ENCYCLOPAEDIAJUDAICAENCYCLOPAEDIAJUDAICAS E C O N D

E D I T I O N

VOLUME 6
Dr–FeuF red Skolnik, Editor in Chief
M ichael Berenbaum, Executive Editor

IN ASSOCIATION WITH
KETER PUBLISHING HOUSE LtD., JERUSALEM

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition
Fred Skolnik, Editor in Chief
Michael Berenbaum, Executive Editor
Shlomo S. (Yosh) Gafni, Editorial Project Manager
Rachel Gilon, Editorial Project Planning and Control
Thomson Gale
Gordon Macomber, President
Frank Menchaca, Senior Vice President and Publisher
Jay Flynn, Publisher
Hélène Potter, Publishing Director
Keter Publishing House
Yiphtach Dekel, Chief Executive Officer
Peter Tomkins, Executive Project Director
Complete staff listings appear in Volume 1©2007 Keter Publishing House Ltd.
Thomson Gale is a part of The Thomson
Corporation. Thomson, Star Logo and Macmillan
Reference USA are trademarks and Gale is a
registered trademark used herein under license.
For more information, contact
Macmillan Reference USA
An imprint of Thomson Gale
27500 Drake Rd.
Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3535
Or you can visit our internet site at
http://www.gale.com

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
No part of this work covered by the copyrighthereon may be reproduced or used in any formor by any means – graphic, electronic, or

mechanical, including photocopying, recording,taping, web distribution, or information storage
retrieval systems – without the written
permission of the publisher.
For permission to use material from thisproduct, submit your request via Web at
http://www.gale-edit.com/permissions, or you
may download our Permissions Request formand submit your request by fax or mail to:
Permissions Department
Thomson Gale
27500 Drake Road
Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3535
Permissions Hotline:(+1) 248-699-8006 or
800-877-4253 ext. 8006
Fax:(+1) 248-699-8074 or 800-762-4058

Since this page cannot legibly accommodate all
copyright notices, the acknowledgments constitute an extension of the copyright notice.
While every effort has been made to ensure thereliability of the information presented in thispublication, Thomson Gale does not guarantee
the accuracy of the data contained herein.
Thomson Gale accepts no payment for listing;and inclusion in the publication of any organization, agency, institution, publication, service,or individual does not imply endorsement of theeditors or publisher. Errors brought to theattention of the publisher and verified to thesatisfaction of the publisher will be corrected infuture editions.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA
Encyclopaedia Judaica / Fred Skolnik, editor-in-chief ; Michael Berenbaum, executive editor. -- 2nd ed.
v. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Contents: v.1. Aa-Alp.
ISBN 0-02-865928-7 (set hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865929-5 (vol. 1 hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02865930-9 (vol. 2 hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865931-7 (vol. 3 hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865932-5 (vol.
4 hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865933-3 (vol. 5 hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865934-1 (vol. 6 hardcover :alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865935-X (vol. 7 hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865936-8 (vol. 8 hardcover : alk. paper) -ISBN 0-02-865937-6 (vol. 9 hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865938-4 (vol. 10 hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02865939-2 (vol. 11 hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865940-6 (vol. 12 hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865941-4(vol. 13 hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865942-2 (vol. 14 hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865943-0 (vol. 15: alk.
paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865944-9 (vol. 16: alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865945-7 (vol. 17: alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865946-5 (vol.
18: alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865947-3 (vol. 19: alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865948-1 (vol. 20: alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865949X (vol. 21: alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865950-3 (vol. 22: alk. paper)
1. Jews -- Encyclopedias. I. Skolnik, Fred. II. Berenbaum, Michael, 1945DS102.8.E496 2007
909’.04924 -- dc22
2006020426

ISBN-13:
978-0-02-865928-2 (set)978-0-02-865929-9 (vol. 1)
978-0-02-865930-5 (vol. 2)
978-0-02-865931-2 (vol. 3)
978-0-02-865932-9 (vol. 4)

978-0-02-865933-6 (vol. 5)
978-0-02-865934-3 (vol. 6)
978-0-02-865935-0 (vol. 7)
978-0-02-865936-7 (vol. 8)
978-0-02-865937-4 (vol. 9)

978-0-02-865938-1 (vol. 10)
978-0-02-865939-8 (vol. 11)
978-0-02-865940-4 (vol. 12)
978-0-02-865941-1 (vol. 13)
978-0-02-865942-8 (vol. 14)

978-0-02-865943-5 (vol. 15)
978-0-02-865944-2 (vol. 16)
978-0-02-865945-9 (vol. 17)
978-0-02-865946-6 (vol. 18)
978-0-02-865947-3 (vol. 19)

This title is also available as an e-bookISBN-10: 0-02-866097-8
ISBN-13: 978-0-02-866097-4
Contact your Thomson Gale representative for ordering information.
Printed in the United States of America
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

978-0-02-865948-0 (vol. 20)
978-0-02-865949-7 (vol. 21)
978-0-02-865950-3 (vol. 22)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Entries Dr–Feu
5•
Abbreviations
General Abbreviations779
Abbreviations used in Rabbinical Literature
780
Bibliographical Abbreviations
786•
Transliteration Rules
799
Glossary802

Initial letter “D” for “Dixit,” the first wordof Psalm 53, from the Angoulème Psalter, France, 13th century. The illustrationshows King David and a fool who, in accordance with medieval iconography, isrepresented holding a club and eating
cheese, Besançon, Bibliothèque Municipale, Ms. 140, fol. 62 v.

DRA (Draa), river valley region in southern Morocco on theborders of the Sahara. Many well-known scholars have ethnic
regional names such as Dar’i, Edrei, etc., meaning “from Dra.”
According to an ancient legend, Dra was an independent Jewish state which was overthrown in wars with the Christians.
In the Middle Ages active communities in the region corresponded with the Babylonian geonim. The Jews of Dra were thefirst to suffer during the *Almohad persecutions. The geographer Yaqut (1179–1229) stated that most tradesmen in the Dra
valley were Jews. Dra is a fertile area with gardens and datepalm groves and until the mid-1950s Jews owned land farmed
by “haratin,” descendants of black slaves. As late as 1930, there
were mellahs in the villages of Tamnugalt, Qasbat al-Makhzan,
Rabat-Tinzulin, Arumiyat, Mansuriya, Amzru, Alhammid,
and Mhamid, containing about 500 families. Some Jewish notables participated in the political life of the region as delegatesto the ‘councils’ which governed this Berber-Arab society.

Dr–Dz

the rabbinical institute in Vilna, he was sent by the *Society
for the Promotion of Culture among the Jews in Russia to therabbinical seminary in Breslau, completing his dissertation,
Fragmenta Commentarii ad Pentateuchum Samaritano-arabicum, in 1875. From 1876 to 1908 he served as Kazionny Ravin(government-appointed rabbi) of St. Petersburg. Drabkin wasa member of the Provisional Committee for the Promotionof Crafts and Agriculture among the Jews in Russia. He took
part in the conferences convened after the pogroms of 1881.
He was editor of the rabbinical section for the first eight volumes of the Yevreyskaya Entsiklopediya (Russian Jewish encyclopedia).

DRABKIN, ABRAHAM (1844–1917), rabbi, born in Mogilev, Belorussia. After studying at the yeshivah of Volozhin and

DRACH, PAULLOUISBERNARD (David; 1791–1865),
French apostate. Drach, who was born at Strasbourg, received
a traditional rabbinic education. In 1813 he went to Paris, married a daughter of E. Deutz, chief rabbi of France, and, in 1819,
was appointed head of the Paris Jewish School. At this time
he published a Passover Haggadah (1818) and a siddur (1819),
both with translation, a Jewish calendar (1821), and otherworks. On Easter 1823, to the consternation of French Jewry,
Drach had himself baptized, with much pomp and circumstance, into the Catholic church, and he spent a year and a halfin obtaining paternal control of his three children whom his
wife had secretly taken to London. For a time he worked in

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 65

Bibliography: J.M. Toledano, Ner ha-Ma’arav (1911), 13,
26, 47, 109–10; Villes et tribus du Maroc, 9 (1931), 94–95, 127, 178,
181; Hirschberg, Afrikah, 1 (1965), 90–91, 101, 236, 302; 2 (1965), 27;idem, Me-Ereẓ Mevo ha-Shemesh (1957), 105–13; Corcos, in: Sefunot,
10 (1966), 75–79.
[David Corcos]

drachman, bernard
Paris as an expert in Hebrew and took part in the publicationof the Venice Bible (27 vols., 1827–33). From 1832 to 1842 heserved as librarian of the Congregation for the Propagationof the Faith in Rome, and published Hebrew poems in honorof the pope and the cardinals. Returning to Paris, Drach collaborated with the Abbé J.P. Migne in the publication of his
Patrologia. He also edited the fragments of Origen’s Hexapla(1857–60), and translated into French the anonymous work
*Sefer ha-Yashar (1858), wrongly attributed to Jacob *Tam
who wrote another work similarly entitled. He also wrote a
number of books and pamphlets to justify his apostasy and toprove to his former coreligionists the truth of Christianity. He
succeeded in winning over his brother-in-law Hyacinthe (Simon) Deutz, the man who denounced the Duchess of Berryto the police; and his children, too, grew up as Christians andtook Holy Orders.
Bibliography: P. Klein [= M. Catane], in: Revue de la Pensée Juive, 7 (1951), 87–103.
[Moshe Catane]

DRACHMAN, BERNARD (1861–1945), U.S. Orthodox rabbi,
first of the modern English-speaking Orthodox American rabbinate. Drachman was born in New York and reared in Jersey
City. His early Jewish education was at a Reform institution,
the Hebrew Preparatory School, sponsored by Temple EmanuEl Theological Seminary. He graduated from Columbia College, and was sent to study at Breslau and Heidelberg by New
York’s Temple Emanu-El (Reform). In Europe, much to thechagrin of his patrons, for the first time he came into personal
contact with the deep piety of East European Jewry, and was
so influenced by it that he became entirely committed to Orthodoxy, of which he later became one of the leading spokesmen in the United States. Drachman served as rabbi of Oheb
Shalom in Newark until it introduced mixed seating, and inseveral New York City pulpits, including Zichron Ephraim(1889–1909) and Oheb Zedek (1909–22). His background was
unusual. American-born, he shared none of the East European experiences of his Orthodox colleagues; Reform-trained,
he shared none of the enthusiasm for Reform of those who
first taught him. He was the first ordained Orthodox rabbi topreach in the vernacular in the U.S. and was one of the founders of the *Jewish Theological Seminary, where he taught Bible,
Hebrew, and Jewish philosophy from 1887 to 1902. After Solomon Schechter’s arrival, he continued as assistant reader in
Codes from 1902 to 1908. There are two versions of his decision to sever his service at the Jewish Theological Seminary.
Some believe that Drachman was not sufficiently scholarly
for the institution that Schechter was rebuilding and others
believe that he left the Seminary when it gradually started todiverge from Orthodoxy; he later taught at Yeshiva College.
He served as president of the *Union of Orthodox Jewish
Congregations during 1908–20. He was a candidate for the
Chief Rabbinate of England in 1912 but withdrew when oneof his first pupils, J.H. *Hertz, a graduate of the Jewish Theological Seminary, put forward his candidacy. Drachman was

6

a founder of the Jewish Endeavor Society and Jewish Sabbath
Alliance, which sought to repeal the Blue Laws that prohibited businesses from being open on Sunday and thus imposeda great economic hardship on Sabbath-observing Jews. In the
1920s, together with the labor movement they advocated afive-day work week. He translated Samson Raphael Hirsch’s
Nineteen Letters of Ben Uziel into English (1899). His autobiography, Unfailing Light (1948), is a vivid portrait of American
Jewry during his lifetime.
Bibliography: M. Davis, Emergence of Conservative Judaism (1963), 335–6. Add. Bibliography: J. Gurrock, “Bernard
Drachman and the Evolution of Jewish Religious Life in America,”
in: American Jewish History, 76:4 (June 1967).
[Michael Berenbaum (2nd ed.)]

DRACHSLER, JULIUS (1889–1927), U.S. sociologist. Drachsler was born in Austro-Hungary, taught at Smith College andat the City College of New York. He served in the Bureau of
War Risk Insurance (1918–19), was assistant secretary of theJewish Big Brother Association (1913–15), assistant executive
director of the Bureau for Jewish Social Research (1919–20),
secretary of the faculty of the School for Jewish Communal
Work (1915–18), president of the Conference on Immigration Policy (1921–22), and consultant of the Bureau of Jewish
Social Research (1921–22). In addition, he served as directorof the training courses for community center workers of the
National Jewish Welfare Board. In his organizational as wellas in his scholarly work, Drachsler’s interest was centered
on topics relevant to the sociology of Jews, then in its infancy.
His major published works are Democracy and Assimilation(1920) and Intermarriage in New York City (1921). The latteris considered a classic in the demography of the Jews, andhas been frequently quoted in subsequent studies on intermarriage.
[Werner J. Cahnman]

DRAGUIGNAN (Heb. ‫)דרגינ״א‬, capital of Var department,
S.E. France. Toward the end of the 13t century, when the poet
*Isaac b. Abraham Ha-Gorni visited Draguignan, there wasalready an important community of wealthy Jews, who gave
an unfriendly welcome to the poet, mistrusting his licentious
behavior. The ancient synagogue, no longer standing, a beautiful building with a 23-m.(75.4-ft.)-long facade and a single
spacious hall without the support of columns, was built during the same period. During the middle of the 14t century
the community of 200 to 250 persons was governed by an administrative council and two bailiffs. In the 15t century, thenumber of Jews in Draguignan had increased so much thatthe accommodation in the Rue Juiverie had become inadequate. There were numerous Jewish physicians, one of whom
received a salary from the municipality. In 1489 the Jews in
Draguignan were among the first victims of the edict of expulsion from Provence. Five accepted baptism to avoid being
expelled. During World War II, there were about 12 Jewish
families living in Draguignan. A new community of Jews of
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

dramaNorth African origin established there numbered approximately 100 in 1968.
Bibliography: Gross, Gal Jud, 170–1; F. Mireur, Les rues
de Draguignan, 1 (1921), 134; Monore and Mireur, in Bulletin de laSociété d’Etudes scientifiques et archéologiques de… Draguignan,
60 (1941); Boyer, in: Evidences, 64 (1957), 23–24; Blumenkranz, in:L’Arche, 76 (1963), 48–51; Z. Szajkowski, Analytical Franco-Jewish
Gazetteer (1966), 281.
[Bernhard Blumenkranz]

DRAGUNSKI, DAVID ABRAMOVICH (1910–1992), Soviet army officer. Born in Sviatsk, Btyansk district, Russia, hestarted his army career in 1933. During World War II he commanded a tank battalion and a tank brigade. He was twice
awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union and finished thewar as a colonel. After studying in the Military Academy he
was promoted to major-general in 1953, lieutenant-general in
1961, and colonel-general in 1970. During World War II he wasa member of the Jewish *Anti-Fascist Committee, and in 1947
his biography was published by the Committee in Yiddish.
He represented Soviet Jewry at the opening of the Holocaust
museum in Paris and in other places. He was used by the Soviet authorities to attack Israel, Zionism, and the movement
to immigrate to Israel. He appeared at an anti-Zionist press
conference in Moscow in March 1970 and headed the delegation of Soviet Jewry in Brussels in February 1971 for an international conference to defend Soviet Jews’ rights. In 1968 hepublished his war memoirs.
[Shmuel Spector (2nd ed.)]analysis as well as new developments in the social sciences;
he was one of the first social scientists to fully internalize anduse the tools provided by psychoanalysis, joining the Psychanalyses et pratiques sociales research unit at the University of
Aix-Marseille, where he taught. A former dean of the University of Amiens, Draï also wrote a number of books on social,juridical, administrative, and political subjects, including Le
temps dans la vie politique (1981), Sous le signe de Sion: L’antisémitisme nouveau est arrivé (2001), Science administrative,éthique et gouvernance (2002), and Le Droit entre laïcisationet néo-sacralisation, Instabilités européennes: recompositionou décomposition? (2000). Taking part in official think tanks
on bioethics, Draï is also a recognized expert in Talmud andhalakhah, using his knowledge of Jewish Law to deepen his
ethical, social, and political analysis, so that his work can
be described as an unusual attempt to combine a classicaljuridical approach to political science with the progress ofthe modern social sciences, psychoanalytical elements, andJewish tradition. This original endeavor culminated in Identité juive, identité humaine (1995), a discussion of Jewish identity and universal values. Other works related to Judaism
were Lettre au Pape sur le pardon au peuple juif (1998), L’Economie chabbatique (1998), Freud et Moïse – Psychanalyse,
loi juive et pouvoir (1997), La pensée juive et l’interrogation
divine (1996), and La sortie d’Egypte, l’invention de la liberté(1986).
[Dror Franck Sullaper (2nd ed.)]DRAÏ, RAPHAËL (1942– ), French political scientist, sociologist, religious thinker. Born in Constantine, Draï had toleave Algeria at the age of 19, in 1961, and always considered
the fate of Algerian Jews after the war of independence, andhis own exile, as a great injustice. Nevertheless, he consistently
refused to blame anyone for these events, which he saw as aresult of the “hardships of history,” leaving the door open toa process of “reconciliation”; he thus remained an advocateof trans-Mediterranean, intercultural, and inter-religious dialogue, and in 2000, after Algerian president Bouteflika acknowledged for the first time, in a speech in Constantine in1999, the importance of Jewish culture to the history of Algeria, he tried to move forward and, together with the singer
Enrico Macias and other Jews from Constantine, traveled toAlgeria to pray at the tomb of Algerian-Jewish singer SheikhRaymond Leyris, assassinated in 1961 and a symbol of the involvement of Jews in the shaping of Arab-Algerian classicalculture. Intended to be the beginning of a reconciliation process, the journey left a harsh impression of unrelieved misunderstanding and alienation, but was still a remarkable step
forward. In the wake of this journey, Draï voiced the complexity of his feelings in an open letter to President Bouteflika,
Lettre au président Bouteflika sur le retour des Pieds-Noirs en
Algérie (2000). In France, he had a successful academic career in which he tried to apply a broad perspective to political science, taking into account the results of diligent juridical

DRAMA, city in Macedonia, Greece. *Benjamin of Tudela
found 140 Jews in Drama in c. 1165. Documentation points tothe settlement of a small Jewish community of merchants in
Drama from the beginning of the 17t century who brought
their legal problems to the Salonikan bet din. During the years
1671–68, the Hebron emissary Rabbi Moses ha-Levi *Nazir
visited the community. After the fall of Ottoman Hungary in
1689, Jews from Buda settled in Drama. Jewish merchants carried goods in caravans from Drama to other towns. In 1900
the Jewish community numbered 45 families, or 150 people.
Many Jews from Serres settled in Drama in 1913 after a large
fire erupted under Bulgarian occupation. Before World War II
the Jews were engaged in commerce (especially in tobacco);some were craftsmen or in the liberal professions. In 1934,
the Zionist Geula organization was founded. In 1940 there
were 1,200 Jews in the town. In 1941 Drama was occupied by
the Bulgarians, who requisitioned all the Jewish enterprises.
Jewish-owned capital in the banks was also confiscated. On
March 4, 1943, the Jews of the community were arrested by
the Bulgarian police and army, held in tobacco warehouses in
the Agia Barbara quarter for three days, and then sent to theGorna Djumaya camp in Bulgaria, where they were kept inextremely harsh conditions. From there, young men in theirteens and early twenties were sent to forced labor in Bulgariaand 113 families (589 people) were dispatched by train to Lom
and from there put on a boat to Vienna, where they were reloaded on trains to Treblinka and gassed upon their arrival.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

7

drancy
In 1948 there were 39 Jews in Drama and in 1958, 17. A Holocaust memorial plaque was inaugurated in 1999.
Bibliography: Rosanes, Togarmah, 3 (1938), 77; H. Pardo,
in: Fun Letstn Khurbn, 7 (1948), 88–90. Add. Bibliography: B.
Rivlin, “Drama,” in: Pinkas Kehillot Yavan (1999), 93–97.
[Simon Marcus / Yitzchak Kerem (2nd ed.)]DRANCY, small town near Paris where an internment camp
was established by the Germans late in 1940. It became thelargest center for the deportation of Jews from France. Beginning on August 20, 1941, it was reserved exclusively for Jews.
They were deported from there “to the East” from July 19, 1942,
until the camp was liberated on August 17, 1944. On that datesome 1,500 internees were still there. The camp was directedby high Gestapo officers stationed in France. More than 61,000
persons were sent from Drancy to the death camps. The camp
has been transformed into an apartment complex for low-income families. At the site, there are a number of memorial
plaques and a small museum housed in a cattle car that wasused to transport Jews during World War II.
Bibliography: G. Wellers, De Drancy à Auschwitz (1946);
Z. Szajkowski, Analytical Franco-Jewish Gazetteer 1939–1945 (1966),
262 (includes bibliography).
[Shaul Esh / Michael Berenbaum (2nd ed.)]

DRAPKIN (Darom), ABRAHAM S. (1908–1993), criminologist and Israeli diplomat. Born in Argentina, Drapkin studied
in Chile and from 1935 to 1940 was secretary-general of theChilean Department of Prisons. In 1936 he founded the journal Revista de Ciencias Penales, and a year later helped establish the Chilean Institute of Penal Sciences. He published Jurisprudencia de las Circunstancias Eminentes de Responsabilidad
Criminal (1937) and Relación de Causalidad y Delito (1943). In
1948 he immigrated to Israel and entered its foreign service.
He represented Israel in Greece, Yugoslavia, Thailand, Mexico,
and at the United Nations.

left-wing student union Mouvement d’action syndicale, whichmerged in 1980 with the newly created UNEF-ID, a radical
faction of the mainstream socialist UNEF union. At the time,
Dray himself moved from the far-left to the mainstream left
and joined the Socialist Party (PS) in 1980, shortly before thesocialist François Mitterrand was elected France’s president.
Dray was in charge of managing the Socialist Party’s youth
movements, and in 1984 was a founding member of SOS-Racisme, an anti-racist youth association affiliated with the PS andaiming at promoting the social integration of the immigrants,
federating French youth around anti-racist values, and countering the rise of the anti-immigration far-right Front National
party. In 1986, Dray also helped create the FIDL, a high-school
student union. In 2003, he was involved in the creation of Niputes ni soumises, a feminist organization that worked in theneglected, impoverished suburbs and among immigrant youth
to promote the advancement of young women and lead thefight against sexual discrimination and violence. Dray was amember of Parliament from 1988 and in 1997 and 2002 waselected vice president of the Ile-de-France Regional Council.
Acting as a spokesman for the party, Dray also participatedin its internal ideological debates and headed one of the ideological clubs within the PS, the Club de la Gauche Socialiste. Julien Dray was widely seen as one of the most promising
young leaders of the Socialist Party.
[Dror Franck Sullaper (2nd ed.)]DREAMS.

DRAY, JULIEN (1955– ), French politician. Born in 1955 in
Oran, Algeria, Dray was first active in far-left movements after his family had to move to France at the end of Algeria’s
war of independence. During the 1970s, he was a memberof the Trotskyite Ligue communiste révolutionnaire and theIn the Bible
The biblical view of dreams agrees substantially with that heldby almost all ancient peoples. Dreams are visions of things actually transpiring on an ultramundane plane, where persons
are not bound to bodies or events to specific moments andplaces. This plane is indistinguishable from that of the gods
(or God), and dreams are therefore considered to be divine
communications (Gen. 20:3, 6; 31:10–11). What is thus revealed may subsequently be actualized in historical fact. Accordingly, dreams are regarded as presages or omens. They
are best understood by visionaries, i.e., by prophets, mantics,
and ecstatics, who, in their suprasensory states, are in rapport
with the “divine dimension,” and it is to such persons that God
vouchsafes dreams when He wishes to communicate withmankind (cf. Num. 12:6). In the Bible, “dreamer,” “prophet,”and “magician” are related terms (cf. Jer. 23:28; 27:9; 29:8; see*Divination). The final interpretation of dreams rests withGod (Gen. 40:8).
Dreams are usually symbolic, and their interpretation (known as oneiromancy) revolves around the unraveling of their images. Dreambooks, in which such images arecodified, feature in Egyptian and Mesopotamian literature.
Biblical examples of such symbolic dreams are those of Joseph (Gen. 37:5ff.), of Pharaoh’s butler and baker (ibid. 40:1ff.),
and of Pharaoh himself (ibid. 41:1, 5); in Judges (7:13ff.) a man’s
dream that a cake of barley rolls onto the Midianite camp
and bowls it over is taken to portend the imminent discom-

8

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

DRAPKIN (Senderey), ISRAEL (1906–1990), Israeli criminologist and physician. Drapkin, who pioneered criminological studies in Latin America, was born in Rosario, Argentina.
In 1936 he established the first Criminological Institute inChile, and in 1950 the chair of criminology at the Universityof Chile. He advised on the establishment of other national institutes of criminology, particularly in Venezuela, Costa Rica,
and Mexico. Drapkin settled in Israel in 1959 and establishedthe chair of criminology and the Institute of Criminology atthe Hebrew University. His publications include Manual deCriminología (1949) and Prensa y Criminalidad (1958).
[Zvi Hermon]

dreams
fiture of that people. Ancient Near Eastern parallels are afforded by a series of prophetic dreams related in the Babylonian “Epic of Gilgamesh” and in the Hittite “Legend of
Kessi.”
Dreams that occur in sacred places are considered to berevelations from the resident deity. People in search of divine
direction resort to such shrines and sleep on the premises. Thiswidespread practice, called incubation, is attested for the ancient Near East by a Sumerian inscription of Gudea of Lagash
and a Hittite text of King Mursilis II of Hatti. The only clear
instance in the Bible is the story of Jacob at Beer-Sheba (Gen.
46:1ff.), though some scholars claim that the narratives of theinfant Samuel at Shiloh and of Jacob at Beth-El fall within thesame category. It is necessary, however, to distinguish between
incubation, which involves a purposeful visit to a shrine, andmore general revelation through dreams, such as is described,
for example, in I Kings 3:5–15 (Solomon at Gibeon). In sundry passages (e.g., Jer. 23:25; Zech. 10:2), the Bible speaks offalse dreams. There appear to be two criteria for this designation, as there are also for false prophecy: a dream may bedeemed false either because it is not subsequently realized,or because it never occurred at all. In the future Golden Age,says the prophet Joel (3:1), the gift of prophetic dreaming will
be bestowed on all men, young and old alike. In the GrecoRoman age, apocalyptic visions were thought to be vouchsafedin dreams. Literary works inspired by this idea are the Book
of Daniel and the Apocalypses of Ezra and Baruch. There isevidence of a pious protest against oneiromancy; both Ben
Sira (31:1ff.) and the Letter of Aristeas (213–216) denounce
belief in dreams.
[Theodor H. Gaster]is against tow. Ḥ isda said: Provided it is on the same day. R.
Joseph added: Even on the Sabbath” (Shab. 11a).
The Talmud contains a prayer which originated in the lastgeneration of the amoraim and which, said during the priestly
benediction, reads as follows: “Sovereign of the Universe, I am
Thine and my dreams are Thine. I have dreamt a dream anddo not know what it is. Whether I have dreamt about myself,or my companions have dreamt about me, or I have dreamt
about others, if they are good dreams, confirm and reinforce
them like the dreams of Joseph, and if they require a remedy,
heal them, as the waters of Marah were healed by Moses our
teacher, and as Miriam was healed of her leprosy and Hezekiah of his sickness, and the waters of Jericho by Elisha. As
Thou didst turn the curse of the wicked Balaam into a blessing, so turn all my dreams into something beneficial for me”(Ber. 55b). The Talmud records that there were 24 professional
interpreters of dreams in Jerusalem (ibid.), an indication of
how deep-rooted a belief in dreams was among the masses.
(Extensive material on dreams and their interpretation is given
in Ber. 55a–57b.) A third view, midway between these two extremes, regarded dreams as composed alike of truth and ofincidental features. This was stated by Johanan in the nameof Simeon b. Yoḥ ai: “Just as there can be no grain without
straw, so can there be no dream without meaningless matter.”
A similar view was expressed by Berechiah, “While part of a
dream may be fulfilled, the whole of it is never fulfilled,” andby Ḥ isda: “Neither a good dream nor a bad one is wholly fulfilled” (Ber. 55a). Some sages distinguished between one dreamthat lacks all substance and another that is fulfilled. This was
the view of Johanan, who declared that “three dreams are fulfilled: an early morning dream, a dream which a friend has
about one, and a dream which is interpreted within a dream”(Ber. 55b).

