The Mishna's regarding the Myth of the Ineffable Name
Thesis: According to the Mishna the name of God was spoken in the secular and religious life of first century Jerusalem on a regular basis.
Outline:
I The Place of the Mishnaic traditions in the first century
II The name of God pronounced as it is written, in the Mishna
A Yahuwah pronounced in the daily greeting of ordinary Israeli’s according to Halakha
Mishna Berakoth 9:5
a. Text, context, literary context
b. Scriptural authority
c. The reason for the decree
B Yahuwah pronounced by the priests in the daily blessing of the people
Mishna Tamid 7:2
Mishna Sotah 7:6
a. Text, Context, Literary Context
b. Scriptural Authority
C. Yahuwah pronounced by the High Priest in intercession at Yom Kippur
Mishna Yoma 6:2
Mishna Yoma 3:8
Mishna Yoma 4:2
a. Text, Context, Literary Context
b. Scriptural Authority
D. Yahuwah pronounced by Israeli’s in a way, which offends Abba Shaul
Mishna Sanhedrin 10:1
a. Text, Language, Context, Literary Context
E. Yahuwah pronounced in a blasphemy case for the court of law
Mishna Sanhedrin 7: 5
a. Text, Language, Context, Literary Context
III The first and second century Jesus Traditions regarding his use of the name
The I am saying of John’s Gospel with the Jews
The Testimony of Toldoth Yeshu
Baruch ha ba Beshem Yahuwah
The purpose of this paper is to show that according to the traditions handed down among the Tannaim of the first and second century AD the Tetragrammaton was spoken regularly in the first century among the people of Israel, the priests and the high priest in Jerusalem. At that time the idea of the name being ineffable was really meaningless because the name was always spoken in one context or another.
The Historical background to the discussion needs to be outlined. According to some scholars the name of God, Yahuwah, was first revealed to Moses somewhere between the 1200 and 1500 BCE. It consisted of four letters Yod Heh Vav Heh. The event is recorded in Exodus 3. In the tradition recorded in Exodus some scholars will see two traditions being intermingled together based on the JEDP theory. This need not detain us, it not being material to the first century CE position on the name. Moses receives what appear to be two names. He is told to tell Israel that Eheyeh (I am or I will be) has sent him, immediately afterwards he is told to tell them “Yahuwah, the God of your Fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has sent me to you” Yahuwah goes on to comment on this statement to Moses “This is my name forever, my memorial from generation to generation”. From here on, in Israelite history the name Yahuwah takes a very prominent place. Moses uses the name to Pharaoh and Pharaoh a Gentile replies with the name. Moses gives the first Theophoric name with the name Yahuwah by putting the name in Hoshea son of Nun’s name by changing it from Hoshea (H-O-Sh-A) to Yahoshua (Y-H-O-Sh-A) and Yahoshua succeeds Moses as captain of Israel. The following period of the Judges contains an incident, which becomes important in legislating use of the name in the second temple period among the sages of the Mishna. It is recorded in the Book of Ruth chapter 2:4. In the incident, Boaz goes out to the field and greets his laborer “Yahuwah imakem” that is “Yahuwah be with you”. They respond “Yeveraqa Yahuwah” “May Yahuwah bless you”. So we see the author of Ruth records a tradition that men used to greet one another with the name Yahuwah. In Judges 6:12 we also read of a man being greeted with the name Yahuwah. Here Gideon is greeted by the Angel of Yahuwah “Yahuwah imaqa” Yahuwah is with you”. So the author of Judges also retains a tradition of men being greeted by “Yahuwah be with you”. Both these statements will be taken up in the Mishna as examples of how men were ordained in the second temple period to greet one another. They also show that at the time of the writings of the tradition there was no embarrassment felt in speaking or hearing the name spoken. The name was a part of the daily life, as I will argue it was in the first century in Jerusalem. The earliest Psalms and songs of the Tanakh place great emphasis on the name Yahuwah, such as The Song of Devorah, Psalm 68 and the Song of Moses. The use of Yahuwah continues throughout the life of David who put great emphasis on the name in his normal sayings and the psalms he wrote. Later on during this period some hesitation seems to have crept in with the redactors of some later books of psalms working over the earlier Psalms where Yahuwah is emphasized and replacing the name with Elohim. Through out the whole first temple period the name is used freely in worship and daily life of the Kingdom of Judah, however in the northern Kingdom of Israel the name is increasing replaced with Baal and the writings of Jeremiah presents evidence that in the northern Kingdom the name was forgotten for Baal and in the southern kingdom the name was being replaced by dreams in prophetic circles, and they were conspiring to cause Judah to forget the name Yahuwah.
The writings of the exilic and postexilic periods show that the name begins to disappear from its regular usage before. We can see this in the Aramaic writings of Daniel and Ezra in the Bible. Here we see especially in Ezra that even the name in theophoric names begins to disappear. So Yahoshua becomes Yeshua and Yehozadak becomes Yozadak. However in the writings of Zechariah and Haggai the prophet these theophoric names maintain their Hebrew forms and their theophoric nature. This evidence points to the fact that it is the influence of foreign cultures and languages, which is militating against the use of God name, even in terms of writing it.
When it comes to the Hellenistic period we find that in the earliest manuscripts of the Septuagint and other Hellenistic Jewish writings we have, the name of Yahuwah is retained in the Greek text in a number of ways. The LXX’s rendering of the man who blasphemed the name Yahuwah in Numbers is revealing. He was not said to blaspheme the name but to name the name Yahuwah. A very different thing but this according to translators of the Septuagint was enough to merit the death penalty. Just to name the name Yahuwah. We se a similar thing in the New Testament trial of Jesus where he simply seems to be saying “Ego Eimi”, “Eheyeh” or “Ani Hu”, but the High priest responds with “Blasphemy” “a charge that would be more understandable if Jesus were claiming a divine name rather than affirming messiahship”
In Greek writings firstly the name is retained in Paleo Hebrew letters, secondly in Assyrian square script, thirdly in the transliterated form Iao and fourthly in the form “pipi” where Greek letters which have a similar form to the Assyrian square script forms of the name are used. In the first century CE we see Philo and Josephus referring to tradition restricting the use of the name in speech and in writing, Philo writing before the destruction of the Temple from a province and Josephus writing around 20 years after the destruction of the Temple and after Yavneh was established.
