they

both with those of Rabbi in his the Jew as well. The difficulty is to reconcile the words of R. Hillel 70 Zarah old age and with those of R. Simeon ben Menasia. iv, 7. Tosefia, Abodah 71 'Zeiri in the name of R. ibid. 53a: Bab. Talmud, 'Zeiri, in the name of R. Johanan (in one MS. see Abramson, and R. Jeremiah bar Abba, in the name of Hanina', op. cit. [above, n. 37], p. 206) Rab: in the ibid, iv, 5, 44a: said.' But in Jer. Talmud, 'Zeur bar Hinnena, " ^ ), there was a [said] : In the case of its being sold for secular use ( all agree that it is not desecrated. R. Jeremiah in division of opinion, but if itwas sold for worship, but if it was If it was sold to its worshippers the name of Rab [said]: sold [it is not desecrated], One said and another name of Rabbi Hanina for secular use can be ...

In the Jerusalem Talmud the word all agree that it is desecrated.' -pisV ("pisV) to mean and in that case the purchaser 'for the requirements of craftsmanship', interpreted too and not necessarily a Jewish smith. Indeed, in the Tosafot, ibid., the passage may be a Gentile ^ , it is explicitly stated that, in the case of the Jew, he need not be a commencing with the word Abodah smiths where Hilkhot idolatry is concerned. Maimonides, sold to a Jewish smith, it is desecrated. See Kesef Mishneh and sold to a smith (*pisi> )' is found in the Tosafot 'if it was ibid. The reading of Lehern Mishneh, Sha'arei Tor?t Erez Israel. Jerusalem, 1940, R. Isaiah di Trani, first rendition, 53a; see Z. Rabinowicz: informed me that the Leiden MS. of the Jerusalem Talmud Prof. S. Lieberman p. 571 (Hebrew). smith, and considered Zarah 8, 10, ruled that if itwas has also the right reading splxV throughout the whole passage. all Jews are to be

232 that only images which den, there being other

E.

E.

URBACH

could be proved to have been worshipped were forbid were not used for idolatry, but only for images which were a distinction between towns where ornament. So Rabbah made images made for ornament and villages where they were made for worship.72 This dis

when applied to thedays ofRabbi, explains thepossibilityof his ruling tinction, an idol could be desecrated that without anything actuallybeing done to it.
The

R. El'azar barKappara, of the school of Rabbi, when he found a ring bearing

the image of a dragon. He came upon a young Gentile and said nothing to him. Then he came upon an old Gentile and said to him, Desecrate it, and he refused.

said, in the name of R. Joshua ben Levi: Once

liable evidenceof this isprovided by thefollowing story: 'Rabbahbar barHana

I was walking

Sages

themselves applied

this dispensation with

the utmost formalism. Re on the road behind

a Gamaliel thatValuable objects are forbidden, trivial objects permitted',74 Nevertheless, in spite of the ring obviously belongs to the formercategory.
ibid. 40b-4la. Albeck, ibid, iii, 1; Bab. Talmud, Abodah Zarah Mishnah op. cit. iii, 1; Jer. Talmud, proem 10: 'There were Kabbah, (above, n. 68), p. 484, has already drawn attention to Lamentations in turn and each idol was worshipped three hundred and sixty-five idolatrous temples in Damascus, one day in the year/ n same story is found in Jer. Talmud, the ibid, iv, 4 where Zarah Bab. Talmud, Abodah 43a. The * fa young Syrian ( ?xa">k used ) came running behind him' must refer to a young expression emends this to 'a young man and a Syrian' Yerushalmi But the author of No'am Gentile. (*^b & V, ), thus making St?hlin, 5 (ed. the reading of Jer. accord with that of Bab. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, to use rings or to engrave forbade his disciples 3, 2, p. 44, 7) says that Pythagoras on Clement's the influence of Greek philosophy of the gods upon them. On attitude to n

sun, a figure of the moon, or a figure of a dragon, he must throw them into the Simeon ben Dead of Rabban Sea/ And even following the pronouncement

Then he hit him in the face and he desecrated it\73 Here it is not a question of any ordinary image, but of one of the forms of which it is explicitly laid down in the Mishnah: If a man found objects on which is a figure of the

nach den literarischen Quellen. Die altchristl. Bilderfrage 1917, pp. G?ttingen, . . 118; and cf. Bevan, op. cit. 15-17, 19), pp. 66-67. (above, T4 ibid. 43b. The explanation Zarah Abodah Mishnah iii, 3; Tosefta, ibid., chap, i, and Bab. Talmud, of the singling out of these forms lies in the special importance of the cult of the sun under the images, empire Talmud, op. cit. (above, and its identification with various ibid.: (above, n. 53), 'R. Judah also adds n. 65), pp. 136-138; in Bab. and Baraita gods, especially Serapis. In the Tosefta the figure of a woman See Blaufuss, giving suck and Serapis.' Lieberman, op. cit. (above, n. 19), pp. 18-19; Nilsson, op. cit.

the figures see H. Koch:

to support the opinion is nothing pp. 486, 490, n. 3. There expressed by Blaufuss, of all to the Jews. On the the most dangerous ibid., pp. 38-39, that the cult of Isis and Serapis was contrary, it is worth remarking that the author of The Wisdom of Solomon (xiii, 6) censures star source of this outlook, see I. Heinemann: less than all other idolaters. For the Greek worshippers Poseidonios* metaphysische Schriften, I. Breslau, 1921, pp. 146-147.

