Photos: IAA

Shlomo Naeh has a new interpretation of what was thought to be a seal certifying purity that was used in the Temple. According to Naeh, it is actually a token for a sacrifice.

Thus, the object was used in Temple worship, but not how Reich and Shukron believe it was, says Naeh. To ensure the purity of animal sacrifices offered in the Temple – and to maintain an economic monoply, Naeh believes – pilgrims had to buy their offerings in the Temple courts. They gave money to a treasurer who would exchange it for a token inscribed with the type of sacrifice they had purchased and the date.

I liked this quote from Naeh:

“People have been saying the ancient sages fantasized everything about the Temple. But … they knew what they were talking about. For me, this is uplifting. The sages of the Mishna, my guys, win out,” Naeh said.

The Hebrew version of the article has a fuller quote from Naeh:

“התגלית הארכיאולוגית היא עדות חיה למנהל המקדשי כפי שהוא מתואר במשנה”, מוסיף פרופ’ נאה. “פירוש זה מסביר גם את נדירותו של הממצא הארכיאולוגי, שכן החותמות הנזכרים במשנה שימשו רק בתוך תחום בית המקדש אמצעי חליפין פנימי, ואפשר להניח שרק פריטים בודדים מצאו את דרכם אל מחוץ לבית המקדש”.”אין לנו משהו דומה לזה. פתאום השטח והספרות מדברים באותה השפה”, אומר נאה, “דווקא בדור האחרון עולה גישה שאומרת שחז”ל פינטזו על מה שקרה בבית המקדש (המשנה נערכה כ-130 שנה לאחר החורבן, נ”ח), אבל המשנה הזו לא יכולה להיות תוצאה של פנטזיה – הם ידעו על מה הם מדברים. בשבילי זה משהו מרומם. חכמי המשנה,
החבר’ה שלי, מנצחים”.

The Mishnaic word for seal is חותמות and it occurs in a number of mishnahs. The following is Shekalim 5:3 (trans. Neusner):

אַרְבָּעָה חוֹתָמוֹת הָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְכָתוּב עֲלֵיהֶן, עֵגֶל, זָכָר, גְּדִי, חוֹטֵא. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר, חֲמִשָּׁה הָיוּ, וַאֲרָמִית כָּתוּב עֲלֵיהֶן, עֵגֶל, זָכָר, גְּדִי, חוֹטֵא דַּל, וְחוֹטֵא עָשִׁיר. עֵגֶל מְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם נִסְכֵּי בָּקָר גְּדוֹלִים וּקְטַנִּים, זְכָרִים וּנְקֵבוֹת. גְּדִי מְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם נִסְכֵּי צֹאן גְּדוֹלִים וּקְטַנִּים, זְכָרִים וּנְקֵבוֹת, חוּץ מִשֶּׁל אֵילִים. זָכָר מְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם נִסְכֵּי אֵילִים בִּלְבָד. חוֹטֵא מְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם נִסְכֵּי שָׁלֹשׁ בְּהֵמוֹת שֶׁל מְצוֹרָעִין

Four seals were in the Temple. And on them was inscribed the following: “Calf,” “ram” (male), “kid,” “sinner.” Ben Azzai says, “There were five, and they were written in Aramaic: “Calf,” “ram,” “kid,” “poor sinner” [Lev. 14:21], and “rich sinner” [Lev. 14:10]. “Calf” signifies drink offerings for [offerings from] the herd, large or small, male or female. “Kid” signifies drink offerings of the flock, whether large or small, male or female, except for those which accompany rams. “Ram” signifies drink offerings which come with rams alone, “Sinner” signifies drink offerings which come with the three beasts of those afflicted by metzora.

The name Yehoyariv occurs in Baba Kamma 9:12:

נָתַן הַכֶּסֶף לְאַנְשֵׁי מִשְׁמָר, וָמֵת, אֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁים יְכוֹלִין לְהוֹצִיא מִיָּדָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן לַכֹּהֵן לוֹ יִהְיֶה. נָתַן הַכֶּסֶף לִ יהוֹיָרִיב וְאָשָׁם לִידַעְיָה, יָצָא, אָשָׁם לִיהוֹיָרִיב וְכֶסֶף לִידַעְיָה, אִם קַיָּם הָאָשָׁם, יַקְרִיבוּהוּ בְנֵי יְדַעְיָה, וְאִם לָאו, יַחֲזֹר וְיָבִיא אָשָׁם אַחֵר. שֶׁהַמֵּבִיא גְזֵלוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא אֲשָׁמוֹ, יָצָא, הֵבִיא אֲשָׁמוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא גְזֵלוֹ, לֹא יָצָא. נָתַן אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְלֹא נָתַן אֶת הַחֹמֶשׁ, אֵין הַחֹמֶשׁ מְעַכֵּב

A. If he [who had stolen from a proselyte] had paid over the money to the men of the priestly watch on duty, and then [the thief] died, the heirs cannot retrieve the funds from their possession, since it is said, Whatsoever any man gives to the priest shall be his (Num. 5:10). [If] he gave the money to the priestly watch of Jehoyarib [which is prior], and the guilt offering to the priestly watch of Jedaiah [which is later], he has carried out his obligation. [If he gave] the guilt offering to the priestly watch of Jehoyarib and the money to the priestly watch of Jedaiah, if the guilt offering is yet available, the family of Jedaiah should offer it up. And if not, he should go and bring another guilt offering. For he who brings back what he had stolen before he brought his guilt offering has fulfilled his obligation. But if he brought his guilt offering before he brought back what he had stolen, he has not fulfilled his obligation. [If] he handed over the principal but did not hand over the added fifth, the added fifth does not stand in the way [of offering the guilt offering and so completing his obligation].

