Two Jewish Temples in Egypt

TwoJewish Temples in Egypt

RabbiReuven Chaim Kleinis the author of the newly-released workGodversus Gods: Judaism in the Age of Idolatry(Mosaica Press, 2018). His book follows the narrative ofTanakh andfocuses on the stories concerning AvodahZarah usingboth traditional and academic sources. It also includes anencyclopedia of all the different types of idolatrymentioned in theBible.

RabbiKlein studied for over a decade at the premier institutesof theHareidi world, including Beth Medrash Govoha in Lakewoodand YeshivasMir in Jerusalem. He authored many articles both inEnglish andHebrew, and his first book LashonHaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew(Mosaica Press, 2014) became an instant classic. Hisweekly articleson synonyms in the Hebrew language are published in theJewishPress andOhrnet.Rabbi Klein lives with his family in Beitar Illit, Israeland can bereached via email to: rabbircklein@gmail.com

Inthis article, we will discuss two different temples which the

Jewsbuilt in Egypt: the temple at Elephantine, and Chonyo’sTemple.After providing the reader with the historical background tobothtemples, we will analyze the nature of the worship which tookplacethere, as well as their possible Halachic legitimacy.

TheTemple at Elephantine

Ancientpapyri found on the Egyptian island Elephantine (יב,Yev in Aramaic) reveal the forgotten story of a Jewish Templethatwas built there.Accordingto those documents, Jews living in Egypt when it was still anindependent state built a Temple for Hashem at Elephantine.Thisoccurred after the destruction of the First Temple, but beforetheconstruction of the Second Temple. Later, when the PersiansconqueredEgypt, they destroyed most of its temples,[1] but allowed theJewishTemple at Elephantine to remain. Sometime afterwards, thepriests ofthe Egyptian deity Khnum and the local Persian rulers colludedagainst the Jewish community at Elephantine, destroying theirTempleand taking the Temple’s gold and silver for themselves.TheJewish priests of the Elephantine temple, led by a priestnamedJedaniah, sent letters appealing to the Persian-appointedJewishgovernor of Judah and the Cuthean governate of Samaria tointerveneon their behalf, and lobby the Persians for the restoration oftheir

temple. In these letters, the priests of Elephantinerepeatedlymentioned that they wished to resume sacrificing meal-offerings,burnt-offerings, and incense (which as we will see seems to beHalachicly problematic). It seems that the Second Temple inJerusalemhad already been built by this time; as the Elephantinepriestsmentioned in their letter that they had also written toYochanan, theKohen Gadol in Jerusalem, but had not received a reply.TheElephantine Temple was eventually rebuilt, but the Jewishcommunityat Elephantine did not last much longer.[2]

Werethe Jews at Elephantine Loyal to Halachah?

Theacademic consensus views the Jews at Elephantine aspractitioners ofa syncretistic mixture of Judaism and Egyptian/Arameanidolatrouscults.[3]This comes as no surprise, because Jeremiah (Chapter 44)alreadymentioned that the Jews who remained in Judah after thedestructionof the First Temple and the subsequent assassination ofGedaliah (theBabylonian-appointed Jewish governor over what remained ofJudah)migrated to Egypt, where they engaged in idol worship.[4]Assuch, the deviant practices of these wayward Jews does notwarrantany attempt at justification.[5]However,some scholars have called this picture into question. In theAncient

Levant, it was standard practice for people to bear personalnamesthat refer to their gods. Such references to deities within aperson’s name is known as a theophoric element. Accordingly,if theJewish community at Elephantine was truly syncretistic, thenwe wouldexpect the Jews of that community to incorporate the names offoreigngods into their personal names. But the evidence shows thatthey didnot. Partially because of this lack of idolatrous theophoricelements, some scholars argue that the Jewish community atElephantine was not idolatrous—rather they remained whollydevotedto Hashem. These scholars explain away alleged allusions toforeigngods at Elephantine as the assimilation of various paganreligiousconceptsinto their brand Judaism, as opposed to the outrightacceptance ofpagan deities.[6]Similarly, the Jews at Elephantine may have used Arameanphraseologyto refer to Jewish ideas, but they did not adopt Arameanreligion.[7]Accordingto this approach, we must seek out the Halachic justificationforoffering sacrifices at the temple in Elephantine, a practicewhichseems to defy the Torah’s ban on sacrifices outside of theHolyTemple in Jerusalem. Assuming that the Elephantine Jews werebasically loyal to normative Judaism, how did they justifybuilding atemple, complete with sacrifices?Asmentioned previously, it seems that those Jews who built theTemple

at Elephantine only did so after the destruction of the FirstTemplein Jerusalem. Based on this, R. Ephraim Dov ha-Kohen Lapp(1859–1925)proposes that they followed a minority Halachic opinion whichmaintains that when the First Temple was destroyed, the siteinJerusalem lost it holy status, thus legitimizing the use ofprivatealtars.[8]Accordingly, the Temple at Elephantine had the Halachic statusof alegitimate private altar. As a result of this status, the JewsatElephantine only offered voluntary, votive sacrifices such asmeal-offerings, burnt-offerings, and incense (as opposed toobligatory sacrifices, like sin-offerings or guilt-offerings).Thisis, in fact, in accordance with the Mishnah[9]that limits the permissible sacrifices at legitimate privatealtarsto exactly such offerings.[10]

PrivateAltars in the Second Temple Period

Nonetheless,the issue that remains unresolved is why this temple was notdiscontinued or dismantled upon the construction of the SecondTemple. We can possibly resolve this question by comparing theissueof the temple at Elephantine to the issue of private altars intheKingdom of Judah.Asevident in the Book of Kings, private altars existed in theKingdomof Judah throughout the First Temple period. There was nosystematiccampaign to destroy them until Hezekiah came along. This begsthequestion: Why did righteous kings of Judah, such as Asa and

Jehoshaphat allow these private altars to remain, ifsacrifices wereonly allowed at the Holy Temple in Jerusalem?R.Moshe Sofer (1762–1839) answers that many of the privatealtars inquestion were built before the prohibition of private altarscameinto effect (i.e. before the Temple in Jerusalem was built).Therefore, since these private altars were built legitimately,theymaintained a certain degree of holiness. Consequently, it wasactually forbiddento destroy them, and this prohibition remained in effect evenonceusing them for ritual purposes became prohibited (i.e., whentheTemple was later built). For this reason, even the “good”kingsof Judah did not remove the private altars.[11]Basedon this understanding, we can conjecture that a similarapproach mayhave taken hold at the temple in Elephantine. If that templewasoriginally built at a time when private altars were permitted(because the First Temple in Jerusalem had already beendestroyed),then perhaps some Jews attached a certain degree of holinessto thetemple, and refused to dismantle it after the Second Temple inJerusalem was built. Nonetheless, even if they were justifiedinallowing the temple at Elephantine to remain standing, theredoes notseem to be any justification for continuing to offersacrificesoutside of Jerusalem once the Second Temple was built.

The

House of Chonyo

TheMishnah[12]mentions another Jewish temple in Egypt—the House of Chonyo(Onias). Chonyo was the son[13]of Shimon the Just, a righteous Kohen Gadol in the SecondTemple inJerusalem. Before his death, Shimon the Just said that his sonChonyoshould succeed him as Kohen Gadol.TheTalmud[14]offerstwo Tannaic accounts of how Chonyo’s temple came about.Accordingto R. Meir, Chonyo’s older brother Shimi became jealous thattheirfather chose Chonyo to succeed him, so he tricked Chonyo intomakinga mockery of the Temple rituals and angering the otherKohanim. Shimigave Chonyo “instructions” for his inaugural service bytellinghim that he was expected to wear a leather blouse and aspecial belt.When Chonyo came to the altar wearing those “feminine”articlesof clothing, Shimi insinuated to the other Kohanim that Chonyoworethose clothes in order to fulfill a promise to his“lover”.[15]This raised their ire and they chased him to the Egyptian cityofAlexandria,[16]wherehe established an idolatrous temple.Accordingto R. Yehudah, the story unfolds differently. Although ShimontheJust advised that his son Chonyo should become the next KohenGadol,

Chonyo deferred that honor, allowing his older brother Shimito beappointed instead. Nonetheless, Chonyo became jealous of hisolderbrother, so he devised a plan to embarrass him and deprive himof hisoffice. Chonyo gave Shimi “instructions” for his inauguralservice by telling him that he was expected to wear a leatherblouseand a special belt. When Shimi came to the altar wearing those“feminine” articles of clothes, Chonyo insinuated to the otherKohanim that Shimi wore those clothes in order to fulfill apromiseto his “lover”. When the other Kohanim found out the truth,i.e.that Chonyo had tricked Shimi by giving him incorrectinstructionsfor his inaugural service, they chased Chonyo to Alexandria,where heestablished a temple for Hashem.[17]TheTalmud concludes this second account by relating that Chonyojustified the establishment of his temple by citing the wordsofIsaiah,[18]Onthat day, there will be an altar for Hashem inside the Land ofEgypt,and a single-stone altar to Hashem next to its border (Isa.19:19).

Josephus’Account of the Chonyo Story

Josephusoffers a third account of how Chonyo’s temple was established.After the death of Alexander the Great, Greek holdings in theMiddleEast were divided between the Seleucid kingdom in Syria andthePtolemaic kingdom in Egypt. A flashpoint of contention betweenthese

two rival kingdoms was the Holy Land, and different groups ofJewstook different sides in the conflict. When the Seleucid king,Antiochus Epiphanes, led his army to Jerusalem, he violatedthe HolyTemple and halted the offering of daily sacrifices for threeand ahalf years.Chonyo,who was the Kohen Gadol in Jerusalem, was a supporter of therivalPtolemaic kingdom. When the Seleucids came to Jerusalem, hefled toEgypt. In Egypt, Ptolemy granted Chonyo permission toestablish aJewish community in the district of Heliopolis. There,[19]Chonyobuilt a city resembling Jerusalem, along with a temple thatresembledthe one in Jerusalem. Centuries later, Chonyos’ temple met itseventual demise at the hands of the Romans. After theydestroyed theSecond Holy Temple in Jerusalem, the Romans ordered theclosure ofChonyo’s temple in Egypt, and eventually its destruction.[20]Josephusseems to attribute noble intentions to Ptolemy. He was said tohavesponsored the establishment of a Jewish temple in Egypt sothat theJews there would have the opportunity to worship Hashem (andwould bemore willing to help Ptolemy battle the Seleucids). However,inexplaining Chonyo’s rationale for building the temple inEgypt,Josephus reports that Chonyo built it in order to compete withtheTemple in Jerusalem and draw Jews away from worshipping Hashemproperly. Chonyo had a bone to pick with the Jewish leadershipin

Jerusalem on account of their rejection of him, which forcedhim toflee to Egypt.Josephusalso reports that Chonyo rationalized his building of a templeonforeign soil[22]byciting Isaiah’s above-mentioned prophecy.[22]

Chonyo’sTemple in Halacha

Aswe have seen above, whether or not Chonyo’s temple wasidolatrousremains a matter of contention. According to Josephus and R.Meir,Chonyo sought to worship something other than Hashem. On theotherhand, according to R. Yehuda, Chonyo’s temple was establishedforthe sake of Hashem. If we follow the first view, then therecan be nojustification for what Chonyo did and the establishment of hisidolatrous temple in Egypt. However, if he sought to worshipHashem,then from a Halachic perspective, there may be two ways oflooking atChonyo’s temple: Either his temple was a place of forbiddenworship(albeit not quite idolatry in the classical sense ofworshipping aforeign deity), or it might have been a completely legitimateplaceof worship.Maimonides[23]follows R. Yehuda’s version of events, and explains thatChonyo’stemple was not idolatrous, perse,even though it violated the ban on sacrifices outside of the

Templein Jerusalem. In other words, the practices at Chonyo’s templereflected an illegitimate way of worshipping Hashem.Maimonides alsonotes that many local Egyptians—known as Copts—became involvedinChonyo’s temple, and were thus drawn to worshipping Hashem.TheTosafists[24]disagreewith Maimonides’ premise that Chonyo’s temple violatedHalacha.Instead, they explain that Chonyo avoided the prohibition ofofferingsacrifices outside of the Temple in Jerusalem by only offeringsacrifices belonging to non-Jews. According to this approach,therewas nothing technically wrong with Chonyo’s temple and theservicesthere.

