How Hillel brought a Gentile “under the wings of the Shechinah”

Phil Sumpter cites and comments on a paradigmatic narrative in the Talmud. Shammai, Hillel, and a Gentile are the protagonists. It is worth taking a look at the narrative in the original. If you have never looked at a text in rabbinic Hebrew, this is a nice one to begin with. When you come across a word that is new to you, cut and paste it into an online Hebrew-English dictionary, of which there are several. I like milon.morfix; you can plug in an entire phrase like על אחת כמה וכמה. An accurate gloss is returned.

From Talmud Bavli Shabbat 31a, here is the account of how Hillel converted a Gentile to Judaism. The principle is: if a person’s approach to God contains, at least in theory, a smidgeon of authenticity, start there and progress on. I have to admit though: I sympathize with Shammai.

The Hebrew and interspersed English translation are provided. To the student of biblical Hebrew, rabbinic Hebrew is striking for not conforming to the narrative conventions of biblical Hebrew. I consulted Isidore Epstein’s translation, and note that, by mistranslating הזר (Numbers 1:51) as “the stranger,” Epstein deforms the sense of the entire passage. The word in question means “outsider,” and refers in context to any unauthorized Israelite. The Gentile in the narrative understands that. Isidore Epstein, apparently, did not.

שוב מעשה בנכרי אחד

שהיה עובר אחורי בית המדרש

ושמע קול סופר שהיה אומר

ואלה הבגדים אשר יעשו

חושן ואפוד

Again, what happened with a certain foreigner

who was passing behind a house of study,

and he heard the voice of a scribe who was saying,

“And these are the garments which they shall make:

a breastplate, and an ephod.”

אמר הללו למי

אמרו לו לכהן גדול

אמר אותו נכרי בעצמו

אלך ואתגייר

בשביל שישימוני כהן גדול

בא לפני שמאי

אמר ליה גיירני

על מנת שתשימני כהן גדול

דחפו באמת הבנין שבידו

He said, “For whom are these?”

They said, “For the High Priest.”

The foreigner said to himself,

“I will go and become a proselyte,

that I may be appointed a High Priest.”

He went before Shammai.

He said to him, “Make me a proselyte

on condition that you appoint me a High Priest.”

He drove him away with the builder's cubit which was in his hand.

בא לפני הלל

גייריה

א"ל

כלום מעמידין מלך

אלא מי שיודע טכסיסי מלכות

לך למוד טכסיסי מלכות

הלך וקרא כיון שהגיע

והזר הקרב יומת

אמר ליה

מקרא זה על מי נאמר

א"ל

אפי' על דוד מלך ישראל

He went before Hillel.

He made him a proselyte.

He said to him,

“Can they install someone as king

if he does not know the arts of government?

Go and study the arts of government!”

He went and read, and when he encountered,

“And the outsider that approaches shall be put to death,”

he said to him,

“This reading, of whom does it speak?”

He said to him,

“Even of David, King of Israel.”

נשא אותו גר קל וחומר בעצמו

ומה ישראל שנקראו בנים למקום

ומתוך אהבה שאהבם קרא להם

בני בכורי ישראל

כתיב עליהם

והזר הקרב יומת

גר הקל שבא במקלו ובתרמילו

על אחת כמה וכמה

The proselyte put the question to himself a fortiori:

If Israel, who are referred to as sons by the Eternal,

and out of the love he has for them he refers to them as:

“my son, my firstborn, Israel,”

it is written of them,

“And the outsider that approaches shall be put to death,”

how much less a proselyte [should approach], who comes with his staff and wallet!

Q.E.D.”

בא לפני שמאי

א"ל

כלום ראוי אני להיות כהן גדול

והלא כתיב בתורה

והזר הקרב יומת

He went before Shammai.

He said to him,

“Am I then allowed to be a High Priest?

Is it not written in the Torah,

“And the outsider that approaches shall be put to death”?

בא לפני הלל

א"ל

ענוותן הלל

ינוחו לך ברכות על ראשך

שהקרבתני תחת כנפי השכינה

He went before Hillel.

He said to him,

“O gentle Hillel,

May blessings rest on your head

because you brought me under the wings of the Shechinah.”

Comments

[Phil Sumpter]

Thanks for this. I've never read rabbinic Hebrew before. It seems to have the same structure as the English "progressive" or "continuous form" (be + ing/haya + active participle). Do they really have the same meaning? As far as I know, English is unique in European languages for this structure and temporal distinction.

A translation question: you translated lekh velimod with "He went and read." Shouldn't this be "go and learn/study"?

[JohnFH]

Phil,

I'm glad I introduced you to rabbinic Hebrew.

To my mind, haya + active participle) expresses relative past tense with respect to context, or anteriority, not aspect. My use of be + participle to English is a calque, but I think it about works.

I translate lekh limod with 'go and study,' just as you expected. Your eye apparently skipped down.

[Randall Buth]

For the record, haya + participle is good First Temple Hebrew, to mark both time and aspect separately.
What is new in Mishnaic Hebrew is the frequency and spread of the idiom throughout the system. That, to me, is the influence of Greek, post-Alexander, with its meticulous marking of aspect everywehre in the Greek verb.

[JohnFH]

I suspect I'm taking the non-aspectual reading of these constructions too far. But if there is another normal way by which rabbinic Hebrew expresses relative tense, it's not coming to mind.

[AaronH]

The transaltions "was passing" and "was saying" sound just fine to me. And it doesn't sound at all "non-aspectual" : "was" = past (tense); "passing" = in process/imperfective (aspect). Also, there are European langauges other than English with similar structures (e.g., Italian: stava dicendo, Spanish: estaba diciendo [though they also have other structures to convey the meaning]).

