Yishai Kiel

Within this close textual analysis of the Babylonian Talmud, the book explores rabbinic discussions of sex in light of cultural assumptions and dispositions that pervaded the cultures of late antiquity and particularly the Iranian world. By negotiating the Iranian context of the rabbinic discussion alongside the Christian backdrop, this volume presents a balanced and nuanced portrayal of the rabbinic discourse on sexuality and situates rabbinic discussions of sex more broadly at the crossroads of late antique cultures. The study is divided into two thematic sections: the first centers on the broader aspects of rabbinic discourse on sexuality while the second hones in on rabbinic discussions of sexual prohibitions and the classification of permissible and prohibited partnerships, with particular attention to rabbinic discussions of incest.

The article contributes to the unsettling of the Western bifurcation inherent in the “law and religion” paradigm, by examining the overlapping functions of the two categories as two sides of the same coin – law as religion, religion as law – in Jewish, Islamic, and Zoroastrian discussions of legality and revelation in the early Abbasid period. It argues that “religious” or “revelatory” rhetoric work in tandem to reflect a coherent jurisprudential view, as in all three legal systems, we see a process of theologization of the law (i.e., advocacy of strong “authorial” models of revelation and “retrieval” models of legal transmission, while minimizing the role of human agency in effecting the content of revelation), on the one hand, and a process of textual demarcation and confinement of the law (giving rise in embryonic fashion to the principle of “legality” entailing the law’s prospectiveness and stability), on the other hand.
In this context, it is argued that Sherira, Shāfiʽī, and Mānuščihr played a particularly significant role in framing and articulating the stakes of the normative and theological canonization of their respective religious traditions, by insisting on the textual confinement of God’s revelation – as pronounced at the initial revelatory moment in unadulterated form – in the Mishnah-cum-Talmud, Hadith, and Zand, corpora which soon enough came to be regarded as the exclusive, complete, and authoritative articulations of the law (alongside the Torah, Quran, and Avesta). Indeed, the parallel diachronic shifts in each of these religious traditions point to a broader legal-theological turn in the Islamicate culture of the early Abbasid period, which has major implications for mapping the history of the dynamics of law and religion.

This chapter is devoted to the Sasanian context of the Babylonian Talmud. While the Talmud is, first and foremost, a rabbinic work, a link in an unbroken chain of rabbinic tradition, it cannot be properly comprehended in isolation from the broader cultural fabric of the late ancient world in which it was produced. Unlike the vast majority of the early rabbinic corpus, which was produced in Roman Palestine, the Bavli is uniquely
situated at the crossroads of East and West, and, as such, it embodies and
reflects both Greco-Roman and Sasanian impact. While the Greco-Roman context of rabbinic literature is explored in adjacent chapters, this one turns to the ambient Sasanian or Syro-Mesopotamian culture in the context of which the Bavli took shape.
The chapter discusses the broader significance of talmudic discussions of
Persians, Persian culture, Sasanian royalty, its bureaucracy, and its priesthood; the Talmud’s use of Iranian loanwords; talmudic engagement with Sasanian law, its institutions, and technical terminology; the Zoroastrian context of talmudic ritual taxonomies and classifications; the Iranian context of talmudic narratives and myths; the affinity between the Babylonian rabbinic academy and its distinctive scholastic culture and the East Syrian Christian school movement; the connections between talmudic devotional and religious expressions and the corpus of the Persian Martyr Acts; the exegetical affinity between the Talmud and Syriac authors such as Aphrahat and Ephrem; talmudic law and the Syriac legal tradition; the Talmud’s engagement with gnostic, and especially Manichaean and Mandean, thought; and, finally, the ties connecting
talmudic lore with late cuneiform traditions relating to astronomy, astrology, mathematics, omens, medicine, and magic.

