The Written as the Vocation of Conceiving Jewishly

By John W. McGinley

Not unlike Rimbaud's "batteau ivre," Judaism drifts further and further away from its life-force and source without which Judaism cannot long endure. This book is a challenge to the true "talmudim" within Jewish Orthodoxy to boldly reclaim for Judaism and reinscribe into Jewish study and practice that which was suppressed at the very dawn of Rabbinic Judaism. Only by so doing can Judaism be nourished once more by its life-force and source. Further, only Jewish Orthodoxy is equipped for this life-saving task. If it doesn't get accomplished by Orthodoxy it will not get accomplished at all.

• Language: English
• Publisher: iUniverse
• Release date: Aug 22, 2006
• ISBN: 9780595848577

John W. McGinley

John W. McGinley holds a PhD in Philosophy from Boston College and an MA in Jewish Studies from Gratz College; he resides in Farmingdale, NJ.

Book preview

The Written as the Vocation of Conceiving Jewishly

John W. McGinley

iUniverse, Inc.

New York Lincoln Shanghai

The Written as the Vocation of Conceiving Jewishly

Copyright © 2006 by John W. McGinley

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or by any information storage retrieval system without the written permission of the publisher except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

iUniverse books may be ordered through booksellers or by contacting:

iUniverse

2021 Pine Lake Road, Suite 100

Lincoln, NE 68512

www.iuniverse.com

1-800-Authors (1-800-288-4677)

ISBN-13: 978-0-595-40488-9 (pbk)

ISBN-13: 978-0-595-84857-7 (ebk)

ISBN-10: 0-595-40488-X (pbk)

ISBN-10: 0-595-84857-5 (ebk)

Printed in the United States of America

Contents

exergue

a note, or two, or several, to get started

ad copy

babelic confusion at Sinai?: (((divine speech act(s?); human transcription of such; a decisive human speech act; divine writing destroyed by a human; divine writing sub-contracted to a human ))).

call me Ishmael

in dialogue with Yadin

is he or isn’t he?

memos: when speech became word: a. torah, logos, ha-katuv, memra, the prolog of the fourth, and questions of ownership and fiduciary responsibility thereof. b. PHD (Plato, Heidegger, and Derrida).

obiter dicta

paradigmata ((relative to the two powers/authorities in heaven motif)).

revisiting—

saying good-bye

unsolicited prognostications

with a hope born of the desperation of the times

this book is dedicated to

the seventy-three presently anonymous ones within Orthodoxy who, while staying completely within Orthodoxy, will, over the next half century, lead Orthodoxy out of Orthodoxy thereby returning Judaism to the burning living center of

Israel: the people the nation the religion

*          *          *          *

or all is lost

*          *          *          *

non-Orthodox need not apply

exergue 

The tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael taught: Write thou these words. [Exodus 34:27] These [eilah] you write. But you may not write halakhot.

Bavli, tractate Temurah [14b-i-14b-ii, ArtScroll]

*          *          *          *

I beg You: show me Your kavod///

Exodus 33:18

*          *          *          *

Once a man went down [to the prayer table] next to Rabbi Judah and arranged his prayer in accordance with R’ Meir’s view. He [Rabbi Judah] said to him: do you forsake the Sages and act like R’ Meir? He answered: I hold as R’ Meir, for thus it is written in the Torah of Moses.

Yoma 36b; Soncino, page 169

*          *          *          *

Rabbi Yishmael said: qol va-homer;

if, even a divorcee, who is permitted to [to partake of] terumah is prohibited [from marrying into] the Priesthood, [then] this one [the sotah]—is it not right [din] that she is prohibited [from marrying into]

the Priesthood?

Bavli; Tractate Sotah

[28a-iii of the ArtScroll translation;

translation slightly modified]

*          *          *          *

Rabbi Ishmael said to him: WRONG!

Rabbi Ishmael responding to Rabbi Akiba [as cited from Sifre Numbers in Yadin’s book, pages 89-90 and endnote # 17 on page 194]

*          *          *          *

white fire eliciting black fire pricking only such is qabbalah

anonymous

*          *          *          *

And whoever forces time, time forces him; but whoever yields to time, time will halt for him.

Bavli, tractate Erubin [13b-ii ]

*          *          *          *

Rabbi Ishmael said to him: You are saying to Ha-Katuv: Be silent until I expound [doresh]. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Ishmael, you are a mountain palm."

[as cited from Sifra to Leviticus In Yadin’s book, page 45]

a note, or two, or several, to get started

Think about it. It is curiously phrased:

The tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael taught: Write thou these words. [Exodus 34:27] These [eilah] you write. But you may not write halakhot.

Bavli, tractate Temurah [14b-i-14b-ii, ArtScroll]

Is this tanna Rabbi Ishmael? But of course. It really is a no-brainer. Who else do you know of who would ever be designated this way? That’s not really the issue. The issue is, given that it is Rabbi Ishmael who is being referred to, why this indirection and anonymity? And why precisely at this point in the Gemara to tractate Temurah?

*****       *****       ****

For some six weeks of its composition the working title of this book was:

Fracturing and Refracting Karaism:

The Written as the Vocation of Conceiving Jewishly

That working title occasioned the following introduction which, even with the revision of the actual title, is still helpful for introducing this book.