GentilesSacrifices outside of Jerusalem

Nonetheless,the commentators grapple over reconciling the Tosafists’explanation with the opinion of the Tannaic sage R. Yose whomaintains that the prohibition of offering sacrifices outsideofTemple even extends to sacrifices of non-Jews.[25]R.Avrohom Chaim Schor (1560–1632)[26]explainsthat the dispute about whether Chonyo’s temple was legitimateornot centers around whether or not one accepts R. Yose’s view.Inother words, R. Meir accepted R. Yose’s view that even a non-Jew’ssacrifices may only be offered in the Holy Temple. As a resultofthat, R. Meir understood that Chonyo’s temple must have been

illegitimate, so he branded the temple idolatrous. Incontrast, R.Yehuda rejected R. Yose’s opinion, so he reasoned that therecouldbe Halachic justification for Chonyo’s temple. Because ofthis, R.Yehuda asserted that Chonyo’s was not idolatrous, butreflected thegenuine worship of Hashem, albeit—as the Tosafistsexplain—specifically for gentiles.Alternatively,R. Schor proposes that although R. Yose forbids offering thesacrifices of gentiles outside of the Temple in Jerusalem,thisprohibition only applies to Jewishpriests. Accordingly, R. Yehuda believed that Chonyo and theJewishpriests at his temple did not actually participate in theritualofferings there. Rather, they offered instructions for theattendinggentiles to properly offer sacrifices to Hashem. In this way,no oneat Chonyo’s Jewish-run temple ever violated the prohibitionagainstoffering sacrifices outside of the Temple in Jerusalem,because theythemselves never engaged in such actions, they only helped thegentiles do so.[27]Otherssuggest that even R. Yose differentiates between two differenttypesof sacrifices offered by a non-Jew. If a non-Jew consecrated asacrifice to be brought in the Temple in Jerusalem,[28]thenR. Yose would say that this sacrifice may not be offeredoutside ofthe Temple in Jerusalem. However, if a non-Jew consecrated asacrifice without specific intent that it should be offered inJerusalem, then his offering may Halachically be broughtelsewhere.

According to this, all opinions agree that a Jew may offer agentile’s sacrifice outside of the Temple in Jerusalemprovidedthat the gentile did not initially consecrate the sacrificewithintent to bring to Jerusalem.[29]Withthis in mind, we may justify the services at Chonyo’s templebyexplaining that they only offered the sacrifices of non-Jewsthatwere consecrated without specific intent to be offered inJerusalem.R.Yehonassan Eyebschuetz (1690–1764) proposes another answer:theTosafists’ discussion reflects the rejected opinion of theAmoraicsage R. Yitzchok.[30]R.Yitzchok understood that the prohibition of sacrificingoutside ofthe Temple does not apply outside of the Holy Land, thusjustifyingthe existence of Chonyo’s temple which stood in Egypt.[31]R.Lapp extends this logic to also justify the continuedexistence ofthe Jewish temple at Elephantine (mentioned above), even aftertheconstruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. He argues thatinaccordance with R. Yitzchok, the entire prohibition ofsacrificesoutside of the Temple only applies in the Holy Land, not inEgypt.[32]

EgyptianTemples and Eradication of the Idolatrous InclinationInshort, there were two Jewish Temples in Egypt that coexisted

with theSecond Temple in Jerusalem: the Jewish Temple at ElephantineandChonyo’s Temple in Alexandria/Heliopolis. We have shown thatit isunclear whether or not these temples were idolatrous. If thetwoJewish Temples in Egypt were non-idolatrous, then there may besomeHalachic justification for their existence.This,of course, also does not hamper our understanding of theTalmudicassertion that the idolatrous inclination was abolished withthebeginning of the Second Temple Era. However, if these JewishTemplesin Egypt were indeed idolatrous, then they pose a challenge totheTalmudic assertions regarding the elimination of theidolatrousinclination.[33]Weshall resolve this difficulty by addressing each templeseparately.TheElephantine Temple seems to have predated the construction oftheSecond Temple in Jerusalem, and thus the eradication of theidolatrous inclination. As such, the Temple existed beforethesages removed the idolatrous inclination. It is not a stretchof theimagination to postulate that even if the idolatrousinclinationsuddenly ceased to exist, those who already engaged insystematicidolatry beforehand would continue to do so simply out ofhabit. Oncethe Elephantine Temple had already been functioning for sometime, it

would not simply shut down operations overnight because thesages ridthe Jews of the idolatrous inclination. There was too much atstakefor the priests and other functionaries who profited from thetemple.RegardingChonyo’s Temple—which certainly did not predate theconstructionof the Second Temple—even if it was idolatrous, we can arguethatit was not the drive for committing idolatry which led to itsestablishment. Rather, Chonyo’s own ego and pursuit of honorledhim to establish a new Temple in Egypt. Those who participatedin hiscult were merely supporting characters in Chonyo’s own privatescheme. In other words, the existence of Chonyo’s idolatroustempledoes not contradict the Talmudic statement that the sages hadremovedthe idolatrous inclination, because the idolatrous inclinationwasnot what drove Chonyo’s temple.Torecap, the Idolatrous inclination was not in play at these twotemples. At Elephantine, it was the priests’ greed whichmotivatedtheir continued idol worship and at Chonyo’s temple, it was apersonality cult intended to elevate Chonyo which sponsoredidolatry.

[1] Thisis a fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy (Jer. 43:12–13), whichforesaw that Babylon’s Persian successors would overrun Egypt,anddestroy the Egyptian places of idol worship. All source I haveencountered assume that the establishment of the Jewishcommunity in

Elephantine occured after the destruction of the First Temple.However, Rabbi Moshe Leib Haberman (editor-in-chief of KovetzChitzei Gibborim)calls this assumption into question, because he notes thatfrom theElephantine Papyri themselves, one only sees that the Jewishsettlement there predated Cambyses, but it is unknown by howmuch.

[2] B.Porten & A. Yardeni (eds.), Textbookof Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt,vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1986), pgs. 62-64, 68-78and B.Porten TheElephantine Papyri in English(Brill, 1996) pgs. 135–137; 139–151.[3] M.H. Silverman, “The Religion of the Elephantine Jews—A NewApproach,” Proceedingsof the World Congress of Jewish Studies,חלק.vol וI division A (World Union of Jewish Studies, 1973), pg. 377.Textsfound amongst the Elephantine Papyri invoke the name of agoddessAnat-Yahu. Some scholars argue that the composite name of thisgoddess implies a syncretistic merge of the Canaanite goddessAnatwith Hashem (“Yahu”, makes up the first three-fourths of Hisname). Others argue that Anat-Yahu is wholly an Arameancreation,rather than a composite of Canaanite-Jewish conception.Arameanreligion had a god named Ashim-Bethel and his consort wasnamedAnat-Bethel. These scholars argue that idolatrous Jews, underArameaninfluence, began to confuse Bethel with Hashem, eventuallyequating

the two gods, so that Anat-Bethel was synonymous to them withAnat-Yahu. See K. Van der Toorn, “Anat-Yahu, Some OtherDeities,and the Jews of Elephantine,” Numen:International Review for the History of Religionsvol. 39:1 (1992), pgs. 80–101 and M. E. Mondriaan, “Anat-Yahuandthe Jews at Elephantine,” Journalfor Semiticsvol. 22:2 (2013), pgs. 537–552.[4] J.M. P. Smith, “The Jewish Temple at Elephantine,” TheBiblical Worldvol. 31:6 (1908), pgs. 453–454 also favors identifying thefoundersof the Jewish colony at Elephantine with the Jews who ignoredJeremiah’s call to remain in Babylonian-occupied Judah, andinsteadfled to Egypt.[5] C.Cornell, “Cult Statuary in the Judean Temple at Yeb,” Journalfor the Study of Judaism vol.47 (2016), pgs. 291–309 is a bit more generous in hisassessment ofthe Jewish community at Elephantine. He submits that the Jewsthereworshipped the One Hashem, but that their temple held multipleimages/idols which purported to depict Him in varioushypostases.Still, this development represents a significant deviationfromstandard Judaism and if he is correct, we need not concernourselveswith seeking any justification for their practices. The factthatthese Jews self-identified as Judean has no bearing on ourdiscussionbecause it was/is common practice for deviant sects to claimto beJewish.[6] Silverman

1973:383.[7] Asimilar approach argues that seemingly idolatrous elements oftheJewish presence at Elephantine do not represent theirtheologicaloutlook, but rather reflect attempts to evoke Persian sympathyfortheir cause by implying to the Persians that their religionhaveshared components. In other words, when the Jews atElephantineimplied things which seem idolatrous, they were simply doingso forpolitical expediency, but they did not actuallybelieve/practicethose deviant facets. See T. Bolin, “The Temple of יהוatElephantine and Persian Religious Policy” in D. Edelman (ed.),TheTriumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms(Kok Pharos, 1995), pgs. 127–142.[8] Maimonides(Laws of Beisha-Bechirah 6:15)rules that the Temple’s site became permanently holy when KingSolomon sanctified it. However, Raavad (there), disagrees andacceptsthe opinion that once the Temple was destroyed, the site wasnolonger holy, until it was re-consecrated upon the constructionof theSecond Temple (see below).[9] Megillah1:10.[10] ZivcheiEfrayim Al Meseches Zevachim (Piotrków,1922), pg. 6.[11] ResponsaChasamSofer (Orach

Chaim §32).See also R.C. Klein, Godversus Gods: Judaism in the Age of Idolatry (MosaicaPress, 2018), pgs. 28–32.[12] Menachos13:10.[13] InAntiquities,Josephus attributes the temple in Egypt to a later Chonyo, whowasnot the son of Shimon the Just. Nonetheless, some scholarsclaim thatJosephus purposely attributed the establishment of the templeinEgypt to a later Chonyo who had never served as Kohen Gadol inJerusalem in order to delegitimize its religious value. See J.E.Taylor, “A Second Temple in Egypt: the Evidence for theZadokiteTemple of Onias,” Journalfor the Study of Judaismvol. 29:3 (1998), pgs. 297–321. Interestingly, R. YisroelLipschitz(1782–1860) in TiferesYisroel (Menachos13:10,Boaz§2)writes that the Chonyo in discussion was not literally a sonof Shimon the Just, but rather a grandsonof Shimon the Just (a son of Shimon’s son Chonyo), acceptingJosephus’s account and adjusting his understanding of theTalmudaccordingly.[14] TBMenachos109b.[15] R.Gershom and Rashi explain that this “lover” was his wife.Maimonides (in his commentary to the Mishnah Menachos13:10)

writes that this “lover” was an alleged mistress.[16] TBYoma38a and JT Shekalim5:1 relate that the House of Garmu did not wish to reveal thesecretsbehind making the shew-bread and the House of Avtinas did notwish toreveal the secrets behind making the incense for the Temple.Inresponse, artisans from Alexandria were imported to try andmimicthose secret recipes, but they were unsuccessful in exactlycopyingwhat those families had been able to make. Both R. Yosef ShaulNathansohn (1808–1875) in DivreiShaul (toTB Yoma38a) and R. Shalom Massas (1909–2003) in ve-Chamha-Shemesh(Jerusalem, 2003) pp. 326–327 independently draw an explicitconnection these Alexandrian artisans to Chonyo’s Temple inAlexandria, although no other authorities do so. The notion ofAlexandrian artisans being unable to exactly replicatesomething fromJerusalem is also found in Targum to Est. 1, which relatesthatAchashverosh wished to create a replica of King Solomon’sfamedthrone, and employed Alexandrian artisans to do so—but to noavail.That story must have transpired before the establishment ofChonyo’sTemple in Alexandria because Achashverosh lived before theconstruction of the Second Temple. In light of this, we maysuggestthat Alexandrian artisans were employed in all cases simplybecauseGreek Alexandria was a center of knowledge in its time, so themostknowledgeable craftspeople lived there.