The article centers on a set of rabbinic principles—ve‘asita ha-yashar ve-ha-tov (“you shall do that which is upright and good”), kofin ‘al middat sedom (“we [=a court] may coerce regarding the ways of Sodom”), le-ma‘an telekh be-derekh tovim (“so that you shall walk in the way of the virtuous”), and lifnim mi-shurat ha-din (“[going] within the line of the law”)—which establish a heightened standard of moral behavior in the sphere of private law. It is argued that these principles were developed and systematized mainly in the context of the Babylonian (rather than Palestinian) branch of rabbinic legal culture and are, therefore, reflective of the distinctive cultural and jurisprudential environment of the Syro-Mesopotamian Near East. It is mainly in this context that moral principles and values are said to establish fully-normative, justiciable, and enforceable standards of behavior in excess of the strict law.
The rabbinic principles are contextualized with the adjacent East Syrian Christian and Iranian legal traditions, focusing in particular on Īšōʿbōxt’s taxonomy of moral and legal categories. It is argued that the category of “uprightness” (triṣūtā) informs the rabbinic principles of performing that which is “upright and good” and avoiding the “measure of Sodom,” which require good faith and fair dealing, and seek to prevent unconscionable behavior and abuse of rights, whereas the category of acting in excess of the law or short of the law (yatīrūt / hasīrūt dinā) informs the rabbinic principles of acting “within the line of the law” and “walking in the path of the virtuous,” which require altruistic and supererogatory behavior—to the extent of incurring financial loss—and involve a dimension of distributive justice.

The Book of Zerubbabel, an apocalypse likely composed in the seventh-century against the political backdrop of the battle over Jerusalem between the Sasanian and Byzantine Empires, represents a distinctive combination of eschatological and soteriological speculation in the history of Jewish thought. While the work is clearly dependent on biblical and postbiblical Jewish antecedents, scholars have noted its unique engagement with Byzantine Christian culture—whether by way of appropriation or polemic—especially in terms of the affinity between Christ and the suffering Davidic Messiah, Menaḥem b. ʿAmiʾel, and his slain-resurrected eschatological counterpart; the reflection of Virgin Mary in the warrior figure of Ḥephṣibah, the mother of the Messiah, and the representation of ʾArmilos in the image and likeness of the Antichrist.
Supplementing the lens provided by Byzantine Christian culture, I argue that the figure of ʾArmilos, who is said to have emerged from a sexual encounter between Beliʿal and a rock in the shape of a beautiful virgin, has not been sufficiently informed by recourse to byzantine imagery of the Virgin. I posit that the story can be illuminated through gnostic, particularly Sethian and Manichaean, traditions concerning the archons’ seduction/rape of a beautiful virgin and the diabolic offspring which issued from this union. I further submit that the gnostic myth was combined with visual and literary reports of Mithras’ emergence from a rock and his sexual union with a rock. The Mithraic evidence was presumably integrated by the authors of the Book of Zerubbabel into a gnostic framework of the diabolic seduction/rape of a virgin, since Iranian Mithra plays a prominent role in certain eastern versions of the gnostic myth—via the Iranian Manichaean identification of Mithra with the Third Messenger (the feminine aspect of which is no other than the Virgin of Light). Roman Mithras, moreover, was portrayed by certain patristic accounts as a diabolic counterpart of Christ (in an attempt to subvert the association of the two figures), a fact which might explain the presence of Mithras in a story of the Antichrist’s birth. The integration of gnostic and Mithraic traditions thus gave rise to an unprecedented story about ʾArmilos’ rock-birth from Beliʿal’s sexual union with a rock shaped as a beautiful virgin.

The article examines the classification of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in terms of “Abrahamic” religions from the vantage point of Sasanian and Islamicate Zoroastrianism, a religious tradition which displays a complex and dynamic reception of the figure of Abraham. The article centers on a set of polemical passages in Pahlavi contained in the third book of the Dēnkard, which depict two alternative and antipodal lines of transmission: the Zoroastrian Tradition is said to have been transmitted from Yima to Zarathustra and finally to the teachers of old, while the Jewish Torah (ōraytā) is said to have been handed down from the demon Dahāg, the originator of the Arab race, to Abraham, and finally to Moses “of Abrahamic lineage.” It is posited that the Pahlavi tradition reflects a sophisticated and nuanced Zoroastrian response, both to Jewish, Christian, and Islamic notions of Abrahamic identity, and to competing Zoroastrian claims of participation in Abrahamic heritage.
It is posited that at the core of the Pahlavi tradition lie two competing interpretive strategies, both of which seek to construct Zoroastrian identity vis-à-vis the figure of Abraham. According to the overt strategy, Zoroastrian identity is constructed in diametrical opposition to the figure of Abraham, as Abraham’s demonic revelation stands in contrast to the divine revelation to Zarathustra. The covert strategy, on the other hand, which the text explicitly denies, but which is present nonetheless as an interpretive possibility, is one of appropriation and identification with Abrahamic heritage. While Zarathustra’s biography has been connected to Abraham already in late antiquity, by the late ninth-century we find Zoroastrian authors who explicitly identify Zarathustra as Abraham/Ibrāhīm. Whether these authors were genuinely convinced by the similar biographies of the two figures, were effected by Islamic attempts to interweave the Quranic, biblical, and Iranian accounts of the sacred history, or simply sought to improve their social standing by identifying themselves as descendants of Abraham eligible for the special protective status granted to Jews and Christians; the construction of Zoroastrian identity via the notion of Abrahamic descent remained a viable option, one which needed to be subverted by the authors of the Dēnkard, who maintained that Abraham constituted the very antithesis of the prophet Zarathustra.