In the Talmud
Diametrically opposed views on dreams were expressed by thesages. Jonathan stated that “a man is shown in a dream only
what is suggested by his own thoughts” (Ber. 55b). This statement is similar to Freud’s views that certain thoughts which
during the day are suppressed to the unconscious, reappear
in a dream, where they find gratification. It is told of Meir andNathan that after behaving unbecomingly toward Simeon b.
Gamaliel the nasi, “they were told in their dreams to go andpacify him. Nathan went, but Meir did not, saying, ‘Dreams
are of no consequence’” (Hor. 13b; see also Git. 52a). The extent
to which the sages did not set store by dreams is attested by
Hanan’s statement that “even if the genius of dreams informsa man that on the morrow he will die, he should not desist
from prayer, since it is said (Eccles. 5:6): ‘For through the multitude of dreams and vanities there are also many words; but
fear thou God’” (Ber. 10b). There were sages who believed indreams, however, and regarded them as being in the natureof prophecy; Ḥ anina b. Isaac declared that “a dream is a variety of prophecy” (Gen. R. 17:5), and R. Joseph said, “If one
was placed under a ban in a dream, ten persons are necessary
for lifting the ban” (Ned. 8a). Some fasted on account of a bad
dream, the *fast being known as ta’anit ḥ alom (“dream-fast”).
Thus Rav asserted: “Fasting is as potent against a dream as fire

In Medieval ThoughtInterest in dreams continued through the Middle Ages tomodern times, especially among the kabbalists and Ḥ asidim.
The Zohar discusses the problem of the admixture of truth andfalsehood in dreams, and distinguishes between the dreamsof the wicked, which derive from the forces of impurity, andthe dreams of the righteous, which contain the visions, images, and prophecies seen by the soul in the higher worlds.
Nevertheless, even the dreams of the righteous are infected by
the false notions of the sitra aḥ ra. The angel in charge of the
dreams of the righteous is Gabriel. These dreams, while they
are not as great as prophecy, are close to prophecy (Tishby,
Mishnat ha-Zohar, 2 (1961), 136–43). Maimonides developed aconception of dreams, based on his psychology and epistemology, as an integral part of philosophical anthropology, which
totally rejects all supernatural categories. The religious significance of Maimonides’ conception lies in his identificationof dreams and prophecy in terms of their essence, and their
distinction in terms of their content (Guide of the Perplexed,
2:36–38; cf. Shemonah Perakim, 1; Yad, Yesodei ha-Torah 7:2).
Maimonides attributes no cognitive significance to dreams in

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 69[Abraham Arzi]

dreben, sam
the sense of a spiritual process which introduces new ideas
or knowledge which was not previously known. Dreams area function of the imagination only, not of the senses or theintellect. What one learns in dreams is not a new product of
one’s soul or a new idea from the outside, but is rather broughtup from the imaginative faculty, the storehouse of sensual andintellectual impressions: “The thing which engages greatly
and earnestly man’s attention while he is awake and in thefull possession of his senses forms during his sleep the object of the action of his imaginative faculty.” The prophetic
dream is unique in that “his [the prophet’s] attention must
be directed to the knowledge of God.… There must be an absence of the lower desires and appetites.” If the prophet fulfills
these requirements while he is awake, of necessity he will, in
his dreams, “perceive things very extraordinary and divine,and see nothing but God and His angels.” The experiences ofthe dream, those of both the prophet and the ordinary person,
occur only “when the senses are at rest and pause in their action.” In his dreams a person apprehends ideas which he previously had and which left their impression in his imaginative
faculty, which “sees the thing as if it came from without andperceives it as if through the medium of bodily senses.” It thus
appears as if these are new ideas which have never before been
experienced. From this conception of the essence of dreams it
can be seen that Maimonides avoids the traditional interpretation of the “dream-fast” as a means of protection from ananticipated danger or for the purpose of abolishing a harmful
decree, and sees the fast as an obligation which has a didacticpsychological purpose: “that he may reexamine his actions andanalyze them and repent” (Yad, Ta’aniyyot 1:12). A later attempt
to promulgate a belief in dreams and their interpretation ona “philosophical” basis was made by Solomon Almoli, whosebook Mefasher Ḥ elmin or Pitron Ḥ alomot (“The Interpretation of Dreams”) was very popular among eastern European
Jews. Some medieval thinkers would rely on dreams even inmatters of religious law, as, for example, Jacob of Marvège in
his responsa. Other scholars, however, strongly opposed thispractice: “We do not require the dream of R. Jacob … nor his
interpretation based on a dream … and one should take no
notice of dreams, because we know that it is not in the heavens” (Zedekiah b. Abraham Anav’s Shibbolei ha-Leket (1896),
no. 157). Nevertheless, there were people in later generations
who made decisions on the basis of dreams.

and volunteered for the army. He fought in China during theBoxer Rebellion of 1900 and later in Nicaragua, where he became known as the “fighting Jew.” In 1916 he volunteered asa colonel in the Mexican army and in 1918 fought in France,
where he won the Distinguished Service Cross. Dreben donated a large sum of money to the *American Jewish Joint
Distribution Committee and helped fight the Ku Klux Klan
in Texas in the 1920s.
DREIFUSS, RUTH (1940– ), Swiss politician. Born in St.
Gall, she spent her youth in Geneva. Her father was active
on behalf of Jewish refugees in Switzerland. After receiving
a diploma in commerce, she became editor of the consumer
association’s magazine coop in Basle (1961–64). She joined theSocial Democratic Party in 1965 and studied economics at the
University of Geneva, beginning her academic career there as
assistant professor (1972–74). She was engaged by the Federal
Foreign Ministry (1972–81) and was elected secretary of the
Swiss Labor Union (Berne, 1981–93). She also served on thecity council of Berne as a member of the Social Democrats.
In 1993 she was elected by the Federal Assembly (Parliament)
as a Federal councilor, becoming the first Jewish member of
the Swiss government. As minister of the interior, she fought
to cut welfare spending and was broadly perceived as fighting for women’s equality in Swiss private industry. Her visionof social justice had roots in Jewish tradition, even if she declared herself an agnostic and did not become a member ofa Jewish community.
In 1998 she was elected vice president of the Swiss Confederation and in 1999 she became president for the one-year
term, serving in effect as the Swiss head of state. As such, shereiterated Switzerland’s official apology to the victims of the
Holocaust, acknowledging that Swiss asylum policy had been“marred by errors, omissions, and compromises.” In 2002 sheresigned from the government after being reelected councilor twice. In 2004 she contributed to the jubilee volume of
the Swiss Federation of Jewish Communities, describing thechanges in the position of Swiss Jewry from pre-emancipation
times until the present.
Bibliography: I.M. Fischli, Dreifuss ist unser Name (2002);
U. Altermatt, Conseil fédéral (1993), 611.
[Uri Kaufmann (2nd ed.)]DREBEN, SAM (1878–1925), U.S. soldier of fortune. Bornin Russia, Dreben immigrated to the United States in 1898

DRESDEN, capital of Saxony, Germany. A Jewish community existed there in the early 14t century, and its members
were massacred in the *Black Death persecutions of 1349.
Jews are not mentioned in Dresden again until 1375. They
were expelled in 1430. Jewish settlement was renewed in theearly 18t century when the *Court Jews Behrend *Lehmann
and Jonas Mayer, with their retainers, were permitted to settle in Dresden. A synagogue and cemetery were opened in
the middle of the 18t century. A society for caring for andvisiting the sick was established which formed the nucleus
for communal organization. During this period the Jews in
Dresden were subjected to strict regulations and their rights

10

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Encyclopaedia Hebraica]
Bibliography: A. Lowinger, Der Traum in der juedischen
Literatur (1908); A. Kristianpoller, Traum und Traumdeutung (Monumenta Talmudica, 4, 1923); J. St. Lincoln, Dream in Primitive Culture(1935); E.L. Ehrlich, in: BZAW, 73 (1953), 1–170; H.L. Oppenheim, Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East (1956); Jacob of Marvège, She’elot u-Teshuvot min ha-Shamayim, ed. by R. Margoliouth(1957), introduction, 3–20; S. Lieberman, Yevanit ve-Yavnut be-Ereẓ
Yisrael (1962), 204–9; M. Harris, in: PAAJR, 31 (1963), 51–80.

Dresner, Samuel Hayimof residence were limited. Nevertheless there were about 1,000
Jewish residents by the end of the 18t century. Their situation
improved in the 19t century. Active in the communal leadership were R. David Landau of Lissa, who settled in Dresden in 1803, and Bernhard *Beer, founder of the “Mendelssohn-Verein” for the advancement for crafts, art, and scienceamong Jewish youth (1829). As communal leader for 30 years,
Beer was active in efforts for improvement of the civil statusof the Jews in Dresden and the rest of Saxony. A new synagogue was built and consecrated on his initiative in 1840 and
Zacharias *Frankel officiated as its first rabbi (1836–54). Frankel succeeded, among other achievements, in obtaining therepeal of the more humiliating portions of the Jewish *oathin 1840. During this period a Jewish elementary school was
founded (1836) and complete civil equality attained (1869).
Emil Lehmann (d. 1898) followed Beer as leader of Dresdenand Saxon Jewry. Frankel was succeeded by the teacher Wolf
Landau (1854–86) and the scholar of Midrash Jacob *Winter(1887–1941). The community numbered approximately 2,300
in 1886, 4,300 in 1913, and over 6,000 in 1925.
A number of Jews from East Europe settled there afterWorld War I. A prosperous and well-endowed community, it
owned a valuable library and maintained numerous social andcharitable organizations. A group of Orthodox Jews seceded
and founded the “Shomerei ha-Dat” congregations. In October 1938, 724 Jews of Polish citizenship were deported from
Dresden. On Kristallnacht, 151 Jews were arrested and shipped
to Buchenwald. The synagogues were burned and the Jewish
community was presented with a bill for their demolition. By
May 1939, the community had been reduced to 1,600 people
as a result of emigration, deportation, and arrests. There were
12 deportations, dispatching 1,300 Jews, between January 1942
and January 1944. The final deportation was scheduled for
February 1945. The Allied bombing of Dresden allowed thedeportees to escape.
A synagogue seating 200 was opened in 1950. Subsequently the Dresden community declined, numbering 100
in the late 1960s. From 1962 to 1990 Dresden was the seat of
the Association of Jewish Communities in the GDR. Owing to
the immigration of Jews from the Former Soviet Union, thenumber of community members rose to 618 in 2005. A newsynagogue was inaugurated in 2001. Dresden is the seat of the
Association of Jewish Communities in Saxony.

Berlin. In 1914 he founded a choral ensemble which gave
concerts of the works of the great Dutch composers and of
Renaissance and modern works. He was director of the Amsterdam Conservatory (1924–37) and of the Royal Conservatory at The Hague (1937–40; 1945–49), and for a number ofyears president of the Society of Dutch Composers and of the
Dutch section of the International Society of Contemporary
Music. His compositions include Chorus Tragicus for choir,
wind instruments, and percussion (1928, after Vondel’s Hierusalem verwoest); Psalm 84 for choir “based on an old Hebrew
prayer”; concertos for various instruments; orchestral andchamber works; and an opera, Toto (1945). He also wrote andedited books on music history and theory.

DRESDEN, SEM (1881–1957), composer and teacher. Bornin Amsterdam, Dresden studied there and with Pfitzner in

DRESNER, SAMUEL HAYIM (1923–2000), U.S. Conservative rabbi, activist, scholar, and author. Dresner was bornin Chicago and began his education at the University of Cincinnati (B.A., 1945) and Hebrew Union College. He left HUC
to study with his mentor Abraham Joshua *Heschel, whowent to the Jewish Theological Seminary after World War II,
where Dresner was ordained (1951) and subsequently earned
his D.H.L. degree (1954). Dresner began his career as associate rabbi of Congregation Har Zion in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; in addition, in 1955, Dresner and several colleagues
revived the quarterly magazine Conservative Judaism. For
10 years, Dresner almost single-handedly kept the magazine
alive. In 1957, he became the rabbi of Congregation Beth El
in Springfield, Massachusetts, where he also joined the civilrights struggle as chairman of the Massachusetts Human
Relations Commission. He used his positions in the Conservative movement to promulgate a code of Jewish living,promoting Sabbath observance, and establishing an adult
Leadership Training Institute. As part of his lobbying efforts
for Jewish funeral reform, Dresner co-chaired the Committee on Funeral Practices of the non-denominational *Synagogue Council of America. In 1969, Dresner became rabbi ofNorth Suburban Synagogue Beth El in Highland Park, Illinois (1969–77). In 1977, Dresner joined the faculty of Spertus
College in Chicago and moved to Deerfield, Illinois, where
he assumed the pulpit at Congregation Moriah. Following
his retirement from the congregational rabbinate in 1984, hetaught at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (1985), at Hebrew Union College (1986–88), and at the Jewish TheologicalSeminary (1989–2000).
Dresner contributed hundreds of articles to such periodicals as Judaism, Commentary, Forum, and Jewish Digest, andwrote and edited numerous books, including Prayer, Humility
and Compassion (1957), The Jewish Dietary Laws (1959, 1966),
Three Paths of God and Man (1960), The Zaddik (1960; reissued as The Zaddik: The Doctrine of the Zaddik According to
the Writings of Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoy, 1994), The Jew in
American Life (1963), God, Man and Atomic War (1966), The
Sabbath (1970), Between the Generations: A Jewish Dialogue(1971), Levi Yitzhak of Berditchev: Portrait of a Hasidic Master(1974; reissued as The World of a Hasidic Master: Levi Yitzhak

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

11

Bibliography: E. Lehmann, Aus alten Acten… (1886); idem,
Ein Halbjahrhundert in der israelitischen Religionsgemeinde zu Dresden (1890); MGWJ, 1 (1852), 382–5, 421–6; Germ Jud, 2 (1968), 175;
Gruen, in: AUJW, 9 (1954/55), 3; B. Beer, Geschichtliche Darstellung der
50 – jaehrigen Wirksamkeit des Krankenunterstuetzungs – Institutes
fuer Israeliten zu Dresden (1857). Add. Bibliography: U. Ullrich,
Zur Geschichte der Juden in Dresden (2001); Der alte juedische Friedhof in Dresden (2002).
[Akiva Posner / Annegret Nippa (2nd ed.)]dressof Berditchev, 1985, 1994), Agenda for American Jews: Federation and Synagogue (1976), Judaism: The Way of Sanctification(with Byron Sherwin, 1978), Rachel (1994), Can Families Survive in Pagan America? (1995), Abraham J. Heschel: Prophetic
Witness (Vol. I, with Edward Kaplan, 1998), and Heschel, Hasidism and Halakha (2000).
Bibliography: P.S. Nadell, Conservative Judaism in America: A Biographical Dictionary and Sourcebook (1988); Contemporary
Authors Online, Gale, 2005.
[Bezalel Gordon (2nd ed.)]DRESS.
In the Bible
The biblical terms for clothing (Heb. ‫ ֶ ּבגֶ ד‬, beged; ‫ ְּכסוּת‬, kesut;‫לְ בו ּׁש‬, levush) and the corresponding verbs are employed inconnection with the cover of the body for warmth or reasonsof modesty. Extensive use is also made of the terms in figuresof speech: “Put on thy beautiful garments” (Isa. 52:1), as anemblem of greatness; “He put on garments of vengeance forclothing” (Isa. 59:17), as a symbol of revenge; “For he dressedme in clothes of triumph,” as a metaphor for victory andgood fortune (Isa. 61:10); “They shall wear shame” (Ps. 35:26),
as a metaphor for failure and defeat; and “Let your priest be
clothed with triumph” (Ps. 132:9), as a metaphor for successand prestige; and so forth. On many occasions, clothing emphasizes a person’s status, position, clothing, or particularsituation or task: “Royal apparel (levush malkhut)… which
the king is accustomed to wear” (Esth. 6:8), with which another man (Mordecai) would be honored or favored. A hairy
cloak was probably a hallmark of Nazirites and ascetics: “Neither shall they wear a hairy mantle (adderet se’ar) to deceive”(Zech. 13:4). During the period of mourning widows wore acharacteristic garment: “She put off from her garments of widowhood” (Gen. 38:14). Prisoners apparently also had special
clothing: “He changed his prison garments” (II Kings 25:29).
The official uniform (holy garments) worn by priests in theservice of God was of great importance: “And Thou shalt makeholy garments for Aaron” (Ex. 28:2). Just as the beauty of a
garment symbolized a man’s greatness, tearing the clothingor wearing poor and dirty clothing or sackcloth indicated alowered station or mourning.
The Bible mentions articles of clothing appropriate tospecific parts of the body: a cloth miter or turban (ẓ enif,miẓ nefet) to cover the head (Ex. 29:6; Zech. 3:5); metal orleather helmets (kovaʿ), and head coverings used in warfare
for protection (I Sam. 17:5; II Chron. 26:14); a dress-like garment (simlah), apparently with closed seams used by both
men and women to cover the entire body from the shoulders
to the ankles (I Kings 11:30; Ex. 12:34; Y. Yadin, et al., Hazor,
3–4 (1961), pl. cccxxxix: 1, 2); the tunic (ketonet), a short, closed
garment, covering the top part of the body, worn by both men
and women (Gen. 37:3; Lev. 16:14; Song 5:3); the coat (meʿil), a
long outer garment open at the front (I Sam. 15:27; 24:5; II Sam.
13:18); breeches (mikhnasayim), covering the loins, worn by
the priests (Ex. 28:42; Ezek. 44:18); the girdle (ʾavnet), a belt for

12

fastening the coat or dress around the waist (Ex. 29:9; Lev. 8:7);
and the shoe, made of skin and attached with laces, strings, or
straps (Gen. 14:23; Isa. 5:27).
Clothes, particularly the dress-like garment and the tunic, were considered essential though expensive articles, bothbecause of their value, which of course was related to the workthat went into producing them, and by reason of their importance in indicating a man’s status, position, character, and living style. It is for this reason that the Bible and royal documents frequently list the quantities of clothing given as gifts(Gen. 45:22) or taken in war (Judg. 14:12). Kings had keepersof the wardrobe (II Kings 22:14), and the Temple in Jerusalem
had a special wardrobe room.
Types of Garment Shown on Monuments
A common garment worn by men, which is often depicted onmonuments in Egypt and Mesopotamia, was a piece of cloth
covering from the waist to the knees or below (N. de Garis
Davies, The Tomb of Puyemrê at Thebes, 1 (1922), pl. xxxiii, A),gathered around the waist and held in place by a belt fastened
either in front or at the back or tied near the navel (L. Borchardt, Das Grabdenkmal des Koenigs Sahu-Re, 2 (1913), pl. 6;
M.G. Lefébure, Le tombeau de Séti I, 4 (1886), pl. V). Occasionally this garment was patterned and multicolored, but more often it was a solid color, usually white. It was sometimes held inplace by a leather or cloth suspender, passing diagonally over
one shoulder from the upper part of the garment (Y. Yadin, etal., Hazor, 3–4 (1961), pl. ccxxvi). A more complex garment,
made of a wide piece of cloth, covered the body from shoulder
to ankle; it was worn by both men and women and was mostcommon in Mesopotamia, though in other places it was worn
as a festive garment (N. de Garis Davies and A.H. Gardiner,
The Tomb of Ḥ uy, 1926). This garment could be both in single
color or in multicolored patterns. While it usually covered
only one shoulder, it was occasionally worn covering both.
In addition to the patterns woven into the cloth, a decorative
border was common (W. Wreszinski, Atlas zur altaegyptisehen
Kulturgeschichte, 2 (1935), pl. 46).
A garment more characteristic of the lower classes consisted of two shrunken cloths which were suspended fromthe waist in front and back by a belt or string, thus covering
the loins (P.A.A. Boeser, Die Denkmaeler des Neuen Reiches(1911)). A sewn dress-like garment with sleeves covered theentire body; it had a large opening for the head, somewhat
resembling a collar. The pictures on several monuments showthat the stitches were prominent, serving also as a kind of
decoration. The more elegant classes wore two garments: asewn, short- or long-sleeved dress over which was worn asheath covering the shoulder or sometimes the entire dress(E.F. Schmidt, Persepolis, 1 (1953, pls. 31, 32). Another such
two-piece ensemble in the luxury category was made up of alength of cloth extending from the waist to the knees or trousers over which was worn a wide decorated cloth covering the
body from shoulder to ankles. Typical of the colder, northern countries was a sleeved coat fastened all the way down
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

dress

Talmudic Times
Talmudic and midrashic literature is replete with information on matters of dress and clothing, usually supplied incidentally as part of a comment on biblical themes or in connection with religious law and custom which often concern
matters of dress.
The importance of clothing in adding to the confidence
and dignity of man is stressed in the Talmud: “fine garments”
are among the things which “enlarge man’s mind” (Ber.
57b), and “a man’s dignity is seen in his costume” (Ex. R.
18:5). Apart from the special and distinctive garments whichcharacterized the scholar, he was enjoined to be spotless andneat in his dress: “A scholar on whose garments a stain isfound is worthy of death” (Shab. 114a), and he should not go
out in patched shoes (Ber. 43b). An incident related in theMidrash is based upon the fact that *Yannai mistook an ignorant man for a scholar because he was elegantly dressed(Lev. R. 9:3).

As many as 90 different articles of clothing are listed by
Krauss, but the Talmud enumerates the 18 articles of clothing which were regarded as indispensable and which could
therefore be rescued from a fire on the Sabbath. The lists given
both in the Babylonian (Shab. 120a) and the Jerusalem (Shab.
16:5, 15d) Talmuds, apart from some differences in spelling,are practically identical, affording a picture of a man’s complete apparel. On the upper part of the body, next to the skin,
he wore a sleeveless tunic which was covered by a shirt(ḥ alluk). Over this came an outer tunic, and the top garment
was a cloak. A hollow money belt was worn. The lower partof the body was covered by breeches, over which trousers
were worn; on the feet were socks and shoes. A girdle wastied round the waist and an apron was also worn. A felt cap
covered the head and a hat was worn over this. A scarf completed the attire. Even the order of donning the clothes waslaid down (DER 10). Apart from the shirt and the girdle, allthese garments were worn by the Greeks, and this raises thequestion of whether there was a distinctive Jewish dress intalmudic times.
There is evidence that there was. With regard to men, theMidrash states that Moses was called an Egyptian (Ex. 2:19)
because he was dressed as such and not as a Jew. In one version
of a well-known Midrash, one of the reasons given for the redemption of the children of Israel from bondage is “that they
did not change or substitute their [distinctive Jewish] dress”
and on the verse “Lo, it is a people that shall dwell alone,” a Yalkut (Num. 768) states, “they are distinguished from the otherpeoples in everything, in their dress…” Generally speaking,however, it would appear that apart from the *ẓ iẓ it enjoinedby the Bible, the dress of the ordinary people was similar tothat of non-Jews. The scholar however wore distinctive garments. The scarf worn by ordinary people, which was probably fringed, became the *tallit of the scholar. The Talmud indicates its severe displeasure of the common person who wore
the tallit of the scholar (BB 98a). The scholar’s shirt covered
his whole body, so that his skin was invisible, and his tallit
completely covered the shirt (BB 57b), so that “the scholar wasrecognized by the manner in which he wrapped himself in his
tallit” (DEZ 5). He wore a distinctive hat, a kind of turban (Pes.
111b). Judah b. Ilai used to wrap himself in his fringed shawl
and he looked like an angel of the Lord (Shab. 25b).
It was regarded as immodest and against Jewish custom
for a married woman to wear her hair loose. The difference
between the costume of women in Ereẓ Israel and Babylon isnoted; in Babylon the women wore colored garments, while
in Ereẓ Israel they wore starched white linen garments (Pes.
109a). Black clothing was worn as a sign of mourning, trouble, or distress (Ḥ ag. 16a), or when appearing as a defendantin a lawsuit (TJ, RH 1:3, 57b). When R. *Akiva had to breakto R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus the news of his excommunication
he “clothed himself in black” (BM 59b). A complete changeof garments was enjoined for the Sabbath, and this was regarded as so important that biblical sanction was found forit (Shab. 113a, 114a).

