Search Results

Rabbinic sources, tannaitic and amoraic, maintain that Gentiles are not subject to the laws of ritual impurity and do not convey ritual impurity to Jews according to Torah law. Passages adduced by scholars as evidence of a rabbinic principle of Gentile ritual impurity (especially m. Pesahim 8:8) have been badly misinterpreted. The rabbis do assert, however, on their own authority that Gentiles should be deemed to convey ritual impurity like a gonnorheic (zav). This declaration of a limited ritual impurity for Gentiles is a legal novum of the tannaitic period, explicitly going beyond the prescriptions of the biblical text. The motivation for this decree is considered and the notion that the ritual impurity of Gentiles is grounded in the impurity of idols (as argued by Gedaliah Alon) is discounted.

This chapter studies an early example of a sermon which focuses more on the toll taken by the First World War on the masses of Jewish civilians living on the contested territories of the Eastern Front rather than on the implications of the war for the general values of culture and civilization. Here the sermon of George (Gedaliah) Silverstone does not underline the patriotism of Jews towards all the countries where they lived, but rather emphasizes the underlying unity of the Jewish people, and the sometimes painful tension between that unity and such patriotism. The preacher introduces it by speaking of the reaction of his listeners to the story they have read ‘in the newspapers’, apparently within the past few days. In addition to narratives drawn from the contemporary newspapers, there are two other major components of the sermon's message, drawn from traditional Jewish literature. The source provides hope for a providential, redemptive dénouement to the bloodshed, in the traditional homiletical style.

Chapter 2 focuses on Jer 40:7–16, a section of text that has two distinct parts. The first part narrates the experiences of the community that remains in Judah; with Gedaliah as governor over the land the poorest citizens are given the fields by Nebuzaradan. Various Judeans scattered by the invasion also join with Gedaliah, and included among those who arrive in Mizpah are Johanan and Ishmael. This beleaguered group gathers a crop of summer fruits and wine, implying there is every chance for success under this new arrangement. But in the second part, Jer 40:13–16, the peaceful beginnings of life after the invasion are compromised when Johanan brings Gedaliah a rumor: Ishmael, sponsored by Baalis king of the Ammonites, plans to assassinate Gedaliah. Both Johanan’s accusation and his offer to assassinate Ishmael are rejected, but the sense of peace is shattered, not helped by Jeremiah the prophet’s absence.

When Johanan shares the rumor about Ishmael’s plans to assassinate Gedaliah, it creates a deep uncertainty, and this chapter assesses the horrific events of Jer 41:1–8 beginning with Gedaliah’s murder during a meal he hosts for Ishmael and his soldiers. Violation of hospitality is only one of Ishmael’s crimes as he also murders eighty pilgrims who are traveling from northern Israel to worship at the (ruined) temple of Jerusalem. Among the questions analyzed in this chapter, preeminent is Ishmael’s motive: the reader can perhaps understand Ishmael’s antipathy toward Gedaliah, but why does he ambush the pilgrims as well? The reader also discovers that Ishmael is from the royal family, so it may be that he hopes to reclaim the throne. Finally, the reader may ask about Johanan: why is he absent when Gedaliah is attacked by Ishmael, since he announced Ishmael’s intentions in the first place?