B"H

I have decided to start this topic under the category of "Controversial Jewish Issues," for obvious reasons.

Few there be that know that Rashi occasionally quotes from "Yosiphon" in the Talmud, which is a second-hand rendition of the writings of Josephus, made by a Jewish scholar in the Middle Ages.

However, in this thread, I intend to call the man by his true Hebrew name, "Yoseph Mathiah," who was from the lineage of the priests (Cohenim) that traced their families to Yehoiariv. He was born in the land of Israel in circa anno 34 C.E., and compiled his momentous work, "Antiquities," in circa anno 91 C.E., in his fifty-sixth year.

It is my personal opinion that the books "Antiquities" and the "Jewish War," are more authoritative than "Yosiphon," although the latter enjoyed more popularity amongst us Yidden. This is because it was written and preserved in the Hebrew language, whereas the former works were written in Greek. Nevertheless, the "Jewish War" is a first-hand account of events witnessed by Yoseph Mathiah, and embodies within it (along with his "Antiquities") a collection of anecdotes about Jewish beliefs and lifestyles rarely found in books of that period. As a reminder, the Mishnah was only compiled in anno 189 C.E. - almost a hundred years later!

Yoseph Mathiah's worth may not be fully appreciated by many, but he is a primary source for many ancient Jewish practices and customs, whether we accept this fact or not. He has many times confirmed the traditions of the Sages brought down in the Talmud, as well as, at other times, clarified difficult matters in our Talmud. This man's work is not to be belittled. Still, I would recommend reading him without the X-tian commentators, because of their many unfounded bias.

In the forward found in the book, "Antiquities," called "The Life of Flavius Josephus," Yoseph Mathiah writes of himself the following:
"When I was a child, and about fourteen years of age, I was commended by all for the love I had to learning; on which account the high priests and principal men of the city (Jerusalem) came then frequently to me together, in order to know my opinion about the accurate understanding of points of the Law."

He was contemporary with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who was a friend of his father.

I will begin this thread by asking our members to write their impressions about the man, or about things found in his writings. In the days to come,
G-d willing, I hope to bring down some of the most extraordinary excerpts taken from his writings, and which shed light on our understanding of deep matters discussed in our Talmud.

Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

WORDS from an ANCIENT SOURCE

Mishnah Middos (q.v. 2:3) describes the dimensions of the Temple precincts, saying that from the parapet or partition wall (Heb. "sorag") that separated the court of the Gentiles from the court of the Israelites was another wall, inwards of the first wall, called the rampart (Heb. "cheil"). This rampart was "ten cubits." Yet, it is unclear by the Hebrew wording there as to its intention when it says it was "ten cubits." (Heb. לפנים ממנו החיל עשר אמות - Translation: "Inwards of it, the rampart, ten cubits.") Rabbi Ovadia of Bertinora and Tosefos Yom Tov, both, say that the "ten cubits" refers to the distance in latitude from the first partition wall unto the rampart. Rambam (Hilchos Beis Habechirah 5:3), on the other hand, says that it refers to the height of the rampart. Beyond this rampart was an additional flight of twelve steps.*

The difference in opinion by these gedolim who had never seen the Temple precincts is soon laid to rest by the man, Yoseph Mathiah, who had actually seen the walls in his days, just as they stood firmly upon the Temple Mount. While describing that part of the Temple precincts in his "Wars of the Jews," (Book V, ch. V, vs. 2), he writes:

"…Beyond these fourteen steps there was the distance of ten cubits: this was all plain, etc."

So, here, it is evident that Rabbi Ovadia of Bertinora and Tosefos Yom Tov have correctly explained the intent of our Mishnah as referring to latitude.


* What appears to be a discrepancy between the Mishnah (ibid.) and Yoseph Mathiah as to the number of steps leading upwards from the rampart can be rectified. The Mishnah says there were only twelve steps leading upwards beyond the rampart. But Yoseph speaks about the fourteen steps that led upwards from the first court (court of the Gentiles) to the second court (court of the Israelites, or Temple precincts). Yoseph also mentions "the other steps" leading from the rampart towards the gates, without mentioning their number.