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

13(F. Thureau-Dangin, Arslan Tash (1931), 111–2, pl. 33:43; N. de
Garis Davies, The Tombs of Menkheperrasonb… (1933), pl. iv).
Pieces of cloth were frequently added to the basic garment inorder to cover the shoulders (Boeser, op. cit., pl. xxiv). The tunic was a short, sewn garment, usually with short sleeves. It
was made of one piece of cloth specially woven for this purpose with an opening for the head in the center. The cloth
was folded along the shoulder line and sewn along the edges,
thus making a garment which covered the upper part of the
body. The tunic was often made with a woven decoration orlater embroidered.
The clothing shown on early Mesopotamian and Egypt
monuments emphasizes ethnic differences. Most apparent
are the shorter lengths, relatively lighter weights of the materials (including translucent cloth) – especially in the case of
women’s wear – and the head coverings worn in Egypt, while
the northern countries used longer and heavier clothing. The
materials from which the garments were made also show ethnological differences. The garments depicted on a number ofMesopotamian monuments of the third millennium B.C.E.
are made of heavy wool strands, fastened with large laces, orsewn with strips of animal skin. Noticeable ethnological differences also appear in head coverings. Wigs seem to have been
widely worn by both men and women. A common style wasa band circling the hair, tied at the back or side. On the majority of the Egyptian monuments feathers worn on the head
depict Ethiopian captives. Headgear crowned with feathers ischaracteristic of the Sea Peoples (T. Dothan, Ha-Pelishtim veTarbutam ha-Ḥ omrit (1967), figs 1–7). Skullcaps resembling
cones and cylinders decorated with ribbons and lacing werecommon in Babylonia and Assyria. Covering the head with akerchief was customary in Egypt and Canaan. The most common sandal had a leather sole held in place by straps. Sandals
could be partly closed, covering half the foot, or completely
enclosed. However, the figures on monuments are usuallyshown barefoot.
[Ze’ev Yeivin]dressHellenistic and Persian Periods
The frescoes of the third-century synagogue at *Dura-Europos, depicting a number of biblical scenes, portray costumes
reflecting the Hellenistic and Persian cultures, both of which
influenced this frontier city. The more common type of dresstunic or gown (chiton, colobium, or dalmatica) with purple
stripes (clavi), shawl (himation orpallium), and sandals – isassigned to prophets, elders, civilian leaders, and laymen. In
certain cases, the pallium has ẓ iẓ it attached to the corners. The
Persian costume, which includes a short belted tunic, trousers, and soft white boots, is assigned to royalty, courtiers,
and Temple personnel. The high priest wears a long cloak; healone has a head covering. Women wear a plain chiton withelbow-length sleeves and a shawl, one end of which is fastenedover the shoulder and the other draped over the head. The two
distinct traditions in Jewish dress, Hellenistic and Persian, arerepresented by a group of Jews portrayed in the sixth-century
mosaics in the church of San Vitale, Ravenna, and by the sixthcentury wall painting from Wadi Sarga, Egypt, of the “ThreeChildren in the Furnace,” now in the British Museum. These
two works are probably based on much earlier types. The
pronged ornaments known as gams shown on many of thecostumes at Dura-Europos are similar to those found on garments discovered in the Judean Desert caves used as refuge
by Bar Kokhba’s followers in the second century.

Early Middle Ages
Little is known of Jewish costume in the early Middle Ages.
Certain pottery figures of peddlers with Semitic features
discovered in some of the Chinese T’ang Dynasty tombs(618–907) are believed to represent Jews, particularly thosewith pointed Persian hats, caftans, and girdles. There are nopaintings or descriptions of European Jews from this period,and only two obscure references to their attire. In 839, when
*Bodo became a convert to Judaism he allowed his hair andbeard to grow, and also put on a military belt. This may be an
early reference to the practice of wearing a girdle, later laid
down in the Shulḥ an Arukh. In the ninth century, Pope Nicholas I (858–67) attacked Arsenius, bishop of Orta, for introducing Jewish furred garments (judaicae peluciae).

The Post-Talmudic Era
In the post-talmudic period Jewish costume was greatly influenced by various halakhic, moral, and social principles laid
down in rabbinic literature. The prohibition against following
the custom of the Gentiles in the manner of dress and mode of
cutting hair (Lev. 18:3; 20:23; Deut. 12:30; Zeph. 1:8) became an
important factor behind many of the communal dress regulations and *sumptuary laws. The garb of a Jew should reflect
propriety and humility and he should therefore avoid wearing
expensive clothes. He must observe the laws regarding ẓ iẓ itand sha’atnez (see *mixed species) and decency requires him
to wear a belt. Women must be modest in their attire, andmarried women should always cover their hair. Fine clothes
should be worn on the Sabbath and even finer ones on thefestivals. These rabbinical regulations served to keep Jewish
dress conservative and outmoded. Discriminatory laws passed
against the Jews had a similar effect. The earliest example ofthese, decreed in Egypt in 849 by the caliph al-Mutawakkil,
required Jews and Christians to wear a yellow Persian mantle(tailasan) and a cord belt (zunnar). If they wore the Persianhat (kalansuwa) they were restricted to certain colors, and ifthey wore a turban it had to be yellow. Later, they also had towear a *badge of the same color. In the Christian world, thefirst legislation of this kind was enacted in 1215 by the Fourth
Lateran Council, which ordered Jews to wear a distinct typeof dress on the grounds that in some regions they could nolonger be distinguished from Christians. All these different influences combined to create a specifically Jewish dress, which,however, varied from one country to another.

The Orient
In many Muslim countries, Jews were restricted to black clothing, in North Africa practically up to our times. During the
16t century in Turkey, a native Jew wore a yellow turban, while
the Sephardi Jew wore a red hat, shaped like a sugar loaf. Theḥ akhamim of the Spanish expulsion wore the capos (“cape”)
on the Sabbath, which had been the distinctive dress of theJews in Spain. In spite of the strict ruling of R. Elijah *Mizraḥ i
the capos was used as a festive garb. By the 18t century, thecommon dress for all Jews in Turkey was a violet kaveze (“turban”), a black or violet habit, mest (“socks”), and violet slippers. The same dress was worn in Mesopotamia, Syria, andEreẓ Israel. Women developed various regional styles of dress
with marked Jewish distinctions. During the 19t century, in
Smyrna and Salonika, a woman’s costume included full Turkish trousers, over which two or three gowns slit open from thehips to hem were worn. The different cloths had wide contrasting stripes with flower patterns printed over them. Outdoors, awoman wore a long, dark red pelisse, lined and trimmed with
fur, and she covered her head with a fine white Turkish towelwith fringed ends. In Constantinople, a short, loose jacket
replaced the red pelisse. The Turkish Jewish woman’s headwear included a hotoz, an enormous cushion-like headdress
covered by a white muslin veil; this reached such fashionable
extravagances at Constantinople that the chief rabbi banned
it at the request of the grand vizier. The feradje (“cloak”) wornby Jewish women was distinctive in color and shape. Peculiar
to Aleppo was a high-domed cap of striped silk, from whichhung a quantity of false hair.
The characteristic costume of Moroccan, Algerian, Tunisian, and Tripolitanian Jews was black; it consisted of askull cap, a tunic, drawers, a burnous (“cloak”), and slippers.
In Morocco, for ceremonial occasions, the women wore thekeswa el-kbira, a costume that had elaborate gold embroidery
for which the Jewish needlewomen of Tetuan were renowned.
They also wore characteristic wigs which had many regionalvariations. In Algeria and Tunisia, the tall headdress, known as
the çâma, was retained by Jewish women as part of their ceremonial dress, after it had ceased to be fashionable during the
19t century. In Tunisia women’s ordinary dress consisted of

14

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

dressa baggy chemise reaching down to the hips, a small gold-embroidered velvet jacket, a pair of white, very tight pantaloons,and a velvet kufia, shaped like a sugar loaf, worn on the head.
No information is available on the Jewish dress in Turkestan,
Kurdistan, South Arabia, or India prior to the 19t century. In
recent times, some elaborate Jewish costumes have emerged
from Bukhara, Yemen, and Aden, most of which reflect local
influence. (See also *Bukhara.)
In India, the distinctive feature of the Bene Israel was
their pe’ot (side curls). They wore Hindu-style turbans andshoes, and Muslim-style trousers. The Iraqi Jews of India retained Turkish dress; for festive occasions their women wore
a long, silk brocade gown with a white plastron, probably also
Turkish in origin. In the middle of the 19t century, the White
Jews of Cochin wore a white cotton skullcap, a jacket, a waistcoat with 12 silver buttons, and trousers. The synagogue dress
included a turban and a djubba (“Turkish gown”). The distinctive feature of the dress of the Black Jews of Cochin was around embroidered cap.
Western Europe
In medieval Spain, Jews were obliged at times to wear a fulllength black gown with a cape and a pointed hood. They werealso forbidden to shave their beards. Other distinctive features
were the badge and the pointed Jewish hat. By the 13t century,in Germany, France, England, and other parts of Europe, thepointed hat, known as the Judenhut, had become distinctly
Jewish; it was worn voluntarily and was accepted as a Jewish
symbol. Later, however, the Judenhut, like the *badge, wasalso sometimes imposed by law. The hat was not worn after
the 15t century, by which time a new type of hat with a tassel
on its crown was prescribed by the laws of Frankfurt; othergarments also acquired a distinctively Jewish significance. The
medieval chaperon (“hood”) known in Germany as the matran, gugel, or kappe as well as the liripipe (“tailed hood”) was
still being worn among the Jews of Nuremberg in 1755. Elsewhere in Germany and many parts of Central Europe, it had
been replaced by a barrette (a black round hat made of felt orwool). Together with the Judenkragen (the 16t-century ruff),
it became a distinctive feature of Jewish costume.
In the Papal States and elsewhere in Italy, the church
canon requiring Jews to wear a yellow hat remained in effectuntil the French Revolution. Elsewhere in Western Europe,
most Jewish distinctive dress had by then disappeared, except
for synagogue and ceremonial occasions. The Jew, however,
could still be identified by his beard and until the beginningof the 19t century even in England and Holland it remained
a distinctive feature among Ashkenazi Jews.
The Sabbath barrette, known as schabbes deckel, and theschulmantel (“synagogue cloak”) worn with a ruff, remained
the accepted synagogue attire until the end of the 18t century; the whole costume was black. The schulmantel, or Sabbath sarbal, was a long cloak closed on the right side to prevent anything being carried on the Sabbath. During the 19t
century, a new style for synagogue wear became the accepted

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

garb: a three-cornered hat, a tail coat, knee breeches, andbuckled shoes.
From the 13t century onward, in many parts of Europe,
Jewish women were obliged to have two blue stripes in theirveil (oralia or orales). The oralia was replaced by a pointed veil(cornalia or cornu) and, in the middle of the 18t century, it,together with the Jewish ruff and a special synagogue cloak,
was still part of the Jewish woman’s synagogue apparel. Other
distinctive clothes worn by Jewish women were the sivlonot(“marriage belt”) and the kuerse (a kind of blouse worn bybrides). The sheitel (“wig”) worn by Jewish women is a relatively recent custom (see Covering of the *Head).
Rabbinical Dress
There is no traditional rabbinical dress but among the Ashkenazim the distinctive features of Jewish lay dress were retained much longer by the rabbis. In 1705, at Fuerth, the rabbi
wore a plain collar, a long tunic buttoned down the front, anda barrette. In 1755 the Judenmeister of Nuremberg wore themedieval kappe (hood) with a deep fringed collar and a long
sleeveless gown. By the 19t century, the typical European Ashkenazi rabbi had a heavy beard and wore a Polish-style costume which included a fur-trimmed gown and a fur-trimmed
hat; the latter was exchanged for a streimel (a wide-brimmed
hat made of fur) on the Sabbath. The rabbinical streimel was
made of 13 sable-tails. In the middle of the 19t century at Mattersdorf, Hungary, the rabbi wore a streimel on the Sabbath
and a boat-shaped hat on weekdays. In England and America,
Christian dress was adopted much earlier and in the 18t century Isaac Polack, ḥ azzan of London’s Great Synagogue, wasclean-shaven, wore a three-cornered hat, a wig, and clericalrobes with white bands.
The European Sephardi rabbis were even less subject totraditional influences. In the 15t-century painting by Nuno
Goncalves, in the Lisbon National Museum, the rabbi wears
a tall, black circular hat and a black gown with the Jewish
badge shaped as a red six-pointed star. By the 17t century, theSephardi rabbis of Holland and England, with their stilettobeards, skullcaps, wigs, and clerical gowns with white bands,
were indistinguishable from the Christian clergy. In Oriental
countries, a few instances of distinctive dress can be cited. In
1781, in Morocco, the rabbi’s habit had very large sleeves andhe usually had a blue kerchief around his cap. In the 1860s inConstantinople, the rabbis wore a dark blue felt cap, boundaround the base with a white kerchief or turban with fine blue
stripes. In 1873, at Smyrna, the rabbi wore a bonneto, a type ofturban reserved for doctors and priests. At the present time,
there are no distinctive features in rabbinical dress either in
Eastern countries or in the West.
[Alfred Rubens]

Eastern Europe
The earliest Jewish costume from Poland, depicted on a 12tcentury miniature, is an exact copy of the Byzantine tunicand paludamentum (“cloak”) worn by men, though usually
the Jews of Eastern Europe were less influenced by Christian15

dressfashions in dress than in the West. The first intervention of
the authorities occurred as early as the 13t century; a church
council held in Breslau in 1266 ordered the Jews in the bishopric of Gnesen in western Poland to wear a special hat. Soon
the Council of Ofen (1279) specified the distinction to a greater
extent by requiring the Jews to wear a red badge. Late medieval
costumes seem to have been influenced by Central European
gentile and Jewish garb, like the dress cut like a kimono, calleda cotte, worn by men and women, the female kerchief, and theJewish conical hat worn by men. Later the Jews adopted fromthe East their most characteristic garment – the caftan, whichis still in use in certain extreme Orthodox circles. This Persian
coat, cut open in the front, was so widely worn throughout
the Turkish Empire that it was found in Yemen and Morocco
under the same name. In the eastern areas of Poland and Russia the caftan was girdled by a wide Oriental sash and in thewestern regions by a cord.
Like other European regional costumes, the characteristic Jewish dress evolved during the 16t century, incorporatingsome features of the attire no longer worn by the Polish nobility or upper classes. The authorities in several parts of Eastern Europe reacted independently but with the same aim: torestrict the splendor of Jewish costume and to preserve someform of distinction. Thus the Piotrkow diet of 1538 reproved
the Jews for adopting Christian attire and compelled them towear a yellow hat. The Lithuanian statute of 1566, as well as thesouthern Polish statutes of 1595, laid down minute specifications restricting the sumptuousness of female dress and jewelry. The Lithuanian statute ordered yellow hats to be wornby men and yellow kerchiefs by women. On the other handin times of special calamity, like the *Chmielnicki massacres(1648–49), the Jewish communities themselves imposed sober dress on their members. In the 18t and 19t centuries theJews in Eastern Europe clung to their distinctive wear. Local
differences continued paramount; in Russia and Lithuania
clothes revealed an Oriental influence shown in the multicolored silks of the women, the halfmoons printed on materials, and an immense turban with three tails made of white
starched linen.
The most widely known garments worn by Jewish men
in Poland were the bekeshe and the kapote. The latter, bothin name and shape, was derived from the Persian caftan. The
kapote was generally made of very expensive cloth, such as
velvet or atlas (a glossy silk or satin). Besides a shirt, kneelength trousers, and white stockings, the men also wore
velvet waistcoats (Yid. vestel or speneer), a black silk belt withtassels called a gartel, and a small prayer shawl. Special headcoverings were the skullcaps (Yid. keppel, yarmulke), the fur
hats (soibel-heet and streimel), the immense sable kolpak,
adopted from the Gentiles, and the fur-trimmed spodek (“saucer”) with a plush base. Most of these types of clothing, as
well as female costumes, appear in the pictures and engravings of Polish types drawn by several artists (Norblin, Le
Prince, Dave, Piwarski, Kilisinski, Kruszewski, Andrioli, andDebucourt).

The most important item of clothing was the whitewoolen prayer shawl, the tallit. Its central neckpiece (atarah)
was decorated with an appliqué of knit embroidery, executedin flat, silver threads, in a style called by Polish Jews spanier(“Spanish style”) or shikh, which was probably brought to Poland by Jewish craftsmen from Spain during the reign of King
Sigismund Augustus. A similar type of Spanish embroidery
was also used on Torah curtains and Torah mantles.

16

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

WOMEN’S COSTUME FROM THE 18th TO THE BEGINNING
OF THE 20th CENTURY. Although the woman’s dress wasmore colorful, her finery was not meant to be displayed outof-doors, for it is written: “In all glorious things the king’s
daughter is within” (Ps. 45:14). However, the sumptuary decrees regulating women’s clothing made an exception for the
Sabbath. The dress of the Jewish woman was generally in the
fashion of the period, but rather more subdued. The Jewish
woman of the late 18t and 19t centuries wore on top of her
dress a kind of bodice, the vestel or kamisol, usually made of
brocade with black passementerie trimmings. At a later stagethese trimmings were sewn on to the dresses themselves, oreven on to separate plastrons, called brust-tukh, brist-tikhel,or bristekh. The brust-tukh was initially a wide strip of brocade
adorned with silver stitching and occasionally ornamented
with semiprecious stones. Later, this rectangular strip was
almost covered with silver stitching, but in the 20t century
it lost its regular shape and was made of velvet and adorned
with various trimmings. The very Orthodox woman always
wore an apron (Yid. fartekh or fartukh), usually trimmedwith lace, embroidery, and ribbons, and serving no practical purpose.
WOMEN’S HEADDRESS. A distinctive form of headcovering
for Jewish women did not emerge until the 17t century. At
first the forms of headgear varied through the different regionsof the area. In western Poland during the 18t century, it wascustomary to wear on the Sabbath a bonnet made of brocade
trimmed with lace and silver stitching. On the other hand, inthe east – Lithuania and parts of Russia – the earliest formof headcovering consisted of lace trimmed with colored ribbons, glass baubles, and beads. In time pearls and diamonds
gradually replaced the simpler popular ornaments, and not
only among rich women. In central Poland, Galicia, and Hungary the headcovering was made up of three separate parts:
the harband, which covered the hair above the forehead; thegrint, which served as the background; and the kupke, madeof cloth or lace. Floral trimmings or ribbons were placed over
all three. The headdress for very Orthodox women had to bemade up from seven different parts assembled in strict order (in an implicit reference to the seven species of crops).
The elaborate trimmings for these headcoverings were madeby an expert hat-trimmer called pitzikel (derived from putz,“adornment”).
For the Sabbath a woman put on a sort of tiara, the binde,consisting of two strips of velvet (recalling the two tablets of
the Law), decorated with gold chains, pearls, and diamonds.

drexler, millard S.
One such tiara, belonging to a Jewish woman of the late 18tor early 19t century, was acquired by the well-known Polishpainter Jan Matejko, and he used it in several of his paintings
as a headdress for Polish princesses. After the beginning of the
19t century the binde gradually disappeared and was replacedby the sterntikhel, sternbindel, or bindalikh worn on top of
the kupkeh. The sterntikhel consisted of pearls and diamonds,
strung on iron wire, set off against a cloth background, andlater on with no background. Fixing the jewels on the sterntikhel was the job of an expert craftsman (which gave rise to
the family names Perlherfter and Perlsticker (“pearl-fixer,”“pearl-embroiderer”). From the sterntikhel (and other pieces ofjewelry) a pearl or a segment was deliberately removed to indicate that there can be no complete joy as long as the Temple isin ruins. From the beginning of the 20t century the sterntikhel
ceased to be worn almost entirely. In Lithuania where thesterntikhel was never worn, the headdress consisted of a whitebinde wound around the head like a turban, called a patshaile;
it was often adorned with a decorative pin, the knopp.
Various forms of the harband and of the kupke continued
to evolve in Poland throughout the 19t and early 20t centuries, most of them trying to suggest a woman’s hair (with awhite line of parting, the kvishel). The wig or sheitel (made ofnatural hair) was never considered proper wear for the very
Orthodox woman, but many imitations, made of brown satin,
were in use. Eventually the kupke took on the shape of a hat,
the hitel, topped by flowers, ribbons, peacock feathers, and atsitenadel (“trembling pin”). Two pairs of earrings were sometimes attached to the kupke, one at the level of the temples, theother at the level of the earlobes. Exhibitions of Jewish clothing
may be seen at the Israel Museum (Jerusalem), the Museumof Ethnography and Folklore (Tel Aviv), and the Ethnologicaland Folklore Museum (Haifa).
[Miriam Nick]

ModernDistinctive Jewish costume largely disappeared from the early
20t century. Among the influences of ancient dress that havesurvived in synagogue wear is the Roman pallium, in the formof the tallit, and the *kitel (sargenes) worn by some on the Day
of Atonement and for the seder. Distinctive features are stillfound in the everyday dress of Oriental Jews. In addition, thewearing of a headcovering at all times has become de rigueur
as the external sign of the Orthodox Jew; among the modern
element this has developed as the small embroidered kippah.
The ultra-Orthodox groups, concentrated mostly in Jerusalem
and Bene Berak in Israel, and in limited areas in other partsof the world, still wear the characteristic streimel on Sabbaths
and festivals (including the intermediate days) and the longcaftan, yellow and white striped, is sometimes still retained.
The custom of married women covering their hair, obligatory
according to the Mishnah, is no longer widely observed, except in Orthodox circles where the sheitel is also sometimes
worn as a substitute.

Schmuck in Bibel und talmudischen Schrifttum (1905); H.F. Lutz, Textiles and Costumes… (1923), 40–72; C. Singer, et al. (eds.), A History ofTechnology, 1 (1955), 413ff.; W.F. Albright, in: AASOR, 21–22 (1941–43),
55–62, Pl. 53; Y. Yadin, in: Eretz Israel, 4 (1956), 68ff; idem, The Finds
from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters (1963), 169ff. OTHERPERIODS: A. Rubens, A History of Jewish Costume (1967), includes
bibliography; Krauss, Tal Arch, 1 (1910), 127ff.; M. Grunwald, in: JJV,
25 (1923); H. Munic, in: YIVO-Bleter, 12 (1937), 463–73; E. Fuchs, Die
Juden in der Karikatur.

DRESSLER, WILLIAM (1890–1969), U.S. cardiologist andelectrocardiographer. Born and educated in Austria, Dressler
went to the United States as a refugee in 1938. From that year
until 1967 when he became consultant, Dressler served as chiefof the Cardiology Clinic and head of the Electrocardiographic
Laboratory at Maimonides Medical Center. Dressler’s major
contribution to medicine was his recognition and descriptionof the post-myocardial infarction syndrome, also known as
the Dressler syndrome. He wrote six cardiology texts, three inGerman and three in English. His Clinical Cardiology (1942)
became the classic book of cardiological diagnosis.
[Fred Rosner]

DREUX (Heb. ‫דרו״ש‬ׁ), town in the Eure-et-Loire department, France, 53 mi. (86 km.) S.W. of Paris. During the Middle Ages, the Jews of Dreux were numerous enough to occupy their own quarter, which was remembered as the rue
des Juifs up until the 19t century. Many figures previously associated with Dreux, like R. *Solomon b. Judah (“the saint”)
are now believed to have been active in Rouen. According to
W. Bacher (REJ, 17 (1888), 301), Abraham *Ibn Ezra stayed
there for a time.
Bibliography: Gross, Gal Jud, 171–85; E. Lefèvre, Documents
historiques… Dreux (1859), 398–9.
[Bernhard Blumenkranz]

Bibliography: IN THE BIBLE: EM, 4 (1962), 1034–49 (incl.
bibl.); IDB, s.v., cloth (incl. bibl.); A. Rosenzweig, Kleidung und

DREXLER, MILLARD S. (“Mickey”; 1944– ), U.S. merchant. Born and raised in New York City, Drexler spent all
his professional life as an apparel retailer. He rose from humble beginnings to become chief executive officer of the publicly owned Gap Inc., whose focus on affordable basics madeit the biggest specialty clothing store chain in the U.S. andan internationally familiar name. While attending the Bronx
High School of Science, Drexler worked in New York City’s
garment center with his father, a buyer of buttons and textiles
for a coat manufacturer. In 1966, he earned a business degree
at the State University of New York at Buffalo and two years
later received an M.B.A. at Boston University. He entered retailing with posts at Bloomingdale’s, Macy’s, and Abraham& Straus. In 1980, he was appointed president of Ann Taylor
and within three years turned the women’s apparel chain intoa success. He joined Gap in 1983 as deputy to Donald *Fisher,founder and chairman, was named president of the Gap division, and went about reinventing the company. He hired new
designers, strengthened quality control, and invested in store
renovation. In 1986, he launched GapKids, an immediate suc-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 617

dreyfus
cess. He was named president of Gap Inc. in 1987 and CEO in
1995. In his almost two decades at the company, he cemented
a reputation as a master merchandiser. When Drexler joinedGap, it had 550 stores filled with clothes that were not sellingand $80 million in sales. When he left 19 years later, it had
more than 4,000 Gap, Old Navy, and Banana Republic storesand more than $14 billion in sales. In 1994, when Gap’s business was feeling the effects of increased competition fromhigh-end designers as well as mass merchandisers, Drexler
launched Old Navy, a discount chain that grew to 282 storesin less than three years. In 1998, Fortune magazine called him“possibly the most influential individual in the world of American fashion,” pointing out that he had transformed Gap froma national retail chain into a global brand. A soft economy andtougher competition contributed to a two-year sales slumpthat began to reverse itself in 2002, the year Drexler left Gap.
In January 2003, he became head of the smaller, privately held
J. Crew Group, another specialty chain.
Bibliography: Fortune (Aug. 1998).

final acquittal developed into a political event which had repercussions throughout France and the Jewish world. Born in
Mulhouse, Alsace, Dreyfus was the son of a wealthy, assimilated family which settled in Paris after the Franco-PrussianWar. He studied at the Ecole Polytechnique and entered thearmy as an engineer. In 1892 he became a captain on the general staff, where he was the only Jew. He was overwhelmed by
the drama (see below) in which he played the central role, butfailed to grasp its deeper significance: its Jewish, general humanitarian, and political aspects. After his final exoneration
he was reinstated in the army as major and served a further
year. He reenlisted in World War I and was promoted to lieutenant colonel at its conclusion. Dreyfus published his Lettresd’un innocent (1898; The Letters of Captain Dreyfus to his Wife,
1899) written from Devil’s Island, and his memoirs Cinq ans
de ma vie (1901; Five Years of my Life, 1901). Additional Souvenirs et correspondence were published posthumously (1936;
Dreyfus: His Life and Letters, 1937).