Our Goal and the Mishna
We have a number of sayings in the which indicate to us traditions received by the redactors of the Mishna as to how the name of God was used according to its letters in the period of the last 70 years of the Temple. Our focus is on these sayings as indicators of the use of the name in that period. Our main problem then is firstly that the redacted Mishna is written down at the earliest around the year 220 CE. That is at least 150 years after the period we are interested in. It is written down in a place and in language which is probably different to the language spoken that century and a half before and it is written having passed through the time of Hillel, Gamaliel the Elder, Simon ben Gamaliel the Elder, Johanan ben Zakkai, Gamaliel II, Simeon ben Gamaliel II and the Nasi Rabbi Judah, a period of about 200 years. Danby presents the position that the Mishna in the present form of 6 Sedorot and 63 Tractates was first used by Akiva who died around 135 having espoused, erroneously Bar Kosiba as Messiah. His halakoth were inherited by his disciple Rabbi Meir, who is said to be the authority behind the anonymous halakoth in the Mishna, according Johanan of Nappah (d 279), and all his decisions are in line with Akiva. Rabbi Judah inherited from Meir and with the purpose
“To make and end of the confusion which was growing around the subject of the Law owing to multiplicity of schools and teachers and systems”
We have no guarantee that the Mishna was written down in the period of Rabbi Judah the Nasi. Firstly because we know that the Mishna as redacted today contains names of Rabbis who live after Rabba Judah died and from that fact that Rabbi Judah’s death is mentioned in the Mishna. “When Rabbi died, humility and the shunning of sin ceased” The Mishna itself does not claim Rabbi Judah was its editor but the two talmuds make the claim and it is not contradicted.
Neusner separates off Tractate Aboth from the Mishna as being a later addition on the basis that Rabbis from a later generation are cited. Because of the quotes of Johanan of Nappaha some believe that the Mishna was not written down until centuries after Judah the Nasi died. According to Johanan one who wrote down the Halakhot was like one who burned the Torah and so, according to this tradition, right up until near the end of the 3rd century it was still considered unacceptable to write the oral traditions down.
Recent scholarship of those following the methodology of Neusner have shown that we can not be sure that sayings attributed to a certain Rabbi were ever said by that Rabbi not that what was said to be spoken was actually spoken in those words at all. This uncertainty applies to the Mishna as much as to the Talmud’s and so in looking at all these uncertainties around the text of the Mishna we begin to get some idea of how uncertain it must be to be sure of how the name Yahuwah, spoken according to its letters was used in first century Temple Judaism.
On a positive note we have evidence that some tractates of the Mishna appear to go back to Rabbis of the second temple period. These are according to Danby, Yoma, Tamid, Middoth and Kinnim. Middoth is linked with the name Eliezer Ben Jacob and Tamid with Simeon of Mitzpah. Some sayings of the Mishna are in an archaic Hebrew indicating that they may retain very old traditions. Although the redactors of the Mishna may have formalized many of the sayings to fit into their philosophy and plan they have certainly not reduced all the sayings into uniform patterns and some indication of the diachronic elements of the document has been retained.
II The name of God pronounced as it is written in the Mishna
A Yahuwah pronounced in the daily greeting of ordinary Israeli’s according to Halakha
Mishna Berakoth 9:5
At the close of every benediction in the Temple they used to say, ‘For everlasting’; but after the heretics has taught corruptly and said that there is but one world, it was ordained that they should say, ‘from everlasting to everlasting’. And it was ordained that a man should salute his fellow with [the use of] the name [of God] for it is written, And behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem, and said unto the reapers, The Lord be with you. And they answered him, the Lord bless thee. And it is written, the Lord is with thee, mighty man of valor. And it is written, And despise not thy mother when she is old. And it is written, It is time to work for the Lord: they have made void thy Law. R. Nathan says: They have made void thy Law because it was time to work for the Law
d. Text, context, literary context
We are seeking to get and accurate understanding of how the name of God the Tetragrammaton was used in the speech of first century Jews living in Israel. Was the name spoken it was written or was the practice of substitution in place? Was the name spoken at all and heard at all by those around? Was the name used only once a year by the high priest on Yom Kippor or was it used more regularly than that?
Basing our observations on the Mishna Textus Receptus used by Danby and his translations of that, with some critical comparisons taking into account of the Kaufman, Cambridge and Parma manuscripts we need to be aware that our discoveries are of limited value. However they can bring us some way to clearing away some of myths regarding the use of the name in the Second Temple period which are quite widespread, at the least in using this Mishna we can get some idea of traditions which Rabbis of early third century Palestine received from their teachers regarding first century use of the name in the Temple.
Looking at the internal evidence from Mishna Berakoth 9:5 we see immediately a text, which points us to the first Temple and to the first century. It also shows Rabbis indicating interest in change over time and we see one of the mechanisms for bringing the changes were the teachings of those who by some manuscripts are called Hatzdukim and by other Minim. The phrases “Used to conclude” and “used to say” are juxtaposed with the teaching of the Tzadukim or the Minim “Olam eleh echad” and lead to the ordaining or enjoining of a new conclusion to the Blessings. They decreed a change from saying ‘Min-ha Olam” to saying “Min ha olam ve ad ha Olam”. The text goes on to assert that a decree was made that
Vehitqinu sheihe adam shoel et-shalom chavero beshem
And they further ordained that one should greet his fellow by mentioning the name of God
We see from the evidence here that a tradition was held in the early third century that at one time it was ordained in the late second temple period that a man should greet his fellow “Beshem”, which is taken to mean in the name of God. In the argument of the text it would appear to say that this ordinance was tied to the previous one about saying “min ha olam ve ad ha olam”. But I think it is unnecessary to assume this. It is often the case that different ideas are brought together in the Mishna by an association of number or something trivial. The association here would appear to be that the Tzadukim or the Minim not only had a problem with there being more than one Olam but they had a problem with saying the name of God or used another name which offended the authors of the decree. We are told here quite clearly that at some point in the second temple period it was ordained that a man should greet his fellow with the name. The authority for this practice is cited as Ruth 2:4 and Judges 6:11, both of which show a greeting with the Tetragrammaton. The authorities here appear to be countering a teaching of this particular sect of minim whether Sadducees or not but who had a problem with speaking the name Yahuwah. If we compare the two cases the olam and the name we might conclude that even as they used to say “min ha olam” but now they say “min ha olam ad ha olam” so they used to have a particular attitude to the use of the name but now the attitude is to “et shalom chaveru Beshem”. The greeting according to the scriptures being quoted is however different from the greeting according to the Hebrew here in the Mishna.