Another reason that the hayah qotel structure is so common in MH compared to BH, is that MH stopped using or used much less frequently many of the other structures that BH had used to mark in-process or on-going actions in the past: ב+inf; YIQTOL; WEQATAL.

However, our knowledge of early First Temple Period Hebrew storytelling is very small compared to our knowledge of BH storytelling, because we have so few early MH narratives.

[John Hobbins]

Good point, Aaron. However, in Italian - I'm bilingual - 'stava dicendo' is otiose here; 'diceva' is the natural equivalent.

[ginat]

One may debate the merits of "the stranger," "the outsider," or other alternatives as the preferred rendering of "hazar" in the quoted passage from Numbers. In any case, Epstein does not "mistranslate" or "deform the sense" of the passage. His translation of the Talmudic passage clearly indicates that the term "the stranger" includes Israelites and therefore, by implication, refers to any non-kohen:

"Thereupon that proselyte reasoned within himself a fortiori: if Israel, who are called sons of the Omnipresent, and who in His love for them He designated them, Israel is my son, my firstborn, yet it is written of them, ‘and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death’: how much more so a mere proselyte, who comes with his staff and wallet!"

The Soncino Talmud may be faulted in many respects, not least for its lack of readability, but neither Epstein nor his colleagues were not given to making elementary mistakes. The supersessionist impulse to best Epstein upon making one's maiden (or is it second or third?) translation from Rabbinic Hebrew seems to betray an identification not so much with Hillel or Shammai as with the prostelyte who wishes to jump to the head of the Jewish hierarchy immediately upon conversion.

[JohnFH]

Ginat,

I don't think the sense of hazar in the Numbers passage is unclear. Do you? I can't quite tell. It refers there to non-kohen Israelites in particular. If you think otherwise, please say so.

The term 'stranger' in English cannot easily be understood to reference a kohen / non-kohen opposition. That being the case, its use in this context is misleading. I stand by my previous comment.

As for whether Epstein and colleagues were capable of making mistakes of this kind: of course they were. We all are. Arguments based on authority are suspect.

If you are suggesting that my translation of this passage is not an improvement on that of Epstein and colleagues, prove it. Your pop psychoanalysis is entertaining, but fools no one.

But don't take the word of a shaygetz when it comes to the meaning of hazar in Numbers 1:51. Here is Jacob Milgrom's comment from his JPS Torah Commentary: "Outsider [that is how NJPSV translates hazar]. That is, unauthorized person, in this case any Israelite."

Feel better now? Ginat, you are always welcome to comment here. Sooner or later, you will catch me in error, and I will be grateful.

[ginat]

1. Is "stranger" the best translation of the passage in question? I have no idea. Is it a perfectly acceptable rendering? Yes. Does it connote non-kohanim? No, except in context. Does it (incorrectly) connote non-Israelites and miss the point of the story? No.

2. More to the point, does the term "outsider" more clearly convey the distinction between kohanim and others as opposed to a possible distinction between Israelites and non-Israelites? Perhaps, but not to me.

3. Still more to the point. Is there anything in the Soncino rendering that indicates a misunderstanding of the story? I don't think so. Certainly, the point of the story is clear in the passage I quoted, and it isn't obviated in the slightest by the conventional rendering of the biblical passage (which, for all I know, follows a particular translation, perhaps Soncino's own, as a matter of policy).

4. If I'm correct on point 3, as I believe I am, then it's legitimate to wonder at the vehment, repeated insistence on Epstein's error in the original discussion, now reiterated in your rejoinder. Why misread Epstein as a misreader? Answer: I have no idea. Given the subject matter of the post, the reference to sympathy with the characters in the story, the theme of the tyro and the grand panjandrum and the trumpeting of the superiority of "gentile's" understanding over Epstein's, I don't think my "pop psychoanalysis" is at all implausible.

5. If the shoe doesn't fit, then I apologize for being of the school of Shammai -- in this instance.

6. Could the Soncino be wrong? Sure. They're probably wrong in this very passage in following the Vilna edition of the Talmud and taking the biblical reference to be to Numbers 1, 51 where "stranger" or "outsider" refers to a non-Levite, as opposed to the parallel passages in Numbers 3,10 or 18, 7 where the reference is to non-kohanim. The latter passage would particularly apt for purposes of the story, since it refers to service behind the curtain, which is the exclusive province of the high priest. But this is a small point indeed.

[JohnFH]

Thanks, Ginat, for commenting here. In point 6 you raise issues I had not considered before.

I think it's disingenuous on your part to plead ignorance as to whether 'the stranger' is a good translation of hazar or not in Numbers 1:51. It isn't a good translation, which is why hazar is not translated with 'the stranger' by others in this instance ('unauthorized person' KJV, NJB, ESV, NAB, HCSB; 'common man' old JPSV; 'outsider' NJPSV, NRSV; 'layman/layperson' REB, NAB; ).

I'm sensitive to the issue in a way you are not because a similar expression, isha zara in Proverbs, has been widely mistranslated along the same lines according to my teacher, Michael Fox, and I'm convinced he's right.

On the other hand, you might be right that Epstein and colleagues translated hazar with 'stranger' without meaning to imply a 'stranger' in the sense that word normally has in English. In that case, it would be a calque of the Hebrew. The calque is misleading, but only (!) to those whose knowledge of the meaning of the underlying Hebrew is limited.