Bereishit Rabba 36 Supplementary Texts To be used Core Texts at with https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/306361

Wikipedia

Shedim (Hebrew: שֵׁדִים‎) are spirits or demons in Jewish mythology. However, they are not necessarily equivalent to the modern connotation of demons as evil entities.^[3] Evil spirits were thought as the cause of maladies; conceptual differing from the shedim,^[4] who are not evil demigods, but the foreign gods themselves. Shedim are just evil in the sense that they are not God.^[5]

They appear only twice (always plural) in the Tanakh, at Psalm 106:37 and Deuteronomy 32:17. Both times it deals with child or animal sacrifices.^[6] Although the word is traditionally derived from the root šwd (Hebrew: שוד‎ shûd) that conveys the meaning of "acting with violence" or "laying waste"^[7] it was possibly a loan-word from Akkadian in which the word shedu referred to a spirit which could be either protective or malevolent.^[8][9][10] With the translation of Hebrew texts into Greek, under influence of Zoroastrian dualism, shedim were translated into daimonia with implicit negativity. Otherwise, later in Judeo-Islamic culture, shedim became the Hebrew word for Jinn with a morally ambivalent attitude.^[11]

Naftali Slifkin - Wrestling with Demons

There are numerous references to demons in the Babylonian Talmud.2 With regard

to their formation, there is a view that demons were created on the eve of the first

Shabbat of creation,3 another statement about bats turning into demons,4 and another

account of how demons of various types were generated from Adam’s wasted seminalemissions.5 Another passage, later to become very important to those discussing

demonology, specifies the nature of demons:

The Rabbis taught: Six things were said about demons; three in which they

resemble ministering angels, and three in which they resemble human beings. The

three in which they resemble ministering angels are that they have wings, they fly

from one end of the earth o the other, and they know the future… And the three

in which they resemble humans are that they eat and drink, reproduce, and die.

(Babylonian Talmud, Chagigah 16a; Avot D’Rabbi Natan 37)

Demons played a role in halachic discussions, such as whether a voice uttering a

declaration of halachic significance, heard from a person who cannot be found, is

suspected as having been uttered by a demon,6 and whether a warning to a criminal

given by a demon counts as a warning such as to render him liable for subsequently

sinning.7 The Talmud also warns about many situations in which there is danger from

demons, such as in the shade of various trees and touching their stumps,8 in ruined

buildings,9 in graveyards,10 in a house in which one is sleeping alone,11 when having

things in pairs,12 and when drinking from rivers or lakes at night.13 There is also a

demon by the name of Yosef who gave one of the Sages information about the nature of

demonic activities,14 as well as being suggested to have possibly taught the Sages various

teachings.15 Another demon, which haunted the study hall of Abaye, appeared to Rav

Acha bar Yaakov as a seven-headed snake and was killed by him.16

Slifkin

References to demons in the Jerusalem Talmud are much less common.18 In fact,
there is a reference in the Babylonian Talmud to a certain verse which was translated in
Babylon as referring to male and female demons, but which in the west (i.e. in the Land
of Israel) was translated as referring to carriages.19 The Babylonian Talmud further
notes that the demonic risk involved in pairs, which was a subject of great concern in
Babylon, was not an issue for their counterparts in the Land of Israel:

Slifkin

Other evidence for Rambam’s denial of demons emerges from his discussion in the
Guide of the prohibition against eating an animal’s blood was due to the belief that
doing so has the effect of summoning demons who then become of assistance. In the
course of this discussion, he writes as follows:

Know that this belief was widespread in the era of our teacher Moses. Many
conducted themselves in accordance with it, and people were seduced by it. You
find this written in the song of Ha’azinu: “They sacrificed to demons, not to
God; to gods that they had never known.”39 The Sages explained the significance
of the phrase “not to God,” when they said that the people not only worshipped
actual beings but even imaginary ones. (Guide 3:46)

The position of Avraham Ibn Ezra (1089-1164) with regard to demons is difficult
to determine, and has been the subject of dispute:

 The tosafist R. Moshe Taku reports Ibn Ezra as writing that “there are certainly
no demons in this world.”60 He continues to claim that Ibn Ezra erred greatly,
and recounts that Ibn Ezra ironically died in London as a result of demons, in
the guise of black dogs, which stared at him and caused him to fall sick.
However, aside from there being no such known record of this fate befalling Ibn
Ezra, the text that R. Taku quotes from is also unknown.