THE

RABBINICAL

LAWS

OF

IDOLATRY

233

Mishnah, bar Kappara did not throw the ring into the explicit ruling of the
Dead

Halakhah inbothTalmuds: It follows fromthis thata Gentile may ityfor the

desecrate his own and his friend's idol; it follows that he who knows the nature desecrate it,whereas he who does not may of an idol and its worshippers may a Gentile may desecrate an idol involuntarily.'75 Obvi not; it also follows that on Jewish economic scope for easing the restrictions business relations with Gentiles. This was presumably as a whole had recourse to it in their private

Sea, but forced the Gentile

to desecrate

it.His

action provided

the author

ously, thispossibilityof an idol's being desecratedby a Gentile offeredample

life and particularly on the fundamental purpose

of the lenient rabbinical ruling. Hence, not only bar Kappara, but the Sages
lives. It is related of R. Simeon, the

Gentile

were to take possession of the stones, R. Simeon said that they action which was his, since they had become permitted through the Gentile's tantamount to the desecration of an idolatrous object. R. Simeon's conduct in wanted use of another 'R. Hiyya, the son of R. Abba had

son ofRabbi, that indulged in subterfuge inducea Gentile to removefrom to he his field stones which had been placed there inhonour ofMercury. When the

this casewas actuallypraised byR. Hiyya bar Abba.76This latterSage himself a a=

dispensation: cups

made

=? ?? Roman Fortune ( ( ) engraved ) with an image of the on them. came and asked the were permitted).They replied: He Rabbis (if they
Since runs down over the a form of desecration.'77 Even image, it is Sages who in their private lives were most rigorous in their observance of the laws about idolatry, had to have recourse to the dispensation provided by the desecration of idols. In a Baraita we find it stated that 'if a Gentile has brought the water hermae with them, they are But paved roads and squares permitted'.78 was it is related that 'when the palace of King Jannay the Babylonian Talmud and
Epstein,

in in

. 68), that this incident lies behind in the Baraita p. 24, maintains op. cit. (above, But in the Baraita , 3 and that therefore this passage originated in the school of bar Kappara. Tosefta is there is no mention of 'he who knows the nature of idolatry'; also the word used for 'involuntarily' read ima byi. The conjecture is thus unproved. both Talmuds o?a?, whereas 76 iv, 1: 'Like the story of R. Simeon, the son of Rabbi, who had Mercury Jer. Talmud, Abodah Zarah a sect. 36, para. 3, ed. stones in his field, near the steward's house ; cf. Genesis (? Kabbah, to pass here to-morrow, said to him, Since I have heard that the ruler wants p. 337). He Theodor, to take possession I ask you to remove these stones. After he had removed them, he wanted of them. R. Simeon said to him, They son.' are mine. When R. Hiyya bar Abba heard this he said, His mother has [an important] " Jer. Talmud,

75

of the Jer. Talmud, ibid, iii, 2. Cf. J.N. Epstein: Additional Fragments 3, Tarbiz, S. Krauss: Kohut Memorial Volume. New York, 1931, p. 19 (Hebrew); 1936, p. 352. 78 to the reading of theMunich MS.; Bab. Talmud, ibid. 42a, according cf. Diqduqei Soferim, p. 94.

234

E.

E.

URBACH

in it. Then other and set up a statue of Mercury ruins, there came Gentiles of Mercury, came and took the stones and Gentiles, who were not worshippers roads and squares with them. There are some Rabbis who turn aside and paved others who do not turn aside. R. Johanan said: The sons of the holy ones walk on them, and we about

who did not turnaside', is the subject of the following story that! has been Drosay: Go and break all those images in thepublic baths.He went in and
them all but one. Why Jew was suspected of burning broke a Jose the son of R. Bon said: Because in the incense to it.'80This Bar Drosay, opinion a Gentile whom R. Johanan had ordered to smash the so? R. preserved the actual desecration of an idol: CR.Johanan said to Bar

shall turn aside?'79 R. Johanan, who was

one of

'the Rabbis

of the commentators, was

79

do not 'who turn aside from it. . .who Abodah Zarah 50a. In the Spanish MS.: Bab. Talmud, turn aside from it'; and in the margin: This is proof [that] a Gentile may desecrate the idol [of] See Abramson, of the same [idol].' his friend, even if they are not worshippers op. cit. (above, n. 37), 'the sons of the holy ones', cf. above, n. 13. In Jer. Talmud, Abodah Zarah iii, 14 a similar p. 202. On in the mouth of R. Joshua ben Levi. argument is placed 80 ibid, iv, 4. Lieberman, op. cit. (above, n. 28), Jer. Talmud, idolatry in the time of Hadrian's suspected Jew had performed that the memory to me, of the incident should have seems is there sufficient warrant p. 365, decrees. n. 259, But conjectures that the

been preserved for more this affair with the previous in the sources for connecting (Panar. Haer., story about paving the squares with hermae and with the tale related by Epiphanios at Tiberias which was made into a bath-house, 12 {PG, XLI, about the 'Hadrianeion' XXX, 425]) and referring them all to the same occasion, as suggested by Lieberman, ibid., pp. 361-366. Epiphanios does of not ea bath was say that a public actually made, a .His is primarily about the building story but only that it was thought of: of the church by Joseph of Tiberias. e e The

