ר’ יהודה בן בתירה או’ שלא תינחור ושלא תגדל ציצית ושלא תספר קמי

R. Judah ben Baterah says: That you should not dress extravagantly (?), and that you should not grow the fringe, and that you should not cut the hair.
(trans. by Beth Berkowitz)

Beth Berkowitz has discussed this source and related ones extensively in her article, “The Limits of “Their Laws”: Ancient Rabbinic Controversies About Jewishness (and Non-Jewishness).” Jewish Quarterly Review 99, 1 (2009): 121-57. Beth suggested that “the irritant for R. Judah ben Baterah is not pagan worship practice but pagan elite cultural practice.”

The other well-known hairstyle from rabbinic literature is the בלורית, which is mentioned in numerous places (see M AZ 1:3; T AZ 3:6; T Shabbat 6 (7):1) The blorit occupied an important place in the image of the new Sabra. See this article for some discussion of the word.

Rabbinic discussion of haircuts can be found in most of the major halakhic codes, see e.g. Tur, BY, and ShAr YD 178.

Trying not to blend in too much, and keeping some distance from the majority culture, was no small concern for rabbis.

A companion book was written by Reuven Firestone, Children of Abraham: An Introduction to Judaism for Muslims. I also haven’t read that book, but it seems that a recent Arabic translation of the book has gotten some Muslims angry. Firestone discusses from Islamic sources in his book, he is a scholar of Islam, and apparently it is sheer hutzpah for a Jew to talk about Islam.

Now Israel is taking a new step in this regard, or to be more precise, an unprecedented audacious step (even for Israel!) A book has been published in Israel in Arabic by the Harriet and Robert Heilbrunn Institute for International Interreligious Understanding of the American Jewish Committee entitled: ‘Children of Abraham: An Introduction to Judaism for Muslims,’ by Reuven Firestone.

The author claims that Firestone is misrepresenting Islam and trying to make it seem as if Koranic texts support Jewish claims to the Land of Israel. Who knows, but the book is sure getting someone upset.

The book’s “dangerous” introduction aims to give an Islamic smokescreen to the Jewish claim to Palestine by misinterpreting certain Quranic verses and presenting an explanation to history that corresponds with the Jewish Zionist vision of the right to the Promised Land (whilst completely ignoring Quranic verses that criticize this). The book bases its argument on a mix of religion, history, politics and law but its points are weak and fragile and can be refuted. However, Israel is randomly sending hundreds of copies to Arab addresses in an attempt to gain new solid ground among Arab masses. It uses Islam as a pathway to achieve its goals and plays on the profound influence of religion on Arabs and Muslims. They are trying to send a malicious message here; that Israel’s existence in Palestine – by virtue of it being a “divine right” – is not only a Jewish belief but also an Islamic one.

I don’t know much about the Koran or Islamic texts, and any book is open to criticism, but I wouldn’t be surprised that between Firestone and the author of the above-cited column, Firestone is the more knowledgeable one. Not surprisingly, the column is from Asharq Alawsat, a Saudi-funded newspaper, a country known for tolerance of other religions and freedom of thought.

For an discussion about Jews writing on Islam, see Martin Kramer’s The Jewish Discovery of Islam.

By the end of the eighteenth century about 80 percent of rural Jews in Poland-Lithuania were involved in the sale and production of liquor. According to available data, Jews comprised 94 percent of urban and at least 78.7 percent of rural tavern keepers among seven towns and fifty-one villages in Bielsk County (Podlaskie District) during this period. A centerpiece of the reform initiatives of the Prussian, Russian, and Austrian monarchs who annexed the Polish lands during this period was the elimination of the rural Jewish liquor trade, which they attempted by means of escalating concession fees and outright expulsions. Surprisingly, few rabbinic or Hasidic leaders protested these draconian measures. It appears they themselves were uncomfortable with the tavern keeping profession.

One might also want to read this selection from a famous responsum of the Maharshal (no. 72) about the lack of an obligation to cover one’s head, in which he pointed out, what was in his eyes, quite a hypocrisy.

And now I will reveal to you the disgrace of the Ashkenazim. Surely one who drinks forbidden wine (yein nesech) in a Gentile motel and eats fish cooked in their vessels and is acting strict when he believes the inn keeper that they haven’t cooked any food in this vessel, [they] are not suspected of anything and nobody doubts them, and they are treated with respect if they are rich and bossy. But one who eats food that is definitely kosher yet with an uncovered head, they are treated as if they have left the fold.

The present book brings together the contributions of the foremost specialists on the relationship of the New Testament and Rabbinic Literature. It contains the proceedings of a Symposium held at the K.U.Leuven on January 2006. The contributors, from different European countries as well as from Israel, present in detail the history of rabbinical scholarship by Christian scholars and deal with the main issues in the study of rabbinic materials. As could be expected, much attention is given to halakhic issues, but literary questions in Midrash, Targum and Mystical Literature are also dealt with. All contributions are in English, and the volume is completed with a very large “cumulative bibliography” which will enhance its usefulness.