Vehineh voaz ba mibeit lechem vayomer laqotzrim h imakem
Vehineh-voaz ba mibeit lechem veyomer laqotzrim Yahuwah imakem
The tradition prevailing at the time the Mishna was redacted clearly constrains them from even writing the full name Yahuwah out and a “heh” is substituted. Does this mean that the greeting in the Name was also a substitute? I suggest this is not the case. For in the first century the evidence is very clear that what was written and what was spoken are not necessarily related. It is according to this ordinance possible to believe that first century men and their friends were commanded to greet one another with the phrase Yahuwah imakem or Yahuwah imaqa. If we consider the scriptural authority for this ordinance which do not see any reference to a decree in the Torah but two examples drawn from other scriptures. One of a landowner greeting his harvesters and one of an Angel greeting a farmer, thus we see a decree by the authorities is seen by the later commentator as seeking to bring the name of God into the daily life of ordinary people with the intention of respecting the law. Those issuing the decree to bring the name Yahuwah, into the common life could not have been thinking the name is so holy it can not be spoken but by the high priest in the Temple. Rather they were saying to ensure those who make void the Torah do not have their way we must cause people to greet one another with the name Yahuwah. Not only this but this practice is a way of showing respect to our mother the Torah when she is old. The enactors of this law, according the later commentator of the Mishna, who is looking back and being anonymous may be Rabbi Meir in line with the tradition of Akiva, understand that those who are making this decree or enjoining the practice, are acting for Yahuwah. For the last scripture cited is:
Et la asot la h hephro torateqa (Mishna)
Et la asot la Yahuwah hepheru torateqa (Bible)
It is time for thee Yahuwah, to work for they have made void thy Torah
The perception then of the commentator on the tradition he has received is that Psalm 119:26 was applicable to the need to decree the use of the name in greeting the people. If this is the case then the action of this decree as seen as an act of Yahuwah to make valid his law. The very process of greeting one another with the name Yahuwah is seen here as an action of Yahuwah in validating his law. It practice is a way of respecting the mother Torah when she is old. It would appear that a restriction on using the name Yahuwah in daily living was not in place when this decree was made, especially in the case of Jerusalem and the Temple.
We should also note that none of the scriptural authority is from the Torah. There is no reason to believe with Alon below that it was Torah to greet one another with the name before this decree, for the authority of the Torah as a source of the practice is not appealed to but rather the Writings were appealed to. It is likely that the scriptures were handed down with the tradition and not by the commentator or redactor, for they fit very well with the practice enjoined and give it substance.
Secondly that this practice was enjoined in response to a group perceived by the Pharisees as heretical or at least perceived by the descendents of the Pharisees as heretical, who insisted that men should not greet one another with the name or insisted that men should greet one another with a substitute name or believed in a name the authorities did not agree with. So the authorities that ordained this insisted that it was right to use the name. They also saw the Minim as being those who despised their mother when she was old (meaning the Torah) or in clear terms made void the Torah. So the Minim were perceived to be seeking to nullify the Law.
The group being refuted in the second case regarding the name does not necessarily have to be the group being refuted in the first case regarding Olam. This being so can we see a group in the first century Palestine who were seen as substituting another name for what the Pharisees considered the true name of God and who were seen as despising the Law or nullifying the Law in some sense, in the eyes of the Pharisee, like the Sadducee.
The timing of these decrees is not given. However if we take the title Minim as being in the first place applied to Jewish Christians, perhaps especially the Pauline variety we find a group who not only may have been perceived as focused on another name “Yeshua” but also perceived as making the Law void although they understood that they were upholding the Law. The decree to greet one another in the name would be a response to the Christians doing whatever they did in word or did in the name of the Lord Yeshua the Mashiach. According to the Book of Acts the Notzrim were forbidden by the Sanhedrin from speaking any more in this name:
And when they had summoned them
they commanded them not to speak or teach in the name of Jesus
The word here for commanded is parangello one of whose meanings is “to enjoin” or to transmit a message may parallel the kind of this this Mishna is saying the authorities used to do. We know from the Cairo Geniza that and Christianity in Talmud and Midrash that the term Minim is often used in Rabbinic literature to refer to Christians so the idea is not completely far fetched. Is it possible that the response of the Jerusalem authorities to the newly popular name “Yeshua” they refocused on the name Yahuwah? The council according to Luke said “in order that it may not spread any further among the people let us warn them to speak no more to any man in this name”. And our argument would go on to say ‘Let them speak to one another in the name Yahuwah”.
Secondly the charge is about despising your mother when she is old and making void the Torah. One of the main accusations against Yeshua among the Pharisees and the authorities was that he did not keep Shabbat. The Church continued meeting for the decades in the Temple but at the same time taught against the Temple in the Hellenistic branch of the Church. We see Stephen in Acts 6 and Paul from about AD 33 or AD 37 at the latest. Is it possible this decree was a response to the teaching of the Church about the name Jesus and about the relationship to the Torah? The idea of the Church despising the Torah could have developed from some of the ideas prevalent in the Church from the beginning, especially if the Pharisee’s included in their conception of Law the “traditions of their fathers” as the New Testament and Josephus maintain they did. Jesus considered that Isaiah 29:13 was applicable to the Pharisees and their version of the Law.
Because this people draw near with their words and honor with their lip service,
but they remove their hearts far from me, and their reverence for me consists of tradition learned by rote
Here we see a very strong censure of an oral tradition which the Pharisees may have considered Law but Jesus was not impressed with according to Matthew 15:8 and Mark 7:6-7.
Paul, continued the work of Jesus after the ascension picked up on the next two verse of Isaiah 29:verse 14
Therefore behold I will once again deal marvelously with this people, wondrously marvelous;
And the wisdom of their wise men shall perish and the discernment of their discerning men shall be concealed.
He refers to this in 1 Cor 1:19.
So we have both Jesus and Paul indicating that the Oral traditions, for the Isaiah passage is deal with oral teachings, which the Pharisees loved so much was unacceptable to God an would lead to wise men acting foolishly and disappearance of discernment. Even Peter and John in Acts “despised” the decree of the Sanhedrin labeling it as “of men” rather that what they had seen and heard which was from God. The Sanhedrin was the highest organ for the execution of the Law in the Jewish nation.
