If any man has uttered the [Most] Venerable Name even though frivolously, or as a result of shock or for any other reason whatsoever, while reading the Book or blessing, he shall be dismissed and shall return to the Council of the Community no more.
The Community Rule, 1QS, 6:27-7:2
It is ironic that the Dead Sea sect, which held such high regard for Torah and the Prophets, should go so far as to exclude and banish all who would utter the Most Venerable Name
even though the very texts that defined who they were and around which they ordered their entire lives speak the Name with almost reckless abandon. Had Moses or Isaiah lived in their day, the Dead Sea sect would have ostracised them for blasphemy whilst quoting from their texts as the foundation of their existence. As it stands, however, it is likely that the Dead Sea sect’s strict, non-biblical tradition will be satisfied, since it is probably the case that no one knows how the tetragrammaton was originally pronounced—assuming, of course, that it is the tetragrammaton that was meant. The name revealed to Moses in Exodus is actually אהיה אשׁר אהיה. Whatever the name may or may not be, however, misses the point anyway because in the ancient world, the meaning of one’s name didn’t have much to do with the sounds of consonants and vowels, but referred to a person’s character, being, and role in society. A deity’s name
often referred specifically to their creative force and power and giving things names served to take part in the process of creation. That is why many ancient near eastern creation accounts–including Genesis–refer to the gods as giving form and existence to matter and being by naming them. When Adam named
the animals, this wasn’t significant because he was calling them something vocally, but because he was ordaining what they were and in a very real sense defining their existence. Perhaps the most ironic thing about not speaking the name of YHWH is that, in terms of the ancient world, to fail to speak the name of a deity is to deny that god’s existence. Surely that is the greater blasphemy. Then again, one could always be on the safe side and just say Jehovah.
Is anyone else frustrated with the lack of English translations of the BIBLICAL Dead Sea Scrolls? Currently, so it seems, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible is the only book in existence that offers the BIBLICAL DSS in English. Don’t get me wrong, it is an incredible book. A prize of my collection. But why is it the only thing available? Why are there no other alternatives? Why do we have nothing like The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition for the BIBLICAL texts? Why do we have nothing like The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English with BIBLICAL texts? What’s going on? Why is it nearly impossible to find something that should be ubiquitous? I’m not one for conspiracy theories, but this is simply absurd. It’s been over half a century since these things were found! Something must be going on to restrict access to the biblical material. I am tempted to start doing my own English translations based on the transcriptions in DJD, and offering them online for free (probably in the same format as The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition). But that would be quite an undertaking.
And it was ordained that a man should salute his fellow with [the use of] the Name [of God]; for it is written, And, Behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem, and said unto the reapers, The Lord be with you.
And they answered him, The Lord bless thee.
(Ruth 2:4) And it is written, The Lord is with thee, thou mighty man of valour.
(Judges 6:12)
m. Berakoth 9:5, scripture references added
Later Jewish tradition holds that the name of YHWH is ineffable and therefore offers various other substitutes in its place such as Adonai (meaning My Lord
) or Ha Shem (literally meaning The Name
). In fact, the very texts that underly the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament do not give us the correct pronunciation, substituting instead the vowels for words like Adonai or Elohim (which can make things complicated and difficult for translations that refuse to use the Tetragrammaton). All this, however, is a very late concept and practice in ancient Israel. Throughout most of their history, Israelites were quite open and willing to speak the actual name of YHWH as this quote from the Mishnah attests. In fact, when we read the actual Hebrew texts, we see that the name itself was spoken quite frequently. The psalms themselves, which were used liturgically by the priests and people in the Temple and synagogues, made use of the name extensively. What the actual pronunciation of the name is, however, may be lost to us. A general consensus of scholarship makes the name to be pronounced Yahweh.
However, this is mere conjecture based primarily on an assumption of the linguistic root of the name and its supposed form for which we have no evidence.
