“IN NEHARDEA WHERE THERE ARE NO HERETICS”: THE PURPORTED JEWISH RESPONSE TO CHRISTIANITY IN...

“IN NEHARDEA WHERE THERE ARE NO HERETICS”: THE PURPORTED JEWISH RESPONSE TO CHRISTIANITY

IN NEHARDEA (A RE-EXAMINATION OF THETALMUDIC EVIDENCE)*

Barak S. Cohen

Historians of the rabbinic period have identified some remarks made by prominent Babylonian Nehardean rabbis from the Sasanian period, among them Shmuel, Rav Sheshet, Rav Nahman and Amemar, as being aimed at Christians currently active in their region. Such claims were advanced by scholars such as Solomon Funk, Adolf Neubauer, Isaac Halevy, Jacob Obermeyer and E. E. Urbach. In contrast, my analysis of the passages in which these remarks are embedded raises doubts as to the accuracy of these claims. I argue that there is no evidence in the Bavli that Nehardean sages had any direct contact with Christians or were familiar with Christian daily practice.

The conclusion that in these talmudic traditions rabbis are not res-ponding to Christians correlates with the data provided in Christian chronicles as to the spread, or failure to spread, of Christianity in Nehardea, Pumbedita and the surrounding areas during the talmudic period (third–fifth centuries C.E.) The absence of Christians in this region during the talmudic period is further corroborated by a state-ment in BT Pesahim 56a, according to which there were no heretics, Christians or otherwise, in Nehardea during the amoraic period.

This study also corroborates a historical finding which I have demonstrated elsewhere, namely the dependence of Babylonian Amo-raim from this region on Palestinian Halakhah found in the Mishnah and other tannaitic sources. Many of the passages in which Amoraim are supposedly responding to Christians in their own region are better understood in light of the Palestinian traditions to which the Baby-lonian Amoraim are more likely responding. This study demonstra-tes that a combination of talmudic analysis and historical research is

* I wish to express my gratitude to Prof. Sebastian Brock of the Faculty of Oriental Studies at Oxford University for reading an earlier version of this article and providing me with his pertinent comments. Since the preparation of this paper, I have benefited immensely from the help and encouragement of my colleague at Bar-Ilan University, Dr. Dan Jaffé, who has fostered this study in every way possible.

30 barak s. cohen

essential for constructing a coherent intellectual history of the Amo-raim and their interaction with others.

II

Before we analyze these talmudic texts, it is necessary to address directly some problematic assumptions broadly shared by historians who posited the existence of a Jewish-Christian debate in Nehardea during the talmudic period. Resting on faulty assumptions and pre-conceived notions, many of these arguments are weak and we shall challenge and refute them one at a time.

II.a

The texts which we will deal with below employ the term “minim,” identified by many scholars as Christians. However, these “minim,” who are certainly judged to be heretical by rabbis, are not necessar-ily Christians. Judging by the content of these specific sources, the “minim” could be identified as Hellenistic Jews, Zoroastrians, or mem-bers of various Gnostic sects. The term may even be a general refer-ence directed at various sectarian groups and their members, and it is certainly not used exclusively in connection with Christians.1 Con-cerning the term, Jacob Sussman writes:

The term “minim” is used to refer to heretics in a very broad sense of the word. . . . whether he is merely a denier or an member of an actual sect . . . such as the Sadducees or Boethusians . . . Samaritans . . . and simi-larly Christians . . . Christian Jews . . . various types of Gnostics . . . It is even used in reference to idol worshipers and members of other religions in all of their various manifestations. The term’s usage is dictated by the

1 The literature on this question is enormous. See, most recently: D. Jaffé, Le judaïsme et l’avènement du christianisme. Orthodoxie et hétérodoxie dans la littérature talmudique Ier–IIe siècle, Paris 2005, pp. 88–91; idem, Le Talmud et les origines juives du christianisme. Jésus, Paul et les judéo-chrétiens dans la littérature talmudique, Paris 2007, pp. 132–135. To the literature cited in these recent studies, we can add the fol-lowing studies that specifically deal with the issues discussed here: W. Bacher, “Travers Herford’s ‘Christianity in the Talmud and Midrash’”, JQR, Old Series, 17 (1905), pp. 178–179; J. Sussman, “The History of Halakha and the Dead Sea Scrolls—Preliminary Observations on Miqsat Ma’ase Ha-Torah (4QMMT)” [Heb], Tarbiz 59 (1990), p. 54, n. 176; E. Ahdut, “Jewish-Zoroastrian Polemics in the Babylonian Talmud” [Heb], Irano-Judaica, 4 (2000), pp. 29–30.

“in nehardea where there are no heretics” 31

historical era in which it is used, and it is likely that the term takes on a more general meaning in later periods.2

More specifically concerning the issue which I will address in this paper, in a study on Jewish-Christian polemics in rabbinic literature, Richard Kalmin came to the following conclusion:

. . . Palestinian rabbis had frequent interactions with Bible-reading non-Jews (for example, Christians and Gnostics) and Minim (heretics), but Babylonian rabbis did not . . . The urgency and persistence with which Palestinian sources forbid contact between Palestinian rabbis on one hand and Minim and Christians on the other suggest strongly that such contact took place and was probably routine . . . Babylonian sources, in contrast, have nothing to say on the subject of the danger of rabbinic contact with Minim and Christians, apparently because such contact was too rare to be considered a problem. That contact was rare in Babylonia and relatively common in Palestine was in part because of the relative scarcity of Bible-reading non-Jews and heretics in the Persian Empire.3