DREYFUS, ALFRED (1859–1935), officer in the French army,
involved in a treason trial. His court-martial, conviction, andDreyfus Affair
In the fall of 1894 a secret military document (the bordereau)
sent by a French officer to the military attaché of the German embassy in Paris, Col. von Schwartzkoppen, fell into
the hands of the French Intelligence Service. On the basis ofa certain similarity of handwriting, and probably out of antiJewish prejudice against Dreyfus, the heads of the Intelligence
Service – among whom Major H.J. Henry was conspicuous –threw suspicion upon Dreyfus. He was arrested and tried before a court-martial. The trial took place in camera and the testimonies were insufficiently verified. It was also not disclosedthat contrary to all legal procedure the ministry of war had
placed a file of secret documents (part of which were forgeries) before the tribunal, a fact concealed even from Dreyfus’attorney. The court unanimously found Dreyfus guilty of treason, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment. On January 5,
1895, Dreyfus was publicly demoted in a degrading ceremony,
during which he continued to proclaim, “I am innocent.” Themob, which had been incited by the antisemitic press, especially by E.A. *Drumont, accompanied the ceremony withfulminations against Dreyfus and the Jews. Dreyfus was exiled to Devil’s Island (French Guinea, off the coast of SouthAmerica), even though in the meanwhile, the German ambassador had declared formally that Germany had had nocontact with Dreyfus.
Dreyfus’ brother turned to the writer Bernard *Lazare,
who now led the struggle against the verdict. In November
1896 Lazare published a pamphlet, “The Truth about the Dreyfus Affair,” and sent it to members of the senate and public figures. The new head of the French Intelligence Service, Lt. Col.
Georges Picquart, had independently sensed something suspicious in the Dreyfus trial. In March 1896, Intelligence Service
personnel seized a letter which Schwartzkoppen had written
to a French major, Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy, an adventurerof aristocratic Hungarian origin. This made it clear that Esterhazy was a German agent. Picquart concluded that the bor-

18

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Mort Sheinman (2nd ed.)]DREYFUS, family of bankers originating from Sierentz in
Alsace. ISAAC DREYFUS (1786–1845) founded the firm Isaac
Dreyfus, Soehne, Basle, with his sons as partners, as one of the
few Jews the city magistrate allowed to settle within the walls(1813). His son SAMUEL (1820–1905), who remained with thefirm, was president of the Basle Jewish community (1865–96)
and founder of the Jewish orphanage and old-age home. A second son, JACQUES (1826–1890), moved to Frankfurt where heestablished the Dreyfus-Jeidels bank in 1868, which became J.
Dreyfus and Co. in 1890, to which a Berlin branch was added in
1891. His son ISAAC (1849–1909) and grandson WILLY (1885–?)
developed the bank into one of the largest investment banks inGermany, but the Nazis forced it into liquidation in 1937. Samuel Dreyfus was succeeded by his son JULES DREYFUS-BRODSKY (1859–1941) and his nephew ISAAC DREYFUS-STRAUSS(1852–1936). The family banking tradition was further maintained by Jules’s son PAUL (1895–1967), who considerably expanded the firm’s activities. Members of the Dreyfus family
worked for the Jewish community. In Switzerland, Jules waspresident of the Swiss Union of Jewish Communities (1914–36)
and of the community of Basel (1906–36) and Paul, who wasa founder of *ORT in Switzerland, campaigned for the admission of Jewish refugees from Germany during World War II.
In Germany Jacques, Isaac, and Willy Dreyfus were all active
in communal affairs. Katjy Guth, née Dreyfus, was the director of the Jewish Museum of Switzerland in Basel (est. 1968).
Bibliography: R.M. Heilbronn, Das Bankhaus J. Dreyfus &Co. (1962). Add. Bibliography: H. Haumann, Acht Jahrhunderte
Juden in Basel. 200 Jahre Israelitische Gemeinde Basel (2005).
[Hanns G. Reissner / Uri Kaufmann (2nd ed.)]dreyfus, alfred
dereau incriminating Dreyfus had been written by Esterhazy.
Henry forged additional documents to prove to his superiors
that the court-martial had not erred. Picquart was dismissedfrom his position and dispatched to serve in Africa.
Before leaving Paris he transmitted the facts to his
friends. Through them they reached the ears of the left-wing
senator, Auguste Scheurer-Kestner, who announced in the
senate that Dreyfus was innocent, and openly accused Esterhazy. The right-wing prime minister, F.J. Méline, refused to accept his statement and tried to hide the facts. The Dreyfus caseincreasingly became the focus of the political struggle centering round the regime, its image and principles, and fought inall strata of French society, including circles close to the government. Esterhazy was tried and acquitted, while Picquart
was punished with 60 days imprisonment. On January 13, 1898
L’Aurore, Georges Clemenceau’s newspaper, published an open
letter from the novelist Emile *Zola to the president of the republic, captioned “J’accuse!,” which accused the denouncers ofDreyfus of malicious libel. The article made a powerful impression; 200,000 copies were sold in Paris. Zola was foundguilty of libel in February 1898. Officers of the general staff
threatened to resign if Dreyfus was acquitted and antisemitic
riots occurred in different parts of the country. In the meantime confidence in the justice of the verdict was waning. The
affair aroused lively interest abroad and in France it becamea public issue. Parties, social circles, and even families weresplit. The antagonistic groups formed two camps – the Liguedes Droits de l’Homme, which spearheaded the fight for Dreyfus, and the Ligue de la Patrie Française, led by Paul Déroulède.
Many of the supporters of the latter camp considered that asingle case of injustice involving one Jew was not sufficientgrounds for staining the honor of the army.
In summer 1898 the protestations of Picquart and others
induced the new war minister, Cavaignac, to reopen the caseand re-investigate the documents. Henry’s forgeries were detected. He was arrested and subsequently committed suicide
in his cell. Public opinion moved in Dreyfus’ favor and thecontroversy divided the government. At last the government
decided to request an annulment of the verdict and a retrial
for Dreyfus from the Supreme Court. The political agitation
continued, and after several crises René Waldeck-Rousseau
formed a cabinet whose avowed aim was to restore the ruleof law and justice and reestablish democracy.
THE SECOND TRIAL. The second trial took place in Rennes.
The army officers adhered to their original testimony. Finally,on September 9, 1899, the court-martial decided by a majoritythat Dreyfus had committed treason – but because of “extenuating circumstances” he was sentenced to only ten years’ imprisonment, five of which he had already served. Anti-Semites
and reactionaries viewed the verdict as a justification of theirposition. Differences of opinion developed between Dreyfus’
defenders: those to whom the Dreyfus affair was a politicalissue and a matter of principle wanted him to appeal and continue the struggle, while Dreyfus and his family were inter-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

ested only in securing his release. At Waldeck-Rousseau’s suggestion, Dreyfus withdrew his appeal and was finally granted
a “pardon” by the president of the republic. In 1904, with theLeftist government firmly established, Dreyfus demanded afresh investigation. The Court of Appeal reexamined the case,and in 1906 pronounced that the evidence against Dreyfus
was completely unsubstantiated and that it was unnecessary
to order a further trial to exonerate him.
The Dreyfus affair was a turning point in the historyof the Third Republic. It embittered the struggle between
the opponents and partisans of the republican regime. The
Waldeck-Rousseau cabinet succeeded in enacting a numberof anti-clerical measures, and in 1905 it passed a law separating the church from the state. This also influenced the statusof the Jewish Consistory in France. The Dreyfus affair made apowerful impact on the attitude of the socialist parties toward
the Jews. The radical Marxist wing under Jules Guèsde, which
identified Jews with the capitalists and viewed the affair as aninternal concern of the bourgeoisie, retreated before the socialist-humanitarian wing led by Jean-Léon Jaurès. Proletarian antisemitism weakened. The Dreyfus affair made a strong
impact on the outlook of world Jewry and the atmosphere in
their respective countries. Jews everywhere were shocked thatthe affair could take place in France, the “homeland of liberty
and the Great Revolution,” and that hatred of the Jews could
still prejudice the behavior of a considerable part of the Frenchpeople, in particular when the Jewish victim was completely
assimilated. This seemed to prove clearly that assimilation
was no defense against antisemitism. Theodor *Herzl’s confidence in liberalism was shaken when he personally observed
the French mass reaction and the uproar that the Dreyfus casearoused. The experience led him to Zionism.
Echoes of the Dreyfus affair continued to reverberate inFrance for over a generation. Its consequences were still recognizable in the line that divided the Vichy government fromthe Free French during World War II.
Bibliography: Shunami, Bibl, 268–9; J. Reinach, Histoire del’affaire Dreyfus, 7 vols. (1901–11); Le procès Dreyfus…, 3 vols. (1900);
La revision du procès de Rennes, 3 vols. (1908); P. Dreyfus (ed.), Dreyfus: His Life and Letters (1937); Tcherski, in: E. Tcherikower (ed.), Yidn
in Frankraykh, 2 (1942), 155–92 (Eng. abstract: 332); J. Kayser, The
Dreyfus Affair (1931); R.F. Byrnes, Antisemitism in Modern France,
1 (1950); G. Chapman, The Dreyfus Case: A Reassessment (1955; revised as The Dreyfus Trials, 1973); N. Halasz, Captain Dreyfus: The
Story of a Mass Hysteria (19572); M. Baumont, Aux sources de l’affaire(1959); P. Boussel, L’Affaire Dreyfus et la presse (1960); L. Derfler (ed.),Dreyfus Affair: Tragedy of Errors? (1963); D. Johnson, France and the
Dreyfus Affair (1967); B. Schechter, The Dreyfus Affair: A National
Scandal (1965); M. Paléologue, My Secret Diary of the Dreyfus Case
(1957); L. Blum, Souvenirs sur l’Affaire (1935). Add. Bibliography: J.-D. Bredin, The Affair: The Case of Alfred Dreyfus (1986); A.S.
Lindemann, Jews Accused: Three Anti-Semitic Affairs (Dreyfus, Beilis,
Frank), 1894–1915 (1991); M.P. Johnson, The Dreyfus Affair: Honor andPolitics in the Belle Epoque (1999); M. Burns, France and the Dreyfus
Affair: A Documentary History (1999).
[Moshe Catane]

19

Dreyfus, Stanley A.
DREYFUS, STANLEY A. (1921– ), U.S. Reform rabbi. Dreyfus was born in Youngstown, Ohio, and received his B.A. fromthe University of Cincinnati and his B.H.L. from Hebrew
Union College in 1942. Ordination and his M.H.L. followed
in 1946, when he also won the Heinsheimer Fellowship for
graduate study at HUC, where he began teaching liturgy andserved as director of the Reference Department. Subsequently(1948–50), he became counselor to the Hebrew Union College’s Interfaith Program, working with Christian clergymen
who were studying Hebrew, Bible, and Jewish thought to teachin their own seminaries. In 1951, Dreyfus was awarded his
Ph.D. from HUC-JIR, which later conferred on him an honorary D.D. (1971). While pursuing his graduate studies, Dreyfus
served as rabbi of Congregation Beth-El in Beaver Falls, Penn.
(1946–50), and West London Synagogue in London, England(summer 1949). He went on to pulpits at Congregation BethShalom, East Liverpool, Ohio (1950–51), and United Hebrew
Congregation of Terre Haute, Ind. (1951–66), where he also
served as chaplain of the U.S. penitentiary (1951–53). His term
as rabbi in Terre Haute and visiting professor at the Indiana
School of Religion in Bloomington was interrupted by active
service as chaplain for the United States Army in Colorado
and Germany (1953–55). Subsequently, as rabbi of Congregation B’nai Israel in Galveston, Texas (1956–65), Dreyfus waspresident of the Association of Texas Rabbis and chairmanof Home Service for the Galveston Red Cross, in addition toserving on the Galveston County Biracial Committee and the
Human Relations Committee. In 1965, Dreyfus was appointed
rabbi of Union Temple in Brooklyn, N.Y., where he remained
until 1979, when he became emeritus and was named directorof the Rabbinic Placement Commission of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, becoming emeritus in 1991.
From 1969 to 1973, Dreyfus was chairman of the Liturgy
Committee of the *Central Conference of American Rabbis.
He played an instrumental role in compiling Gates of Prayer:
The New Union Prayerbook (the standard text for synagogue
use on Sabbaths and Festivals); Gates of the House (for homeprayer); and Gates of Repentance (for the High Holidays). In
this role, he also oversaw and contributed to the publicationof Gates of Understanding, a volume of lengthy introductions
to the series of Reform Jewish prayerbooks. In addition, Dreyfus served on the CCAR’s Committee on Homosexuality andthe Rabbinate – which ruled that homosexuality per se was
not to be considered a disqualifying factor when it comes tocandidacy for the rabbinate – and the Committee on Patrilinear Descent, which established that Jewish lineage may bepassed on to children through the father alone, breaking from
Orthodox and Conservative tradition that only the mother
determines the religion of the offspring. Dreyfus was also amember of the CCAR’s Committee on Reform Jewish Classics, the Admissions Committee, the Responsa Committee,
the Rabbinic Population Committee, and the Reform Jewish
Practice Committee.
At different periods during his career, Dreyfus also served
as president of the Association of Reform Rabbis of New York,of the Brooklyn Board of Rabbis, of the Association of Jewish
Chaplains of the United States Armed Forces, and of the National Association of Retired Reform Rabbis. Additionally, he
was a member of the Governing Body of the World Union for
Progressive Judaism, the Board of Governors of the New York
Board of Rabbis, and the Commission on Jewish Chaplaincyof the National Jewish Welfare Board as well as co-chairmanof the Catholic-Jewish Relations Committee of Brooklyn andQueens. Dreyfus was an instructor in the Active Reserve on
the faculty of the Army Chaplain School for 21 years, attaining the rank of lieutenant colonel.

20

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Bezalel Gordon (2nd ed.)]DREYFUS BROTHERS, pioneers of the cellulose acetate rayon industry. The brothers, HENRY (1876–1945) andCAMILLE (1878–1956), were born in Basle, Switzerland. Theydeveloped quality cellulose fiber soluble in acetone and manufactured noninflammable cellulose film, used by the Allies inWorld War I for treating fabric wings of airplanes. After the
war they developed in England processes for spinning thisfilm into man-made fiber, Celanese. Henry headed British
Celanese Ltd.; Camille became president of Celanese Corporation of America and Canadian Celanese Ltd. Henry tookout over 1,000 patents, the greatest number ever held by asingle individual.
DREYFUSS, BARNEY (1865–1932), owner of the Pittsburgh
Pirates baseball team from 1900 to 1932, founder of the World
Series, builder of baseball’s first modern stadium. Born in Freiberg, Germany, to Samuel Dreyfuss, an American citizen living in Germany, Dreyfuss came to the United States in 1881
to avoid being drafted into the German army. He settled in
Paducah, Kentucky, and found work at the Bernheim whiskey distillery, at first cleaning whiskey bottles and eventually
becoming head bookkeeper. Advised that outdoor activity
would cure his poor indigestion, headaches, and general poor
health, he organized and played second base on a semiprofessional baseball team that he formed.
The distillery moved to Louisville in 1888, and there
Dreyfuss became part owner, secretary-treasurer, and eventually team president and owner of the National League Louisville Colonels. At the same time, he bought into the Pittsburgh Pirates, and as the National League was dropping theLouisville Colonels, Dreyfuss became sole owner of the Pirates, where he remained until his death. Considered the best
judge of baseball talent in his time, Dreyfuss’ outstanding ability as a scout made it possible for the Pirates to win the National League pennant six times (1901, 1902, 1903, 1909, 1925,
1927) and the World Series in 1909 and 1925. Indeed, many ofhis star players were elected to Baseball’s Hall of Fame, and it
was said by the president of the National League upon Dreyfuss’ death, “He discovered more great players than any man
in the history of baseball.”In 1903, Dreyfuss approached Henry Killilea and proposed that his American League champion Boston Pilgrims

drezner, yeḤ iel dov(Red Sox) meet the National League champion Pirates in anine-game interleague series, with the winner taking 60 percent of the gate receipts and the loser 40 percent. Dreyfuss believed a post-season contest would establish better relations
between the two squabbling leagues and create additional interest in baseball. It did, beyond anyone’s imagination, andthus was born the first World Series, a permanent American
icon that achieved almost mythic proportions. In a gesture of
goodwill, and contrary to the treacherous, greedy image of thetypical owner, Dreyfuss put his club’s $6,699.56 gate receipts
into the players’ pool, which earned the 16 Pirates $1,316 each,more than the victorious Boston players’ $1,182.
In 1909, Dreyfuss built Forbes Field, the first modern
steel-frame triple-tier stadium and the first baseball park capable of seating 25,000 fans. The stadium represented a visionary statement, for up until then no one believed that a gameof baseball could attract that many people. Dreyfuss was also
instrumental in having the spitball pitch banned from baseball in 1920.
Dreyfuss was also a pioneer in the formative years of professional football. He was co-owner and manager of the Pittsburgh Athletic Club, winners of the pro football championshipin 1898, professional football’s fourth organized season.
[Elli Wohlgelernter (2nd ed.)]DREYFUSS, RICHARD (1948– ), American actor. Dreyfuss was born in Brooklyn, New York, where his father was an
attorney, but the family moved to Los Angeles, where he was
educated. He joined the West Side Jewish Center and at theearly age of nine showed his penchant for acting, taking part inall the plays produced there. Even as a high school student he
was engaged to play professional parts, and from 1963 to 1973
acted on Broadway, in repertory and comedy. He first gained
his reputation as a film actor in George Lucas’ American Graffiti, playing the part of Curt Henderson, and from then wentfrom strength to strength. In 1974 he went to Canada, and The
Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz, a film with a Jewish themein which he starred, won first prize at the Berlin Film Festival. In 1974 he starred in Steven Spielberg’s film adaptation ofPeter Benchley’s best-selling novel Jaws, which became thebiggest box-office hit to that date. A year later he played thepart of Yonatan Netanyahu in the TV film Victory at Entebbe,
about the Israeli commando action that freed hostages held
in a plane hijacked to Uganda. In 1977 he starred in anotherhighly successful Spielberg film, Close Encounters of the Third
Kind. In 1977 he was awarded the Academy and Golden Globe
awards for best actor for his performance in The Goodbye Girl.
At the time, at age 29, he was the youngest performer ever tohave won a Best Actor Oscar. Dreyfuss went on to act in such
films as The Big Fix (1978), Whose Life Is It Anyway? (1981),
Down and Out in Beverly Hills (1986), Tin Men (1987), Stakeout(1987), Nuts (1987), Moon over Parador (1988), Lost in Yonkers(1983), Always (1989), Postcards from the Edge (1990), Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (1990), What about Bob?
(1991), Silent Fall (1994), Mr. Holland’s Opus (Oscar nominaENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6tion for Best Actor, 1995), Mad Dog Time (1996), Krippendorf ’s
Tribe (1998), The Crew (2000), The Old Man Who Read Love
Stories (2001), and Silver City (2004).
Dreyfuss has also performed in many stage and television productions. He starred in the 2001 TV drama series The
Education of Max Bickford as well as such TV movies as Prisoner of Honor (1991), Oliver Twist (1997), Lansky (1999), Fail
Safe (2000), The Day Reagan Was Shot (2001), Coast to Coast(2004), and Copshop (2004). On Broadway he has appearedin But Seriously (1969), Total Abandon (1983), Death and theMaiden (1992), and Sly Fox (2004). In 2000 Dreyfuss wasawarded a Lifetime Achievement Award at the Hollywood
Film Festival. With Harry Turtledove, Dreyfuss co-authoredthe novel The Two Georges (1996).
Bibliography: J. Phillips, You’ll Never Eat Lunch in This
Town Again (1991).
[Jonathan Licht / Rohan Saxena and Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]DREYZL, LEAH (second half of 18t century), composer oftkhines (Yiddish prayers). Dreyzl lived in Stanislav, Poland,and came from a distinguished family. Her great-grandfather was Ḥ akham Ẓ evi *Ashkenazi (1660–1718) and severalof her male relatives were rabbis and scholars. Leah Dreyzl
married Rabbi Aryeh Leib Auerbach, who became the rabbi
at Stanislav and was closely associated with the burgeoningḤ asidic movement. He was believed to be an intimate of the
Baal Shem Tov.
It is clear from her own writings that Leah Dreyzl was
educated. The two tkhines she is known to have written are
filled with biblical references and lines from the prayer book,and are permeated with mystical overtones. They were published posthumously, probably during the 19t century, andwere named (by the publisher) “Tkhine es rotsn” (“Tkhine ofa Time of [Divine] Favor”) and “Tkhine Sha’arei Teshuvah”(“Tkhine of the Gates of Repentance”). An introduction to
the published edition credits “Mistress Hena…widow of thedeparted…Rabbi David Tsvi,” with passing down these writings “from her mother-in-law, the righteous, pious, renowned
rabbi’s wife, Mistress Leah Dreyzel.” Both of these poems, written for the penitential month of Elul, easily lend themselves tooral recitation. This has led literary analysts to conclude that
Leah Dreyzl was a firzogerin in the Stanislav synagogue, leading the women’s congregation in prayer.
Bibliography: E. Taitz, S. Henry, and C. Tallan, The JPS
Guide to Jewish Women: 600 B.C.E.–1900 C.E. (2003), 143; C. Weissler,
Voices of the Matriarchs: Listening to the Prayers of Early Modern Jewish Women (1998), 26–28.
[Emily Taitz (2nd ed.)]DREZNER, YEḤ IEL DOV (1922–1947), Jew executed by the
British in Palestine. Drezner was born in Poland and came toEreẓ Israel with his parents who settled in Jerusalem, where
Drezner joined the Betar movement. In 1940 he moved to Netanyah, where he joined I.ẓ .L. under the pseudonym of Dov
Rosenbaum. In 1945 I.ẓ .L. retaliated for the flogging inflicted21

driver, samuel rolles
on one of their members who was captured by the British, byseizing British officers and subjecting them to the same humiliating punishment. Drezner was in command of one unit,
the other four members of which were Mordekhai Alkaḥ i,Eliezer Kashani, Abraham Mizraḥ i, and Ḥ ayyim Golavski.
The whole unit was captured. Mizraḥ i was wounded and died
before the trial (one version is that he was murdered) and theother four put on trial. Golavski was sentenced to life imprisonment in view of his youth, while the other three were sentenced to death. An attempt to rescue them by an assault on
the Jerusalem central prison where they were held was foiled
by their removal to Acre on the very morning of the intended
assault. All four, together with Dov *Gruner, were hanged on
the same day, Apr. 16, 1946.
Bibliography: Y. Nedava, Olei-ha-Gardom (1966); Y. Gurion, Ha-Niẓ ẓ aḥ on Olei Gardom (1971).

°DRIVER, SAMUEL ROLLES (1846–1914), Bible scholar andHebraist; from 1883 Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford.
Driver’s chief work, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old
Testament, appeared in 1891 (19139). Among his early publications was A Treatise on the Uses of the Tenses in Hebrew (1874,
18923). He was a practicing Christian ordained as a priest in
the Anglican Church and held various offices in that church.
Nevertheless, he wrote his books in the spirit of the criticalmethod established by J. *Wellhausen, at the same time stressing that his conclusions did not impugn the sanctity of the
Bible or attribute literary forgeries to it. He was therefore attacked from both sides. Conservative theologians condemned
his views as “dangerous,” while some of his fellow Bible critics
accused him of making concessions to orthodox extremism.
Driver was alert to every new potential source of informationon the Bible, as may be seen by the fact that he was among
the first to write a book on archaeology and the Bible, Modern
Research as Illustrating the Bible (1909). Driver was one of theeditors of the “International Critical Commentary” series ofscholarly editions of biblical books, and also contributed commentaries on Deuteronomy (1895, 19023), and Job (with G.B.
Gray, 1905). His other works include commentaries on Genesis (19119), Exodus (1911), Daniel (1900), and other books of
the Bible, and papers on specific points in the prophetic writings, as well as researches into the Masoretic text of Samuel(Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books ofSamuel, 1890, 19132). He also participated in the compilationof A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (withF. Brown and C.A. Briggs, 1907). This work, based on thelexicon of William *Gesenius, and popularly known as BDB(from the initials of its authors), remains in widespread use.
Together with A. *Neubauer, he published The “Suffering Servant” of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters (1877). All
of Driver’s books were well written and carefully researched
and three of them are so basic that for all the progress thathas been made since then the specialist still has occasion to
consult them (his Introduction…, his Tenses, and his Notes on
the Hebrew Text).