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Ibn Ezra in England

M. Friedländer

The Jewish Quarterly Review

Vol. 8, No. 1 (Oct., 1895), pp. 140-154 (15 pages)

UP TO HERE

Slifkin

On the other hand, in his commentary to the Haggadah, Abarbanel is critical of the
explanation (which he attributes to the Sages “by way of derush”) that Ha lachma anya is recited in Aramaic in order that the demons should not hear the invitation to come and eat. Abarbanel states that

this explanation is questionable on numerous levels—first with regard to the very
existence of demons, second that they would understand Hebrew but not
Aramaic, and third that even if we acknowledge the existence of demons, which is
difficult, and a heavy burden of belief… surely those involved in a mitzvah cannot
be harmed. (Seder Haggadah shel Pesach - Zevach Pesach Shvilei haLeket (Lodz,
1936) p. 26)

Slifkin

R.Samson Raphael Hirsch (Germany, 1808-1888), on the other hand, basing himself on the Rishonim rather than the Talmud, claims that the question of the existence of
demons is a long-standing dispute with which one can take whichever side one chooses:

A related topic is the question of the nature of magic, astrology, demons, and
suchlike... Who dares get involved in a dispute between Rambam and Ramban,
following whom the camp of Israel is split in two on such matters? ...And if so,
every intelligent person is entitled to adopt either view in the absence of either
being ruled out. Alternatively—and in my view, this is the more correct
approach—he can admit that he has no clarity in the matters.
And I will admit without shame that I have never bothered to investigate and
analyze the nature of these things, just as I have never been curious to investigate
and inquire as to the nature of the World-to-Come, the world of the resurrection,
and so on. For the truth of these things is concealed from everyone, and it is
impossible to attain clarity on these things with decisive proofs... What difference
does it make if, with regard to matters of witchcraft and suchlike, the truth lies
with Rambam or Ramban? Either way, we have to distance ourselves from such
things, whether they are genuine or nonsensical. (Letter to R. Hile Wechsler,
published by Mordechai Breuer in Hama’ayan 16:2 (Tevet 5736/1976) p. 6)

Slifkin

The approach of the Schottenstein (Artscroll) edition of the Talmud to demons is
also revealing. Although written by traditionalists for traditionalists, they are aware of
many contemporary challenges, and seek to address them wherever they can do so
without upsetting traditionalist sensibilities. Thus, when the Talmud incorrectly
describes bats as laying eggs, the Schottenstein edition notes that some mammals do lay eggs, implying that the Talmud may indeed be correct. When the Talmud makes
various statements about planet earth and the cosmos that are clearly since disproven,
the Schottenstein edition insists that the Talmud is not speaking literally. But with
demons, where it is not possible to get away with insisting that they exist or that the
Talmud does not mean to describe such things, the Schottenstein commentary simply
notes the dispute between Rambam and others. And when the Talmud writes at length
about the demonic dangers involved in having things in pairs, the Schottenstein
commentary notes the (convenient) approach of Chacham Yosef Chaim (the “Ben Ish
Chai,” Baghdad-Jerusalem 1832-1909) that this is no longer a concern, since the power of demons to harm via pairs has disappeared.

Slifkin - In Conclusion

The belief in demons thus cannot be classified as an inherently irrational belief.

We do well to remember that the [pre-modern] world... was a rational world, in
many ways more rational than our own. It is true that it was a world of witches
and demons... But this was the given reality about which most of the decisions
and actions of the age, throughout the entire western world, revolved. (David E.
Stannard, The Puritan Way of Death (Oxford University Press 1977) p. 69)

However peculiar they now seem, the beliefs of pre-modern people were normally
a rational response to the intellectual and social context in which they were
expressed. (Darren Oldridge, Strange Histories, p. 3)

Thus, instead of categorizing the rabbinic authorities cited in this study as those who
believed in demons and those who denied their existence, it would be more meaningful to categorize them as rationalists (which includes many who did believe in demons) versus dogmatists. We should further acknowledge that there is a spectrum of attitudes rather than a clear division between two extremes. The mere fact of someone ultimately accepting that demons exist does not at all mean that he is not a rationalist—it all depends upon the historical context.

Why was Lucifer called a goat?

https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1191601/Lucifer-Netflix-Why-was-Lucifer-called-a-goat-devil-half-goat-half-man

The idea of Satan as a goat may stem from the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, recorded in Matthew 25:31-46, when Jesus separates sheep (symbolising the saved) and goats (representing the damned).

The oldest representation of the devil associated with a goat is in the mosaic in the Basilica of Sant’Apollinare Nuovo, Ravenna, Italy from the sixth century.

In the mosaic, Jesus, dressed in purple, is separating the goats and the sheep between two angels.

The angel standing behind the sheep is a red angel and the angel behind the goats a blue angel.

Medieval Christians then adapted pagan iconography to represent Christian figures.

Pan was a goat-legged fertility god in ancient Greek religion and medieval Christian writers began to draw relations between Greek satyrs (a male spirit with ears and a tail) and Roman fauns (half-human/half-goat creature), with demons

Azazel (Azael) is the Archdemon of the Judean desert and king of the seirim, goatlike spirits.
On the Day of Atonement, Jewish custom called for the offering of two goats. One was sacrificed to Yahweh, and the other, blamed with the sins of the people, was taken alive to the wilderness to be released for Azazel (Leviticus 16:8).