The article explores a set of religious and mythical motifs found in a Jewish Babylonian Aramaic magic bowl from the Moussaieff collection (M 163), which includes references to the sun god Šamaš(-Mithra); Jesus, his heavenly Father, and the cross; binitarian Christology; the oppression of the Great Man of the End and Suffering Messiah; a cosmic bird referred to as White Rooster; and a semi-divine angelic figure called ḤRWM AḤRWM. These motifs are situated in the broader context of contemporaneous Jewish Babylonian traditions incorporated in the talmudic, mystical, and magical corpora, on the one hand, and the surrounding Christian, Syro-Mesopotamian, and Iranian cultures, on the other hand. The article contributes to the decentralization of Greco-Roman culture as the sole context for ancient Judaism as well as the decentralization of rabbinic expressions as representative of ancient Jewish culture at large. The cultural mapping of the religious and mythical motifs found in this magic bowl, both within and beyond the confines of Jewish Babylonia, exemplifies the complex and dynamic nature of the participation of Jewish Babylonian magic practitioners, not only in the larger fabric of contemporaneous talmudic, mystical, and magical currents in Jewish culture, but also in the broader framework of the Christian, Syro-Mesopotamian, and Iranian cultures that pervaded the Sasanian East.

The article situates a talmudic legend (bGit 68a-b) relating the usurpation of Solomon's throne by Ashmedai, king of the demons, at the crossroads of Jewish and Christian traditions stemming from the Roman East and indigenous Iranian mythical lore pertaining to the usurpation of Yima's throne by the demons.

The scholarly discussion about individual nonconformity to and dissent from traditional Zoroastrian law and doctrine has largely centered on medieval responses in Pahlavi and New Persian focusing on the legal status of apostates, typically in the form of converts to Islam. The treatment of apostasy and conversion by medieval Zoroastrian jurists reflects, for the most part, legal concerns typical of Zoroastrianism as a religious minority under Islamic dominance, some of which were shared by their Jewish, Christian, and Islamic contemporaries.
The legal concerns pertaining to individuals’ nonconformity to Zoroastrian law and doctrine did not, however, originate as a reaction to the large-scale conversions to Islam in the early Islamic period. In fact, the issue of religious dissent from Zoroastrian norms and views is systematically treated in the Pahlavi commentary on the Avestan Nīrangestān, which was redacted orally probably in the late Sasanian period. The extensive medieval discussion of apostasy and conversion is, therefore, not only a reflection of the religious and legal encounter of Zoroastrianism with Islam, but also represents earlier Zoroastrian traditions, which were redacted in their final form before the advent of Islam.
In this article, to honor Maria Macuch’s inestimable contributions to the study of Zoroastrian law, we discuss the twenty-third chapter of the Pahlavi Nīrangestān along with its commentary against the backdrop of Islamic laws of apostasy, on the one hand, and Talmudic (particularly Babylonian) law and other sources, on the other hand. We argue that the discussions concerning religious dissent in this Pahlavi text are significantly illuminated by a comparison with Talmudic law and, particularly, with the Babylonian Talmud’s discussions of normative and theological dissent, which are situated in the intellectual world of the Sasanian period.
We further argue that, after the redaction of the Nīrangestān, some of the legal concerns in our text continued to occupy the minds of the medieval Zoroastrian jurists, who appropriated and repackaged earlier discussions by applying them to the new reality of large-scale conversions to Islam. Here, the traditions of the Pahlavi Nīrangestān together with their later incarnations in medieval Zoroastrian responses on apostasy and conversion can be significantly illuminated by a comparison with Islamic legislation.