22

His son SIR GODFREY ROLLES DRIVER (1892–1975),
Bible and Semitic scholar, gained knowledge of the Middle
East with the British Egyptian Expeditionary Force in 1919 forwhich he wrote A Report on Kurdistan and the Kurds (1919).
Later he also published A Grammar of the Colloquial Arabicof Syria and Palestine (1925). From 1919–28 he taught classics
at Oxford and from 1928 lectured there on Hebrew and comparative Semitic philology, becoming professor of Semitic
philology (1938–62) and intermittently professor of Hebrew(1934, 1953–54, and 1959–60).
One of his important early works was “The Modern
Study of the Hebrew Language” in The People and the Book
(ed. A.S. Peake), 73–120. In 1935 he collaborated with J.C. Milesin editing The Assyrian Laws, which aimed to serve as a textbook for scholars of the Old Testament as well as of comparative law (revised as vol. two of Assyrian Laws and BabylonianLaws, 1952, 1955). The following year Driver published Problems of the Hebrew Verbal System in which he explained thepeculiarities of the Hebrew tense system and other featuresof Hebrew as resulting from the origin of Hebrew as a mixture of Canaanite and the original language spoken by the Israelites. In 1948 he published his Schweich Lectures of 1944
under the title Semitic Writing where he examined the origin
and development of the Semitic alphabet and in which he wasone of the first to realize the significance of Ugaritic. In 1954
he edited and translated the Borchardt Aramaic documentsin the Bodleian Museum under the title Aramaic Documentsof the Fifth Century B.C. (revised 1957). These were official andsemiofficial documents from the court of the Persian satrap
in Egypt. The following year he published Canaanite Myths
and Legends, in which he translated Ugaritic legends and included an Ugaritic glossary.
His Judean Scrolls (1965) discussed the problem of theidentity and date of the community of Qumran, which heidentified with the *Zealots. On his seventieth birthday a
volume of Hebrew and Semitic Studies (1963) was dedicatedto him. It contains a selected bibliography of his works. He
was joint director of the committee that prepared the translation of the Old Testament in the New English Bible (1970). He
wrote numerous articles on Hebrew lexicography, in which,by the use of cognate languages, he uncovered hitherto unrecognized meanings of biblical words. Much of these he incorporated into the New English Bible and into his work on
a new edition of F. Brown, S.R. Driver, and C.A. Briggs’ Hebrew Lexicon.
Bibliography: T.K. Cheyne, Founders of Old Testament
Criticism (1893), passim (esp. chs. 11–13). Add. Bibliography:
J.A. Emerton, DBI, 308–10.

DROB, MAX (1887–1959), U.S. Conservative rabbi. Drob wasborn in Mlawa, Poland, and was taken to the United Statesin 1895. He graduated from Columbia University (1908) andreceived rabbinic ordination from the Jewish TheologicalSeminary (1911), and served congregations in Syracuse, NewYork (1911–13), Buffalo, New York (1913–19), New York City
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

drogobych(1919–27), and Philadelphia (1927–29). From 1929 he was rabbiof the Concourse Center of Israel, Bronx, New York, where
he remained for the rest of his career. Drob was president of
the Rabbinical Assembly of America from 1925 to 1927, andchairman of its bet din from 1923 to 1941. He was regarded as
belonging to the traditionalist wing of Conservative Judaism
seeking to transmit traditional religious practice in a manner
more decorous and more American. He was actively involvedin the professionalization of the rabbinate with such issues asrabbinic placement and pension determined by regulations
and procedures. He was president of the non-denominational
New York Board of Rabbis 1933–34 and also served as a member of the commission set up by New York State to supervise
the enforcement of kashrut laws, at a time before the Orthodox Union had established its domination of kashrut. He wasa founder of the United Synagogue of America and on theboard of the Jewish Theological Seminary.

DROGOBYCH (Pol. Drohobycz), city in Ukraine, formerly
in Poland and Austria. Information about individual Jewish
contractors of the salt mines in Drogobych dates from the be-ginning of the 15t century. Some of them settled in the city,
eventually forming a small community (kehillah). In 1578,
however, Drohobych obtained the privilege de non tolerandis
Judaeis authorizing the exclusion of Jews from its precincts.
Although a number of Jews were subsequently found livingin the vicinity, their settlement was not permanent until theend of the 17t century, enabled by royal patronage. All commerce and crafts were then concentrated in Jewish hands.
Jewish guilds were formed and the records evidence the friction that existed between them and the Christian guilds of thecity, as also between the citizens of Drogobych and the Jewish
inhabitants. The Drohobych kehillah was represented on theprovincial council of *Rzeszow (see *Councils of the Lands).
In the middle of the 18t century a wealthy, despotic farmerof the taxes and customs revenues, Zalman b. Ze’ev (Wolfowicz), seized control of communal affairs. He appointed his
son-in-law rabbi, and for his ruthless treatment of both Jews
and non-Jews he was finally denounced to the authorities;
in 1755 he was arrested, tried, and condemned to death, but
as generous assistance was contributed by his coreligionists
the sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. He subsequently adopted Christianity and died a member of the Carmelite order in 1757.
After Drogobych passed to Austria in 1772, economic
oppression, heavy taxation, and government interference incommunal affairs had an adverse effect on the Jewish position. It improved in the 19t century, however, especially withthe exploitation of the mineral resources of Drogobych; thesalt industry was also a Jewish enterprise. The first attempts
to prospect for oil and its extraction were made in Drogobych
by a Jew, Hecker, in 1810, and in 1858–59 a refinery was constructed by A. Schreiner in nearby *Borislav at the same timeas the industry was developed in the United States. Drogobych
Jews took a prominent part in oil extraction and refining, andits export was mainly in Jewish hands. Many families madefortunes in this sector. The takeover of the smaller companies by big enterprises at the end of the 19t century, however,badly hit the Jewish concerns, and the economic position of
the community began to deteriorate. After World War I it
became impoverished. *Ḥ asidism and the *Haskalah movement spread to Drogobych at the end of the 18t century. A
German biweekly printed in Hebrew characters, the Drohobitzer Zeitung, was published between 1883 and World War I,
and brought out several Hebrew supplements entitled Ẓ iyyon(1886–87, 1897). Toward the end of Hapsburg rule the constituency of Drogobych was represented in the Austrian parliament
by a Jewish deputy, an assimilationist with sympathies for Poland, who had the backing of the authorities. He was opposedby a Zionist-supported Jewish national candidate in 1911. The
authorities were accused of ballot-fixing during the elections,and the army was called out to disperse a demonstration. Shots
were fired into the crowd. Thirteen Jews were killed and many
injured. Drogobych remained the center of the Galician *kolelfrom the 1890s until the Holocaust. Ḥ ayyim Shapira, the lastẓ addik in Drogobych, was the first of the ḥ asidic ẓ addikim to

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

23

Add. Bibliography: P.S. Nadel, Conservative Judaism inAmerica: A Biographical Dictionary and Sourcebook (1988).
[Michael Berenbaum (2nd ed.)]DROBNER, BOLESLAW (1883–1968), Polish socialist politician. Born in Cracow into an assimilated family, Drobner
joined the Polish Social Democratic Party of Galicia and Silesia in 1898, attaching himself to the radical left wing. He took
part in the revolution of 1905 and during World War I foughtin Pilsudski’s Legion. After Polish independence, Drobner
joined the Socialist Party and in 1922 became one of the founders of the Independent Socialist Party. When the two parties
reunited in 1928 he was appointed to the supreme council ofthe united party. He represented the left wing of the party
calling for cooperation between socialists and communists.
Drobner was frequently arrested for organizing strikes andfollowing the outbreak of World War II left Poland for the
U.S.S.R., where he was a founder of the Soviet-sponsoredUnion of Polish Patriots. He became minister of labor and social care in the Committee of National Liberation and at theconference of the Polish Socialist Party in 1944 was elected
party chairman.
Drobner returned to Poland after the war and was amember of the Polish delegation at the Russo-Polish frontier
negotiations of August 1945. In 1947 he was elected to the Sejm
(Polish parliament) and in the following year joined the rulingcommunist United Workers Party. He had a great love for his
native Cracow and did much for the preservation of its historical relics. He also initiated the restoration of Jewish culture
there, particularly the 15t-century Jewish synagogue.
Bibliography: New York Times (March 23, 1968), 31 (obituary). Add. Bibliography: C. Kozlowski, Zarys Dziejow Polskiego
Ruchu Robotniczego … (1980), index.
[Abraham Wein]dropkin, celia
join officially the Zionist movement. He went to Ereẓ Israelin 1922. The Jewish population of Drogobych totaled 1,924
in 1765, 2,492 in 1812, 8,055 in 1865, 8,683 in 1900, and 11,833(about 44 of the total population) in 1921.
[Nathan Michael Gelber]

Holocaust and Postwar Periods
When World War II broke out, the town with its 17,000 Jews
came under Soviet occupation. The authorities arrested theZionist leaders and closed the Hebrew schools. Jewish refugees from western Poland found shelter in Drogobych, but
most of them were deported to the Soviet interior. The Germans entered Drogobych on June 30, 1941, and immediately
staged a pogrom with the help of the local Polish and Ukrainian population. About 400 Jews were brutally murderedoutside the courthouse and at the Jewish cemetery. Another
300 were executed in the nearby Bronice forest in November.
In March 1942 some 2,000 Jews were sent to the *Belzec extermination camp. The second mass deportation took place
on August 8, with the dispatch of 2,500 Jews to the same destination, while another 600 were shot in the town itself. The
ghetto was established in September. The remaining 9,000
Jews, some of whom were refugees from the nearby villages,
were crowded into it. Toward the end of October an additional group consisting of 2,300 Jews was sent to Belzec, and
200 hospital patients were murdered. The surviving Jews began building hideouts or sought shelter in the nearby forest.
However, the Germans thwarted their efforts by continuing
the Aktion for the whole month of November 1942 and by ordering the death sentence for all non-Jews caught sheltering
Jews. For a while the process of extermination did not affectthose Jews conscripted for forced labor in the local petroleum industries. The Bronice forest became a mass grave for
the Jews of Drogobych and vicinity, including all members of
the Judenrat. On February 15, 1943, 450 were executed there,
including 300 women. In March 800 from the labor camps
were murdered. The remnants of the Jewish community tried
to save themselves by hiding or by escaping to Hungary via
the Carpathian Mountains, while a few tried to obtain “Aryan”
papers. When the Soviet army entered Drogobych in August
1944, some 400 Jews were still alive.
After the war, Drogobych was ceded to the Ukrainian
S.S.R., and most of the Jews left for Poland in transit to Israel
and other countries.

etry. Returning to Warsaw, then to Bobruisk, Dropkin married Samuel Shmaye Dropkin in 1909. She and their first child(born 1910) joined him in New York in 1912. Five of their six
children survived into adulthood. In New York, Dropkin
wrote Russian poems which she translated into Yiddish (1917)
and published in Di Naye Velt and Inzikh (1920). Throughout
the 1920s and 1930s, her works appeared in avant-garde publications of Di *Yunge and the Inzikhistn: Onheyb, Poezye, andShriftn. Dropkin’s poems – notable for their explicit sexuality,
whether about love, motherhood, or death – earned her a reputation as a leading woman poet. Her short stories and poems
also appeared in Abraham *Liessin’s *Tsukunft. Only a single
volume of Dropkin’s poems appeared during her lifetime: In
Heysn Vint (“In the Hot Wind,” 1935). Widowed in 1943, shespent her last years painting in oils and water colors. Her last
published poem appeared in Tsukunft (April 1953).
Three years after Dropkin’s death, her children publishedan expanded edition of her poetry, short stories, and paintings: In Heysn Vint (1959) includes the poems of the 1935 edition, as well as uncollected and previously unpublished poems,
selected by Sasha Dillon. Another poem, “Shvere Gedanken”(“Heavy Thoughts”), was later discovered on a tape recording and appeared in Yidishe Kultur (1990). Poems and stories
in English translation appeared in I. Howe and E. Greenberg (eds.), A Treasury of Yiddish Poetry (1969); I. Howe et al.
(eds.), Penguin Book of Modern Yiddish Verse (1987); F. Forman et al. (eds.), Found Treasures: Stories by Yiddish Women
Writers (1994); R. Whitman (ed.), Anthology of Modern Yiddish Poetry (1995); J. Chametzky et al. (eds.), Jewish American
Literature: A Norton Anthology (2001); S. Bark (ed.), Beautiful as the Moon, Radiant as the Stars: Jewish Women in Yiddish Stories (2003).
Bibliography: LNYL, 2 (1958), 540–1; Rejzen, Leksikon, 1(19262), 742–3; Y. Yeshurin, in: In Heysn Vint, Poems, Stories, and Pictures (1959), 271–3; S. Dillon, in: ibid., 263–9; G. Rozier and V. Siman,
in: Dans le vent chaud: Bilingue yiddish-francais (1994); J. Hadda, in:N. Sokoloff et al. (eds.), Gender and Text in Modern Hebrew and Yiddish Literature (1992), 93–112; K. Hellerstein, in ibid., 113–43.
[Kathryn Hellerstein (2nd ed.)]DROPKIN, CELIA (1887–1956), Yiddish poet. Born Zipporah Levine in Bobruisk, Belorussia, daughter of a lumber
merchant, Dropkin was raised by her widowed mother. Taught
Jewish subjects by a rabbi’s wife, she graduated from the Novosybko (Russian) gymnasium. She tutored in Warsaw, before continuing her studies in Kiev. There, the Hebrew writer
Uri Nissan *Gnessin encouraged her writing of Russian po-

DROPSIE, MOSES AARON (1821–1905), U.S. attorney,businessman, philanthropist, and patron of Jewish learning.
Dropsie was born in Philadelphia to a Dutch-Jewish immigrant father and a Christian mother. He embraced Judaism at
the age of 14, and ultimately became a vigorous proponent oftraditional Judaism in America. Dropsie made his livelihoodin the jewelry business until he was 28, when he began the
study of law. He was admitted to the bar in 1851. Although hispractice was largely in business law, Dropsie became a scholar
in legal history and published a number of works on Roman
law, including one on the trial of Jesus. Dropsie invested very
early in streetcar ventures and became the president of two
traction companies. He served as chairman of the commissionthat supervised the construction of the South Street bridge
across the Schuylkill River in 1870. An early organizer of the24

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Aharon Weiss]
Bibliography: N.M. Gelber (ed.), Sefer Zikkaron le-Drohobich, Boryslav ve-Hasevivah (1959); M. Balaban, Z historji Żydów w
Polsce (1920), 129–46.

dropsie college
Republican Party of Pennsylvania, Dropsie ran for public office only once. He became leader and officer of many Jewish
communal activities, and was an admirer and disciple of Isaac*Leeser. Their sense of mutual understanding was disturbed
only by their divergent sympathies in the early days of the
Civil War. Dropsie was an active supporter of Leeser’s shortlived Maimonides College from its inception in 1867, the first
Jewish theological seminary in America. Dropsie believedthat one of the major reasons for its failure was the refusal of
New York Jewish leaders to give it their full support; when the
Jewish Theological Seminary was organized in 1886 in New
York City, he refused to lend a hand. This resentment was oneof the factors which motivated his establishing a bequest fora totally new institution for higher Jewish learning. Anotherfactor was his anger, which he also expressed in a number ofpamphlets, against what he considered to be the extremismof Reform Judaism. Dropsie’s will was written in 1895, while
he was serving as president of *Gratz College. He assigned his
fortune to the creation of Dropsie College.

DROPSIE COLLEGE, independent, nontheological, academic institution dedicated to graduate instruction and research in Jewish studies and related branches of learning. It
was founded in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1907 as Dropsie
College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning. The establishmentof the institution was provided for in the will of Moses Aaron*Dropsie, dated September 17, 1895. Dropsie stated: “The increasing need in the United States for a more thorough andsystematic education in Jewish lore has long been felt, and is amatter of solicitude to true Israelites, who cherish the religionof their ancestors… . [Hence] I order and direct that there be
established and maintained in the City of Philadelphia a college for the promotion of and instruction in the Hebrew andcognate languages and their respective literatures and in the
Rabbinical learning and literature.” The will directed “that in
the admission of students there shall be no distinction on account of creed, color, or sex.” The college offered the Ph.D. and,from 1952 onward, the M.A. degrees in areas such as Hebrew,
Arabic, and other Semitic languages, biblical and rabbinic
studies, medieval Jewish philosophy, Assyriology, and Middle
Eastern studies. In 1962 it instituted a program in Jewish education leading to the Ed.D. The original president of Dropsie
was Mayer Sulzberger, who directed the Board of Governors
selected to execute Dropsie’s will. The first operating president
was Cyrus *Adler, who served from the opening of the college
in 1909 until his death in 1940 while holding other important
positions including the chancellorship of the Jewish Theological Seminary. He was succeeded by Abraham A. *Neuman(1941–66), Abraham I. *Katsh (1968–76), Joseph Rapaport(1979–81), and David M. Goldenberg (1981–86). In 1986 thecollege closed its doors as a graduate school and reopened two

years later as the Annenberg Research Institute for Judaic and
Near Eastern Studies, a postdoctoral research center and fellowship program in Judaic and Near Eastern studies. In 1993
the institution was incorporated into the University of Pennsylvania as the Center for Judaic Studies.
The college’s importance lies in that fact that when it was
founded, and for several decades afterwards, it was the only
non-theological institution in the United States that offered
the Ph.D. in Judaic studies. As such, it attracted many distinguished scholars to its faculty (such as Cyrus H. Gordon, Benzion Halper, Leo L. Honor, Henry Malter, Max L. Margolis,
Ben-Zion Netanyahu, Moshe Perlmann, Solomon L. Skoss,
Bernard D. Weinryb, and Solomon Zeitlin). The faculty produced close to 250 Ph.D.s, many of whom filled positions in
Judaic and related studies throughout the United States, thus
spurring the growth of Jewish studies programs in the country.
From its beginnings the college published the Jewish Quarterly
Review, continuing the publication begun in England in 1888
under the editorship of I. Abrahams and C.G. Montefiore. As
the only American Ph.D.-granting school in Judaic studies
for several decades, Dropsie acquired an important librarycollection (including manuscripts and incunabula) in biblical, rabbinic, and medieval Jewish literature, as well as earlyAmerican Jewish imprints.
Ironically it was the success of the college that, to a significant extent, spelled its demise. With the burgeoning of Jewish studies programs in U.S. universities during the 1950s and1960s, Dropsie found that with its limited resources it could
not compete with the larger and well-endowed universities. By
the early 1980s it appeared that the college would eventually
be forced to close. An attempt at a revival was made in 1981
with the appointment of David Goldenberg to the presidencyof the institution. Goldenberg, a recent Dropsie graduate andthen faculty member, rebuilt the faculty with young promisingscholars, revived the languishing Jewish Quarterly Review, attracted funding for the conservation of genizah manuscripts,
and hired professional library staff to convert the collection
to the Library of Congress cataloguing system and provide
online access to the library’s holdings. However, the general
financial situation of the College did not much improve and,
finally, in 1986 the Dropsie closed.
By this time, Albert J. Wood, a member of the Board ofTrustees, had induced the American Jewish philanthropist andformer ambassador to Great Britain, Walter H. Annenberg, tobecome involved with Dropsie’s future. Wood saw that whilea small graduate school was no longer feasible, a postdoctoral
research center in Jewish studies would fill a need. Annenberg
embraced the plan, funded the construction of a new building near historic Independence Hall in Philadelphia, and supplied the new institution’s annual budget. Thus Dropsie wastransformed into the Annenberg Research Institute for Judaic
and Near Eastern Studies. Under its first president, Bernard
Lewis, the scholar of Islamic studies, the Institute opened it
doors in 1988 with an annual program of invited scholars fromthroughout the world to work on various themes in Jewish and

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 625

Bibliography: C. Adler, Lectures, Selected Papers, Addresses(1933), 43–64; B.W. Korn, Eventful Years and Experiences (1954), 187–9;
H. Morais, Jews of Philadelphia (1894), 255–8.
[Bertram Wallace Korn]drosdoff, matthew
related studies. This program continues today as the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Judaic Studies.
Bibliography: A. Neuman, Landmarks and Goals (1953),
255–356, passim; idem, in: Seventy-fifth Anniversary.
[Meir Ben-Horin / David M. Goldenberg (2nd ed.)]

DROSDOFF, MATTHEW (1908–1998), U.S. soil chemist. Born in Chicago, Drosdoff received his Ph.D. in soil science from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1934.
He joined the U.S. Department of Agriculture and was adviser on mineral nutrition and coffee production to Colombia (1951–53), soils adviser to Bolivia (1954), soils adviser to
Peru (1955–60), and chief of the Agricultural Division of the
U.S. Agency for International Development (AID) in Vietnam(1960–64). From 1964 to 1966 he was the administrator of theInternational Agricultural Development Service, and in 1966
he became professor of soil science at Cornell University, remaining emeritus professor until his death.
Drosdoff was active in B’nai B’rith in various capacities
and from 1944 to 1947 was director of the Hillel Foundation
at the University of Florida.
Many of Drosdoff ’s contributions to scientific journals
were concerned with foliar analysis of tropical tree crops.
Other topics were soil composition, genesis and morphology,
colloidal clays, soil surveys, and agricultural development generally. He was a fellow of the American Society of Agronomy
and was honored with its international award for his many
overseas services to the U.S. government.
[Samuel Aaron Miller / Ruth Rossing (2nd ed.)]La Liberté owned by the Jewish Saint-Simonist, Isaac *Péreire.
In the 1880s, however, Drumont’s views changed and he became associated with the activities of ultra-Catholic circles,
although adhering to certain remnants of his radical social
philosophy. It was on this foundation that he developed a rabid antisemitism, which became his consuming passion. His
book La France juive, first published in 1886, describes France
as subjugated to the Jews in the political, economic, social,and cultural spheres; in a short time it ran to over a hundred
editions. Drumont continued his anti-Jewish propaganda infurther books. In 1889 he founded the Antisemitic League(see *Antisemitic Political Parties and Organizations) and
La Libre Parole whose policy veered between the Catholicright and social radicalism, but was invariably violently antisemitic in tone. Drumont and his paper had a considerable
share in exacerbating the *Dreyfus Affair. In 1898 Drumont
was elected to the chamber of deputies, but after the victoryof Dreyfus’ supporters he was not returned a second time; in1909 his application for membership of the French Academy
was rejected.
Bibliography: L. Daudet, Les oeuvres dans les hommes(1922); I. Schapira, Der Anti-semitismus in der franzoesischen Literatur: Eduard Drumont und seine Quellen (1927); G. Bernanos, La
Grande peur des bien-pensants (1931); R.F. Byrnes, Anti-semitism inModern France (1950); Dictionnaire de biographie française, 11 (1967),
852–4. Add. Bibliography: M. Winock, Edouard Drumont etCie: antisémitisme et fascisme en France (1982); F. Busi, The Pope ofAntisemitism: The Career and Legacy of Edouard-Adolphe Drumont(1986).
[Moshe Catane]°DRUMONT, EDOUARDADOLPHE (1844–1917), leaderof the antisemitic movement in France. Originally holding
strongly leftist opinions, while still an unknown journalist
Drumont contributed to a number of publications, including

DRUNKENNESS (Heb. ‫ ׁ ִש ָּכרוֹ ן‬, shikkaron).
In the Bible
Biblical, apocryphal, and ancient Near Eastern references
make it clear that, far from being condemned, the use of alcoholic beverages was regarded by Jews and others as a necessary (Ecclus. 39:26; Pritchard, Texts, 598, line 89; 602, line32) and distinctive (Ps. 104:15; Pritchard, Texts, 77c, line 12ff.)
feature of human life. A feast was inconceivable without wine,
and Proverbs 9:1ff. speaks of Wisdom personified offering
food and wine. Indeed, complete abstinence was associatedwith a turning away from civilization (Jer. 35; see *Rechabites).
Likewise, the *Nazirite avoidance of alcohol is of a piece with
their refraining from cutting the hair and from participatingin the burial of the dead, two other hallmarks of civilization(Numbers 6). *Wine was valued for bringing joy and banishing sorrow (Judg. 9:13; Ps. 104:15; cf. Pritchard, loc. cit., line
21; Prov. 31:6–7; Eccles. 10:19; Ecclus. 31:27–28; 40:20) and wasused cultically in libations (Ex. 30:40–41) and the festive sacral
meal (Deut. 14:26).
Intoxication, however, was deprecated (cf. Ecclus. 31:25–
31; 39:27), both in the cult – in keeping with the biblical rejection of the Dionysiac element of other ancient religions(Lev. 10:8–11; I Sam. 1:13–16; Ezek. 44:21) – and in daily life.
Wisdom literature warns that drunkenness brings poverty,
woes, quarrels, wounds, strange visions, etc. (Prov. 20:1; 21:17;