B"H

In Mishnah Betza 2:3 (cf. Talmud Betzah 19a), we find a dispute between the school of Hillel and the school of Shammai.

"The school of Shammai says: They bring peace-offerings שלמים, but do not lay their hands upon them (i.e. by applying one's full-weight upon the animal). Yet, whole-burnt offerings עולות are not [brought]. The school of Hillel says: They bring both peace-offerings
and whole-burnt offerings, and they lay hands upon them."

In "Antiquities" (written in the 13th year of the reign of Caesar Domitian by the Jew, Yoseph Mathiah), we find the following anecdote. He writes in Book III, chapter X, vs. 6:
"When a week of weeks has passed over this sacrifice (which weeks contain forty and nine days), on the fiftieth day which is the Feast of Weeks, but is called by the Hebrews Asartha עצרתא, which signifies the Feast of Weeks, they bring to G-d a loaf, made of wheat flour, of two tenth deals, with leaven; and for sacrifices, they bring two lambs...they also slay three bullocks for a burnt-offering, and two rams; and fourteen lambs, with two kids of the goats, for sins; Nor is there any one of the festivals but in it they offer whole-burnt offerings עולות."

So, here, we are able to learn about our Mishnah (ibid.), namely, that the school of Shammai and the school of Hillel were not in dispute when it came to offering whole-burnt offerings on that holiday known as "Shavuoth" (the Feast of Weeks), but rather, only on the other holidays. This fact could not have been learnt by us, without looking at these histories.

B"H

In the Torah (Shemos 21: 2-3 & Vayikra 25: 39- 41), we find the laws governing Hebrew bondsmen (slaves) who are to be released from servitude at the coming Jubilee (Heb. "Yovel"). In the first of these passages (Shemos), it says:
אם בגפו יבא בגפו יצא אם בעל אשה הוא ויצאה אשתו עמו. אם אדניו יתן לו אשה וילדה לו בנים או בנות האשה וילדיה תהיה לאדניה והוא יצא בגפו

(Translation)
"…If he comes in alone, he goes out alone. If he is the husband of a wife, his wife goes out with him. If his Master should give him a wife and she gives birth unto sons for him, or daughters, the woman and her children shall be the Master's, while he shall go out alone." (Meaning, it is permitted to give a Canaanite woman unto a Hebrew bondsman for the purpose of producing offspring unto their Master. Their children have the full status of slaves. Even so, this permit is only on the condition that the Hebrew bondsman was sold by the Beis-Din, and did not sell himself into bondage.)

What is not clear by the written Law (henceforth: Torah) is what happens to the bondsman's Canaanite wife and children when he decides to continue working for his Master beyond the six-year period, and he meets up with the Jubilee? Are his Canaanite wife and children emancipated at the Jubilee? The Torah does not explain.

In the second passage (Vayikra), we find the following:
וכי ימוך אחיך עמך ונמכר לך לא תעבד בו עבדת עבד. כשכיר כתושב יהיה עמך עד שנת היבל יעבד עמך. ויצא מעמך הוא ובניו עמו וגו'

(Translation)
"When your brother waxes poor while he is with you, and is sold unto you… let him be unto you as a hired labourer… [and] let him work for you until the year of the Jubilee. At which time, let him and his sons that are with him be released [from forced labour]."
There is a problem with this verse. If the Torah referred here to the Hebrew bondsman's Jewish wife and to their children, behold, they were never enslaved in the first place to have been released! So why does the Torah say they must be released at the Jubilee? This difficulty prompted Rabbi Shimon to explain the verse as meaning that the Master of the Hebrew bondsman is obligated to support his Jewish wife and children by providing them with all necessary food and victuals for the entire duration of time that he serves under his Master. (RASHI, ibid.; Maimonides, Hilchos Avadim 3: 1)

Still, we have no indication about what happens at the Jubilee to a man's Canaanite wife and to the children which he begat through her. Rambam (Hilchos Avadim, chapter 3) gives no instructions in this matter, and even seems to rule out the possibility of their ever being set free at the Jubilee, when he wrote (Hilchos Avadim 5:1): "A Canaanite slave…purchases his freedom by money, or by a writ of manumission, or by [loss of] one of [his] principal limbs." No mention of the Jubilee!

