Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T02:09:41.663Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Book Of Jubilees and the Rabbinic Halaka

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2011

Louis Finkelstein
Louis Finkelstein
Affiliation:
Jewish Theological Seminary or America
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In spite of the fact that Singer, Epstein, and, somewhat later, Charles, and Schechter have dealt with the Book of Jubilees, no apology is required for attempting to study it from a somewhat new angle. It is well known that much light can be thrown on the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha by a comparison with rabbinic sources. It may be true that the Jewish traditions were not compiled till a comparatively late date, and that they were probably put in writing still later, yet much that is contained in them is of very ancient origin, and the authorities in whose names statements are quoted are a help, if not an infallible index, to fixing their date. Especially the Book of Jubilees must be viewed in the light thrown upon it by the Talmud and kindred sources, since it was doubtless written in Hebrew, contains numerous laws and allusions to Agadic statements, and presents generally the appearance of a targum or a midrash.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , January 1923 , pp. 39 - 61
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1923

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Revue des études juives, vol. xxii, 8.

2 Dr. Charles has published the Ethiopic text of the book, and also an English translation with an excellent introduction and copious notes. I assume in the discussion below that the reader has Charles's work before him.

3 I am indebted to Professor Alexander Marx for many valuable suggestions in the course of writing this article.

4 Jub. 2, 9.

5 See the article referred to above.

6 Genesis 1, 16.

7 Jub. 5, 27.

8 Jub. 3, 17.

9 Rosh ha-Shanah 11a.

10 Additional Prayers for Rosh ha-Shanah.

11 Jub. 3, 32.

12 Rosh ha-Shanah 1, 1.

13 Jub. 29, 16.

14 Neh. 8, 10.

15 B. M. 105b.

16 Jub. 12, 16.

17 Berakot 18b. Compare also Abot d'R. Nathan, ed. Schechter, p. 16, chapter 3.

18 B. B. 147a.

19 Jub. 2, 27.

20 Exod. 31, 14.

21 Mekilta ad loc. In the Talmud the words “he shall be cut off” are interpreted as meaning the forfeiture of future life in the case of one guilty of blasphemy. See Sanhedrin 64b. The cases are however not completely parallel, since in the Talmud it is the repetition of the word that is used as the basis of interpretation. The same interpretation is there given in Ps.-Jonathan to the verse.

22 Is. 38, 1.

23 Jer. San. 10, 18; f. 28c

24 Jub. 2, 31.

25 Sabbath 11b.

26 Bereshit B. 11.

27 Sanhedrin 58b.

28 Jub. 50, 8.

29 Jub. 50, 12.

30 Perhaps a reference to this prohibition may be found even in the Talmud. In a baraita, quoted Ketubot 3b, we are told that originally it was customary for marriages to take place on Wednesdays. Since the time of the persecution the people developed the custom of celebrating them on Tuesdays, and “the rabbis did not interfere.” But “on Monday one should not marry, but if it be because of some compelling reason, it is permitted. And they separate the bridegroom from the bride on the first Sabbath eve because he causes a wound.” That the baraita consists of more than one stratum is evident from the expression, “on Monday he may not marry, but if it be because of some compelling reason it is permitted.” As a matter of fact only the most compelling of reasons brought about the change from Wednesday to Tuesday. It is therefore clear that this is a later modifying statement, added when Tuesday also had become a dangerous day. The words “because he causes a wound” look very much like a gloss; they can only be explained if they refer to a marriage celebrated on Friday, but no such marriage is contemplated in the baraita. The text seems originally to have had reference to the prohibition of marital relations on the sabbath. In order to make certain that the sabbath would not be violated in this respect, the bride and groom were to be kept apart for the first sabbath eve after their marriage. Similarly in the case of mourning, if the death occur during the course of the married life, the husband and wife are not necessarily separated. But if it occur during the first week of their wedded life, they must be kept apart (Ketubot 4a). If this interpretation of the baraita be correct, the baraita must be very old in its basic form, for already in the days of the schools of Shammai and Hillel the law was obsolete (Niddah 10, 1).