[17] TheJerusalem Talmud (JT Yoma6:3) slightly differs in its retelling of this discussion.Whilst inthe Babylonian Talmud, the names of the two rival sons ofShimon theJust are Chonyo and Shimi, in the Jerusalem Talmud, they areNechunyon and Shimon. However, R. Tanchum ha-Yerushalmi (a 13thcentury Egyptian Rabbi) writes that Chonyo had two names,Chonyo andNechunyo; see B. Toledano (ed.), ha-Madrichha-Maspik (TelAviv, 1961), pg. 154.Furthermore,according to the Babylonian Talmud, R. Meir believed thatChonyo wasthe victim of Shimi’s deceit and ended up establishing atemple foridolatry, while R. Yehuda believed that Chonyo tricked Shimi,andended up fleeing for fear of Kohanic retribution andestablished atemple for Hashem. The Jerusalem Talmud echoes the dispute intheBabylonian Talmud regarding the storyof Chonyo, but differs in the conclusions. According to theJerusalemTalmud, R. Meir understood that Chonyo’s Temple was forHashem,while R. Yehuda understood that it was for idolatry. See alsoPiskeiha-Rid (toTB Menachos109b)who copies the entire story as related by R. Meir, butconcludes thatChonyo’s intent was to establish a temple for Hashem—not foridolatry—in line with the Jerusalem Talmud.[18] SeeIsa. 19:18 which calls this Egyptian place Irha-Heres

עיר),ההרסthe city of destruction), which the Talmud (TB Menachos110a) translates as Kartade-Beis Shemesh(קרתא,דבית שמשcity of the House of the Sun, i.e. Heliopolis). Indeed,deviantversions of the Bible (such as the Septuagint and the Dead SeaScroll1QIsa3) insert this tradition into the text and read Irha-Cheresעיר),החרסthe city of the sun), instead of Irha-Heres.[19] Aswe saw above, the Talmud locates Chonyo’s temple atAlexandria,which is quite distant from Heliopolis. We can reconcile thisdiscrepancy between the Talmud and Josephus by noting that theterm“Alexandria of Egypt” used by the Talmud does not necessarilyrefer just to the Egyptian city of Alexandria, but to theentirety ofEgypt; see R. Ulmer, EgyptianCultural Icons in Midrash (Berlin/Boston:Walter de Gruyter, 2009), pg. 210 and A. Kasher, TheJews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt: The Struggle for EqualRights(Tubingen:Mohr, 1985), pg. 347.R.Last, “Onias IV and the ἀδέσποτος ἱερός: PlacingAntiquities13.62–72 into the Context of Ptolemaic Land Tenure,” Journalfor the Study of Judaismvol. 41 (2010), pgs. 494–516 makes the case that Ptolemeyoriginally granted Chonyo land in Alexandria for theconstruction ofthe temple, but Chonyo later appropriated other, ownerless

lands nearHeliopolis upon which he built his temple.[20] Josephusconcludes with a note that Chonyo’s temple lasted 343 years,although some argue that this figure is exaggerated by closeto acentury; see S. G. Rosenberg, “Onias, Temple of.,”EncyclopediaJudaica2nded. vol. 15 (Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007), pg. 432.R.Yisroel Lipschitz writes in TiferesYisroel (Menachos13:10,Yachin§57)that Chonyo’s temple lasted close to 250 years.[21] Ibn Yachya in Shalshelesha-Kabbalah(Jerusalem, 1962), pg. 49 writes that after Chonyo built histemplein Egypt, he later built another temple at Mount Gerizim withthehelp of the Samaritans. An observation of noted Bible scholarEmanuelTov accentuates the affinity between these two renegade Jewishcults(i.e. the Alexandrian/Egyptian sect and the Samaritans). Tovcategorizes witnesses of textual variations in the Torah byessentially dividing them into two blocks: The Masoretic Text(whichTov admits was the original) and the Septuagint/Samaritanblock(which was derived from the MT, but splinters off into otherdirections). By using this mode of classification, Tovrecognizes acertain shared affinity, or perhaps even correspondence,betweenthese non-mainstream Jewish sects which existed in the SecondTempleperiod. See E. Tov, “The Development of the Text of the Torah

inTwo Major Text Blocks,” Textusvol.26 (2016), pgs. 1–27.[22] TheWar of the Jews (BookI, Chapter 1 and Book VII, Chapter 10) and Antiquitiesof the Jews (BookXII, Chapter 9 and Book XIII, Chapter 3).[23] Inhis commentary to the Mishnah Menachos13:10.[24] ToTB Menachos109b.[25] Citedin TB Zevachim45a.[26] TzonKodashim toTB Menachos109b.[27] Thisexplanation is also proposed by SfasEmes (toTB Menachos109b).[28] TheMishnah (Shekalim1:5)rules that the Temple can only accept from non-Jews votivesacrifices, but not what are otherwise considered obligatoryofferings.[29] SeeMikdashDavid(Kodshim§27:9), written by R. David Rappaport (1890–1941), Evenha-Azel(Laws of Maasehha-Korbanos 19:7),

by R. Isser Zalman Meltzer (1870–1953), and Seferha-Mitzvos le-Rasagvol. 2 (Warsaw, 1914), pg. 233b, by R. Yerucham Fishel Perlow(1846–1934).[30] SeeTB Megilla10a.[31] YaarosDvash(vol. 1, drush#9).[32] ZivcheiEfrayim Al Meseches Zevachim (Piotrków,1922), pgs. 5–7.[33]For a fuller discussion of this Talmudic assertion, see R.C.Klein,Godversus Gods: Judasim in the Age of Idolatry(Mosaica Press, 2018), pp. 244–276.

Avunculate Marriage in theBible

Avunculate Marriage in theBible

By Reuven Chaim (Rudolph) KleinRabbi Reuven Chaim Klein is the author of the LashonHaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew [available here].His book is available online and in bookstores throughoutthe world. Rabbi Klein published articles in variousjournals including Jewish Bible Quarterly, Kovetz

Hamaor, Kovetz Chitzei Gibborim, and Kovetz Kol HaTorah.He studied at premier Yeshivas including the Mir inJerusalem and BMG in Lakewood. He was most recently afellow at the Tikvah Institute for Yeshiva Men (Summer2015) and lives with his wife and children in BeitarIllit, Israel.Anyone who has a copy of the first edition of his bookon Lashon HaKodesh is eligible to receive a PDF of the“Additions and Corrections” section of the new edition.Please send requests directly to the authorat: historyofhebrew@gmail.com

Theterm “avunculate marriage” refers to marriage between a manand his niece. Inthis paper, we will explore the Bible’s view on thepermissibility of suchunions, and discuss several examples of such marriages in theBible. Not onlydoes rabbinic literature generally presume that such marriagesare permitted,the Talmud even encourages it. On the other hand, othersources ban theserelationships. The Sadducees believe that the Bible forbidssuch marriages. Whilevarious Tosafists believe that such marriages are Biblicallypermitted, theystill prohibit marrying one’s niece (at least in some cases)for other reasons.

Abraham & Nahor marry their niecesUponclose examination, one will find that at least six Biblicalpersonalities marriedtheir nieces. Each of these cases can and are interpreted invarious ways;calling into question their relevance to our discussion.However, the mere factthat tradition allows for these sorts of interpretations showsthat avunculatemarriage is compatible with Biblical tradition, and

constitutes a legitimatebuilding block in the institution of the Jewish family.Thefirst two examples of avunculate marriages in the Bible arethose betweenAbraham and Nahor and their respective nieces. The Torah says:

AndTerah lived seventy years, and begot Abram, Nahor, andHaran. Now these are thegenerations of Terah: Terah begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran;and Haran begotLot. And Haran died in the presence of his father Terah inthe land of hisnativity, in Ur of the Chaldees. And Abram and Nahor tookthem wives: the nameof Abram’s wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor’s wife,Milcah, the daughterof Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father ofIscah. (Gen. 11:26–29)

Thispassage records that Abram (i.e. Abraham), Nahor, and Haranwere brothers.Nahor married Milcah, the daughter of Haran; and Abrahammarried Sarai. Accordingto an ancient tradition preserved in rabbinic sources (SederOlam Ch. 2;TB Megillah 14a; and TB Sanhedrin 69b) and by Josephus(Antiquitiesof the Jews Book I, Ch. 6), another name for Sarai is Iscah.The assertion thatSarai is the same person as Iscah is supported by the factthat the Torahprovides the paternity of Nahor’s wife Milcah, yet does notmention the paternityof Abraham’s wife Sarai. Given that the Torah delineates onewife’s father, wewould have expected it to mention the father of the other wifeas well. Thisdifficulty can be resolved if we assume that Sarai is Iscah,since the Torahstates that Haran was the father of Iscah.[1]

Ifwe assume that the Haran who is mentioned as Abraham andNahor’s father-in-lawis the same person as their brother Haran, and that Sarai isIscah, then thispassage records two instances of avunculate marriages: Nahormarried his nieceMilcah and Abraham married his niece Iscah/Sarai.However,it is debatable whether Nahor and Abraham’s marriages toMilcah and Sarai weretruly avunculate marriages. In order to claim that they were,one must rely ontwo assumptions, both of which are subject to dispute.Firstly, Ibn Ezra (toGen. 11:29) expresses skepticism regarding the identificationof Iscah withSarai.[2]Secondly, even if Iscah is Sarai, some commentators (includingAbarbanel (Gen.11) and the Medieval work Moshav Zeqenim[3])understand that the Bible refers to two different men namedHaran. One was abrother to Abraham and Nahor (and father of Lot); while theother was thefather of Iscah/Sarai and Milcah.[4]Accordingly, there is no clear consensus on whether Abrahamand Nahor marriedtheir nieces.

Dinah’s daughterLaterin Genesis, the Bible relates that when Joseph was theEgyptian viceroy, hemarried Osnath daughter of Poti-Phera (Gen. 41:45). Accordingto many Midrashicsources (Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer Ch. 38; MasekhetSofrim 21:9; and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to Gen. 41:45(, Osnathwas noneother than the daughter of Dinah (Jacob’s daughter) and her

rapist, Shechem. This“illegitimate” child was initially shunned by Jacob’s family,but eventuallyfound her way back in by marrying Joseph. Thus, Joseph’s wifeOsnath was his niece,the daughter of his sister Dinah. Although others understandthat Osnath wasactually an Egyptian woman,[5]the Midrashic sources above reject the notion that Josephwould marry a non-Israelitewoman.Similarly,Rabbeinu Hayyim Paltiel quotes a Midrash[6] whichsays that Simeon married the daughter of Dinah who was born byrape through Shechem.[7]According to this Midrash (which is probably mutuallyexclusive with theabove mentioned sources), Simeon married his niece, thedaughter of his sisterDinah.Theseexamples differ from the others under consideration becausethese are the only explicitexamples of a man marrying his sororal niece (i.e. hissister’s daughter). Allthe other examples involve a man marrying his fraternal niece(i.e. hisbrother’s daughter).

Uziel and MiriamAmramhad three children: Miriam, Aaron, and Moses. The Biblerecords the marriagesof both of Amram’s sons: Moses married Zippora daughter ofJethro (Ex. 2:21),and Aaron married Eliseba daughter of Amminadab (Ex. 6:23).However, the Bibledoes not tell us about the family of Amram’s daughter Miriam.Rabbinicliterature states that she married Caleb (Exodus Rabbah

§1:17; Sifrei, Beha’alothkha §78; and TB Sotah 11b–12a).However, according to theapocryphal work The Testament of Amram found amongst the DeadSeaScrolls at Qumran (4Q543, 4Q549), Amram gave his daughterMiriamto his younger brother Uzziel to wed. That work understandsthat the sons ofUzziel listed in the Bible (Ex. 6:22) were born to his wifeMiriam. Thus, thatwork believed that Uzziel married his brother’s daughterMiriam.

Othniel and AchsaAsrelated in the book of Joshua (15:16–17) and in the openingchapter of Judges(1:12–13), Caleb offered his daughter Achsa to whoever couldconquer theCanaanite stronghold at Kiriath Sepher: And Othniel the son ofKenaz,Caleb’s younger brother, took it; and he [Caleb] gave him[Othniel] Achsahhis daughter to wife. Othniel succeeded in conquering thecity, and thuswins the hand of his brother’s daughter Achsa in marriage.Most assume thatOthniel was Caleb’s full brother, although some explain thatthey shared only amother, not a father.[8]R. Ishtori ha-Parhi (1280–1366), the foremost Rabbinictopographer of the Medieval period, writes (Kaftor Va-FerehCh.5) that the Sadducees consider themselves more pious thanRabbinic Jews becausethey forbid one to marry his brother’s daughter. Then, ha-Parhi citesthis case as a Biblical precedent for allowing such marriages.Nonetheless,ha-Parhi notes that the case of Othniel only proves that one

may marrythe daughter of his maternal brother, but does not necessarilyprove that onecan marry the daughter of his paternal siblings.

