Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-2l2gl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T17:20:20.634Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Household Table in Rabbinic Palestine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 October 2009

Joseph Tabory
Joseph Tabory
Affiliation:
Bar-Ilan University
Get access

Extract

D. Sperber has confirmed, from rabbinic sources, the argument of J. Drescher (Le muséon 82 [1969]: 98—100) that τράπεζ was used to mean a “paten, tray, dish” in addition to its better known meaning of “table.” We shall here try, through the use of rabbinic sources, to show the real, archaeological background behind the semantic change from “table” to “tray” and to suggest that this background may have been a cause of that change.

Type
Research Article
Information
AJS Review , Volume 4 , April 1979 , pp. 211 - 215
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Jewish Studies 1979

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

01. See his article “Rabbinic Notes to Graeco-Coptic, ” which appears in this volume

02. Richter, Gisela M. A., The Furniture of the Greeks Etruscans and Romans (London, 1966), pp. 66—69.Google Scholar Although other types of tables are documented, the three-legged one was most popular. For the rabbinic evidence, see Krengel, Johann, Das Hausgerdt in der Mima (Frankfurt, 1899), p. 1Google Scholar; Krauss, Samuel, Qadmoniyyot ha-talmud 4 vols. (Berlin-Vienna, 1922?-Tel Aviv, 1945), vol. 2, pt. I, p. 11.Google Scholar Over ten tables of this type have been discovered in Turkey and were described by Young, Rodney S., “Phrygian Furniture from Gordion, ” Expedition 16 (1974): 3–12.Google Scholar

03. See the architectural monstrosity shown in Young, “Phrygian Furniture, ” fig. 3. This figure has also been reproduced in Encyclopaedia Biblica, 6 vols. (Jerusalem, 1965—1976) 6: 691–92.Google Scholar

04. Richter, Furniture, p. 66. Young suggests that woodworking techniques throughout the Eastern Mediterranean may have been borrowed from Egypt (Phrygian Furniture, p. 2).

05. Sifra, , Shemini, , Parashah 6, 4, ed. Isaac Weiss (Vienna, 1862; reprint ed., New York, 1947), fol. 52d.Google Scholar

06. B. T. Yoma 21b.

07. B. T. Berakhot 46b; Pesabim 100b.

08. B. T. Pesabim 115b.

09. Richter, Furniture, pp. 63—65. This point has, at times, been overlooked by classical scholars, as pointed out by C. E. Graves (The Acharnians [Cambridge, 1961], note to line 1158).

10. Cf. Krauss, Samuel, Talmudische Archaologie 3 vols. (Leipzig, 1910–1912), 3: 55–56.Google Scholar Although the phrase found in the Mishna “they brought before him” (Pes. 10:3) has been explained as referring to the carrying in of a table (Rabbenu Hananel and Tosafot, both printed in B. T. Pesabim [Vilna, 1886] 114a), we cannot extract more from this passage than that the food was carried in. See the discussion of this passage in Joseph Tabory, “The History of the Order of the Passover Eve” [Hebrew], Ph.D. diss., Bar-Ilan University, 1977, p. 15.

11. In the article “mensa” in Pauly-Wissowa, , Realenzyklopadie der klassischen Altertums Wissenschaft (Leipzig, 1893) (henceforth: PWRE), two proofs are brought to show the existence of detachable table tops.Google Scholar The first proof is a deduction based on the fact that Penelope's suitors used tabletops as shields. Presumably they could not have done so if they had to manage with the legs of the table. However, a fifth century B.C.E. painter found no such difficulty, nor was he aware of detachable tabletops, since he portrayed a suitor holding a table as a shield with the legs of the table facing toward him (Ernst Pfuhl, Masterpieces of Greek Drawing and Painting [London, 1955], fig. 99).Google Scholar The second proof derives from Athenaeus's calling a tabletop (Deipnosophistae 2. 49a). However, this would seem to refer to the manner of construction rather than the actual detachability of the top since the capital of a column is also called even though no one would consider it detachable. Hugo Blumner ("Tische” in August Baumeister, Denkmaler des klassischen Altertums [Munich and Leipzig, 1899]) finds no evidence for detachable tabletops nor does G. M. A. Richter refer to them in her above-mentioned work. Interestingly enough, Young points out that, in the elaborate Phrygian table, “quite a lot of strong glue must have been used” to connect the table top to the legs for “otherwise the tops would have simply lifted off” (Phrygian Furniture, p. 7). Perhaps the tops were meant to be used separately. They were slightly dished at the surface, leaving a low raised rim all around the edges (Young, p. 5) which may imply that they were carried in fully laden.

12. See the description in Avigad, Nahman, Archaeological Discoveries in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem Israel Museum, Jerusalem, Catalogue no. 144, Spring 1976, p. 19. A photograph is to be found among the unnumbered plates and this photograph has also been reproduced in Qadmoniot 5 (1972): 98. A smaller, round table is on display in the Museum but no photograph of it has yet been published. Another table top of this period, at present in Haifa, has been described by Levi Y. Rahmani, “Table-top of the Late Second Temple Period, ” Sefunim 5 (1976): 67–71. However, from the carving on the ledge, it would seem that its support was a onelegged pedestal.Google Scholar

13. Kelim, M. 22:2. See Krauss, Samuel, Griechische undLateinische Lehnworter im Talmud, Midrasch und Targum, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1898–1899), 2: 214Google Scholar; Neusner, Jacob, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities 22 vols. (Leiden, 1974–1977), 2: 201.Google Scholar The base of the Delphic table was also considered a separate utensil (M. Kelim 24:6) and it is depicted as being used separately (P.T. Shabbat, 17:1, ed. Venice, 1523?, fol. 16b).

14. From (tray?) or tabula. See Krauss, Lehnworter, p. 254.

15. Brand, Yehoshua, Kelei ha-heres be-sifrut ha-talmud (Jerusalem, 1953), p. 181.Google Scholar

16. B.T. Bava Batra 57b.

17. Commentary of Samuel ben Meir, ad loc; Krengel, Hausgerdt, p. 1. This is of special interest because Richter (Furniture, p. 78) points out that objects of everyday use, when put away, are represented on vase paintings as hanging on the wall. However, there is no such similar evidence for tables. Richter (p. 63) suggests that Greek tables were pushed under the couches when not in use.

18. Richter, Furniture, fig. 365 (Apulian volute-krater in the National Museum of Naples).

19. M. Mo'ed Qatan 3:7.

20. M. Kelim 2:3, 7.

21. It is possible that the surface of the tavla was carved (into sections?) or roughened for this same purpose. This would explain why a tavla whose upper surface was carved or roughened was considered a utensil while a table, whose highly polished surface was greatly esteemed (PWRE, s.v. “mensa, ” col. 939), would be ruined by the same treatment (T. Kelim, Bava Batra 1:9, ed. Moses Zuckermandel, p. 591). However, the meaning of this text is not sufficiently clear. See the discussion of this text in Jacob Neusner, Mishnaic Law of Purities, 2: 200. One should point out that the text presented by Zuckermandel should be translated “and it is capable of receiving (susceptible) impurity.” The text is difficult and C. Y. Kasovsky (Thesaurus Thosephthae, 6 vols. [Jerusalem, 1932—1961], 6:52b) has suggested erasing thel of However, in the parallel passage (Thesaurus, 6:50a) he has made no similar suggestion.

22. It should be pointed out that Syriac has also the meanings of mensa and patella hostiarum (Karl Brockeimann, Lexicon Syriacum [Halle, 1928], p. 618b). Perhaps a careful study of the Syriac texts could shed additional light on the change and its causes.