2 Sussman (above, n. 1), p. 54, n. 176. A similar problem occurs with regard to the phrase “Bei-Nizrefe” found three times in the Babylonian Talmud (Shabbat 116a; Eruvin 80a; Avoda Zara 48a). According to Shabbat 116a, “Bei-Nizrefe” was a place where discussions of specifically religious questions took place. From this source it seems that “Bei-Nizrefe” was in Samuel’s geographical location in Nehardea. Many suggestions were made in scholarly literature as to the identification of Bei-Nizrefe. The most tempting of them was that “Nizrefe” is related to the word “Nazarene” and that therefore “Bei-Nizrefe” was connected with Christians. This is how the word was understood by J. Neusner, who even concluded from Shabbat 116a, that Samuel “abhorred Christians” (J. Neusner, A History of the Jews in Babylonia, vol. 2, Leiden 1970, p. 74). The same etymology was also offered by L. Lef, “Bei Avidan u-bei Niz-refe”, Hehaluz, 2 (1853), pp. 100–101; S. Funk, Die Juden in Babylonien 200–500, vol. 2, Berlin 1902, p. 53; J. Levy, Wörterbuch Über die Talmudim und Midraschim, vol. 3, Darmstadt 1963, p. 432. In contrast, S. Krauss, Synagogale Altertümer, Berlin 1922, p. 31 interpreted “Be-Nizrefe” as referring to a “special Persian Temple.” I. Kuhot Aruch haShalem, vol. 2, New-York 1955, p. 47, interpreted the word in connection with Gnosticism. R. T. Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, New-Jersey 1966, p. 167, identified it as a place connected with Jewish-Christians. It seems that at the present a determination of the exact identity of this place and the group with whom the rabbis would have debated there must remain uncertain. In any case, any connection of the place with Christians or Jewish Christians seems highly unlikely since the presence of Christians in southern parts of Mesopotamia is known only 80–100 years after the death of Samuel (see below, n. 9).

3 R. Kalmin, The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, London & New-York 1999, pp. 68–70. See also: R. Kalmin, “Christians and Heretics in Rabbinic Literature of Late Antiquity”, HTR, 87 (1994), pp. 155–169.

32 barak s. cohen

The infrequency of Jewish-Christian confrontations among Babylo-nian sages in general,4 casts doubt as to any blanket identification of “minim” as Christians in the Babylonian Talmud.5

II.b

Even if we assume that in these texts “minim” might include Chris-tians, there is no certainty that a comment made by a Nehardean sage was directed at Christians living in his own geographical setting. A polemic can be against a theoretical opponent, in our case against Christian theological views in general. Its setting is not necessarily that of a live confrontation.6 As we shall see below, in many cases in which an Amora might be seen as addressing Christianity, he is simply quot-ing a Palestinian tannaitic source, a source which does not necessarily have any bearing on the presence of Christians living in the sage’s immediate environment. Ties between Nehardea and Palestinian tradi-tions are already mentioned in tannaitic sources,7 and elsewhere I have demonstrated the strong dependence of Babylonian rabbis on Pales-tinian tradition already in the early talmudic period.8 This dependence is manifested in the tannaitic literary collections of Nehardean sages, which are provided with appellations such as “Tanna D’Bei Shmuel,” “Tanna D’Bei Levi”, the traditions of Abuha D’Shmuel. This study will further heighten our awareness and appreciation of the influence that Palestinian tannaitic traditions had on Babylonian rabbinic study, as

4 Most cases of rabbinic confrontations with Christians (or other Bible-reading non-Jews) recorded in the Babylonian Talmud involve Palestinian Amoraim. See: Kalmin, The Sage (above, n. 3), pp. 73–74.

5 See also: M. Simon, Verus Israel, Oxford 1986, p. 183, who writes, “The texts in which the minim are explicitly connected with Christianity are in fact very few”.

6 See: I. M. Gafni, The Jews of Babylonia in the Talmudic Era: A Social and Cultural History [Heb.], Jerusalem 1990, p. 150. Gafni demonstrated this point in regard to Jewish-Zoroastrian debates in Babylonia.

7 See, for instance: Mishnah, Yevamot 16: 7. Ties between the Jewish communities in Nehardea and Palestine are already mentioned by Josephus, see: Antiquities, 18: 312. For further analysis of these traditions, see: A. Berliner, Geographie und Ethnographie Babyloniens im Talmud und Midrasch, Berlin 1884, pp. 47–48; S. Funk, Monumenta Talmudica: Bibel und Babel, Wien und Leipzig 1913, pp. 295–296; A. Oppenheimer, Babylonia Judaica in the Talmudic Period, Wiesbaden 1983, pp. 287–288; idem, “Bet-tei Midrash in Babylon Prior to the Completion of the Mishnah” [Heb.], In: Yeshivot and Battei Midrash (ed. I. Etkes), Jerusalem 2006, pp. 23–27.

8 B. S. Cohen, “In Quest of Babylonian Tannaitic Traditions: The Case of ‘Tanna D’bei Shmuel”, AJS Review, 33 (2009), pp. 271–303.

“in nehardea where there are no heretics” 33

early as the first half of the third century. The first two cases which will be analyzed below are an integral part of this phenomenon.