Elimelech and NaomiThereis a Talmudic discussion (TB Bava Bathra 91a) regarding theBook of Ruthwhich explains the relationships between its major players. Itasserts thatElimelech (Naomi’s husband), Salmon (Boaz’s father), theanonymous relative whorefused to redeem Naomi’s field, and Naomi’s father were allsons of Nahshonben Amminadab. According to this understanding, Elimelechmarried his brother’sdaughter—Naomi.However,the Midrash (Ruth Rabbah §6:3) presents a dissenting viewthat Elimelech was a son of Salmon (and brother to Boaz).According to thisunderstanding, Naomi was not Elimelech’s niece but his firstcousin.

Mordecai and EstherThe Talmud (TB Megillah 13a) relates that Mordecai not onlyraised the orphaned Esther, but he also married her.Furthermore, some sources,including Josephus in Antiquities (Book XI, Ch. 6), TargumRishon(to Est. 7:6),[9]and the Vulgate (Est. 2:7) explain that Esther was Mordecai’sniece. Ibn Ezra(to Est. 8:1) and Maimonides (there)[10] alsorepeat that claim. Together, these two ideas indicate thatMordecai married hisniece. Nonetheless, this understanding is simply mistaken as

the Bible quiteexplicitly states that she was his first cousin, not hisniece: And hebrought up Hadassah, that is, Esther, his uncle’s daughter…(Est. 2:7) and Nowwhen the turn of Esther, the daughter of Abihail the uncle ofMordecai…(Est. 2:15).

The Talmud encouragesmarrying one’s neiceTheprophet Isaiah tells of several acts of kindness that a mancan perform that wouldprompt God to answer his prayers. He says:

Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thoubring thepoor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest thenaked, that thou coverhim, and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?Then shall thy lightbreak forth as the morning, and thy healing shall springforth speedily; andthy righteousness shall go before thee, the glory of theLORD shall be thyreward. Then shalt thou call, and the LORD will answer;thou shalt cry, and Hewill say: ‘Here I am.’… (Is. 58:7–9)

When explaining these “good deeds” in practical terms, theTalmud(TB Yevamot 62b–63a) notes that and that thou hide not thyselffromthine own flesh refers to a man who marries his sister’sdaughter. Whilethere is a controversy among the commentators concerningwhether the Talmudonly means one’s sororal niece or even his fraternal niece, itis clear that theTalmud encourages a man to marry his niece. Similarly, the

Tosefta (Kiddushin1:2) teaches, “A man should not marry a woman until hissororal niece comes ofage [so that he can marry her], or until he finds [anotherwoman equally]fitting for him.”

Only Sororal niece, or evenfraternal niece?There are two approaches among the earlier commentators in howtounderstand the Talmud’s endorsement of marrying one’s niece.Rashi understandsthat the Talmud only endorses marrying one’s sororal niece. Heexplains thatthis act is considered particularly kind, because a man has acertain longingfor his sister (more so than for his brother). Thus, bymarrying her daughter,he will insure that his wife will be especially cherished.However, the Tosafists (Tosafot to TB Yevamot 62b) quotein the name of Rashi’s grandson Rashbam that the Talmud’sendorsement alsoapplies to one’s fraternal niece, not just to a sororal niece.He explains thatthe Talmud specifically mentions marrying a sororal niecesimply because it ismore common that a man’s sister will convince him to marry herdaughter than itis for his brother to do so.Nonetheless, Rabbeinu Tam disagrees with this assertion andinsteadmaintains that the Talmud only means that one should marry hissororal niece.There are two modes of justifications given for this approach:Firstly, one’ssororal niece is similar to her uncle, as the Rabbis say,“Most children aresimilar to the brothers of their mother” (TB Baba Bathra 110a,

Sofrim15:10). This similarity between the two will insure a strongermarriage andthat is precisely what the Talmud means to endorse.Furthermore, the Tosafists quote in the name of Rivan (a son-in-lawof Rashi and uncle to Rabbeinu Tam and Rashbam) that it isactually forbiddento marry one’s fraternal niece, so the Talmud must only haveendorsed marrying one’ssororal niece. They explain that according to the rules of theLeviratemarriage (mentioned in Deut. 25:5–10), a man (A) is commandedto marry thewidow of his brother (B), if B dies childless. However, theMishnah teaches (Yevamot1:1) that if the widow is A’s daughter, then A is exempt fromthat commandment,because a man may not marry his own daughter. Thus, the Rabbisforbid a man (B)from marrying his niece (A’s daughter) so as to prevent asituation where thecommandment of Levirate marriage will be abolished. Thisrabbinic ban onmarrying one’s fraternal niece proves that the Talmud’sendorsement of marryingone’s niece only applies to a sororal niece.[11]Nonetheless, this proof is incomplete because there aresituationswhere there is no clash with the rules of the Leviratemarriage. For example,if A is already deceased (and therefore anyways unable toperform the Leviratemarriage), then B should be allowed to marry his daughter. Orif A is only B’smaternal brother, but not paternal brother (and therefore isnot allowed tomarry B’s widow even if she was not his daughter see TBYevamot 17b),then he should be allowed to marry A’s daughter. Accordingly,one can argue

that in these situations, the Talmud endorses marrying evenone’s fraternalniece. This is especially compelling in light of ha-Parhi’sabove mentioned proof-text from Othniel, which shows that oneis allowed to marryhis maternal brother’s daughter.In short, Rabbeinu Tam—in agreement with his grandfatherRashi—understandsthat the Talmud only endorses marrying one’s sororal niece,but actuallyforbids marrying one’s fraternal niece. Rabbi BetzalelAshkenazi (1520–1592)testifies that this is also the opinion[12] ofthe non-yet-extant Tosafot Shantz to the Talmudic TractateGittin.[13] Inhis commentary to the Bible, the ‎Alsatian sage R. YohananLuria (1440–1514) also follows Rabbeinu Tam’s view.[14]However, Maimonides (in his commentary to the Mishnah Nedarim8:5 and in his Laws of Sexual Prohibitions, end of ch. 2)understands that theTalmud does not mention one’s sororal niece to the exclusionof his fraternalniece. He thus rules that is considered a Mitzvah for a man tomarryeither his sororal or fraternal niece.[15] R.Meir Abulafia (1170–1244) writes (Yad Ramah to TB Sanhedrin76b)that marrying one’s niece is considered commendable becauseshe is the closestrelative that a man is allowed to marry. He thus follows hisolder contemporaryMaimonides in offering no distinction between a sororal nieceand fraternalniece (because the degree of kinship to both is the same).Nonetheless, henotes that the Talmud mentioned one’s sister’s daughter inspecific simply becausemarrying her is even more commendable. By doing so, he isperforming an act of kindnesstowards his sister, who might otherwise have difficultymarrying off her

daughter.[16]R. Moses Isserles (1520–1572) settles the matter by ruling inaccordance with the view of Maimonides and Rashbam that oneshould marry hissororal or fraternal niece (see his glosses to the ShulhanAruch,Even Ha’Ezer §2:6; 15:25).

The Rabbinic View regardingForbidden RelationshipsRabbinicJudaism extends the meanings of the Biblical passages (Lev. 18and 20) whichdelineate forbidden relationships. They note that the Torahspoke of the incestlaws from the man’s point of reference, but the laws applyequally to a woman. Thus,the Rabbis understand that all incestuous relationshipsmentioned in the Bibleare forbidden to both the man and the woman involved (TBYevamot 84b).However, the Rabbis do not add more forbidden relationshipsthan those listedby the Bible; they only say that both parties are culpable.The Sadducees, onthe other hand, add cases to the Bible’ list, and forbid morecases of the sametypes of relationship. In this, the Rabbis understand theBible’s meaningdifferently than the Sadducees and remain more faithful to thetext of theTorah than did they.

The Sadducee View RegardingForbidden RelationshipsA Sadduceanwork found by Solomon Schechter at the Cairo Geniza criticizes

those who marrytheir brother or sister’s daughter. This work reasons thatsince according toMosaic law, a man is not allowed to marry his mother’s sisterbecause she is hismother’s flesh (Lev. 18:13), a woman is also not allowed tomarry herparents’ brother. The rationale for such an extension of theBiblical law isthat the Torah does not simply list forbidden cases of incest,it listsforbidden categories of relationships. These relationships aredetermined bydegree of kinship, without regard for gender. Thus, if a manis forbidden to hisparents’ sister, the same prohibition says that a woman isforbidden to her parents’brother because the degree of kinship—in this case, parent’ssibling—is the same.[17]Acopy of this document, now known as the Damascus Document, wasalsofound among the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran (4Q270). Itcontains a condemnationof those men who marry their brothers’ daughters (althoughthat particularsource omits the prohibition of one’s sister’s daughter). Alegal scroll foundat Qumran known as Midrash Mishpatim (4Q251) contains a listof theBiblical prohibitions of incest, and includes a man marryinghis brother’s or sister’sdaughter. Another important document from Qumran known as theTemple Scroll(11Q19) also[18]forbids marrying one’s brother’s or sister’s daughter.[19]

Case#:

The Bible(Lev. 18 and 20)

forbids a man frommarrying his…

The Rabbissay that this alsomeans that a womanmay not marry her…

The Sadduceeswould say that this also

means that one may not marryhis/her…

Sadduceanapproach isredundantbecause itis alreadyincluded incase #/New

case:1 Mother Son Daughter/Father (13)2 Sister Brother n/a n/a3 Father’s wife Husband’s son Wife’s

daughter/Mother’s husband9

4 Granddaughter Grandfather Grandmother/Grandson NEW 5 Parent’s

sisterSiblings’ son Niece/Parent’s

brotherNEW

6 Father’spaternal-brother’s

wife

Husband’spaternal-brother’s

son

Wife’spaternal-sister’s

daughter/Parent’s paternal-sister’s husband, Mother’s

paternal-brother’swife/Husband’s paternal-

brother’s son

NEW (2scenarios)

7 Daughter-in-law Father-in-law Mother-in-law/Son-in-law 128 Brother’s

wifeHusband’sbrother

Wife’ssister/Sister’s husband

11

9 Wife’sdaughter

Mother’shusband

Father’swife/Husband’s son

3

10 Wife’sgranddaughter

Grandmother’shusband

Grandfather’swife/Husband’s grandson

NEW

11 Wife’s sister Sister’shusband

Brother’swife/Husband’s brother

8

12 Mother-in-law Son-in-law Daughter-in-law/Father-in-law 713 Daughter (see

fn. 22)Father n/a n/a

TheSadducean method of interpretation creates three pairs ofredundancies in theBible’s list (Cases 3, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12) and also createsfour new cases ofincest which are not mentioned in the Bible, in addition tomarrying one’sniece (Cases 4, 6, two scenarios, 10).Thesetwo points demonstrate the weakness of the Sadducean approach:The method ofinterpretation used to justify including one’s niece in theBiblicalprohibition against marrying one’s aunt would create a series

of redundanciesin the other listed cases of incest. Furthermore, according tothe Sadduceanmethodology of Biblical interpretation, four otherrelationships should beclassified as incestuous (in addition to marrying one’sniece). However, theSadducees are inconsistent in that they explicitly mentiontheir addedprohibition against marrying one’s niece, but fail to accountfor the other newcases of incest which their methodology creates.[20]Infact, Saul Lieberman argues that the Rabbis classifiedmarrying one’s niece asa positive deed specifically in order to counter the Sadduceanview thatmarrying one’s niece is Biblically forbidden. He notes it isthe Rabbis’ way totake things which are simply “allowed” by the Bible andencourage people to dothem in order to undermine sectarian heretical views.[21]Interestingly,in his abovementioned work, ha-Parhi notes that the Sadduceeswere notinnovators in banning marriage to a niece: They adopted theprohibition fromthe Samaritans, who took the idea from the Arabs.[22]Later, the Karaites also followed suit and outlawed uncle-niece marriage.[23]

R. Yehuda Ha-Hassid’sviewThe12th century German leader of the Hassidei Ashkenaz movement,R. Judah Ha-Hassid, declares that one should not marry hisniece,neither sororal nor fraternal (in his ethical will §22 and inSefer Hassidim

