Other articles from this issue | Version in English | Version in French
The Pharisees and the Hasidim
Sh'muel Sefrai
Introduction
The description usually given of Judaism in the time of Jesus and during the first century in which the primitive church was forming its basic structure, is in general somewhat monolithic. This affects especially Christian understanding and interpretation of Judaism at that period. Although Christian scholars are becoming more and more aware of the pluriformity within Judaism at that time, for the large majority of non-Jews Judaism is still identified with Pharisaism. Undoubtedly the Pharisees and the Sages occupied an outstanding position especially in legal decisions (halakhab). This however does not mean that Judaism consisted only of the official bodies of the Pharisees and the rabbis. Even if Pharisaic and rabbinic Judaism is rightly understood — which is rare in the Christian interpretation — a much more detailed description of the Jewish world at the beginning of the Christian era is needed. Such a detailed description indicating all the nuances in Judaism, is required first of all for a faithful presentation of history as such. But we have — when dealing with Jewish-Christian relations — a further reason for this. In order to find the correct place of Christianity within first-century Judaism, where its roots lie, we need an exact detailed knowledge of Judaism. Too often Christianity is defined only as the sole opposition to a (wrongly interpreted) legalistic pharisaic Judaism. If however it is treated as one of the stones of the mosaic of pluriform Jewish society, Christianity becomes more Jewish in its origins in the sense of not being an inexplicable exception within the Jewish community. This also influences the interpretation of the rupture between Christianity and Judaism. If seen as one of the trends in Judaism, Christianity can no longer be opposed to it on the grounds of exceptional and irreconcilable difference from it.
Tension is not found only between Christianity and the main body of the Sages. It exists also within Judaism itself. The hasidim provide a striking example of this with their special dedication to good deeds and their highly individualistic halakhah which was sometimes even opposed to that which prevailed. Nevertheless, the hasidim never lost their link with Judaism and remained a part of the Jewish community!
It is with this trend in Judaism — almost completely unknown to Christians — that Professor Safrai 's article deals. Besides being of value for the history of Judaism as such, this article is a much needed contribution to a more nuanced understanding of Christianity in relation to Judaism. Professor Safrai gives us an insight into the complex reality of Judaism; such an insight is necessary if we are to find the correct place of Christianity within Judaism and to explain the nature of the rupture between the Christian and the Jewish communities.
PIET VAN BOXEL
In an article which I published in the Journal of Jewish Studies,' I attempted to prove that the hasidim (pious) and the c first Hasidim (hasidim ha-rishonim) who are mentioned in tannaitic and amoraic literature are not the same basidim who are mentioned in the Books of the Maccabees, who flourished in the beginning of the second century B.C.E. and who constituted one of the most prominent forces in the opposition movement against the Hellenizers and in the revolt against the Greek king during the Hasmonean uprising. Rather, I attempted to show that they belonged to a later period towards the end of the Hasmonean era and were active during the days of the Sages of the Temple period and the generations following. Yet, although they did constitute a group or a movement related to the world of the Sages, they are not identical with them. From an ideological standpoint, from traditions describing the common study of Torah, and even from a social and a communal standpoint they were related, but by no means were they totally identical. They had their own unique nature, their own traditions concerning certain halakhot, lived apart in their own societies and dedicated themselves mainly to the doing of good deeds? Characteristic of traditions mentioning the hasidim are not halakhic statements passed down in their names or even aggadic ones, but rather stories of their exemplary behavior, merciful deeds and miracles wrought for them in the course of these deeds. The hasidim were called • men of deeds » 3 (anshei ma'aseh) and it was said concerning Rabbi Hanina ben Dose the Hasid that v when Rabbi Hanna ben Dose died, the men of deeds ceased .4
In the traditions mentioning the hasidim, certain personalities maintain a prominent position as, for example, Honi ha-Me'agge/ who was killed in the year 63 B.C.E. by the forces of Hyrcanus during the course of the struggle between Hyrcanus and his brother Aristohulus because he refused to pray for the victory of either of them' Likewise, Rabbi klanina ben Dose, who is the subject of many tales,' and Rabbi Pinhas ben Yair, also the subject of many tales and who exercised great influence over the community, are prominent among the hasidim. From these hasidim were preserved aggadic sayings, stories, usually however not more than one or two statements per hasid, but not a single halakha.' Halakhic statements handed down in the name of « the teachings of the hasidim » (mishnayot ha-hasidim) or ascribed to hasidim in general or attributed to an anonymous hasid are in opposition to the accepted halakha. Often these halakhot are simply restrictions added to the prevalent halakha, but at times the halakha of the hasid is in complete opposition to the normative and accepted halakhic Weltansehaung of the period.° There are even times when talmudic tradition notes this and stresses the contrast between the prevalent halakha and that of the hasidim.10