We would also need to consider if there is evidence of Pharisee’s using the name at all in that period. And the answer is that we find evidence for this in the Tosepfta where we find in Yadayim2: 20 a conflict between the Pharisee’s and the Morning Bathers. The Pharisees are accused of uttering the name with out first undergoing immersion. This implies a use of the name with out a great deal of ritual and would bring them closer to the position taken above in response to the Minim and their use of another name or the ban on the use of the name.
According to Alon, Geiger argued that the Halakha regarding the expressed name as the one above were reactions to a group of Minim who had banished the use of the name completely. The ban on the name would then be the older tradition and the ordination of its use the later position. The Minim represented here are the Dosithean Samaritans. But we could see this enjoining of the name as a greeting in the Temple as a response the group of Priests who formed the Yachad in Qumran. In that community there was a complete ban on the pronunciation of the name as can be seen in the Dead Sea Scrolls
Alon sees the greeting in another way. He argues that the greeting was in place at an earlier time as Law
It appears to me the object of the enactment was to demonstrate against the schools of the Hasidim (Pietists) who made it standard practice, on account of the sanctity of the name, and because of the to be in a state of purity when mentioning it…to refrain from ‘secularizing’ the use of the name for the purpose of greetings in their contacts with individuals.
It was then a restoration of a custom, which was seen as Law but had been temporarily put aside for various reasons by earlier sages
Later Sages wished to combat an erroneous usage, that the people should not diminish the use of the Name of God and cause it to be forgotten by removing it from the greeting of friends and acquaintances as they were accustomed to do.
As far as I can see it seems very likely that the further enjoining was linked with the rise of the Notzrim in Jerusalem and Israel. It was not that the greeting had not been in place but rather because of the focus of the Minim on the name Jesus and the down playing of the role of Law the authorities responded with an increased focus on the name of God. This tells us that according to the evidence in the Mishna the name Yahuwah was used in the daily life of the people of Jerusalem who attended the temple. It was used not for some great religious reason but for the purpose of greeting one another. The text does not say it was spoken according to its letters, but nor does it say a substitute was used. The basic understanding then needs to be that, unless something is found to the contrary it was the name spoken and not a substitute. For the Mishna usually indicates that in the provinces substitutes were used but in the Temple the name was spoken as written. But clearly our conclusion is limited by the small amount of evidence we have and what we have will have to be compared with the evidence we will look at later.
Yahuwah pronounced by the priests in the daily blessing of the people
Mishna Tamid 7:1-2
When the High Priest came [to the Sanctuary] to prostrate himself, three [priests] held him, one by his right hand and one by his left hand, and one by the precious stones; and when the officer heard the sound of the High Priest’s feet as he came out, he raised the curtain for him, and he went him in prostrated himself and came out. Then his brethren the priests went in and prostrated themselves and came out.
They came and stood on the steps of the Porch…They then pronounced the Blessing [of the priests] over the people as a single Blessing; in the provinces it was pronounced it was pronounced as three Blessings, but in the Temple as a single Blessing. In the Temple they pronounced the name as it is written, but in the provinces by a substituted word. In the provinces the priests raised there hands as high as their shoulders, but in the temple above their heads, excepting the High Priest, who raised his hands only as high as the frontlet. R. Judah(b ilai 140-165, Danby) says: The High Priest also raised his hand above the frontlet, for it is written, And Aaron lifted up his hands towards the people and blessed them
Where as in the last example we were dealing with all men whether Israel or proselyte, in this case the text deals with the speech of the priests. Whereas in the last case a Halakha or an ordinance was passed in this case no ordinance needed to be made for the law being followed need not be derived from the example of men in scripture but a specific practice or rule for Priests to Bless is Israel is contained in the Torah.
Mishna Sotah 7:6
After what manner was the blessing of the priests? In the provinces it was pronounced as three Blessings, but in the Temple as a single Blessing; in the Temple they pronounced the Name as it was written,but in the provinces by a substituted word.
C. Yahuwah pronounced by the High Priest in intercession at Yom Kippur
Mishna Yoma 6:2
And when the priests and the people which stood in the Temple Court heard the Expressed Name come forth from the mouth of the High Priest, they used to kneel and bow themselves and fall on their faces and say: Blessed be the name of the glory of his kingdom for ever and ever!’
Mishna Yoma 3:8
O God, I have committed iniquity, transgressed, and sinned before thee, I and my house, as it is written in the law of thy servant Moses, For on this day shall atonement be made for you to cleanse you; from all your sins shall ye be clean before the Lord [Yahuwah] (see Tamid 2:8)
And they answered after him, Blessed be the name of the glory of his kingdom forever and ever!
Mishna Yoma 4:1-2
He shook the casket and took up two lots. On one was written ‘For the Lord’, and on the other was written For Azazel. The Prefect was on his right and the chief of his father house was on his left. If the lot bearing the Name came up to his right hand the Prefect would say to him, my lord High Priest, raise thy right hand’; and if it came up in his left hand the chief of the father’s house would say to him, ‘My lord High Priest, raise thy left hand’. He put them on the two He goats and said “A Sin offering to the Lord [Yahuwah]! R. Ishmael says: He needed not to say ‘A Sin offering’, but only ‘To the Lord [Yahuwah]. And they answered after him, ‘Blessed be the name of the glory of his kingdom for ever and ever’.
In Mishna 4:2 the name is pronounced in the same scripture quote as in Mishna 3:8, Leviticus 16:30. “You shall be clean before the Lord [Yahuwah]”
D. Yahuwah pronounced by Israeli’s in a way, which offends Abba Shaul
Mishna Sanhedrin 10:1
All Israelites have a place in the world to come, for it is written, Thy people also shall be all righteous, they shall inherit the land for ever; the branch of my planting, the work of my hands that I amy be glorified (Is 60:21):
And these are they that have no share in the world to come: he that says there is no resurrection of the dead prescribed in the Law…Abba Saul says: Also he that pronounces the name with its proper letters.
E. Yahuwah pronounced in a blasphemy case for the court of law
Mishna Sanhedrin 7: 5
‘The blasphemer’ is not culpable unless he pronounces the Name itself…they sent out the chief of witnesses and said to him, Say expressely what thou heardest’, and he says it; and the judges stand up on their feet and rend their garments, and they may not mend them again.
b. Text, Language, Context, Literary Context
F. Yahuwah pronounced in a cursing of Father or Mother
Mishna Sanhedrin 7:8
He that curses his father or his mother” is not culpable unless he curses them with the Name. If he curses them with a substituted name R. Meir declares him culpable but the sages declare him, not culpable.