it is hardly conceivable it than a hundred years. Nor,

use

a common no less than by Jews, was of images for various purposes by Gentiles, . 286. After I had as we have seen above, and Lieberman himself remarked on it, ibid., occurrence, of Israel, the Christian Church, and written these lines, I received the article of I. Baer: The People the material the Roman Baer asks: 21, 1956 Empire, Zion, it that made 'What was the action of R. Johanan, On pp. 33-34, in discussing (Hebrew). R. Johanan, who is known for his lenient interpretations of the act with Pinhas-like the Hasmonean had done in rigour, as Mattathias

laws about idolatry, suddenly is that the incident his day, and smash all the images in his town?' Baer's answer to his own question 'an imperial decree had been promulgated occurred at a time when ordering all the Jews to burn but not only is there no hint of any such decree in the story under discussion, incense.' However, is described here is not an act of icono of the whole the plain meaning Baer passage: what ignores context and as was understood by all the commentators? is proved by the whole clastic zeal, but?as the desecration make of an idol and forbidden the use sense of the words all reference 'but one'

theistic fervour, itwas Hence,

to of its fragments. On Baer's interpretation, it is impossible or to understand why, in the course of a demonstration of mono to smash an image which a Jew was suspected of having worshipped.

is irrelevant here, and in any case of Pinhas and the Hasmoneans the story cannot be used as a source for imperial decrees in the time of R. Johanan. A. Marmorstein: of R. Johanan and the 'Signs of theMessiah,' The Generation 3, 1932, pp. 166 if. (Hebrew), Tarbiz, by Lieberman, put forward a similar view, but his arguments were rightly rejected as unwarranted . 119. ibid., p. 342, and also by Baer, ibid., to the conduct

THE

RABBINICAL

LAWS

OF

IDOLATRY

235

smashed them all except one which, itwas suspected, had the fragments. He a sus been worshipped by a Jew and therefore could not be desecrated. Such was extremely rare, as indeed thewhole tone of the story indicates. picion

images in thepublic baths atTiberias, apparentlyso thatuse could be made of

The

'Rabbis who turned aside' stronglycriticized the whole systemof

absolute nature of the biblical They stressed the all-embracing, shall not make yourself a graven image', and maintained that 'you

dispensation. prohibition

these words applied equally to imagesof bird and beast,unlikeR. Eliezer and R. El'azar bar Zadok and otherswho held that all features might be copied, unlikeRabban moon, the starsand the signsof theZodiac in thisprohibition, moon in his upper chamber,and in contrast Gamaliel who had imagesof the to therulingof theBaraita thatall the signsof theZodiac are permitted, except
the sun and relief, again no distinction the moon. They made in contrast to thewords of the Baraita: their own engraving and an idolatrous ring bearing between verse, the dissenters except the human countenance. The dissenters also included the sun and the

emblem may not be used if it is in relief,butmay be used if it isnot in relief.'81

given interpretation to the biblical

Having

a refer to the These words that dispensation.'*2 expedient of dispensations we have already discussed and are meant to exclude them from the homilies such as the following: 'You shall not make of other Tannaim, (other gods)

could conclude theirhomily as follows: 'So implacablydid theHoly Word pursue the evil impulse, as not to give it any opportunityof finding the

Me (Heb. itti)?R. Ishmael says: You shallnotmake the likeness my of besides

servants that minister nor the likeness of high, angels, nor the likeness of nor the likeness of cherubim. R. Natan shall not make Me says: You to Him.'83 R. Abaye follows the doctrine of the Tannaim 'the servants in the uppermost heavens'.84 in for on

wheels,

do obeisance bidding

(Heb. ot?)?to preventyou from saying,I shallmake an image of Him and

only

81 of R. Meir of Rothenburg, 1557, sect. 24, Cremona, Tosefta, Abodah Zarah v, 2. Cf. the Responsa ' recessed figure'. is given: where the following explanation nsiVi, i.e. a protruding figure, nai?K?a Also Tosafot Y orna 54b, the passage commencing with the word o'lliD, and in my op. cit. (above, n. to Bab. Talmud Abodah Zarah of Nachmanides 43a and the 38), p. 478, n. 55. Cf. the Novell?? words to the work of Isaac Aliasi, chap. 3, ? 1261 quoted in his name in the commentary of R.Nissim and in S hike ha-Gibborim, ibid. 82 sect. 10, ed. Horowitz-Rabin, Mekhilta Rosh ha ba-Hodesh, pp. 224-225; Mishnah of R.lshmael, 83 ibid. 24b. Shanah Mekhilta, ibid., p. 239. ii, 8; Bab. Talmud, 84 Zarah Bab. Talmud, Rosh ha-Shanah 53b. Of the difficulty raised by the first Baraita 25b; Abodah it is there stated: it deals only with the prohibition of worship. Subsequently, a problem is posed from

236
We have seen that amongst

E.

E.

