Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T23:53:38.683Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Study versus Sustenance: A Rabbinic Dilemma in Its Zoroastrian and Manichaean Context

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2014

Yishai Kiel
Yishai Kiel*
Affiliation:
Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
*
yishai.kiel@gmail.com
Get access

Abstract

Ascetic systems commonly exhibit some sort of conflict between spiritual pursuits and mundane needs. This article contextualizes the particular rabbinic dilemma of study versus sustenance within the broader context of the Zoroastrian tradition and its critique of the Manichaean Elect. The rabbis shared with their Zoroastrian contemporaries not only the perception of a religious tension between agriculture and the pursuit of religious studies, but also a multifaceted array of possible solutions that attempt to harmonize, mitigate, or otherwise resolve this theological and practical tension. While the basic conflict between study and sustenance is already formulated in tannaitic works, it is argued that the unique perspective offered by the Babylonian Talmud engages, and perhaps reacts to, the Iranian tradition.

Type
Research Article
Information
AJS Review , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , November 2014 , pp. 275 - 302
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Jewish Studies 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. See for instance: Weber, Max, Ancient Judaism, ed. Gerth, Hans H. and Martindale, Don (New York: Free Press, 1952), 254, 343, 401–410Google Scholar; Moore, George Foot, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927), 2:263–266Google Scholar; Montgomery, James A., “Ascetic Strains in Early Judaism,” Journal of Biblical Literature 51 (1932): 183–187Google Scholar; Halivni, David W., “On the Supposed Anti-Asceticism or Anti-Nazritism of Simon the Just,” Jewish Quarterly Review 58 (1967–1968): 243–252Google Scholar; Baer, Yitzhak F., Yisra'el ba-ʽamim: ʽiyunim be-toldot yemei ha-bayit ha-sheni u-tekufat ha-mishnah u-vi-yesodot ha-halakhah ve-ha-’emunah (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1955), 38–57Google Scholar; Urbach, Ephraim E., “’Askesis ve-yisurim be-torat ḥazal,” in Yitzhak F. Baer Jubilee Volume, ed. Baron, Salo, Dinur, Ben-Zion, Ettinger, Shmuel, and Halpern, Israel (Jerusalem: Historical Society of Israel, 1960), 48–68Google Scholar, reprinted as: Urbach, Ephraim E., Me-ʽolamam shel ḥakhamim: koveẓ meḥkarim (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1988), 437–58Google Scholar.

2. See especially Fraade, Steven D., “Ascetical Aspects of Ancient Judaism,” in Jewish Spirituality: From the Bible through the Middle Ages, ed. Green, Arthur (New York: Crossroad, 1988), 253–288Google Scholar; Boyarin, Daniel, Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Satlow, Michael L., Tasting the Dish: Rabbinic Rhetorics of Sexuality (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995)Google Scholar; Satlow, “‘And On the Earth You Shall Sleep’: Talmud Torah and Rabbinic Asceticism,” Journal of Religion 83, no. 2 (2003): 204–222Google Scholar; Diamond, Eliezer, Holy Men and Hunger Artists: Fasting and Asceticism in Rabbinic Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004)Google Scholar; Segal, Eliezer, review of Holy Men and Hunger Artists: Fasting and Asceticism in Rabbinic Culture, by Eliezer Diamond, JAAR 73, no. 3 (2005): 911–913Google Scholar; Wills, Lawrence M., “Ascetic Theology before Asceticism? Jewish Narratives and the Decentering of the Self,” JAAR 74, no. 4 (2006): 902–925Google Scholar; Kiel, Yishai, “’Al taʽanit u-meniʽat mazon ba-talmud ha-bavli le-’or ha-’ide'ologyah ha-zoro'astrit,” Jewish Studies Internet Journal 12 (2013): 1–28Google Scholar.

3. General studies relating to asceticism tend to distinguish between different types of ascetic expressions. Scholars have distinguished between total and partial abstention; permanent and temporary forms of renunciation; individualistic and communalistic forms of asceticism; negative renunciation and affirmative spiritual training; the ascetic training of one's body, soul, and will to pursue religious perfection and “dualistic” forms of asceticism that advocate an ontological departure from the body; “mystical” asceticism aimed at one's unification with the divine and asceticism that is intended to suppress the body; the escaping of the world and inwardly asceticism; and so on and so forth. These categories and others are discussed in Wimbush, Vincent L. and Valantasis, Richard, Asceticism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), xix–xxvGoogle Scholar; Hall, Thomas C., “Asceticism (Introduction),” in Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (New York: Scribner's, 1910)Google Scholar; Hardman, Oscar, The Ideals of Asceticism: An Essay in the Comparative Study of Religion (London: SPCK, 1924)Google Scholar; Weber, Max, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, trans. Parsons, Talcott (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1958), 95–183Google Scholar; James, William, The Varieties of Religious Experience (New York: The Modern Library, 1902), 291–292Google Scholar; Durkheim, Emile, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, trans. Swain, Joseph W. (New York: The Free Press, 1965), 350–356Google Scholar.

