Saturday, October 20, 2012
Evidence From Mishnah that Immersion (Baptism) Was an Initiatory Rite of Judaism
Here's something interesting I read today:
"[Mishnah Pesachim] 8:8 has been cited as evidence that immersion of proselytes was already practiced in the late first century B.C.E., even before the destruction [of the Temple]: 'If a proselyte converted on the day before Passover, the House of Shammai says: He immerses and eats his paschal offering in the evening. But the House of Hillel says: One who departs from (his) foreskin is (as impure) as one who departs from a grave." (Lawrence Schiffman)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Nor accurate. a man could become circumcised in the pre-destruction era without being required to submit to the formal rabbinic conversion process. It was not until after the destruction of the Temple, and the rise of rabbinic Judaism, that circumcision was considered invalid unless done with the intent to convert.
ReplyDeleteWhat's the evidence for that?
DeleteThe short version:
ReplyDelete"In pre-rabbinic times (i.e., before the second century C.E.) conversion to Judaism was an entirely private affair. conversions were not supervised or overseen by anyone, and there was no conversion ceremony. circumcisions could be performed by anyone in any matter..."
Shaye J. D. Cohen "the beginning of Jewishness" page 223.
What's his evidence? See, I disagree with him on this. HaShem gave explicit instructions to not allow uncircumcised goyim to eat the Paschal meal. Thus, it HAD to be regulated. This means it couldn't have been a private affair. But, again, I'm open to seeing Cohen's evidence to the contrary.
DeleteOK, the long version now...
ReplyDeleteThe rabbinic idea that a valid circumcision required a proper intention to acquire legal Jewish status is not earlier than the 2nd Century CE. You can find it first in the statement of R. Judah in the Tosefta, Avodah Zara 3.13 written in the 3rd Century CE. "A samaritan may not circumcise an Israelite, because he performs the act of circumcision for the sake of Mount Grizim."
In the "Mekhilta de-Rbbi Ishmael R> Isaac is referenced, who was a TANNA in 2nd Century CE, a disciple of Ishmael.
" R. Isaac says: "A sojourner and a hired servant shall not eat thereof" (Ex. 12:45). Why is this said? Has it not already been said: "there shall no alian eat thereof?" (12:43) Answer: From the latter I might understand that a circumcised Arabian or a circumcised Gibeonite is qualified to partake of the paschal lamb. Therefore Scriptures says: " A sojourner and a hired servant shall not eat thereof."
(Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Pisha, 60-63 (1.122 in the Lauterbach edition).
Here we see R. Isaac, intentionally qualifies or disqualifies circumcision. Even though the Arab and Gibeonite are circumcised, they are not allowed to eat of the Pesach offering because they were not circumcised with the intention of converting to Judaism. Their circumcision is therefore invalid. we cannot find this kind of qualification in pre-destruction era.
another evidence is that the first explicit description of the conversion ceremony is found in the Bavli (Yevamot 47a-b) and in the post talmudic tractate Gerim (See Shye Cohen's "the beginning of Jewishness" page 198.
Dan,
DeleteThat's illogical. You're talking about two different things. Even if those 3rd century C.E. sources were proof of how 13th century B.C.E. Israel regulated the kavanah aspect of proselyte circumcision, they would not prove Cohen's assertion that from the period of 13th century B.C.E. to 2nd century C.E. Israel did not regulate ANY aspect of proselyte conversion.
Here's the command: "No uncircumcised male may eat it." To whom was this given? To goyim? No. This was written to Israel. Why to Israel? Because every Israelite was enjoined from permitting an uncircumcised goy from eating the Pesach sacrifice.
If you believe that Exodus 12:48 was written for Israelites then that makes circumcision a matter of utmost public concern. Why risk HaShem's wrath by failing to enforce Exodus 12:48? Let's give the ancient Israelites some credit. They were given a command to enforce the sanctity of Pesach. Let's assume that they followed the law and enforced Pesach accordingly, establishing proselyte circumcision as a legal procedure (e.g. proceedings, witnesses, standards of proof, etc).
Peter,
ReplyDeleteYou are reading your agenda into Scriptures. I asked you a question previously which you did not answer.
How about women? Could they eat the Passover? After all they are not circumcised. How about an uncircumcised man, a Jew or Gentiles Sitting at the seder and not eating the Passover?
For your claim to stand, you need to support it with evidence that show a ritual of conversion (Which includes circumcision) existed pre-destruction, can you?
Dan,
DeleteWritten Torah does not prohibit any category of women from eating the Passover sacrifice. So, to answer your question "Could they eat the Passover?" it would seem that, unless there was an Oral tradition to the contrary, they were free to eat the Passover sacrifice.
Re: "For your claim to stand, you need to support it with evidence that show a ritual of conversion (Which includes circumcision) existed pre-destruction, can you?"
I just cited logical evidence. A law implies a legal system whereby the law is enforced. This refers to systems of proof, proceedings in which status is formally recognized, etc. This is not me reading an agenda into Tanak. This is pure logic. If a law was given then it had to be enforced. That's the evidence: Exodus 12:48. I can think of no better evidence than that.
"Written Torah does not prohibit any category of women from eating the Passover sacrifice. So, to answer your question "Could they eat the Passover?" it would seem that, unless there was an Oral tradition to the contrary, they were free to eat the Passover sacrifice."
ReplyDeleteIncluding a gentile woman? Keep in mind that Gentiles at the time were considered unclean.
"I just cited logical evidence. A law implies a legal system whereby the law is enforced. This refers to systems of proof, proceedings in which status is formally recognized, etc. This is not me reading an agenda into Tanak. This is pure logic. If a law was given then it had to be enforced. That's the evidence: Exodus 12:48. I can think of no better evidence than that. "
Your argument falls apart when you bring Jews into the equation. If an uncircumcised Jew who is part of the assembly is getting circumcised just so he can eat the Passover, it also stand the same for a gentile who is not part of the assembly.
Now, you need to show evidence when and how the law was enforced, can you?
Dan,
ReplyDeleteRe: "Keep in mind that Gentiles at the time were considered unclean."
What is the evidence that in 13th century B.C.E. Israelites considered gentiles to be unclean?
Re: "Your argument falls apart when you bring Jews into the equation. If an uncircumcised Jew who is part of the assembly is getting circumcised just so he can eat the Passover, it also stand the same for a gentile who is not part of the assembly."
I'm not understanding you. Could you rephrase?
I did not talk of the 13th Century B.C. E. Paul scolding Peter of eating with gentiles was pre-destruction.
ReplyDeleteOk, How was the law enforced? Did every man who came to the Passover dinner had to pull his pants down?