Karaism is even less my cup of tea than is Geonic Judaism. I grant virtually all the criticisms leveled against it by Rabbinic Judaism excepting only the rather condescending manner by which these criticisms were (and are) leveled. [[[I do, however, challenge the central premise of Rabbinism which is used to

support these criticisms. In other words Rabbinism, as it now is constituted, does not carry within itself the remedy for what ails Karaism, nor for that matter, what ails Rabbinic Judaism.]]] Nor do I claim any meaningful historical connection—even though some karaitic factions insisted on such—between Tsadduqeanism and Karaism. ((Whether or not there is any meaningful connection between the emergence Karaism and some residue of the Qumranesque communities is a more interesting question. Even so there is good reason to be profoundly skeptical of such.)) Further, and most important of all, the book does not speak of embracing Karaism (in any of its historical epiphanies) per se. The title of this book refers to fracturing and refracting Karaism.

With Karaism there obtains an echo of a whisper of a missed opportunity in Jewish history. Indeed, much more than just a missed opportunity. There was a grievous injustice perpetrated. And in the process Judaism was set on a fateful path which has had and is still having the tragic of effect of exiling and maintaining Israel (the people; the nation; the religion) to and in the condition of being alienated from its burning living center.

This echo of a whisper hearkens back to a fateful set of occurrences in tannaitic Rabbinism during the first quarter century after the destruction of the Temple, This echo of a whisper, not fully conscious of just what it is echoing, operated in Karaism by sense, so to speak, rather than by concept, so to speak. This sense of Karaism which comes forth from Karaism irrespective of its obvious liabilities ((which have blinded, and still to this very day blind, Rabbinic Judaism to the kernel of truth hidden within the shell of Karaism)) is something which we, to day, must heed. This sense of Karaism is that something went terribly, terribly wrong in Judaism through the Pharisaic/Rabbinic turn to a certain meaning of the so-called Oral Torah tradition. The fateful conceit involved—born with Pharisaism but imposed across the board as normative by the winning faction among the tannaim in that fateful quarter of a century after the destruction of the Temple—the inventing of and imposing upon the event of Sinai a claim for an Oral Torah both separable (which would be acceptable) and separate (which is a blasphemous travesty) from Scripture with a pedigree from Hashem independent of Scripture.

I hope it is clear by now that I do NOT maintain that Karaism, in any of its historically noted manifestations, has ever generated any conceiving equal to dealing with its valid sense of dread relative to the effect on Israel (the people; the nation; the religion) of this wrong-headed and ill-advised turn to such a meaning of the so-called Oral Torah. Rather, in this book, I am trying to respond to that echo of a whisper contained in the sense-of-dread represented, historically, by the very existence of this movement. Its whole history is, at root, a wail, a cry, a whisper—all at once—in the service of alerting us to something which went terribly terribly wrong in Judaism. To ignore this ever-present wail/cry/whisper is to risk the coming to pass of a final solution engineered not by the external enemies of Judaism, but by those who ceaselessly and with the greatest enthusiasm live their lives for Judaism.

I initially spoke of a missed opportunity. My exorbitant claim (which I believe is justified) is that Judaism must return to, reclaim, and become this missed opportunity. Or, disappear from history. This book hopes that it succeeds in being a vector to a great and necessary awakening for Israel. Baruch Hashem.

*          *          *          *

The book you are now reading is, in its essentials and all at once, a commentary on, extrapolation from, and an idiosyncratic expansion of, what is contained in a relatively recent publication by a certain Azzan Yadin. The full title of Yadin’s book is:

Scripture as Logos

Rabbi Ishmael and the Origins of Midrash

The title of this book should have been what ended up as its subtitle. The title itself conjures up a load of balderdash concerning early Rabbinism which, in some currents of Jewish Studies, has become quite fashionable. I speak of the Logos Theology trope in these matters championed most notably by Daniel Boyarin in several of his writings but most thematically in his Border Lines. I believe the meat ofYadin’s book is utterly and insignificantly tangential to this side-show. I suspect Yadin was fully—and pragmatically—aware of the

disconnect between the revolutionary import of his analysis of Ishmaelic midrashim and the silly (albeit influential in some circles) nonsense being generated by the Boyarin side-show. My book makes clear that the Boyarin of his 1990 and 1993 publications was also a revolutionary reader of classical Rabbinic texts and, de facto a vector to the work of Yadin. Yadin’s work and the writings of this relatively early Boyarin will continue to inspire Jewish writers long after myself, Boyarin, and Yadin are dead. The balderdash Boyarin now engages in will, in respect to what he has been producing since the onset of the millennium (and some like-minded material from even earlier), will be passed over in silence in deference to his work of 1990 and 1993.

*          *          *          *

(another version)

My true name is Tamar. With this act I hereby render my child Zerah—born only a moment after my first child—an orphan and trust that you will take good care of him. The father of my twins is my father-in-law.

Jude came to our part of the land hell-bent to break all of his ties to the past. Over the years I would come to know, from the wife he took from our people, part of the story. He carried a deep anger within him concerning two of his brothers, Shimon and Levi. Even his wife did not have all the details on this. But she knew that there was blood involved. Also he tortured himself with his guilt. Even though he had saved his much younger (half-) brother from certain death at the hands of his other brothers, Jude always tortured himself that he could have done much more. As it turned out this young, arrogant, adolescent was sold into slavery by the brothers (((on the counsel of Jude, instead of killing him))) and no one seemed to know what happened to him. Soon after, Jude left his clan, came to our part of the land, and married one of ours. Even so, he retained some of the customs of his own people.