§477). However, his understanding of this prohibition clearlydiffersfrom the Sadducean approach. The Sadducees understood that theBible itselfprohibits marrying one’s niece, while Ha-Hassid does not. As afollowerof Rabbinic tradition, Ha-Hassid must comply with Talmudiclaw, yet his mentionof a prohibition against marrying one’s niece is clearly atodds with theRabbinic approach which not only allows for such marriage, buteven encouragesit.R.Ezekiel Landau of Prague (1713–1793), in his halachik responsa(NodaB’Yehuda, Even HaEzer Tinyana §79) offers an innovativesolution. Heproves that R. Judah Ha-Hassid only wrote the prohibitions inhis willand Sefer Hassidim for his descendants — not for all Jews —because otherwise his prohibition would contradict an explicitTalmudic passagewhich not only allows but even applauds a man marrying hisniece.[24] Othersinterpret Ha-Hassid’s warning in accordance with contemporaryscience,which warns of the genetic dangers to children born to anuncle and niece.Nonetheless,Ha-Hassid himself explains his true intent. He writes (SeferHassidim§488) that only a pious individual is allowed to marry hisniece in order thathis children be similar to himself (per the rabbinic dictummentioned above).However, a wicked man who only intends to fulfill his ownpleasures should notmarry his niece, so that his children will not be like him.Thus, Ha-Hassidactually allows for avunculate marriage in the right

circumstances, yetelsewhere he writes blankly that it is forbidden so that thenot-necessarily-piousmasses would refrain from such unions.[25]

ConclusionThereare essentially two general views regarding avunculatemarriage in the Bible.The Rabbinic position is that avunculate marriage is permittedby Biblical law.In fact, according to Rabbinic tradition there are evenBiblical precedents forallowing such marriages. Nonetheless, the Rabbis do limit thecircumstancesunder which one may marry his niece. They forbid marryingone’s fraternal niece,since this might interfere with the commandment of theLevirate marriage. Thereis also the pietistic view of the Hassidei Ashkenaz, who rulethat onlya pious man may marry his niece (because he will have pureintentions), whilethe masses should not engage in such unions.Bycontrast, the Sadducean approach outlaws avunculate marriageentirely, andattributes this prohibition to the Bible. Even according toRabbinic tradition,the aforementioned Biblical cases are not unanimously viewedas actuallyconsisting of avunculate marriages. The Sadducees would likelyinterpret thesecases such that they do not serve as precedents forlegitimately marrying onesniece.

[1] L.A. Feldman (ed.), Pirush HaRan Al HaTorah (Jerusalem: MachonShalem,

1968) pg. 149.[2]While Ibn Ezra does not explicitly note his objections to thisidentification,other sources quote a question in his name which implies areject of thistradition. Ibn Ezra asks that if we assume that the Biblelists Terah’s sons inorder of their birth, then Abraham was at least two yearsolder than Haran.Furthermore, it is evident from the Bible that Abraham was tenyears older thanhis wife Sarah (Sarai), as it says Then Abraham fell upon hisface, andlaughed, and said in his heart: ‘Shall a child be born untohim that is ahundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old,bear?’ (Gen.17:17). This would mean that Haran fathered Iscah/Sarai at theextremelyunlikely age of eight. Rabbeinu Hayyim Paltiel answers thisobjection bynoting that the Talmud (TB Sanhedrin 69b) itself alreadyraised thispoint. In fact, it uses this calculation to prove that inearly generations menfathered offspring from as early as the age of eight. See I.S. Lange(ed.), Pirushei HaTorah L’Rabbeinu Hayyim Paltiel (Jerusalem,1981) pp. 26–27 and S. Sasson (ed.), Moshav Zeqenim (London,1959) pg. 15.[3] S.Sasson (ed.), Moshav Zeqenim (London, 1959) pg. 15.[4] Thecommentators propose this distinction because of the fact thatthe Bible splitsthe genealogy of Haran’s descendants into two verses. Thefirst verse onlymentions Lot, while the second says that he was the father ofMilcah and Iscah.However, Kimhi explains these verses in the exact opposite

way: Heargues that the Torah sought to clarify that Haran was notonly the father ofLot, but also of Milcah and Iscah (which follows the view thatthis passageonly discusses one Haran).[5]Josephus (in Antiquities of the Jews Book II, Ch. 6) alsounderstoodthat Joseph’s wife was literally the daughter of Potiphar.However, see MidrashSekhel Tov (to Gen. 39:1) and Midrash Tadshe (Ch. 21), printedin J.D. Eisenstein (ed.), Otzar Midrashim (New York, 1915) pg. 486and alsocited by Yalkut Shimoni (Joshua §9), which say that Osnath wasamongseveral righteous female converts.[6]This Midrash appears nowhere else, save for Rabbeinu HayyimPaltiel’scommentary. However, there is a similar tradition (GenesisRabbah§80:11) which says that Dinah refused to leave the house ofShechem untilSimeon promised to marry her. According to that Midrash,Simeon married hissister Dinah, not her daughter.[7] I.S. Lange (ed.), Pirushei HaTorah L’Rabbeinu HayyimPaltiel (Jerusalem,1981) pg. 166.[8] TheTalmud (TB Temurah 16a), followed by Rashi (to Jos. 15:17 andJud.1:13), writes that Othniel was only Caleb’s maternal brother,not full brother.The rationale for this statement is that Caleb’s father isalways given in theBible as Jephunah (Num. 13:6; 14:30; 26:65; 32:12; 34:19;Deut. 1:36′; Josh.

14:6; 14:14; I Chron. 4:15), while Othniel is always mentionedas a son ofKenaz (Josh. 15:17; Jud. 1:13; 3:9; 3:11; I Chron. 4:13).According to thisapproach, after Caleb was born, his mother married someonenamed Kenaz, andbore Othniel to him. Rashi remains consistent with this viewwhen he writes (inhis commentary to TB Sukkah 27b) that he is unsure ofOthniel’s tribe,because his relationship to Caleb was only through theirmother, andmatrilineal descent does not impart tribal affiliation.Kimhi(to Josh. 15:17) adds that in the instances that Caleb also isreferred to as aKenizzite (Num. 32:12; Josh. 14:6; 14:14), this term is areference to hisstep-father. Kimhi then suggests that Caleb and Othniel wereactuallyfull brothers and that their father had two names: Jephunahand Kenaz (which iswhy Caleb is also called a Kenizzite). Ultimately, Kimhirejects thisapproach and argues that the appellation “Kenizzite” refers tothe familyof Kenaz, a common ancestor of both Caleb and Othniel. Ha-Parhi (citedbelow) and Abarbanel (to Josh. 15:16 and in his introductionto Judges) concurwith Kimhi’s conclusion. [It has yet to be explored whetherthe termKenizzite used in connection with Caleb is related to theKenizzites, aCanaanite tribe which God promised Abraham will be conqueredby the Israelites(Gen. 15:19).][9]Although, see Targum Rishon earlier (to Esther 2:7 and 2:15)whoexplicitly writes that Esther was the daughter of Mordecai’s

uncle, making themfirst-cousins, not niece and uncle.[10] Y.Rivlin (ed.), Pirush Megillat Esther L’Rambam (Jerusalem,1952)pg. 60.[11] SeeTosafot (TB Yevamot 99a) and Tosafot Yeshanim (ibid. 62b).The same point is made earlier by Rav Sherira Gaon (whopredated Rabbeinu Tam)in a responsum printed by M. Grossberg (ed.), Gvul Menashe(Frankfurt,1899) pg. 15.[12] R.Abraham Haim Schor (d. 1632) writes (Torat Haim to TBSanhedrin76b) that marrying one’s sororal niece is especiallypraiseworthy becauseaccording to Biblical law, a daughter does not inherit herdeceased father’sproperty unless he has no sons. Accordingly, there is likelyanimosity betweena man and his sister, for the former will inherit theirfather’s property andthe latter will not. Therefore, it is especially praiseworthyfor a man tomarry his sister’s daughter in order to alleviate thisanimosity and show hissister that even she will derive benefit from their deceasedfather’s estate. TosafotShantz, as quoted by Ashkenazi, offers a very similar approachand addsthat marrying one’s brother’s daughter does not achieve thesame effect becauseone’s paternal brother will in any case inherit his father’sproperty. In this,Tosafot Shantz offers another strong argument for RabbeinuTam’s position.[13] M.Y. Blau (ed.), Shitah Mekubetzet Yevamot (New York: ShitatHaKadmonim,

1986) pg. 302. See also Shitah Mekubetzet (to TB Nedarim 63b)whoalso seems so inclined.[14] Y.Hoffman (ed.), Meshivat Nefesh (Jerusalem: MachonYerushalayim, 1998)pg. 18.[15] Seealso Meiri (to TB Yevamot 62b) who seems to agree withMaimonides.[16] Ina similar explanation, R. Todros HaLevi ben Joseph Abulafia(1225–1285), anephew of R. Meir Abulafia, writes that marrying one’ssister’s daughter isespecially meritous because his sister likely has financialdifficulties inmarrying off her daughter. Hida (Birkei Yosef to Even HaEzer§2:6) quotes this unpublished explanation of R. Todros andadds that accordingto this, there is no difference between a sororal niece and afraternal niece,the difference is only in whether the groom’s sibling hasfinancialdifficulties.[17] S.Schechter (ed.), Documents of Jewish Sectaries Vol. 1,Fragments of aZadokite Work (Cambridge, 1910) pg. 5.[18]Interestingly, Midrash Mishpatim lists the prohibition ofmarrying one’sniece before it lists one’s aunt, while the Temple Scrolllistsmarrying one’s niece afterwards.[19] SeeE. Eshel, “The Proper Marriage according to the GenesisApocryphon and RelatedTexts,” Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls Vol. 8–9(Jerusalem:Bialik Institute, 2010) pp. 29–51, who discusses numerous

examples of the DSSembellishing Biblical passages by adding marriages betweenfirst cousins. Sheexplains that the authors of those scrolls added cases ofmarriage betweenfirst cousins and not between man and his niece preciselybecause the Qumranicsect believed the latter to be forbidden.[20] Itshould be noted that three out of four of those cases (i.e.grandmother,mother’s paternal brother’s wife, and grandfather’s wife) areexplicitly bannedby Rabbinic decree, even though according to Rabbinicinterpretation they arepermitted by Biblical law (see TB Yevamot 21a).[21] S.Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-fshutah (New York: JTS, 1973) pg. 915.Cf. E.Segal, “Sarah and Iscah: Method and Message in MidrashicTradition”, JQR,vol. 82:4, pp. 417–429 who seems content to similarly explainthe Midrashicidentification of Sarah with Iscah (mentioned above).[22]Ha-Parhi, in his abovementioned polemic against Sadducees,writes thatshould one meet a Sadducee, one should tell him that accordingto Sadduceanreligion one is allowed to marry his daughter because theBible does notexplicitly forbid it and the Sadducees do not recognize thehermeneuticalarguments set forth by the Rabbis (TB Sanhedrin 76a) for itsprohibition. However, in light of the above, Ha-Parhi’spolemic is nolonger applicable because according to the Sadducees’ internallogic, marryingone’s daughter is included in the prohibition of marryingone’s mother becauseboth are a violation of the child-parent relationship. That

is, the Torahforbids a man to lie with his mother and both Rabbinic andSadduceaninterpretation extend this prohibition to a woman who isforbidden from lyingwith her son. However, Sadducean interpretation would alsoargue that includedin this prohibition is a man lying with his daughter becausethe Torah’s intentis not simply to forbid a man and his mother, but to declareincestuous anyfornication between the child-parent line. The Rabbis, on theother hand,understood that this is not the intent of the Torah andinstead offer their ownsource for the prohibition of marrying one’s daughter.[23] N.A.Stillman (ed.), “Malik al-Ramlī.” Encyclopedia of Jews in theIslamic World (Brill Online, 2013).[24] Foran extensive survey of various authorities who agree ordisagree with Landau’scharacterization of the prohibition cited by R. Yehuda Ha-Hassid, see SdeiHemed Vol. 7 (Brooklyn: Kohath Publishing, 1950) pp. 2483ff.[25] SeeS. Guttman (ed.), Sefer Tzava’at Rabbi Yehuda HaHassidHaMefoar(Jerusalem: Otzar HaPoskim, 2011) pp. 177–188 for an in-depthanalysis of Ha-Hassid’sstance on the topic.

