Blogging the Jerusalem Talmud

[Karl Radl]

Blogging the Jerusalem Talmud

Tractate Bikkurim

As part of a project I have had in mind for some time after I read Robert Spencer's 'Blogging the Qu'ran' articles a while back. I thought I'd write a blog about each of the different tractates in the Talmuds (i.e. the Babylonian [Bavli] and the Jersualem [Yerushalmi]) and if that went well I would move on to do the (Written) Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim and the Zohar as well.

In this article series I will be focusing on the Halakhah (i.e. jewish religious law) and Aggadah (i.e. sayings/stories) derived from each tractate as they touch on subjects that I believe will be of great interest to the non-jewish reader. What I will not be doing is delving into the (often very technical) questions of the minutiae of religious practice, ritual and form that the Talmudic texts tend to spend a considerable amount of time discussing.

To begin with I'd like to discuss one of the smaller tractates called Bikkurim ('First Fruits'), which primarily deals with the subject of the tithes that are to be offered to Yahweh in the temple and which the priestly caste (the Kohanim) are to take charge of and use for their own support (as well as the glorification of Yahweh).

As dull as this sounds superficially there are some points of interest to be highlighted and considered.

To begin on a light note: we are informed that a dead reptile communicates uncleanness to a jew if they have touched said reptile's corpse over a surface area greater than the size of a lentil. (1) As well as that the standard measure of whether someone has leprosy or not is if they have a bright spot the size of a split bean on their skin or not. (2)

Oh and that, according to Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish, jewish men cannot inherit a wife. (3) Although this should be qualified since Judaism has a practice called Yibbum ('Levirate') where a childless widow has to marry her brother-in-law regardless of whether he has a wife already or not. (4) The only party who gets a choice in the matter is said brother-in-law who can choose not to do so (but can equally force her to marry him irrespective of her wishes) and perform the ceremony called Chalitzah ('Taking off the Shoe'), which frees her from this halakhic obligation. (5)

Moving on to more serious matters: Bikkurim takes the concept of property very seriously and it rules that if a jew steals a branch from another jew's tree then he owes him money as recompense. (6)

Further is that if a jew who is not a member of the priestly caste eats all or part of his required offering of the first fruits then he has to compensate the temple in the form an additional tithe as recompense for his error/weakness. (7)

It is worth remembering that when we speak of first fruits here: Bikkurim takes this literally and informs us that it is a quantity of first fruit of any tree or bush that a jew owns produces, which is then liable to a tithe in order to feed the priestly class.

This refers to the fact that in both historic and current Judaism: rabbis quite literally rule the life of their congregants (this is particularly true in the case of Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox Judaism) as halakhah literally has thousands of rules based off of the 613 Mitzvot ('Commandments') derived from the (Written) Torah. Thus it is necessary for the rabbi's congregation to materially support him so that he can provide 'expert guidance' at a moment's notice for his flock in all matter's of religious law (halakhah) and custom (minhag).

For example he has to advise as to whether a milchig spoon (i.e. a spoon with milk status in kashruth) touching a fleishig meal (i.e. a meal with meat status in kashruth) renders the meal treif (i.e. forbidden/not permitted) and whether the spoon must now be kashered (i.e. ritually cleaned and possibly ritually blessed) in order to be used again. (8)

Another is the fact that a jewish woman who is in menstruating must take a ritual bath in a mikvah (a pool of 'free-flowing water' usually attached to a synagogue) in order to be ritually permitted to have sex with her husband (9) and if any additional blood is discovered after this ritual immersion then she must show her rabbi how much blood was emitted (usually on a towel) and wait for judgement as to whether she is to continue to ritually be in a state of niddah (i.e. ritual impurity) for an additional period. (10)

The point here is that the rabbi all but controls his congregation by maintaining his communal role as a 'religious expert' and thus has the ability to penalize and exploit his congregants at will by being more or less lenient with his rulings dependent on his preferences.

This is clearly an exploitative situation and one that has significant historical precedent in Judaism as during the second temple period (i.e. from its construction by Solomon up the destruction of it by Titus in 70 AD) Judaism was, as Campbell observes, a religion controlled by a Jerusalem-based religious elite who imposed taxes on all jews that the latter were religiously obliged to pay and used the rules of the (Written) Torah to try and govern the life of every individual member of their society down to the last detail. (11)

This was then carried on in a different (i.e. decentralized rather than centralized) form by the Pharisee ancestors of the modern jews: who compiled the Mishnah and Gemaras (the principal elements of the two Talmuds) in order to continue this form of theocratic tyranny. (12)

This goal of rabbis governing the lives of all jews is something that is fundamental to what Judaism is (hence the idea of 'the yoke of the Torah') and as such suggests the reason why Judaism is by nature so extremely legalistic (because it a religion that sees itself as a quasi-religious state without [until recently] territory to rule).

Judaism is all about power and control as opposed to philosophy and spirituality.