In 3 Enoch, Azazel is one of the Watchers who lust after mortal women and descends from heaven to cohabit with them. He taught witchcraft and revealed eternal secrets. As punishment, he was bound by angels and imprisoned in the desert in a place called Dudael until Judgment Day.

Under the name of Azael, he is one of the principal evil angels who cohabited with mortal women. The name Azael means “who God strengthens.” According to lore, Azael slept with Naamah and spawned Assyrian guardian spirits known as sedim, invoked in the Exorcism of evil spirits.

As punishment, Azael is chained in a desert until Judgment Day. In magical lore, he guards hidden treasure and teaches Witchcraft that enable men to make the Sun, Moon, and stars move down from the sky. In 3 Enoch, Azazel (Azael) is one of three primary ministering angels with Azza and Uzza, who live in the seventh (highest) heaven. In later lore, he is fallen and is punished by having his nose pierced. In Akkadian lore, Azazel is one of the Maskim, princes of Hell.

Asmodeus

Wikipedia

Asmodeus (/ˌæzməˈdiːəs/; Ancient Greek: Ἀσμοδαῖος, Asmodaios) or Ashmedai (/ˈæʃmɪˌdaɪ/; Hebrew: אַשְמְדּאָי‎, ʾAšməddāy), also Ashema Deva or Amias (see below for other variations), is a prince of demons,^[1] or in Judeo-Islamic lore the king of the earthly spirits (shedim/jinn),^[2][3] mostly known from the deuterocanonical Book of Tobit, in which he is the primary antagonist.^[4] In the Binsfeld's classification of demons, Asmodeus represents lust. The demon is also mentioned in some Talmudic legends; for instance, in the story of the construction of the Temple of Solomon.

--

The Asmodeus of the Book of Tobit is hostile to Sarah, Raguel's daughter, (Tobit 6:13); and slays seven successive husbands on their wedding nights, impeding the sexual consummation of the marriages. He is described as "the worst of demons". When the young Tobias is about to marry her, Asmodeus proposes the same fate for him, but Tobias is enabled, through the counsels of his attendant angel Raphael, to render him innocuous. By placing a fish's heart and liver on red-hot cinders, Tobias produces a smoky vapour that causes the demon to flee to Egypt, where Raphael binds him (Tobit 8:2–3). According to some translations Asmodeus is strangled.

--

The Book of Tobit (/ˈtoʊbɪt/)^[a] is a book of scripture that is part of the Catholic and Orthodox biblical canons. It was recognized as canonical by the Council of Hippo (in 393), the Councils of Carthage of 397 and 417, and the Council of Florence (in 1442), and confirmed in the Counter-Reformation by the Council of Trent (1546). Many Anglicans, Lutherans, and Methodists have it in their canon of scripture.

In Judaism[edit]

Before the 1952 discovery of Aramaic and Hebrew fragments of Tobit among the Dead Sea Scrolls in a cave at Qumran, scholars believed Tobit was not included in the Jewish canon because of late authorship, estimated to A.D. 100.^[8][14] Qumran fragments of the text, which were copied between 100 B.C. to A.D. 25, evidence a much earlier origin than previously thought.^[8] These fragments evidence authorship no later than the 2nd century BC and, likely, contemporary with the date ascribed, by modern scholars, to the final compilation of the Book of Daniel, which did attain canonical status.^[15]

Other scholars have postulated that Tobit was excluded from the Jewish Scriptures for a halakhic reason because Raguel, the bride's father, wrote the marriage document discussed in Tobit 7:13, instead of the bridegroom, as required by Jewish rabbinical law.^[8]

However, some ancient Jewish rabbinic scholars possibly considered Tobit to be canonical. Midrash Bereishit Rabbah, an aggadic commentary on the Book of Genesis compiled circa A.D. 400–600, includes a truncated Aramaic version of Tobit. Tobit was also part of the Septuagint, the first Greek translation of the Bible.^[8] In more contemporary times, a number of Jews in Israel have sought to reclaim Tobit as part of the canon.^[16]

^--

This book tells the story of Tobit, a righteous Israelite of the tribe of Naphtali, living in Nineveh after Sargon II had deported the northern tribes of Israel to Assyria in 721 B.C. In the two Greek versions, the first two and a half chapters are written in the first person; in the Vulgate version, they are written in the third person.^[17] Tobit, raised by his paternal grandmother, Deborah, remains loyal to the worship of God at the temple in Jerusalem, refusing the cult of the golden calves that Jeroboam, king of the northern kingdom of Israel, set up at Dan. He is particularly noted for his diligence in attempting to provide proper burials for fallen Israelites whom Sargon's successor, Sennacherib, has slain. For this behavior the king seizes his property and exiles him. After Sennacherib's death, Tobit is allowed to return to Nineveh, where he buries a man who has been murdered on the street. That night, he sleeps in the open and is blinded by bird droppings which fall into his eyes. His blindness subsequently leads him to falsely accuse his wife, Anna, of stealing a baby goat she had received as partial payment for work she had done.^[18] This strains his marriage and, ultimately, he prays for death.^[19]