II.c

The historians who concluded from talmudic sources that Nehardea had a Christian community in the early talmudic period did not pay enough attention to data found in Christian sources. Our knowledge concerning the spread of the Syrian Church in southern Mesopotamia during the third century is sketchy, due to the paucity of the data pro-vided in Syriac chronicles.9 Nevertheless, the evidence seems to lead to the conclusion that Christians were not active there in the early talmudic period, before the fifth century. A similar picture emerges in later rabbinic sources. According to the Epistle of R. Sherira Gaon (written in the tenth century10), Nehardea was in the vicinity of Fīrūz

9 The presence of Christian communities in southern Mesopotamia during the Sasanian period is known only from the first half of the fourth century onwards. See mainly: J. Labourt, Le Christianisme dans L’Empire Perse sous la dynastie Sassanide 225–632, Paris 1904, p. 18 ff.; A. Christensen, L’Iran Sous les Sassanides, Copenhagen 1936, pp. 261–262; J. Neusner, Aphrahat and Judaism: The Christian-Jewish Argument in Fourth-Century Iran, Leiden 1971, p. 2; S. Brock, “Christians in the Sasanid Empire: A Case of Divided Loyalties”, Religion and National Identity: Studies in Church History XVIII (ed. S. Mews), Oxford 1982, p. 3; J. P. Asmussen, “Christians in Iran”, CHI, 3 (2), Cambridge, 1983, p. 925, 931; R. N. Frye, The History of Ancient Iran, Munich 1984, p. 309; N. Koltun-Fromm, “A Jewish-Christian Conversation in Fourth-Century Mesopotamia”, JJS, 47 (1996) 45–63. For a detailed (although not sufficiently critical) geographical survey based on the Syrian chronicles, see: W. A. Wigram, An Introduc-tion to the History of the Assyrian Church (The Church of the Sasssanid Empire 100–640), London 1910, p. 7 ff. For an overview of the spread of Christianity in northern Mesopotamia, see: R. L. Mullen, The Expansion of Christianity: A Gazetteer of its First Three Centuries, Leiden 2004, pp. 55–59; F. Trombley, “Overview: the Geographical Spread of Christianity”, The Cambridge History of Christianity (ed. M. M. Mitchell, F. M. Young), vol. 1, pp. 309, 311; S. A. Harvey, “Syria and Mesopotamia”, The Cam-bridge History of Christianity (above), pp. 351–365. As for Jewish-Christian interac-tion in these localities, see mainly: J. B. Segal, “The Jews of North Mesopotamia Before the Rise of Islam”, Studies in the Bible Presented to Professor M. H. Segal (ed. J. M. Grints, J. Liver), Jerusalem 1964, pp. 32–63; H. J. W. Drijvers, “Jews and Christians at Edessa”, JJS 36 (1985), pp. 88–102; idem, “Syrian Christianity and Judaism”, The Jews Among Pagans and Christians in the Roman Empire (ed. J. Lieu, J. North and T. Rajak), London 1992, pp. 124–146.

10 On the nature and reliability of this source concerning the history of the tal-mudic period, see: M. Beer, “Iyyun B’Iggeret R. Sherira Gaon,” Bar-Ilan 4–5 (1967), pp. 181–197; Gafni (above, n. 6), pp. 239–265; R. Brody, “Berur Hamekorot Lechronologi-yah shel Tekufat Hatalmud,” Tarbiz 70 (2001), pp. 92–95; A. Cohen, Ravina and Contemporary Sages: Studies in the Chronology of Late Babylonian Amoraim [Heb.], Ramat-Gan 2001, pp. 181–182.

34 barak s. cohen

Šāpūr (situated near modern al-Fallūğa),11 and a rabbinic academy was founded there by rabbis who abandoned Pumbedita during the per-secutions of Hormizd IV (588), at the end of the Sasanian period.12 According to J. M. Fiey, the first Christian Bishop whom we can iden-tify from Fīrūz Šāpūr lived during the first half of the fifth century (around the year 420).13 Even J. Obermeyer, who concluded that there was a Christian community in Nehardea and Pumbeditha during the third century (based on BT Berakhot 12a—see below), was aware that only from the fifth century and onward is a Christian presence in the district of Fīrūz Šāpūr firmly attested.14

Thus the information gleaned from non-rabbinic sources corrobo-rates the statement in Babylonian Talmud Pesahim 56a, which states explicitly that there were no minim in Nehardea during the amoraic period.15 This source reads, “in Nehardea where there are no heretics (minim) until now (ad hashta), they recite it quietly.” Since this state-

11 For the location of Fīrūz Šāpūr and its possible identification with the city al-Anbār or Pumbeditha, see: Oppenheimer, Babylonia Judaica, pp. 362–364. In addi-tion to the literature cited by Oppenheimer, see: J. M. Fiey, Assyrie Chrétienne, vol. 3, Beirut 1968, pp. 230–231.

12 R. Sherira describes this rabbinic academy (founded by Rav Mari the son of Rav Dimi) as being near Fīrūz Šāpūr using the following words: “. . . our Rabbis came from Pumbeditha to the vicinity of Nehardea, [which is located] in the Fīrūz Šāpūr district” (R. Sherira Gaon, Epistle of R. Sherira Gaon, B. M. Lewin, ed., Jerusalem, 1972, p. 99). For further analysis of the founding of this academy, see: N. Brüll, “Toldot Yissudo shel ha-Talmud ha-Bavli Keyetzirah Sifrutit”, Netuim 11–12 (2004), pp. 210; Kaplan, Redaction, pp. 337–342. Based on this text, I. Halevy proposed to identify Nehardea as Fīrūz Šāpūr (Halevy, dorot hrishonim, vol. 6, p. 38). However, Kaplan noted that the identification of the two is problematic: “To identify . . . Nehardea as Fīrūz Šāpūr is to disregard the very careful and exact writing of R. Sherira, who in no other instance designates Fīrūz Šāpūr as Nehardea” (Kaplan, Redaction, p. 341). Nevertheless, for the purpose of our argument, whether Fīrūz Šāpūr is indeed al-Anbār, Nehardea or Pumbeditha, has no effect on the conclusion presented below.

