An Orthodox Jew who reads Ben Sira with a sympathetic eye

Iyov, whose blog I recommend, makes the following statement in a comment to a previous post:

I have yet to ever meet a Jew who "reads Ben Sira with a sympathetic eye."

Iyov should get out a little more. The quotation below the fold proves that Iyov is all wet. It is taken from online teaching on “Miketz Genesis” (Genesis 41:1-44:17) by Yaakov Fogelman. Fogelman directs TOP, the Torah Outreach Program and The Jerusalem Jewish Information Center  in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem. He studied at The Rabbinical Seminary of America, and is a graduate of Yeshiva University.

Parallel to false and evil prophets are false dreams (see Jer. 23:25, Zech. 10:2). Rashby, R. Berechia, and R. Hisda note that all dreams have SOME extraneous, superfluous, and unfulfilled material (Ber. 55a-- Yosef's parents never bow down to him!). Yoel 3:1 predicts that all Jews will have prophetic dreams in the world to come. Ben Sira (31:1ff) denounces belief in dreams, which uplift fools. Speaking of Ben Sira, let's depart for

AN INTERESTING DIGRESSION: After the Mishna (San. 11:1 in the Babylonian Talmud, San. 10:1 in the Jerusalem Talmud-- see the Soncino Talmud) proclaims that all Israel have a portion in the world to come (including those executed by the Sanhedrin), it lists exceptions who do not-- he who maintains that resurrection is not a Biblical doctrine, that the Torah was not divinely revealed (cf. The German Documentary Hypothesis, taught at H.U., H.U.C., J.T.S., and R.R.C.), and an epikores, defined in the talmud as one who speaks disparagingly of the Bible and its disciples.

Rebbe Akiva added: "one who reads uncanonical books", sefarim ha-chitzonim, lit. "outside books". Graetz and Weiss claim that this refers to un-Jewish, particularly Gnostic, literature, which impaired pure Jewish monotheism. The Jerusalem Talmud's examples are the Books of Ben Sira and Ben La'anah, while reading Homer and all subsequent books is considered only as the reading of a letter (which doesn't claim Divine origin, eternal relevance; so Esther requests that her "letter" be made into a "book", i.e. canonized, made part of the Tanach, which merges truth and peace-- see Esther 9:29-32). In the Babylonian Talmud (100b), "uncanonical books" are defined by a Tanna as "the books of the Sadducees".

R. Travers Herford, a true friend of Israel and a lover of its Torah, translated and explained Pirke Avot, from a Jewish viewpoint, in 1925; the 6th printing of the 4th edition was published in 1971 by Schocken. He claimed that Sadducees here refers to Judeo-Christians, who propounded the "outside books" of their New Testament. There were no Sadducees after the destruction of the Temple; "Sadducees" is probably a censor's emendation for sectarians or Gentiles; Ms. M. reads minim. Rav Yosef attempted to ban Ben Sira too, except for its good parts, but other rabbis argue with him (San. 100b), showing that Jewish tradition contains the same ideas which he disputes in Ben Sira. Indeed, Yad Ramah and others imply that Ben Sira was once canonized, later removed, by the rabbis (see JQR, 1891, 686 and 700). In fact, Ben Sira's wisdom is frequently quoted in the Talmud. Some say that Rav Yosef prohibits only the public reading of non-canonical works, treating them as Scripture, and expounding them to the community (V. Krochmal, More Nvuchei Hazman, XI, 5).

Rabbi Y'rachmiel Roness, who directs Ulpanot L'giyur, made some interesting comments on this material to me at the beautiful and inspiring religious Zionist wedding of Rom Wahrhaftig and Adina Ben Dov last year; you may call him at 652-7154, to get his full exposition of this ban.

Isn’t that sweet? It’s especially enjoyable to hear Ben Sira quoted with approval by someone who is at pains to point out his disagreement on other matters with those who teach what I imagine he considers to be higher anti-Semitism at Hebrew University, Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion, the Jewish Theological Seminary, and – horror of horrors - the  Reconstructionist Rabbinical College.

Comments

[Iyov]

An interesting post, to be sure, but it elides over R. Joseph's central point -- which is that portions of Ben Sira are simply nonsense (including the quotes I gave in a previous comment). It is perhaps a point that you misunderstand too -- it is not that Ben Sira is "offensive" but rather, that it is nonsense.

However, you'll notice that Yaakov Fogelman (who does not claim semicha) reaffirms the ban on Ben Sira, citing also the Jerusalem Talmud (which I freely admit I did not check -- I have not studied the full Jerusalem Talmud).

Further, if you look closely, you will notice that Fogelman is using the Greek Sirach and not the "Hebrew Ben Sira."