Meanwhile, in faraway Media, a young woman named Sarah has prayed for death in despair. The demon of lust, Asmodeus ("the worst of demons"), abducts and kills every man Sarah marries on their wedding night before the marriage can be consummated. God sends the angel Raphael, disguised as a human, to heal Tobit and free Sarah from the demon.^[19]

The main narrative is dedicated to Tobit's son, Tobiah or Tobiyah (Greek: Τωβίας Tobias), who is sent by his father to collect money that the elder has deposited in distant Media. Raphael presents himself as Tobit's kinsman, Azariah, and offers to aid and protect Tobias. Under Raphael's guidance, Tobias journeys to Media with his dog.Along the way, while washing his feet in the river Tigris, a fish tries to swallow his foot. By the angel's order, he captures it and removes its heart, liver and gall bladder.^[20]

Upon arriving in Media, Raphael tells Tobias of the beautiful Sarah, whom Tobias has the right to marry because he is her cousin and closest relative. The angel instructs the young man to burn the fish's liver and heart to drive away the demon when he attacks on the wedding night.^[21] The two marry, and the fumes of the burning organs drive the demon to Upper Egypt, where Raphael follows and binds him. Sarah's father had been digging a grave to secretly bury Tobias under the assumption that he would be killed. Surprised to find his son-in-law alive and well, he orders a double-length wedding feast and has the grave secretly filled. Since the feast prevents him from leaving, Tobias sends Raphael to recover his father's money.^[21]

After the feast, Tobias and Sarah return to Nineveh. There, Raphael tells the youth to use the fish's gall to cure his father's blindness. Raphael then reveals his identity and returns to heaven, and Tobit sings a hymn of praise.^[21]

Tobias and the Angel is an altar painting, finished around 1470–1475,^[1] attributed to the workshop of the Italian Renaissance painter Andrea del Verrocchio.^[2] It is housed in the National Gallery, London. This painting is similar to an earlier painting depicting Tobias and the Angel, by Antonio del Pollaiolo.^[3]

According to Oxford art historian Martin Kemp, Leonardo da Vinci, who was a member of Verrocchio's studio, may have painted some part of this work, most likely the fish.^[4] David Alan Brown, of the National Gallery in Washington, attributes the painting of the fluffy little dog to him as well. If so, this would be perhaps the first extant example of a painting with input by Leonardo.^[5]

Pieter Lastman 1625

"Tobias' and Sara's Wedding Night" by Jan Havicksz Steen ca. 1626 – 1679 in Museum Bredius

Testament of Solomon 5.1, 6-10

21. And I at once bade another demon to be led unto me; and instantly there approached me the demon Asmodeus23, bound, and I asked him: "Who art thou?" But he shot on me a glance of anger and rage, and said: "And who art thou?" And I said to him: "Thus punished as thou art, answerest thou me?" But he, with rage, said to me: "But how shall I answer thee, for thou art a son of man; whereas I was born an angel's seed by a daughter of man, so that no word of our heavenly kind addressed to the earth-born can be overweening24. Wherefore also my star is bright in heaven, and men call it, some the Wain25, and some the dragon's child. I keep near unto this star. So ask me not many things; for thy kingdom also after a little time is to be disrupted, and thy glory is but for a season. And short will be thy tyranny over us; and then we shall again have free range over mankind, so as that they shall revere us as if we were gods, not knowing, men that they are, the names of the angels set over us."

22. And I Solomon, on hearing this, bound him more carefully, and ordered him to be flogged with thongs of ox-hide26, and to tell me humbly what was his name and what his business. And he answered me thus: "I am called Asmodeus among mortals, and my business is to plot against the newly wedded, so that they may not know one another. And I sever them utterly by many calamities, and I waste away the beauty of virgin women, and estrange their hearts."

23. And I said to him: "Is this thy only business?" And he answered me: "I transport men into fits of madness and desire, when they have wives of their own, so that they leave them, and go off by [21] night and day to others that belong to other men; with the result that they commit sin, and fall into murderous deeds.27"

24. And I adjured him by the name of the Lord Sabaôth, saying: "Fear God, Asmodeus, and tell me by what angel thou art frustrated." But he said: "By Raphael, the archangel that stands before the throne of God. But the liver and gall of a fish put me to flight, when smoked over ashes of the tamarisk28." I again asked him, and said: "Hide not aught from me. For I am Solomon, son of David, King of Israel. Tell me the name of the fish which thou reverest." And he answered: "It is the Glanos29 by name, and is found in the rivers of Assyria; wherefore it is that I roam about in those parts."

