The Book of Nehemiah gives us some insight into the restoration of Israel and the Torah in the time of Ezra and the return from Babylon.
It also gives an insight into the religious practices of the day, and is furthermore cited by many as a proof text for the Oral Law.
In Ch 8, we see Ezra making a public reading of the Law, on Yom Teruah (1st of the seventh month)
1. And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that [was] before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded to Israel.
2 And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month.
A few passages later, we are told how Ezra’s associates explained the law to the people.
7 Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people [stood] in their place.8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused [them] to understand the reading.
I did think this might be an allusion to the Oral Law. But, in its plain meaning, it is simply the knowledgeable people explaining to the assimilated Israelites/ Jews. Perhaps even translating, since they no longer spoke Hebrew.
Further to our recent discussion on 2 days of Rosh Hashana, the next verse is used as support by Rashi and Metzudath David, toshwo they already kept 2 days for this:
13 And on the second day were gathered together the chief of the fathers of all the people, the priests, and the Levites, unto Ezra the scribe, even to understand the words of the law
They claim that the 2nd day was Rosh Hashana, although the text does not mention it to be a festival. This claim is further demolished if we study the following verses, which describe their actions on that day:
14 And they found written in the law which the LORD had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month:15 And that they should publish and proclaim in all their cities, and in Jerusalem, saying, Go forth unto the mount, and fetch olive branches, and pine branches, and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and branches of thick trees, to make booths, as [it is] written.16 So the people went forth, and brought [them], and made themselves booths, every one upon the roof of his house, and in their courts, and in the courts of the house of God, and in the street of the water gate, and in the street of the gate of Ephraim
This is actually suggesting that
a) they learnt form the text about Sukkot
b) They went out and declared the mitzvah
c) they went out to cut wood and branches etc.
It does not say explicitly that it was done on the second day, but it is possible that it was. Furthermore, if this could mislead people into making their sukkot on the 2nd day of Yom Tov, there would be a warning as there was earlier, regarding mourning on the First day.
At the end of v.15, it says , as written [kaKatuv]. This was written in their Sefer Torah , ie instructions to build a sukka! It is not mentioned about an Oral tradition of the dimensions of the Sukka, its coverage etc, which is found in the mishna! They simply did as they deduced from the text. This seems to be a recurring theme (cf Kings sefer, Hakhel etc). Incidentally, the sukka is a classical example of information NOT given in the Torah itself, implying an Oral Law.
There is a further claim for the Oral Law, which is made in connection to Ruth , ie that the prohibition against marrying Moabites does not apply to female Moabites. In 13:23, Nehemia testifies that the Jews had married Moabitesses – which was a “sin”. This is not necessarily a Biblical Law, we must question how accurate Ezra’s tradition was. It is, however, a refutation of any Claim that Ezra was part of the chain of transmission of the Oral Law. If that were the case, he would know that it wasn’t forbidden (as in Ruth’s case).
Posted by Eddie at September 20, 2004 11:27 AM | TrackBackAlso, the Zoroastrian writing I quoted from were compiled between 200 BCE and 140 CE according to some scholars. So references to Jews and Christians would be reasonable.
As to the distinction between Zoroastrian and Jew at that time, we have to remember that Jews came under Hellenistic and then Roman influence during that period, and most likely deviated from the Persian outlook to some degree. The Persians themselves were influenced by Greek thought.
SL
Posted by: SL Aronovitz at September 25, 2004 01:38 AMEddie,
Right, but only as a matter of comparison. Zoroastrianism existed alongside Judaism and Christianity, and still exists today, thought it's numbers are small.
It must have been tough for the conquered peoples of Judea. Assailed by the locals, then the Babylonians, then the Persians, then the Syrian Hellenists, then the Romans, then etc..... It is hard to keep track of who left us with what, but there isn't much doubt as to how our contact with them has changed Judaism. The changes made by the Persians and the Greeks were insitutional changes, and are evident in the tone of later Prophets and Writings.
SL
Posted by: SL Aronovitz at September 24, 2004 07:00 PMSL
Interesting article on Zartosht..
It makes references to christians and jews - hence its source must be some time after Christianity came to being.
Ezzie preceeded this by around 600 years.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
SL,
I agree with you about the mikvehs - that was my point. There is no need for a mikveh, a shower or bath will suffice! However, unless I misunderstood your last post, you claimed that Ezra and Nehemia instituted Mikvehs. Where is that written?
Posted by: Josiah at September 23, 2004 06:17 AMThe Rabbis deduce from the term "mey niddah" referring to purification of pots and pans captured in war, the concept of a mikve designed for the nidda. that is why they also immerse new pots and pans and crockery etc
Posted by: Eddie at September 22, 2004 11:00 PMRe: where it is written....
Lev. 18:19 "and unto a woman during the unseemliness of her period, you should not draw close to uncover her nakedness." (I really hate translating that way.) There is no mention of mikveh, washing, waiting, counting, etc.