If, on one hand, there was at times a degree of tension between the hasidim and the main body of the Sages there was, on the other hand, a marked affinity between them. It should not be surprising, therefore, that aggadic statements and even aggadic collections of hasidic thought found their way into the main body of talmudic literature. In my article, I hinted that tractate Derekh Eres Zuta belongs mainly to the teachings of the hasidim." One of the statements of this tractate: If you wish that a friend cling unto you, concern yourself with his well-being — is quoted in Avotde-Rabbi Nathan in the name of AI egillat Hasidim. The bulk of the whole work is in concert with the thought of the hasidim and thus in the beginning of the tractate we read: the scholar is meek, humble, diligent, intelligent, submissive, beloved by all, humble of spirit before members of the household, and sin-fearing; he inquires after everyone's welfare in terms of his vocation; he says: Whatsoever I have in the world is of no importance to me, for this world is not mine. Likewise, Seder Eliyahu Rabbah should be seen as belonging mainly to the school of hasidic literature.12
TENSION BETWEEN SAGES AND HASIDIMThe tension between the Pharisees or the Sages and the hasidim is quite apparent even from the earliest appearance of hasidim in talmudic literature, the story of Honi ha-Me'agge/ and his prayer for rain. The story is told in great detail in Mishnah Ta'anit chapter three. In Tosefta Ta'anit 3:13 there is a shorter and independent version." The story, with deletions and additions, is found also in baraitot of both Talmuds." The essence of the story appears also in the ancient Aramaic list in Megillat Ta'anit, with further elaborations in the Hebrew seholion." Even Josephus in Antiquities tells the basic story of the drought and the prayer of Honi 1° From all versions of the story, it is quite clear that Onias himself is not a member of the Sages. Simeon ben Shetah, the spokesman of the Sages, appeals to him and the « Sanhedrin *I° (benei Lishkat ha-Gazit) sends to him. In what respect is Hones power greater than that of the Sages who teach halakha and Torah? Already the Mishnah supplies the answer: Honi is not like a minister before the king, but stands before him as a « son x, as a « son of the house The Mishnah states that Honi said of himself: 0 Lord of the world, thy children have turned their faces to me, for that I am like a son of the house before Thee. A « son of the house >> is the household servant, the dearest to his master. According to the Mishnah and the baraitot in the Talmuds, Simeon ben Shetah sent to him saying, Hadst thou not been kloni I had pronounced a ban against thee! But what shall I do to thee? — thou importunest God and he performeth thy will, like a son that importuneth his father and he performeth his will. v From his works we learn of the power of Honi who behaves like a son before his father, but we also learn of the tension that existed between this stratum of the hasidim, or at least their teachers, and the leaders of the Sages who recoil from this feeling of intimacy and exaggerated closeness which the hasidim display in their relationship with God and even dare to turn to him in this manner.
Similar details are found also concerning Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa who lived approximately 130-150 years after Honi. Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa was already active even during the Temple period. He lived in the Galilee in the city of Anna, the home town of Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai in his youth while he was still in Galilee." Rabhi Hanina ben Dosa studied before Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai, and of these days the baraita states: It happened that Rabbi Hanna ben Dosa went to study Torah with Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai. The son of Rabban Johann fell ill. He said to him: Hanina my son, pray for him that he may live. He put his head between his knees and prayed for him and he lived. Said R. Johanan ben Zakkai: If Ben Zakkai had stuck his head between his knees for the whole day, no notice would have been taken of him. Said his wife to him: Is Hanina greater than you are? He replied to her: No; but he is like a servant before the king and I am like a minister before a king." In the tradition concerning the prayer of Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa there is hardly a trace of tension, but the difference between the Sages who hold lofty positions (the ministers) and the a son of the house (the servant who is close to his master) is quite clear. Rabbi 'Janina does indeed bear the title a Rabbi », a title received only by outstanding Torah scholars who were officially ordained. Yet it is highly doubtful that this phenomenon can be explained in terms of a weakening of the tensions between the main body of the Sages and the hasidim, and in any event, although there are numerous stories told about Rabbi Hanina hen Dosa, we have not one halakba in his name.