26

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

DRUCKER, DANIEL CHARLES (1918–2001), U.S. structural engineer. Drucker was born in New York and studied engineering as an undergraduate and postgraduate at Columbia
University, where he obtained his Ph.D. in 1940. He taught at
Cornell University in 1940–43 before serving in the U.S. Army
Air Corps, after which he joined Brown University in 1946,
becoming professor in 1950. He was Dean of Engineering at
the University of Illinois in 1968–83. His main interests were
the theory of plasticity and its application to designing metal
structures. He introduced the universally accepted concept ofmaterial stability termed “Drucker’s stability postulate” whichgoverns the plastic behavior of metals in response to strain andhas wide academic and practical applications. Among many
honors and awards he received the National Medal of Science(1980) and was the first recipient of the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers’ Daniel C. Drucker Medal bestowed foroutstanding contributions to mechanical engineering (1998).
While at Brown University, he was active in the Providence,
Rhode Island, Jewish community.
[Michael Denman (2nd ed.)]drunkenness
23:19–21:29–35; 31:4–5; cf. I Esd. 3:19–24) and causes kings to
err in judgment (Prov. 31:4–5; cf. Lev. 10:8–11 (priests); Isa. 28:7
(priest and prophet)). Several narratives depict the disgraceand sometimes death of drunkards (Noah, Gen. 9:20–27; Lot,
Gen. 19:31–38; Nabal, I Sam. 25:36; Amnon, II Sam. 13:28–29;
Elah, I Kings 16:9; Ben-Hadad, I Kings 20:16; Ahasuerus,
Esth. 1:10; cf. Holofernes, Judith 13:2). The prophets frequently
condemn drunkenness, particularly among the wealthy andthe leaders (Isa. 28:1ff.; 56:11–12; cf. Prov. 31:4–5), associating it with moral insensitivity (Isa. 5:11–12, 22–23; Amos 2:8),
licentiousness (Hos. 4:11–12, 18), and forgetting God (Hos.
4:11–12; cf. Job 1:4–5). Drunkenness and gluttony are among
the charges against the insubordinate son (Deut. 21:20). However, Isaiah 51:17–18, like the Ugaritic Aqhat epic (in Pritchard,
Texts, 150b, line 32–33), reflects a view that filial duties include
helping a parent made unsteady by alcohol to walk. The occasion of drunkenness might be private drinking (Noah, Lot) orgroup celebration (Nabal, Amnon, Ben-Hadad, Ahasuerus),including carousing on religious festivals (Hos. 4:11ff.). Drinking songs and music are mentioned at such celebrations (Isa.
24:7–9; Amos 6:5–6; Ps. 69:13). One type of gathering thatappears, especially in the light of extra – and post – biblicalattestations, to have been conducive to drunkenness is themarzeaḥ , referring at times to a joyous banquet (Amos 6:7),
at others to a mourning meal (Jer. 16:5)[Jeffrey Howard Tigay]

In the Talmud
Basing himself on the fact that the death of Nadab and Abihu
is followed by the injunction against priests drinking wine orstrong drink when officiating, R. Simeon attributes their deathto the fact that they entered the sanctuary while in a state of
intoxication (Lev. R. 12:1). Judges must not render decisions after drinking wine (Er. 64a). As a result, judges were forbidden
to eat dates because of their possible intoxicating effects (Ket.
10b). The judges of the *Sanhedrin had to abstain from wine
during the entire hearing of a capital case (Sanh. 5:1; Sanh.
42a). The criterion for drunkenness is whether the person affected is capable of addressing himself properly to a king. A
quarter of a “log” (approx. 3.2 oz., 100 milliliters) of wine wasregarded as sufficient to cause intoxication, but it was not arigid rule. If he later walked a mil (approx. 3,300 ft., 1,100 meters) or slept, a drunken person was considered sober, unlesshe drank strong Italian wine, in which case he must walk at
least three mils (Er. 64a–b). A drunken person is forbidden to
conduct a service. Based upon High Priest Eli’s reprimand of
Hannah (I Sam. 1:13–15), the Talmud lays down that if a person prays in a state of drunkenness, his prayer is an abomination (Ber. 31b). A person under the influence of alcohol islegally responsible for his actions unless he has reached thestate of oblivion attributed to Lot (cf. Gen. 19:31–36; Er. 65a).
The Bible adopted an ambivalent attitude toward wine, andthere are several statements in the Talmud concerning the virtues of wine and its beneficial effects on health (cf. Er. 65a–b).
There are many traditions that relate to the negative effects of
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

drink on everyday life. One example that may be cited is thelegend that when Noah was about to plant his vineyard, Satan buried in the soil carcasses of a sheep, a lion, a pig, anda monkey. As a result when a person indulges mildly he becomes sheepish, further indulging makes him feel like a lion.
Overindulgence causes him to befoul himself like a pig, andwhen he becomes roaring drunk he literally “makes a monkey of himself ” (Tanḥ ., Noaḥ , 14). In one chapter of the Midrash (Lev. R. 12:1) there are three statements with regard to
drunkenness. One interprets Proverbs 23:31 homiletically tomean that “while the drunkard has his eyes on the cup, thepublican has his eyes on his pocket.” The second tells of thedespairing attempt on the part of the sons of a drunken addict to rid him of his vice, while the third is an account of adrunkard who was determined to make up the absence of one
bottle from his daily quota of 12. Some scholars have assumed
that drunkenness was not a serious problem in the talmudic
period, and so have understood these traditions to reflect alighthearted, almost jocular attitude toward the phenomenon.
Others have suggested that these traditions may reflect not
the rarity of drunkenness, but rather its frequency. While the
Talmud states a positive injunction that a person shall get so
drunk on *Purim that he cannot distinguish between “Blessed
be Mordecai” and “Cursed be Haman,” the disastrous resultsof an actual incident in which two famous amora’im, Rabbah
and R. Zera, were involved (Meg. 7b), would seem to represent a serious criticism of this tradition. As a result, later rabbinic authorities were at pains to point out that this talmudic
permissibility was not to be taken literally.
[Louis Isaac Rabinowitz / Stephen G. Wald (2nd ed.)]Modern Times
Interest in contemporary drinking among Jews stems fromthe mystery of drinking not being a problem. Writers in many
countries during recent centuries have commented on thecomparative sobriety of the Jews. Multinational statistics ofarrests for drunkenness, incidences of alcoholic psychosis, andalcoholic admissions to hospitals have consistently revealed
a marked underrepresentation of Jews. From the 1940s, social scientists in the United States have systematically studied
drinking patterns of Jewish youth and adults. The consistentfinding has been that proportionately more Jews than otherethnic or religious segments of the population drink wine,
beer, or spirits, but proportionately fewer Jews are heavy
drinkers or alcoholics. Sophisticated socio-cultural-psychological hypotheses, rejecting rational blame-avoidance as anadequate explanation, relate Jewish sobriety to the early initiation of children in a family-centered, religiously oriented,
moderate drinking pattern. The attitudinal values thus engendered are presumed to prevent later excess in drinking.
An alternative but untested hypothesis proposes a genetic
immunity to alcoholism.
Leading studies through the late 1960s suggested that themore acculturated Jewish youth tended to adopt the drinking patterns of the general population. Thus the frequency of27

drusilla
drinking was highest among Jews whose religious orientationis Orthodox, lower among those whose orientation is Conservative, lower still among the Reform, and lowest among
the secular, i.e., those who deny any feeling of religious association. But the frequency of drinking large amounts on an
occasion, of getting drunk, or of getting into trouble on account of drinking ran in the opposite direction, from highest
among the secular to lowest among the Orthodox. This suggested to some sociologists that alcoholism among Jews may
increase as acculturation proceeded. But two antithetic findings reported that Jews who ostensively drink in the acculturated style consider themselves to have overindulged or “beendrunk” after substantially smaller quantities than non-Jews;
and the acculturated drinking style tends to be abandonedon settling down and starting to raise children. Only in the
United States has Jewish drinking been studied extensively andsystematically, but observers in many countries continue toreport the pattern of sobriety. Some theorists speculated thatthe pattern may change in a Jewish state and, that drunkenness is more common among some Eastern Jews than among
Westerners. However, although statistics on admission of alcoholics to mental hospitals in Israel in former years are notknown, in 1966 78 new cases were admitted (2 of all newcases; in some countries alcoholism accounts for up to 25
of admissions to mental hospitals). The total admission of alcoholics was 154 in 1966 (2 of all admissions); and during a
six-year period, only 23 deaths were attributed to alcoholism
or its complications. Recent data on Jews in the United States
are not available, but in New York State in 1950 0.2 of newcases were alcoholics. There was some evidence of greater alcoholic indulgence by Oriental-born Jews in Israel (but not in
those of Oriental descent). Asian and African-born male Jews
had twice the rate of first admission for alcoholism to mental
hospitals than European-born men did. Israel-born Jews, ofwhatever descent, had only a third of the rate of the Europeanborn. The rates in women of all origin groups were negligible.
Thus there were no signs at the time of serious alcohol problems developing in Israel. However, with the development ofa “pub” and “disco” culture among Israeli youth through the
1980s and 1990s and the influx of immigrants from the former
Soviet Union with its more marked drinking tradition, not tomention growing disaffection in the economic underbelly of
Israeli society, drinking has come to be perceived as more ofa problem, though still not reaching the proportions characteristic of other societies.

and Krasilowsky, in: Israel Annual of Psychiatry, 1 (1964), 277; 3(1965), 249.

DRUSILLA (b. 38 C.E.), daughter of *Agrippa I and *Cypros.
Drusilla had been promised in marriage by her father to Epiphanes, son of King Antiochus of Commagene. The agreement
was canceled, however, when Epiphanes refused to convert to
Judaism, after originally agreeing to do so. Drusilla was later
married by her brother *Agrippa II to Azizus, king of Emesa,
who had consented to be circumcised. Shortly afterward, aJewish magician from Cyprus persuaded Drusilla to leave
her husband and marry his friend *Felix, the procurator of
Judea. Out of this marriage a son was born, named Agrippa.
Josephus alludes to the disappearance of this son and his wife
during the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 C.E.
Bibliography: Jos., Wars, 2:220; Jos., Ant., 18:132; 19:354–5;
20:139–44; Acts 24:24; Schuerer, Hist, 573.
[Isaiah Gafni]°DRUSIUS (Van Der Driesche), JOHANN CLEMENS(1550–1616), Dutch theologian, Hebraist, and Bible scholar.
A native of Oudenarde (East Flanders), he was professor of
Oriental languages at Oxford (from 1572) and later in Leiden,
Ghent, and Franeker. Drusius wrote several books on Hebrew grammar, including Alphabetum ebraicum vetus (1587)
and Grammatica linguae sanctae nova (1612). He also edited
Elijah *Levita’s Hebrew-Yiddish dictionary, Shemot Devarim(Nomenclator Eliae Levitae, 1652), adding to it the Arabic; hisson Johann added the Greek. He wrote several works of biblical exegesis.
Bibliography: Zunz, Gesch, 11; Steinschneider, Handbuch
s.v.; Steinschneider, Cat Bod, 895, no. 4877; Abel Curiandez, Vita
Joannis Drusii (1618).

[Mark Keller]

DRUYA (Pol. Druja), town in Molodechno district, Belarus.
The Jewish community is mentioned in the late 16t century.
Many Jews there were occupied in the local soap industry andothers traded in farm products, like flax, grain, and hides.
They dominated trade. In the late 18t century a beautiful synagogue was constructed. The community numbered 1,305 in
1766; 2,366 in 1847; 3,006 in 1897 (out of a total population of
4,742); 1,011 (41) in 1921; and 1,800 in 1925. The author Alter *Druyanow was born in Druya. After WWI, Jewish merchants resumed their trade in agricultural products; others
were artisans. The center of cultural life was the Bund-dominated Yiddish school.

Bibliography: IN THE BIBLE: Kaufmann Y., Religion,
321, 374; B. Porten, Archives from Elephantine (1968), 179–86; G.R.
Driver, in: Words and Meanings, Essays… D.W. Thomas (1968),
47–67; L. Milano (ed.), Drinking in Ancient Societies (1994). MODERNTIMES: D. Cahalan, I. Cisin and H.R. Crossley, American Drinking Practices (1970); V. Efron and M. Keller, Selected Statistical Tables on the Consumption of Alcohol and on Alcoholism (1963); Keller,
in: British Journal of Addiction, 64 (1969); King, in: Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 22 (1961), 321; Knupfer and Room, ibid.,28 (1967), 676; C.R. Snyder, Alcohol and the Jews (1958); Shuval

Holocaust Period
On the eve of World War II the Jewish population of Druya
numbered about 1,500. Between October 1939 and June 1941
Druya was occupied by the Soviets. On July 6, 1941, after theoutbreak of the German-Soviet war, the Germans entered thetown. During the first days of the war many people accused ofallegiance to the Soviets were killed. In April 1942 two ghettos
were created, one for workers, the second for non-workers. On

28

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Shmuel Spector (2nd ed.)]dualism
July 2, 1942, the Germans surrounded the ghettos in order toliquidate them. The inhabitants tried to break out and somegroups succeeded in reaching the forests. In order to preventa mass escape, the Germans shot at Jews and set the ghettos
aflame. Some of those who escaped to the forest joined thepartisans around the village of Balnia and participated in activities against the Germans. About 50–60 persons survived.
[Aharon Weiss]
Bibliography: I. Schipper, Dzieje handlu żydowskiego na
ziemach polskich (1937), index; B. Wasiutiński, Ludność żydowska w
Polsce… (1930), 84; O. Hedemann, Dzisna i Druja (1934); A. Druyanow, in: Reshumot, 1 (1925), 437–49; Yad Vashem Archives.

DRUYANOW, ALTER (Asher, Avraham Abba; 1870–1938),
Hebrew writer, editor, and Zionist leader. Born in Druya, inthe district of Vilna, he studied at the Volozhin yeshivah in
his youth and then turned to commerce. In 1890 he publishedhis first essay in Ha-Meliẓ , under the pen name “Alef, Beit,
Gimmel, Dalet,” and from then on was a frequent contributor
to the Hebrew press (Mi-Mizraḥ u-mi-Ma’arav; Ha-Shilo’aḥ ,etc.), using various pen names. From 1900 to 1905 he was thesecretary of the Committee for the Settlement of Ereẓ Israelin Odessa. In 1906 he immigrated to Palestine, but returned
to Russia in 1909 and until 1914 was editor of Ha-Olam, theofficial organ of the World Zionist Organization. In 1921 hesettled permanently in Palestine. Together with *Bialik and*Ravnitzky, he edited the first four volumes of Reshumot, aperiodical devoted to the study of folklore (1919–26). His literary work includes Zionist articles, descriptive writing, andliterary criticism. He is best remembered for two compilations: Ketavim le-Toledot Ḥ ibbat Ẓ iyyon ve-Yishuv Ereẓ Yisrael(“Writings on the History of Ḥ ibbat Zion and the Settlementof Palestine,” 3 vols., 1919–32 (re-edited by Shulamit Laskov,
1982)) and Sefer ha-Bediḥ ah ve-ha-Ḥ iddud (“The Book of Jokes
and Witticisms,” enlarged 3-vol. edition, 1935–38), a collectionof Jewish folk humor with notes on the origin and history of
the contents. A two-volume selection of his essays was published in 1943–45.

first cause. Dualistic systems have appeared in philosophical(metaphysical) as well as moral forms, both of which haveexerted considerable influence on the history of religions, including the history of Judaism.
Philosophical Dualism
In the history of Western thought, philosophical dualism goesback to *Platonism and *neoplatonism which developed andspread the idea of an opposition between spirit and matter,spirit being the higher, purer, and eternal principle, whereas
matter was the lower and imperfect form of being, subject tochange and corruption. Applied to the understanding of thenature of man, this meant that man was composed of a lower,
material part (the body), and a higher, spiritual part (the soul).
This dualism could, and not infrequently did, lead to a contempt for the body and for “this world” in general, and encouraged a moral outlook which held *asceticism (or, in its
more extreme forms, total renunciation of the world) to be
the way by which the soul could liberate itself from the holdof the body and, purifying itself of the bodily passions, render itself worthy again of returning to its celestial and spiritual home. This view exerted considerable influence on Jewish thinking in the Hellenistic period (see *Philo) and in thephilosophy and *Musar literature of the middle ages, though
its more radical forms were partly inhibited by the rabbinic
tradition which considered the physical universe and its enjoyment as essentially good, provided they were hallowed in
the service of God.

DUALISM, the religious or philosophical doctrine whichholds that reality consists, or is the outcome, of two ultimate
principles which cannot be reduced to one more ultimate

Moral Dualism
Although moral dualism generally tended to express itself inthe forms of a thoroughgoing metaphysical dualism, the term
is justified inasmuch as it reflects the basic doctrine that goodand evil were the outcome or product of two distinct and ultimate first causes. The best known form of this dualism isthe ancient religion of Persia (Zoroastrianism), according
to which history is a cosmic struggle between the powers ofgood, i.e., light, and evil, i.e., darkness. This system has thelogical advantage of accounting for evil in terms of a separate, independent principle, and thus exonerating the “good”
creator and God from responsibility for the existence, in theworld, of evil and sin. On the other hand it raises many otherproblems and was unacceptable to any form of *monotheism.
Some commentators see in the declaration that God “formed
the light and created darkness, is the maker of peace and thecreator of evil” (Isa. 45:7) the prophet’s polemic against thisdualism (a polemic, the harshness of which is mitigated by
the wording in which this verse appears in the daily morning
prayer: “the maker of peace and creator of all” Hertz, Prayer
109). The two types of “philosophical” and “moral” dualism
were capable of fusing and merging in various combinations.
The body, matter, and “this world” could become identified,or at least associated, with darkness and evil, and the soul,with goodness and light. Another pair of opposites, “spirit”
and “flesh,” though not identical with Platonic dualism, wasyet sufficiently similar to combine with it in various ways. It

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 629

Bibliography: J. Fichmann, Be-Terem Aviv (1959), 371–6;
Kressel, Leksikon, 1 (1965), 564; ABGD: Yad la-Kore, 9 (1968), 116–8,
a bibliography.

DRZEWIECKI, HENRYK (Hercel Rosenbaum; 1902–1937),
Polish novelist and critic. An avowed Communist, Drzewiecki wrote essays and reviews advocating revolution in order to abolish Poland’s economic misery. His controversial
novel Kwaśniacy (1934) greatly influenced Polish proletarian
literature and the writer only escaped imprisonment by fleeing first to Paris and then to the U.S.S.R. He was executedduring the Stalinist purges of the late 1930s. He was rehabilitated in 1956.

dualism
is this dualism which underlies the theology and anthropology of the *Dead Sea (*Qumran) sect, and of the epistles ofPaul in the New Testament. *Gnosticism presents a peculiar
combination of the two types of dualism: this world and ourbodily existence, being characterized by evil, are the work of
a lower, imperfect deity (the “demiurge” or creator), above
whom there is a completely distinct, more transcendent andspiritual, good and “true” god. This higher deity intervenes
and “saves” the elect from the power of the evil creator who
holds them imprisoned in matter and in this world. Some of
the gnostic sects equated this lower and evil demiurge with the
god of the Hebrew Bible, i.e., with the Jewish God and giverof the law. Gnostic dualism has therefore been described as a
metaphysical antisemitism. The gnostic rejection of creationand the cosmos, as well as of the biblical law, as the work of
a lower, evil, or at least imperfect, power led in some cases tomanifestations of *antinomianism, and in others to a very rigorous asceticism and rejection of this world.

references are directed at the gnostic distinction between thesupreme God on the one hand, and the Creator-Lawgiver on
the other. Thus the kofer ba-ikkar (one who denies the essenceof the faith) is said to be one who denies his creator and thegiver of the Law (cf. Tosef. Shav. 3:7).
Dualism in Jewish Mysticism
The esoteric discipline and ecstatic visionary practices of theearly *Merkabah mystics, while exhibiting certain gnostic
traits, certainly did not share the basic dualism of the great
gnostic systems. Dualistic elements, however, were not absent,
as, e.g., in the doctrine of *Metatron (originally Javel) as the“lesser YHWH.” In fact, the term yoẓ er bereshit (“Creator”) was
deprived of any possible gnostic connotation by being used, inthe *Shi’ur Komah literature, for the manifestation of God on
the Throne of Glory. Another kind of dualism is involved in
the radical distinction made by the kabbalists between the hidden, inaccessible deus absconditus (the Ein Sof ), and the godhead as manifested in the *Sefirot. The latter two are occasionally described in a dualistic manner (right-left, male-female),but the essential point of the kabbalists was precisely the ultimate mystical unity behind the multiple manifestations.
The dualistic tendency is, perhaps, most marked in the
kabbalistic treatment of the problem of evil. The profoundsense of the reality of evil brought many kabbalists to posit a
realm of the demonic, the sitra aḥ ra (or “aẓ ilut of the left”), a
kind of negative mirror image of the “side of holiness” withwhich it was locked in combat. Nevertheless, here too it is necessary to distinguish between dualistic tendency and dualistic theory. It is precisely because kabbalistic doctrine does notknow an ultimate dualism, that it is forced to seek the originof the demonic realm of the kelippot somewhere in the sphereof divine emanation – whether in the sefirah gevurah (din) or(as in Lurianic kabbalism) in even more hidden aspects of the
godhead. More than anything else, it is this awareness of thereality of evil, coupled with an essentially monotheistic rather
than dualistic theology of the Zoroastrian type, which gives
kabbalistic speculation such an audacious and indeed all but“heretical” quality. In medieval philosophy, the solution proposed for the problem of evil and its possible dualistic implications was the theory that evil had no substantial existence of
its own but was a negation of good, even as darkness was theabsence of light (cf. *Maimonides, Guide, 3:8; see also *Good
and Evil). The first Jewish philosopher to argue systematicallyand at length against dualistic notions was *Saadiah Gaon in
his Beliefs and Opinions (treatise 2).

Dualism in Jewish History
Whether or not Isaiah 45:7 is a polemical reference to Persian dualism (see above), it is evident that dualistic tendencies asserted themselves in the Second Temple period and in
the first centuries of the common era. These were of a neoplatonic, later also of a gnostic, character. In a general way it
can be said that apart from the “heretical” dualistic doctrinesof some gnostic sectarians (see *Minim), Judaism could accommodate a “mitigated dualism,” i.e., doctrines and attitudes
which express metaphysical or moral contrasts in a dualisticmanner, but without attributing to them an ultimate characteror calling in question the sovereignty of the one omnipotent
and good Creator God. This mitigated dualism can be foundin some of the biblical *Apocrypha (e.g., *Jubilees or the Testaments of the *Patriarchs) and especially in the writings of the
Dead Sea sect, whose doctrines of the spirit and the flesh, ofthe spirits (or angels), of purity and impurity, i.e., of light anddarkness, come as near to a dualistic system as Judaism could
tolerate. Yet even these beliefs can be characterized as a “dualism under God,” since the spirits of light and darkness were
held to exist through God’s inscrutable will and to be subject
to him. The Platonic dualistic spirit-matter (i.e., the realm ofideas as against the material world) penetrated rabbinic Judaism in the form of the soul-body dualism (cf. Plato’s Phaedo,67), and the belief in the preexistence of the soul. The doctrine of the immortality of the (spiritual) soul reflects, in thisrespect, a more dualistic anthropology than the doctrine of
the resurrection of the body (see *Eschatology, Immortality of*Soul, *Resurrection). Rabbinic theology in general tended toreject or at least to mitigate dualistic tendencies. Thus the doctrine of the good and evil yeẓ er (see Good and Evil *Inclination) is a transposition onto a more psychological (and hence
theologically more harmless) level of what, for the Qumrancovenanters and others, were metaphysical opposites. Talmudic literature has many polemical references to those who
believe in shetei reshuyyot (“two powers”). Other polemical

Prophetic Dualism
While Judaism can thus be said to have been consistently
anti-dualistic in the sense of recognizing only one ultimate
cause and source of all being – including the opposites characteristic of being – there is another sense in which biblicaland prophetic religion can be said to be dualistic. It assumesa radical distinction between the absolute being of God andthe contingent being of all other (i.e., created) things. Contact

30

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

dubin, mordecai
and communion with God is possible in love, obedience, or
mystical contemplation, but no identity of the creature withthe creator is possible. Systems of thought which assert thatall being is ultimately one and that the duality of God and theworld (or God and the soul) can be transcended in a more profound unity have not been able to maintain themselves in any
significant measure in Judaism. Pantheism and other forms of
metaphysical or mystical monism (see *God, Conceptions of)have never been dominant Jewish philosophies.
Bibliography: S. Pétrement, Le dualisme chez Platon, lesgnostiques et les manichéens (1947); Guttmann, Philosophies, index; D.
Flusser, in: Scripta Hierosolymitana, 4 (1958), 215–66; G.R. Driver, The
Judean Scrolls (1965), 550–62; A.C. Leaney, The Rule of Qumran andits Meaning (1966), index; M. Burrows, More Light on the Dead Sea
Scrolls (1958), index; I. Tishby, Mishnat ha-Zohar, 1 (1949), 285–343.
[R.J. Zwi Werblowsky]°DU BARTAS, GUILLAUME DE SALLUSTE (1544–1590),
French poet and diplomat. Du Bartas served Henry of Navarre
as ambassador to England and Scotland. A Gascon Protestant,he opposed the paganism of the Pléiade group of poets andwrote baroque verse imbued with the spirit of the Bible. Judith(1573) commemorates the apocryphal Jewish heroine. The epic
La Semaine (1578), which retells the Creation story of Genesis,
and its sequel, La Seconde Semaine (begun in 1584, but nevercompleted), set out to unfold the history of mankind to thebeginning of the Christian era. The Semaines are outstanding
for their lofty tone and moral purpose, though the style andimagery are often grotesque. Their encyclopedic conception
betrays the influence of Du Bartas’ erudite contemporary, Guy*Le Fèvre de la Boderie. Du Bartas’ Hebrew scholarship may
have been modest but his respect for and interest in Hebrew
studies and the *Kabbalah (typical of the French humanists)
may be deduced from the lengthy “Hommage au langage hebrieu” in the Seconde Semaine. Du Bartas made a powerful impression in the 16t and 17t centuries and probably influenced
Hugo, as well as Milton and Goethe, in translation.

