division b: history of the jewish people / חטיבה ב: תולדות עם ישראל ||...

World Union of Jewish Studies / האיגוד העולמי למדעי היהדות

/ כוהנים והנהגה האמוראית בבבל הסאסאנית PRIESTS AND AMORAIC LEADERSHIP IN SASANIAN BABYLONIAAuthor(s): GEOFFREY HERMAN and ג'פרי הרמןSource: Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies / דברי הקונגרס העולמי למדעיחטיבה ב: תולדות עם ישראל / Division B: History of the Jewish People ,היהדות, כרך יב*pp. 59*-68 תשנ"ז / 1997Published by: World Union of Jewish Studies / האיגוד העולמי למדעי היהדותStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23535846 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 14:50

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

World Union of Jewish Studies / האיגוד העולמי למדעי היהדות is collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies /דברי הקונגרס העולמי למדעי היהדות

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.54 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 14:50:54 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wujs

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23535846?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


PRIESTS AND AMORAIC LEADERSHIP IN SASANIAN

BABYLONIA

BY

GEOFFREY HERMAN

When Rabban Gamaliel II was deposed from the leadership of the academy in

Yavne around the end of the first century C.E., R. Eleazar b. Azariah was

chosen in his stead. In the Palestinian Talmud, R. Akiba, known for his humble

origins, is portrayed as considering R. Eleazar b. Azariah's ancestry as having been decisive in contributing towards his selection. The account that appears in

the Babylonian Talmud (henceforth, BT) attributes the decision to prefer R.

Eleazar B. Azariah over other possible candidates to his possession of three

distinguishing characteristics: his wisdom, his wealth, and his illustrious

ancestry, (he is said to be a tenth-generation descendent of Ezra, the priestly

scribe).1 In this version, the combination of these three criteria makes R. Eleazar

b. Azariah the favoured candidate for the leadership of the academy, yet both

versions see his family origins as having been of decisive influence in the choice.

The singling out of these criteria by the sources may, indeed, be an accurate

account of what went on in the academy at Yavne. On the other hand, it may be

an anachronistic description that reflects the criteria of the selection process at

the academies at the time and place of the story's redaction. A third possibility is

that the account reflects the reality of both periods. While I hope that this paper

may also help to clarify that issue, it will focus on the third criterion, possession of distinguished lineage — specifically priestly lineage — and its relationship with the leadership of the academies in Sasanian Babylonia.

The very subject may be surprising to some, as research relating to the

priesthood is generally not associated with Sasanian Babylonia. This situation,

however, is a reflection of the state of the availability of sources. For the Second

Temple period we have a clear picture of the status of the priesthood in

1 y. Ber. iv, 7d; y. Ta'an. iv, 67d; b. Ber. 27b.

[59*]



GEOFFREY HERMAN

Palestine, obtained from a wealth of sources,2 but our knowledge of the status of

the priesthood in Babylonia, following the Return to Zion, is very limited. So

whilst the priesthood in Palestine had its heyday, the paucity of available source

material has left us in the dark about Jewish society in pre-Talmudic Babylonia. It is only when the priesthood in Palestine is generally considered to have lost

much of its status, at the beginning of the third century, that the volume of our

source material for Babylonia sharply increases. Since almost no material exists

to posit elite status for the priesthood in pre-Talmudic Babylonia, no research

has been devoted to examining how the priesthood fared with changing times.3

Yet, in truth we have almost no reliable information for any reconstruction of

leadership patterns in pre-Talmudic Babylonia. Before we turn to the priesthood in Sasanian Babylonia, a brief summary of

the political and social position of the priesthood in Jewish Palestine in the

pre-Talmudic period may help us appreciate the pertinence of investigating the

status of the priesthood in Babylonia. In the history of the priesthood, the Second Temple era appears to have been

its finest hour. In the words of Menahem Stern, "The priesthood constituted the

upper stratum of Jewish society...It was a kind of Jewish nobility. The priests were regarded as the natural and self-evident authorities in interpreting

Scripture."4 This superiority of the priestly class in Jewish society was the result

of a long development whose origins date back to the Persian period. The

priesthood's gradual rise in status continued into the Hellenistic era. Priestly

hegemony continued after the rise of the Hasmoneans. And it wasn't just in

Palestine that the priesthood enjoyed an elite position. In Egypt, too, during much of the Second Temple period, the priests appear to have possessed an elite

status in Jewish society.5 The frequent changes in the office of the High Priest,

especially in the first century of the Common Era, inevitably had an adverse

effect on the corporate prestige of the priestly class. Nevertheless, towards the

See, for example, E. Schiirer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175

B.C. — A.D. 135), A new English version revised and edited by G. Vermes and F. Millar, Vol.