Lev. 20:18 “If a man lies with a woman during her period and uncovers her nakedness, opening her source, and she exposed the source of her blood; both of them will be cut off from the people.”
Both prohibitions are listed among the sexual taboos, but NOT among the laws of ritual purity. Being read in context lets one know clearly that this restriction is not one of purity in the sense of ritual cleanliness, but rather is one of a moral/social nature, similar to those other sexual restrictions it is listed among.
There is no specific detail as to what "washing" means. Many verses relating to ritual impurities say "verochatz es besaro" (He should wash his body), but give no detail as how to wash. The Torah does not say anywhere "vetovayl es besaro" (he should immerse his body), but simply bathe, which reasonably could mean just a simple bath or even shower. In addition, if her period was a matter of ritual impurity, then it would have a sacrifice of some sort associated with it, yet there is none.
There is an exception for a woman after childbirth, but this case is ONLY related to after childbirth and NOT normal sexual contact.
Lev. 12:2-8 “When a woman gets pregnant and bears a son, she will be unclean for seven days; just as during her period she will be unclean. (Skip to verse 4) “And for 33 days she will wait for blood purification; no holy thing can she touch, and to the temple she may not come until her days of purification are complete.”
Skip to verse 6 – 8 where it lists in detail the place, time, and number of sacrifices she must bring in order to be allowed into the Temple. No where does it mention mikveh or washing at all!! So we find that even in a case where the temple is involved, where ostensibly the standard should be much higher, that there is no washing involved in the woman’s purification, but merely a waiting period and a small sacrifice.
The changes imposed by Ezra and Nechemia accompanied the changes that went along with the Cyrus’ Temple. The Jews did not build an alternate Temple on Gerizim for no reason, but because they SAW what was going on in Jerusalem, along with the new rules imposed upon them, along with a different language (Avestan.) Part of the new rules were ritual immersion and extra stringencies for all sorts of things, both holy and mundane, which came directly from Zoroastrian law, but NOT from the Torah. (I will now quote sources since nobody here wants to do their own homework.)
http://www.avesta.org/pahlavi/shayest3.html
This link will take you to Shayest Na-Shayest ('Proper and Improper'), a chapter out of the Avesta, which is part of the body of intricate Zoroastrian laws related to ritual impurities of menstruation. If you do not see the close similarities between rabbinic doctrine and the Zoroastrian laws, then I can’t help you sort out the issue. It’s quite obvious. Connect the dots.
Jews conquered by Persia. Persia has evangelical Zoroastrian King. Jews exiled to Persia become influenced (converted) by the King. King sends ministers (Ezra and Nechemiah) back to their native homelands to spread Zoroastrianism, thus promoting both the religion and securing the realm through unifying the religious practices. No doubt there was a political end in mind also. Let’s not forget, it is likely that Ezra and Nechemiah were either accompanied by Persian forces, or at least had the threat of their presence available to them to enforce the new changes.
SL
Posted by: SL Aronovitz at September 21, 2004 11:05 AMSorry. BCV is a common term used on the common karaite discussion forums meaning "Book, Chapter, Verse" - i.e. "Where is it written?"
Posted by: Josiah at September 21, 2004 08:55 AMRight. I was about to ask what BCV is.
Posted by: Ami at September 20, 2004 10:39 PMJosiah,
Stop using abbreviations. I have no idea what you are referring to.
SL
Posted by: SL Aronovitz at September 20, 2004 05:07 PMSL,
If you're going to say they did something, back it up with BCV. One of the things I'd like evidence for is a mikveh. Where are they even mentioned in the Tanakh?
Posted by: Josiah at September 20, 2004 04:26 PMSL:
If you give an example, then we want to see evidence for it.
"Example.
The Torah forbids a man and woman from having sexual relations during her period. After her period stop they may resume sexual contact. Pretty simple. "
Where is the evidence that this was the formula in the Torah? Which Torah are u referring to, and can you provide a source?
cheers
Ezra and Nechemia introduced eugenics during that time. Why were Jews marrying foreign women at all if the Torah had forbid it? We have dozens of examples in the Torah of prominent Jews taking gentile wives. (The orthodox always answer with "the women converted first.")
The Persian ministers decided to intoduce the same level of ritual purity into the everyday life of the Jews that existed up until that time only within the walls of the Temple. This rigid and controlling attitude, prevalent among the Zoroastrians, would change Judaism forever.
Example.
The Torah forbids a man and woman from having sexual relations during her period. After her period stop they may resume sexual contact. Pretty simple.
After the reformations of Ezra and Nechemia, a woman was required to maintain the same standard as one who became ritually impure for Temple purposes, which meant longer waiting periods and more restrictions on both husband and wife. Now, the wife waits until the end of her period, counts seven clean days afterward, attends the mikveh, and then the couple may resume relations.
None of the above mentioned rules are found in the Torah.
SL
Posted by: SL Aronovitz at September 20, 2004 01:41 PM