Rabbinic law is often presented in the literature as a jurisprudential alternative to centralistic and monistic theories of the law, echoing instead a pluralistic and decentralized legal model couched in the founding myth of Yavneh. Whether the pluralistic ethos of rabbinic law emerges already in tannaitic literature or only in the Babylonian Talmud—a matter hotly debated in recent years—by the time of the closure of the classical rabbinic corpus, rabbinic law was undoubtedly perceived as a touchstone of pluralism, multivocality, and polysemy, an image bequeathed by the rabbis to posterity.
In this article, I seek to problematize, stratify, and complicate the pluralistic legacy attached to rabbinic law, by focusing on a very different account of Yavneh from the Abbasid period, which was permeated by a theory of legal monism and a rhetoric of consensus, unanimity, and centralized authority. I center on a close textual examination of the Epistle of Rav Sherira Gaon in the light of contemporaneous Islamicate rhetoric concerning consensus and unanimity (Arabic ijmāʽ; Middle Persian ham-dādestānīh) of the jurists and the nation at large. Using Cover's theory of the reciprocity of nomos and narrative in general and the interplay of jurisprudential theory and constitutional myths in particular, I argue that Sherira’s theoretical adherence to legal monism, a position carefully crafted against the backdrop of the pluralistic ethos of the classical rabbis, was couched in an innovative retelling of the founding mythical moments that constituted rabbinic Judaism: the rabbinic gathering at Yavneh and the codification of the Mishnah some one hundred and thirty years later. Not unlike some of his Muslim and Zoroastrian contemporaries, Sherira sought to project his monistic jurisprudence onto a reconstructed myth of origins.

In this study I examine the linguistic and theological contours of the term  תורה (tôrâ) in Ezra-Nehemiah—particularly the identification of תורה with the law (דת\דתא) of God promulgated by Ezra (Ezra 7:14)—through the lens of Old Persian and Avestan notions of “the law set down (dāta)” by Ahura Mazda and revealed through Zarathustra. While the basic notion of divine revelation of laws through the mediation of Moses emerges already in preexilic biblical texts, I posit that the innovative link drawn by the authors of Ezra-Nehemiah between the Old Persian and Avestan term dāta (via Aramaic דת\דתא) and the Hebrew  תורה reflects a broader and more comprehensive impact of Avestan traditions, mediated by Achaemenid ideology, on the construction and conceptualization of Mosaic  תורה in Ezra-Nehemiah. Weighing in on the ongoing debate over the range of imperial authorization of local legislation and cult in Judea, Egypt, and Asia Minor, I argue that the Achaemenids, who were probably involved in certain aspects of the codification and canonization of textual, legal, and theological manifestations of Zoroastrianism, functioned as agents (whether actively or passively) in facilitating and reinforcing the adaptation by the Babylonian-Judean scribes of Avestan notions of divine revelation of the law and scriptural unity linked to personal authority.