IMPORTANCE OF TORAH STUDYHalfway, approximately, between the days of Honi and the days of Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa, lived Hillel the Elder. Among his many sayings we read: An ignorant man dreads not sin and an am-ha'aretz (lit. a people of the land ») cannot be saintly (has:0).20 The hasidim, it seems, based their system both on the study of Torah and also on the doing of good deeds while stressing their immanent relationship with God. Stories told concerning their teachers tell not only of their knowledge of Torah but also of wondrous deeds which they wrought while maintaining complete faith in the ultimate Divine salvation. This outlook to some extent might seem to minimize the utter and complete importance of Torah study, and the hasidic life style might thus appear to the outstanding Torah scholars to deprecate the importance of Torah study. According to this explanation, the two sections of Hales saying would seem to express this very idea. Thus, just as an ignorant man cannot dread sin, for the phrase to dread sin is the concept parallel to being saintly, likewise anam-ba'aretz, one who did not study Torah, cannot be saintly.21
It is highly doubtful, however, that the concept am-ha'aretz had in the time of Hillel the connotation of ignorance and lack of Torah knowledge. It appears to me that am-ha'aretz in the words of Hillel implies the am-ha'aretz who is not strict in his observance of the laws of purity. As is well known, am-ha'aretz in talmudic literature has three basic meanings: 1) one who is ignorant of Torah; 2) one who deprecates the laws of the heave-offering and tithe; 3) one who deprecates, or at the very least is lenient in, the laws of ritual purity. It is highly doubtful that already in the time of the Temple and in the days of Hille1,22 am-ba'aretz appeared in literature meaning one who deprecates the laws of the heave-offering and the tithe or one who is ignorant. However, we have found that several times the term am-ha'arela is explicitly mentioned or implied in early sources as one who is suspect in his observance of the laws of ritual purity.23
In my above-mentioned article, I proved that in every case where we find the hasidim interpreting the law in a strict manner, the laws of ritual purity are nor mentioned. In a tradition dealing with the days slightly after the destruction of the temple," we hear of Rabbi Joshua ben Hananiah being sent by Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai to investigate the character of a certain priest, a hasid who lived in the Galilee. While they were busily engaged in the laws of the hasidim (halakhot hasidim), it became quite clear to Rabbi Joshua that the priest had failed in his observance of laws of purity explicitly mentioned in the Torah. It is worthwhile to point out that this tradition in Avot de-Rabbi Nathan is brought as an elaboration of the words of Hillel which are similar in content to the saying with which we are dealing: And he that does not attend upon the Sages deserves to die.25
The action of Rabbi Joshua ben Hananiah should be understood in connection with the attempt of the Sages, the successors of the Pharisees, to consolidate society and to unify its various branches in the generation following the destruction. In this period, after the destruction and until the Bar-Kochba rebellion, the Sadducees, as a communal group struggling to maintain its position in the leadership of the nation and its influence over it, ceased to exist. Jewish Christianity was dislodged from its position in Jewish society, ceased to be a part of the Jewish society and ceased to be a part of the Jewish community. The hasidim, however, did not cease to exist. It is possible that a great struggle was not put up to abolish them or, maybe, the struggle simply did not succeed. In any event, we hear throughout the tannaitic period of a it happened that a 13asid », or a it happened that two hasidim ss, and of hasidic Sages. However, in the course of the tannaitic period the concept began to become blurred. In the beginning of the amoraic period in the middle of the third century, we find one of the outstanding scholars, Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, the head of the academy in the South, sympathizing with ideals of the hasidim. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi prays and rain falls, Elijah the prophet reveals himself to him and, in contrast to the main body of Sages, many wondrous deeds are told about him. His behavior and his teachings also reveal marked hasidic tendencies. In contrast to the many Sages who shunned lepers and all contact with them, for instance, Rabbi Joshua ben Levi used to keep their company and engage in Torah study with them." Ile used to stress especially the importance of modesty which he considered to be the greatest of characteristics. However, in contrast to previous generations, the hasid Rabbi Joshua hen Levi was also a scholar and a leader of the Sages. The particular demands of hasidic Torah, however, did not become blurred or disappear. Characteristic of this is the famous story told in the Palestinian Talmud" about Rabbi Joshua ben Levi who granted sanctuary to a fugitive sought by the local government. When government forces surrounded the city and threatened to put all inhabitants of the city to death if this particular person would not be surrendered, Rabbi Joshua ben Levi persuaded him to hand himself over to them. The tradition goes on to explain that Elijah, who used to reveal himself to Rabbi Joshua, ceased to do so after this event and only after Rabbi Joshua had undergone a protracted series of fasts did Elijah again appear. When asked why he had not appeared until then since, after all, Rabbi Joshua had acted in accordance with the teaching of the Mishnah," Elijah answered: And is that the teaching of the hasidim? According to the established law, there was no justification for such a strict interpretation since not only was Rabbi Joshua ben Levi allowed to persuade the fugitive to surrender himself, but, in fact, he was required to do so in order to save the entire city. Moreover, the halakha even forbids one to offer himself up to be killed against the wishes of the law." Yet the teaching of the hasidim as it is set forth by Elijah requires one to trust in God and maintain a willingness to sanctify his name without weighing the « desirability » of the matter.