4. See especially Fraade, “Ascetical Aspects,” 253–288; Diamond, Holy Men, 3–20.

5. Fraade, “Ascetical Aspects,” 257.

6. Satlow, “Talmud Torah,” 204–222; Diamond, Holy Men, 21–58.

7. Satlow, “Talmud Torah,” 205.

8. The translation of all biblical verses follows the NRSV with minor changes and adjustments.

9. While the verse is intended as a blessing, which follows Israel's obedience to the Lord's commandments (“and you will gather in”), it was interpreted in certain rabbinic circles as a maxim (“and you shall gather in”).

10. Sifrei Devarim, ʽEkev, pis 42, to Deuteronomy 11:14 (ed. Finkelstein, p. 90); B. Berakhot 35b.

11. While talmud torah was an important ideal in rabbinic Palestine as well, it appears to have culminated in the rabbinic culture of Babylonia. See for instance: Rubenstein, Jeffrey, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003), 16–38Google Scholar.

12. See especially B. Berakhot 35b.

13. The nuances of Rashbi's position according to the different tannaitic works will be considered below in detail.

14. B. Taʽanit 21a; the story is analyzed in Rubenstein, Jeffrey, Stories of the Babylonian Talmud (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2010), 41–61Google Scholar. Previous studies on this story are referenced on 247 n. 1.

15. B. Shabbat 33b.

16. The Hērbedestān is a Young Avestan work that was preserved in part alongside its Pahlavi translation and commentary. A critical edition of the Hērbedestān was published by Kotwal, Firoze M. and Kreyenbroek, Philip G., The Hērbedestān and Nērangestān, vol. 1 (Paris: Association pour l'Avancement des Études Iraniennes, 1992)Google Scholar. The relevant texts will be analyzed below in detail.

17. For the precise meaning of this term, see below.

18. It makes no difference to my case whether the Babylonian and/or Zoroastrian “academies” refer to an institutionalized setting or merely to a master-student circle. For this long debated issue, see Goodblatt, David, “The History of the Babylonian Academies,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 4, The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period, ed. Katz, Steven T. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 821–839Google Scholar; Rubenstein, Jeffrey, “The Rise of the Babylonian Rabbinic Academy: A Reexamination of the Talmudic Evidence,” Jewish Studies Internet Journal 1 (2002): 55–68Google Scholar. Isaiah Gafni has argued for the existence of an institutionalized academy already during the amoraic period; see Gafni, Isaiah, “Yeshivah u-metivta,” Zion 43 (1978): 12–37Google Scholar. For further developments of the academy during the geonic period, see Brody, Robert, The Geonim of Babylonia and the Shaping of Medieval Jewish Culture (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 35–53Google Scholar. For the Christian schools of Nisibis and Ctesiphon, see Gafni, Isaiah M., “Ḥiburim nestorianim ke-makor le-toldot yeshivot bavel,” Tarbiz 51 (1982): 567–576Google Scholar; Becker, Adam H., Fear of God and the Beginning of Wisdom: The School of Nisibis and the Development of Scholastic Culture in Late Antique Mesopotamia (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006), 62–97Google Scholar; Becker, “The Comparative Study of ‘Scholasticism’ in Late Antique Mesopotamia: Rabbis and East Syrians,” AJS Review 34, no. 1 (2010): 91–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Regarding the institutionalization of the hērbedestān, Yaakov Elman surmised that: “The Avestan text refers to nomadic priests who were accompanied by young acolytes who were trained ‘on the road’, so to speak, while the Zand may refer to more centralized centers of learning, presumably in Sasanian times.” Elman, Yaakov, “Toward an Intellectual History of Sasanian Law: An Intergenerational Dispute in Hērbedestān 9 and Its Rabbinic Parallels,” in The Talmud in Its Iranian Context, ed. Bakhos, Carol and Shayegan, Rahim (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 21–57Google Scholar (quote on p. 25). Also, Macuch, Maria, “Disseminating the Mazdayasnian Religion: An Edition of the Pahlavi Hērbedestān Chapter 5,” in Exegisti monumenta: Festschrift in Honour of Nicholas Sims-Williams, ed. Sundermann, Werner, Hintze, Almut, and de Blois, François (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009), 264–266Google Scholar.