More to the point, as I've already shown, Ben Sira verses quoted by the Torah do not appear in your Hebrew edition. Now, I think that even you can see a problem arguing on the one hand that the Talmud provides textual evidence of the Jewishness of Ben Sira while on the other hand it is clear that your version of Ben Sira is clearly different than the version in the Talmud.

You further seem to claim a superiority of the "Hebrew" (corrupt) version over the Greek (deutero-canonical) version. It appears that you are making this claim on textual grounds (although this is not justified). But perhaps you are making it on literary grounds (although you have provided no evidence of this).

Ecclesiasticus contains a number of Messianic references, and of course, these particularly endear the book in the Christian tradition.

Now, before closing this comment, I wish to address several points.

(1) "My tactics" of calling you a biblical fundamentalist refers, of course, to your recent declaration of the same (although I still feel you are using the word "fundamentalist" -- much as you are using the word Jewish -- in a non-standard way).

(2) The link in this post is broken.

(3) I called you "insensitive" and not an "anti-Semite" -- and I don't recall mentioning anything about Nazis. By invoking Goodwin's law, you have. I'm afraid this makes me think you aren't really serious in your posts, but merely interested in scoring rhetorical points.

(4) For the record, my understanding of the halacha is the same as Fogelman's: one is allowed to read heretical works as long as one reads them non-Scripturally -- e.g., merely as historical or literary works. Should you wish to debate the literary merits of Sirach, feel free. I don't think it ranks in the top 100 works of world literature, but should you disagree, feel free to make your claims. Your quotation mentions Homer: I've read Homer and I've read Sirach, and Homer is much better.

(5) You will quickly realize that when Ben Sira agrees with the Torah (e.g., the "good parts") one is allowed to quote it -- however, since those points are by assumption already in the Torah, Ben Sira is merely superfluous. When Ben Sira claims a novel point, however, he is in heresy.

[John Hobbins]

Thanks for your comments, Iyov. I'll try to fix the link.

As I pretty much knew all along, I don't think we have any fundamental differences, though I will continue to take issue with your strange characterization of Hebrew ben Sira as "corrupt."

Yes, I prefer Homer to ben Sira. I read the former to my children, according to an Italian tradition, as part of their upbringing. I don't do that with ben Sira.

On the other hand, if I want to understand the history of ideas in Jewish tradition and in Christian tradition, a thorough knowledge of the contents of Ben Sira - in both Hebrew and Greek - is far more helpful than acquaintance with Homer.

[Iyov]

the history of ideas in Jewish and Christian tradition

(I would say "tradition" should be "traditions".)

In fact, I don't know what you mean by this phrase. Do you mean (a) ideas of those who held beliefs in accord with normative Judaism and Christianity (as we know it today); (b) ideas of those who belonged to the general cultural groups of Jews or Christians; (c) ideas of those influenced by Judaism or Christianity; or something else?

For example, is Gnosticism part of the tradition you cite? (This would follow from a "yes" to (b).)

Is Islam, which views Moses and Jesus as prophets, part of the tradition you cite? (This would follow from a "yes" to (c).)

Sirach, being in the Catholic and Orthodox deuterocanon, clearly qualifies under (a) for Christianity. Our disagreement is whether it qualifies under (a) for Judaism.

- - - - -

But, I'm not going to let you off so easily John: I have repeatedly raised the issue of the discrepancy of verses quoted in the Talmud as being part of Ben Sira -- yet mysteriously missing from the "recovered" version of Ben Sira (or the Greek Sirach).

You have not yet responded to this point.

So, how can you claim both (a) the Talmud is a textual witness to Ben Sira; and (b) that the reconstructed Hebrew Ben Sira reflects the original?

(This discrepancy is exactly the source of my claim that Ben Sira is corrupt.)

[John Hobbins]

Thanks, Iyov, for keeping me honest. I'll fix the tradition/traditions problem.

What I have in mind when I speak of "history of ideas" are questions like: how did things go from (point A) the proto-messianic hopes of a Jeremiah or Ezekiel to (point E) the full-blown messianic hopes reflected in the Targums?

A history of ideas approach investigates the extent to which it is correct or incorrect to say that the "eschatological" (a loaded term, I admit) hopes found in texts as diverse as Jubilees, ben Sira, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch constitute points B, C, and D in a cultural sequence that begins with the point A and ends with the point E mentioned above.

(On this particular question, there is an amazing study by Joseph Klausner; I just discovered via Wikipedia that Amos Oz is his great-nephew, which upped my already high regard for the latter.)

As far as Hebrew ben Sira is concerned, I have other posts in the hopper which will address your points.

[scott gray]

john--

would you unpack in a post the history of idea sequence regarding messianic/eschatology from a to e, at your lesure?

[John Hobbins]

Hey Scott, that's a bit of homework you've given me. The request is excellent, but I doubt I will be able to act on it soon.