Yoseph Mathiah, of all persons, has shed invaluable light upon this important question. In "Antiquities," Book IV, ch. VIII, vs. 28, he writes:
"If any one be sold to one of his own nation, let him serve him six years, and on the seventh let him go free. But if he have a son by a woman-servant in his purchaser's house, and if, on account of his good-will towards his Master, and his natural affection to his wife and children, he will be his servant still, let him be set free only at the coming of the year of Jubilee, which is the fiftieth year, and let him then take away with him his children and wife, and let them be free also."

It is striking to find that Yoseph Mathiah was not the only one who held this opinion. We find the same teaching in Yonathan ben Uzziel's Aramaic translation of the Torah (Devorim 15: 16-17)!! There, he writes:
ויהי ארום יימר לך לא אפוק מן גבך ארום רחימך...ויהי לך עבד פלח עד יובלא ואוף לאמתך תכתוב גט חירו ותיתן לה

(Translation)
"And when he (the Hebrew bondman) says unto you, 'I shall not go forth from you, seeing that I love you…,' let him be unto you a slave who works until the coming of the Jubilee, and you shall then write out also a writ of manumission for your [Canaanite] maidservant, and give it to her." – Meaning, the same Canaanite woman who was given unto the Hebrew bondsman in order to produce slave children unto their Master!

Here, Yonathan ben Uzziel follows the explanation of Yoseph Mathiah, explaining the passage differently from what we find in the Talmud (Kiddushin 17b), and in Rashi (Devorim 15: 17), and in Rambam (Hilchos Avadim, 3: 13). For in these places, they have all explained the passage in the following way, namely, that where the Torah says, "and also with your maidservant you shall do so" (Devorim 15: 17), it refers to the Master of a Jewish girl (who had been a maidservant) heaping generous gifts upon his Hebrew maidservant at her emancipation, just as he would do for his Hebrew bondsman who was set free at the Jubilee.

It is conceivable that what bothered Yonathan ben Uzziel that he refused to explain the above passage in the manner in which it was explained in our Talmud is that we find a teaching (q.v. Tosefta Sotah 2: 9) that says a Jewish woman can never be sold as a Hebrew maidservant by the Beis-Din, as a man can be sold. This, then, would rule out the possibility of the above passage ever referring to a Hebrew maidservant, and would explain why he wrote that a Canaanite maidservant is set free at the Jubilee. (see: Tosefos, Sotah 23b, s.v. מה בין איש לאשה). Yoseph Mathiah would have known this, too, for which reason he said that a Canaanite woman and her children are released at the Jubilee!


- TO BE CONTINUED -

B"H

The Talmud (Menachos 98b) carries a dispute between Rabbi El'azar and Rabbi Shimon regarding the position of the Menorah. Rabbi El'azar says that it was positioned in the antechamber of the Temple Sanctuary, running east and west along its south wall. Rabbi Shimon, on the other hand, says that it was positioned in the antechamber &c., running north and south at its south wall. The Jewish historian, Yoseph Mathiah, a priest of Aaron's lineage who lived during the latter period of the Second Temple, says that the Menorah was situate obliquely within the antechamber of that edifice to the G-d of our fathers. (see: "Antiquities," Book III, chapter VI, vs. 7).

B"H

We find a dispute between the early exponents of our laws (Heb. rishonim) about the word "tolaas shoni" (Heb. תולעת שני), one of the coloured fabrics woven into the High Priest's vesture (Shemos 39:2) , as also in the covering used at the entrance to the court of the Tent of Convocation, or what is called "Ohel Mo'ed," (Shemos 36:37), as also in the Tent itself.