19. Levine, Israel L., “R. Shimon bar Yoḥai, ‘aẓmot metim ve-tihurah shel teveryah – historyah u-masoret,” Katedrah 22 (1982): 9–42Google Scholar; Meir, Ofra, “Sipur R. Shimon ben Yoḥai ba-me‘arah,” ‘Alei Siaḥ 26 (1989): 145–160Google Scholar; Rosenfeld, Ben Zion, “R. Simeon b. Yohai – Wonder Worker and Magician Scholar, ‘Saddiq’ and ‘Hasid,’” REJ 158 (1999): 351–386Google Scholar; Rubenstein, Jeffrey, Talmudic Stories: Narrative Art, Composition, and Culture (Baltimore and London: John Hopkins University Press, 1999), 105–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fonrobert, Charlotte, “Plato in Rabbi Shimeon bar Yohai's Cave (B. Shabbat 33b–34a): The Talmudic Inversion of Plato's Politics of Philosophy,” AJS Review 31 (2007): 277–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Bar-Asher Siegal, “Literary Analogies,” 143–201; Siegal, Bar-Asher, “The Making of a Monk-Rabbi: The Background for the Creation of the Stories of R. Shimon bar Yohai in the Cave,” Zion 76, no. 3 (2011): 279–304Google Scholar.

20. Bar-Asher Siegal, “Literary Analogies,” 143–201; Bar-Asher Siegal, “The Making of a Monk-Rabbi,” 279–304.

21. The requisite of agricultural occupation alongside spiritual pursuits is reflected in the following sayings attributed to Silvanus (4, Ward, p. 223) and John the Dwarf (2, Ward, p. 86), respectively. See Bar-Asher Siegal “Literary Analogies,” 186–192:

A brother went to see Abba Silvanus on the mountain of Sinai. When he saw the brothers working hard, he said to the old man, “Do not labor for the food which perishes [but for that meat which endures unto everlasting life] [John 6:27]. Mary has chosen the good portion [Luke 10:42].” The old man said to his disciple, “Zacharias, give the brother a book and put him in a cell without anything else.” So, when the ninth hour came the visitor watched the door expecting someone would be sent to call him to the meal. When no one called him he got up, went to find the old man and said to him, “Have the brothers not eaten today?” The old man replied that they had. Then he said, “Why did you not call me?” The old man said to him, “Because you are a spiritual man and do not need that kind of food. We, being carnal, want to eat, and that is why we work. But you have chosen the good portion and read the whole day long and you do not want to eat carnal food.” When he heard these words the brother made a prostration saying, “Forgive me, Abba.” The old man said to him, “Mary needs Martha. It is really thanks to Martha that Mary is praised.”

It was said of Abba John the Dwarf, that one day he said to his elder brother, “I should like to be free of all care, like the angels who do not work, but ceaselessly offer worship to God.” So he took off his cloak and went away into the desert. After a week he came back to his brother. When he knocked on the door, he heard his brother say, before he opened it, “Who are you?” He said, “I am John, your brother.” But he replied, “John has become an angel, and henceforth he is no longer among men.” Then the other begged him saying, “It is I.” However, his brother did not let him in, but left him there in distress until morning. Then, opening the door, he said to him, “You are a man and you must once again work in order to eat.” Then John made a prostration before him, saying, “Forgive me.”

22. On Egyptian monasticism in general and the collection of sayings of the desert fathers in particular, see Harmless, William, Desert Christians: An Introduction to the Literature of Early Monasticism (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 183–186Google Scholar; Burton-Christie, Douglas, The Word in the Desert: Scripture and the Quest for Holiness in Early Christian Monasticism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993)Google Scholar; Chitty, Derwas J., The Desert a City: An Introduction to the Study of Egyptian and Palestinian Monasticism under the Christian Empire (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966)Google Scholar; Gould, Graham, The Desert Fathers on Monastic Community (Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 9–17Google Scholar; Bar-Asher Siegal, “Literary Analogies,” 47–76.

23. Fonrobert, “Plato in Rabbi Shimeon bar Yohai's Cave,” 277–296.

24. In recent years scholars have become more aware of the indispensability of Christian material in general—and Syriac Christianity in particular—for the study of the Babylonian Talmud. See esp.: Gafni, “Ḥiburim”; Koltun-Fromm, Naomi, Jewish-Christian Conversation in Fourth-Century Persian Mesopotamia: A Reconstructed Conversation, Judaism in Context 12 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2011)Google Scholar; Koltun-Fromm, Hermeneutics of Holiness: Ancient Jewish and Christian Notions of Sexuality and Religious Community (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 129–238Google Scholar; Koltun-Fromm, “Aphrahat and Rabbis on Noah's Righteousness in Light of the Jewish-Christian Polemic,” in The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation, ed. Frishman, Judith and Van Rompay, Lucas (Lovanii: Peeters, 1997), 57–71Google Scholar; Naeh, Shlomo, “Freedom and Celibacy: A Talmudic Variation on Tales of Temptation and Fall in Genesis and Its Syrian Background,” in The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation, ed. Frishman, Judith and Van Rompay, Lucas (Lovanii: Peeters, 1997) 73–89Google Scholar; Becker, “The Comparative Study of ‘Scholasticism,’” 91–113; Schäfer, Peter, Jesus in the Talmud (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007)Google Scholar; Schäfer, The Jewish Jesus: How Judaism and Christianity Shaped Each Other (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2012)Google Scholar; Bar-Asher Siegal, “Literary Analogies.”