13 Fiey (above, n. 11), p. 232, referring to the bishop Moīse, mentioned in the 486 Synod. For a further historical and theological discussion concerning the Christian synods of the eastern church, see: S. Brock, “The Christology of the Church of the East in the Synods of the Fifth to Early Seventh Centuries: Preliminary Consider-ations and Materials”, in: Aksum-Thyateira: a Festschrift for Archbishop Methodios (ed. G. Dragas), London 1985, p. 126

14 See: J. Obermeyer, Die Landschaft Babylonien, Frankfurt 1929, pp. 264–265. 15 See: A. Berliner, Beiträge zur Geographie und Ethnographie Babyloniens im Tal-

mud und Midrasch, Berlin 1884, p. 49; S. Funk, Die Juden in Babylonien 200–500, Berlin 1902, p. 96; idem, Monumenta Talmudica: Bibel und Babel, Vienna & Leipzig 1913, p. 296; Obermeyer (above, n. 14), p. 264; S, Kraus, Paras ve-Romi ba-Talmud uva-Midrashim, Jerusalem 1947, p. 87; I. H. Weis, Dor Dor ve-Dorshav, vol. 1, Jerusa-lem-Tel-Aviv 1964, p. 221; A. Neubauer, La Géographie du Talmud, Hildesheim 1967, p. 351; Urbach, Sages, p. 401.

“in nehardea where there are no heretics” 35

ment in the text is to be attributed to the “stamaim”16—the post-amo-raic stratum of the Talmud17—then it indeed matches the information found in Christian sources. And even if the minim referred to in this source are not exclusively Christians, at the least the source would include Christians,18 and by implication it would testify to the absence of Christians in Nehardea during the talmudic period. In summary, neither Christian nor Jewish sources support the thesis that Nehardea (or its surroundings) had a Christian community during the third and fourth century.19 Methodologically speaking, it is important to note that the burden of proof for the existence of a Christian-Jewish live contact or debate rests on those who make such a claim.

III

We now turn our attention to the talmudic passages most commonly used by scholars as proof of Christian-Jewish contact and even debate in Nehardea during the amoraic period. The first such passage is BT Berakhot 12a, which A. Berliner, Solomon Funk, Isaac Halevy, Adolf Neubauer and Jacob Obermeyer all used as an indication that

16 Concerning the identification of this statement as “stammaitic”, see: Z. Fraenkel, Mavo, p. 59b; Halivni, Sources and Traditions: Tractates Erubin and Pesahim, Jerusa-lem 1982, pp. 440–441.

17 On the dating of the anonymous stratum (stammaim) of the Babylonian Tal-mud as post-amoraic literature, see: S. Friedman, Talmud Arukh: BT Bava Metzi’a VI (Critical Edition with Comprehensive Commentary) [Heb.], New-York 1996, pp. 21–23; D. Halivni, Midrash, Mishnah, and Gemara, Cambridge, MA 1986, pp. 76–104; idem, “Aspects of the Formation of the Talmud”, In: Creation and Composition: The Contribution of the Bavli Redactors (Stammaim) to the Aggada (J. L. Rubenstein, ed.), Tübingen 2005, pp. 339–360; R. Kalmin, “The Formation and Character of the Baby-lonian Talmud”, The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. IV, Cambridge 2006, pp. 840–876; A. Cohen, “The Saboraic Halakhah in Light of bKiddushin 2a–3b and the Geonic Tradition”, Diné Israel, 24 (2007) [Heb.], pp. 161–214.

18 The term “minim” in later periods had a more general meaning and referred to all kinds of heretics (including Christians). See, for instance: Simon (above, n. 5), p. 183; Zussman (above adj. to n. 2; R. Kimelman, “Birkat Ha-Minim and the Lack evidence for an Anti-Christian Jewish Prayer in Late Antiquity”. In: Jewish and Chris-tian Self-Definition (ed. E. P. Sanders; A. I. Baumgarten; A. Mendelson), Philadelphia 1981, 230–232. Similarly, our passage in Pesahim 56a from the post-amoraic era (see above) might have a general meaning, which includes Christians as well.

19 It is important to emphasize that some scholars question whether Babylonian Jews would have felt threatened by Christians and in response would have needed to debate theological matters with them. See, for instance: Kaplan, Redaction, pp. 342–343; E. Urbach, The World of the Sages: Collected Studies [Heb.], Jerusalem 2002, p. 559; Ahdut (above, n. 1), p. 39.

36 barak s. cohen

mid-fourth century Nehardea had a large Christian community. This source reads:

And they recite the Ten Commandments and the Shema . . . [They would bless the people with the following three blessings:) “emet veyatziv,” [the blessing of the] Temple service, and the blessings of the priests. [= Mish-nah Tamid 5:1]

R. Judah said in the name of Samuel: Outside the Temple they also wanted to do the same (to say the Ten Commandments before the Shema), but they were stopped from doing so because of the arguments of the heretics (minim).