Indeed, there was a degree of tension between the hasidim and the Sages on account of their teachings and on account of their behavior, and even, perhaps, on account of their feeling of uniqueness; but as a result of the closeness between the two groups, much of their teaching has remained in the traditions of talmudic literature, either in the form of large collections like Derek!, Ems Zuta and Seder Eliyahu Rabbah, or in the form of individual sayings in the aggadah or even halakhot which conformed to the existing halakhic norms.
1 Journal of Jewish Studies XVI (1965), PP. 15-33.
2 In the above-mentioned article I brought numerous traditions from mainly tannaitic literature which tell of the good deeds of hasidim as individuals or as a group. To these sources it is worthwhile to add a source which was published in Midrash Ida-Gadol on Genesis 43:14 (p. 735 ed. Margulies) which tells of two hasidim who set sail to do a devar mitzvah, i.e. to do a righteous deed. The source of the story is not known but there is no doubt that it is Palestinian in nature as is seen by the Palestinian Aramaic in which the hasidim converse.
3 In Mishnah Sukkah 5:4 we read: Men of piety (hasidim) and men of deeds used to dance before them (before those who used to assemble for the Festival of the Beth ha-Sho'evab in the Temple or the eve of Sukkot). From the text of the Mishnah it is possible to explain that there were two different groups: hasidim and men of deeds. However, from the parallel sources and from elaborations in Tosefta Sukkah 4:2 and Palestinian Talmud Sukkah V 55b, it is clear that both names refer to one group.
4 Mishnah South 9:15.
5 Antiquities XIV, 22-24.
6. See G. Vermes, « Ilanina ben Dosa Journal of Jewish Studies XXIII (1972), pp. 28-50.
7. The halakha in the name of Pinhas hen Yair in Babylonian Talmud Bava Kanzma 113b deals more with morality and ethics.
8. See Babylonian Talmud Menahot 41a. And the Talmud there concludes: It is different with those pious men for they imposed upon themselves additional obligations.
9 This is especially so in those cases when the hasidim's trust in God's salvation and the faith that they will be rescued from the afflictions of nature or of evil men result in their refusal to take precautionary measures which might be construed by them as being against the halakha. Thus, for example, the belief that snakes or scorpions will harm only one deserving of death, resulted in their prohibiting the killing of them on the Sabbath. « If one kills snakes or scorpions on the Sabbath the spirit of the pious (hasidim) is displeased with him a (Babylonian Talmud Shabbat 121b). However, the Talmud concludes: « And as to those pious men, the spirit of the Sages is displeased with them r, (ibid).
10. As, for example, the complete prohibition that the hasidim ordained against handing someone over to the Roman government even if such a refusal would endanger the entire community or all the inhabitants of the place. This halakha is contradictory to the established law and the Palestinian Talmud stresses this fact. See the discussion in Palestinian Talmud Terumot VIII 48b and Bereshit Rabba 94:9 (pp. 1184-1185 ed. Theodor-Albeck). See also the responsa of « Rav Shalom Gaon Ha-Yerushatmi » which was published in Sura I (1954), pp. 23-25.
11. Translated into German by A. Tawrogi, DerechEres Suite (1885).
12. A scientific edition was published by M. Friedmann in 1904. The prevalent view in the scientific literature of the last generation is that the book is from the post-talmudic period. However, the author of this article is quite certain that the work is early and stems from the first generations of the Amoraim, and that many baraita/ from it were copied in the Talmuds and Midrashim. This is not the proper forum, however, for a detailed discussion of the matter.