25. See for instance Kalmin, Richard, Jewish Babylonia between Persia and Roman Palestine (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 3–17Google Scholar; Boyarin, Daniel, Socrates and the Fat Rabbis (Chicago and London: Chicago University Press, 2009), 133–140Google Scholar; Boyarin, “Hellenism in Rabbinic Babylonia,” in The Cambridge Companion to Rabbinic Literature, ed. Fonrobert, Charlotte and Jaffee, Martin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 336–363Google Scholar.

26. For a brief history of the field, see Yaakov Elman, “Up to the Ears,” 95–102; Herman, Geoffrey, “Ahasuerus the Former Stable-Master of Belshazzar, and the Wicked Alexander of Macedon: Two Parallels between the BT and Persian Sources,” AJS Review 29, no. 2 (2005): 283–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Secunda, Shai, “Reading the Bavli in Iran,” Jewish Quarterly Review 100, no. 2 (2010): 310–318Google Scholar.

27. See, for instance Elman, Yaakov, “Acculturation to Elite Persian Norms and Modes of Thought in the Babylonian Jewish Community of Late Antiquity,” in Neti‘ot le-David: sefer ha-yovel le-David Halivni, ed. Elman, Yaakov, Halivni, Ephraim B., and Steinfeld, Zvi A. (Jerusalem: Orhot, 2004), 31–56Google Scholar; Elman, “Middle Persian Culture and Babylonian Sages: Accommodation and Resistance in the Shaping of Rabbinic Legal Tradition,” in Cambridge Companion to Rabbinic Literature, ed. Fonrobert, Charlotte E. and Jaffee, Martin S. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 165–197Google Scholar.

28. Thus, for instance, Michel Foucault's oft-quoted formulation of “genealogy” inverts the model of direct influence, seeking instead multiple determining elements and a complex of relations for any given phenomenon. See Foucault, Michel, “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History,” in Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews, ed. Bouchard, Donald F., trans. Bouchard, Donald F. and Simon, Sherry (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977), 139–64Google Scholar; Foucault, “What is Critique?,” in The Politics of Truth, ed. Lotringer, Sylvère, trans. Hochroth, Lisa (Los Angeles: Semiotext(e), 2007), 41–82Google Scholar; Bevir, Mark, “What Is Genealogy?,” Journal of the Philosophy of History 2 (2008): 263–75Google Scholar. Similarly, one may argue that by “influence” we need not assume “borrowing” of novel elements that weren't present before. “Influence” may refer to general stimuli that bring into prominence features that have been present previously but were less important. On this point, see Smith, M., “II Isaiah and the Persians,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 83 (1963): 415–421Google Scholar. For a recent model of interfaith connections, see Satlow, Michael, “Beyond Influence: Toward a New Historiographic Paradigm,” in Jewish Literatures and Cultures: Contexts and Intertext, ed. Norwich, Anita and Eliav, Yaron Z., Judaic, Brown Studies 349 (Brown University Press: Providence, 2008), 37–54Google Scholar.

29. Satlow, “Beyond Influence,” 37–54.

30. Sifrei Devarim, ʽEkev, pis. 42, to Deuteronomy 11:14, according to MS Vatican 32 (cf. ed. Finkelstein, p. 90); compare: B. Berakhot 35b.

31. For Rashbi's position, see also Sifrei Devarim, ʽEkev, pis. 40, to Deuteronomy 11:12 (ed. Finkelstein, pp. 83–84); Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Masekhta de-Shabbeta 1, to Exodus 35:2 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin, pp. 342–343).

32. Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Masekhta De-va-yisʽ a 3, to Exodus 16:4, according to MS Oxford (cf. ed. Horovitz-Rabin, p. 161).

33. For the role of terumah in this context, cf. Y. Sheviʽit 9:1 (38d); B. Shabbat 33b; Bar-Asher Siegal, “Literary Analogies,” 157–158 n. 20.