URBACH

the

last Tannaim

who

were

with the anonymous homilist inMekhilta and amongst theAmoraim who

followed them, there were many Sages who took great pains in the form of a These dispensations, which dispensation\85 idols, have to a one-sided caused no little astonishment to find 'expedients reflect the day-to

contemporary

of day requirements those Jewswho earned their livelihood bymaking and

marketing customed and to scholars who are ac an view of the history of Halakhah, seeing in it only of increasingly severe and increasingly numerous legal safeguards,

accumulation

ignoring the realistic approach of its authors to actual problems.86 In the of the laws concerning idolatry, the economic reality discussed above sphere was not the only decisive factor. There was also the clear recognition that there of idolatrous or in the use of vessels and ornaments objects, bearing artistic or even in the 'statue in the house'.87 Within the Jewish camp the a fact thatmany Gentiles

was no longer any danger in the making of idols, or in the trade in fragments
designs,

idolatrous impulsewas virtuallydead, while even in the surrounding gentile

its influence had been greatly weakened. It was their idols and images for decorative purposes them when necessary. This for starting to decorate to execute only, and were ready to is the reason why R. Johanan did not up their walls with paintings, In both and the

world used

desecrate

braid his contemporaries

half of for the similar silence of R. Abin when the Jews of his day?the first
the fourth century?began figures in mosaic.88 cases

a Baraita

which applies the prohibition also to making idols, but the purpose of the legal debate there is to bring the actions of Rabban Gamaliel the Halakhah, the into accord with and not to uphold opinion of Abaye. ? the conclusion of the debate This striving after lenient interpretations also, to my mind, underlies and not in Bab. Talmud, Shabbat 83b, that the impurity of idolatry is only a rabbinical opinion Halevi: Part I, Vol. Doroth ha-Rishonim. Ill, it as absolutely that the early Halakhah regarded (Hebrew), the impurity of idolatry, the impurity of Gentiles, the connection between and the impure. On Gentile 8, 1937, pp. 137 if. (Hebrew) soil, see G. Allon: Impurity, Tarbiz, impurity of gentile be-Toldoth Y Israel, I. Tel Aviv, 1957, pp. 121 if.). The whole matter requires further (= Mehqarim law. Despite of Isaac A. 1923, p. 308 there is no doubt op. cit. (above, Baba Mezia, n. 19), p. 65; Goodenough, op. cit. (above, n. 2), IV, p. 20. 'As for an image which has been made and placed is impure; if it is for decoration?it is pure; and (imV)?it is impure because it is like a three-legged table.' The Vilna p. 443, already as the statements

binding Berlin,

study. 86 See e.g. Elmslie, 87 o sejt a, Kelim, inside

iv, 8, p. 582:

the house, if it is for the hole if it is to hold the cup and dish?it 'to stop up the hole with.' Brand, op. cit. (above, n. 59), Gaon *iinb as meaning explained n. 32 gives to *nnV the sense of * *>, i.e.: to raise the angle of the light, an emendation edition. adopted in the Vilna ** Abodah Zarah Jer. Talmud, iii, 2 (MSS. readings). Cf. Epstein, op. cit. (above, n. 77),

p. 20.

the designs

rabbinical

laws

of

idolatry

237

in question were reproductions of forms that had previously been as forbidden. If these were introduced into regarded paintings and adornments houses for aesthetic reasons,89 it is not surprising that they should also private have found their way into synagogues and cemeteries. The Sages themselves and sculptors to give vividness to their ideas and their expositions texts. For instance the organic unity of the Ten Commandments, with its corollary that the transgression of one com mandment involved the transgression of them all, is illustrated in Mekhilta90 of painters of biblical by the parable of a mortal king who entered a city and set up statues and made himself images and minted coins'. The verse 'there is no rock like our (*vix) our God'. referred to the works

God'

to one source in the name of R. the Sages?according to bring out the differences between God various metaphors Johanan?employed a mortal and 'When a mortal fashions a figure, he begins with its sculptor: Moreover, head, When maker or foot, or one of its limbs, but the Holy One blessed be He A mortal forms it all at once... He fashions a figure, He is not so. goes to a craftsman

(1 Sam. ii, 2) is expounded as meaning 'thereis no sculptor (

) like

world byHis word is not his pictureand I will copy it.But He who created the
so: he gives this man a son

a likeness of my father. The of images and says to him: Make me says to him: Bring me your father and place him in front of me; or bring a of water.'91 resembling his father from drop

In

thishomily, it can at least be said that thepurpose of thiscomparisonof God

to themortal be He He sculptor is to bring out the contrast between

them. But there is no

in such justification thefollowingpassage: 'R.Levi said: The Holy One blessed look upon it and it beholds themall. So theHoly One blessed be He. When
appeared to them like a statue with a face on every side. A thousand people

in Israel would is talking to me.'22 say, The Word spoke, every single person use of this daring Just as R. Levi found nothing offensive in the comparison of

89 in the homily in theMekhilta A sort of protest against this dispensation is expressed of R. Simeon even for ornament.' bar Jobay, ed. Epstein-Melammed, p. 222: 'You shall not make unto yourself?not 'You As against this, we find in the Tar gum Jonathan to Lev. xxvi, 1 (ed. Ginsburger, p. 220): shall not set up a figured stone in your land, to bow down to it, but a mosaic pavement of designs and so long as you do not do obeisance forms you may set in the floor of your places of worship, to it.' Cf. Bab. Talmud, Megillah, 22b. 80 Mekhilta p. 233. of R. Ishmael, Jethro, sect. 8, ed. Horowitz-Rabin, 81 Samuel the first comparison Mekhilta is attributed of R. Simeon bar Johay, pp. 93-34. In Midrash to R. Krispa 92 Tanhuma on the authority of R. Johanan. Cf. Bab. ed. Buber, ibid., Talmud, Berakhoth 6a. 110a. Jethro, 11; Tanhuma, 17; Pesiqta of Rab Kahana,

238 God make

E.

E.