סיפור ההמרה המפורסם של מונבז מלכה של חדייב, שהתגייר ככל הנראה במאה הראשונה לספירה ביחד עם אמו הלני ובני משפחה נוספים, נדון רבות במחקר. פרטי המאורע ידועים לנו בעיקר מן העדויות שנשתמרו אצל יוסף בן מתתיהו  ובספרות התלמודית ומאזכורים אצל סופרים נוספים בעת העתיקה. בצד הגרעין היסודי של סיפור ההמרה ומסורות אגדיות שונות המתארות את צדיקותם ונדיבותם של בני משפחת המלוכה מחדייב, מיוחסות למונבז בספרות התלמודית גם מסורות שונות בענייני הלכה,  ובמקומות אחדים הוא אף מוצג כאחד מן החכמים וכמי שנושא ונותן עם גדולי התנאים בדברי הלכה.
מאמר זה טוען כי המסורות התלמודיות אודות מונבז ה’חכם’ נבחרו בעיקר מסיבות ספרותיות, אידאולוגיות ותרבותיות, ובכך הן מלמדות אותנו בעיקר על עולמם ותפיסותיהם של יוצרי הספרות התלמודית ולא על דמותו של מונבז ההיסטורי. אף שמגמה עקרונית זו ישנה במסורת התלמודית על אודות מונבז בכללה (ובתוך כך גם בספרות הארץ-ישראלית), מאמר זה מראה כי התלמוד הבבלי בפרט מייחס לבית מונבז הנהגות הלכתיות ייחודיות המגלות דמיון מפתיע להלכה הזורואסטרית כפי שזו באה לידי ביטוי בספרות הפרסית-בינונית (פהלווי) מן התקופה הסאסאנית וראשית התקופה המוסלמית. המאמר טוען כי עמדות אלו יוחסו למונבז מסיבות תרבותיות, שכן בעיני יוצרי התלמוד הבבלי, שהכירו טפח ואף טפחיים מן התרבות הזורואסטרית שסביבם, התאימה דמותו של מונבז כפי שנצטיירה בעיניהם כגר שנתגייר בסביבה פרתית-איראנית שייתלו בה הנהגות והלכות שהיו מוכרות להם מעולם ההלכה הזורואסטרי, שרווח בסביבתם הסאסאנית.
ההקשר ה’זורואסטרי’ של המסורות המיוחסות לבית מונבז בתלמוד הבבלי מאיר לא את ההיסטוריה של בית המלוכה מחדייב במאה הראשונה לספירה אלא את ההיסטוריה הדתית-אינטלקטואלית של ההלכה הבבלית ואת מידת היכרותם של חכמי בבל בתקופה הסאסאנית עם ההלכה הזורואסטרית. ייחוס הדברים לבית מונבז איננו אלא השלכה ספרותית-תרבותית, שהתאימה את ההנהגות הזורואסטריות הייחודיות ל’פרופיל’ הדתי של מונבז כפי שזה נתפס בעיני חכמי בבל. לאור השימוש שעשו כבר המקורות הארץ-ישראליים (ובעיקר התוספתא) בדמותו של מונבז, עד שנצטייר בהם כמי שנשא ונתן עם ר’ עקיבא והביע דעות הלכתיות מקלות בדיני גיור, לא ייפלא הדבר שגם עורכי התלמוד הבבלי השתמשו בדמותו ה’אקזוטית’ של גר הצדק מחדייב בהקשר ספרותי-תרבותי אחר.

The article examines the inherently dialectical view of sexuality reflected in Babylonian rabbinic culture, which differentiates the sexual act, consisting of the indivisible elements of procreation and sexual gratification, from notions of sexual desire. On the one hand, the Babylonian Talmud accentuates the relative role of both male and female sexual gratification in the sexual act, but, on the other hand, it expresses a pessimistic view of the sexual urge, which is reified as part and parcel of the demonic realm. This dialectical perception is resolved in Babylonian rabbinic culture through a paradoxical mechanism that seeks to extinguish sexual desire via marital sex. The article situates different aspects of this distinctive construction of sexual desire in the context of contemporaneous Christian and Zoroastrian views. First, the Babylonian rabbinic mechanism is contextualized with the Pauline view of marital sex as a therapy for those " aflame with passion " (1 Cor 7:9) and its reception in patristic literature. Second, the Babylonian rabbinic dialectic of sex and desire is viewed in the light of a similar bifurcated perception evident in the Pahlavi tradition: while Zoroastrianism advocated full-fledged marital relationships from its very inception, an important strand in the Pahlavi tradition expresses an ambiguous view of sexual desire, which is linked in various ways to the demonic sphere.

The article examines the reception and transmission of traditions about the figure of Enoch/Metatron in Sasanian Babylonia, and particularly the emergence of Metatron speculation in the Babylonian Talmud and 3 Enoch, by reading these traditions in light of Zoroastrian and Manichaean reports of the Iranian hero, Yima. The figure of Enoch/Metatron was reimagined and reconfigured by the Babylonian authors so as to resemble local Yima traditions, though the process of translating and repackaging the figure of Enoch in the image of
his Iranian counterpart was not merely a conscious act of comparison, in which an analogy is drawn in an attempt to highlight particular aspects common to both figures; it was an expression of a more comprehensive discourse of identification.
Beyond close parallels in the depictions of these figures, the connections between Metatron speculation and the Zoroastrian and Manichaean Yima traditions are supported by an identification of Yima with the son of man implied in two Sogdian fragments of the Manichaean Book of Giants. The syncretic atmosphere that pervaded Sasanian culture in general and the Manichaean identification of Yima with the son of man in particular facilitated, and perhaps reinforced, the refiguring
of Enoch/Metatron in the Babylonian Talmud and 3 Enoch in
the image of local Yima traditions.