Before she died, my mother-in-law ((and Jude’s wife)) also told me more about Jude and his people. It seems they had a complex about the habit of their patriarchs to somehow end up having the second son born of the father end up with the right of primogeniture. As if that were not bad enough in its own right, this strange people always would try to explain and justify this unusual

tradition of theirs, even when no one was asking them to explain. Apparently this whole dynamic was an especially tender issue in the matter of Jude’s father who, interestingly enough, was the second born of twins. I realize now that the story told to me by the midwife was probably concocted by Jude himself. A kind of obeisance—in abstentia—to his people.

I almost died in my labor. Even before the first, Perets, was born I had become delirious. I certainly do not remember the moment of birth for either of them. Perets was a breach-born baby who so damaged me in childbirth that I lived in pain and with blood down there and never fully recovered. I certainly was not capable of bearing anymore children. And even now I am not strong enough to raise my son. I must give him up. But, yes, back to the matter at hand. The concocted story. I believe it was made up by my father-in-law who instructed the midwife to tell me. Something about Zerah sticking his hand out first, tying a scarlet band of sorts around it before his hand slipped back in—all of this as some kind of mumbo jumbo to allow that somehow or other Perets would fit into the model established by Jude’s clan.

Jude provided for me very generously. But, of course, he would have nothing to do with me. The whole business of having fathered twins through whoring with a harlot who turned out to be his own daughter-in-law ((who herself was virtually forced into this horrible ruse by Jude’s virtual abrogation of the custom he himself had established as the law for the family)) changed Jude. He became more mature and very introspective. Eventually he made it his business to return to his people. He took Perets with him and left me—with provisions to be well taken care of—with Zerah. I never saw him again.

Ah! the vicissitudes of time. Circumstances changed—and mostly for the worse—a few years after Jude departed. I was mostly shunned by my own people. And my health declined as well. I am no longer able to take care of my child and no one here would take him as their own. An Araemean trader came our way and he graciously agreed to take Zerah with him to the part of the land near Hevron. There he promised to find a home for him. I hope the God of Jude—whose wrath took away my first two husbands (and Jude’s first two sons)—will now show a merciful face to Zerah. I pray that Jude’s people will take care of this beautiful child who is now an orphan.

[[[[[

a note from the Araemean trader

I know Jude’s people much better than does Tamar. So far no one of Jude’s people has agreed to give this orphan a home. Certainly no one who knows Perets. So let me assure you that this is not about the messiah. Let the messiah come from the house of David/Perets if that is important. Nor is it about the mantle of the messiah-ben-Joseph <<<beneficiary of Jacob’s machinations—despite the objections of Ephraim’s own father!!!—on Jacob’s death bed in Egypt!>>>>. Indeed, the orphan I am offering to you for your care and nurture eschews totally the aura of triumphalism sometimes associated with the messiah who allegedly will come from the house of David/Perets. Our orphan also insists that he is not worthy of being the messiah ben Joseph. And I have an idea that we have already seen that messiah and his on-going legacy which he committed TO WRITING by way of Nathan of Nemirov. hmmmmm: messiah-as-text. Getting it write, so to speak, with the text and getting it write in the write manner, might very well be the called for-work of a plethora of moschiachim ben Joseph. Who really knows. But I believe you will be doing a mitzvah of the greatest import if you give this orphan a home.]]]]]

*          *          *          *

(another even earlier version)

I now realize that, in and through the process of writing this book, I have transformed my self into a walking, talking hapex legomenon. There are worse destinies. By far. A fortiori, I suspect, the same is true of my book. So we’re here. We’re queer. Get used to it. Just sit back and enjoy the read.

Of course my androgynous book is not an entity which can walk or talk. Indeed she [[chromosomal patterns being the operative metaphor, xx is the default]] has now been rendered an orphan. I have now divorced her from myself and in so doing I have abdicated my right to speak on her behalf. But even though she does not walk or talk, she can speak very well for herself. If you have any questions,

address them to her. I no longer have the legal right to speak on her behalf.

*          *          *          *

(the earliest version)

The book you are now reading—call me Ishmael—is the after-birth of my baby born in January of 2006. I named the child

about the King’s choice to build His palace right on top of the dunghill

((or, how to conceptualize jewishly))

[iuniverse; 2006]

*          *          *          *

It is well known that such placentate material has life-saving medical value. The placentate material is routinely taken to labs where it is processed for storing. This mother, however, is a selfish mother. I am processing and saving the afterbirth material for my own baby. The baby was born after an unusually long pregnancy and a violently difficult labor. I recognized some medical deficiencies in my child of which the Doctors did not take note. Thus this book is my gift to my baby.