Abraham’s Chaldean Origins

and the Chaldee Language

ABRAHAM’SCHALDEAN ORIGINS AND THE CHALDEE LANGUAGE

by Reuven Chaim (Rudolph)Klein

Rabbi Reuven Chaim Kleinis the author of the newly published Lashon HaKodesh:History, Holiness,& Hebrew [available here]. His book is availableonline and in bookstores in Israel and will arrive tobookstores in America inthe coming weeks. Rabbi Klein published articles invarious journals including JewishBible Quarterly, Kovetz Hamaor, and Kovetz Kol HaTorah. Heiscurrently a fellow at the Kollel of Yeshivas Mir inJerusalem and lives withhis wife and children in Beitar Illit, Israel. He can bereach via email: historyofhebrew@gmail.com.

For the purposes of this discussion, we shalldivide the region of Mesopotamia (the area between the Tigrisand EuphratesRivers) into two sub-regions: the southern region known asSumer (Shinarin the Bible) and the northern region known as Aram. Underthis classification,Sumer incudes Babylon and the other cities which Nimrod (sonof Cush son ofHam) built and ruled in southern Mesopotamia (Gen. 10:8–10).The northernMesopotamian region of Aram includes the city of AramNaharaim, alsoknown as Harran, and Aram Zoba, also known as Aleppo (Halab).Both regions of Mesopotamia shared Aramaic as a commonlanguage.

ABRAHAM WASBORN IN SUMERIAN URIn painting the picture of Abraham’s background,most Biblical commentators assume that Abraham was born in Urand that hisfamily later migrated northwards to Harran. The Bible (Gen.11:28; 11:31; 15:7;Neh. 9:7) refers to the place of Abraham’s birth as “UrKasdim,”literally “Ur of the Chaldeans.” Academia generally identifiesthis city withthe Sumerian city Ur (although others have suggested differentsites).[1]According to this version of the narrative,Abraham’s family escaped Ur and relocated to Aram in order toflee from theinfluence of Nimrod. The reason for their escape is recordedby tradition: Nimrod—civilization’sbiggest sponsor of idolatry—sentenced Abraham to death byfiery furnace for hisiconoclastic stance against idolatry.[2] AfterAbraham miraculously emerged unscathed from the inferno, hisfather Terahdecided to relocate the family from Ur (within Nimrod’sdomain) to the city ofHarran in the Aram region, which was relatively free fromNimrod’s reign ofterror (Gen. 11:31). It was from Harran that Abraham laterembarked on hishistoric journey to the Land of Canaan (Gen. 12).Josephus in Antiquitiesof the Jews mentions a similar version of events. He quotesthe first-century Greek historian Nicolaus of Damascus whowrote that Abraham,a “foreigner” from Babylonia, came to Aram. There, he reignedas a king forsome time, until he and his people migrated to the Land ofCanaan.[3]

NAHMANIDES:ABRAHAM WAS BORN IN HARRANNahmanides (in his commentary to Gen.11:28) offers a slightly different picture of Abraham’sorigins and baseshimself upon a series of assumptions which we shall call intoquestion.He begins by rejecting the consensus view thatAbraham was born in Ur Kasdim by reasoning that it isillogical that Abrahamwas born there in the land of the “Chaldeans” because hedescended fromSemites, yet Chaldea and the entire region of Sumer areHamitic lands. Hesupports this reasoning by noting that the Bible refers toAbraham as a“Hebrew” (Gen. 14:13) not a “Chaldean.” He further proves this point from a verse inJoshua (24:2) which states, Your forefathers always dwelt‘beyond theRiver’, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father ofNahor. The wordalways (m’olam) in this context implies that Abraham’s familyoriginated in the “beyond the river” region, even beforeTerah. Similarly, henotes, the next verse there (24:3) states And I took yourforefather Abrahamfrom ‘beyond the river’ and led him throughout all the land ofCanaan,which also implies that Abraham is originally from the regionknown as “beyondthe river.” For reasons we shall discuss below, Nahmanidesassumes thatthe term “beyond the river” favors the explanation thatAbraham was originallyfrom Harran, not Ur Kasdim.Nahmanides further proves his assertionfrom the fact that the Bible mentions Terah took Abram hisson, andLot the son of Haran, his grandson, and Sarai his daughter-in-

law, his sonAbram’s wife and he went forth with them from Ur Kasdim to gointo the land ofCanaan and they came unto Harran and dwelt there (Gen. 11:31).In thisverse, the Bible only mentions that Terah travelled to Harranwith Abraham,Sarah, and Lot, yet elsewhere, the Bible mentions Nahor livedin Harran (seeGen. 24:10 which refers to Harran as the City of Nahor).Nahmanidesreasons that if Abraham’s family originally lived in Ur Kasdimand only latermoved to Harran without taking Nahor with them, then Nahorwould have remainedin Ur Kasdim, not in Harran. Hence, the fact that Nahor livedin Harran provesthat the family originally lived in Harran, not Ur Kasdim.Elsewhere in his commentary to the Bible (Gen.24:7), Nahmanides offers another proof that Abraham was bornin Harranand not Ur Kasdim. He notes that when Abraham commanded hisservant to find asuitable bride for his son Isaac, he told him, Go to my[home]land and theplace of my birth (Gen. 24:4), and the Bible continues to tellthat theservant went to Harran, not to Ur Kasdim, implying that Harranis the place ofAbraham’s birth. He further notes that it is inconceivablethat Abraham wouldtell his servant to go to Ur Kasdim to find a suitable matefor Isaac, becauseits inhabitants—the Chaldeans—were Hamitic and are thereforeunsuitable tointermarry with the family of Abraham (who were of Semiticdescent).

Abraham’s

early travels according to NahmanidesIn light of his conclusion that Abraham was bornin Harran, not in Ur Kasdim, Nahmanides offers a slight twistto theaccepted narrative. He explains that Abraham was really bornin Aram, which iswithin the region known as “beyond the river,” and is wellwithin the territoryof Shem’s descendants. He explains that Terah originally livedin Aram where hefathered Abraham and Nahor. Sometime later, Terah took his sonAbraham andmoved to Ur Kasdim, while Nahor remained in Aram in the cityof Harran. Terah’syoungest son, Haran, was born in Ur Kasdim. Based on this,Nahmanidesexplains that when the Bible says Haran died in the presenceof his fatherTerah in the land of his birth, in Ur Kasdim (Gen. 11:28), theBiblemeans to stress that Ur Kasdim only was the city of Haran’sbirth, but notthe city where Abraham and/or Nahor were born. After living inUr Kasdim, Terahand his entourage eventually left and returned to Harran (whenAbraham was enroute to the Land of Canaan).The Talmud (TB Bava Batra 91a) mentions thatAbraham was jailed in the city Cutha and identifies that citywith Ur Kasdim.Nahmanides also cites Maimonides (Guide to the Perplexed 3:29)quotes the ancient gentile author of Nabataean Agriculture[4]who writes that Abraham, who was born in Cutha, argued on theacceptedphilosophy of his day which worshipped the sun, and the kingimprisoned him,confiscated his possessions, and chased him away. Nahmanidesexplainsthat researchers have revealed that the city of Cutha is notin Sumer, the landof Chaldeans, but is, in fact, located in the northern

Mesopotamian region ofAram between Harran and Assyria. This city is consideredwithin the region of“beyond the river” because it lies between the Euphrates andTigris Rivers(making it “beyond the Euphrates” if the Land of Israel isone’s point ofreference).[5] Thus, arguesNahmanides, the Talmud also shares his view that Abraham wasborn inAram, not Sumer.Based on his view of Abraham’s early life, Nahmanidesexplains an inconsistency addressed by the early commentators.When Godcommanded Abraham to go to the Land of Canaan, He told him toleave fromyour [home]land and from the place of your birth and from thehouse of yourfather (Gen. 12:1). The early commentators (see Rashi and IbnEzra ad loc.)address the following question: If Abraham had already left UrKasdim, thepresumed place of his birth, and had moved with his father toHarran, then whydid God tell him again to leave the place of his birth?Nahmanidesanswers that according to his own understanding, this questiondoes not evenbegin to develop because Abraham was not born in Ur Kasdim, hewas born inHarran and later moved to Ur Kasdim, only to return to Harranfrom where Godcommanded him to go to the Land of Canaan.In addition to what Nahmanides wrote inhis commentary to Genesis, he repeats this entire discussionof Abraham’sorigins in his “Discourse on the words of Ecclesiastes.”[6]

QUESTIONING NAHMANIDES’

ASSUMPTIONSAs we have already mentioned, Nahmanides’position is based on several assumptions, each of which needsto be examined.Firstly, Nahmanides asserted that it is illogical to claimthat Abrahamwas born in Ur Kasdim because the inhabitant of Sumer wereHamitic peoples, yetAbraham was a Semite. This claim is unjustified because thereis no reason toassume that only Hamites lived in Sumer, only that Sumer was,ingeneral, a Hamite-dominated principality. Furthermore, evenaccording to Nahmanides’own internal logic, this argument is certainly flawed becauseNahmanideshimself admits that Abraham and his family did live in UrKasdim at some point,thus he clearly concedes that Semites could live there.Secondly, Nahmanides maintains that whileTerah and his two eldest sons were born in Harran, he laterrelocated withAbraham alone to Ur Kasdim. Nahmanides fails to explainTerah’srationale for moving with Abraham Ur Kasdim and why he did nottake Nahor withhim. This vital part of the story should have been explainedby the Bible or atleast by tradition. Abarbanel (to Gen. 11:26) raises thisissue as one of fivedifficulties with Nahmanides’ approach. He compounds thedifficulty byarguing that if Terah’s family originally lived in Harran andonly later movedto Ur Kasdim, then the Bible should read and he went forthwith them from UrKasdim to go into the land of Canaan and they returned toHarran and dwelt there, to imply that they had once lived inHarran.Yet, instead the Bible says and they came unto Harran anddwelt there,

implying that they reached Harran for their first time.Furthermore, Nahmanides proves thatAbraham’s family originated in Harran not Ur Kasdim from thefact that afterTerah took Abraham, Sarah, and Lot from Ur Kasdim toHarran—leaving Nahor wherehe was—Nahor was also found in Harran, even though he did notcome there withhis father. However, this proof is also unjustified and hadalready beenaddressed by Ibn Ezra (in his commentary to Gen. 11:29). IbnEzra writes thatit is likely that Nahor arrived to Harran either before orafter his father andfor that reason he is not listed amongst Terah’s entouragewhen relocating fromUr Kasdim to Harran. In fact, there is Biblical precedent forIbn Ezra’s firstsuggestion, for when Jacob and his family relocated from theLand of Canaan toGoshen in Egypt, Judah was sent there ahead of the rest of hisfamily (see Gen.46:28). In the same vein, it is likely that when Terahrelocated his familyfrom Ur to Harran, Nahor was sent ahead of everyone else.In addition, Nahmanides proves fromAbraham’s incarceration at Cutha that he lived in Aram at thetime; however,contemporary scholars seem to agree that Cutha is actually inSumer, not innorthern Mesopotamia as Nahmanides mentions in the name ofother researchers.[7]Nonetheless, to Nahmanides’ credit, there is some proof thatCutha is innorthern Mesopotamia, not in Sumer: The abovementionedTalmudic passage (TBBava Batra 91a) notes that in addition to his incarceration atCutha, Abrahamwas also jailed at Kardu. Where is Kardu? When the Bible tellsthat the Ark ofNoah landed at the mountains of Ararat (Gen. 8:4), all the

Tagumim (Onkelos,Jonathan, Neofiti, and Peshitta) explain that Ararat is Kardu.This leads tothe conclusion that the location of Abraham’s imprisonment wasArmenia, northof Assyria and northeast of Aram, the region in which theArarat mountains lie(in present-day Turkey). In fact, the name Kardu is preservedby a contemporarynameplace in that region: Kurdistan and its inhabitants whoare called Kurds.[8]Based on this, one can argue that if Abraham was incarceratedat Kardu, thenCutha is also likely in that same general area, placing thecity closer to Aramthan to Sumer.