And it is written, It is time to work for the Lord: they have made void thy Law (Psa 119:126). R. Nathan says: They have made void thy Law because it was a time to work for the Lord.
m. Berakoth 9:5, scripture references added
This is a fun quote because it puts things into better perspective. Some people can focus almost entirely on the problem of breaking Torah or can make the avoidance of breaking Torah a primary concern. But this was only one concern of ancient Israelites. Sometimes, it was necessary to break Torah in order to do what YHWH wanted or required! For instance, an incredible event occurs in the Chronicler’s history of Israel in which the people return to YHWH with their whole hearts after having turned away for so long. They threw down the altars, cleansed their city of idolatry and evil, then determined to re-instigate the ceremony of Passover, which had not been kept in a long time. Unfortunately, they are unable to keep it on the day (or its alternate) commanded by Torah. Additionally, they are forced to break other portions of Torah related to cleanliness and purification. Great multitudes, including four of the twelve tribes, take the Passover defiled in disobedience to the direct commandments of YHWH. Despite doing the rituals defiled and unclean and on a day forbidden to its practice, YHWH forgave Israel, returned to her, and blessed her. Instead of celebrating for one week, the people extended Passover to two weeks and it became one of the most celebrated Passovers in Israel’s history. (See 2 Chronicles 30:17-20, 23, 26-27)
The tension between keeping Torah because that’s what YHWH wanted or required and breaking Torah in order to meed the wants or requirements of YHWH is something the Jews struggled with throughout their history. To give a realistic example of this tension: what do you do if you have been commanded by YHWH to keep the Sabbath by doing no work, it is the Sabbath, you are worshiping in the Temple, and hordes of gentiles come swarming down over Jerusalem ready to slaughter everyone? If you fight, then you break the Sabbath that YHWH commanded you to keep. If you don’t fight, then you are slaughtered, the holy Temple that YHWH commanded to keep clean and holy is defiled and becomes an abomination, and the daily sacrifices that were commanded by YHWH to be kept by you are no longer offered. It’s not an easy question to answer. Various Israelites themselves came up with different answers throughout their history.
The answer Yeshua gave is that the Sabbath was made for humanity–humanity wasn’t made for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27), meaning the Sabbath is supposed to serve humanity, not the other way around. If the Sabbath ceases to serve humanity, then there is nothing wrong with breaking it. Indeed, it is better to break it! It might even be a sin to NOT break Sabbath! If Sabbath cease to serve humanity, to then turn around and serve the Sabbath would be to make it into an idol. So it is with the rest of Torah. Torah is not absolute and universal. It is not meant to be kept regardless of anything. On the contrary, it was Israel’s relationship with YHWH that made Torah significant. Destroy or change that relationship and Torah ceases to be much of anything.
The Mishnaic Musings are a periodic series of posts where I reflect on one thing or another in the compendium of the Oral Law (the Mishnah) as I read through it for the first time. Quoted portions are taken from Hebert Danby’s eminent single-volume edition, The Mishnah, published by Oxford University Press.
He [a man] may not enter into the Temple Mount with his staff or his sandal or his wallet, or with the dust upon his feet, nor may he make of it a short by-path; still less may he spit there.
m. Berakoth 9:5
Those familiar with the gospel texts of the New Testament should have heard an echo of one of Yeshua’s statements to his disciples in this quote. I have explored the parallels between Yeshua’s statement and the old Temple Mount traditions in a series of posts entitled Shake The Dust Off Your Feet Part I, Part II, and Part III.
At the close of every Benediction in the Temple they used to say, For everlasting
; but after the heretics [Sadducees] had taught corruptly and said that there is but one world, it was ordained that they should say, From everlasting to everlasting.
m. Berakoth 9:5
We are, of course, getting this information from a source with its own biases, agendas, and perspectives. It may be the case that certain groups or sects wanted to change the closing of the Benediction to from everlasting to everlasting
and even taught those who followed their particular traditions to do so, but this doesn’t mean it was actually done that way officially in the Temple. It may have been the case that whoever closed the Benediction did so according to their particular tradition. But it is certainly interesting to discover where this particular saying had its impetus.
The Mishnaic Musings are a periodic series of posts where I reflect on one thing or another in the compendium of the Oral Law (the Mishnah) as I read through it for the first time. Quoted portions are taken from Hebert Danby’s eminent single-volume edition, The Mishnah, published by Oxford University Press.
Man is bound to bless [God] for the evil even as he blesses [God] for the good, for it is written, And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy might (Deut 6:5). With all thy heart—with both thine impulses, thy good impulse and thine evil impulse; and with all thy soul—even if he take away thy soul; and with all thy might—with all thy wealth.
m. Berakoth 9:5
The first part reminds me of Job’s response to his wife:
Shall we receive the good at the hand of God, and not receive the bad?