*****       *****       ****

This book was put together, so to speak, by and as redactional strata, starting in late February of 2006 and continuing on into early August of 2006. Some things which were not fully clear to me early on became much more clear to me later on. There was no attempt at all to reflect the before and after of these chronological strata with the curious and disorderly spatial before and after of the text. Good luck. And, if you desire to be one of my dear cherished readers, do not ignore the suggestion to read the entire text out loud, provided you have struggled through it, silently, first.

ad copy

In generating advertising copy for my first-born book I was faced with the difficult task of presenting what my book was about. In addition I was experiencing a fair amount of anxiety about an alleged convert daring to say what the book says about Judaism, especially with regard to Judaism’s many sacred cows (so to speak). Likewise I had anxiety within myself about the validity of my real or perceived conversion. This anxiety was first expressed in my final wording of the author’s self-description required by iuniverse. Herewith:

John may be a convert to Judaism with the Hebrew name of Yochanan ben Avraham. He understands that his conversion to Judaism via the Conservative Movement is not recognized by the Orthodox and at the present time he is largely in agreement with the Orthodox position.

And now, the ad copy.

Here it is. But I was not able to afford to run it. Nevertheless it is revelatory of how I perceived my book, and myself. As we enter into this book, it will be helpful to know something about me and my relationship to the dunghill book.

Top Ten Reasons Why You Should Not Order My Book, about the King’s choice/to build His palace/right on top of the dunghill ((or, how to conceptualize Jewishly)) [[amazon.com and barnesandnobel.com <>]]

#10. Because the book has plenty in it to upset all Jews, Orthodox (both Khassidic and non-Khassidic) non-Orthodox, and secular. #9. Because, although the book is really intended only for Jews, it has things in it which would upset Christians as well. #8. Because the writer of the book decided that if yikhud is to be bandied around in some circles in general and his book in particular as a valid theological trope it should REALLY be unpacked in its meaning, unsparing of the sensibilities of some. #7. (Related to # 8) Because

the writer of this book feels that any serious book about Judaism written after the murder of six million Jews owes a debt to the dead to be honest without reservation. #6. Because honesty is the midwife of truth and truth is the seal of Hashem. #5. Because the writer is unsparing in his critique of Kabbalah in general and most particularly of what Kabbalah has become in, say, the last fifty years. #4. Because the writer is unsparing of the patrimony of the Geonic period in Jewish letters, especially with regard to preparing the way for Maimonidian Monotheism. #3. Because a writer would have to be functionally insane to take on both Maimonidian Monotheism and Kabbalah in the same book, especially if his Jewish credentials are debatable from the viewpoint of halakhah and rather weak from the viewpoint of scholarship. [[PhD in Philosophy, long ago and far away and with no particular emphasis on Judaism; MA in Jewish Studies in 2003]]. #2. Because the writer’s conversion to Judaism in 2002 is not recognized by the Orthodox and, correlatively, the writer himself has emigrated to the view that, all things considered, it is proper not to RECOGNIZE the validity of non-Orthodox conversions, leaving it to Hashem to sort out what really happened in the case of this or that non-Orthodox conversion. [[Related to # 2: Because the writer refuses to consider an Orthodox conversion given that he knows in his heart of hearts that six months after such a conversion he would backslide to a degree of non-observance which would make a mockery of said conversion.]]

AND NUMBER ONE, FOLKS! THE MAIN REASON WHY YOU SHOULD NOT ORDER MY BOOK:

#1. Because the writer suffered irreversible brain damage by virtue of teaching undergraduate Philosophy courses—with way too much overtime—for thirty-five years. [ [And why is this relevant? Because the writer started this book about thirty months before retiring and continued the writing of this book for

about ten more months after retiring. Enough said.]]

*          *          *          *

Irreversible brain damage as the calling card for you to read my book. Given the desperateness of the times such is not nearly so strange as it might seem. In any case, worry less about my real or perceived paucity of credentials for writing this book and worry more about what I have to say therein.

babelic confusion at Sinai?: (((divine speech act(s?); human transcription of such; a decisive human speech act; divine writing destroyed by a human; divine writing sub-contracted to a human ))).

Necessary and unavoidable as they ultimately are for the proper reception of God’s Revelation, let us hold in abeyance, for now, all considerations of Source Criticism, Redaction Criticism, etc., and simply enter unapologetically and in a straightforward manner into what I have labeled in my previous book Spelunkative Criticism. The point of departure for Spelunkative Criticism is that it takes it as a datum of fundamental Jewish experience that there are but two texts which, one way or another, constitute the burning living center of Judaism: Scripture and the Bavli. Another way of saying this is as follows: the scope of Spelunkative Criticism is limited to texts in Judaism which can be construed as constitutive of Divine Revelation. For this practitioner of Spelunkative Criticism, only two texts have primary position of privilege in this regard: These are Scripture ((Chumash, Prophets, and Writings)) and the Bavli. Further, all classical Rabbinic texts which were pretty much redacted into their final form by, say, 650CE are also granted a position of privilege by Spelunkative Criticism. Thus, in addition to the Bavli itself, the productions said to be of the Schools of Akiba and Ishmael; the Tosefta; the Mishna; the Palestinian Talmud; Genesis Rabbah and Exodus Rabbah;—all fall under and within the provenance of this practitioner of Spelunkative Criticism. Most Jewish writings after circa 650CE are not considered by this practitioner of Spelunkative Criticism except in as much as they either a). instantiate in a very significant manner the spirit and inspiration of the above works; b). hinder in a very significant manner Jewish access to the spirit and

inspiration of the above works; c). serve to enhance Jewish access to the spirit and inspiration of the above works.