34. The different versions of Rashbi's position in this regard are discussed in Rubenstein, Talmudic Stories, 342–343 n. 81; and cf. Beer, Moshe, “Torah ve-derekh ’ereẓ,” Bar-Ilan Annual 2 (1964), 134–162Google Scholar. To further complicate the matter, the Babylonian Talmud preserves a completely contradictory tradition (B. Menaḥot 99b; B. Nedarim 49b) that attributes to Rashbi the seemingly “Ishmaelite” idea that the recitation of the Shema suffices to fulfill the obligation of “the Torah shall not depart out of your mouth” (Joshua 1:8), and the idea that worldly occupation brings honor to its performer. Bar-Asher Siegal, “Literary Analogies,” 161–162 n. 28, suggests that the extreme and moderate interpretations of Rashbi's position in the Sifrei and the Mekhilta reflect the differences between the Ishmaelite and Akivan schools. While I agree with her that Rashbi's position is not monolithic in the tannaitic works, I believe that the classical division between the Ishmaelite and Akivan schools is not applicable in this case, since unlike the Mekhilta passage that was quoted, Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Masekhta de-Shabbeta 1, to Exodus 35:2 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin, pp. 342–343) expresses an anonymous position that is akin to the more extreme interpretation of Rashbi's position displayed in Sifrei Devarim, ʽEkev, pis. 42, to Deuteronomy 11:14 (ed. Finkelstein, p. 90).

35. M. Kiddushin 4:14; T. Kiddushin 5:15–16; B. Kiddushin 82b.

36. Rubenstein, Talmudic Stories, 130–131.

37. The talmudic sources that stress the importance of agriculture and worldly engagement include M. Avot 1:11; B. Berakhot 8a; B. Nedarim 49b; B. Niddah 70a. For the arrangement of Issachar and Zevulun, see Bereshit Rabbah, Va-yeẓe, par. 72:5, to Genesis 30:16 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 841–843); Va-yehi, par. 97:9, to Genesis 49:13 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 1220); Va-yehi, par. 99, to Genesis 49:13 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 1281); Vayikra Rabbah, Kedoshim, par. 25:2, to Leviticus 19:23 (ed. Margoliot, 570–571); B. Sotah 21a. For a much more ascetic perspective, see for instance: M. Avot 6:4–5; B. ‘Eruvin 55a. Some versions of the rabbinic narrative about R. Eliezer's youth relate that Eliezer abandoned the agricultural work of his father's field in favor of Torah, thus disclosing an uncompromising tension between Torah study and agricultural occupation. Beyond the abandonment of agriculture in favor of Torah, other ascetic features pertaining to the study of Torah are also displayed in this story, as R. Eliezer is said to have abstained from food for many days in the course of his pursuit of Torah. For the different versions of this narrative, see Bereshit Rabbah, Lekh Lekha, par. 41:1, to Genesis 14:1 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 397–398); Tanḥuma, Lekh Lekha, par. 10, to Genesis 14:1 (ed. Buber, 67–69); Avot de-Rabbi Natan A:6 (ed. Schechter, pp. 30–31) B:13 (ed. Schechter, pp. 30–31); Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer 1 (ed. Horowitz, 20). See also Diamond, Holy Men, 23–33.

38. B. Berakhot 35b according to MS Florence II-I-7.

39. The tradition attributed here to R. Yehudah b. ’Ilaʽi seems to contradict the portrayal of his position in B. Shabbat 33b. On this issue, see Rubenstein, Talmudic Stories, 342–343 n. 81. I am not convinced, however, that R. Yehudah's position in B. Berakhot 35b is closer to Rashbi's position than to R. Ishmael's position in the Sifrei. The notion that one's occupation should be only secondary to his study of Torah does not necessarily contradict the opinion of R. Ishmael regarding the necessity of worldly occupation (see also M. Avot 4:10). R. Ishmael would probably have agreed to a formulation, according to which worldly occupations are subsidiary to the main pursuit of Torah.

40. This expression is absent from the Palestinian Talmud, but appears four times in the Babylonian Talmud (B. Taʽanit 21a, B. Shabbat 33b; B. Shabbat 10a, B. Beẓah 15b), see: Rubenstein, Talmudic Stories, 131–133. For monastic parallels, see Bar-Asher Siegal, “Literary Analogies,” 186–187 (Sayings of the Desert Fathers, Silvanus 4, in: ed. Ward, p. 223).

41. Rubenstein, Stories of the Babylonian Talmud, 41–61. Previous studies on this story are referenced on 247 n. 1.

42. Rubenstein, Stories of the Babylonian Talmud, 42–48.

43. B. Sotah 21a.

44. Compare Abaye's exclamation in B. Berakhot 35b: “There were rabbis who followed the advice of R. Ishmael and their study lasted in their hands.”

45. The Palestinian versions of the cave story include: Y. Sheviʽit 9:1 (38d); Bereshit Rabbah, Va-yishlah, par. 79:6, to Genesis 33:18 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 941–945); Pesikta de-Rav Kahana, Vayhi Be-shalaḥ, pis.16, to Exodus 13:19 (ed. Mandelbaum, 191–194); Kohelet Rabbah 8:10. The differences were discussed in: Meir, “Sipur,” 158–159; Bar-Asher Siegal, “The Making of a Monk-Rabbi,” 286–293; Rubenstein, Talmudic Stories, 121–130.