If you would like to read the complete paper contact Edi Nachman at mashiacana@hotmail.com
Outline:
I The Place of the Mishnaic traditions in the first century
II The name of God pronounced as it is written, in the Mishna
A Yahuwah pronounced in the daily greeting of ordinary Israeli’s according to Halakha
Mishna Berakoth 9:5
a. Text, context, literary context
b. Scriptural authority
c. The reason for the decree
B Yahuwah pronounced by the priests in the daily blessing of the people
Mishna Tamid 7:2
Mishna Sotah 7:6
a. Text, Context, Literary Context
b. Scriptural Authority
C. Yahuwah pronounced by the High Priest in intercession at Yom Kippur
Mishna Yoma 6:2
Mishna Yoma 3:8
Mishna Yoma 4:2
a. Text, Context, Literary Context
b. Scriptural Authority
D. Yahuwah pronounced by Israeli’s in a way, which offends Abba Shaul
Mishna Sanhedrin 10:1
a. Text, Language, Context, Literary Context
E. Yahuwah pronounced in a blasphemy case for the court of law
Mishna Sanhedrin 7: 5
a. Text, Language, Context, Literary Context
III The first and second century Jesus Traditions regarding his use of the name
The I am saying of John’s Gospel with the Jews
The Testimony of Toldoth Yeshu
Baruch ha ba Beshem Yahuwah
The purpose of this paper is to show that according to the traditions handed down among the Tannaim of the first and second century AD the Tetragrammaton was spoken regularly in the first century among the people of Israel, the priests and the high priest in Jerusalem. At that time the idea of the name being ineffable was really meaningless because the name was always spoken in one context or another.
The Historical background to the discussion needs to be outlined. According to some scholars the name of God, Yahuwah, was first revealed to Moses somewhere between the 1200 and 1500 BCE. It consisted of four letters Yod Heh Vav Heh. The event is recorded in Exodus 3. In the tradition recorded in Exodus some scholars will see two traditions being intermingled together based on the JEDP theory. This need not detain us, it not being material to the first century CE position on the name. Moses receives what appear to be two names. He is told to tell Israel that Eheyeh (I am or I will be) has sent him, immediately afterwards he is told to tell them “Yahuwah, the God of your Fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has sent me to you” Yahuwah goes on to comment on this statement to Moses “This is my name forever, my memorial from generation to generation”. From here on, in Israelite history the name Yahuwah takes a very prominent place. Moses uses the name to Pharaoh and Pharaoh a Gentile replies with the name. Moses gives the first Theophoric name with the name Yahuwah by putting the name in Hoshea son of Nun’s name by changing it from Hoshea (H-O-Sh-A) to Yahoshua (Y-H-O-Sh-A) and Yahoshua succeeds Moses as captain of Israel. The following period of the Judges contains an incident, which becomes important in legislating use of the name in the second temple period among the sages of the Mishna. It is recorded in the Book of Ruth chapter 2:4. In the incident, Boaz goes out to the field and greets his laborer “Yahuwah imakem” that is “Yahuwah be with you”. They respond “Yeveraqa Yahuwah” “May Yahuwah bless you”. So we see the author of Ruth records a tradition that men used to greet one another with the name Yahuwah. In Judges 6:12 we also read of a man being greeted with the name Yahuwah. Here Gideon is greeted by the Angel of Yahuwah “Yahuwah imaqa” Yahuwah is with you”. So the author of Judges also retains a tradition of men being greeted by “Yahuwah be with you”. Both these statements will be taken up in the Mishna as examples of how men were ordained in the second temple period to greet one another. They also show that at the time of the writings of the tradition there was no embarrassment felt in speaking or hearing the name spoken. The name was a part of the daily life, as I will argue it was in the first century in Jerusalem. The earliest Psalms and songs of the Tanakh place great emphasis on the name Yahuwah, such as The Song of Devorah, Psalm 68 and the Song of Moses. The use of Yahuwah continues throughout the life of David who put great emphasis on the name in his normal sayings and the psalms he wrote. Later on during this period some hesitation seems to have crept in with the redactors of some later books of psalms working over the earlier Psalms where Yahuwah is emphasized and replacing the name with Elohim. Through out the whole first temple period the name is used freely in worship and daily life of the Kingdom of Judah, however in the northern Kingdom of Israel the name is increasing replaced with Baal and the writings of Jeremiah presents evidence that in the northern Kingdom the name was forgotten for Baal and in the southern kingdom the name was being replaced by dreams in prophetic circles, and they were conspiring to cause Judah to forget the name Yahuwah.
The writings of the exilic and postexilic periods show that the name begins to disappear from its regular usage before. We can see this in the Aramaic writings of Daniel and Ezra in the Bible. Here we see especially in Ezra that even the name in theophoric names begins to disappear. So Yahoshua becomes Yeshua and Yehozadak becomes Yozadak. However in the writings of Zechariah and Haggai the prophet these theophoric names maintain their Hebrew forms and their theophoric nature. This evidence points to the fact that it is the influence of foreign cultures and languages, which is militating against the use of God name, even in terms of writing it.
When it comes to the Hellenistic period we find that in the earliest manuscripts of the Septuagint and other Hellenistic Jewish writings we have, the name of Yahuwah is retained in the Greek text in a number of ways. The LXX’s rendering of the man who blasphemed the name Yahuwah in Numbers is revealing. He was not said to blaspheme the name but to name the name Yahuwah. A very different thing but this according to translators of the Septuagint was enough to merit the death penalty. Just to name the name Yahuwah. We se a similar thing in the New Testament trial of Jesus where he simply seems to be saying “Ego Eimi”, “Eheyeh” or “Ani Hu”, but the High priest responds with “Blasphemy” “a charge that would be more understandable if Jesus were claiming a divine name rather than affirming messiahship”
In Greek writings firstly the name is retained in Paleo Hebrew letters, secondly in Assyrian square script, thirdly in the transliterated form Iao and fourthly in the form “pipi” where Greek letters which have a similar form to the Assyrian square script forms of the name are used. In the first century CE we see Philo and Josephus referring to tradition restricting the use of the name in speech and in writing, Philo writing before the destruction of the Temple from a province and Josephus writing around 20 years after the destruction of the Temple and after Yavneh was established.