13. In the Tosefta the story begins: It happened that a hasid, etc. S. Lieberman's assertion in Tose/ta kb Feshutah V p. 1096 that « before us is a different story similar to it », does not appear to me to be correct. It is true that instead of Honi in the Mishnah the Tosefta mentions « it happened that a hand, etc.* The basic elements of the story are common to both sources and before us is simply a different version of the same tradition. The fact that the Mishnah ascribes the story to I-Joni and the Tosefta to a hasid is a recurring phenomenon. In fact, the story of his grandson Abba Hilkiah who was also requested to pray for rain in Babylonian Talmud Ta'anit 23a is in the Palestinian Talmud Ta'anit III 64b ascribed to « a hand from Rehr Imi «. Both of these parallel stories are similar in almost all their numerous details. Moreover, in talmudic literature there are many stories about Sages (and sometimes common people) who served as communal leaders in praying for rain but there are no other traditions, except that in our Mishnah and Tosefta, concerning someone who was asked to pray for a cessation of the rains after they had begun as a result of his prayers.
14. Palestinian Talmud Taffianit III 66d-67a; Babylonian Talmud Ta'anit 23a.
15. H. Lichtenstein HUCA VIII-IX (1931-32), pp. 348-9.
16. Antiquities XIV, pp. 22-24.
17. Thus in Babylonian Talmud.
18. Palestinian Talmud Berakhot IV 72 and parallels; Palestinian Talmud Shabbat XVI 15d.
19. Babylonian Talmud Berakhot 34b.
20. Mishnah Avot 2:5. As is well known, certain scholars have objected to ascribing this series of sayings in Avot 2:5.6 to Hillel the Elder since a series of sayings of his is found previously in Avot 1:12:14 in an order appropriate with the chronological sequence of the authors of the various sayings. They, therefore, ascribedthe sayings in Avot 2:5-6 to Hillel the son of Gamaliel III mentioned before. However, the two brothers Hillel and Judah mentioned in the baraita are the sons of Gamaliel II as I have shown elsewhere (Sinai 78 [1976] pp. 21-22). There is no proof whatsoever that Gamaliel III had a son by the name of Hillel and there is no justification in ascribing to an unknown scholar an entire series of sayings in Avot which serves as a selection of tannaitic sayings. It is highly doubtful that the son of Gamaliel III would still be mentioned in Avot since no other scholar from such a late period is mentioned there. This saying is already quoted in part in the words of Rabbi Judah B. Ilai in Tosefta Berakhot 7:18, and a saying formulated in a similar manner is ascribed to Rabbi Akivah in Avot de-Rabbi Nathan Version A chapter 26 and Version B chapter 33. For the assorted proofs brought forth by scholars see H. Albeck in his commentary on Avot (1953) p. 349.
21. Thus in A. Buehler, Der Galilaische Am-ha-Ares des Zweiten Jahrhunderts (1906) p. 18.
22. In the detailed description of the actions of Hyrcanus the High Priest in connection with the non-setting aside of tithes (Mishnah Ma'aser Sheni 5:15; Mishnah Sota 9:10; Tosefta Sota 13:10; Palestinian Talmud Ma'aser Sheri V 56d; Palestinian Talmud Sota IX 24a), the phrase am-ha'aretz is not mentioned. Only in Babylonian Talmud Sota 48a is the ordinance phrased according to the conditions of a later period and amha'aretz is mentioned. See Buehler, ibid.
23. Mishnah Hagigah 2:7; Tosefta Sanhedrin 3:4.
24. Avot de-Rabbi Nathan Version A chapter 12; Version B chapter 27. Cf. the version published in Midrash HieGadol on Leviticus 11:35 (ed. Steinzaltz p. 285).
25. These words are not the words of Hillel in Avot 1:13 but were before the editor of Avot de-Rabin Nathan, since this saying in Aramaic is cited among the other sayings of Hillel in Aramaic when the editor elaborates in Hebrew on each and every one of the Aramaic statements.
26. Babylonian Talmud Ketubbot 776.
27. Palestinian Talmud Terumot VIII 466; Beresbit Rabba 94:9 (pp. 1184-1185 ed. Theodor-Albeck).
28. This is not a midrash but a baraita found in Tosefta Terumot 7:20 ( = Palestinian Talmud Terumot VIII 46b). The basic principle is found already in Mishnah Terumot 8:12.
29. In this spirit the Gaon of Jerusalem answers in the responsa published by Agus in Sura I (1954) pp. 22:23.