man rights, edited Antislavery Vanguard: New Essays on the
Abolitionists (1965). He also wrote a number of plays, notably In White America (1964), a documentary on the American black.
After exposing glaring instances of homophobia in his
history Black Mountain: An Exploration of Community (1971),
Duberman himself became the target of homophobic attacks
from his academic peers. Subsequently, he became involved in
gay activism on academic, public, and private levels. With fellow gay scholars, he founded the Gay Academic Union (1973)
and joined the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
In 1971, Duberman resigned from Princeton to become
Distinguished Professor of History in the field of gay and lesbian studies at Lehman College, the City University of New
York (CUNY), where he continued to teach. He was the founderand first executive director of the Center for Lesbian and Gay
Studies (CLAGS) at CUNY. The Martin Duberman Fellowshipis a CLAGS endowment awarded to a senior scholar (tenured
university professor or advanced independent scholar) fromany country doing scholarly research on the lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender/queer (LGBTQ) experience.
Other publications by Duberman include The Uncompleted Past (1969), The Memory Bank (1970), Visions of Kerouac: A Play (1977), About Time: Exploring the Gay Past (1986),
Paul Robeson (1989), Hidden from History: Reclaiming the Gay
and Lesbian Past (1989), Cures: A Gay Man’s Odyssey (1991),
Mother Earth: An Epic Play on the Life of Emma Goldman(1991), Stonewall (1993), Midlife Queer: Autobiography of a
Decade, 1971–1981 (1996), A Queer World: The Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader (1997), Left Out: The Politics ofExclusion: Essays 1964–2002 (2002), and the novel Haymarket (2003).
[Mark D. Hirsch / Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]DUBERMAN, MARTIN B. (1930– ), U.S. historian andplaywright. Duberman, who was born in New York City, entered Yale University in 1948 and received his M.A. and Ph.D.
from Harvard University. From 1957 to 1961, he was history
instructor at Yale. He then became an assistant professor at
Princeton University and full professor in 1967. Duberman’s
research centered on the “middle period” of American history,
with special attention given to the Civil War and Reconstruction, American radicalism, and intellectual history. His publications include Charles Francis Adams, 1807–86 (1961) andJames Russell Lowell (1966). Duberman, himself an advocate
of dissent and deeply concerned with the advancement of hu-

DUBIN, MORDECAI (1889–1956), *Agudat Israel leader in
Latvia. Dubin represented his movement in the Latvian housesof representatives (1919–34). From 1920 until 1940 he was also
the chairman of the Jewish community in Riga. He acquireda reputation among all sectors of the Jewish population as anegotiator and mediator (shtadlan) with the government on
Jewish public matters and particularly for Jewish individual
needs. An adherent of *Chabad Ḥ asidism, in 1927 he playeda decisive part in obtaining permission for Joseph Isaac *Schneersohn (the “Lubavitcher rabbi”) to leave the Soviet Union.
Even after the liquidation of the democratic regime in Latvia,
Dubin, who was personally close to the dictator Ulmanis, continued to intercede with the government to obtain alleviationof anti-Jewish economic measures. With the incorporation of
Latvia into the Soviet Union in June 1940, Dubin was arrested
with other communal leaders and deported. He was released
in 1942 and subsequently lived under police supervision andextreme poverty in Kuibyshev and Moscow. In spite of his personal plight he succeeded in extending help to many Latvian
Jews who passed through these cities. In 1946 he returned to

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

31

Bibliography: U.T. Holmes (ed.), Works of Guillaume De
Salluste Sieur Du Bartas (1935–40); A.M. Schmidt, Poésie scientifique
en France au 16è siècle (1938), 247–69; F. Secret, in: Studi francesi, 7(1959), 1–11.
[Godfrey Edmond Silverman]

dubinsky, david
Riga, but was forced to leave after attacks against him were
published in the local Communist press. Again arrested in
1948, he died in a concentration camp near Moscow. His remains were buried in the Jewish cemetery in Malakhovka, a
suburb of Moscow.
Bibliography: Yahadut Latvia (1953), index; M. Bobe, in;
He-Avar, 14 (1967), 250–61.
[Yehuda Slutsky]

DUBINSKY, DAVID (1892–1982), U.S. labor leader. Born
in Brest-Litovsk, Belorussia, Dubinsky was brought up in the
Polish city of Lodz, where he became a master baker and secretary of the militant Lodz Bakers Union organized by the*Bund. He was arrested and imprisoned for organizing strikes
against his father’s bakery, and was exiled to Siberia in 1909
for making inflammatory speeches. He managed to escapeen route, however, and at the end of 1910 immigrated to theUnited States. He joined his elder brother in New York and obtained work through the International Ladies Garment Workers’ Union (ILGWU) becoming an apprentice in Cutters’ Local
10. He devoted more of his time to the Socialist party than totrade union affairs until larger numbers of East European Socialist Jews entered Local 10, but in 1918 he was elected to its
executive board. In 1921 he was chosen president of the Cutters’ Local. Dubinsky also rose rapidly in the ILGWU, where
he joined the anti-Communist majority. He was elected to its
general executive board in 1923. In 1928 he played a leading
part in bringing back Benjamin *Schlesinger as a compromise
candidate for president to avoid a split in the union, and in
the following year was himself elected secretary-treasurer. On
Schlesinger’s death in 1932 he became president, a position heheld until 1966.
During the 1930s Dubinsky dominated the ILGWU and
was a powerful force in the American labor movement. He
favored cooperation with the employers in rationalizing thecomplex structure of the garment industry and made hisunion a symbol of progressive unionism. In 1934 he waselected a vice president of the AFL. Almost immediately hebecame embroiled in the controversy between the proponents of industrial unionism and the supporters of the oldstyle craft union. He played a leading part in the CIO which
he helped to found in 1935, his union being the second largest in the country. In 1936 he resigned his vice-presidency of
the AFL in protest against their support of the craft unions
against the industrial unions, and persuaded the ILGWU togive their backing to the latter. For two years from 1938 theILGWU was isolated from the American labor movement,
but in 1940 Dubinsky brought it back into the AFL. In his capacity as president of the ILGWU for more than 30 years, hetransformed the union from a struggling entity to one withassets in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Under his guidance, the union took on issues such as the provision of healthinsurance, severance pay, retirement benefits, and a 35-hour
workweek. He also worked to abolish the sweatshops that wereprevalent in the industry.

32

An influential figure in United States politics, Dubinsky
refused to endorse Tammany Hall, New York’s political machine, and supported Franklin D. *Roosevelt for president
in 1932 and 1936. To this end he helped to create the American Labor Party (ALP) in 1936. In 1944, when Communists
began to dominate the ALP, he helped to form the Liberal
Party. After World War II Dubinsky was one of the foundersof the anti-Communist International Confederation of Free
Trade Unions. In 1945 he served once again as a vice president and member of the executive council of the AFL, evenafter it merged with the CIO in 1955. Due largely to his efforts
to eliminate corrupt union leaders, the AFL-CIO adopted theanti-racket codes in 1957.
In 1969 U.S. President Lyndon Johnson awarded Dubinsky the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which cited him as “anational leader of foresight and compassion. He has advanced
the cause of the workingman in America – and the broader
cause of social justice in the world, with unfailing skill anduncommon distinction.” In 1993 Dubinsky was inducted into
the Labor Hall of Fame.
As a self-styled “Jewish worker,” Dubinsky was concernedwith the special problems facing the Jewish community as aconsequence of events in Germany and World War II. He wasa member of the executive council of the Jewish Labor Committee founded in 1933, engaged in relief efforts on behalf ofrefugees, and became a staunch supporter of Israel and inparticular of the *Histadrut, Israel’s General Federation ofLabor. A hospital in Beersheba, financed by his union, carries his name. Dubinsky wrote David Dubinsky: A Life with
Labor (1977).
Bibliography: M.D. Danish, The World of David Dubinsky(1957); J. Dewey, David Dubinsky, a Pictorial Biography (1951); C.A.
Madison, American Labor Leaders (1962), 199–231; R. Cook, Leadersof Labor (1966), 102–12.
[Melvyn Dubofsky / Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]DUBISLAV, WALTER ERNST OTTO (1895–1937), German philosopher. Born in Berlin, he studied mathematics
with Hilbert at Goettingen, served on the Russian front inWorld War I, and took his degree in philosophy at Berlin after
the war. He became professor at the Technische Hochschulein Berlin in 1931, and fled in 1936 to Prague. Dubislav was a
logical positivist and conventionalist, influenced by Aristotle,
Bolzano, and Frege. He was critical of Kant and a supporter ofFries, and was, with Reichenbach, a leader of the “Gesellschaft
fuer empirische Philosophie.” Dubislav participated in Dassystematische Woerterbuch der Philosophie (1923) and wrote
Ueber die Definition (1925, 19313), Die Friessche Lehre von der
Begruendung (1926), Die Philosophie der Mathematik in derGegenwart (1932), and Naturphilosophie (1933).
Bibliography: NDB, 4 (1959), 145.
[Richard H. Popkin]

DUBLIN, capital of the Republic of Ireland. A small Jewish
group apparently lived there in the Middle Ages since the ExENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

DUBNOchequer of the Jews at Westminster had an Irish branch. In
the middle of the 17t century, some Spanish and Portuguese
Marranos settled in the city, including Francisco and Manuel Lopes Pereira and Jacome Faro. According to tradition, a
synagogue was founded in Crane Lane around 1660. Military
operations in Ireland after the revolution of 1689 attracted a
few more Sephardi Jews, and the community knew a short period of relative prosperity. In 1718 a cemetery was purchasedwith the assistance of the London Sephardi community, which
advanced the Dublin congregation money to meet its debts
and lent it some scrolls of the Law. During the 18t century,
the original Sephardi element died out, and was replaced by
Ashkenazi immigrants. By 1791 the congregation had fallen
into complete decay and the borrowed scrolls were returned.
The community was revived in 1882 by East European immigrants. It increased considerably with the Russo-Jewish immigration at the close of the century. Many of the Jews of thattime engaged in peddling, small business, and small financialtransactions (moneylending and pawnbroking). In the courseof time the Jews moved into shopkeeping, manufacturing,and the professions. There has been considerable emigration
over the years, especially among the younger generation. In
1968 the Jewish population numbered approximately 3,600
and maintained seven synagogues (including one Progressive) with the usual congregational institutions. James Joyce’s
Ulysses depicts certain elements of Jewish life in Dublin at the
beginning of the century. Paradoxically, many literary visitors
to today’s Dublin come to see the route taken on “Bloomsday”
by James Joyce’s Leopold Bloom. Isaac *Herzog, later chief
rabbi of Israel, was chief rabbi of Dublin 1919–36. Immanuel*Jakobovits was chief rabbi from 1949 and Isaac Cohen from1959. Robert *Briscoe was lord mayor from 1956–57 and from
1961–62, and his son in the 1980s. In the mid-1990s the Jewish population numbered approximately 1,300. In 2004, aftersome renewed growth, it was estimated at about 1,500.

great synagogue, where it was customary to mourn them on
the Ninth of Av.
The Jewish community was reestablished shortly afterward under the patronage of the owners of the town, theprinces Lubomirski, who accorded it special privileges in 1699
and 1713. By the beginning of the 18t century Dubno had become the largest Jewish community in Volhynia, being represented on the Council of the Four Lands and earning thesobriquet “Dubno the Great” (Dubno Rabbati). Its delegate, R.
Meir ben Joel, was chosen to be head (parnas) of the Councilof the Four Lands in the late 1750s. As many blood libels occurred then in Poland, R. Meir sent his relative R. EliokimZelig of Yampol to the pope in Rome, to get bull against thelibels, which he published in Latin and Polish. Jewish poll
tax payers numbered 1,923 in 1765. The great fair of *Lvov
was moved to Dubno between 1773 and 1793, and the city became an important commercial center. The most famous of
the 18t-century Jewish preachers of Lithuania, Jacob *Kranz,
was known as the Maggid of Dubno after the city with which
he was most closely associated. In the 19t century Haskalah(Enlightenment) activists like the physician and writer Reuben
Kalischer, the lexicographer and poet Solomon *Mandelkern(author of a monumental Bible concordance), and the poetand writer Abraham Baer *Gottlober lived there. In 1780 theJewish population numbered 2,325, in 1847, 6,330, and in 1897,
7,108 (about half the total). A main occupation was dealing in
grain and hops. During World War I and the civil war in Russia (to 1921), the city changed hands a number of times and thecommunity suffered extreme hardship, mainly of an economic
nature. In March 1918 the Cossacks staged a pogrom killing 18
Jews. While Dubno belonged to Poland (1921–39), the community maintained many cultural institutions and there wasan active Zionist and pioneer movement. In 1921 they numbered 5,315 (total population 9,146), and in 1931, 7,364 (total
population 12,696).

Bibliography: B. Shillman, Short History of the Jews in
Ireland (1945), passim; Shillman and Wolf, in: JHSET, 11 (1924–27),
143–67; Huehner, ibid., 5 (1902–05), 224–42; C. Roth, Rise of Provincial Jewry (1950), 56f; L. Hyman, Jews of Ireland (1972). Add. Bibliography: D. Keogh, Jews in Twentieth Century Ireland (1998);
R. Rivlin, Shalom Ireland: A Social History of the Jews in Modern Ireland (2003).
[Cecil Roth][Yehuda Slutsky / Shmuel Spector (2nd ed.)]DUBNO, city in *Volhynia, Ukraine. Jews in Dubno are
first mentioned in documents of 1532 in connection with theownership of cattle. The oldest tombstone inscription in the
Jewish cemetery dates from 1581. At the beginning of the 17t
century Isaiah ha-Levi *Horowitz, author of Shenei Luḥ ot haBerit, was rabbi in Dubno. The community was represented
on the council of the province (galil) of Volhynia (see *Councils of the Lands). On the eve of the *Chmielnicki uprising
there were about 2,000 Jews in Dubno. In 1648–49, most of
the Jews were massacred because the Poles refused to permit
them to take refuge in the fortress. According to tradition thegraves of the martyrs were located near the eastern wall of the

Holocaust and Postwar Periods
After the outbreak of World War II Dubno was occupied by
Soviet forces (Sept. 18, 1939). The Soviet authorities liquidated
the Jewish community institutions, made all political parties illegal, transferred Jewish welfare institutions to the municipality, and allowed only one Jewish activity – the public
kitchen for refugees from the West. All Jewish economic enterprises and buildings were nationalized. Jewish leaders, among
them David Perl, president of the Zionist Organization, werearrested. When the German-Soviet war broke out (June 1941),
hundreds of young Jewish men escaped from Dubno to theSoviet interior. After the Germans entered Dubno (June 25),
the local Ukrainian population indulged in acts of murder
and robbery, while the Germans extracted 100,000 rubles($20,000) from the Jewish community. On July 22, 1941, 80
Jews were executed by the Nazis in the local cemetery; onemonth later 900 were killed. The Germans organized a Judenrat headed by Konrad Tojbenfeld. The Jewish population was

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 633

dubno, solomon ben joel
conscripted for forced labor and many succumbed to the unbearable conditions. The winter that followed (1941–42) was
marked by hunger and disease, despite the attempts to provide relief by organizing public kitchens. Two ghettoes were
established at the beginning of April 1942, one for the workers and their families and the second for the rest of the Jews.
On May 26–27, 1942, the Germans murdered all the Jews in
the second ghetto, burying them in mass graves on the outskirts of the city. In August 1942 Jews from the environs andsurvivors were brought to the first ghetto. On October 5, 1942,
about 4,500 inhabitants of the ghetto were murdered. The remaining 353, needed as artisans, were murdered on October
23, 1942, and the last 14 Jews escaped. Two partisan groups
were formed by Dubno escapees. One headed by Isaac Wasserman was wiped out by the Germans, the other sufferedlosses in battles and the last 16 fighters joined the Polish selfdefense units which fought the Ukrainian UPA. When the war
was over only about 300 Jews from Dubno remained alive, including those who had returned from the Soviet Union. No
Jewish community was reestablished after the war.
[Aharon Weiss / Shmuel Spector (2nd ed.)]Hebrew Printing
The first Hebrew printing press was set up in Dubno in 1794
by Jonathan b. Jacob of Wielowies, Silesia. Jonathan’s partner
was M. Piotrowsky, a non-Jew, and the business was under thepatronage of Prince Lubomirski, the ruler of the town, whose
escutcheon and initials appeared on the title pages. The press
was active for nine years and produced 22 books. Anotherpress was founded in 1804 by the printer Aaron b. Jonah, who
owned a similar business in Ostrog, in partnership with Joseph b. Judah Leib. During the four years Aaron was in Dubno
ten books were published. Dubno’s rabbi, Ḥ ayyim Mordecai
Margolioth, established a press in 1819, printing works by his
brother Ephraim Zalman of Brody, and a Shulḥ an Arukh withhis own commentaries (Sha’arei Teshuvah) and those of his
brother (Yad Ephraim). The press was closed after a fire.
Bibliography: P. Pesis, Ir Dubno ve-Rabbaneha (1902); H.S.
Margolies, Dubno Rabbati (1910); H.D. Friedberg, Toledot ha-Defus
ha-Ivri be-Polanyah (19502), 119–20; A. Yaari, in: KS, 9 (1932/33), 432;
Rivkind, ibid., 11 (1934/35), 386–7. HOLOCAUST PERIOD: M. Weisberg,
in: Fun Letstn Khurbn, 2 (1946), 14–27; Elimelekh, in; Yalkut Volhyn, 1(1945), index; Fefer, ibid., index; Dubno (1966), memorial book (Heb.
and Yid.). Add. Bibliography: PK.

mentary, known as the Biur. For that work Dubno prepared
the prospectus with a lengthy introduction, Alim li-Terufah(1778), and contributed the commentary on Genesis (except
ch. 1) and part of Exodus as well as annotations to the Masorah of Genesis and Exodus, Tikkun Soferim. Dubno, however,left Berlin in 1781 for Vilna before the Biur on the Pentateuch,
Netivot ha-Shalom, appeared in 1783. He had been prompted,
apparently, by his friends in Russia such as Zalman Volozkin,
who disapproved of his association with Mendelssohn and his
circle, and who encouraged him to write his own Bible commentary. Nevertheless, Mendelssohn paid generous tribute to
Dubno’s work in his introduction to the Biur. In 1786 he returned to Germany and finally to Amsterdam, where he lived
in penury, though he possessed a valuable library of over 2,000
books, some of them very rare, and over 100 manuscripts,
for which he prepared a catalog, Reshimah (1814). In Amsterdam he published a commentary on the Masorah of thewhole Pentateuch, Tikkun Soferim (1803). Dubno also wrote
a good deal of Hebrew poetry, e.g., Yuval ve-Na’aman (n. d.);Evel Yaḥ id (1776), a eulogy on the death of Jacob Emden; andKol Simḥ ah (1780), in honor of the wedding of Simḥ ah Bunim
b. Daniel Jaffe (*Itzig). He published M. Ḥ . Luzzatto’s drama
La-Yesharim Tehillah (1780 or 1799) with an introduction andwrote a preface, interspersed with poetry, to Heidenheim’s edition of the Shavuot maḥ zor (1805). Dubno also wrote a geography of Palestine, Kunteres Aharon (Berlin, n.d.).
In his Bible commentary Dubno followed mainly the
medieval exegetes, but added historical and geographical explanations as well as defending his own traditional position.
He was the first Jewish commentator to dwell on the structure and didactic style of the Bible stories. In his notes on themasoretic accents, he stressed their exegetical importance aswell as their antiquity.
Bibliography: I. Zinberg, Geshikhte fun der Literatur bay
Yidn, 7 pt. 1 (1936), 53–62, 82, 134, 256; P. Sandler, Ha-Be’ur la-Torahshel Moshe Mendelssohn ve-Si’ato (1941), 16–30; Zobel, in: KS, 18(1941/42), 126–32; R. Mahler, Divrei Yemei Yisrael, 4 (1956), 30–33;
Beit-Arié, in: KS, 40 (1964/65), 124–32; A. Marx, Studies in Jewish
History and Booklore (1944), 219–21; F.J. Delitzsch, Zur Geschichte derjuedischen Poesie (1836), 118; Kressel, Leksikon, 1 (1965), 524–5.
[Jacob S. Levinger]

DUBNO, SOLOMON BEN JOEL (1738–1813), Bible scholarand Hebrew poet. Dubno took his name from his birthplacein the Ukraine and studied in Lemberg (Lvov) under Solomon
b. Moses *Chelm, whose Sha’arei Ne’imah on the masoretic
accents he published in 1776 with annotations and an introductory poem (also appended to some editions of Judah Leib
Ben-Ze’ev’s Talmud Leshon Ivri, 1886). From 1767 to 1772 helived and studied in Amsterdam and then in Berlin, where he
was engaged by Moses *Mendelssohn as private tutor for his
son Joseph. On Dubno’s suggestion Mendelssohn undertook
his famous German translation of the Bible and Hebrew com-

DUBNOW, SIMON (1860–1941), historian and political
ideologist. Born in Mstislavl, Belorussia, Dubnow received a
traditional Jewish education from his grandfather, but earlyin his life ceased to observe religious practices. He was selftaught, having achieved his general education at “the home
university,” as he put it. Between 1880 and 1906 Dubnow lived,
first illegally, in St. Petersburg; in his home town; in Odessa,
where he joined the *Aḥ ad Ha-Am circle; and Vilna, writing
all the time for the Jewish press. He finally settled in St. Petersburg, this time legally, teaching Jewish history, which fromthen on became his dominating interest; from 1908 at the Institute of Jewish Studies (established by Baron David *Guenzburg); and from 1919 at the government-supported “Jewish

34

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

dubnow, simon
People’s University.” Dubnow was one of the founders anddirectors of the Jewish Historico-Ethnographical Society andfrom 1909 to 1918 editor of its quarterly Yevreyskaya Starina.
When the Bolsheviks came to power, Dubnow was asked toparticipate in the work of various committees appointed toprepare publications on Jewish themes; none of this work
was ever published.
In 1922 he left Russia. A proposal for him to become
professor of Jewish history at the University of Kovno met
with the opposition of the Lithuanian professors, and Dubnow settled in Berlin, where he stayed until 1933. When Hitler came to power, Dubnow found refuge in Riga, the capitalof Latvia. There the aged scholar continued his work in solitude, but with undiminished vigor. Riga was captured by theGermans in July 1941, and in a night of terror, on December
8, 1941, when the Jewish community was deported to a deathcamp, Dubnow was murdered by a Gestapo officer, a former
pupil of his.
Dubnow’s lifework was the study of Jewish history, of therelevant source material, and its “sociological” interpretation.
He began with the evaluation of such men as I.B. *Levinsohn,*Shabbetai Ẓ evi, and Jacob *Frank and his sect (Razsvet, 1881;
Voskhod, 1882). This he followed by a study of *Ḥ asidism(Voskhod, 1888–93; Ha-Pardes, 1894; Ha-Shiloʾaḥ , 1901). Dubnow then published a series of documents and studies on Jewish life in Eastern Europe (Voskhod, 1893–95). He translated H.
Graetz’s Volkstuemliche Geschichte der Juden (1881) into Russian, with an introduction on the philosophy of Jewish history.
When the censor prohibited the publication of the translation,
Dubnow published his introduction separately (Voskhod, 1893;
also in German, 1897, 19212; in English, Jewish History, translated by Henrietta Szold, 1903; and Hebrew, 1953). In 1896,
he published in two volumes an adaptation in Russian of S.
Baeck’s Geschichte des juedischen Volkes und seiner Literatur(1878), and of M. Brann’s book of the same title (1893), addinga chapter on the history of the Jews in Poland and Russia. In
his introduction, for the first time, Dubnow stated his main
thesis of Jewish history as a succession of “centers” and their“hegemony” (see below).
In 1898, he began writing his series of works on Jewish
history, based on the works of Baeck and Brann: An Outline
of Jewish History (3 vols., 1925–29; Russian, 1901–05, 19102, andtranslated into many languages); History of the Jews in Russia
and Poland (3 vols., 1916–20; Russ., 1914, and translated into
several languages); and finally his world history of the Jewish
people, first published in German (Die Weltgeschichte des juedischen Volkes, 10 vols., 1925–29), then in Hebrew (1923–38)
and Yiddish (1948–58). A version in the Russian original was
published between 1934 and 1938. In 1940 an 11t volume waspublished in Hebrew, updating the work to World War II.
An English translation by M. Spiegel began to appear in 1967.
Although engaged in the writing of general Jewish history,
Dubnow did not neglect research into its details. Thus, in
1922, he published the pinkas of the Council of Lithuania forthe years 1623–1761. At the age of 70 Dubnow summarized his

lifelong study of Ḥ asidism in his history of Ḥ asidism (Hebrew,
1930–32, many reprints; German, 2 vols., 1931). He also served
as an editor of the Russian and English Jewish encyclopedias.
Dubnow’s activities in the field of journalism began with theforeign editorship of Razsvet (1881–83), and from 1883 to 1908
he was the literary critic of Voskhod.
Dubnow believed that his study of history gave him the
key to the understanding of the past, enabled him to work forthe improvement of the present, and even provided the solution for the future of the Jewish people. According to him
the Jewish people in the Diaspora lost some of the attributes
which normally ensure the continuous existence of a people.
As a “natural” compensation it developed instead a special social system and communal ideology. Through these the Jewish
people was able to exist in foreign countries in a state of judicial autonomy and spiritual independence. In every period
there had been a Jewish community which had been more
successful than others in maintaining self-rule and national
creativity, and it was this community which became the “center” and exercised “hegemony.” In the early Middle Ages it was
Babylon, taking over from the Palestinian “center”; this wasfollowed by Spain and the Rhineland; in the late Middle Agesand the beginning of the Modern Age it was the *Councils of
the Lands of Poland-Lithuania. During the Middle Ages, theJews became a “European” people, and they have remained
one. Dubnow believed that not only was it possible to establish in modern times a regime of internal independence
within the framework of a foreign country, but also that sucha regime would rest on firmer foundations and would be
more highly developed than during the Middle Ages. At thispoint he showed the influence of ideas, prevalent in his time,
for a “State of Nationalities,” which could preserve the unityof the Russian and Austro-Hungarian empires while satisfying the demands for self-rule of the various peoples living inthem. The exceptional situation of the Jewish people during
the Middle Ages could become a rule of life for many peoples
and states in Europe. In this new period of Jewish history, the“center” would be Russian-Polish, with its spiritual strengthand aspirations for self-rule. It was Dubnow’s hope that under
the new conditions Jewish creativity would lose the religious
character which it had acquired in the talmudic period andthe Middle Ages. Yiddish would be the language in which the
new Jewish culture would express itself.
Dubnow’s ideas placed him in strong opposition to both
Zionism and the various forms of assimilation. In the courseof time he became less outspoken in his anti-Zionist attitude
but did not give up his basic stand (cf. the amended and “expurgated” Hebrew version of his “Letters on the Old and the
New Judaism,” 1937, with the original Russian version, 1907).
In a series of articles published during World War I in Novy
Voskhod, he outlined his position on the Jewish problem, demanding an international solution. In Istoriya yevreyskogo
soldata (“History of a Jewish Soldier,” 1918; French, 1929), he
described the tragic situation of a Jew serving in a non-Jewish army.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 635