Job 2:10b, NRSV
This is a question that demands an answer. And here is mine. If God is a good and just God according to any definition of good and just that we could comprehend and count on, then yes. If, however, God is capricious, if his goodness is beyond our comprehension or his justice cannot be counted on or measured by any human definition, then no. In drawing this conclusion, I stand in direct conflict with the message of the scroll of Job, which outlines the second situation and replies to the question in the affirmative. For more on this, see Rejecting Job Part 1 and Part 2.
The second part of the quote represents a classic interpretation that would surface again and again in Jewish understanding for many centuries to come. It was made particularly famous by the school of Rabbi Akiva, whose unique understandings would eventually come to dominate Jewish perspective. Akiva stressed suffering and evils against God’s people as something that was part of the plan of God. He actually rejoiced in receiving suffering and evil from the world. When asked why, he turned to this verse and this interpretation. The word translated soul
is more accurately translated life.
Akiva believed that loving the Lord your God with all your life had its ultimate fulfillment in a willingness to give one’s entire life up to destruction because of obedience to God. For Akiva, this present world was of little importance—he set his heart, eyes, and mind on the world to come—and so he was more than willing to have his soul
taken from this world so that he could fulfill this great commandment.
Anabaptists stand near to this tradition in their radical love ethic. Our understanding of Christianity is that of Nachfolge Christi–following after Christ
with one’s entire life, even to the point of death. And, indeed, because Anabaptists knew that the way of Christ was in drastic opposition to the way of the world, they knew their following of Christ would cause them to come into sharp conflict with the world, thus resulting in their suffering, persecution, and even death. Anabaptists, however, embraced this suffering, persecution, and death because it proved that they were following Christ—for Christ himself suffered, was persecuted, and received death at the hands of the world. This all stemmed from the radical Anabaptist belief that true Christianity was not merely an inward acceptance or experience of grace and faith as Luther believed it, but also an outward expression of a fully committed life in all its aspects to the way of Christ. Anabaptists looked for and demanded the fruits of the Spirit in outward living to such an extent and with such consistency that Lutherans, Catholics, and Calvinists began hunting down and persecuting non-Anabaptists as of they were Anabaptists simply because such believers’ outward lives were irreproachable!
I am being maligned, by both preachers and others, with the charge of being Anabaptist, even as all others who lead a true, pious Christian life are now almost everywhere given this name.
Caspar Schwenckfeld, Epistolar (1564), 1, 203, English translation by Harold Bender
There are those who in reality are not Anabaptists but have a pronounced averseness to the sensuality and frivolity of the world and therefore reprove sin and vice and are consequently called or misnamed Anabaptists by petulant persons.
Heinrich Bullinger (Reformation leader and fierce enemy of Anabaptism), Der Wiedertöufferen Ursprung (1561), fol. 170r., English translation by Harold Bender
But what made the love ethic of Anabaptism so radical was not just that it sought to extend love to God by obeying him with one’s entire life, both inward and outward, but also because it sought to extend love to all humanity–even one’s enemies. In a culture, world, and time in which the proper Christian response to one’s enemies was to either coerce them into Christian faith through force and violence or to slaughter them, Anabaptists were pledged to fulfill both great commandments (to love the Lord their God and to love their neighbor as themselves). In so doing, whether by living or dying, they were committed to loving the Lord their God with all their life.
The Mishnaic Musings are a periodic series of posts where I reflect on one thing or another in the compendium of the Oral Law (the Mishnah) as I read through it for the first time. Quoted portions are taken from Hebert Danby’s eminent single-volume edition, The Mishnah, published by Oxford University Press.
The shofar [blown in the Temple] at the New Year was [made from the horn] of the wild goat, straight, with its mouthpiece overlaid with gold. And at the sides [of them that blew the shofar] were two [that blew upon] trumpets. The shofar blew a long note and the trumpets a short note, since the duty of the day fell on the shofar.
m. Rosh Hashanah 3:3
This is peculiar because it suggests that the horn notes
on the first of Tishri were long.
Perhaps it only meant long relative to the sound of the trumpets, because the sort of sound decreed on that day in Leviticus and Numbers was a t’ruah. It was a short blast on the horn used as an alarm signal, not a long or prolonged sounding, which went by an entirely different name. The biblical texts refer to the New Year as the Day of T’ruah or a Rememberance by T’ruah (see Mishnaic Musings 7), which specifically means a day of short, alarm-like blasts. And it is fairly evident that what is in mind is not short trumpet blasts, but short ram’s horn blasts.