Both, Rashi and Maimonides, say that it was "scarlet wool." Rabbi Saadia Gaon, in his Arabic translation of the Torah known as "Tifsir," says that it was "crimson-coloured silk," made from the silk worm.
Rashi and Maimonides would, of necessity, explain the aforesaid word as meaning the wool was dyed by a worm to produce its scarlet-like colour. Rabbi Saadia Gaon, likewise, explains that the silk was dyed by a so-called worm found on some trees, known in Arabic as "qirmiz," hence: our word "crimson." (A red dye produced from the dried bodies of the females of a scale insect. Taxonomic name: Kermes ilices.)

Yoseph Mathiah, who lived at a time when the High Priests of our nation still wore the priestly vestments during the Temple service, says that the "tolaas shoni" was made of "scarlet wool." (see: "Antiquities," Book IV, ch. IV, vs. 6). With what substance the wool was dyed is not stated by Yoseph, but could have very well been the scale-insect that produces the kermes dye.

David

B"H

We find a teaching in the Talmud (Rosh Hashana 3a) that says:
אמר ריש לקיש, כי משמש בד' לשונות: אי, דילמא, אלא, דהא

Translated:
Resh Lakish said: "[The word], 'Ki' (Heb. ×›×™), serves four different meanings: 'If,' 'Perhaps' (i.e., introduction to a question), 'Rather,' [and] 'For behold' (i.e. 'since' or 'seeing that', etc.)"

So the question we should ask ourselves, here, is what was meant by the third "Ki" as it appears in the pasuk (Devorim 20:19)?

כי תצור אל עיר ימים רבים להלחם עליה לתפשה לא תשחית את עצה לנדח עליו גרזן כי ממנו תאכל ואתו לא תכרת
כי האדם עץ השדה לבא מפניך במצור

"When you shall besiege a city many days, when making war against it, etc."

Yoseph Mathiah helps answer this question. We find the above commandment explained by him in his Antiquities (Book IV, ch. VIII, vs.42) as having the connotation of a question, so that the sense would mean: "...Is the tree of the field like unto man, to come in from before you during the siege?"

So, too, have we found the same explanation given by Onkelos the proselyte and Yonathan Ben-Uzziel, who have both translated the above verse, by writing:
"...the tree of the field is not like unto man, to come in from before you during the siege."

This seems to have been the Jewish consensus at the time, namely, that the third "Ki" is the introduction to a rhetorical question which follows. (The Aramaic translation of Onkelos, as most of us know, is based after teachings he learned from Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananiah.)

B"H

One of the general rules we find in the Talmud is this:

כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט

(Translation)
"A generalization, followed by a specified detail, which is again followed by a generalization, one does not infer from its generalization any lesson other than that which is true of the specified detail."

One example of this principle of logic is explained in the Talmud (Kerisus 6b) as applying to the biblical verse in Shemos 30:34. There, it says:

ויאמר יי' אל משה קח לך סמים נטף ושחלת וחלבנה סמים ולבנה זכה בד בבד יהיה

(Translation)
"And the Lo-rd said unto Moses: Take unto yourself spices, stacte (i.e. any aromatic gum resin that exudes from trees), and onycha (i.e. Greek transliteration for "fingernail" spice, or what is called in Hebrew, "shecheles"), and galbanum; [even] spices, and pure frankincense; each [spice pounded] separately."

The generalization, here, is in the word, "spices," followed by specified details of "stacte" and "onycha" (the so-called "fingernail" spice) and "galbanum" (Ferulago galbanifera, or what is sometimes classified as Ferula galbaniflua). These aforesaid specified details are once again followed by a generalization, "spices."

This would mean that the "spices" in question can only be those which have similar qualities as those named in the specified details, such as which are true of gum resins (e.g. Mastic, or terebinth gum resin, myrrh, balsam, etc.), and such as which are true of the so-called "fingernail" spice, etc.