25. And I said to him: "Hast thou nothing else about thee, Asmodeus?" And he answered: "The power of God knoweth, which hath bound me with the indissoluble bonds of yonder one's seal, that whatever I have told thee is true. I pray thee, King Solomon, condemn me not to [go into] water." But I smiled, and said to him: "As the Lord God of my fathers liveth, I will lay iron on thee to wear. But thou shalt also make the clay for the entire construction of the Temple, treading it down with thy feet." And I ordered them to give him ten water-jars to carry water in. And the demon groaned terribly, and did the work I ordered him to do. And this I did, because that fierce demon Asmodeus knew even the future. And I Solomon glorified God, who gave wisdom to me Solomon his servant. And the liver of the fish and its gall I hung on the spike of a reed30, and burned it over Asmodeus because of his being so strong, and his unbearable malice was thus frustrated.

26. And I summoned again to stand before me Beelzeboul, the prince of demons,

I. [נָפַץ] verb shatter (Late Hebrew id., dash, beat; Assyrian napâƒu, shatter, destroy Dl^{HWB 475}; ᵑ7 נְפַע Pa`el shatter, but also נְפַץ Pa`el, id., Syriac shake, break, so Mandean, Nö^{M. 240, and ZMG xxxii (1878), 406}); —

Qal Infinitive absolute וְנָפוֺץ with accusative Judges 7:19 and a shattering (= and shattered) the jars; Passive participle עֶצֶב נִבְזֶה נָפוּץ Jeremiah 22:28 (figurative) a vessel to be despised (and) shattered (compare Ew Gie Rothst^Kau); also Participle active נֹפֵץ shatterer of the holy people Daniel 12:7 (Bev Marti^Kau, reading כִּכְלוֺת יַד נֹפֵץ).

Pi`el dash to pieces: Perfect3masculine singular וְנִמֵּץ consecutive Psalm 137:9 with accusative infants ag. (אֶל) rock; 1 singular וְנִמַּצְתִּ֫י of ׳י dashing all in pieces with (ב) Babylon as war-club Jeremiah 51:20,21 (twice in verse); Jeremiah 51:22 (3 t. in verse); Jeremiah 51:23 (3 t. in verse); suffix וְנִמַּצְתִּים אִישׁ אֶלאָֿחִיו Jeremiah 13:14; Imperfect2masculine singular suffix כִּכְלִי יוֺצֵר תְּנַמְּצֵם Psalm 2:9 (i.e. nations); 3 masculine plural נִבְלֵיהֶם יְנַמֵּ֑צוּ Jeremiah 48:12 (symbolic of destroying Moab); Infinitive נַמֵּץ יַדעַֿםקֹֿדֶשׁ Daniel 12:7 when (they) finish shattering the hand (figurative for power) of the holy people, but read possibly נֹפֵץ, see

Qal; ** = break up rafts 1 Kings 5:23.

Pu`al Participle feminine plural מְנֻמָּצוֺת Isaiah 27:9 like chalk-stones pulverized.

II. נָפַץ verb disperse, be scattered (often taken as secondary √ from Niph`al of פוץ, yet compare Late Hebrew נפץ, Qal (Participle), Pi`el, scatter; Syriac pour out, throw down, ᵑ7 נְפַץ; Arabic shake (irregular correspondence of sibilants compare Nö^l.c.), Ethiopic dissipari, aufugere Di 713); —

Qal Perfect3masculine singular הָעָם מֵעָלַי ׳נ 1 Samuel 13:11 the people were scattered from me; 3 feminine singular נָָֽפְצָה כָלהָֿאָרֶץ Genesis 9:19 (J) thence dispersed all (the population of) the earth; 3 plural נָָֽמְצוּ גּוֺיִם Isaiah 33:3 nations were scattered; Passive participle feminine plural construct נְפֻצוֺת יְהוּדָה Isaiah 11:12 the dispersed of Judah he shall collect ("" נִדְחֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל).

נפשׁ (√ of following; compare Arabic soul, life, person, living being, blood, desire, breath, sweet odour, be high in estimation, become avaricious; III. desire a thing, aspire to it, see breathe, sigh. Assyrian napâšu, get breath, be broad, extended; napištu, life, less frequently soul, living being, person. Vbs. apparently denominative; nouns in all Semitic languages: Phoenician נפש, CIS^{i. 86 B 5}, Ethiopic ; in the following = both soul, person, and tombstone, monument (as representing person, see especially Duval^{Rev. Sémit. ii (1894), 259 ff.}): Late Hebrew נפשׁ see Levy^{ZMG xii (1858), 215}; Old Aramaic נפש, Nabataean, Palmyrene נפש, see Lzb³²⁵ Cook⁸²; Syriac , see 1 Macc 13:27; 13:28; Sabean נפס Levy-Os^{ZMG xix (1865), 255. 290} Mordtm^{ib, xxxii (1878), 202} compare Lihyan., DHM^{Epigr. Denkm. 67, Min.} Hom^{Südarab. Chrest. 128}).