31 Sabbath 23, 3. Cf. T. B. ad loc.

32 Isaiah 58, 13.

33 See Sabbath, chap. 18.

34 Sabbath 1, 1.

35 Erubin 17b.

36 Exod. 16, 29.

37 Yebamot 90b.

38 Sifrè Deut. ed. Friedmann, 111b; Jer. Sabbath 1, 8.

39 Sabbath 7, 1.

40 Sabbath lla.

41 The only cases where punishment is threatened for neglect of duty in Jewish law are those of the paschal lamb and of failure to be circumcised.

42 1 Maccabees 2, 41.

43 Lev. 23, 16.

44 Jub. 44, 4.

45 Menahot 8, 1.

46 T. B. Menahot 83b.

47 Jub. 16, 21.

48 Succah 28a.

49 Succah 2a.

50 The passages to be compared regarding the biblical law of tithes are Lev. 27, 30–33, Num. 18, 21–32, Deut. 14, 22–29; 26, 1–15.

51 Succah 46a.

52 Jub. 32, 9–11.

53 Maaser Sheni, chap. 5.

54 Lev. 19, 24.

55 Jub. 7, 36.

56 Jub. 7, 37.

57 קרושים, No. 100.

58 Halakot Gedolot, end of laws of ערלה, does not occur in the text published by Hildesheimer.

59 Commentary on Maaser Sheni 5, 7, cf. Tos. R. H. 10a, catchword ופרוח.

60 Lev. 7, 16.

61 Jub. 21, 17

62 Jub. 21, 10.

63 Zeb. 35a.

64 Jub. 7, 29; 21, 16.

65 Jub. 4, 15.

66 Jub. 19, 24.

67 Num. 36, 11.

68 Yeb. 62b.

69 The age of majority for females is given in the Mishna as twelve years; Niddah 5, 9. That this is the case would be implied in Jubilees 30, 2, where it is stated that Dinah was twelve years old at the time of the rape. This seems to be based on the use of the word הנערה, which is always interpreted by the rabbis to refer to a girl for the first six months after reaching her twelfth birthday.

70 Kid. 41a.

71 Kid. 16b.

72 Jub. 30, 7.

73 Yeb. 107b.

74 Ket. 51b et al.; cf. Sifrè Num. 5, 13.

75 Jub. 33, 9.

76 Revel, Karaite Halacha, p. 34.

77 2 Samuel 20, 3.

78 In Jer. Sanhedrin 2, 3, there are conflicting opinions as to whether David voluntarily abstained from them or was legally forbidden to have relations with them. But even the authority maintaining the opinion that it would have been prohibited, only holds that view in regard to a king, not in regard to other people. The Babylonian view seems to have been that the concubines were suspected of having acquiesced in the wrong of Absalom against his father. This is at any rate the view of Tosafot, Gittin 6b, catchword עכוכ. Professor Ginzberg has called my attention to Ps.-Jonathan, Deut. 22, 26, where the view is expressed: “And unto the maiden shall ye do no harm, the maiden is not to be punished by death, but her husband shall divorce her with a writ.” So that here too the plea of compulsion would not save the wife from divorce.

79 Bereshit R. chap. 85.

80 Jub. 41, 1.

81 Jub. 20, 4.

82 Ps.-Jon. Gen. 38, 25.

83 Jub. 41, 2.

84 Jub. 41, 2.

85 Jub. 20, 4.

86 Jub. 25, 1.

87 Jub. 30, 9.

88 Lev. 18, 21.

89 Jub. 30, 10.

90 Meg. 25a.

91 Jub. 3, 10.

92 Jub. 3, 34.

93 Jub. 13, 14.

94 Sabbath 19, 5.

95 Baba Kamma 84a.

96 Jub. 4, 31.

97 Aboda Zara, chap. 9, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 473.

98 Sanhedrin 56a.

99 Bereshit B. chap. 16; cf. Pesikta, ed. Buber, p. 100b, where some manuscripts read שכע and some שש, but all agree in enumerating only six commandments.

100 Jub. 7, 20.

101 Kiddushin 31a.

102 Jer. Nedarim, 9, 4.