For this reason, we find the eleven spices enumerated by the Sages in a Boraitta (Kerisus 6a), which they have specifically named as being:

1) Aromatic resins (Mastic, etc.) = Heb. הצרי
2) Onycha ("fingernail" spice, not to be confused with what is called in modern Hebrew, "tziporen" or "cloves.") = Heb. הצפורן
3) Galbanum (Ferulago galbanifera) = Heb. החלבנה
4) Frankincense (Boswellia carteri) = Heb. הלבונה
5) Myrrh (Balsamodendron myrrha or Commiphora myrrha) = Heb. מור
6) Cassia (believed to be Aquilaria agallocha, based upon the commentaries on Betza 33b, s.v. אלותא, a word translated as "aloeswood," and which word is explained in the book 'Arukh and by Rabbeinu Hananel as meaning "Cassia trees used as incense.") = Heb.קציעה
7) Valerian (Valeriana officinalis, or alternatively, Nardostachys jatamansi) = Heb.שבולת נרד
8) Saffron (Genus: Crocus) = Heb. כרכום
9) Costus (Saussurea lappa, or alternatively, Costus speciosus). = Heb. הקשט
10) Cinnamon (Cinnamonum cassia, or Cinnamonum iners, or Cinnamonum zeylanicum) = Heb. קלופה
11) Sandalwood (Santalum album or Pterocarpus santalinus) NOTE: This last spice is not to be confused with the cinnamon which is called by us today. Rather, the ancients (e.g. Rabbeinu Saadia Gaon in Song of Solomon 4:14), have translated "qinnamon" as meaning "sandalwood." Indeed, the Talmud (Shabbos 63a) says that "qinnamon" (i.e. "sandalwood") once grew in the land of Israel, but it is not to be found today. This alludes to the rarity of that wood once used in the holy incense. = Heb. קנמון

Yoseph Mathiah writes (Wars of the Jews, Book V, chapter V, verse 5) that there were "thirteen spices" used in the holy incense, some of which came "from the sea!"

The two additional "spices" mentioned by Yoseph Mathiah may have been what the Talmud refers to as "kipas hayarden," believed by some to be the fossil resin known as "amber," or either "ambergris." The other spice may have been the plant that was used in the holy incense to cause its smoke to rise perpendicular, before spreading out.

The alleged "sea spice" is confirmed also by Don Yitzchak Abarbanel, in his commentary on the Torah, as well as by Ramban (Rabbi Moshe Nachmanides), Shemos 30;34. In Ramban's words:
והשחלת צפורן יוצא מן הים

(Translation)
"But as for the shecheles, it is the 'fingernail' [spice] that comes from the sea."

Indeed, the ancients knew this "fingernail" spice (Gr. "onycha") as the fragrant outer shell, or operculum, of certain mollusks (gasteropids), which had the appearance of a claw. The same shell had the function of closing the aperture of the mollusk's shell. This fragrant operculum has also been described in Ulysis Aldrovandus' "Natural History" (De Testaceis), and was called in Latin by the name of "Byzantos" or "Blatta Byzantia." It can be found in those specie of mollusks with the following taxonomic names: Strombus fusus and Strombus murex.

Although the Talmud (Kerisus 6b) says that this spice is "produced on the ground" (Heb. גידולי קרקע), this is only because the horny or calcareous plates of this sea creature were often cast ashore by the waves, where they were found lying upon the sea shore. Now since they knew not its origin, it was formerly thought to be a product of the earth. The Arabians have often mentioned this incense in their books, and is to this very day called by them "fingernail."

Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

B"H

The "Tziporen," or "fingernail" spice used in the holy incense, would have also included those specie of mollusks known under the taxonomic classification Pleurotoma babyloniae and Pleurotoma trapezii.

The Talmud says that its odour was enhanced by rubbing it down with soap, and treating it in a bath solution of Cypriot wine, or any white, dry wine.

To give the operculum a stronger savor when laid to the coals, it was steeped in a bath of white Cypriot wine, of a kind which has come to be known today as "Commandria." This wine is taken from the variety of grapes, indigenous to Cyprus and used for centuries, known as "Xynisteri." Wines made from it contain a high level of acidity, since they are picked early.

As for the Talmud calling it "gidulei karka," ("produced from the ground"), we find other examples of this kind, when the sense is not to be literally understood as "coming from the ground." (See: Baba Kama 54b, Tosfos s.v. פרי ; Eruvin 27b -28a.)