The reference is to the attempt of the Roman Emperor Julian (361-363 CE), known as Julian the Apostate for his desire to return to pre-Christian paganism, to rebuild the Temple. There are many questions which have been asked about this episode, the first one being why would a Roman emperor want to rebuild the Temple? Two reasons that have been given are that Julian wanted Jewish support for his military campaign against Persia (“The Lobby”) and that this was part of his attempt to encourage religious worship other than Christianity. There is some controversy regarding the dating of the beginning of the Temple’s reconstruction and when it stopped. Here are some descriptions of Julian’s interactions with the Jews.

And since I wish that you should prosper yet more, I have admonished my brother Iulus [Hillel II, d. 365], your most venerable patriarch, that the levy which is said to exist among you [the taxes paid by world Jewry for support of the Palestinian patriarchate] should be prohibited, and that no one is any longer to have the power to oppress the masses of your people by such exactions; so that everywhere, during my reign, you may have security of mind, and in the enjoyment of peace may offer more fervid prayers for my reign to the Most High God, the Creator, who has deigned to crown me with his own immaculate right hand. For it is natural that men who are distracted by any anxiety should be hampered in spirit, and should not have so much confidence in raising their hands to pray; but that those who are in all respects free from care should rejoice with their whole hearts and offer their suppliant prayers on behalf of my imperial office to Mighty God, even to Him who is able to direct my reign to the noblest ends, according to my purpose.

This you ought to do, in order that, when I have successfully concluded the war with Persia, I may rebuild by my own efforts the sacred city of Jerusalem [closed to the Jews since Hadrian, 135 CE], which for so many years you have longed to see inhabited, and may bring settlers there, and, together with you, may glorify the Most High God therein.

Lurker’s comment that the earthquake caused the cessation of the rebuilding effort is the version found in the accounts of Church historians.

When they had removed the ruins of the former building, they dug up the ground and cleared away its foundation; it is said that on the following day when they were about to lay the first foundation, a great earthquake occurred, and by the violent agitation of the earth, stones were thrown up from the depths, by which those of the Jews who were engaged in the work were wounded, as likewise those who were merely looking on. The houses and public porticos, near the site of the Temple, in which they had diverted themselves, were suddenly thrown down; many were caught thereby, some perished immediately, others were found half dead and mutilated of hands or legs, others were injured in other parts of the body.

When God caused the earthquake to cease, the workmen who survived again returned to their task, partly because such was the edict of the emperor, and partly because they were themselves interested in the undertaking. Men often, in endeavoring to gratify their own passions, seek what is injurious to them, reject what would be truly advantageous, and are deluded by the idea that nothing is really useful except what is agreeable to them. When once led astray by this error, they are no longer able to act in a manner conducive to their own interests, or to take warning by the calamities which are visited upon them.

There was even a book published in 1750 titled Julian, or a Discourse Concerning the Earthquake and Fiery Eruption…(it’s a long title) As I stated above, the opinion of Church historians is that the earthquake and subsequent fires caused the work on rebuilding the Temple to cease. Others believe that the death of Julian in battle in 363 CE is what brought the rebuilding of the Temple to an end.

Historical dating and causation aside, another important aspect of this episode is that rabbinic texts are silent on this episode of potentially great historical significance for Jewish history. Some scholars have identified what they believe is rabbinic commentary on this episode, but nothing that is conclusive. Isaiah Gafni wrote the following on the silence of rabbinic literature.

One common view is that the rabbinic leadership of Palestine, headed by the patriarch from the house of David, was naturally wary of the resurgence of the priesthood and concomitant weakening of its own position should the Temple actually be restored, cf. Avi-Yonah, Jews Under Roman and Byzantine Rule, pp. 196-197. While doubts regarding Julian’s promise may indeed have arisen at the time, I wonder how much we can really conclude from the “silence” of the sources. Not only must we be constantly aware of the ahistorical nature of teh Palestinian Talmud and midrashim, but, as pointed out by various scholars, we would do well to note how little informationon the second half of the fourth century made its way into the Palestinian Talmud (even if Julian’s name is mentioned there.)
(Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism, ed. Hershel Shanks, pp. 357-358, n. 77.)

Gafni has emphasized this point before, that just because something is not mentioned or described in rabbinic literature does not mean that it didn’t exist or happen. The most important example being his critique of David Goodblatt’s claim that there were no yeshivot in Talmudic Babylonia. Gafni countered and claimed that rabbinic literature paints only a partial picture of life at that time and just because an institution is not described in the Talmud does not mean that it didn’t exist. For a reassment of the history of the Babylonian Rabbinic academy which discusses the Goodblatt-Gafni disagreement see this article by Jeffrey Rubenstein.

Ethan Tucker-Ethical Norms as the Foundation of Torah