URBACH

so Jewish craftsmen did not consider it a sin to to Janus Quadrifrons,93 use of pagan motifs in theirwork. At the same time, they began to execute even in the synagogues, that showed the influence of the allegorical

of which they heard from the rabbinicalauthors interpretations biblical stories of the Aggadah.
The and motives that we have adduced in of 'the explanation of dispensation' on the law and of the lenient interpretations expedients placed most of the from the second to the fourth centuries in all that con by Sages arguments cerned artistic reproductions laws about idolatry inwhich

designs,

us to understand of forms, can also those help the greater stringency?can opposite tendency?to be clearly discerned. We shall find that, in these cases, starting from different reasons were found for a different premises, equally adequate legal ruling based on a different approach. Nowhere the cult of emperor-worship in their hand in our sources is there the slightest suggestion of indulgence where was concerned. The Sages disagreed with R. Meir

'a staff or a bird or a sphere',94 towhich are added, in the Tosef ta, a sword, a crown, a in the ring, and a snake.95 The first three are explained as follows: Talmud staff, because he ruled the whole world with Jerusalem a bird, as it is written, "My hand has found like a nest the wealth of the it; peoples"; Tosefta a

and did not forbid the aestheticuse of all images,but only of those which held

in theBabylonian Talmud, both these three symbolsand the additions in the

sphere, because

the world

ismade

in the shape of a sphere;'96 and

are similarly as the emblems of the a explained emperor's power. It is fact that all the objects mentioned were adjuncts of the statues of the Roman

Tannaim were divided in theiropinions about thegeneralityof images,but if was certain that they were images of kings, all agreed in forbidding them; 'it
93 G. Wissowa: Bab. Talmud,

Samuel rightly remarked on the whole Mishnah: emperors,97 and the Amora to the statues of kings'.98 to the Jerusalem Talmud, 'it refers the According

was certainthatthey were imagesof officials, agreed in if it all permittingthem'.

Religion Abodah Abodah Abodah und Kultus Zarah Zarah Zarah 3a. der R?mer. M?nchen, 1912, p. 116. 95 Ibid. 5a. 97 iii, 1. Blaufuss, op. cit. (above, 40b. In Rashi, the comment beginning with the word

96 Jer. Talmud, 93 Bab. Talmud, nary statue was word ibid.:

. 65), pp. 10-11. >tmjK : 'An ordi

Cf. the Tosafot, already forbidden by R. Meir.' ibid., the passage commencing with the ?D-nwn, ihid., 4 la: staff, because he lords it over the whole world with a staff.' And Rashi, It is an expression of abuse, meaning that he lords over all.'

THE This means mentioned

RABBINICAL

LAWS

OF

IDOLATRY

239 the adjuncts to emperor

In the ancient world there were?on the evidence of Pliny"?more worship. as R. Isaac put it: they wrote down the name gods than human beings, or, them.'100 But, in that same world, and power were felt daily. The only one emperor whose cult of the emperor was of special there was

that a royal statue was forbidden, even if it did not have above. The argument of inefficacy could not be applied

of everysingle one of theiridols, all thehides in the world would not suffice
sovereignty importance

Roman Empirewhere itfittedinwell with the imme in theeasternpart of the morial beliefs of the region. Particularly from the time of theAntonines
might almost say, the religion of absolute polit ical power. It was not an individual that was but the more than worshipped, human power of which he was the personification. Statues and images of emper e e a e ors, who were identified with various gods and appeared as ,101 were thus no ordinary likenesses; and therefore, in regard to them, the Sages onwards, neither could nor would themselves cult was use of the expedient absolutely forbidden. that they were of desecration.102 Everything the argument ineffectual, or avail connected with this this cult became, one

Mishnah as pagan religious festivals Of the few days thatare listedby the were forbiddento when, for threedays both before and after the event,Jews
have one was 'the day of the birth and the dealings with Gentiles, death' of kings. In thewords of the Sages, where burning has place at the death any business
Plinius: Hist. Nat., 16, 7, 2; Petronius, 4. 1W sect. 6, ed. Horowitz-Rabin, .ba-Hodesh, Mekhilta, p. 97 reads 'all the asses (rm"sr ) in the world'. The 89

sect. 43, ed. Finkelstein, p. 124; Sifre, Deut., right interpretation was given by J.N. Epstein: Cf. Lieberman, and Babyl. Aramaic, Leshonenu, Mishnaic 15, 1947, p. 104 (Hebrew). op. cit. (above, n. 19), p. 115, with his reference to John xxi, 25 and the words of Clement of Alexandria, III, end. Protrepticus, 101 in the likeness of Hercules statue of the Emperor Commodus The (in the Capitoline Museum) apples in his left, while under the portrays him holding a club in his right hand and Hesperidean Die statue there is a globe?all the symbols mentioned in ihren Beziehungen Kultur hellenistisch-r?m. p. 150; and ibid., Pl. IV, the picture of Commodus and Faustina. The Divinity Herrscherkult, pp. 372 ff. 102 Blaufuss, emperors' the Di gesta pieces in theMishnah we have quoted. Cf. P. Wendland: zu Judentum und Christentum. T?bingen, 1912, and the picture of the consecration of Antoninus

on pp. 422-423. On the emperor-cult see L. R. Taylor: of Lietzmann See the explanation Zum Kampf gegen den antiken 1931; F. Taeger: of the Roman Emperor. Middletown, . Archiv f?r Religionswissensch., 32, 1935, pp. 282 if. Nilsson, op. cit. (above, 53),

.65), the impossibility of desecration the where p. 12, explains op. cit. (above, statues were concerned by the fear of crimen laesae maiestatis. But the various laws in by him, ibid., . 1, in fact testify to the commercial use of these statues or of

quoted of them.