II, Edinburgh 1973, pp. 237-313; M. Stern, 'Aspects of Jewish Society: The Priesthood and

Other Classes', in Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, The Jewish

People in the First Century, II, (S. Safrai and M. Stern Eds.), Assen-Amsterdam 1975, pp.

561-630.

A notable exception is the brief comment by I. Sonne in 'The paintings of the Dura

Synagogue', HUCA, 20 (1947) p. 272, notes 22 and 23.

M. Stern (above, n. 2) p. 580.

See, especially, D.R. Schwartz, 'The Priests in Ep. Arist. 310', JBL97/4 (1978) pp. 567-571;

Ibid. 'Philo's Priestly Descent', in Nourished with Peace, Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in

Memory of Samuel Sandmel, (Eds. F.E. Greenspahn, E. Hilgert, B.L. Mack), California

1984, pp. 155-171.

[60*]



PRIESTS AND AMORAIC LEADERSHIP IN SASAN1AN BABYLONIA

close of the Second Temple period the priesthood still constituted the

prestigious and elite class in Jewish society. The destruction of the Temple

undoubtedly damaged the status of the priesthood. Economically they had now

lost a major source of revenue. They were no longer automatically at the focus

of the spiritual life of the nation. Memories of the corruption prevalent within

the High Priesthood perhaps lingered in peopled minds. After many centuries

of forceful entrenchment, however, priestly descent did not lose its status and

influence so quickly. It has been noted that priests constituted a large

proportion of the leading sages in the Yavnean period. Priests seem, also, to

have played some role, perhaps a central one, in the Bar Kokhba Revolt. In the

Amoraic period the situation is less clear, although some scholars have argued that then, too, priesthood continued to enjoy a privileged status in Palestine.6

What, in fact, is known about priests in Babylonia in the Second Temple

period? We have three pieces of information on Babylonian priests for this period

from the pen of Josephus. He informs us that Herod, after deposing a

Hasmonean from the high priesthood, appointed in his stead a priest from

Babylonia called Ananel.7 As Klausner has suggested, Herod may have chosen

him because his branch of the priestly family had more prestige than that of the

Hasmoneans whom Herod wished to discredit.8 In a second source Josephus tells us of a certain fortress in Ecbatana. "In this fortress," he writes, "they bury the kings of Media, Persia and Parthia even now", and he adds, without further

explanation about this important post, ,and the person to whose care it is

entrusted is a Jewish priest."9 Finally, Josephus notes that priests in Babylonia would send new genealogical details to the Temple authorities when marrying.10

Babylonian priests appear to have been a significant group that served in the

Temple."

R. Kimelman, 'The Conflict between the Priestly Oligarchy and the Sages in the Talmudic

Period', [Hebrew] Zion, 48 (1983) pp. 135-148; D. Ben-Haim Trifon, The Jewish Priests from

the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Rise of Christianity, [Hebrew] (Ph.D.

dissertation), Tel' Aviv 1985; S.A. Cohen, The Three Crowns: Structures of Communal

Politics in Early Rabbinic Jewry, Cambridge 1990, pp. 158-160; S. Schwartz, Josephus and

Judaean Politics, Leiden 1990, pp. 70-82; D. Goodblatt, The Monarchic Principle, Tubingen

1994.

Ant. XV, 2,4(22); 3, 1(40).

J. Klausner, History of the Second Temple, [Hebrew] IV, Jerusalem 1950, p. 12.

Ant. X, 11,7 (265).

Apion. I, 7.

m. Yoma vi, 4; m. Men. xi, 7, but see also b. Yoma 66b. On the issue of the interchange between

"Babylonian" and "Alexandrian" in the different versions see the discussion in S. Safrai,

Pilgrimage at the Time of the Second Temple, [Hebrew] 1985 (2nd edition), p. 81, n. 162.