This rabbinic theocratic totalitarianism also translates into a near obsession with jewish blood purity and the threat of assimilation, (13) which is codified in Judaism's rulings regarding non-jews and converts. (14)

We can also see this Bikkurim when we read:

'Mishnah: The following bring (Bikkurim) but do not recite (the declaration): A proselyte brings but does not recite, because it says: The land which the Lord swore unto our Father to give us. But if his mother was an Israelite, he brings and recites when he prays he says: 'The God of our Fathers of Israel' and when he is in the synagogue he says, 'The God of your Fathers'. If his mother was an Israelite he says: 'The God of our Fathers.'' (15)

To simplify this somewhat confusing passage to aid understanding. The Mishnah on these points boils down to the simple declarations that:

A) A convert to Judaism (i.e. a proselyte) is not an Israelite when they have successfully converted and as such are not counted by the Mishnah as being among the jewish nation.

B) Jewishness is defined primarily by whether one's mother was an Israeli/member of the jewish nation (i.e. born to a jewish mother herself and so on back to the time of Abraham and Sarah).

In the Gemara commentary on this: the Mishnaic ruling is upheld with the only dissenting opinion being that of Rabbi Judah who held that because Yahweh was the father of all nations even non-jews: then it was appropriate for a non-jew to say 'our Fathers' rather than 'your Fathers'. (16)

We should however be careful to note that all Rabbi Judah is saying here is that because Yahweh created the world and all peoples then he is technically 'the father' of non-jews as well and thus non-jews are able to recite accordingly. He is explicitly not saying that converts to Judaism (i.e. proselytes) are equal to born jews (i.e. Israelites).

We also see this quasi-biological discrimination against non-jews in a passage in Bikkurim dealing with a similar subject. To wit:

'Mishnah: R. Eliezer b. Jacob says: A woman, the daughter of a proselyte, may not marry into the priesthood unless her mother an Israelite. Whether they be proselytes of freed slaves the law applies to them, even to the tenth generation, except if their mother is an Israelite.' (17)

This passage is rather explicit (as indeed the Palestinian Talmud tends to be in contrast to its more veiled Babylonian cousin) (18) in what it is saying, but to summarize once again for the sake of clarity:

A) Converts to Judaism (i.e. proselytes) are not considered to be part of the jewish nation (i.e. Israelites).

B) The children of converts to Judaism are not considered part of the jewish nation.

C) This proselyte status applies in perpetuity to all descendents of converts to Judaism (along the female line in particular).

D) The daughters of converts to Judaism are not permitted to marry jews who are descendents of the jewish priesthood (i.e. the Kohanim).

The commentary of the Gemara on this passage upholds Rabbi ben Jacob's ruling on this point, but Rabbi Simeon clarifies this by saying that if a non-jewish convert is under three years and a day old then she may marry a member of the Kohanim. Other rabbis provide the rational for this in so far as that the little child should be considered as a maid-servant of Israel and as such it is permitted for her to marry into the higher reaches of the jewish priesthood. (19)

In spite of this minuscule concession by Rabbi Simeon: Rabbi ben Jacob's ruling (and the Gemara's confirmation of it) clearly indicates that Judaism (unlike Christianity and Islam) is not a confession-based religious system, but rather allows confessions of faith (which it is worth remembering are made extremely difficult even today) (20) while systematically preventing/discouraging converts from marrying what Judaism regards as the jews of the purest blood (i.e. it is a caste-based religious system, which allows but then actively discriminates against religious converts).

An aggadic comment on this subject in Bikkurim also provides further evidence of the avidity with which sexual mixing between 'pure blood' Kohanim and converts to Judaism is discouraged. As we can see when we read:

'A certain priest married the daughter of proselytes. When the case came before R. Abbahu he ordered that he should be laid on the bench (for flagellation).' (21)

In commenting on this case the rabbis admonish the Kohanim to guard and preserve their (biologically-defined) sacred status within Israel by only marrying Israelites (i.e. those born jews) and not converts to Judaism. (22)

It is also worth noting the rather vile statement by Rabbi Ze'ira that is made as a general aside to this issue in Bikkurim when we find him ruling that the child of a girl between 11 and 11 1/2 who is married to a high priest (i.e. one of the elite even among the Kohanim) can marry a Kohanim. (23) We are explicitly told however that this child of the 11 year old girl must be a virgin and she cannot be a (presumably maternal) descendant of a convert to Judaism. (24)

In other words what Rabbi Ze'ira is telling us here is that marriage of a (presumably at least middle-aged) man to a 10 year old (as remember she is to have the child when she is between 11 and 11 1/2) was something which was familiar enough to him to use as an example (to which he notably did not object and nor did his fellow rabbis) in discussing the subject of marriage between Kohanim and converts to Judaism (which we should note once again that Rabbi Ze'ira forbade). The substance of this the Gemara here provides suggestive evidence of child marriage among the jews along the lines of that undertaken by Mohammed in regard to Aisha.