R. NISSIM OFGERONA AND ABARBANEL DISAGREE WITH NAHMANIDESR. Nissim of Gerona (1320–1376), in hiscommentary to the Torah, quotes Nahmanides and then proceedstodisagree. He argues that even if Ur Kasdim is in Sumer asNahmanidesassumes, the verse Your forefathers always dwelt ‘beyond theRiver’ isstill not true. This is because the word always implies thatAbraham’sfamily never lived elsewhere, yet even Nahamanides freelyadmits thatthe family lived in Ur Kasdim, which he does not considerwithin the region of beyondthe river. R. Nissim reasons that if Haran and Lot were bornin UrKasdim, then Terah’s family must have stayed there for atleast thirty years (areasonable age of fatherhood in the post-Babel era, see Gen.11:10–26) forHaran to be born, mature, and father Lot.Instead, R. Nissim proposes that Ur Kasdim is,in fact, considered beyond the river. Accordingly, he

understood that UrKasdim is actually located in northern Mesopotamia [9]and Abraham was born there, as were Haran and Lot, before thefamily relocatedto Harran, which is also within the same region. According tothis explanation,Your forefathers always dwelt ‘beyond the River’ literallymeans thatAbraham’s family never left that region, even when they livedin Ur Kasdim.[10]This view is also adopted by Abarbanel.[11]In addition to the two difficulties mentionedabove and R. Nissim’s question, Abarbanel points out two moredifficulties withNahmanides’ approach. He quotes the verse And Abram and Nahortookfor themselves wives… (Gen. 11:29) and notes that by groupingtogetherAbraham and Nahor’s respective marriages, the Bible impliesthat Abraham andNahor married their wives together—at the same time and place.If so, thispassage is at odds with Nahmanides’ explanation who understoodthat atthat time, Nahor was in Harran while Abraham was in Ur Kasdim.Abarbanel’s fifth and final difficulty is withNahmanides’ assumption that Ur Kasdim is not considered beyondthe river.He cites two Biblical verses which together imply that UrKasdim is considered beyondthe river. When God identified Himself to Abraham He said untohim: ‘Iam the LORD that brought thee out of Ur Kasdim, to give theethis land toinherit it’ (Gen. 15:7). Quoting God, Joshua says I took yourfatherAbraham from beyond the River, and led him throughout all theland of Canaan,and multiplied his seed, and gave him Isaac (Josh.24:3). Whenanalyzingthese two verses collectively, one concludes that Ur Kasdim

and beyond theriver are synonymous, casting suspicion on Nahmanides’ viewthat Ur Kasdimis not considered beyond the river. (Nahmanides himselfaddressesthis issue by differentiating between being “brought out of”Ur Kasdim andbeing “taken” from beyond the river, a distinction whichAbarbanelrejects.)

WHO WERE THECHALDEANS?Another issue with Nahmanides’abovementioned explanation (although not necessarily crucialto his position onAbraham’s birthplace) is his assumption that the Chaldeanswere Hamites who didnot live together with Semites and would certainly not marrythem. Thisassumption is clearly at odds with other early commentatorswho assume that theChaldeans were indeed Semitic peoples. Furthermore, the Biblenever explicitlymentions the “Chaldean” people in connection with Sumer untilthe time of KingNebuchadnezzar of Babylon; thus, there is no reason to assumethat theChaldeans occupied Sumer in the time of Abraham.The notion that the Chaldeans are Semiticpeoples has its roots in early works. Josephus writes inAntiquities of theJews that the Chaldeans descend from Arphaxad, the son ofShem,[12]an assertion echoed by R. Gedaliah Ibn Yahya (1515–1587).[13]Interestingly, the last three letters of Arphaxad’s name(KHAF-SHIN-DALET)spells Kesed (Chaldea), the eponym of the Kasdim (Chaldeans).Ibn Ezra (to Gen. 11:26) writes that whileAbraham was born in Ur Kasdim, the city was not yet knownunder that name in

his time because Kasdim are descendants of Abraham’s brotherNahor.[14]It seems that Ibn Ezra understood that in Abraham’s time, theChaldeans had notyet developed into a nation. Similarly, Radak (to Gen. 11:28)writes that UrKasdim was not actually called “Ur of the Chaldeans” at thetime that Terah’sfamily lived there because the Chaldeans did not yet exist. Heexplains that theChaldeans are descendants of Terah’s grandson Kesed, son ofNahor (mentioned inGen. 22:22, see Radak there) who was born later. Radakmentions this a thirdtime in his commentary to Isaiah 23:13 where he notes that theChaldeans, whodescend from Kesed, son of Nahor, conquered the citiesoriginally built byAssur and his descendants.Maharal of Prague (1520–1609) explains[15]that the Chaldeans were mostly descendants of Assur (a son ofShem, see Gen.10:22) but were called “Chaldeans” because the descendants ofKesed conqueredthem. Maharal also equates the Chaldeans with the Arameans,implying that theChaldeans were not a Hamitic nation, but rather a Semiticnation descendingfrom Aram, another son of Shem (see Gen. 10:22). By equatingthe Chaldeans withthe Arameans, Maharal understood that the Chaldeans were not aHamitic nation;but were Semitic. Maharal elsewhere[16]also identifies the Chaldeans with the Arameans and notes thathis explanationis inconsistent with the words of Nahmanides in Parshat HayeiSarah, but does not specify what Nahmanides says or even towhichpassage in Nahmanides he refers. Given our discussion, itseems thatMaharal refers to the passage in question in which Nachmanides

writes that theChaldeans are descendants of Ham. In fact, Maharal in hiscommentary to theTorah (Gur Aryeh to Gen. 24:7) explicitly rejects much of whatNahmanidesthere writes.[17]In short, most commentators understand that theChaldeans were actually Semitic peoples, unlike Nahmanides’assumptionthat they were Hamitic. Nonetheless, there is some support forNahmanides’position in the apocryphal Book of Jubilees (11:1-3) whichtells that Reu, thegreat-grandfather of Terah, married the daughter of Ur, son ofKesed, whofounded the city Ur.[18]While according to Radak, the Chaldeans descend from Kesed, agrandson ofTerah, Jubilees seems to maintain that the Chaldeans descendfrom an earlierperson named Kesed who already lived in the time of Reu,Terah’sgreat-grandfather, and merely married into the Semiticfamily.[19]Either way, there is certainly no validation of Nahmanides’assertionthat the Hamitic Chaldeans and the Semites were completelyseparate.

NEBUCHADNEZZARTHE CHALDEAN WAS A HAMITEThere is one Talmudic source which, byreasonable extension, might serve as a source for Nahmanides’assumptionthat the Chaldeans were Hamitic peoples. The Talmud (TB Hagiga13a)states that Nebuchadnezzar was “a son of a son of Nimrod.” Asexplicitly notedin the Bible, Nimrod was a Hamite (a son of Cush, son ofHam).[20]Prima facia, the Talmud explains that Nebuchadnezzar was a

grandson ofNimrod, thereby making Nebuchadnezzar a Hamite. Although theBible nevermentions explicitly that Nebuchadnezzar was a Chaldean, itcertainly impliessuch by calling his subjects in Babylonia “Chaldeans.”Furthermore, the Talmudcalls Nebuchadnezzar’s granddaughter Vashti a Chaldean (seebelow), implyingthat Nebuchadnezzar himself was also Chaldean. All of thistogether raises thelikelihood that the Talmud understood that Chaldeans areHamites.Rashi (to TB Pesahim 94b) endorses asomewhat literal reading of the Talmud and explains thatNebuchadnezzar was notreally Nimrod’s grandson; he was simply a descendant of Nimrod(a view sharedby Tosafot to TB Yevamot 48b). Rabbi Aryeh Leib Ginzberg(1695–1785) favorsthis approach in his work Turei Even (to TB Hagiga 13a),givingcredence to the notion that Nahmanides took this Talmudicpassageliterally as well.However, the Tosafists (there) reject a literalreading of the Talmud. They argue that since there is nosource to the notionthat Nebuchadnezzar was a descendant of Cush (Nimrod’sfather), then the Talmudmust not mean that Nebuchadnezzar was literally a grandson oreven descendantof Nimrod.[21] Instead,the Tosafists explain that the Talmud was simply drawing ananalogy betweenNimrod, who was a wicked ruler of Sumer and persecutedAbraham, and Nebuchadnezzar,who was also a wicked king there and persecuted the Jews, asif to imply thatNebuchadnezzar was his “spiritual” heir. Furthermore, there isa Jewish legend

which states that Nebuchadnezzar descended from the union ofKing Solomon andthe Queen of Sheba.[22]According to this legend, Nebuchadnezzar was certainly notpaternally Hamitic.[23]Finally, some commentators understand that the Talmud does notmean thatNebuchadnezzar was literally a genealogical descendant ofNimrod, rather that hewas a reincarnation of Nimrod.All in all, there is no clear proof from theTalmud’s assertion about Nebuchadnezzar that the Chaldeanswere Hamites.

THE LANGUAGEOF THE CHALDEANSWe shall now turn to a discussion concerning theChaldean language, which may help us better understand theorigins of theChaldean people and whether they were Hamitic or Semitic.The prophet Isaiah relates that God said, Iwill rise up against them—the word of God, Master oflegions—and I willdiscontinue from Babylonia its name and remnant, grandchildandgreat-grandchild—the word of God (Isa. 14:22). The Talmud (TBMegillah 10b) tells that R. Yonatanwould expound this verse as an introduction to the Book ofEsther. The Talmudunderstood that this verse refers to the Chaldeans (the peopleof Babylonia)who destroyed the First Temple. R. Yonatan would explain thatits namerefers to their script, remnant refers to their language,grandchildrefers to their monarchy, and great-grandchild refers toVashti—the lastscion of the Babylonian royal family who was wed to thePersian king Ahasuerusand was executed at the beginning of the Book of Esther.Accordingly, declares

the Talmud, the Chaldeans are a nation that has neither scriptnor language.[24]However, in actuality, the Chaldeans did have alanguage, for the Chaldeans spoke Aramaic. Why then does theTalmud not reckonwith the fact that they spoke Aramaic? This question is askedexplicitly by theTosafists (to TB Megillah 10b, Avodah Zarah 10a) and isaddressed by manycommentators.Rashi[25]explains that the Talmud does not mean that the languagespoken by theChaldeans would cease to exist, but rather that the Chaldeansborrowed theirlanguage (Aramaic) from other people (Arameans). According tothisunderstanding, the Chaldeans were the inhabitants of SouthernMesopotamia (i.e.Sumer, where Babylon lies), while the Arameans were theinhabitants of NorthernMesopotamia (i.e. Aram) and are not the same people, theysimply shared acommon language. Although Rashi fails to explain thesignificance of the factthat the Chaldeans borrowed Aramaic from the Arameans, hisexplanation doesshed light onto the Talmud’s declaration that the Chaldeans donot have alanguage; the Talmud means that the Chaldeans do not havetheir own language.The Tosafists (there) offer another answer. Theyexplain that the when the Talmud states that the Chaldeanshave neitherlanguage nor script, this does not refers to a common languageandscript, but rather to a royal language and script. That is,the Talmudacknowledges that the Chaldeans spoke Aramaic, but understoodthat they are tobe “discontinued” in that their royal class would no longer

have a speciallanguage of its own. It seems that the Babylonian royaltyoriginally spoke aseparate language (perhaps Akkadian[26]or the even older Sumerian) than did the rest of the nation,and this languagewas eventually lost as punishment for their role in thedestruction of theFirst Temple.[27]R. Shlomo Alkabetz (1500–1580) proves thisexplanation in the introduction to his work ManotHaLevi (a commentary to theBook of Esther). He shows from the fact that Nebuchadnezzarand all theBabylonian kings after him spoke Aramaic—by then the dominantlanguage in theAncient World—that the original Chaldean language fell intodisuse. In fact, henotes, the Bible tells that the Chaldean language had to betaught to members of the royal household(see Dan. 1:4), proving that it was by then relegated toobscurity. It isunlikely that the “Chaldean Language” referred to is actuallyAramaic becauseone would assume that members of the royal court in Babylonalready knewAramaic![28] R. Alkabetzfurther notes that by the time of Ahasuerus, king of Persia,the Chaldeanlanguage was almost extinct and with the demise of Vashti, thelanguage completelydied, allowing Ahasuerus to declare each man shall rule overhis house andspeak the language of his nation (Est. 1:22), marking theutter end of thelanguage of Babylon.Interestingly, R. Moshe Ashkenazi Halpern (c.1555)[29]writes in his work Zikhron Moshe (to Est. 1:22) that Vashtijustifiedher impudence by claiming not to understand the language of