240 (rites)

E.

E.

URBACH

The emperor judgedworthy of this rite was, from the timeof theAntonines,
in corpore, and once in effigie. In the latter ceremony, a wax image of the emperor was totally consumed by the flames, leaving nothing behind. This burning was interpreted as the emperor's apotheosis and replaced the oath of witnesses which had been customary in earlier reigns. It was laid burnt twice: once

there is idolatry; where burning has no place, there is no idolatry'.103 consecratiorits. 'Burning' here apparently refers to the rite of apotheosis?r?tus

down by the Sages that the pagan festival was not the day of the emperor's death, as a but the day of his proclamation god, i.e. the day of the ceremonial burn we may ing.104 Accordingly, perhaps regard the controversy in the Mishnah between R. Meir and the Sages as a difference of opinion about the meaning of of kings'. In R. Meir's 'the 'the anniversaries the expression (ipoun) opinion anniversaries' were both the day of the emperor's birth and the day of his death.

Greek a Such a doublemeaning of the

significance of the Latin dies natalis, which denotes both the day of the emper The Sages, on the contrary, were of or's birth and the day of his consecration In the opinion that 'the anniversaries' meant only the day of the apotheosis. addition to these two days, there was another one inseparable from the emperor of the empire' (in the original O'OD?p = day of the commemoration ship?'the Greek This may refer either to 'the day on which Rome seized i. e. 16 April, the dies imperii, or to the accession day of world-sovereignty', every emperor; or possibly the tradition preserved in the Babylonian Talmud? in the days of Queen that it is 'the day on which Rome seized world-sovereignty a ). Cleopatra'?is conquered
103 Mishnah

a is inkeepingwith the twofold

correct, and the reference is to the day on which Egypt was i. e. 1August.106 It is notable that the festivals connected byAugustus,

Zarah i, 3; Epstein, op. cit. (above, n. 68), p. 482, says that the plain sense of is that the body was burnt. But the Romans then always burnt their dead. And what can be the meaning of where burning has no place at the death' ? 104 In Bab. Talmud, ibid. 11a the explanation given is 'that, together with the kings, they burn their bed and their personal effects', and according to Jer. Talmud, ibid, i, 2, the reference is to offering up Abodah the Mishnah incense and 'burning'. Cf. Ch. Albeck: Supplement first to remark on the connection between our Mishnah to Seder Mo'ed. and Jerusalem, 1952, p. 487. The the rite of apotheosis was Heinrich Lewy Blaufuss: Rom. Feste und Feiertage nach den

52, 1893, p. 734). He was followed by H. (Philologus, Traktaten ?ber fremden Dienst. N?rnberg, his description of the consecra 1909, pp. 20-21. However, do needs to be revised, especially in the light of the statements of E. Bickermann: Die r?m. Kaiser apotheose, Archiv 27, 1929, pp. 1-24. f?r Religionswissensch., 105 . . 17. Blaufuss, op. cit. (above, 104), 106 Greek in Jewish Palestine. New Ibid., pp. 13-15; S. Lieberman: in support of the second view. evidence

York,

1942, pp. 9-10, has quoted

THE with

RABBINICAL

LAWS

OF

IDOLATRY

241

the emperor and the empire receive quite different treatment in the in theMish Halakhah from that accorded to the first two festivals mentioned In the case of these latter, R. Johanan to business dealings only with Gentiles who are known limits the prohibition to idols on those festivals.107 This dispensation was also granted by the worship Amoraim Rab Judah and Rabba.108 But there is no such limitation in regard nah?'the Calends and the Saturnalia*. to the trotnp and the days of the emperor's birth and death. These pagan festivals were observed by everyone, since in them religious and patriotic emotions were fused in a demonstration of the fundamental unity of the empire underlying the many differences between its disparate sections. In the second century both the orthodox devotees of idolatry and those who no longer believed in itmust have agreed that the emperors, as revealed gods, were more worthy deities of whom nothing certain was known. of veneration than the Olympian as has Behind the emperor-cult, already been stated, lay the principle of the worship of absolute power. This world,

polemic in theTalmud andMidrash against the religious conceptionsof the of the ow and all that it implied.109 But it is noteworthythat thispolemic
in the first centuries of the present era, on the subject

is not the place

to discuss

the very interesting

Hellenistic-Roman was

carried on at a different level, and from a different standpoint, to the debate about the worship of man-made gods and idols. One thing is certain: neither the Tannaim of the second century nor the Amoraim of the third showed any tendency

to compromise or concession in anything connected with emperor even too the same economic considerations were invol though here worship, ved.110 In addition to the ideological reasons for their opposition indicated above, power The and for Jews fraught with the danger of social and national assimilation. laws commanding Jews to have no social intercourse with Gentiles, to from all contact with their customs and activities, were keep away was

theysensed that the glittering splendourof the outward display of imperial

107 ibid. 8a. i, 2, and Bab. Talmud, Jer. Tahnud, Abodah Zarah 108 Bab. Talmud, ibid., 64b; 65a. Cf. ibid., 6b. 109 I intend shortly to publish a special study on this question. 110 It was that induced Samuel to rule: these considerations their festival dissented Seville opinion is forbidden,' Bab. from the opinion of R. to Abodah Talmud, Johanan Zarah, Ahodah Zarah 7b, and permitted ibid., explains

the Diaspora and ibid. 6b.

only

the actual ben

Simeon

day of Lakhish

in his Novell?? and was

the dealings post factum. R. Yom-Tow of that this prohibition is only a rabbinical decide on an absolute

prohibition,

meant only as a safeguard, and therefore 'they did not ... to the but suited their dispensations place and the time'.