Similarly it has been taught in a baraiata (Tanya Nami Hakhi): R. Nathan says: Outside the Temple they also wanted to do the same but they were stopped from doing so because of the arguments of the her-etics (minim). . . . .

Amemar attempted to institute it (the recitation of Ten Command-ments before the Shema) in Nehardea, but Rav Ashi said to him: they were stopped from doing so because of the arguments of the heretics (minim).20

In this source Amemar, a prominent Nehardean sage who lived in the second half of the fourth century and the beginning of the fifth,21 attempts to reinstitute the recitation of the Ten Commandments before the Shema, but Rav Ashi prevents him from doing so. The academic scholars mentioned above assumed that Rav Ashi’s negative response had to do with his fear of the potential response of Christians living in Nehardea during the fourth century.22

However, this interpretation is doubtful for several reasons. First of all, as I stated in my introduction above, the identification of minim as Christians is far from certain. E. Urbach,23 G. Vermes24 and M. Benowitz25 all reject this identification, mainly because Christians were

20 The last section, “Amemar—heretics,” is absent in Paris 671 and Oxford Opp. Add. Fol. 23, almost certainly as a result of a homioteleuton.

21 See recently: A. Shahak, Amemar and his Methods of Halachic Decisions [Heb.], Master’s Thesis, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 2002, pp. 3–5.

22 See: Berliner (above, n. 15), p. 49; Funk, Die Juden (above, n. 15), p. 96; idem, Monumenta (above, n. 15), p. 296; Obermeyer (above, n. 14), 264, n. 4; Neubauer (above, n. 15), p. 351; Halevy, Dorot, vol. 6, p. 38.

23 E. E. Urbach, “The Place of the Ten Commandments in Ritual and Prayer” [Heb.], The Ten Commandments as Reflected in Tradition and Literature Throughout the Ages, (ed. B. Segal), Jerusalem 1985, pp. 132–133.

24 G. Vermes, “The Decalogue and the Minim”, In Memoriam Paul Kahle (ed. M. Black, G. Fohrer), Berlin 1968, pp. 232–240.

25 M. Benovitz, BT Berakhot, Chapter I: With Comprehensive Commentary [Heb.], Jerusalem 2006, p. 566.

“in nehardea where there are no heretics” 37

never known to have claimed that only the Ten Commandments were divinely given. Indeed, the rabbis had originally forbidden the reci-tation of the Ten Commandments because, as Vermes and Benowitz have argued,26 the minim referred to here were Hellenistic Jews, who interpreted the Bible literally and claimed that only the Ten Com-mandments were binding, since only they were given by God. Fur-thermore, Rav Ashi is not referring to actual heretics living in his own time. Rather he is echoing a Palestinian tradition quoted in the above source by Rabbi Nathan and in the following parallel tradition from the Palestinian Talmud, Berakhot 1:5, 3c:

It would be right to recite the Ten Commandments every day. Why then do they not recite them? Because of the claim of the minim: so that they may not say, “only these were given to Moses on Sinai.”

In anticipation of potential theological claims, which could have been advanced by minim, the rabbis of Palestine omitted the recital of the Ten Commandments, which, in Temple times, was part of the prayer service. Rav Ashi, quoting this tradition, disagreed with Amemar’s attempt to reinstitute the practice in Nehardea.27 There is no reason, therefore, to interpret Rav Ashi’s objection as directed against a Chris-tian community that existed in Nehardea in his time.28 Indeed, the very fact that Amemar wanted to restore the recitation of the Ten

26 See above, n. 24–25. 27 This interpretation accords with Amemar’s typical methodology and manner

of halakhic ruling. Amemar is known for his daring halakhic rulings, rulings which at times deviate from biblical or tannaitic law. His flexible approach to Halakhah is attested to in more than 90% of the cases (20 cases) in which he issues a ruling. All of these are lenient, exhibiting a tendency to take into consideration the conditions and circumstances of the specific case under discussion. In nine cases he even rejects the conventional law by replying to his pupil, Rav Ashi: כלומר לא לי לא שמיעא ;I have not heard of it; meaning, I do not find it reasonable” (Ketubbot 83b“ סבירא ליKetubbot 97a; Baba Batra 13b; Hullin 53b; Hullin 62a). Concerning this expression see: A. Cohen, “On the Phrase ‘לא שמיעא לי כלומר לא סבירא לי’ in the Babylonian Talmud” [Heb.], Tarbiz, 53 (1984), pp. 467–472. In three other occasions Amemar rules contrary to a local Nehardean tradition by saying: אנא נהרדעא אנא וסבירא לי “[in spite of the fact that] I am a Nehardean, I hold [an opinion which is contrary to Nehardean sages]” (Baba Mezia 16b: Baba Mezia 35a: Baba Batra 31a). This approach to halakhah is unique to Amemar among late amoraim. For further analysis of Amemar’s halakhic methodology, see: B. S. Cohen, “Contrasting Study Methods of the Latter Nehardeans in the Babylonian Talmud’ [Heb.], Hebrew Union College Annual, 78 (2007) [in print].