Our Goal and the Mishna
We have a number of sayings in the which indicate to us traditions received by the redactors of the Mishna as to how the name of God was used according to its letters in the period of the last 70 years of the Temple. Our focus is on these sayings as indicators of the use of the name in that period. Our main problem then is firstly that the redacted Mishna is written down at the earliest around the year 220 CE. That is at least 150 years after the period we are interested in. It is written down in a place and in language which is probably different to the language spoken that century and a half before and it is written having passed through the time of Hillel, Gamaliel the Elder, Simon ben Gamaliel the Elder, Johanan ben Zakkai, Gamaliel II, Simeon ben Gamaliel II and the Nasi Rabbi Judah, a period of about 200 years. Danby presents the position that the Mishna in the present form of 6 Sedorot and 63 Tractates was first used by Akiva who died around 135 having espoused, erroneously Bar Kosiba as Messiah. His halakoth were inherited by his disciple Rabbi Meir, who is said to be the authority behind the anonymous halakoth in the Mishna, according Johanan of Nappah (d 279), and all his decisions are in line with Akiva. Rabbi Judah inherited from Meir and with the purpose
“To make and end of the confusion which was growing around the subject of the Law owing to multiplicity of schools and teachers and systems”
We have no guarantee that the Mishna was written down in the period of Rabbi Judah the Nasi. Firstly because we know that the Mishna as redacted today contains names of Rabbis who live after Rabba Judah died and from that fact that Rabbi Judah’s death is mentioned in the Mishna. “When Rabbi died, humility and the shunning of sin ceased” The Mishna itself does not claim Rabbi Judah was its editor but the two talmuds make the claim and it is not contradicted.
Neusner separates off Tractate Aboth from the Mishna as being a later addition on the basis that Rabbis from a later generation are cited. Because of the quotes of Johanan of Nappaha some believe that the Mishna was not written down until centuries after Judah the Nasi died. According to Johanan one who wrote down the Halakhot was like one who burned the Torah and so, according to this tradition, right up until near the end of the 3rd century it was still considered unacceptable to write the oral traditions down.
Recent scholarship of those following the methodology of Neusner have shown that we can not be sure that sayings attributed to a certain Rabbi were ever said by that Rabbi not that what was said to be spoken was actually spoken in those words at all. This uncertainty applies to the Mishna as much as to the Talmud’s and so in looking at all these uncertainties around the text of the Mishna we begin to get some idea of how uncertain it must be to be sure of how the name Yahuwah, spoken according to its letters was used in first century Temple Judaism.
On a positive note we have evidence that some tractates of the Mishna appear to go back to Rabbis of the second temple period. These are according to Danby, Yoma, Tamid, Middoth and Kinnim. Middoth is linked with the name Eliezer Ben Jacob and Tamid with Simeon of Mitzpah. Some sayings of the Mishna are in an archaic Hebrew indicating that they may retain very old traditions. Although the redactors of the Mishna may have formalized many of the sayings to fit into their philosophy and plan they have certainly not reduced all the sayings into uniform patterns and some indication of the diachronic elements of the document has been retained.
II The name of God pronounced as it is written in the Mishna
A Yahuwah pronounced in the daily greeting of ordinary Israeli’s according to Halakha
Mishna Berakoth 9:5
At the close of every benediction in the Temple they used to say, ‘For everlasting’; but after the heretics has taught corruptly and said that there is but one world, it was ordained that they should say, ‘from everlasting to everlasting’. And it was ordained that a man should salute his fellow with [the use of] the name [of God] for it is written, And behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem, and said unto the reapers, The Lord be with you. And they answered him, the Lord bless thee. And it is written, the Lord is with thee, mighty man of valor. And it is written, And despise not thy mother when she is old. And it is written, It is time to work for the Lord: they have made void thy Law. R. Nathan says: They have made void thy Law because it was time to work for the Law
d. Text, context, literary context
We are seeking to get and accurate understanding of how the name of God the Tetragrammaton was used in the speech of first century Jews living in Israel. Was the name spoken it was written or was the practice of substitution in place? Was the name spoken at all and heard at all by those around? Was the name used only once a year by the high priest on Yom Kippor or was it used more regularly than that?
Basing our observations on the Mishna Textus Receptus used by Danby and his translations of that, with some critical comparisons taking into account of the Kaufman, Cambridge and Parma manuscripts we need to be aware that our discoveries are of limited value. However they can bring us some way to clearing away some of myths regarding the use of the name in the Second Temple period which are quite widespread, at the least in using this Mishna we can get some idea of traditions which Rabbis of early third century Palestine received from their teachers regarding first century use of the name in the Temple.
Looking at the internal evidence from Mishna Berakoth 9:5 we see immediately a text, which points us to the first Temple and to the first century. It also shows Rabbis indicating interest in change over time and we see one of the mechanisms for bringing the changes were the teachings of those who by some manuscripts are called Hatzdukim and by other Minim. The phrases “Used to conclude” and “used to say” are juxtaposed with the teaching of the Tzadukim or the Minim “Olam eleh echad” and lead to the ordaining or enjoining of a new conclusion to the Blessings. They decreed a change from saying ‘Min-ha Olam” to saying “Min ha olam ve ad ha Olam”. The text goes on to assert that a decree was made that
Vehitqinu sheihe adam shoel et-shalom chavero beshem
And they further ordained that one should greet his fellow by mentioning the name of God
We see from the evidence here that a tradition was held in the early third century that at one time it was ordained in the late second temple period that a man should greet his fellow “Beshem”, which is taken to mean in the name of God. In the argument of the text it would appear to say that this ordinance was tied to the previous one about saying “min ha olam ve ad ha olam”. But I think it is unnecessary to assume this. It is often the case that different ideas are brought together in the Mishna by an association of number or something trivial. The association here would appear to be that the Tzadukim or the Minim not only had a problem with there being more than one Olam but they had a problem with saying the name of God or used another name which offended the authors of the decree. We are told here quite clearly that at some point in the second temple period it was ordained that a man should greet his fellow with the name. The authority for this practice is cited as Ruth 2:4 and Judges 6:11, both of which show a greeting with the Tetragrammaton. The authorities here appear to be countering a teaching of this particular sect of minim whether Sadducees or not but who had a problem with speaking the name Yahuwah. If we compare the two cases the olam and the name we might conclude that even as they used to say “min ha olam” but now they say “min ha olam ad ha olam” so they used to have a particular attitude to the use of the name but now the attitude is to “et shalom chaveru Beshem”. The greeting according to the scriptures being quoted is however different from the greeting according to the Hebrew here in the Mishna.