46. Rubenstein, Talmudic Stories, 110–121.

47. B. Shabbat 33b according to Oxford 23 (366).

48. Meir, “Sipur,” 155.

49. Bar-Asher Siegal, “Literary Analogies,” 161–162 n. 28.

50. The connection between the exclusivity Rashbi expresses in B. Shabbat 35b and his assertion that only very few people are worthy of salvation according to B. Sanhedrin 96b and B. Sukkah 45b, will be discussed immediately below. For a somewhat different understanding of Rashbi's statement, see Bar Asher Siegal, “Literary Analogies,” 191.

51. While the encounter with the old man does not necessarily convey a realization on Rashbi's part, of the value of agriculture and worldly occupation, it suggests nevertheless that alternative paths are open to nonscholars via the fulfillment of God's commandments. It must be kept in mind, however, that, from a literary perspective, the encounter with the old man represents an attempt to rectify Rashbi's original critical and harsh stance towards those who plough and sow their fields. Indirectly, then, Rashbi's new realization upon his encounter with the old man seems to bear on his general attitude towards agriculture and worldly occupation as well. It is possible, although by no means certain, that the myrtle signifies this connection.

52. On the “exclusive” approach of the Babylonian rabbis in general, see esp. Kalmin, Richard L., The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity (London: Routledge, 1999)Google Scholar, and compare: Secunda, “Reading the Bavli in Iran,” 340–341; Kiel, Yishai, “Samkhut ḥakhamim ba-talmud ha-bavli: hebetim zoroastriyim,” Shnaton Ha-mishpat Ha-ʽivri 27 (2012–2013): 131–174Google Scholar.

53. Meir, “Sipur,” 156.

54. Y. Berakhot 9:2 (13d); B. Sanhedrin 96b; B. Sukkah 45b. The Babylonian version uses the unique term בני עליה (those who ascend). B. Sukkah 45b also attributes the following statement to Rashbi: “I can exempt the whole world from judgment.”

55. For the basic non-ascetic and anti-ascetic tendencies in Zoroastrianism, see for instance Zaehner, Robert C., The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1961), 265–283Google Scholar; Nigosian, S.A., “Zoroastrian Perception of Ascetic Culture,” JAAS 34, no. 1 (1999): 4–18Google Scholar; Williams, Alan, “Zoroastrianism and the Body,” in Religion and the Body, ed. Coakley, Sarah (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 155–166Google Scholar. Several scholars have noted, however, the existence of mitigated or “soft” ascetic expressions in Pahlavi literature and especially in the andarz literature (wisdom literature in Pahlavi). See for instance Shaul Shaked, “The Pahlavi Andarz Literature,” (PhD diss., University of London, 1964), 225–247; Shaked, “Paymān: An Iranian Idea in Contact with Greek Thought and Islam,” in From Zoroastrian Iran to Islam: Studies in Religious History and Intercultural Contacts, Collected Studies Series CS505 (Aldershot: Variorum, 1995), 217–240Google Scholar. See also the remarks in Kiel, “ʽAl Taʽanit,” 15–27.

56. On the name of the Videvdad see especially: Benveniste, Émile, “Que Signifie Vidēvdād,” in W.B. Henning Memorial Volume, ed. Boyce, Mary and Gershevitch, Ilya (London: Lund Humphries, 1970), 37–42Google Scholar; Dale L. Bishop, “Form and Content in the Videvdad: A Study of Change and Continuity in the Zoroastrian Tradition,” (PhD diss., Columbia University, 1974). And see of late Skjærvø, Prods Oktor, “The Videvdad: Its Ritual-Mythical Significance,” in The Idea of Iran: The Age of the Parthians, ed. Curtis, Vesta Sarkhosh and Stewart, Sarah (London: Tauris, 2007), 105–162Google Scholar. Important information about the manuscript tradition of the Videvdad can be obtained from Alberto Cantera's “Vidēvdād Project,” available on line, at: www.videvdad.com.

57. Videvdad 3.4; cf. Videvdad 3.23.

58. Videvdad 3.24–25.

59. = the demons.

60. Videvdad 3.32. Cf. Bundahišn 21.C.4

61. Videvdad 3.34.

62. Vööbus, Arthur, History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient: a Contribution to the History of Culture in the Near East, vol. 1, The Origin of Asceticism: Early Monasticism in Persia (Louvain: Secrétariat du Corpus scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 184, t. 14, 1958)Google Scholar, 256; Bar-Asher Siegal, “Literary Analogies,” 186–192.

63. Pahlavi hērbedestān (when it doesn't refer to the Avestan work bearing this name) often functions as an abstract noun designating priestly studies, but in other cases it refers to the actual place where the priestly studies were conducted. The latter seems to be implied in the present case since the act of going away to the hērbedestān is emphasized.