[61*]



GEOFFREY HERMAN

The examination of the status of the priests in Babylonian rabbinic society in

Sasanian times poses a particular challenge. A mere statement of the proportion

of sages who were priests, produced by searching the BT for hints of ancestry, is

unsatisfactory as an indicator of the status of the priests. The BT mentions many hundreds of Babylonian sages by name; however, mention of biographic information relating to these sages is only sporadic and coincidental. Therefore

the amount of biographical information we can obtain for any rabbi may vary

considerably. A rough count of known priests shows them to comprise about

5% of the Babylonian Amoraim; although providing a bare minimum, this

statistic is inevitably misleading. Firstly, it gives no indication of the position of

these priests within the rabbinic hierarchy, and secondly, the number of known

non-priests is equally small and we can find little justification for assuming that

priestly origin would be mentioned in the sources anymore than non-priestly. Hence, for the vast majority of sages named in the BT we have no data

pertaining to lineage.

Nevertheless, for reasons I shall outline shortly, it is possible and fruitful to

consider the family origins of a select group: those rabbis traditionally viewed as

the heads of the academies. An evaluation of the relationship between priestly

origins and the position of "head of the academy" is likely to teach something about priestly status in the rabbinic society as a whole.

One advantage of examining this group is that it includes many of the more

prominent sages who appear in the BT. Due to their prominence, there is, on

average, more incidental biographical detail about them, and thereby a greater likelihood of ascertaining their lineage and achieving more complete results. Whilst aware of the methodological difficulties of using rabbinic material and Geonic historiographie chronicles, for the purpose of this study I have relied on

the list of heads of the academies that appears in the Epistle of R. Sherira Gaon.

Out of a total of 11 heads of the academy at Sura, the sources inform us of the

lineage of seven of them. There was one priest, R. Hisda, and six non-priests.

Two of the non-priests, R. Papa and R. Yemar, are reported to have been

married to daughters of priests. One of the non-priests, Rab, is acclaimed to

have been descended from the Davidic line through R. Hiya and thereby claimed illustrious lineage. Another non-priest, R. Huna, is described as having been aligned in some way to the Exilarchate. Two of the non-priests, R. Ashi

and Mar b. R. Ashi, are father and son. Thus three out of seven heads of the

academy at Sura whose lineage is given were related to the priesthood through birth or marriage.12

12 For one of the many sources indicating that R. Hisda was a priest see b. Ber. 44a; R. Papa and

R. Yemar are married to daughters of priests according to b. Hul. 132a; R. Huna is not a priest

[62♦]



PRIESTS AND AMORAIC LEADERSHIP IN SASANIAN BABYLONIA

Out of a total of 17 heads of the academy at Pumbeditha, the sources inform

us of the lineage of nine of them. Five are said to be priests and four are

non-priests. The priests are Samuel (in Nehardea), Rabbah b. Nahmani, Abaye, R. Kahana, and R. Aha bereh DeRaba. Two of the non-priests, R. Yehuda and

Raba, are reported to have been married to daughters of priests. According to

these figures, priestly lineage is considerably more prominent in the academy at

Pumbeditha than at Sura.13

In conclusion, the lineage of 16 out of 28 heads of the academies of Sura and

Pumbeditha is given. Six of these are priests, and ten are non-priests. Four of

the non-priests are reported to have been married to the daughters of priests. In

total, ten out of 16 are connected to the priesthood through marriage or blood.

Thus the sources provide information on the lineage of 579fr of the heads of the

academies of which 63were related to the priesthood by birth or marriage.

Assuming that priestly descent was claimed by no more than 1096 of the

Babylonian Jews, these figures indicate both that priests were over-represented

among the leaders of the academies, in particular, Pumbeditha, and that a high

proportion of heads of the academies were married into priestly families. Could

such figures be merely coincidental? Such a possibility may be checked by

comparison with two other sets of data: First, the proportion of priests among the Babylonian scholars who migrated to Palestine during the Amoraic era and

came to be heads of the academies in Palestine; and second, the proportion of

priests amongst the heads of the academies in Babylonia and Palestine during the Geonic era.