Vehineh voaz ba mibeit lechem vayomer laqotzrim h imakem
Vehineh-voaz ba mibeit lechem veyomer laqotzrim Yahuwah imakem
The tradition prevailing at the time the Mishna was redacted clearly constrains them from even writing the full name Yahuwah out and a “heh” is substituted. Does this mean that the greeting in the Name was also a substitute? I suggest this is not the case. For in the first century the evidence is very clear that what was written and what was spoken are not necessarily related. It is according to this ordinance possible to believe that first century men and their friends were commanded to greet one another with the phrase Yahuwah imakem or Yahuwah imaqa. If we consider the scriptural authority for this ordinance which do not see any reference to a decree in the Torah but two examples drawn from other scriptures. One of a landowner greeting his harvesters and one of an Angel greeting a farmer, thus we see a decree by the authorities is seen by the later commentator as seeking to bring the name of God into the daily life of ordinary people with the intention of respecting the law. Those issuing the decree to bring the name Yahuwah, into the common life could not have been thinking the name is so holy it can not be spoken but by the high priest in the Temple. Rather they were saying to ensure those who make void the Torah do not have their way we must cause people to greet one another with the name Yahuwah. Not only this but this practice is a way of showing respect to our mother the Torah when she is old. The enactors of this law, according the later commentator of the Mishna, who is looking back and being anonymous may be Rabbi Meir in line with the tradition of Akiva, understand that those who are making this decree or enjoining the practice, are acting for Yahuwah. For the last scripture cited is:
Et la asot la h hephro torateqa (Mishna)
Et la asot la Yahuwah hepheru torateqa (Bible)
It is time for thee Yahuwah, to work for they have made void thy Torah
The perception then of the commentator on the tradition he has received is that Psalm 119:26 was applicable to the need to decree the use of the name in greeting the people. If this is the case then the action of this decree as seen as an act of Yahuwah to make valid his law. The very process of greeting one another with the name Yahuwah is seen here as an action of Yahuwah in validating his law. It practice is a way of respecting the mother Torah when she is old. It would appear that a restriction on using the name Yahuwah in daily living was not in place when this decree was made, especially in the case of Jerusalem and the Temple.
We should also note that none of the scriptural authority is from the Torah. There is no reason to believe with Alon below that it was Torah to greet one another with the name before this decree, for the authority of the Torah as a source of the practice is not appealed to but rather the Writings were appealed to. It is likely that the scriptures were handed down with the tradition and not by the commentator or redactor, for they fit very well with the practice enjoined and give it substance.
Secondly that this practice was enjoined in response to a group perceived by the Pharisees as heretical or at least perceived by the descendents of the Pharisees as heretical, who insisted that men should not greet one another with the name or insisted that men should greet one another with a substitute name or believed in a name the authorities did not agree with. So the authorities that ordained this insisted that it was right to use the name. They also saw the Minim as being those who despised their mother when she was old (meaning the Torah) or in clear terms made void the Torah. So the Minim were perceived to be seeking to nullify the Law.
The group being refuted in the second case regarding the name does not necessarily have to be the group being refuted in the first case regarding Olam. This being so can we see a group in the first century Palestine who were seen as substituting another name for what the Pharisees considered the true name of God and who were seen as despising the Law or nullifying the Law in some sense, in the eyes of the Pharisee, like the Sadducee.
The timing of these decrees is not given. However if we take the title Minim as being in the first place applied to Jewish Christians, perhaps especially the Pauline variety we find a group who not only may have been perceived as focused on another name “Yeshua” but also perceived as making the Law void although they understood that they were upholding the Law. The decree to greet one another in the name would be a response to the Christians doing whatever they did in word or did in the name of the Lord Yeshua the Mashiach. According to the Book of Acts the Notzrim were forbidden by the Sanhedrin from speaking any more in this name:
And when they had summoned them
they commanded them not to speak or teach in the name of Jesus
The word here for commanded is parangello one of whose meanings is “to enjoin” or to transmit a message may parallel the kind of this this Mishna is saying the authorities used to do. We know from the Cairo Geniza that and Christianity in Talmud and Midrash that the term Minim is often used in Rabbinic literature to refer to Christians so the idea is not completely far fetched. Is it possible that the response of the Jerusalem authorities to the newly popular name “Yeshua” they refocused on the name Yahuwah? The council according to Luke said “in order that it may not spread any further among the people let us warn them to speak no more to any man in this name”. And our argument would go on to say ‘Let them speak to one another in the name Yahuwah”.
Secondly the charge is about despising your mother when she is old and making void the Torah. One of the main accusations against Yeshua among the Pharisees and the authorities was that he did not keep Shabbat. The Church continued meeting for the decades in the Temple but at the same time taught against the Temple in the Hellenistic branch of the Church. We see Stephen in Acts 6 and Paul from about AD 33 or AD 37 at the latest. Is it possible this decree was a response to the teaching of the Church about the name Jesus and about the relationship to the Torah? The idea of the Church despising the Torah could have developed from some of the ideas prevalent in the Church from the beginning, especially if the Pharisee’s included in their conception of Law the “traditions of their fathers” as the New Testament and Josephus maintain they did. Jesus considered that Isaiah 29:13 was applicable to the Pharisees and their version of the Law.
Because this people draw near with their words and honor with their lip service,
but they remove their hearts far from me, and their reverence for me consists of tradition learned by rote
Here we see a very strong censure of an oral tradition which the Pharisees may have considered Law but Jesus was not impressed with according to Matthew 15:8 and Mark 7:6-7.
Paul, continued the work of Jesus after the ascension picked up on the next two verse of Isaiah 29:verse 14
Therefore behold I will once again deal marvelously with this people, wondrously marvelous;
And the wisdom of their wise men shall perish and the discernment of their discerning men shall be concealed.
He refers to this in 1 Cor 1:19.
So we have both Jesus and Paul indicating that the Oral traditions, for the Isaiah passage is deal with oral teachings, which the Pharisees loved so much was unacceptable to God an would lead to wise men acting foolishly and disappearance of discernment. Even Peter and John in Acts “despised” the decree of the Sanhedrin labeling it as “of men” rather that what they had seen and heard which was from God. The Sanhedrin was the highest organ for the execution of the Law in the Jewish nation.
We would also need to consider if there is evidence of Pharisee’s using the name at all in that period. And the answer is that we find evidence for this in the Tosepfta where we find in Yadayim2: 20 a conflict between the Pharisee’s and the Morning Bathers. The Pharisees are accused of uttering the name with out first undergoing immersion. This implies a use of the name with out a great deal of ritual and would bring them closer to the position taken above in response to the Minim and their use of another name or the ban on the use of the name.