This study attempts to broaden the Judeo-Christian prism through which the rabbinic legends of Adam and Eve are frequently examined in scholarship, by offering a contextual and synoptic reading of Babylonian rabbinic traditions pertaining to the first human couple against the backdrop of the Zoroastrian and Manichaean creation myths. The findings demonstrate that, while some of the themes and motifs found in the Babylonian rabbinic tradition are continuous with the ancient Jewish and Christian heritage, others are absent from, or occupy a peripheral role in, ancient Jewish and Christian traditions and, at the same time, are reminiscent of Iranian mythology. The study posits that the syncretic tendencies that pervaded the Sasanian culture facilitated the incorporation of Zoroastrian and Manichaean themes into the Babylonian legends, which were in turn creatively repackaged and adapted to the rabbinic tradition and world-view.

The article examines the story of the miraculous deliverance of Abraham from a fiery furnace and his confrontation with Nimrod as preserved in Genesis Rabbah. The story is situated in the context of several Greek traditions pertaining to the figure of Zarathustra, who is likewise said to have been cast into a fire and miraculously saved by God. In this context, it is argued that the midrashic characterization of Nimrod as a fire-worshipper invokes a set of conscious literary connections between the rabbinic narrative and Greek traditions about Zarathustra. The parallelism characterizing the early biographies of Abraham and Zarathustra is thus accentuated by the midrashic appropriation of a syncretic identification of Zarathustra with Nimrod, found in several Greek Christian sources. It is further surmised that the midrash engages, however indirectly and critically, an alternative cross-cultural association of Zarathustra with Abraham, typical of the syncretic tendencies that pervaded late antiquity and the early Islamic period.

Ascetic systems commonly exhibit some sort of conflict
between spiritual pursuits and mundane needs. This article contextualizes the particular rabbinic dilemma of study versus sustenance within the broader context of the Zoroastrian tradition and its critique of the Manichaean Elect. The rabbis shared with their Zoroastrian contemporaries
not only the perception of a religious tension between
agriculture and the pursuit of religious studies, but also a multifaceted array of possible solutions that attempt to harmonize, mitigate, or otherwise resolve this theological and practical tension. While the basic conflict between study and sustenance is already formulated in tannaitic works, it is argued that the unique perspective offered by the Babylonian
Talmud engages, and perhaps reacts to, the Iranian tradition.

The study situates the Babylonian rabbinic discussion concerning the spread of ritual
pollution in produce in a broader cultural and intellectual context, by synoptically
examining the rabbinic discussion against the backdrop of contemporaneous
Zoroastrian legal discourse. It is suggested that the intimate affinity exhibited between
the Babylonian rabbinic and Pahlavi discussions of produce contamination supports
a fresh examination of the cultural significance of tractate ʿUqtzin in the Babylonian
Talmud and the implications of its mastery on the intellectual and cultural identity
of the Babylonian rabbis. The study posits that the self-reflective Talmudic reference
to the knowledge and interest later generations of Babylonian rabbis possessed in
tractate ʿUqtzin and the spread of ritual pollution in produce reflects the relative significance
of these topics in the broader intellectual agenda of the Sasanian period.
The later Babylonian rabbis boasted about their knowledge of tractate ʿUqtzin, which
extended far beyond the capacity of earlier generations, precisely because this topic
best reflected the intellectual currents of their time.