Regarding the first point of comparison, the presence of priests among the

Babylonian sages who migrated to Palestine and became heads of the academy there, we again find a disproportionately high number of priests. R. Hanina b.

Hama, a Babylonian priest, led the academy in Sepphoris. It would be no

exaggeration to state that Babylonian priests monopolized the leadership of the

academy in Tiberias for most of the third century. R. Eleazar b. Pedat who

headed the academy was followed by R. Ami, R. Assi, (the latter two were

jointly described, somewhat ironically, as "the most important priests of the

according to b. Git. 59b. On his connections with the Exilarchate see Iggerel R. Sherira Gaon,

B.M. Lewin (ed.), Haifa 1921, pp. 83-84; On Rab see b. San. 5a; b. Meg. 22a; and on R. Ashi

see b. Bekh. 50a, b. Tem. 8b.

One of the many sources for Samuel's priestly descent is b. Ket. 23a; Rabbah b. Nahmani: b.

Rosh. Hash. 18a; Abaye: b. Hul. 133a; Alja bereh DeRaba: b. Ber. 50a and see A. Hyman,

Toldoth Tanaim ve'Amoraim, Jerusalem 1964, vol. I, p. 130; Raba: b. B. Batra 12b; R.

Yehuda: b. Pes. 49a (according to the better manuscript readings). The two non-priests are R.

Hama (b. Ber. 17a) and Rafram (I) (b. Bekh. 36b).

[63♦]



GEOFFREY HERMAN

Land of Israel"), and finally R. Hiya b. Abba headed the academy. All of these

were Babylonian priests. Other Babylonian priests such as R. Ze'ira, R. Huna b.

Avin, and probably Abba b. Kahana were also prominent among the sages in

Palestine. The impression gained from this brief glance at the picture in

Palestine appears to corroborate our findings regarding the disproportion of

priests among the scholars who became heads of the academies in Babylonia.14 The second point of comparison is the relationship between the priesthood

and the leadership of the academies in Babylonia and Palestine in the Geonic

period. For that period, too, the priestly families were considerably over

represented in the oligarchy from which the leaders of the academies were

chosen.15 When compared to our findings for the Talmudic period, this

phenomenon no longer appears to be a break from the past, an innovation of the

Geonic period, but rather can more easily be accounted for as a continuation of

earlier patterns.

It is thus evident that the prominence of the priests among the leadership of

the academies in Babylonia is unlikely to have been the result of chance. How is

one best to account for this prominence? It may be indicative of a certain

corporate prestige enjoyed by the priesthood in Babylonia in this period.

Priestly ancestry would appear to have been advantageous for candidates in the

selection of the heads of the academy. In other terms, the priestly crown was

seen to compliment the crown of Torah.

Other independent evidence also hints at high status for priests in Sasanian

Babylonia: At the beginning of the Talmudic era, an important local leader in Nehardea,

the most important Jewish centre in Babylonia, was Abba b. Abba. He was a

priest. With his death, Samuel, his son, became the central rabbinic figure known to us from that city, and Rab, who is portrayed as subservient to Abba b.

Abba, sought another centre in which to establish himself.

We learn from the mid-third century synagogue inscription in Dura, a town

bordering the Sasanian empire, that the presbyter of the local Jewish

community was a priest, Samuel, of the prestigious priestly course of Jedaiah.16

In this synagogue characteristic priestly motifs appear prominently in the

synagogue frescoes. Worthy of particular notice is the image of Aaron the

biblical high priest and traditional founding father of the priesthood, attired in a

manner that identified him to contemporary observers as combining the roles of

14 R. Hanina: b. Bekh. 51 b; R. Ami and R. Assi: b. Meg. 22a; R. Hiya b. Abba: y. M. Sh. v, 56b; R. Eleazar b. Pedat: y. Ber. v, 9d; R. Ze'ira: y. Ber. iii, 6a; R. Huna b. Avin: y. M. Sh. v, 56b.

15 See references cited by Ben-Haim Trifon (above, n. 6), pp. 263-265, 272-276.

16 J.B. Frey, Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaicarum, II, Rome 1936, pp. 77-79, nos. 828a-b and 829.

[64♦]




high priest and oriental king. Perhaps the depiction of Aaron reflected the

personal view of the local priestly presbyter, Samuel, and his perception of what

the status of the contemporary priesthood should be.