David

B"H

One of the more extraordinary lessons taught to us by Yoseph Mathiah, and one that is yet to be fully recognised by the scholars who peruse his writings, is where he comments upon the following oral tradition and teaching prevalent in his own days. In particular, he makes a passing comment about the Mishnah in Kerisus 2:1, giving us further insight into that Mishnah, and into its underlining meaning and implication.

In the above Mishnah, we learn: “…There are four persons who are considered lacking in atonement, viz.:

a) The man who had three successive running issues from his flesh, or what is known as gonorrhea (Heb. Zav), either all in one day, or all on three consecutive days.
b) The woman who had suffered an issue of blood for at least three consecutive days (Heb. Zavah), and which blood came during any of the eleven-day period which immediately follows her monthly menstrual cycle.
c) The woman who has given birth to a child (Heb. Yoledes).
d) The leper who was initially barred from entering any walled city, by decree of a priest from Aaron's descent, and yet who was miraculously cleansed from his leprosy (Heb. Metzora) - such as when a bright-spot of leprosy that was on him spread throughout his entire body, rendering him thereby clean again.

All the above mentioned persons, once they have ceased from the malady that once plagued them, are still considered to be carrying defilement in their bodies until they have brought a sin-offering and a whole-burnt offering as part of their atonement. The term employed in the Hebrew tongue to describe their case is, “Mechusarei Kapparah” – “those lacking atonement.” Such persons are forbidden to enter into the Court of the Israelites on the Temple Mount (Mishnah Kelim 1:8), or to eat of the hallowed things, until they have offered their prescribed offerings. If they should fain attempt to do so, they become culpable.

Yoseph Mathiah writes the following anecdote in his "Antiquities," Book III, ch. XI, vs. 3, saying in effect that these were not the only ones who were lacking atonement until they brought their prescribed offerings, but that there was also another. For anyone who had been defiled by a corpse, and postponed his purification by going beyond the third and seventh days given in the Torah for being sprinkled with the ashes of the Red Heifer, he too, remains in his state of uncleanness until he can be sprinkled with the said ashes, and is required to bring a whole-burnt offering and sin-offering for his atonement, just as those mentioned in our Mishnah! So why does the Mishnah in Kerisus omit those defiled by the dead? According to Yoseph Matthiah, the reason is simple. Tanna va-she'er. (Aramaic: תנא ושייר) i.e. The Mishnah states some cases, but leaves over (does not state all cases coming under the same category). Cf. Baba Kama 15a.

Alternatively, the Mishnah has named only those cases that are expressly stated in the Torah as requiring offerings made by individuals for their atonement. The fact that the Mishnah goes on to name proselytes as "lacking atonement" until they bring their bird offerings (viz., a whole-burnt offering and a sin-offering) shows that the Mishnah's naming of only "four" was never meant to be all-inclusive.

These, then, are the words of Yoseph Mathiah:

"The law permits those who have taken care of funerals to come in after the same manner (i.e. after the conclusion of seven days), when this number of days is expired. But if any continue longer than that number of days in a state of pollution, the law appointed the offering two lambs for a sacrifice – the one of which they are to purge by fire (i.e. a whole-burnt offering), and for the other, the priests take it for themselves (i.e. a sin-offering eaten by the priests). In the same manner do those sacrifice who had the gonorrhea."

The novelty, here, lays in the fact that he who delays in having himself sprinkled with the ashes of the Red Heifer, his defilement would not only remain upon him, preventing him from eating the hallowed things, but he would also be required to bring a whole-burnt offering and sin-offering for his atonement, simply for going beyond the allotted third and seventh day time-frame prescribed in the law!

Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

Thanks, David Ben-Abraham.

Do you know of a valid edition of this book in English that does not have xtian commentary?

B"H

Chaim,

I think you'd do best to read one of the classical series that publishes the works of Josephus. I think it's called "Loeb's Classical Series," or else those that are published out of Cambridge University, or Oxford University, in England. Most Public Libraries carry these editions. They are pretty-much void of commentary of any sort.