I am sure that a few articles will be written about this find, but it is interesting that the original press release from the IAA quotes Shekalim 5:4, a source that I think seems to lend support to Naeh’s interpretation of this being a token that was given in exchange for something and not a seal certifying purity.

מִי שֶׁהוּא מְבַקֵּשׁ נְסָכִים הוֹלֵךְ לוֹ אֵצֶל יוֹחָנָן שֶׁהוּא מְמֻנֶּה עַל הַחוֹתָמוֹת, נוֹתֵן לוֹ מָעוֹת וּמְקַבֵּל מִמֶּנּוּ חוֹתָם. בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל אֲחִיָּה שֶׁהוּא מְמֻנֶּה עַל הַנְּסָכִים, וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ חוֹתָם וּמְקַבֵּל מִמֶּנּוּ נְסָכִים. וְלָעֶרֶב בָּאִין זֶה אֵצֶל זֶה, וַאֲחִיָּה מוֹצִיא אֶת החוֹתָמוֹת וּמְקַבֵּל כְּנֶגְדָּן מָעוֹת. וְאִם הוֹתִירוּ הוֹתִירוּ לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ. וְאִם פָּחֲתוּ, הָיָה מְשַׁלֵּם יוֹחָנָן מִבֵּיתוֹ, שֶׁיַּד הֶקְדֵּשׁ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה

He who wanted [to purchase] drink offerings goes over to Yohanan, who is appointed to be in charge of the seals. He pays him the fee and receives a seal from him. He goes over to Ahiah, who is appointed to be in charge of the drink offerings. He hands over the seal to him and receives the drink offerings from him. Then in the evening the two come together, and Ahiah brings out the seals and receives money for them. If there was an excess [of funds over seals], the excess belongs to the sanctuary. And if there was too little money, Yohanan paid out of his own pocket. For the claim of the sanctuary is always paramount.

Update:  See this update from Paleojudaica.

Prof. Israel Knohl was interviewed by Dov Elbaum on his program Sod ha-Luaḥ ha-Ivri. The entire program can be found here. The interview is in Hebrew, but here is a summary of Knohl’s ideas.

Knohl tries to minimize the importance of miracles in Judaism and the Bible, intentionally using the post-Biblical phrase “עולם כמנהגו נוהג”, the world pursues its own course. He contrasts two different covenants in the Bible, the revelation at Mt. Sinai that was filled with miracles, and the one found in Joshua 24, one that was not accentuated by miracles.

Knohl calls for a minimizing of the role that the miracle of the oil should play in our understanding of Hanukkah, and calls for a greater bond with the real life actions of the Maccabees, identifying with their “of this world” lives. He sees a danger in the overuse of miracles in Jewish belief and the attribution of this or that action to God. See this recent post by Jeffrey Woolf on the need to rethink what was the most important miracle of Hanukkah.

Anyone familiar with the philosophies of David Hartman and Yeshayahu Leibowitz can see their influence on Knohl. I remember once hearing David Hartman saying that maybe the most important thing that the rabbis of the Talmud did was to move our relationship with God beyond the “God loves me, God loves me not” attitude found in some parts of the Bible. I emphasize some, because Knohl also spoke about the multi-vocality of the Biblical canon.

Knohl relates the following story about Yeshayahu Leibowitz. After the Yom Kippur War, a soldier can to him and said that it was a miracle that he was alive. God saved him from the burning tank while all of his fellow soldiers died. Leibowitz responded and said that he should also thank God that the other soldiers are dead. If it’s a miracle that you’re alive, it’s a miracle that they’re dead.

Knohl doesn’t deny that this approach to Judaism has deep roots in the Bible and post-Biblical Judaism, it’s just that he can’t belief such things.

Julian thought to rebuild at an extravagant expense the proud Temple once at Jerusalem, and committed this task to Alypius of Antioch. Alypius set vigorously to work, and was seconded by the governor of the province; when fearful balls of fire, breaking out near the foundations, continued their attacks, till the workmen, after repeated scorchings, could approach no more: and he gave up the attempt. (Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae, 23.1.2–3)

See here for more discussion about Julian and the Jews.

How did ancient Jewish authors claim authority for their interpretations? How, after the “end of prophecy”, could they claim the authority of revelation? Whom did one have to be, or aspire to be, in order to merit authority? Hindy Najman addresses these questions through close readings of ancient Jewish texts, e.g., Ezra-Nehemiah, Philo of Alexandria, 4Ezra, Dead Sea Scrolls, and Jubilees. In Seconding Sinai (Brill, 2003), Najman reconceived pseudepigraphy, developing the idea of a Mosaic discourse that comprised a series of ancient texts attributed to Moses. Here she develops the broader notion of a discourse tied to a founder, situating practices of pseudepigraphy and authoritative interpretation within a variety of ways of seeking perfection in ancient Judaism.

In the meantime, see this new video from Pshita.