And it came to pass when Moses held up his hand that Israel prevailed, and when he let down his hand Amalek prevailed (Exod 17:11). But could the hands of Moses promote the battle or hinder the battle!–it is, rather, to teach thee that such time as the Israelites directed their thoughts on high and kept their hearts in subjection to their Father in heaven, they prevailed; otherwise they suffered defeat. After the like manner thou mayest say, Make thee a fiery serpent and set it upon a standard, and it shall come to pass that every one that is bitten when he seeth it shall live (Num 21:8). But could the serpent slay or the serpent keep alive!–it is, rather, to teach thee that such time as the Israelites directed their thoughts on high and kept their hearts in subjection to their Father in heaven, they were healed; otherwise they pined away.
m. Rosh Hashanah 3:8
I would be interested in studying these two events more closely to try and figure out what might actually be going on with the raising of Moses’ hands and the making of the serpent. The Rabbinic interpretation offered here in the Oral Law is pleasing from a theological perspective, but not entirely satisfactory. The quote itself would seem to suggest that there were those who actually believed something more was going on in terms of the serpent itself or the raising of Moses’ hands than merely a way for the people to turn their thoughts and hearts to heaven, which one would presume them to be doing anyway when they were in the midst of peril and had seen YHWH work wonders on their behalf already.
The Mishnaic Musings are a periodic series of posts where I reflect on one thing or another in the compendium of the Oral Law (the Mishnah) as I read through it for the first time. Quoted portions are taken from Hebert Danby’s eminent single-volume edition, The Mishnah, published by Oxford University Press.
Because of two New Moons may the Sabbath be profaned: [the New Moon] of Nissan and [the New Moon] of Tishri, for on them messengers used to go forth to Syria, and by them the set feasts were determined. And while the Temple still stood the Sabbath might also be profaned because of any of the New Moons, to determine aright the time of the offerings.
m. Rosh Hashanah 1:4
The New Moon of Tishri is, of course, what the Rabbis referred to as Rosh Hashanah, the head of the year,
or what the biblical texts refer to as Yom T’ruah, the day of horn blasts (Num 29:7-11), and Zikron T’ruah, a remembrance by horn blasts (Lev 23:24-25). By fixing that day, it also enabled the date of the Festivals of Purgation and Booths to be determined. The New Moon of Nissan was significant because it determined when the Festival of Unleavened Bread and Passover occurred. Because the Sabbath injunction was to not do any work, there were various rules about what constituted work. One of these rules fixed the amount of journeying or walking one could do before they violated the Sabbath. Unfortunately, that distance was often less than had to be done for witnesses to communicate to the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem that they had seen the New Moon. However, because there was a biblical command to proclaim the holy convocations in their appointed seasons, Jewish sages and authorities who supported the extra Sabbath regulation believed they had a loophole which allowed those who enabled them to keep this commandment to travel as far as possible to do so:
For it is written, These are the set feasts of the Lord, even holy convocations which ye shall proclaim in their appointed season (Lev 23:4).
m. Rosh Hashanah 1:9
The Mishnaic Musings are a periodic series of posts where I reflect on one thing or another in the compendium of the Oral Law (the Mishnah) as I read through it for the first time. Quoted portions are taken from Hebert Danby’s eminent single-volume edition, The Mishnah, published by Oxford University Press.
If a man cries out [to God] over what is past, his prayer is vain. Thus if his wife was with child and he said, May it be thy will that my wife shall bear a male,
this prayer is vain. If he was returning from a journey and heard a sound of lamentation in the city and said, May it be thy will that they [which make lamentation] be not of my house,
this prayer is in vain.
m. Berakoth 9:3
This seems to suggest a closed relationship between cause and effect in certain ancient Jewish perspectives. Certainly it was believed God could interfere to bring change, but perhaps some believed any such interference would only take place within the relationship between cause and effect that already existed. Perhaps a pulling and tugging of the strings to bring about a new design without actually destroying one string or creating another. If true, God would be bound to work within and by the rules of his own creation and nothing new could be inserted from outside. It is certainly attractive in a number of ways. It means, for instance, that anything we could know about God would be entirely based on the world in which we exist. No leaps of imagination or non-rational, existentialist propositions required. And yet, if so, it could also have a serious disadvantage in that it might make it difficult for one to comprehend what in the natural order was moved or purposed by God from what in the natural order wasn’t, because in both cases, the evidence one was measuring might be exactly the same. A miracle would cease to be a miracle in any sense other than that its natural order was not discernible.