According to Alon, Geiger argued that the Halakha regarding the expressed name as the one above were reactions to a group of Minim who had banished the use of the name completely. The ban on the name would then be the older tradition and the ordination of its use the later position. The Minim represented here are the Dosithean Samaritans. But we could see this enjoining of the name as a greeting in the Temple as a response the group of Priests who formed the Yachad in Qumran. In that community there was a complete ban on the pronunciation of the name as can be seen in the Dead Sea Scrolls
Alon sees the greeting in another way. He argues that the greeting was in place at an earlier time as Law
It appears to me the object of the enactment was to demonstrate against the schools of the Hasidim (Pietists) who made it standard practice, on account of the sanctity of the name, and because of the to be in a state of purity when mentioning it…to refrain from ‘secularizing’ the use of the name for the purpose of greetings in their contacts with individuals.
It was then a restoration of a custom, which was seen as Law but had been temporarily put aside for various reasons by earlier sages
Later Sages wished to combat an erroneous usage, that the people should not diminish the use of the Name of God and cause it to be forgotten by removing it from the greeting of friends and acquaintances as they were accustomed to do.
As far as I can see it seems very likely that the further enjoining was linked with the rise of the Notzrim in Jerusalem and Israel. It was not that the greeting had not been in place but rather because of the focus of the Minim on the name Jesus and the down playing of the role of Law the authorities responded with an increased focus on the name of God. This tells us that according to the evidence in the Mishna the name Yahuwah was used in the daily life of the people of Jerusalem who attended the temple. It was used not for some great religious reason but for the purpose of greeting one another. The text does not say it was spoken according to its letters, but nor does it say a substitute was used. The basic understanding then needs to be that, unless something is found to the contrary it was the name spoken and not a substitute. For the Mishna usually indicates that in the provinces substitutes were used but in the Temple the name was spoken as written. But clearly our conclusion is limited by the small amount of evidence we have and what we have will have to be compared with the evidence we will look at later.
Yahuwah pronounced by the priests in the daily blessing of the people
Mishna Tamid 7:1-2
When the High Priest came [to the Sanctuary] to prostrate himself, three [priests] held him, one by his right hand and one by his left hand, and one by the precious stones; and when the officer heard the sound of the High Priest’s feet as he came out, he raised the curtain for him, and he went him in prostrated himself and came out. Then his brethren the priests went in and prostrated themselves and came out.
They came and stood on the steps of the Porch…They then pronounced the Blessing [of the priests] over the people as a single Blessing; in the provinces it was pronounced it was pronounced as three Blessings, but in the Temple as a single Blessing. In the Temple they pronounced the name as it is written, but in the provinces by a substituted word. In the provinces the priests raised there hands as high as their shoulders, but in the temple above their heads, excepting the High Priest, who raised his hands only as high as the frontlet. R. Judah(b ilai 140-165, Danby) says: The High Priest also raised his hand above the frontlet, for it is written, And Aaron lifted up his hands towards the people and blessed them
Where as in the last example we were dealing with all men whether Israel or proselyte, in this case the text deals with the speech of the priests. Whereas in the last case a Halakha or an ordinance was passed in this case no ordinance needed to be made for the law being followed need not be derived from the example of men in scripture but a specific practice or rule for Priests to Bless is Israel is contained in the Torah.
Mishna Sotah 7:6
After what manner was the blessing of the priests? In the provinces it was pronounced as three Blessings, but in the Temple as a single Blessing; in the Temple they pronounced the Name as it was written,but in the provinces by a substituted word.
C. Yahuwah pronounced by the High Priest in intercession at Yom Kippur
Mishna Yoma 6:2
And when the priests and the people which stood in the Temple Court heard the Expressed Name come forth from the mouth of the High Priest, they used to kneel and bow themselves and fall on their faces and say: Blessed be the name of the glory of his kingdom for ever and ever!’
Mishna Yoma 3:8
O God, I have committed iniquity, transgressed, and sinned before thee, I and my house, as it is written in the law of thy servant Moses, For on this day shall atonement be made for you to cleanse you; from all your sins shall ye be clean before the Lord [Yahuwah] (see Tamid 2:8)
And they answered after him, Blessed be the name of the glory of his kingdom forever and ever!
Mishna Yoma 4:1-2
He shook the casket and took up two lots. On one was written ‘For the Lord’, and on the other was written For Azazel. The Prefect was on his right and the chief of his father house was on his left. If the lot bearing the Name came up to his right hand the Prefect would say to him, my lord High Priest, raise thy right hand’; and if it came up in his left hand the chief of the father’s house would say to him, ‘My lord High Priest, raise thy left hand’. He put them on the two He goats and said “A Sin offering to the Lord [Yahuwah]! R. Ishmael says: He needed not to say ‘A Sin offering’, but only ‘To the Lord [Yahuwah]. And they answered after him, ‘Blessed be the name of the glory of his kingdom for ever and ever’.
In Mishna 4:2 the name is pronounced in the same scripture quote as in Mishna 3:8, Leviticus 16:30. “You shall be clean before the Lord [Yahuwah]”
D. Yahuwah pronounced by Israeli’s in a way, which offends Abba Shaul
Mishna Sanhedrin 10:1
All Israelites have a place in the world to come, for it is written, Thy people also shall be all righteous, they shall inherit the land for ever; the branch of my planting, the work of my hands that I amy be glorified (Is 60:21):
And these are they that have no share in the world to come: he that says there is no resurrection of the dead prescribed in the Law…Abba Saul says: Also he that pronounces the name with its proper letters.
E. Yahuwah pronounced in a blasphemy case for the court of law
Mishna Sanhedrin 7: 5
‘The blasphemer’ is not culpable unless he pronounces the Name itself…they sent out the chief of witnesses and said to him, Say expressely what thou heardest’, and he says it; and the judges stand up on their feet and rend their garments, and they may not mend them again.
b. Text, Language, Context, Literary Context
F. Yahuwah pronounced in a cursing of Father or Mother
Mishna Sanhedrin 7:8
He that curses his father or his mother” is not culpable unless he curses them with the Name. If he curses them with a substituted name R. Meir declares him culpable but the sages declare him, not culpable.
If you would like to read the complete paper contact Edi Nachman at mashiacana@hotmail.com
posted by Evangelist Edi Nachman Bsc. PGCE @ 9:31 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home