So in summary of Tractate Bikkum of the Palestinian Talmud: we can see how Judaism treats converts to Judaism as individuals of intrinsically lesser worth than those individuals born jewish (and that inferior status applies for all time to their descendants as well), permits paederasty and seeks to impose a legalistic theocratic cult lifestyle on its followers.

References

(1) Joseph Rabbinowitz, 1975, 'The Jerusalem Talmud Bikkurim: Text, Translation, Introduction and Commentary', 1st Edition, J. Lehmann: Gateshead, p. 11
(2) Ibid, p. 10
(3) Ibid, p. 20
(4) John Rayner, 1975, 'Guide to Jewish Marriage', 1st Edition, Union of Liberal and Progressive Synagogues: London, pp. 8; 15
(5) Ibid, p. 15
(6) Rabbinowitz, Op. Cit., pp. 5-6
(7) Ibid, p. 31
(8) For example see Shaul Wagschal, 1991, 'The New Practical Guide to Kashruth', 1st Edition, Feldheim: Jerusalem, pp. 37-49
(9) Maurice Lamm, 1991, 'Becoming a Jew', 1st Edition, Jonathan David: New York, p. 402
(10) On this see Reva Mann, 2007, 'The Rabbi's Daughter: A True Story of Sex, Drugs and Orthodoxy', 1st Edition, Hodder & Stoughton: London; as well as Solomon Ganzfried, Kitzur Schulchan Aruch, 152-156
(11) Jonathan Campbell, 1996, 'Deciphering the Dead Sea Scrolls', 1st Edition, Fontana: London, pp. 111-112
(12) Ibid, pp. 107-109
(13) Ibid, pp. 108-109; David Kraemer, 2009, 'Jewish Eating and Identity through the Ages', 2nd Edition, Routledge: New York, pp. 39-54
(14) For a discussion of a select few of these see: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...law-legal.html; also Rayner, Op. Cit., pp. 17-18
(15) Rabbinowitz, Op. Cit., pp. 12-13
(16) Ibid, pp. 13-15
(17) Ibid, p.15
(18) Ibid, p. vii
(19) Ibid, p. 16
(20) Rayner, Op. Cit., p. 6; Lamm, Op. Cit., pp. xix-xxii
(21) Rabbinowitz, Op. Cit., p. 16
(22) Ibid, pp. 16-17
(23) Ibid, p. 17
(24) Ibid, pp. 17-18

--------------------------------------

This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...-tractate.html

[Joe_Smith]

Good piece Karl. Your work is underrated. If you wrote similar stuff about Muslims, you'd be a keynote speaker at every Alt-Blight AmRen convention.

[zoomcopter]

Originally Posted by Karl Radl

Blogging the Jerusalem Talmud

Tractate Bikkurim

As part of a project I have had in mind for some time after I read Robert Spencer's 'Blogging the Qu'ran' articles a while back. I thought I'd write a blog about each of the different tractates in the Talmuds (i.e. the Babylonian [Bavli] and the Jersualem [Yerushalmi]) and if that went well I would move on to do the (Written) Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim and the Zohar as well.

Judaism is all about power and control as opposed to philosophy and spirituality.

This rabbinic theocratic totalitarianism also translates into a near obsession with jewish blood purity and the threat of assimilation, (13) which is codified in Judaism's rulings regarding non-jews and converts. (14)

A very interesting project you've undertaken, Karl. I hope you address the current issues of world Judaism as they relate to the Talmud, as well. There seems to be a huge divide between the ultra-orthodox Hassidic true believers and the largely atheistic Jewish cognitive elite, as Gilad Atzmon calls them.

[Karl Radl]

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

Good piece Karl. Your work is underrated. If you wrote similar stuff about Muslims, you'd be a keynote speaker at every Alt-Blight AmRen convention.

Probably, but it doesn't bother me. I write on the jews because I enjoy it and I hope it is useful to others.

Originally Posted by Zoomcopter

I hope you address the current issues of world Judaism as they relate to the Talmud, as well.

I wasn't going to be to be fair, because the Talmuds need to be considered as standalone documents but which are the basis for halakha and all subsequent commentary.

People say Muslims are bad: I usually just smile and ask if they've read the Rabbis. The latter are less explicit, but far, far worse in what they actually say.

There seems to be a huge divide between the ultra-orthodox Hassidic true believers and the largely atheistic Jewish cognitive elite, as Gilad Atzmon calls them.

It is something I do plan to write about, but it is a very simple issue to solve by pointing out that while Chassidim follow the minutae of strict Judaism: the secular jewish elite follow a nationalistic interpretation of the logic behind and the consequences of strict Judaism.

For example the Chassids follow the minutae of performing Mitzvoth as a good deed in order to help 'repair the world' as part of the divine mission of the jews. By contrast the secular jewish elite follow the general intellectual thrust in that they support their follow jews and 'good causes' which help the jews as a people as part of their attempts to 'repair the world'.

The difference is one follows the rituals and the other takes the rituals out of the equation.