It reminds me of a question I asked a good friend not too long ago about whether he believed creation was a one-time event after which nothing new was interjected or whether God did or could create something new and creation could be more than a one-time event. He favored the one-time creation, and would therefore probably agree with this quote. What say you, Mit the Destroyer?
The Mishnaic Musings are a periodic series of posts where I reflect on one thing or another in the compendium of the Oral Law (the Mishnah) as I read through it for the first time. Quoted portions are taken from Hebert Danby’s eminent single-volume edition, The Mishnah, published by Oxford University Press.
They tell of R. Hanina b. Dosa that he used to pray over the sick and say, This one will live,
or, This one will die.
They said to him, How knowest thou?
He replied, If my prayer is fluent in my mouth I know that he is accepted; and if it is not I know that he is rejected.
m. Berakoth 5:5
Sounds pretty crazy, doesn’t it? And yet I believe it could be possible. I, myself, have experienced some pretty weird foreknowledge. Just a couple weeks ago, in fact, I dreamed that a friend had broken up with his girlfriend. Somehow I just knew it was true. So I called him up and was about to say, this is going to sound really weird, but I just dreamed you broke up with your girlfriend,
and the first thing he said was, I just broke up with my girlfriend.
See my posts Premonitions and Extra-Sensory Knowledge Part I and Part II for more. Whether this was possible in Hanina b. Dosa’s case, I couldn’t say.
Women or slaves or minors may not be included [to make up the number for the Common Grace].
m. Berakoth 7:2
I can understand slaves and minors not being included in ceremonial obligation…but women? This is offensive to me. Women were second-class citizens—or maybe even third-class citizens—in ancient Israel and most of the ancient world (indeed, even in much of the modern world). But just because that’s the way it was doesn’t mean I have to like it. I have a feeling that reading through the entire division of the Mishnah on women is going to be a bit challenging. The misogynistic perspectives in the biblical texts can be quite taxing as well. The trick is to remember that one is dealing with cultures that are different than our own and thus not to hold those different cultures up to standards we’d expect of ours.
No benediction may be said over a lamp until one can enjoy its light.
m. Berakoth 8:6
There we go, a beautiful saying to make up for an ugly one. The basic idea is one can only call something blessed when they have partaken of its goodness.
The Mishnaic Musings are a periodic series of posts where I reflect on one thing or another in the compendium of the Oral Law (the Mishnah) as I read through it for the first time. Quoted portions are taken from Hebert Danby’s eminent single-volume edition, The Mishnah, published by Oxford University Press.
If he that says the Tefillah falls into error it is a bad omen for him; and if he was the agent of the congregation it is a bad omen for them that appointed him, because a man’s agent is like to himself.
m. Berakoth 5:5
Agency is a fascinating concept that shows up throughout the Oral Law and its commentary. The basic saying is a man’s agent is like to himself.
What this means is an agent and the agent’s sender function as if they were the same person. So here we see that an error introduced by the agent is considered the error of the one who sent the agent. Whatever the agent does is considered the doing of the sender, for the agent has taken on the role, function, and identity of the sender. Sometimes the sender is an entire congregation:
Rabban Gamaliel says: The agent of the congregation fulfills the obligation that rests upon the many.
m. Rosh Hashanah 3:9
When an agent of the congregation fulfills an obligation on behalf of the congregation, the congregation is believed to have fulfilled that obligation itself.
I believe that Yeshua spoke often about himself and YHWH in terms of agency and because most people do not understand this ancient Jewish concept, they misunderstand what Yeshua is saying in the gospels either about himself or about his Father. The monumental error of Trinitarianism could have been avoided if ancient Christians understood Jewish agency more than they did NeoPlatonism. Instead of speaking about Yeshua being YHWH in terms of hypostases and other such Greek philosophic nonsense, they would have more easily understood that Yeshua was presenting himself as YHWH’s unique royal agent. I have written more on agency and Yeshua in my Introduction to Categoricalism.
The Mishnaic Musings are a periodic series of posts where I reflect on one thing or another in the compendium of the Oral Law (the Mishnah) as I read through it for the first time. Quoted portions are taken from Hebert Danby’s eminent single-volume edition, The Mishnah, published by Oxford University Press.