Under a I include the writings—and particularly the tales—of Rabbi Nachman of Uman. To a lesser extent I include those sections of the Zohar which can with reasonable certitude be ascribed to Moses de Leon. I also include the tsimtsum teaching of Isaac Luria emerging from the Tsafatic explosion in the second half of the sixteenth century to the extent that this Lurianic teaching can be retrieved separable and separate from things like ayn-sof; emanation theory; the breaking of the vessels; and tiqqun olam.

Under b I include all forms of Monotheism conceived in the Geonic period and the birthing thereof of post-Geonic formulations of monotheism inclusive of Maimonides and the more subtle Nachmanides. Under b I also include both Orthodox and non-Orthodox (e.g., the teachings of Nathan of Gaza) accounts of Kabbalah both those obtaining before the tsafatic explosion and those obtaining after the tsafatic explosion. The writings of Ramdel have the curious honor of being included in both a and b. Under b I especially include the flattened out versions of Kabbalah which have achieved virtually canonical status among the Orthodox in, say, the past sixty years. I especially accuse the Chabadians, in this regard, as having brought about such a flattening out of Kabbalah. Finally, from the realm of scholarship I assign some of the recent writings of Boyarin to this b category.

Under c I first and foremost include the long and laborious work of copyists and scholars over the centuries who have labored mightily to produce accurate texts of all the Jewish texts of importance, including even those which have had the effect of deracinating Judaism from its burning living center. I also include scholars who have done such work and who also have ventured into giving an accounting of what these texts are trying to say. Under this heading I especially include—totally aware of the differences between and among them—the

writings of Scholem, Dan, Idel, and (relatively) early Boyarin. And Yadin.

*          *          *          *

Let us now spelunk in and amongst the caves and caverns of Shmot. Significant nodal points:

a) . The accounting of God’s great speech act given extreme position of privilege by some redactor. And by definition, a redactor is working with a written text and is, at some point, producing a written text. I speak of the scene from Chapter Twenty. The speaking apparently was heard—and even seen—as thunder and lightning by the people. Somehow it came out as all these WORDS of verse 20:1 followed by the ten words themselves. This was even before the people begged to have Moses be the intermediary between themselves and God lest we die. [20:16]

[[[all these words kal-hadvrim We might have a very clever redactor here. all these words may refer to ALL the words up through at least Chapter thirty-four. The Rabbinic commentary from Exodus Rabbah, to be cited below, lends some credibility to this suggestion.]]]

b) . At 20:18 onward the interchange between Moses and God is generally out of the sound and hearing of the people. From now on Moses—Hermes like—begins the process of translating and reporting the spoken words of Hashem to the people. This translation seems to have not immediately been written down. The content of this Hermes-like task seems to go from 20:19 up until 24:3.

c) . Then at 24:4-8 three things, fatefully, are brought together in one scene. Moses WRITES down all that God has said. He then conjoins this action of writing on his part to a multi-faceted blood sprinkling and the formation of a covenant. There is then a formal reading, for the first time, of the written record of the covenant. It is in this passage the people perform a speech act by which they become, irreversibly, the people of the Covenant:

—all Hashem has spoken: Naaseh v-neeshmah

The contract is then sealed in with these words:

This [heenei!] is the blood of the covenant which Hashem now makes with you concerning all these words [kal had-barim].

d). This is followed by the feast for Moses, Aaron, his fated sons Nadab and Abihu, and seventy elders of Israel. A curious interlude. Then Moses is told to ascend to the top of the Mount where he, Moses, shall receive stone tablets, provided by God, [already] inscribed with both the instruction [v-hatorah] and the commandments [v-hamitsvot]. Moses then ascends and arrives at the top which is covered by a cloud. The kavod-of-Hashem was enthroned [???? Vaykhaseihu????; in any case, rested on] right there on Mount Sinai making the cloud, in effect, a cloud which kept the kavod hidden for six days. On the seventh day He/IT called to Moses from the midst of the cloud. To the people the kavod of Hashem appeared in the sight of the Israelites as a consuming fire. Moses enters the cloud and ascends the mountain. He remains there for forty days and forty nights [[in addition to the six days he stays within the cloud with kavod?; or are they included in the forty days and nights???]]

d). Then God speaks at length—and sometimes in rather pedestrian detail—to Moses from 25:1 all the way over through 31:17. It is then that God gives Moses the promised stone tablets inscribed by the very finger of God. What exactly is inscribed is not clear. Was it the rather long and drawn out instruction and mitsvot given from 25:1 through 31:17? Or something else? If something else we shall never know for sure, for these tablets were destroyed by Moses.

Two things I would like to draw to the reader’s attention about this long passage’s discourse from God to Moses from 25:1 through 31:17.

First is the command for a certain offering which, in verse 29:41 and reminiscent of the verse from Genesis in Chapter Eight wherein Hashem agrees never again to attempt to destroy mankind:

—an offering by fire for a pleasing odor to Hashem

Followed by an institutionalization of this as:

—a regular burnt offering throughout the generations at the entrance to the Tent of the Meeting before the face [leefanei; emphasis mine] of Hashem.

Continuing on.