28 Similarly uncertain is the identification of the minim in BT Sanhedrin 38b. In this source, Rav Nahman, a Nehardean sage from the second half of the third cen-tury, praises Rav Idit’s personal skill in arguing with the “minim”. Although many

38 barak s. cohen

Commandments might imply that the heretics found in Palestine were absent from Nehardea. In other words, instead of proving the existence of a strong Christian community in Nehardea, this text actually shows that Amemer was not threatened by any Christian presence at all.29

IV

The following passage from Babylonian Talmud Bava Batra 25a has been frequently used by scholars as a basis for the conclusion that Rav Sheshet, who headed a local academy in Nehardea during the third century,30 had personal contact with Christians and reacted to one of their daily practices:

R. Ishmael taught: From where do we know that the Shechinah is in all places? Because it says: “And behold, the angel that talked with me went forth, and another angel went out to meet him” (Zechariah 2:7). It does not say: “[went out] after him”, but “went out to meet him”. This teaches that the Shechinah is in all places.

So too R. Sheshet held that the Shechinah is in all places, because [before beginning to pray] he used to say to his attendant: set me facing in any direction except the east. And this was not because the Shechinah is not there, but because the minim31 instruct [people to pray] in that direction.

R. Sheshet was blind and hence when praying he would instruct his attendant to direct him in any direction except to the east because “the minim instruct to that side.” In printed editions of the Talmud this line appears as an addendum to the sugya and not as R. Sheshet’s actual words. However, Oxford 249 (369) and Paris 1337 read: “he [= R. Sheshet] used to say to his attendant: Set me facing any direction except for the east because the minim instruct to that side”. This ver-

scholars identified these “minim” with Christians, Ahdut has argued recently that these ‘minim” were Zoroastrians. See: Ahdut (above, n. 1), pp. 32–34.

29 See E. E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, Massachusetts & London 2001, p. 402.

30 See: B. S. Cohen, “Local Academies in Talmudic Babylonia” [Heb.], Zion, 70 (2005), pp. 448–458.

31 In the Venice printed edition the word “minim” is replaced by “talmidey Yeshu (= the pupils of Jesus). Rashi, ibid., s.v. demoru ba miney identifies the “minim” as the following: “the pupils of Jesus instruct to pray facing the east”. It is quite possible that the printers used Rashi’s very wording to emend the original text. This phenomena (in general) was well demonstrated by A. Ahrend, see: A. Ahrend, Rashi’s Commentary on Tractate Megilah [Heb.], Jerusalem 2008, pp. 80–82.

“in nehardea where there are no heretics” 39

sion is also attested in the commentary of R. Hannanel, and it is found in the Pesaro (1511 A.D.) and Venice (1520 A.D.) printed editions of the Talmud. In this version, which seems to be the original one, the phrase, “because the minim instruct to that side,” is part of Rav Sheshet’s words to his attendant, and not a later editorial addition.

Wilhelm Bacher identified these “minim” as Manichaeans32 and argued that this tradition teaches us about the “controversial relations” between Rav Sheshet and the members of this religion:

Schescheth scheint zu den Menichäern in polemischen Beziehungen gestanden zu haben.33

It does indeed seem that the Manichaean church was well established in the eastern parts of Mesopotamia during the second half of the third century, especially by the time of king Šābur’s death (C.E. 276).34 How-ever, there are two main problems with Bacher’s suggestion. First of all, we must note that Manichaeans did not pray to the east, but rather towards the sun, whatever its position in the sky at the time of day they were praying.35 Second, even if we assume that Rav Sheshet was referring to the direction in which Manichaeans would have prayed in the morning, the same practice is also found among Zoroastrians.36 There is no reason to assume that Rav Sheshet was referring specifi-cally to the Manichaean church and not to the Zoroastrianism, which was, after all, the state religion of the Sasanian Empire.37

32 See: W. Bacher, Die Agada der Babylonischen Amoräer, Hildesheim 1967, p. 78, n. 12.

33 Bacher, ibid. 34 See mainly: M. Boyce, A Reader in Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian

(Texts with Notes), Leiden 1975, pp. 1–2; M. Hutter, ‘Manichaeism in the Early Sasa-nian Empire’, Numen, 40 (1993), pp. 2–12; S. N. C. Lieu, Manichaeism in Mesopota-mia and the Roman East, Leiden 1994, p. 22; S. A. Harvey, ‘Syria and Mesopotamia’, pp. 360–361. On the spread of Manichaeism in eastern regions see: S. N. C. Lieu, Manichaeism in the Late Roman Empire and Medieval China, Tübingen 1992, pp. 219–230.

35 See: F. J. Dölger, Sol Salutis, Münster 1925, p. 28; Boyce (above, n. 34), p. 12. See also: Urbach, Sages, p. 709, n. 99.

36 See for instance: M. Boyce, A Persian Stronghold of Zoroastrianism, Oxford 1977, p. 29; idem, Textual Sources for the Study of Zoroastrianism, Chicago 1990, p. 3; A. De-Jong, Traditions of the Magi: Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin Literature, Leiden 1998, p. 99.

37 L. Ginzberg, Perushim we-Hidushim ba-Yerushalmi, vol. 3, N.Y. 1941, p. 375, followed by U. Erlich, The Non-Verbal Language of Jewish Prayer [Heb.], Jerusalem 1999, p. 92, doubt the very possibility of arriving at a specific identification of the “minim” in this tradition.