R. Hisda, who was a priest, may be seen, in some sources, to be promoting a

priestly agenda. Elaboration of the laws relating to the priestly blessing are

attributed to him, as are sayings and rulings relating to priestly dues.17

In a Talmudic source relating what would appear to have been a showdown

between R. Hisda and an Exilarch, R. Hisda expressed the view, in an apparent

protest against the Exilarchate's rising monarchic aspirations, that royal

authority is dependent upon coexistence with the high priesthood and is

thereby, in a post-Temple era, no longer valid. Such an argument may have had

contemporary implications relating to the division of power between the

Exilarchate and the Babylonian priests.18 A number of sources in the BT mention Babylonian Jews who claimed to be

descendants of the Hasmonean dynasty. Such a claim, implying priestly descent

and affiliation to the priestly course of Jehoiarib, no doubt aimed at enhancing the social position of the families involved. One can only imagine what

relationship such claims had with the dynastic Davidic claims of the

Exilarchate. There seems to have been some friction between such self

proclaimed Hasmoneans and certain rabbis. According to the sugyah in b. Qid. 70b, Samuel is reported as declaring that anyone who claims to be of

Hasmonean descent is in reality a slave. This view is readily endorsed by R.

Yehuda, whose clash with one such claimant is related vividly, and Abaye, too,

places the issue in a contemporary context by asserting that many such persons

of dubious priestly descent are to be found in Babylonia.19 A Babylonian clan of 'strongmen' known as the "House of Eliashib" is

mentioned in a few sources.20 It may, perhaps, be identified as belonging to the

priestly course of this otherwise uncommon name.

Evidence for the maintenance of the priestly prerogatives and for the

continuation of the practice of the separation of priestly gifts in Babylonia in the

Sasanian period suggests that the recipients enjoyed privileged status in Jewish

society.

Privileges pertained to agricultural produce including the heave offering and

b. Ta'an. 7b; b. Sota 89b; b. Hul. 132b.

For an extensive discussion on this issue, see G. Herman, 'The Relations between Rav Huna

and Rav Hisda', [Hebrew] Zion, LXI/3 (1996) pp. 263-279, esp. pp. 268-9.

b. Qid. 70a-b. See the recent discussion by R. Kalmin, 'Portrayals of Kings in Rabbinic

Literature of Late Antiquity', Jewish Studies Quarterly, Vol. 3 (1996) pp. 320-341.

b. Ket. 54a; b. Git. 14a; b. B. Bat. 29a.

[65*]



GEOFFREY HERMAN

the dough offering (Hallah), and to animal products such as the right forearm, cheeks and stomach of all sheep and cattle slaughtered, and the firstborn of

sheep and cattle. The priest also received redemption money given for a

firstborn son. The BT records cases in which priests in Babylonia enjoyed every one of the above-mentioned privileges.21 Some of these privileges had

significant monetary value. The nature of our source material defies an estimate

of the contribution of these gifts to the income of the priestly recipients. However the sages certainly considered these laws applicable in Babylonia, and

with the possible exception of the heave offering, obligatory. The other side of

the equation — that the continual practice of these laws served the purpose, in

the minds of the observant, of supporting the priests in their fulfillment of their

biblical role as experts in, and instructors of the Law — cannot be ruled out.

Indeed R. Hisda was said to have held the view that such gifts should be given

only to priests who are learned.22

The high status ascribed to priestly descent can be seen to conform to another

attribute of Babylonian Jewish society that has, although in a different context, been previously discussed: the stress on purity of lineage.23

The Babylonians prided themselves on the purity of their lineage. They claimed their stock was purer than that of the Jews of Palestine. Within the

Sasanian empire, and even Babylonia, itself, distinctions were drawn between

the purity of the lineage of the inhabitants of various regions. The alleged Davidic ancestry of the family of the Exilarchate no doubt enhanced their status

in Jewish society. As the Exilarchs were apparently not generally esteemed for their expertise in Torah, much of their prestige may well have been dependent

upon the high esteem that accompanied Davidic descent. In a society that

valued pure lineage so highly, priestly descent, which carried with it the

assumption of purity of lineage, par excellence, consequently enjoyed high

esteem. One could acquire good lineage by marrying into a priestly family, also

described as "clinging to the seed of Aaron."24

Heave offering: b. Beza 12b, b. Nidda 32a, b. Bekh. 27a; dough offering: b. Pes. 48b, b. Pes.