Hester Panim

• Hester Panim In Modern Jewish Thought*

• David Wolpe (bio)

The eclipse of God is a metaphor, and as such, automatically inadequate. Metaphorical language is intrinsically suspect when it comes to theology. How can we speak of something that transcends not only language, but any existing or envisioned categories of human thought? Yet as we cannot speak without recourse to metaphor, we cannot theologize without it. The metaphor of eclipse is part of a congeries of images about God’s silence, hiddenness and inactivity which run through the Jewish tradition and have become exquisitely apposite in the wake of the Holocaust.

The idea of eclipse is naturally dear to the Jewish heart. God’s hiding epitomizes Judaism’s perennial teaching: there is an essential part of God that cannot be seen. God may not be made into an image because to do so is to make manifest that which is, by its nature, not accessible to the senses of humanity. Moreover, Jewish history demands hiddenness, for “The presupposition of revelation is that God is hidden from man’s sight.”¹

There are a variety of what we might term “Absence” theodicies. The most radical are the “God is dead” theologies, which arose primarily in the last century. Beside them are a variety of notions about the hiddenness of God, the absence of God, the silence of God, and the eclipse of God. Different thinkers, employing these cognate terminologies, intend different things. We will examine their ideas below. But first we should note that such ideas are built on the betrayal of immanence; God no longer behaves as the Bible seems to promise in times of trial. Good fortune is, in and of itself, seen as God’s presence; when things go well, God is there. The complaint about God’s absence is a complaint about evil. In the succinct plaint of Gideon, “If the Lord is with us, why has all this befallen us?” (Judges 6:13).

Binyan Paal bin-yan pa-al בניין פָּעַל

Binyan pa-al - בניין פָּעַל: ya-shav ישב (sat), ba-na בנה (built). Binyan pa-al is the most common. Verbs are transitive, intransitive and in the active voice.

Binyan Nifal bin-yan nif-al בניין נִפְעַל

Binyan nif-al - בניין נִפְעַל: niv-na נבנה (was built), nih-tav נכתב (was written). Verbs are always intransitive and are the passive of binyan pa-al.

Binyan Piel bin-yan pi-el בניין פִּעֵל

Binyan pi-el - בניין פִּעֵל: yi-shev יישב (settled), bik-er ביקר (visited). Verbs are transitive, intransitive and in the active voice.

Binyan Pual bin-yan pu-al בניין פֻּעַל

Binyan pu-al - בניין פֻּעַל: yoo-shav יושב (was settled), boo-kar בוקר (was visited). Verbs are in the passive voice, and do not have gerunds, imperatives, or infinitives.

Binyan Hifil bin-yan hif-il בניין הִפְעִיל

Binyan hif-il - בניין הִפְעִיל: ho-shiv הושיב (set someone down), hih-tiv הכתיב (dictated). Verbs are in the active voice, and causative counterparts of verbs in other binyanim.

Binyan Hufal bin-yan hoof-al בניין הֻפְעַל

Binyan huf-al - בניין הֻפְעַל: hoo-shav הושב (was seated), hooh-tav הוכתב (was dictated) Verbs are in the passive voice, and do not have gerunds, imperatives, or infinitives.

Binyan Hitpael bin-yan hit-pa-el בניין הִתְפַּעֵל

Binyan hit-pa-el - בניין הִתְפַּעֵל: hit-ya-shev התיישב (sat), hit-ka-tev התכתב (corresponded). Verbs are in the active voice, intransitive, and most have a reflexive sense and are reciprocal.

https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8516-japheth

The words "yaft elohim le-Yefet" (Gen. ix. 27) are interpreted as alluding to the construction of the Second Temple by Cyrus, who was descended from Japheth (Yoma 10a). Bar Ḳappara interpreted the passage as meaning that the Law will be explained in the language of Japheth (Gen. R. xxxvi.; Deut. R. i.); R. Ḥiyya b. Abba, interpreting "yaft" as derived from the root , meaning "beauty" (see Japheth, Biblical Data), explains it more clearly thus: "The Law will be explained in the beautiful language of the Greeks, descendants of Japheth" (Meg. 9b). According to the Targum pseudo-Jonathan (ad loc.), the passage means that the descendants of Japheth will become proselytes and will study the Law in the schools of Shem.

The reason for this change of attitude lies in the fact that the Septuagint (which, in time, came to denote the translation into Greek of the entire Tanakh) was embraced by the nascent Church and used in anti-Jewish Christian polemic. A favourite in that regard was the translation of Isaiah 7:14, in which עלמה ('almah, "young lady") was rendered παρθενος (parthenos, "virgin").