40 barak s. cohen

E. E. Urbach identified the “minim” in this passage as Christians:

Christianity in Egypt and in Western countries accepted in the second century a prayer-orientation to the east, taking into account the wide-spread practice in prayer among the Gentiles who had become Chris-tians, and in the third century it became universal in the Christian world even in eastern countries . . . Rav Sheshet . . . told his servant to position him for prayer facing whichever direction he pleased, but he excluded the east, ‘because the sectarians teach this’. In light of the observations that we made above, there can be no doubt as to who the sectarians were that gave such instructions.38

As indicated by Urbach, already from the mid third century, the Assyrian church indeed had a fixed prayer orientation towards the east.39 Nevertheless, in spite of the similarity between Christian prac-tice and that of the “minim” according to Rav Sheshet, it is far from certain that Rav Sheshet was referring to actual Christians living in geographical proximity to him. Again, we face the methodological problem of not knowing whether a rabbi is referring to actual heretics, with whom he is personally familiar, or whether he is echoing sources from other places and other times. The prohibition of directing one’s prayer towards the east is well attested in Palestinian sources, and was widely known throughout Babylonia as well. The following tradition from Palestinian Talmud Berakhot 4:5 (8b) demonstrates this point:

R. Jacob bar Aha said: They teach there (tannei taman): One may face any direction (to recite a prayer), except the east. R. Yose bar Abun said: at first [in ancient times they prayed]: “With their backs to the Temple of the lord and their faces eastward, and they bowed eastward toward the sun” (Ezekiel, 8:16).

R. Jacob bar Aha was a Palestinian sage40 of Babylonian origin41 who lived at the end of the third and the beginning of the fourth centuries. In this source, he cites a tannaitic tradition which he claims to be taught “there,” meaning in Babylonia. R. Jacob is well-known in the Palestinian Talmud for transmitting other baraitot which are “taught in Babylonia.”42 It can be assumed that he was familiar with these

38 Urbach, Sages, pp. 62–63. 39 See: R. H. Connolly (ed.), Didascalia Apostolatum (The Syriac Version Translated

and Accompanied by the Verona Latin Fragments), Oxford 1969, pp. 119–120.40 See: Hyman, Toldot, 2, p. 774; Albeck, Mavo, p. 249. 41 See: Epstein, Introduction to the Mishnaic Text, vol. 2, Jerusalem 2000, p. 891. 42 See: Epstein (above, n. 41), pp. 891–892.

“in nehardea where there are no heretics” 41

baraitot by virtue of coming from Babylonia.43 Rav Sheshet, the bearer of the tradition in the Bavli, was well recognized for his mastery of tannaitic literature, and in my comprehensive study of sage, I have argued that Rav Sheshet’s methodology features a conservative and formal approach, which is consistently based on tannaitic sources.44 This reinforces the presumptionthat Rav Sheshet’s instruction to his servant was based on a tannaitic tradition—the same tradition cited by R. Jacob bar Aha. If so, we cannot assume with certainty that Rav Sheshet was responding to the presence of a Christian community in Nehardea.

Furthermore, from this Palestinian source we can see that whether the prohibition against praying toward the east stems from Babylonian,45 or Palestine,46 it is likely that the “minim” in Rav Sheshet’s statement are the biblical “heretics” mentioned in the book of Ezekiel.47 As is sometimes the case, we should understand rabbis here as responding to the literary reality of biblical history and characters, and not neces-sarily to actual people, in this case Christians, living in their own time and region.

Finally and perhaps most importantly, according to Christian sour-ces, Christianity did not reach Nehardea until more than one hundred years after Rav Sheshet. Hence, it seems quite improbable that there was a Christian community in Nehardea in Rav Sheshet’s time (the second half of the third century).48 with which he could have had per-sonal contact.

43 Most of the baraitot in the Palestinian Talmud which are introduced by this term (‘tannei taman’) are cited by amoraim of Babylonian origin. For a full analysis of these traditions, see: Epstein (above, n. 41), pp. 891–897.

44 See: B. S. Cohen, “Rav Naman and Rav Sheshet: Conflicting Methods of Exegesis of Tannaitic Sources” [Heb.], HUCA, 76 (2005), pp. 11–32.

45 See: Epstein (above, n. 41), p H. Albeck, Mehkarim Babraita UbaTosefta Veyah-san LaTalmud, Jerusalem 1970, pp. 86–87

46 See Tosefta Megilah 3: 22 (ed. Lieberman, p. 360): “The doors of synagogues open only eastward, for so we find concerning the sanctuary that it was open eastward . . .” This is also confirmed by archaeological evidence, see S. Safrai, ‘The Synagogues South of MT. Judah’, Immanuel, 3 (1973–1974), pp. 44–56; G. Praster, ‘Batei ha-Knesset ba-Galil’, Artzot ha-Galil (ed. A. Shmueli, A. Sofer, N. Cliot), Haifa 1983, p. 237.

47 Sun worship existed in Judea in late neo-Assyrian times, as well as in the ancient near east in general. See, for instance: M. Greenberg, Ezekiel: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Doubleday 1983, p. 172; R. Kasher, Ezekiel: Introduction and Commentary [Heb.], vol. 1, Jerusalem-Tel Aviv, 2004, p. 253.