50b,b. Hul. 104b,b. Bekh. 27a; portions from slaughtered animals: b. Shab. 10b,b. Hul. 131a,

b. Hul. 132b, b. Hul. 133a; first-born domestic animals: b. Beza 27b, b. Bekh. 36b, b. Tem. 8b;

redemption money for a first-born son: b. Qid. 8a, b. Pes. 121b; redemption of a first-born

donkey: b. Bekh. 9b.

b. Hul. 132b.

See A. Oppenheimer, Babylonia Judaica in the Talmudic Period, Weisbaden 1983, index, s.v.

'Babylonia of pure lineage'; ibid., and M. Lecker, 'Lineage Boundaries of Babylonia',

[Hebrew] Zion, 50(1985) pp. 173-187; l.M. Gafni, The Jews of Babylonia in the Talmudic Era:

A Social and Cultural History, [Hebrew], Jerusalem 1990, pp. 121-125.

b. Pes. 49a.

[66*]




In summary, priests were over-represented among the heads of the academies

in Babylonia during the Sasanian era. A high proportion of the non-priestly heads of the academies married into priestly families. Priests were over

represented among the Babylonian sages who migrated to Palestine and became

heads of the academies there. Priests were also over-represented in the academies of Babylonia and Palestine in the Geonic period. Taken together, these statistics strongly suggest that the disproportionately high number of

priests in the leadership of the Talmudic academies is not coincidental. I suggest that this may best be accounted for by assuming that priestly lineage in

Babylonia in this era enjoyed high prestige. This status concurs with the results

of other studies that indicate the high value assigned to purity of lineage in

Babylonian Jewish society. The fact that such over-representation occurs in

scholarly circles suggests that the schools expected their leaders to possess good lineage in addition to scholarly acumen. The ideal was the combination of the

two. One may deduce that the stress on good lineage as a criterion for

leadership, as depicted in the story mentioned earlier of the appointment of R.

Eleazar b. Azariah to head the academy in Yavne, was characteristic of

Sasanian Babylonia. Other indications of the high prestige assigned to priestly descent may be

discerned, including the continued observance of priestly prerogatives such as

priestly dues. It is likely that the privileged status of the priesthood in Babylonia was not new to the Sasanian era but was the continuation of the previous elite

position in society which is known to have characterized the status of the

priesthood in Palestine.

One objective of this paper has been to demonstrate that an aspect of

Babylonian Jewish society in the Sasanian period, which has been somewhat

neglected, is worthy of further study.25 In Babylonia, the crown of priesthood

appears to have proven its resilience in the face of changing times. Yet, it was not

in competition with, nor in spite of, the rise in the value of Torah scholarship that the prestige of priestly ancestry in Babylonia flourished, but as its

complement.

Finally, it may be noted that just as it was expected that the Torah scholars

should have pure lineage, the converse was also true — that those of pure lineage

should be Torah scholars. Higher hopes were placed on those of pure lineage, and this is an apt indication of how the values of Torah scholarship and pure

lineage converged. The following story, although relating to Palestinian

25 More extensive discussion of the issues dealt with briefly here and others may be found in my

MA thesis, Jewish Priests in Babylonia in the Talmudic Period, [Hebrew], Hebrew University,

Jerusalem 1998.

[67*]



GEOFFREY HERMAN

Amoraim appears in the BT, and, among other things, can also be seen to

exemplify this:

The rabbis said to R. Peridah: R. Ezra the grandson of R. Abtulos, who is the

tenth generation from R. Eleazar b. Azariah, who, in turn, is the tenth

generation from Ezra, is waiting at the door, he said: What's this all about? If he

is a scholar — fine. If he is a scholar and of distinguished ancestry-fine. But if he

is of distinguished ancestry but not a scholar — may fire consume him! They told him: He is a scholar. He said: He may enter."26

26 b. Men. 53a.

[68*]



division b: history of the jewish people / חטיבה ב: תולדות עם ישראל ||...

Documents