The Moral and Religious Instructions of Ashkenazi Pietism: Between Asceticism and Sensuality


The Ashkenazi Pietists of the thirteenth-century are commonly believed to be the upholders of one of the most ascetic traditions in the history of Jewish thought. The present article seeks to modify and refine this accepted scholarly portrayal of Ashkenazi Pietism, by pointing out the existence of various passages that reflect a positive attitude towards the body and sensual pleasure. Certain scholars have argued that the passages that reflect a positive attitude toward corporal pleasure are simply remnants of “normative” rabbinic instructions which generally object to sexual abstention and other ascetic tendencies. Others argued that “permitted” sexual desire may be tolerated to some extent, but this does not mean that sensuality is recommended for the hasid. What is common to both explanations is the attempt to minimize or dismiss the passages that indicate the acceptance of bodily pleasure as irrelevant to the true life of piety.
By contrast, it is argued that Ashkenazi pietism should only be considered ascetic in the sense of the spiritual strive towards religious perfection, but not in the sense of abstention from the world and bodily pleasure. The spiritual war waged by the Ashkenazi Pietists is not directed against the body or this-worldly pleasure, in and of itself, but rather against sinfulness and the evil inclination. As far as permitted sexual relations are concerned, there is no reason to minimize or even limit one’s pleasure, as the hasid is instructed in fact to welcome this type of permitted sensual indulgence. When sinfulness is involved, however, one is enjoined to take certain ascetic measures in order to overcome his desires, and in order to repent for her sins in the aftermath. The Ashkenazi Pietists thus encourage the battle against sinfulness and the evil inclination seducing one to transgress, but nevertheless express their explicit reassurance of the body and its sensual qualities.

The study analyzes certain legal and theological developments concerning the precept of tzitzit that occur in rabbinic literature. Rather than studying these developments in isolation as products of internal rabbinic discourse, the study attempts to trace these developments in the cultural context of prevailing Zoroastrian conceptions concerning ritual dress-items, and particularly in light of Pahlavi traditions pertaining to the kustīg. After establishing a general typology of resemblance between the rabbinic interpretation of the tzitzit and the Zoroastrian depictions of the kustīg, the study engages in a more specific attempt to reveal cultural connections between the rabbinic and Zoroastrian discussions, which are likely to have taken place during the Sasanian period. These cultural connections are drawn by investigating particularly the legal details that are contained in the Babylonian Talmud and the Pahlavi literature. In contrast to earlier Jewish and Zoroastrian traditions, in both the Babylonian Talmud and the Pahlavi traditions it is similarly emphasized that a designated ritual dress-item must be worn at all times as to emphasize one’s constant servitude of God. Both corpora assign, moreover, particular severity to walking about without one’s ritual item of dress, explicating the distance of four cubits or four paces. Additionally, it is similarly stressed in the Babylonian Talmud and the Pahlavi traditions that spiritual danger befalls a person who fails to fulfill his obligation to wear the tzitzit or the kustīg at all times.

"A number of studies, devoted to the question of war ethics in Jewish thought, perceive a basic tension between the categories that presently hold sway in the fields of ethics and international law and the attitudes emerging from Jewish sources. In this paper I examine the attitude of the Talmudic sages to the ethical problems connected with warfare, paying particularly close attention to the stances adopted in one of today's most dominant ethical doctrines in this sphere, known as the "Just War Theory".
Within this context, I seek to examine the question of if and to what extent the Talmudic sages were aware of the moral problems connected with warfare. My analysis suggests that various matters discussed in rabbinic literature in this connection are not in fact relevant to the general question posed above and do not reveal any direct confrontation with the special moral problems of warfare. Moreover, a few scholars have got tied up with anachronistic assertions that assign moral attitudes to early rabbinic literature when they actually reflect much later trends. Particularly noticeable in this respect is the tendency to generalize a stance of "Rabbinic Judaism" on the question of the morals of war, projecting this view back onto various mentions in early rabbinic literature.
The main part of the paper is devoted to a systematic analysis of the laws of limitation of the siege and the call for peace, as test cases designed to assess developments occurring in the views of the sages on the question of the morals of war. In this respect, I argue that although the medieval commentators confronted directly the moral questions arising from war situations, it is difficult to discern a similar confrontation in Talmudic literature. Whilst the writings of the tannaitic sages show no awareness of the special moral issues involved in warfare, the amoraic midrashim show for the first time a preliminary confrontation with these problems, which is still far from the consolidated and normative expression of "war ethics", as seen in the post-Talmudic midrashim and in the works of the medieval sages.
"