What is most curious about this long section [25:1 through 31:17] is what appears to have been a Rabbinic decision to break up this portion of God’s speaking to Moses at the end of 30:10 and to inaugurate a new portion, ki tissa, right in the midst of these instructions from God to Moses. It is not at all a natural break in the text. In any case the paragraph immediately successive to this break (verses 30:11-16) turns out to be a huge and hugely important sustained double entendre whose surface meaning—rules for taking a census of the people—is seemingly unrelated to what precedes and what succeeds this passage. This I have spoken about at great length in my previous book. [cf. pages 451-455, and 459]

e). Eventually—and after the set of terrible happenings which constitute the crisis at Sinai—Moses is instructed to produce new tablets and re-ascend to get the written instruction of God to replace what was destroyed by Moses. [34:1] But as it turns out, God ends up apparently speaking to Moses and having Moses write down the instructions on the carved stone tablets. [34:27] * This time Moses again spends forty days and forty nights on the mountain, and for this forty day sojourn it is explicitly ((and ominously <<>>)) stated that Moses did not eat bread nor drink water. Then Moses comes down, one assumes with the written tablets, and his appearance is radically changed.

* [[[I am not really sympathetic to what I will report right here, but it should be noted for the record. I have come across translations—e.g., the ArtScroll translation and the Soncino translation of 1947—which interpret the he wrote of the very next verse [i.e. 28] as God doing the writing. Such would at least be in line with what was indicated in verse one of this Chapter. But it puts verse twenty-eight in a—an unnecessary one at that and against the immediate sense of the context—severe conflict/tension with its immediately preceding verse [i.e., # 27]

Or are we to say that God rewrote, so to speak, the ten words [verse 28] which apparently he spoke—all at once it would seem—at the beginning of Chapter Twenty? Would this then mean that the these words which Moses was commanded to write down in verse 27 were the words just spoken from verse ten through verse twenty-six? Anyway you cut it, we are dealing with a Babelic text. One which cries out for interpretation.]]]

f) . From beginning to end all of these speech acts (Divine and one, at 24:7, human); blood acts; spoken instructions which were then written down by Moses and formally read aloud; lengthy spoken instructions followed by the transmission of stone tablets written with the finger of God to Moses containing either these lengthy spoken instructions [25:1—through 31:17], OR, something else which we will never know about since they were destroyed by Moses; the instruction from God to Moses to make new stone tablets upon which God will write a replacement for that which was destroyed by Moses but which, after having been spoken by God, are actually written down by Moses [34:1 through 34:27]—all of these WORDY events and actions are contained in a written and obviously heavily redacted document, which document

constitutes the most important part of God’s Revelation.

*          *          *          *

g) . The words which the final redactor chose to have position of privilege in this whole and lengthy wordy text [from Chapter 19 through Chapter 34] which is mostly about WORDS both spoken and written and appearing in a written document which presents itself as foundational—is introduced with a phrasing which the Rabbis properly noted as curious and intensely elicitative of further interpretation. Listen again:

And God spoke all these words, saying:

Here I would like to cite at length the words of the Rabbis on this curious phrasing by the redactor of Exodus. The Rabbis, in this long citation, point the way to an understanding of the nature of the giving of what was given at Mount Sinai and the [active, human-mannered] receiving of what was received at Mount Sinai. White fire eliciting and black fire pricking. The moment is timeless and all is given in a flash (eksaiphnes) all at once AND

FURTHER the moment is not only stretched out over the more than ninety days of the sojourn at Mount Sinai, but stretched out as well through and AS the journey of Jewish people through their history. WAIT JUST A MINUTE!!!. Are the Rabbis actually saying this much? You, dear cherished reader, will have to decide. I know that, at the least, they are vectoring in this direction. [emphases, of course, are mine; ever so slight emendations of the Soncino translation are mine as well]:

God does all things together. He puts to death and brings to life at the same time; He wounds and heals at the same time. If there is a woman giving birth,

people going down to the sea, men traveling through deserts, or who are incarcerated in prison, though one is in the east and another in the west, one in the north and another in the south—He hears them all simultaneously; for so it says I form light and create darkness, etc. [[[Isaiah 45:7; followed, as we know, by: I make peace and I create evil."]]]

[Exodus Rabbah, 28-4; pages 334-335]

The midrash continues on this theme of all-at-the-same-time AND VERY SIGNIFICANTLY expands this theme to note,—Chapter and Verse and without any ambiguity about such whatsoever—that God’s words in Scripture are not only given all-at-the-same-time, but that God’s very own words in Scripture CONTRADICT THEMSELVES. After giving salient examples, the midrash concludes with these words:

—and all of these things [[[including the explicit contradictions explicitly given by and through the words of God Himself]]] were said simultaneously; hence: And God spoke all these words, saying—

[Exodus Rabbah; 28-4]

Now we are ready to read John-reading-Boyarin-reading-Yadin-reading-Ishmaelic-midrash-even-as-John-is-only-reading-Yadin-reading-Ishmaelic-midrash.

We are now ready to begin our book.

call me Ishmael

It’s Micah time.

What does Hashem require of you except to do justice yet love khesed and walk humbly with your God

a) . My book would have been a better book had I read Azzan Yadin’s Scripture as Logos: Rabbi Ishmael and the Origins ofMidrash before bringing my own book to completion. I recall the references to this book while I was, for better or for worse, making my way through Daniel Boyarin’s Border Lines. My failure here was to have not engaged Yadin’s book directly instead of what I did do which was to react to Boyarin’s usage of Yadin’s book. The failure was not a minor one, for the very sub-title of Yadin’s book and its main subject matter is one which is of critical importance for and in my book. The reader is referred to pages 194-201 of my book. This section of my book in particular would have been enhanced—and significantly expanded—had I read Yadin’s book before completing my own.