I saw a good edition of Josephus at the Hebrew University Library in Jerusalem, with a commentary by a Jewish ph.D scholar. The next time I go there, I could check its publisher for you, and send you their names in a Private Message.

Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

B"H

We find an oral teaching in the Tosefta (Sotah 13:7) that says:

כל זמן שהיה שמעון הצדיק קיים היתה נר מערבי תדיר. משמת הלכו ומצאוהו שכבה. מכאן ואילך מוצאין אותה פעמים כבה פעמים דולק

(Translation)

"So long as Shimon Ha-Tzadik was alive, the ner ma'aravi (the western-most candle on the seven-branched candelabrum) was always alit. When he died, they came and found that it had been put-out. From that time forward, they would sometimes find it extinguished, and sometimes lit."

The "western-most candle" (Heb. ner ma'aravi) was actually centrally located, on the middle-shaft of the seven-branched candlestick, or candelabrum. By its flame, the other six candles were lit by the priests. It derives its name, according to one opinion, from the fact that the candelabrum was situate obliquely in the Temple's ante-chamber. The extreme right-hand candles were positioned "south-westerly," while the extreme left-hand candles were positioned "north-easterly."

That the seven candles were all found burning at night, or in the evening, is plain to us. We find this stated explicitly in the Book of Chronicles (Divrei Hayamim).
What was not so plain to us, is how many candles were allowed to be left burning during the day? That is, until Yoseph Mathiah revealed this fact unto us. The above-mentioned Tosefta has led many to believe that only the "ner ma'aravi," and it alone, was left burning during the day. But Yoseph Mathiah writes in his "Antiquities" Book III, ch. VIII, vs. 3:

"…Incense was to be offered twice a day, both before sun-rising and at sun-setting. They were also to keep oil already purified for the lamps; three of which were to give light all day long, upon the sacred candlestick, before G-d, and the rest were to be lighted at the evening."

This fact seems to have been confirmed also by the writer of Sifra (Toras Cohanim), on the Book of Leviticus (Vayikra 24:2), where we find the following teaching:

"To cause [the light of] a candle to go up. [Meaning], that the ner ma'aravi is always kept alit, from whence he begins [to light the other candles], and concludes with it. And at the hour when his brethren, the priests, go in to prostrate, he would proceed before them. How [exactly]? He would go inside, and [when] he found the two eastern-most candles burning, he would remove the collected soot from the eastern [candles], and leave the ma'aravi (western candle) burning, with which they light the [entire] candlestick at dusk. If they found that it was extinguished, they remove its collected soot, and re-light it from that [candle] which is on the eastern-side of him that goes up [to light the candles.] [By saying], 'Tamid,' it is implied that it is always left to burn, whether on the Sabbath day, or whether in defilement."

So, here, the sense is now plain. The "ner ma'aravi" and the two north-easterly lamps at the far end of the candelabrum were always kept burning during the day!

Thanks so much, David! I really appreciate the information; it's actually the type of reading I have been looking for.

B"H

Someone had asked me in a private message about the writings of Josephus. His question was:

“If it’s outside of SHAS, what authority does it have? There are rules of pesaq in SHAS, so where does Josephus fit in? Shall we rely on him & not SHAS? Josephus was NOT an acharon. He was BEFORE a pesaq was ever issued! The power of a bathroi is seeing the Amoraic discussions & Josephus did not see them. Can we, then, ever say the halacha is like Josephus? What does it all mean?"

* * * * * * * * * * * * Our reply to him was this:

About Josephus (Yoseph Mathiah) not being equated with SHAS, you are right. But this shouldn't bother us if it helps us to understand the SHAS, just like any other Rishon or Acharon. If we look at Josephus as a commentator, he is no less than any other.