Ahasuerus. Heexplains that this is the meaning of the verse the queenVashti refused tocome at the king’s commandment (Est. 1:12) which can super-literally betranslated as the queen Vashti refused to engage in the king’swords.Because of this, upon executing Vashti, Ahasuerus proclaimedthat each manshould be able to speak the language of his nation, i.e.without his wifeclaiming not to understand him.Maharsha and R. Yehuda Aryeh Leib Alter(1847–1905)[30] reject aliteral reading of the Talmud and instead explain itesoterically. Theyunderstand, in slightly different ways, that when the Talmudmentions that thelanguage of the Babylonians would be discontinued, it does notrefer to theiractual language but to the “essence” of their existence, whichtheir languagerepresents. They are therefore not bothered by the question ofthe Tosafiststhat Aramaic continued and continues to exist as a spoken andwritten languagebecause they understood that the Talmud was not actuallytalking about thediscontinuation of their language, it was discussing thediscontinuation oftheir core essence. Once their core essence disappeared, theyneeded to adoptthe “essence” of other nations in order to continue to exist,thereby losingtheir own identity. If this meta-physical reality was mirroredby physicalreality (a point which is unclear in those sources), it wouldprobably meanthat the Chaldeans originally spoke Akkadian and/or Sumerian,but when their“essence” was lost, they needed to borrow Aramaic from the

Arameans, theirnorthern neighbors (similar to the understanding of Rashi).However, Maharal, who similarly interpreted thispassage esoterically[31]and understood that the Chaldeans and Arameans are one and thesame (asmentioned above), would certainly not agree with this theory.Instead, Maharalcites a Talmudic passage (TB Sukkah 52b) which relates thatGod “regretted”that He created the Chaldeans. Because of this “regret,” theChaldeans areconsidered non-existent, personae non grata. If the Chaldeansdo notexist, then their language, Aramaic, is to be consideredequally non-existent, linguanon grata. For this reason, explains Maharal, Aramaic is notcounted in theseventy languages.[32]

THE CHALDEANLANGUAGE IN PERSPECTIVETo summarize, according to Maharal, theChaldeans and the Arameans are one and the same, so theChaldean language is tobe identified with Aramaic. This explanation precludes theview of Nahmanideswho maintains that the Chaldeans were Hamitic people (asopposed to theArameans who were Semitic). In fact, we have already shownthat Maharalexplicitly disagrees with Nahmanides on this issue.On the other hand, Rashi (and perhaps others)understood that the Chaldeans took Aramaic from the Arameaninhabitants ofnorthern Mesopotamia. According to this explanation, theChaldeans are adistinct people from the Arameans. This explanation leavesopen the possibilityfor Nahmanides’ view that the Chaldeans were the originalHamitic

inhabitants of Sumer, albeit their Semitic neighbors to thenorth influencedthem linguistically.Similarly, according to the Tosafists, theChaldean language was spoken by the royal court in Babylon intandem withAramaic. This explanation also leaves open the possibility forNahmanides’explanation that the Chaldeans were the Hamitic inhabitants ofsouthernMesopotamia, and despite their acceptance of Aramaic (whichoriginated fromtheir neighbors to the north and had spread throughout most ofthe civilizedworld), they also maintained a distinct Chaldean language tobe used by theruling class.

IN SUMMATIONIn short, Nahmanides proposes a newtheory that Abraham was actually born in Harran (in thenorthern Mesopotamianregion of Aram), before his family relocated to Sumerian Urand eventuallyreturned to Harran. Nahmanides offers several justificationsfor histheory, most significant of which is the notion that SumerianUr, which wasinhabited by the Chaldeans, was Hamitic territory and it istherefore unlikelythat Abraham’s family, who were Semitic, originated there. Wecast doubt onthis proof by noting that even if the Chaldeans occupied Sumerat that time,they were not necessarily Hamitic peoples and certainly thereis nojustification for arguing that non-Hamitic families could notlive there.Additionally, we explored the possibility of Hamitic originsfor the Chaldeanby surveying various commentators’ understandings of the

“Chaldean Language”mentioned in the Talmud. While some of those explanationsdefinitely allowedroom for Nahmanides’ position, none of them directly supportit.Finally, each of the proofs that Nahmanides offers for hisview is basedon certain assumptions and we have shown that each of thoseassumptions is notuniversally agreed upon.

[1] A. Marcus, KesetHaSofer (Tel Aviv, 1971) pgs. 296–297 writes that Ur Kasdimwas definitelyin the southern region of Mesopotamia, close to the PersianGulf.[2] TB Pesachim 118a, Bereishit Rabbah §38:13, Targum Jonathan(to Genesis 11:28), and more.[3] See Kitvei Yosef ben Matityahu, KadmoniutHaYehudim Vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Reuven Mass, 1939) pg. 31.[4] The work NabataeanAgriculture was written in Arabic by the 9th century Muslimphilosopher Ibn Wahshiyya. It is supposedly an Arabictranslation of an ancientSyriac text describing the beliefs of the Sabian religion.However, academiabelieves this work to have been forged (at least in part) byIbn Wahshiyyahimself.[5] Interestingly, severalpopular maps place Ur Kasdim southwest of the Euphrates River,meaning that itis on the same side of the Euphrates as is the Land of Israel,technicallyoutside of Mesopotamia, albeit still within the same generalvicinity. This lendscredence to Nahmanides’ view that Aram is considered “acrossthe river”while Ur Kasdim is not, even though both are in the generalregion of

Mesopotamia. See A. Kaplan, The Living Torah (New York:MaznaimPublishing Corporation, 1985) pg. 42; Ramban Al HaTorahBereishitVol. 1 (Artscroll/Mesorah Publications, 2004) pg. 593; and Y.Elitzur & Y.Keel (eds.), Atlas Da’at Mikra (Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook,1998) pg.66.[6] C. Chavel (ed.), Writingsof the Ramban, Vol. 2 (Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, 1963) pp.202–203.[7] M. Berenbaum and F.Skolnik (eds.), “Cuth, Cuthah,” Encyclopedia Judaica 2nd ed.Vol. 5. (Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007) pp. 344–345.[8] Y. Elitzur & Y.Keel (eds.), Atlas Da’at Mikra (Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook,1998) pg.386.[9] P. Berlyn, “The Journeyof Terah to Ur-Kasdim or Urkesh,” Jewish Bible Quarterly Vol.33:2(Jerusalem: Jewish Bible Association, 2005) suggests that Urmentioned in theBible is actually Urkesh, an ancient city in NorthernMesopotamia. Other thanthat, she accepts the narrative proposed by Nahmanides (thatTerahoriginally lived in Harran where Abraham was born, relocatedto Ur, and laterreturned to Harran), without mentioning him by name.[10] L. A. Feldman (ed.), PirushHaRan Al HaTorah (Jerusalem: Machon Shalem, 1968) pp. 153–154.[11] See there for anexplanation of why Ur is associated with the “Chaldeans” if itis located inAram. Rabbi Eliezer Ashkenazi (1512–1585) disagrees withNahmanides’narrative and instead proposes that Abraham never lived insouthernMesopotamia. He argues that Abraham’s family moved from within

northernMesopotamia from Aram Naharim to Harran (which he understandsto be twoseparate places) and all references to Ur of the Chaldeans donot refer to asouthern Mesopotamian city named Ur but rather to the Chaldean(Sumerian?)dominion over northern Mesopotamia in Abraham’s time. SeeAshkenazi’s MaaseiHaShem (Warsaw, 1871) pp. 78a–79a .[12] Kitvei Yosef benMatityahu, Kadmoniut HaYehudim Vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Reuven Mass,1939) pg.27.[13] ShalsheletHaQabbalah (Jerusalem, 1962) pg. 218.[14] A. Marcus, KesetHaSofer (Tel Aviv, 1971) pgs. 296 criticizes Ibn Ezra forconfusing Kesedson of Nahor with Kesed of the family of Arphaxad.[15] Gur Aryeh toDeuteronomy 32:21.[16] Gevurat HaShem (Ch.54).[17] See also “GalutV’Geulah” (by Rabbi Chaim Wallin of Baltimore) printed inKovetzYeshurun Vol. 7 (New York-Jerusalem: Machon Yeshurun, 2000)pg. 572 whoelaborates on what Maharal writes there.[18] E. Yassif (ed.), TheChronicles of Jerahmeel (Ramat Aviv: Tel Aviv University,2001) pg. 121gives “Milcah bat Ruth” as the name of Reu’s wife.[19] Nonetheless, Jubilees(9:4) mentions that Arphaxad’s land includes Chaldea, whichimplies that theChaldeans are descendants of Arphaxad (as Josephusunderstood).[20] Rabbi Gershon ChanochHeinich Leiner (1839–1891) discusses Nebuchadnezzar’s lineage

in light of hisprevious position at the court of the Assyrian kingSannechreb. See RabbiLeiner’s Petil Tekheilet, (Lublin, 1904) pp. 137–138.[21] R. Hayyim YosefDavid Azulai (1724–1806) in his work Petah Einayim (to TBHagiga 13a) notes that a contradictionbetween selections of Tosafot to differing tractates is notconsidered acontradiction because they were authored by different people.However, TosasfotHaRosh, which was ostensibly written by one person, namely R.Asher ben Yehiel(1250–1327), also contains this contradiction: In TosafotHaRosh to TB Hagiga13a, he writes that Nebuchadnezzar was not literally adescendant of Nimrod,while in Tosafot HaRosh to TB Yevamot 48a, he writes that hewas. Thiscontradiction has yet to be resolved.[22] See Rashi to I Kgs.10:13 and J.D. Eisenstein (ed.), Otzar Midrashim (New York,1915) pg. 46and Rabbi David Yoel Weiss’ Megadim Hadashim (to TB Hagiga13a).[23] Nonetheless, it ispossible that his Hamitic lineage comes from his maternalgenealogy, for Shebais listed as a grandson of Cush (Gen. 10:7). However, it isequally plausiblethat the Queen of Sheba herself was Semitic as the name Shebaalso appearstwice in Semitic genealogies, namely as a son of Joktan (Gen.10:28) and as agrandson of Abraham (Gen. 25:3).[24] The Talmud elsewhere(TB Avodah Zarah 10a) makes a similar comment about the Romans(who destroyedthe Second Temple), see the commentators there.[25] To TB Megillah 10b, asexplained by R. Yosef Hayim of Baghdad (1832–1909) in his

Talmudic work Ben Yehoyada (there).[26] If, in fact, the“lost language” to is Akkadian, then it is much easier tounderstandhow and why Aramaic suddenly superseded Akkadian as the linguafranca of theAncient world and why rabbinic literature seemingly neverrefers to thatlanguage.[27] Azulai in PetahEinayim (to TB Megillah 10b) quotesan anonymous scholar who explains the juxtaposition of thelack of a royallanguage and the death of Vashti. He explains that becauseVashti rejectedAhasuerus’ request to appear before him unclothed by publiclyresponding to hima disrespectful way, Ahasuerus had no choice but to executehis wife in orderto save face. Had there been a royal language used internallyby the rulingclass, Vashti’s insolence would not have created such animpact because shewould have responded to her husband in that language, limitingthe knowledge ofher disrespectful response to her husband and his royalcourtiers, while theother attendees at the party would not have realized whattranspired.[28] Ibn Ezra (Daniel 2:4)writes that when the Bible says that Nebuchadnezzar’snecromancers spoke to himin Aramaic, this refers to the Chaldean language, which wasspoken by the king.See also M. Amsel, Shut Hamaor Vol. 1 (Brooklyn, 1967) pp.472–474.[29] R. Halpern was eitherthe father-in-law or brother-in-law of the more famous scholarR. ShmuelEliezer Eidels (Maharsha). See Zikhron Moshe (Jerusalem:Zichron

Aharon Publications, 2003) pp. 7–9 forfurther discussion.[30] Sfat Emet (to TB Megillah 10b).[31] In the introduction to Ohr Hadash (a commentary to theBook of Esther).[32] See Tiferet Yisrael (Ch. 13), GevuratHaShem, (Ch. 54) and Chiddushei Aggadot (to TB Sotah 33a).