64. Pahlavi sālārīh designates legal guardianship. The notion of family-guardianship (dūdag-sālārīh) refers to the guardianship of a father or his successors over a girl, entailing the right to give her away in marriage. The present notion of “guardianship of property” (xwāstag sālārīh) refers to the maintaining of property, often the family's estate. Occasionally, sālārīh also refers to the guardianship and protection of ritual fires. While the term does not necessarily denote agricultural activity, in the present context Pahlavi “guardianship of property” glosses the Avestan notion of “keeping the members of the flocks in full number or out of harm,” thus suggesting an agricultural context (although there seems to be a shift from the Avestan notion). The different types of sālārīh (guardianship) are discussed in: Rivāyat of Ēmēd son of Ašawahist 5; Dādestān ī Dēnīg 58; Rivāyat of Ādurfarnbay 3. See: Hjerrild, Studies in Zoroastrian Family Law, 19–76; Macuch, “Disseminating the Mazdayasnian Religion,” 261–262.

65. In their edition of the Hērbedestān (vol. 1, p. 35), Kotwal and Kreyenbroek assume that daštān māh wizārdan means “observe (the rules for) the monthly cycle,” that is, a reference to the seclusion of a woman during her menses prescribed in Pahlavi Videvdad 16.1–2, according to which a menstruating woman is instructed to go to the “place of menstruation” (daštānistān) or the “menstrual hut”. See also Elman, Yaakov, “Marriage and Marital Property in Rabbinic and Sasanian Law,” in Rabbinic Law in Its Roman and Near Eastern Context, ed. Heszer, Catherine (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 227Google Scholar. The Zoroastrian laws of menstruation are discussed in Shai Secunda, “‘Dashtana – Ki Derekh Nashim Li': A Study of the Babylonian Rabbinic Laws of Menstruation in Relation to Corresponding Zoroastrian Texts” (PhD diss., Yeshiva University, 2007), 299–482. There are several problems with this interpretation, however, the most pertinent of which is the fact that a reference to menstrual seclusion seems to be out of place in the context of a discussion concerning the conflict between “guardianship of property” and “priestly studies.” I have recently examined, together with Prods Oktor Skjærvø, the different occurrences of this term in Pahlavi literature and we have concluded that it more likely refers to the marital obligation of a husband to sustain and nourish his wife, especially during the menstrual cycle at which time she is unable to provide for her own needs. Thus, for instance, Pahlavi Videvdad 3.33 discusses the inability to perform religious and ritual activities, including the “resolving of the menstrual month,” without proper nourishment of the body (translation by Prods Oktor Skjærvø and myself):

Then they recite this Avestan text [that is, they do their priestly studies better]: For nobody without nourishment is capable [If he does not eat – then he is not capable]. Whoever is not victorious in the acts of righteousness [If (he performed) a very good dwāzdah-hōmāst (the twelve days hōm ritual), if he does not eat – then he is not capable]. Whoever is not enduring in the act of performance [agriculture], whoever is not enduring in the act of “seeking sons” [fertility] [who is very able to take care of the menstrual month [daštān māh wizārdan], if he does not eat—he is not capable]. For the entire bony existence lives from eating [until the end of the determined time]; they would die from not eating [Abarg said: this means, when he dies—he is a non-eater].

For a thorough examination of this passage, see Kiel, “‘Al Taʽanit,” 20–23. For other occurrences of this term, see for instance Dēnkard 8.20.95, 8.23.20, 8.36.12; Rivāyat of Ādurfarnbay 12.

66. The text in italics represents the translation of the Avestan.

67. On the meaning of the particle hād, see Prods Oktor Skjærvø, “On the Terminology and Style of the Pahlavi Scholastic Literature,” in The Talmud in Its Iranian Context, ed. Bakhos and Shayegan, 178–205 (182–190).

68. Hērbedestān 3.1–5. The translation of the Avestan follows an unpublished edition prepared by Prods Oktor Skjærvø, while the translation of the Pahlavi text is my own. Compare ed. Kotwal and Kreyenbroek, vol. 1, 32–35.

69. To be sure, it makes no difference to my case whether the rabbinic and/or the Zoroastrian learning settings in the Sasanian period consisted of a full-blown academy or merely of a master-disciple circle.

70. For the development of the Babylonian academy during the Sasanian period and its connections with the Christian schools, see Goodblatt, “History of the Babylonian Academies,” 821–839; Rubenstein, “Rise of the Babylonian Rabbinic Academy,” 55–68; Rubenstein, Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 16–38; Gafni, “Ḥiburim,” 567–576; Becker, Fear of God, 62–97; Becker, “The Comparative Study of ‘Scholasticism,’” 91–113. For further developments in the geonic period, see Brody, Geonim of Babylonia, 35–53.