242 most

E.

E.

URBACH

while they had no fear that theircontemporaries would parent paradox is that, were gravely and worship pagan gods or take part in pagan rites, they go national identity perturbedby thedanger to their implicitin theirsocial contact
with the Gentiles and the consequent moral forgetting the Law and the Commandments. were still very instinct had been eradicated long since; but the sensual passions much alive.111 Israelites outside the Land are idolaters. How is it possible? A corruption resulting from their true that the idolatrous It was

stringently enforced by those very Sages who were their interpretation of the laws about actual idolatry. The

lenient in usually reason for this ap

Gentile who is giving a wedding-feast for his son, invitesall the Jewswho Even though theyeat theirown food and drink theirown wine live inhis city.
and are waited on by their own servant, they are idolaters; as it is said, And makes a he

On shall call you and you shall eat of his sacrifice/112 the authority this of
Baraita,

feast for his son, (businesswith them is) forbiddenonly on that day'?the Amoraim forbid a Jew to accept an invitationto the house of a Gentile for Though the actual reason given for thiskeeping away fromgentile parties is thefear thatthehostwill make a professionof faithto an idol,113 seems likely it in theverse 'andyou shall takeof his daughtersfor thatthe misgiving expressed
your sons' was no less real, to Jews who were not careful especially with regard about 'eating their own food and drinking their own wine'. As proof of this it in Sifre114 about the Is sufficient to cite the passage worship of Ba'al pefor. Out thirty days, or sometimes even for a whole year, from the day of the celebration.

and in opposition

to theMishnah?when

a Gentile

wedding

wardly, this passage appears to deal with the incident which occurred at Shittim, but, in fact, as B?chler has already shown, it refers to events contemporary with the writer: 'Latterly theyhave once more taken to holding revels (Heb. marze him)

and inviting Madaba map theBethMarze ah guests to themand eating In the water festival withMaiumas which is also theSyrian in Jer.xvi, 5 is identified The topicality thewhole subject of with its orgiastic rites.115 makes itselffelt
. 17 and Bab. Talmud, Abodah Zarah vii, 8. Cf. above, 65a, on the case of Song of Sol. Kabbah Bar Sheshak who did not commit idolatry. 112 ibid. 8a, and Diqduqei iv, 6, and Bab. Talmud, Tosefta, Abodah Zarah Soferim, ibid. 113 Hilkhot Abodah See Rashi, 9, 15. Zarah, ibid., and cf. Maimonides, 114 sect. 131, ed. Horowitz, Sanh?drin pp. 170-171; Bab. Talmud, 67a, 6a. Sifre, Num., 115 localit? ?nigmatique A. B?chler: Une ..., Revue des ?tudes juives, 42, 1901, pp. 125-128; M. Avi Yonah: The Madaba Revue des Mosaic ?tudes Map. juives, Jerusalem, 43, 1954, p. 41; le Talmud, 1901, p. 204. The oavn et rites syriens dans cf. I. L?vy: Cultes was first correctly of theMidrashim 111

THE

RABBINICAL

LAWS

OF

IDOLATRY

243

in the style of the description and in the conscious endeavours of the homilist to avoid anachronism: 'At that time the Ammonites and Moabites went and built placed themselves cells116 from Beth ha-Yeshimoth who to the Mount of Snow and eat therein women sold all kinds of gifts. The Israelites would

and drink,and one of them would go out towalk in the market and wish to an article from theold woman.When she sold it tohim at itsproperprice, buy theyounggirlwould call to him from inside:Come and take it for less. So he would buy fromher on one day and on the next, and on the thirdday she
would

where shehad a jar full ofAmmonitewine, home here. So he would go inside, was before the wine ofGentiles was forbiddento Israel. Shewould say and this to him,Do youwish to drink wine ? So he would drinkand the wine inflamed him tillhe said,Listen tome. Then she would produce an imageof pe'or from a= under her swathings ( a >00) and say to him: Rabbi, ifyouwish me
to listen to you, first do obeisance to this. He would to an idol? She would does itmatter answer, What Can I do obeisance reply, to you? You only have to

say to him: Come

inside and choose

for yourself;

after all you are at

expose yourself to it.. / This shows that itwas precisely the degrading and manner of theritethat induced theJew topermithimself toperform disgusting which illustratesthe opposite attitude, is attributed it.The following story,
to Rab: There was

thiswoman recoversfromher illness shewill go and worship every idol in the world. She rose fromher bed and went to every idol in the world/When
saw how itwas 'she pefor and worshipped, this woman should be ill again than that she should worship a way/117 This was not how the Jew felt: he was more likely by a reverential form of idol worship. The truth is, however, she came to Bafal as Rab stated: 'The Israelites knew that there was said, Better that an idol in such to be impressed that in all these

once a woman gentile

who was

Very very ill. She

said, If

descriptions thewhole question of idolatry is of only secondaryimportance, onlyworshipped it inorder topermit themselves public fornication\118 The actual situation theJews in the secondand third of centuries necessitated Gentiles. It also called for therigorousapplication theirsocial isolationfromthe wine and food of Gentiles and the sale of the laws concerningthe everyday
Studien. Breslau, 1871, pp. 97-100. identified by J. Perles: Etymologische in Memory Berlin, 1897, pp. 339 if. of A. Kohut. 118 a = cella (S. Krauss: Lehnw?rter. 1899, p. 529). Berlin, 117 118 Sanh?drin 61a. Bab. Talmud, Ibid. 63b. Cf. S.Krauss: Semitic Studies

no reality to the idol and they

244 of articles gentile that might serve as

E.