The Letter of Aristeas, called so because it was a letter addressed from Aristeas of Marmora to his brother Philocrates,^[5] deals primarily with the reason the Greek translation of the Hebrew Law, also called the Septuagint, was created, as well as the people and processes involved. The letter's author alleges to be a courtier of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (reigned 281-246 BC).

Over twenty Greek manuscript copies of the letter are known to survive, dating from the 11th to the 15th century. The letter is also mentioned and quoted in other ancient texts, most notably in Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus (c. 93 AD), in Life of Moses by Philo of Alexandria (c. AD 15), and in an excerpt from Aristobulus of Alexandria (c. 160 BC) preserved in Praeparatio evangelica by Eusebius.^[6]

In detail, the work relates how the king of Egypt, presumably Ptolemy II Philadelphus, is urged by his chief librarian Demetrios of Phaleron to have the Hebrew Law translated into Greek, and so add the knowledge of the Hebrews to the vast collection of books the empire had already collected. The king responds favorably, including giving freedom to Jews who had been taken into captivity by his predecessors, and sending lavish gifts (which are described in great detail) to the Temple in Jerusalem along with his envoys. The high priest chooses exactly six men from each of the twelve tribes, giving 72 in all; he gives a long sermon in praise of the Law. When the translators arrive in Alexandria the king weeps for joy and for the next seven days puts philosophical questions to the translators, the wise answers to which are related in full. The 72 translators then complete their task in exactly 72 days. The Jews of Alexandria, on hearing the Law read in Greek, request copies and lay a curse on anyone who would change the translation. The king then rewards the translators lavishly and they return home.^[7]

A main goal of the 2nd-century author seems to be to establish the superiority of the Greek Septuagint text over any other version of the Hebrew Bible. The author is noticeably pro-Greek, portraying Zeus as simply another name for the God of Israel, and while criticism is lodged against idolatry and Greek sexual ethics, the argument is phrased in such a way as to attempt to persuade the reader to change, rather than as a hostile attack. The manner in which the author concentrates on describing Judaism, and particularly its temple in Jerusalem could be viewed as an attempt to proselytise.^{[citation needed]}

41 To this letter Eleazar replied appropriately as follows:

'Eleazar the High priest sends greetings to King Ptolemy his true friend. My highest wishes are for your welfare and the welfare of Queen Arsinoe your sister and your children. I also am well. I have received your letter and am greatly 42 rejoiced by your purpose and your noble counsel. I summoned together the whole people and read it to them that they might know of your devotion to our God. I showed them too the cups which you sent, twenty of gold and thirty of silver, the five bowls and the table of dedication, and the hundred talents of silver for the offering of the sacrifices and providing the things of which the 43 temple stands in need. These gifts were brought to me by Andreas, one of your most honoured servants, and by Aristeas, both good men and true, distinguished by their learning, and worthy in every way to be the representatives of your high principles and righteous purposes. 44 These men imparted to me your message and received from me an answer in agreement with your letter. I will consent to everything which is advantageous to you even though your request is very unusual. For you have bestowed upon our citizens great and never to be forgotten benefits in many 45 (ways). Immediately therefore I offered sacrifices on behalf of you, your sister, your children, and your friends, and all the people prayed that your plans might prosper continually, and that Almighty God might preserve your kingdom in peace with honour, and that the translation of the 46 holy law might prove advantageous to you and be carried out successfully. In the presence of all the people I selected six elders from each tribe, good men and true, and I have sent them to you with a copy of our law. It will be a kindness, O righteous king, if you will give instruction that as soon as the translation of the law is completed, the men shall be restored again to us in safety. Farewell.'

47 The following are the names of the elders: Of the first tribe, Joseph, Ezekiah, Zachariah, John, Ezekiah, Elisha. Of the second tribe, Judas, Simon, Samuel, Adaeus, Mattathias, Eschlemias. Of 48 the third tribe, Nehemiah, Joseph, Theodosius, Baseas, Ornias, Dakis. Of the fourth tribe, Jonathan, Abraeus, Elisha, Ananias, Chabrias.... Of the fifth tribe, Isaac, Jacob, Jesus, 49 Sabbataeus, Simon, Levi. Of the sixth tribe, Judas, Joseph, Simon, Zacharias, Samuel, Selemias. Of the seventh tribe, Sabbataeus, Zedekiah, Jacob, Isaac, Jesias, Natthaeus. Of the eighth tribe Theodosius, Jason, Jesus, Theodotus, John, Jonathan. Of the ninth tribe, Theophilus, Abraham 50 Arsamos, Jason, Endemias, Daniel. Of the tenth tribe, Jeremiah, Eleazar, Zachariah, Baneas, Elisha, Dathaeus. Of the eleventh tribe, Samuel, Joseph, Judas, Jonathes, Chabu, Dositheus. Of the twelfth tribe, Isaelus, John, Theodosius, Arsamos, Abietes, Ezekiel. They were seventy-two in all. Such was the answer which Eleazar and his friends gave to the king's letter.