Now while Josephus was not an acharon, he is not to be viewed as any less significant than the latter, in that he often witnessed "firsthand" events, and heard "firsthand" from the Sages who shaped our Mishnah. In this regard, it is no different from what Rav Hai Gaon wrote about the Jerusalem Talmud. He said that although we rule in accordance with the Babylonian Talmud, we may still use the Jerusalem Talmud to help us deduce certain lessons that are unclear to us in the Babylonian Talmud. He said that the Jerusalem Talmud, in this regard, is no less significant than any Rishon or Acharon who helps us understand the Talmud. So here, your question could have also been asked: "The power of a Bathroi is seeing the Amoraic discussions, and the Jerusalem Talmud did not see what the Acharonim had to write about their discussions." Rav Hai Gaon has dispelled your fears. He says that it matters very little, seeing that a "firsthand" source somehow compensates for not seeing the discussions made by the Acharonim.

As for ruling like Josephus in Halacha, I would think that so long as his conclusions do not contradict anything in the Talmud, one can rely upon him, even in halachic matters.

quote:

As for ruling like Josephus in Halacha, I would think that so long as his conclusions do not contradict anything in the Talmud, one can rely upon him, even in halachic matters.

Maybe we would call this making an independent ruling having been inspired toward our novel conclusion by reading Josephus?

I heard a shiur about dreams in which the rabbi explained that we do not rely upon dreams to learn a halacha, but if some logic came through to us during a dream which makes sense there is nothing wrong with relying on our logical reasoning regardless of whether it was inspired by something in a dream or not.

B"H

For your information:

It was recently pointed out to me that a certain Professor David Goldenberg (addresss: 113 Edgehill Road, Bala Cynwyd, PA. 19004, U.S.A.) has written a doctoral dissertation in 1978 at Dropsie University in Philadelphia, on the comparison of Josephus and Halakhah.

Josephus has also been linked to the writing of other works, such as the possiblity of the netzrim writings being a satirical account as they parallel his (Josephus') account of Titus' campaign in Judea against the Sacarii revolt prior to 70 ce. A doctrinal thesis was written that put forth a viable connection between the so-called new testament and the Jewish War as being interrelated works; called "The Roman Origins of Christianty". It would certainly atest to Y.M/Josephus being knowledgable about halacha, because only someone who knew halacha at a high level could pervert it into sheker so effectively as to deluded not just hunderds or thousands, yet even generations. The book (written by a gentile) lacks any througho Jewish comprehension of the situation, yet in many points has merit such as the chronological event order of both Titus and the yesh (interesting, and very obvious once you put then side by side) - I choose to read it as a class assignment in 'comparative religions' about four years ago. It really got the class discussion-time whipped into a frenzy!

B"H

Yehonaton, Shalom!

I really do not follow what you're trying to say, here, or what exactly all this has to do with Josephus.

At any rate, certain Slavic editions of Josephus had allegedly forged certain things in the name of Josephus about Yeshka. I, too, tend to view that passage as being a forgery. He is also often exaggerated in his account of time, when we compare the time frame he gives for certain events with traditional Jewish sources (i.e., the Tosefta, etc.). Perhaps a second hand touched these, as well. Still, his work is indispensable when looking for a contemporary source during the latter years of the second Temple period.

David

Yes, David... Agreed. The premise of my comment was not that Josephus' work had been forged yet that this gentile author has proposed that because of Joshepus' ties to the Flavian family as an adopted son of Titus, (or traitor from the Sacarii perspective), he may have had a hand in creating an ultimate propaganda tool for the Roman Empire that went far beyond what the Imperial Family had even imagined. It basically points to the possible connection that Josephus had a hand in writing documents that were purposely pre-dated (in the use of language and depiction) so as to make them appear as being 'prophetic'... It basically states that the source material of the so-called new testament is not the Tanakh. The parallel passages of Josephus' "War of the Jews" is put forth as being the source material. Very interesting read, although not quite up to Judaic scholarly level. One point that is made well in the book (Roman Origins of 'Xnity') is that of the use of Roman satire in their transmitting of historical information, and how the Roman Colleges were in control of all ideology except among the Judaic region. This makes the premise of the n.t. as a propaganda tool very plausible, as it seems to fit with the Flavian take-over of the Imperial House from the Julian Family during that period of history. I just added the comment with regard to Josephus being a pivotal historian and his influence both in accuracy and in skewing the perspective of historical events. (Hope my comments are clearer now...) todah rabbah.