But the failure is even more significant. Every aspect of what I have said in my book concerning the Bavli suffers from not having engaged Yadin’s book before letting the dunghill book come out.

b) . What I’ll be doing here is to attempt to disengage Yadin’s book from the Boyarin frame of reference. Clearly, if one reads the title of Yadin’s book and some sections of Chapter Eight of his book, it is clear that for one reason or another Yadin has chosen to let his work become associated with the Boyarin-led binitarian/Logos-Theology orientation for the understanding of the tannaim of the first few decades posterior to the destruction of the Temple. The truth of the matter is that Yadin’s book deserves better than this association and it will be difficult for what is best in his book to be recognized on its own terms because of this association with this Boyarin-led orientation.

c) . I wrote a review of Yadin’s book for Amazon.com about six weeks after my book was published and about ten days after I had read Yadin’s book. It was a good review and I shall pursue some of the themes suggested by that review in my remarks in this present entry. But I certainly—and once again—made it easy for sophisticated ones to continue to ignore my book and, if necessary, pre-emptively dismiss it. Yes. I’m speaking of another howler. I wrote the review in a flourish and without immediate access to Yadin’s book. I was working by memory. I used, by memory, writings and the writings for Yadin’s ha-katuv which Yadin renders as the written the few times he uses any translation for ha-katuv. If one thinks it through, the howler is a minor one. But it won’t be the first time that I have given the sophisticated ones an opportunity to avoid really getting to what I have to say. For by chortling over my howlers they furnish themselves the excuse for not reading my book carefully. Perhaps that’s just as well, for most of the sophisticated ones—despite the many warnings in my book that to do such is to miss the entire point of the book—would read my book precisely from the perspective of those received norms of scholarship and received norms of what writing about Judaism has to be which received norms my two books explicitly attempt to discredit.

a) . Speaking of real or perceived howlers:

In my book—in the episode darosh/darash—I used certain passages from Sifre Deuteronomy in order to make certain points about the Ishmaelic [[[i.e., Ishmael ben Elisha as a front for Akher ]]] teachings of that work. Indeed I went so far as to say that what is UNATTRIBUTED in that work can be understood as having come from Ishmael ben Elisha/Elisha ben Abbuyah.

One can walk with this rather unsubstantiated claim concerning Ishmael ben Elisha as a Rabbinic front for Elisha ben Abbuyah or not. Even people sympathetic to some parts of my work will have—at least for the first several years—difficulty with that contention. Fine. But the other contention—to the effect that the unattributed material in that Sifre is from Ishmael ben Elisha—is a horse of a different color. To knee-jerkedly see such as a howler is to risk being hoisted on one’s own overly sophisticated petard. In point of fact the complex redactional strata of this work [Sifre Deuteronomy] make it

difficult to be overly certain about the actual pedigree of anything which is said in this work. As a whole it certainly has the mark of officialdom about it and, thus, taken as a whole, it is not wrong to see the work, taken as a whole and in its average tendency, as Akibian. [[[[[[[Even here one must be cautious. I maintain that sometime after the Oven of Akhnai episode Akiba walked away from the midrashic endeavor which he shared—more often than not rivalrously—with Ishmael ben Elisha. This was also the time when Akher left the Movement in disgust at the sandbagging of Eliezer ben Hyrcanus on that day. The whole initial midrashic endeavor was then left in a lurch and eventually abandoned. Shimon bar Yokhai partially picked up the Akibian torch. But by and large the non-midrashic project of what would become the Mishna superseded the early midrashic project. The finished work and finished portions thereof of that initial Rabbinic way of doing and understanding what it was doing was left to the redactional mercies of officialdom.]]]]]]] Still the redactional strata of Sifre Deuteronomy is tricky and, amateur as I may be, I am certainly not alone in seeing, here and there, in Sifre Deuteronomy even, a clear Ishmaelic voice even though this work is not—and properly, in the final analysis—classified as Ishmaelic.

This whole business will be more thoughtfully returned to below in my project of disengaging Yadin’s work from its Boyarinesque garments. For now, however, I just needed to acknowledge that howler—here real, there only perceived, and in all cases of a character that never interferes with the major point of contention of the passage(s) in which such real or perceived howlers

are ensconced—has ended up being one of my signatures.