71. B. Bava Batra 8a, according to MS Hamburg. Compare: B. Berakhot 63b; B. Yoma 35b; B. ‘Eruvin 54b.

72. This is not to say that no cases of leaving the house for a long duration in pursuit of religious studies are attested in Palestinian rabbinic sources. Thus, for instance, already in Bereshit Rabbah, R. Eliezer is said to have left his home for a prolonged stay at the academy (see above).

73. See especially Boyarin, Carnal Israel, 134–166; Satlow, Michael L., Jewish Marriage in Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 30–38Google Scholar; Diamond, Holy Men and Hunger Artists, 128–130.

74. Boyarin, Carnal Israel, 134–166.

75. This is particularly true for Zoroastrianism, where agriculture is a religious value in its own right, but also for rabbinic culture. R. Ishmael, for instance, regards agricultural pursuits as the fulfillment of a biblical verse.

76. Beduhn, Jason D., The Manichaean Body (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000)Google Scholar.

77. Syriac zaddiqe; Arabic siddiqun; Greek dikaioi and eklektoi; Latin electi; Middle Persian and Parthian ‘rd'w'n, wcydg'n, and dynd'r'n; Chinese a-lo-huan, tien-na-wu, shih-seng

78. Syriac šamuʽe; Arabic samuʽun; Greek katechoumenoi; Latin auditores; Middle Persian and Parthian nywš'g'n; Chinese tʾ ing-che.

79. Beduhn, Manichaean Body, 25–30.

80. This confessional Sogdian text, parts of which are in Middle Persian, is preserved in MS. M 801.475–532. Translation follows Beduhn, Manichaean Body, 43.

81. Beduhn, Manichaean Body, 44.

82. MS. M 113, trans. in Beduhn, Manichaean Body, 286 n. 126.

83. The anti-Manichaean polemical treatises include the work of Augustine of Hippo (late fourth and early fifth century), the Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis (fourth century), the Catecheses of Cyril of Jerusalem (fourth century), the Acta Archelai of the otherwise unknown Hegemonius (early fourth-century), the anti-Manichaean treatises of Titus of Bostra and Serapion of Thmuis (both fourth century), the work of the Middle Platonist Alexander of Lycopolis against the Manichaeans (early fourth century), the works of the Syriac fathers Ephrem (fourth century), Theodore bar Konai (eighth century), and new manuscripts of Serapion of Thmuis and Titus of Bostra, and the Muslim polemic of Al-Nadim in his Fihrist ul-ulum and al-Biruni in his Athar-ul-Bakiya and India. For references, see Beduhn, Manichaean Body, 2–4. To this I might add several Zoroastrian texts in Middle Persian, such as passages from Dēnkard book 3 and the final chapter of the Škand Gumānīg Wizār. The Zoroastrian anti-Manichaean polemic is discussed in Taillieu, Dieter, Negende-eeuwse Zoroastrische anti-Manicheïsche polemieken in Škandgumanig wizar en Denkard (Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit, 2004)Google Scholar; Taillieu, “Pazand nišāmī Between Light and Darkness,” in Iranica Selecta, ed. van Tongerloo, Alois (Turnhout: Brepolis, 2003), 239–46Google Scholar; Sundermann, Werner, “Das Manichäerkapitel des Škand Gumānīg Wizār in der Darstellung und Deutung Jean de Menasces,” in Augustine and Manichaeism in the Latin West, ed. van Oort, Johannes, et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 325–37Google Scholar.

84. Augustine, De Haer 46.114–132, trans. in Beduhn, Manichaean Body, 81.

85. Dēnkard 3.199–200 [ed. de Menasce, Jean Pierre, Le troisiėme livre du Dēnkard (Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck, 1973), 208–210Google Scholar].

86. Translation follows Shaked, Shaul, “The Moral Responsibility of Animals: Some Zoroastrian and Jewish Views of the Relation of Humans and Animals,” Festschrift für Anders Hultgard (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2001)Google Scholar, 583. Cf. de Menasce, Le troisiėme livre du Dēnkard, 208–210.

87. Alternatively, the statement “You and I are sufficient for the world” may trigger the more moderate notion, according to which the few elect “exempt the whole world from judgment” (also in B. Sukkah 45b).

88. Beduhn, Manichaean Body, 29: “The division into a strictly regimented, “selected” or “righteous,” class and a less restricted support class constituted the basis and prerequisite of Manichaean religious life. Neither pole of the community could obtain salvation without the assistance of the other. This point scarcely need be made with reference to the Auditors; Manichaean literature repeatedly reminded them of their utter dependence on the benevolence of the Elect. On the other hand, some modern scholars have ventured the opinion that only the Elect belonged properly to the Manichaean community, and that the Auditors constituted a clientele upon whom the only injunction was support of the Elect. Such a position is not borne out by the sources, which, as will be shown, clearly articulate a regimen for Auditors.”