Targum

The two most important targumim for liturgical purposes are:^[6]

• Targum Onkelos on the Torah (Written Law)
• Targum Jonathan on the Nevi'im (Prophets)

These two targumim are mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud as targum dilan ("our Targum"), giving them official status. In the synagogues of talmudic times, Targum Onkelos was read alternately with the Torah, verse by verse, and Targum Jonathan was read alternately with the selection from Nevi'im (i.e., the Haftarah). This custom continues today in Yemenite Jewish synagogues. The Yemenite Jews are the only Jewish community to continue the use of Targum as liturgical text, as well as to preserve a living tradition of pronunciation for the Aramaic of the targumim (according to a Babylonian dialect).

Besides its public function in the synagogue, the Babylonian Talmud also mentions targum in the context of a personal study requirement: "A person should always review his portions of scripture along with the community, reading the scripture twice and the targum once" (Berakhot 8a–b). This too refers to Targum Onkelos on the public Torah reading and to Targum Jonathan on the haftarot from Nevi'im.

Medieval biblical manuscripts of the Tiberian mesorah sometimes contain the Hebrew text interpolated, verse-by-verse, with the targumim. This scribal practice has its roots both in the public reading of the Targum and in the private study requirement.

Taamim - Cantillation - Wikipedia

Three systems of Hebrew punctuation (including vowels and cantillation symbols) have been used: the Babylonian, the Palestinian and the Tiberian, only the last of which is used today.

Babylonian system[edit]

Babylonian Biblical manuscripts from the Geonic period contain no cantillation marks in the current sense, but small Hebrew letters are used to mark significant divisions within a verse.

Nothing is known of the musical realization of these marks, but it seems likely that they represent breaks or variations in a set melody applied to each verse. (A somewhat similar system is used in manuscripts of the Qur'an to guide the reader in fitting the chant to the verse: see Qur'an reading.)

Palestinian system[edit]

The Babylonian system, as mentioned above, is mainly concerned with showing breaks in the verse. Early Palestinian manuscripts, by contrast, are mainly concerned with showing phrases: for example the tifcha-etnachta, zarqa-segolta and pashta-zaqef sequences, with or without intervening unaccented words. These sequences are generally linked by a series of dots, beginning or ending with a dash or a dot in a different place to show which sequence is meant. Unaccented words (which in the Tiberian system carry conjunctives) are generally shown by a dot following the word, as if to link it to the following word. There are separate symbols for more elaborate tropes like pazer and telisha gedolah.

The manuscripts are extremely fragmentary, no two of them following quite the same conventions, and these marks may represent the individual reader's aide-memoire rather than a formal system of punctuation

Tiberian system[edit]

By the tenth century C.E., the chant in use in Judah had clearly become more complex, both because of the existence of pazer, geresh and telisha motifs in longer verses and because the realization of a phrase ending with a given type of break varied according to the number of words and syllables in the phrase. The Tiberian Masoretes therefore decided to invent a comprehensive notation with a symbol on each word, to replace the fragmentary systems previously in use. In particular, it was necessary to invent a range of different conjunctive accents to show how to introduce and elaborate the main motif in longer phrases. (For example, tevir is preceded by mercha, a short flourish, in shorter phrases but by darga, a more elaborate run of notes, in longer phrases.) The system they devised is the one in use today, and is found in Biblical manuscripts such as the Aleppo Codex. A Masoretic treatise called Diqduqe ha-teʿamim (precise rules of the accents) by Aaron ben Moses ben Asher survives, though both the names and the classification of the accents differ somewhat from those of the present day.

As the accents were (and are) not shown on a Torah scroll, it was found necessary to have a person making hand signals to the reader to show the tune, as in the Byzantine system of neumes. This system of cheironomy survives in some communities to the present day, notably in Italy. It is speculated that both the shapes and the names of some of the accents (e.g. tifcha, literally "hand-breadth") may refer to the hand signals rather than to the syntactical functions or melodies denoted by them. Today in most communities there is no system of hand signals and the reader learns the melody of each reading in advance.

The Tiberian system spread quickly and was accepted in all communities by the 13th century. Each community re-interpreted its reading tradition so as to allocate one short musical motif to each symbol: this process has gone furthest in the Western Ashkenazi and Ottoman (Jerusalem-Sephardi, Syrian etc.) traditions. Learning the accents and their musical rendition is now an important part of the preparations for a bar mitzvah, as this is the first occasion on which a person reads from the Torah in public.

In the early period of the Reform movement there was a move to abandon the system of cantillation and give Scriptural readings in normal speech (in Hebrew or in the vernacular). In recent decades, however, traditional cantillation has been restored in many communities.