*          *          *          *

e). Let us celebrate Yadin’s caution with regard to turning ha-katuv into a figure which might be construed as one of the figures in some two powers/authorities in heaven motif often claimed, in varying and heterogeneously different manners, by much of the scholarly work concerning the early—but, for the most part, post-destruction-of-the-Temple—tannaim. This motif in scholarship is especially marked, for me, by Segal’s book (with copyright dates of 1977 and 2002) on the subject and by Boyarin’s Border Lines. The reader of this book must realize that the longest episode in my dunghill book concerned itself with an extended critique Boyarin’s

binitarian understanding of this motif. [[[Let those who hop and skip from one of my signature howlers (real or perceived) to another of my signature howlers (real or perceived) without reading and or understanding the substance of my argumentation have their moment of joy. In my book I referred to binitarian as a neologism of Boyarin’s. Apparently this term has a pedigree earlier than Boyarin. So noted for the record.]]]

f). Continuing on. Only in Chapter Eight does Yadin bring to his treatment of Ishmaelic ha-katuv language which would even suggest—with caution and reservation—this ha-katuv as comparable to figures presented here and there as operative in apparent precedents (Christian and Jewish) of this two powers/authorities in heaven motif. And even in Chapter Eight it is primarily in the short addendum to the Chapter—wherein Boyarin’s binitarian agendum is explicitly referred to—that he raises even the possibility of perceiving Ishmaelic ha-katuv as, POSSIBLY, analogous to a figure in this motif. The most prominent candidate as a possible analog for Yadin’s presentation of Ishmaelic ha katuv is the figure of Logos characteristic of Christian expressions of theology from the end of the first Christian century which—so goes the argument—had been kicking around in Jewish circles and then in Jewish-and-Christian circles dating back to 200 BCE or earlier. Of course it appears to be the whole point of Yadin’s little addendum to his Chapter Eight to play into what Boyarin refers to as The Crucifixion of the Logos in Jewish Rabbinic circles through his (commendably) cautious and reserved allowance of Ishmaelic ha katuv as possibly analogous with Logos. ((Yes. I say this fully aware that the only work by Boyarin actually cited by Yadin in his book is an article on this Logos business out in 2002.)) The subject involved here is a huge one. And if one is not careful the painstaking work of Yadin on Ishmaelic ha katuv in his first seven Chapters (((and all the sections of Chapter Eight up until the heading Torah and Logos— ))) could be swallowed up whole and misrepresented as support for Boyarin’s wish that it is not silly to say there are:—Jews who are Christians, even up to this very day. [Border Lines, page 225]

{{{{In fact the house of cards generated by Boyarin to the effect that there was a RABBINIC Logos Theology alive and well in the early generations of the tannaim rests upon evidence from non-Rabbinic sources, especially the Philonically oriented sources in the Hellenic Diaspora which conflated the

figures of Logos and Wisdom. Doubtlessly there is a huge boost for the two powers/authorities motif which can use the oft-cited text from Proverbs Eight, 22-31. This needs even further investigation. But ONLY in the Hellenic Diaspora is there anything like a conflation of Wisdom and Logos. The Rabbinic conflation between Wisdom [Khokhmah] and Torah operates according to a dynamic which is free of the tropes, themes and philosophemes of Greek Philosophy. [[Confer pages 183-188 of my previous book]]

Boyarin and others also trade on the Aramaic Memra teachings in extra-Rabbinic targum sources. These sources are indeed interesting. But let me suggest that one loses the force of these sources when one tries to make them analogous to the Logos ((or a Hellenized by way of Philo Wisdom-as-Logos)) motif in early Christianity and in the Hellenized Jewish Diaspora. Even moreso than with the Rabbis, these Aramaic sources are de-natured when filtered through the conscious or unconscious lenses of the Platonism in the Academy obtaining long after Plato’s death and/or Stoicism. Indeed the Aramaic Memra figure may be far closer in spirit and perhaps even in actual pedigree with the Ishmaelic ha katuv motif as presented in Yadin’s fine book. But then again, if the Ishmaelic ha katuv motif as presented in Yadin’s book is allowed to be swallowed up by and into the Logos Theology orientation of Border Lines, then the attempt by Boyarin to integrate the Memra tradition of the targums into his Logos Theology orientation will stand having subsumed into itself the most credible alternative [[i.e., de facto, Yadin’s book although he himself does not engage his hakatuv in terms of the Memra tradition]] appropriation of the Memra tradition.

This whole matter of a real or perceived Logos Theology which is said to have permeated so many of the tannaim will be examined as we proceed, especially with regard to the need to DIFFERENTIATE such from the ha katuv motif which Yadin unearths in the Ishmaelic midrashim. Even so, the reader is advised at this point to refer to pages 182-194 of my book. After all, this book which you are now reading is best understood as a final episode of the dunghill book. Everything asserted in this book is intrinsically inseparable from the argumentation of that book even as it simultaneously remains the case that the book you are now reading is correcting—at least the ones that matter—the real howlers of that book. <<

such is either NOT perceived by me as a howler or is perceived to be a howler of such minor import that the sympathetic reader of the book—i.e., a ha-katuv reader of my book—has already made the appropriate adjustment.>>>}}}}

g) . In point of fact the careful analysis of the ha-katuv theme by Yadin up to and into page 168 of his book is prostituted and, worse, denatured, by even positioning this ha-katuv theme of the Ishmaelic midrashim such that it, this theme, can, so to speak, be perceived at all through this binitarian accounting of the two-powers/authorities-in-heaven lens. Please do not misunderstand me. There is a way dealing with this two-powers/authorities-in-heaven motif which is both enriching of the Jewish tradition and, as well, compatible with the lion’s share of what Yadin establishes in his book up on into page 168. But both the Jewish tradition and Yadin’s work is denatured when they, Judaism, and Yadin’s account of ha-katuv (so, all three), are put in the service of a binitarian accounting of this motif. But, I suppose, the temptation to be included in the Divinations series of