E.

URBACH

idolatrous

more essential, since therecould be no orderly with a mixed public life in cities
in various fields, without co-operation between Jew and Gentile population relations' or 'out of enmity', as is either 'for the sake of peaceful explicitly 'If a Jew enters a city and finds the Gentiles seated in a Baraita: rejoicing, he them.'120 Hence, it was rejoices with them, only because he tries to please such co-operation might be necessary to define clearly the limits to which asked R. Ami: What carried, as indeed was actually done: 'The men of Gadarah sake of peaceful relations. But R. Ba said to him, Have we not

purchasers

to throw off moral

or make it easier for the offerings restraints.119 This stringency was all the

is theday of a gentilewedding-feast?He thoughtto permit it to them,for the

learnt from

for R. Hiyyah we would have permitted their idolatrous festival. Blessed be He who has kept us far from them.'121 The question that arose in Gadarah on the day of a was whether itwas pagan festival, to perform for permitted, the Gentiles acts which had been 'for the sake of relations'. permitted peaceful But at the same time, in the sphere of painting and plastic art, ways were But in addition to the reasons discussed above, a image'. Here operative from the fourth century onwards. The Sages and teachers of Israel were now faced with a new phenomenon to which had been unknown previous generations. As it spread through the ancient world, Christianity, which was no less opposed to idolatry than Judaism, of idols and images. In conducted a vigorous campaign against the worship this struggle it also made use of expressions and similes, arguments and proofs drawn from the storehouse of the Jewish prophets and sages. But, at the same yourself new factor became not make an

R. R. Hiyyah that theway of a gentilewedding-feast is forbidden? Ami said,

found of mitigating the rigourof the laws arising from the verse 'You shall

time,the emissariesof thenew religionand theChurch Fathers foughtno less

119 Mishnah

are certainly grounds ibid. 15b; 22b. There Abodah Zarah for ii, 1; Bah. Talmud, such as those on the selling of large cattle, the letting of houses that prohibitions and of protecting Jewish agricultural the like, had the specifically economic purpose property, in view In the completely above. discussed different circumstances of the danger of expropriation of the assuming Middle 1953, opposite authorities were actuated by practical commercial of the considerations in the Teaching Tolerance of Menahem 18, Ha-Meiri, Religious Zion, in my Ba(alei and cf. various passages pp. 17, 21 (Hebrew), 1955, ha-Tosafot, Jerusalem, " ? in the index under the rabbinical Ages, kind. See J. Katz: and Social 121 Tendencies in the Talmudic ibid., 3.

listed 120 Zarah i, 1; cf. my article Religious Jer. Talmud, Abodah on Charity, Zion, 16, 1951, pp. 23 if. (Hebrew). Teachings

Jer. Talmud,

THE

RABBINICAL

LAWS

OF

IDOLATRY

245

in the flesh* fiercely against the adherents of their parent-creed, against Israel and called for the breaking down of together with its Law and Commandments, the barriers between Israel and the Gentiles. R. Tarfon had already said of the an idolatrous Him.'122 R. disregards the man

sectaries (i. e. the Jewish Christians) :

I were being pursued I would enter

of worship, because the idolaters 'Whoever man who cases

Him, whereas theothersknowHim and stilldeny denyGod without knowing

Shesheth said, in the name seasons of R. El'azar an ben Azariah: the appointed breaks is virtually idolater/123 The the reference

shrine rather than their places

Mishnah Abot together with disregards the appointed seasons ismentioned in

who the covenant of Abraham, in both being to the early Christians.124 This finds expression also in the Halakhah. this R. Tahlifa bar Abdumi equating of Christians R. Ishmael forbade business the case with idolaters dealings ...

with Gentiles threedays before and threedays after theirforbiddenfestivals.

On commented:

is permanently Nor is this the isolatedopinion of this thirdcen forbidden/125

Amora. A similar view is found in a Baraita: tury the sectaries/126 The purpose 'It is forbidden to have business to ensure dealings with of such rulings was that

'(In

of) Christians

it

with thenew sectby isolating themfrom it both socially Jewshad no contact

and commercially. Thus, besides the religious, social, and economic factors at

of also served work in the Jewishand pagan world, the influence Christianity to Halakhah to painting and theplastic arts at the mitigate the attitudeof the
end of the second and throughout the third century.

322 ose fta, S habbat xiii, 5 and the parallel passages. 123 Pesahim 23a. Bab. Talmud, 118a; Makkot 124 See Zion (above, n. 120), p. 7. 125 Zarah Abodah Bab. Talmud, 6a; 7b. In the printed Cf. Diqduqei forbidden.' ibid., and in the old Soferim, follows the error of that man who In the Middle Ages, ordered them to make the Sabbath.' Christians

editions: editions

'The

first day...

is for ever

and Rashi:

Christian?who

bition. On the interpretation placed Katz, op. cit (above, n. 119), p. 27. 126 Zarah Bab. Talmud, Abodah 27b. and in theNovell?? of R. Yom-Tow negotiations.

a religious holiday on the first day after from this prohi surprisingly enough were exempted see of the Gemara, upon the above quoted words by Ha-Meiri In the Tosafot, ibid., the passage commencing with the word that the reference is to purely verbal of Seville, it is explained