48 See above, adj. to n. 9.

42 barak s. cohen

IV

The following source from BT Avodah Zarah 4a dealing with Rav Safra—a Babylonian Amora who lived in Nehardea and Pumbedita (see below)—has been presented by some scholars as evidence for Christian presence in Babylonia:

Rabbi Abbahu used to praise Rav Safra to the minim [saying] that he was a great man. They released him from paying taxes for thirteen years. One day they met him. They said to him: “It is written: Only you have I known from all of the families of the earth; therefore I will visit upon you all your sins” (Amos 3:2). One who is enraged, does he punish his lover? He was silent, and did not say anything to them. They drew a scarf around him and were mocking him. Rabbi Abbahu came and found them. He said to them: “Why are you mocking him?” They said to him: “Did you not say that he is a great man, yet he could not even tell us the interpretation of this verse!” He said to them: “That which I said to you has to do with tannaitic literature, but with respect to Scripture, I did not say anything.” They said to him: “What is the difference with respect to you that you know [Scripture also]?” He said to them: “We who are located in your midst, take it upon ourselves and we study [Scripture], but they who are not located in your midst—do not study”.

This story contradicts the general assumption in scholarly literature that Christianity was well established in all parts of Babylonia as early as the fourth century, and that Babylonian Jews and Christians engaged in religious polemics on a daily basis. Aware of this contradiction, A. Schremer cast doubt as to the historical accuracy of this source.49 D. Boyarin went even further, reaching the following conclusion:

We find the Talmud here explicitly denying that in Babylonia the Rab-bis were “located in the midst” of Christians. In general, in the scholarly tradition this has been taken as straightforward evidence that the rabbis of Babylonia had no Christians with whom to contend, but now I would see its rhetorical function as quite different from that straightforward reading, indeed almost as evidence for the opposite conclusion.50

Contrary to Schremer and Boyarim, in my opinion this tradition is indeed rooted in actual history. Rav Safra was a Babylonian Amora

49 A. Schremer, “Stammaitic Historiography”, in Creation and Composition (above n. 19), p. 224.

50 D. Boyarin, “Hellenism in Jewish Babylonian”, The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature (ed. C. E. Fonrobert and M. S. Jaffe), Cambridge 2007, p. 357.

“in nehardea where there are no heretics” 43

who lived during the second half of the third and beginning of the fourth centuries51 in both Nehardea and Pumbedita.52 Rav Safra is depicted in the Babylonian Talmud as maintaining personal contacts mainly with Nehardean and Pumbeditan Sages—Rav Joseph,53 Rav Nahman,54 Rabbah and Abaye.55 The fact that Rav Safra was centered in Nehardea and Pumbedita, and in those areas he did not come into contact with Christians, matches my conclusion as presented above with regard to the absence of Christians from those regions. In other words, rather than assume that all of Babylonia was a center of Chris-tianity in this period, an assumption that subsequently forces us to question the historicity of this source, we can acknowledge that the source reflects the scarcity of Christians in certain areas of Babylo-nia.56 The Bavli states specifically that R. Safra, who was active in both Pumbedita and Nehardea, was not an expert in Scripture, because he had little contact with Christians. This fact correlates well both with the talmudic evidence in Pesahim 56a and the evidence in the Chris-tian chronicles.

IV

Scholars tend to understand amoraic sayings and homiletics against a background of daily contact and disputation with Christians, and at times this approach is indeed justified. However, the conclusion that

51 Concerning dating Rav Safra’s activity in Babylonia, see: Hyman, Toldot, vol. 3, pp. 966–969; Albeck, Mavo, p. 302.

52 Rav Sheshet referred to Rav Safra in Rav Nahman’s presence as “Safra your col-league (Safra haverkha)” (BT Bekhorot 10b). Rav Nahman headed an academy in Nehardea during the second half of the third century (see mainly: Albeck, Mavo, pp. 298–299; Cohen, “Local Academies”, pp. 470–471, n. 168). Similarly, Rabbah, head of the academy in Pumbedita (Seder Tanaim veAmoraim, p. 5: Iggeret Rav Sherira Gaon, p. 86) refers to Rav Safra as “our colleague (Safra Havrin)” (BT Shabbat 70a).

53 BT Hullin 133a.54 BT Shabat 70a.55 BT Eruvin 45b; 103a; Betzah 38b; Yoma 11a; Sanhedrin 41b; Hullin 51a; Bek-

horot 4a. It seems likely that Rav Safra died in Pumbedita, see Hyman, Toldot, vol. 3, p. 969 (based on BT Moed Katan 25a).

56 In general, not all of the rabbis in Babylonia were familiar with Biblical verses. This phenomenon was already noted by the Tosafists who wrote: “Sometimes they [= the rabbis] were not familiar with Biblical verses” (Tosafists, BT Baba Batra 113a, s.v. “Teravaihu”). It was further documented by D. Rosenthal, “Al Derekh Tipulam shel Hazal beHilufey Nosah baMikra”, Sefer Izhak Aryeh Zeligman (ed. Y. Zakovich and A. Rofe), Jerusalem 1983, pp. 396–397. To Rosenthal’s list of cases add BT Suk-kah 52b.

44 barak s. cohen

Nehardean sages argued with Christians or even co-existed with them in the same geographical region has no textual justification. Many of the texts that have been adduced to support this conclusion are better understood in light of the tremendous impact of Palestinian rabbinic traditions upon Babylonian rabbinic study. Furthermore, in estimat-ing the degree of contact Jews and Christians in Babylonia, we should not treat Babylonia as one uniform region; rather we would do best to examine each geographical location separately and to avoid general-izing on the basis of information relevant to only one place and time. In conclusion, the detailed evidence that I have analysed here seems to support and leads to the acceptance of Asmussen’s proposal that, “One should be cautious . . . in assessing the extent and influence of these first [= Christian—B.S.C.] communities, and even more so in evaluating the missionary activities in the Euphrates-Tigris area”.57

57 Asmussen (above, n. 9), p. 924.