dubnow, simon
Dubnow took an active part in a number of Jewish activities. In the Society for the Promotion of Culture he joined
the Zionists in their struggle for the establishment of national
Jewish schools. After the *Kishinev pogrom in 1903, he wasamong those who called for an active Jewish self-defense. Opposing the policy of the socialist-Marxist *Bund, he strongly
supported Jewish participation in the elections to the Duma in
1905, established a Jewish section of the Constitutional Democrat party, and asked the Jewish deputies to join it. Dubnow
also took part in the work of the Society for the Full and Equal
Rights of the Jewish People in Russia in 1905, but later seceded
and founded the Jewish People’s Party in 1906. This “Folkist”
party never exercised much influence and was weakened byinternal dissension. It continued to exist until 1918.
The principal source on Dubnow’s life is his autobiography, Kniga moey zhizni. The first two volumes appeared in
Russian (1930–34; partial Heb. trans., 1936; Yid., 1962; Ger.,
1937). A third volume, completed in 1940, was published in
Riga shortly before the German conquest; the entire edition
was destroyed by the Nazis. A single copy, however, rediscovered in 1956, made it possible to publish a new complete
edition in 1957. Portions of Dubnow’s private archives are in
the possession of the Central *Archives for the History of theJewish People in Jerusalem. A festschrift on the occasion ofhis 70t birthday was published in 1930; a memorial volume
appeared in 1954, edited by S. Rawidowicz; and a centenary
volume, edited by A. Steinberg, appeared in 1963 (all threewith bibliographies).
Historian and Political Ideologist
In his youth, Dubnow was influenced by the positivism ofComte and his followers, and especially by the philosophyof J.S. Mill, the “Gospel of Individualism” and the “Absolute
Freedom of Thought and Speech.” For several years Dubnow
remained faithful to the teachings of these masters and attacked Judaism sharply in the name of the individual, of scientific thought, and of liberty.
Subsequently he was captivated by the historical world of
Judaism. In 1887, having gone through a severe physical andspiritual crisis, he began to strive for a synthesis of “my selfacquired general knowledge and my universal aims… withmy inherited treasures of Jewish wisdom and national ideals.” To this synthesis he added a profound knowledge of thelife and history of Russia and Russian Jewry, and a tremendous capacity for the uncovering of obscure sources of Jewish history. There was, too, the influence of Renan and Taine.
Like Taine – who emphasized the importance of petits faits
significatifs, from which the general principles are evolved –Dubnow placed the stress upon detail, which in its true form
can only be found at the source. Both historians taught Dubnow the organic concept of the nation (which they termed“race”), and from Taine, in particular, he took over the ideathat the situation of a people and its aspirations are faithfullyreflected in the spiritual creations of its great men. Renan’s
historical concepts made it easier for Dubnow to change hisadverse criticism of the Jewish religion into a positive evaluation of it as the revelation of the national spirit. “A mixtureof the teachings of Renan and Tolstoy” was “the main elementin his state of mind” when he embarked upon the study ofḤ asidism and of Jesus and the Apostles. In theory Dubnow
always remained a radical individualist, while as a historian,he admired the national unit and the requirements of its life,
though these may put restrictions upon the individual. Again,in theory he was a confirmed rationalist, yet he valued religion and religious movements for their role in serving as thenation’s shield and as the expression of its spirit. In the writingof history, Dubnow preferred describing “objective” processes
and circumstances, based upon a study of detailed events, tothe portrayal of personalities, their feelings, and desires; andhe noted with pride that in later editions of his works “manylyrical passages were omitted.”
Dubnow viewed Jewish history on the assumption thata people is an organism whose life and development depend
upon its environment, the conditions under which it lives, andupon the manner in which it chooses to react to them. “In thecourse of the centuries, the nation passed from the embryonicstage and achieved its own identity… assumed a certain national form, created a state and forfeited it…, the form of thenational type reached its perfection when and, perhaps, because its first statehood was destroyed.” Diaspora, as it were,is a fate preordained for the Jewish people, from the moment
it entered Ereẓ Israel. Even toward the end of his life – on theeve of the destruction of European Jewry in 1939 – Dubnow
restated in precise terms his conviction that “in the view ofhistorism, as opposed to dogmatism, the diaspora was not
only a possibility, but a necessity. A people small in numbers
but great in quality, situated on the crossroads of the giant
nations of Asia and Africa, could not preserve both its stateand its nationality, and had perforce to break the barrel inorder to preserve the wine – and this was the great miracle
in the history of mankind.” From this follows his definitionof the Jewish people as “a people whose home is the entire
world”; and his belief that what is known as Jewry is the result of the growth of a people and its adaptation to the conditions under which it lived; though of a special nature, these do
not transcend the general laws of history. “… Ancient tribes
combine to form a national entity, a state or kingdom. The
kingdom is destroyed and the national entity splits into parts,
which reconstitute as the communities.” Here lies the sourceof the “unbroken chain of autonomy… of Jewish communities everywhere.” Dubnow was convinced that in this respect
the Jewish people was a pioneer of national development far
wider in scope and much earlier in time than many nationsof the 20t century.
As for the religion of Israel, Dubnow held that until the
19t century it was part of Jewish nationalism, a means of selfdefense used by a people which possessed none of the normal
defenses of other nations. When the Jewish people, by virtue
of its belief in monotheism, became a special group within
the pagan (and later Christian) world, having to fight against

36

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Joseph Meisl]dubnow-erlich, sophia
assimilation, its leaders were forced to make use of religion
for the defense of its existence. In the 19t century, however,a Jewish “renaissance” set in, in which, on the one hand, theindividual was liberated, and, on the other hand, there arosea new secular interest in the national life. In the developmentof the Wissenschaft des Judentums in Germany in the 19t
century, Dubnow saw one of the manifestations of the Jewish
renaissance. He went so far as to try to justify the Jewish converts in the period of the *salons (an observation not includedin the Hebrew version of the “World History”). Religion wasa discipline imposed upon the national organism, necessary
only so long as Jewish culture stood isolated, unrelated to theculture of other peoples, i.e., to the time of *Emancipation.
Once Emancipation had taken place, this discipline was nolonger desirable. In Ḥ asidism Dubnow saw a fresh manifestation of the creative power of Jewish religion among East European Jewry, which had preserved tradition and had not yet
entered the era of cooperation with the nations of the world.
Such cooperation would enable Jewry to exist as a European
people with a secular culture, a people destined to remain apermanent minority in the countries of Europe. Basing his
work upon such a concept of history, Dubnow regarded theattempts of Zionism to renew the Jewish State in its ancientland as a pseudo-messianic adventure. He put forth a program for the Jews’ future based on these theories which hecalled *autonomism.
[Haim Hillel Ben-Sasson]

Bibliography: A.S. Steinberg (ed.), Simon Dubnow, the Man
and His Work (1963), 225–51, 254–5 (autobiography); S.W. Baron, History and Jewish Historians (1964), index; I. Friedlaender, Dubnow’s
Theory of Jewish Nationalism (1905); J. Fraenkel, Dubnow, Herzl, andAḥ ad Ha-am (1963); Pinson, in: S. Dubnow, Nationalism and History(19612), 1–65; J. Meisl, in: Soncino-Blaetter, 1 (1925/26), 223–47; idem,
in: Festschrift zum siebzigsten Geburtstag (1930), 266–95; S. Brieman,
Ha-Pulmos bein Lilienblum le-vein Aḥ ad Ha-Am ve-Dubnow ve-haReka shello (1951); B.Z. Dinaburg-Dinur, in: Zion, 1 (1936), 95–128; E.R.
Malachi, in: Sefer Shimon Dubnow (1954); S. Niger, in: YIVOA, 1 (1946),
305–17; S. Goodman, in: Commentary, 30 (1960), 511–5.

DUBNOW, ZE’EV (1858–1940?), *Bilu member. Dubnow,
who was born in Mstislavl, Belorussia, was the elder brotherof Simon *Dubnow, the historian. He tended to assimilationin his youth and became interested in the Russian radical
movement. After the 1881 pogroms he joined Bilu and went
to Ereẓ Israel with its first group in 1882. After working at*Mikveh Israel, Dubnow moved with several friends to Jerusalem, where he was one of the founders of Shaḥ u (Hebrew
initials for the words “return of the craftsmen and the smiths”),
an artisans’ association. In his letters to his brother he expressed the ultimate aim of the Bilu movement: “to acquire
Ereẓ Israel and return to the Jews their political independence.” In 1885 he returned to Mstislavl, “disappointed in thehopes of quick success in settling Ereẓ Israel,” but still “a fervent nationalist in his belief.” He became a teacher, and assisted his brother in examining historical documents. Dubnow remained in contact with the Biluim in Ereẓ Israel and
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

corresponded with them. Eventually he settled in Moscow,
where he died.
Bibliography: A. Druyanov (ed.), Ketavim le-Toledot Ḥ ibbat
Ẓ iyyon, 3 (1932), index; A. Hurwitz, in: He-Avar, 8 (May 1961), 102–5;
I. Klausner, Be-Hitorer Am (1962), index.
[Yehuda Slutsky]

DUBNOWERLICH, SOPHIA (1885–1986), poet, politicalactivist, critic, translator, and memoirist. Born in Mstislavl,
Belarus, she was the eldest child of Ida (Friedlin) and historian Simon *Dubnow. The family moved to Odessa in 1890,
where Sophia entered a gymnasium in 1899; upon graduationin 1902, she studied at the Bestuzhev Higher Courses in St.
Petersburg. Dubnow-Erlich began her foray into the literary
and political worlds in 1904, when her first poem, “Haman
and his Demise,” appeared in the Russian-Jewish weekly Budushchnost’ (Future). This satire of the czar’s minister of interior, Plehve, was immediately confiscated by the censors. Thatsame year, university officials expelled her from her courses
for participating in a student protest. Undeterred, she entered
the history-philology department of St. Petersburg University
in 1905 and later studied comparative religion and the historyof world literature at the Sorbonne (1910–11). Rejoining her
family in Vilna, the hotbed of Jewish politics in the Russian
Empire, Dubnow-Erlich became an active member of the Social Democratic Labor Party and the Jewish Labor Party andan antimilitarist propagandist.
In 1911 Sophia married Henryk *Erlich (1882–1941), a
prominent leader of the leftist Bund in Poland with whom
she worked to promote the ideals of Jewish cultural autonomy
and socialist internationalism. By 1918, the political situation
drove the Dubnow-Erlichs to relocate to Warsaw, where theyremained for over 20 years with their two sons. When Warsaw
fell to the Nazis in 1939, Erlich was arrested by Soviet authorities and Dubnow-Erlich moved her family to Vilna, where
they lived until 1941. She reached the United States in 1942
where she learned of her husband’s death and her father’s murder by the Nazis. Dubnow-Erlich remained politically active
throughout her life, advocating for civil rights and protesting
the Vietnam War. She died in New York City.
Dubnow-Erlich contributed over 50 poems, essays, andtranslations to Russian and Yiddish-language journals andnewspapers. She wrote three volumes of symbolist poetry(Osenniaia svirel’: stikhi, 1911; Mat’, 1918; rep. Tel Aviv, 1969;
and Stikhi raznykh let, 1973); several histories on topics relating to the Bund, including co-editing Di geshikhte fun ‘bund’(5 vols., New York, 1960–81); a biography of her father (TheLife and Work of S.M. Dubnov, transl. J. Vowles, ed. J. Shandler, Bloomington, Indiana, 1991; Russian original, 1950); anda memoir, Khleb i Matsa (“Bread and Matzah,” 1994). Her papers are at YIVO.
Bibliography: G. Ia. Aaronson, “Dubnov-Erlikh, Sofie(March 9, 1885),” in: Leksikon fun der nayer yidisher literatur, 1 (1958),
466–67; C.B. Balin, To Reveal Our Hearts: Jewish Women Writers in
Tsarist Russia (2000), 156–94; K.A. Groberg, “Sophie Dubnov-Erlich,”37

dubossary
in: J.B. Litoff (ed.), European Immigrant Women in the United States: A
Biographical Dictionary (1994); idem, “Dubnov and Dubnova: Intellectual Rapport between Father and Daughter,” in: A. Greenberg and
K. Groberg (eds.), Simon Dubnov 50t Yortsayt Volume (1994).

DUBROVNIK (Ragusa), port in S. Dalmatia, Croatia; oligarchic maritime city-state, autonomous until 1808, mainly
under Venetian or Turkish protectorate. Jewish merchantsfrom Durazzo (Albania) are mentioned in Ragusan archives
in 1368. French Jews living in Apulia (south Italy) after the expulsion from France temporarily resided and traded in Dubrovnik in the second half of the 15t century. After the Spanish expulsion in 1492 Dubrovnik became an important transit
center for refugees traveling to Balkan cities under Turkish
rule. In 1502 there were many refugees staying in Dubrovnik.

When an old woman was found murdered, a dozen of themwere arrested and tortured; several were declared guilty andburnt at the stake.
After the expulsions from Aragonese possessions insouth Italy in 1514 and 1515, many more refugees went to Dubrovnik. Their success in commerce, together with the local clergy’s zeal to have the city follow the example of other
Christian states, resulted in several expulsion decrees (1514,
1515, 1545) which were revoked on the sultan’s intervention.
When wars against Turkey in the second half of the 16t century made the Mediterranean insecure for commerce, trade
was re-routed through the Adriatic to Dubrovnik and thenceby caravan to Turkey. Jews were allowed to settle in Dubrovnik
and were given customs privileges to encourage transit trade.
Jews dealt mainly in textiles, silk, wool, leather (HananelEškenazi, 1 (1958), 264), and spices. They were allowed to live
inside the walls in 1538, but in 1546 a ghetto was established ina small street (still called the Jewish street) enclosed by walls,
and the gate was locked at night. A monthly tax was leviedper person for residence and per bale for storage of wares. The
synagogue is said to date from 1532. The Jewish cemetery was
first mentioned in 1612 when it had to be enlarged; it was stillin use in 1910. Two more streets were added to the ghetto in
1587, when there were 50 Jews in Dubrovnik, some with theirfamilies. Most of the trade with Turkey and much of the transit
trade with Italy was in Jewish hands. At this time some Jewish intellectuals found temporary or permanent refuge there,
such as the physician *Amatus Lusitanus and the humanist
Didacus Pyrrhus. Many Jewish physicians were in the serviceof the republic, which had to obtain from Rome the authorization for them to treat Christians.
The most important Jewish family in the 16t and 17t
centuries was that of *Aaron b. David ha-Kohen; arrivingfrom Florence in the 16t century, they established connections with Sarajevo and Sofia, and also acted as agents formany Jewish traders throughout Europe. To induce more
Jewish merchants to settle in Dubrovnik, the senate issued in
1614 a letter of safe conduct for five years, guaranteeing Jewish merchants freedom from arrest and from seizure of theirwares for payment of previously incurred debts. There was anotorious blood libel in 1622, in which Isaac Yeshurun was accused of murdering a small girl: he stoically maintained his
innocence, but was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment (hewas released after 32 months). As a result of the restrictions
imposed on the Jewish community at the time of this libel,
most Jews left for Venice or Turkey; only four families remained in Dubrovnik, among them that of Aaron b. David haKohen, rabbi of Dubrovnik. The Jewish population increased
again after Aaron had obtained another letter of safe conduct
in 1637. Since many restrictions imposed in 1622 were disregarded, the Church renewed its attacks and obtained fromthe senate the enforcement of several of them. But in many
instances, the senate refused to pass anti-Jewish measures as
Dubrovnik was a Turkish protectorate and the sultans had always protected the Jews.

38

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Carole B. Balin (2nd ed.)]DUBOSSARY, town on the Dniester River, E. Moldova.
Founded at the end of the 18t century as a Russian fortress,
Dubossary developed as a nearby settlement. The inhabitants
were employed in the timber trade and log rafting. Jews tradedin grain, wine, and prunes. They also grew tobacco. There were2,506 Jews living in Dubossary (about 1,000 in the town itself)
and its vicinity, including the towns of Grigoriopol and Ananyev, by 1847. In 1897 there were 5,220 Jews in Dubossary (43of the total population). In April 1882 a pogrom was staged,
and two Jews were killed, and much property was looted anddestroyed. In the beginning of the 20t century the community operated a talmud torah, nine ḥ adarim, and four private
schools. An attempt to resuscitate the *blood libel was made in1903. During the civil war of 1918–20 Jewish *self-defense wasorganized and the community remained relatively free fromthe pogroms that occurred at the time. Thousands of refugees
making their way to Romania in 1920–22 passed through thetown, and many from Dubossary itself also crossed the border. There were 3,630 Jews in Dubossary in 1926 (81 of thetotal population), dropping to 2,198 (total population 4,250)
in 1939. In the 1930s there were about 400 Jewish artisans organized in nine cooperatives, and 227 farmers raising tobacco,while others worked as laborers and clerks.
The Germans occupied Dubossary in mid-July 1941. At
the end of August a ghetto was set up, and on September 1 thetown was annexed to Romanian Transnistria. On September
11, 1941, the Jews were ordered to assemble. By September
28 about 6,000 Jews had been murdered. In September 1943
thousands of Jews were brought to Dubossary from Bessarabia and Moldavia and “liquidated” there. Some managed tojoin the partisans in the neighborhood. After the liberationof Dubossary on August 14, 1944, the Soviet Commission for
Investigation of Nazi Crimes found that about 18,000 Jewish
victims were buried in mass graves near the town. Approximately 100 to 150 survivors returned after the war.
Bibliography: I. Rubin (ed.), Dubossary (Heb., and Yid.,
1965); Dubnow, Hist Russ, 3 (1920), 70–1. Add. Bibliography:
PK.
[Yehuda Slutsky / Shmuel Spector (2nd ed.)]dubrovno
In the 18t century the Jewish population increased; there
were 218 Jews out of a total population of around 6,000. Ragusan archives mention Jewish schools, teachers, weddings,
and a Jewish bookseller; Jews participated in maritime ventures as co-owners of ships that went as far as Scandinavia andAmerica, or supplying loans for equipment of such ships; theyalso played a part in establishing the first maritime insurancecompanies. With the economic decline of Dubrovnik, however, restrictions were imposed on all foreigners. Jews could
not engage in commerce and could only be teachers, physicians, or help in commerce, and some were tax farmers. In
1755 they were again forbidden to live outside the ghetto or toleave it at night. Although it had supported the French against
the Russians, Dubrovnik was annexed in 1808 to the French
vice kingdom of Illyria, which abolished all Jewish disabilities.
When Dubrovnik passed to Austria in 1815, laws applied toJews in Austria became valid in Dubrovnik too; e.g., Jews had
to obtain permission from Vienna to get married. Full emancipation was granted only in 1873. When after World War I Dubrovnik became part of Yugoslavia, the Jewish population had
decreased. There were 308 Jews in 1815, and 250 in 1939.
Holocaust and Contemporary Periods
Dubrovnik was occupied by the Italian army in April 1941; administratively however it belonged to the Independent Croatian State of the Croat quisling Pavelić, whose ustashi wereallowed to persecute Jews. Jewish property was confiscated or
put under “caretakers,” and a few Jews were sent to concentration camps in Croatia. The Italians, however, did not allow
mass deportations, so that many refugees from other partsof Yugoslavia went to Dubrovnik. At the bidding of the Germans, in November 1942, the Italians interned all Jews (750) inGruž and on the island of Lopud, near Dubrovnik. There theyremained until June 1943, when they were transferred to the
big Italian internment camp on Rab in northern Dalmatia, together with most Jews from the Italian-occupied territories in
Yugoslavia. During the brief interregnum in 1943 between thecapitulation of Italy and the German occupation, most of themwere transported by the partisans to the liberated territory on
the mainland. Some joined the Jewish battalion formed on
Rab, and others served as physicians or nurses. The 180–200
Jews who could not leave Rab were taken by the Germans
to extermination camps. After World War II, 28 Jews immigrated to Israel. The Jewish community in Dubrovnik had 31
members in 1969. The rabbi of Dubrovnik served as the chief
rabbi for the regions of southern Dalmatia, Herzegovina, andMontenegro. Services in the old synagogue were held irregularly. During the Yugoslav War of Secession of 1991/2 the synagogue suffered slight damage from artillery shells and its roof
had to be repaired. Ceremonial objects from this synagogue,
built c. 1510, were loaned to New York’s Yeshiva University
in 1964 and returned only in 1988 following a court order. A
small community is now affiliated to the Coordination Committee of Croatian Jewish Communities, headed by Zagreb.
It maintains a museum showing the synagogue artifacts and
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6other items belonging to the past. The well-preserved cemetery contains 200 old gravestones, including that of Rabbi
Jacob Pardo, who died there in 1819.
Bibliography: J. Tadić, Jevreji u Dubrovniku do polovine
XVII. stoljeća (1937); C. Roth, The House of Nasi: Dona Gracia (1948),
85–86; M. Levi, in: Recueil jubilaire en l’honneur de S.A. Rosanes(1933), 47–53 (Sp.); Hananel-Eškenazil, 1 (1958), 39, 110, 199, 335; 2(1960), 264; J. Subak, Judenspanisches aus Salonikki… Ragusa (1906);
Aaron b. David ha-Kohen, Il Processo di Isach Jeshurun, ed. by I.A.
Kaznačić (1882). Add. Bibliography: Zbornik, 1 (1971), Dubrovnik issue; B. Stulli, Zidovi u Dubrovniku (1989).
[Daniel Furman / Zvi Loker (2nd ed.)]DUBROVNO, city in the Vitebsk district, Belarus. Jews are
first mentioned there in 1685. There were 801 Jewish taxpayers in Dubrovno and its environs in 1766. During the 18t century Dubrovno became a center for weaving prayer shawls
in Eastern Europe. Conditions were difficult for the weavers,
who worked on handlooms, and were harshly exploited by themerchants who supplied them with the yarn and afterwardbought their products and marketed them through agents in
Jewish settlements throughout Russia and Galicia, and evenexported them to Western Europe and America. From themid-19t century the industry, which had about 660 workers in 1847, encountered competition from the factories inthe big cities where prayer shawls were woven by machine,
and Jews began to leave the town. The plight of the weaversin Dubrovno aroused the attention of the Jewish community
in Russia. In 1902, the Aktsionernoye Obshchestvo Dneprovskoy Manufaktury (Dnieper Textile Industry Ltd.) was foundedwith the help of the *Jewish Colonization Association (ICA),
which held two-thirds of the shares, the rest being subscribedby wealthy Jews in St. Petersburg and Moscow. A large weaving factory, whose directors, staff, and workers were Jews andwhere Saturday was kept as the day of rest, was established.
Near the factory, a public school and a cooperative store wereopened. Dubrovno was also a center for scribes of Torah
scrolls, phylacteries and mezuzot, who received permission toform a professional union in the early period of Soviet rule.
A trainload of 30,000 phylacteries which had accumulated
in Dubrovno after the war was permitted to be dispatched to
Berlin. The manufacture of prayer shawls ceased in the 1920s.
Around 1930, the weaving factory employed about 1,000 workers, of whom a considerable number were Jews. The community numbered 4,481 in 1847, 4,364 in 1897 (57.5 of the total
population), 3,105 in 1926 (about 39), and 2,119 (21) in 1939.
Dubrovno was the birthplace of the Zionist leader M. *Ussishkin and the brothers *Polyakoff. The Germans occupied thetown on July 16, 1941. Soon the Jews were collected in a ghetto.
In December 1941 the Germans murdered 1,500 Jews. The remaining 300 skilled workers and their families were executedwith the help of Belorussian police in February 1942.
Bibliography: Lurie, in: Voskhod, 9 (1889), 1–8; 10 (1890),
1–16; Zeitlin, in: He-Avar, 6 (1958), 70–72.
[Yehuda Slutsky / Shmuel Spector (2nd ed.)]39

duckesz, eduard
DUCKESZ, EDUARD (Yecheskel; 1868–1944), rabbi andscholar. Duckesz was born in Szelepcsény, Hungary, and studied at the Pressburg (Bratislava) yeshivah. In 1889 he became
rabbi at the Klaus synagogue and dayyan in Altona, Germany. His scholarly efforts were devoted to the history of thethree sister communities Altona, Hamburg, and Wandsbeck(‫)אה"ו‬. He fled to Holland in 1939 but was interned in Westerbork by the Nazis in 1943 and sent to the Auschwitz extermination camp in 1944 where he perished. Among Duckesz’
published works are Ivah le-Moshav, the first volume of whichcontains biographies and tombstone inscriptions of the rabbis
who served in the three communities, with annotations by S.
Buber, and the second, entitled Chachme Ahu, biographies ofthe dayyanim and rabbinical authors of these communities,
partly in German (2 vols., 1903–08); and Zur Geschichte undGenealogie der ersten Familien der hochdeutschen israelitischen
Gemeinden in Hamburg-Altona (1914).
Bibliography: T. Preschel, in: N.Y. Institute of Religious
Jewry, Elleh Ezkerah, 4 (1961), 58–64; H. Schwab, Chachme Ashkenaz (Eng., 1964), 47.

DUDA, VIRGIL (Rubin Leibovici; 1939– ), Romanian
writer. A lawyer by profession, Duda chose a literary careerin the mid-1960s, working also as a producer at the Bucharest Film Studio. After a first volume of short stories, he published several novels demonstrating his remarkable talent forpsychological analysis: Catedrala (“The Cathedral,” 1969),
Anchetatorul apatic (“The Apathetic Interrogator,” 1971), andMăştile (“The Masks,” 1979). The following novels, publishedduring the 1980s, made his reputation as one of the more important Romanian prose writers: Războiul amintirilor (“TheWar of Remembrances,” 1981), which received the prize of theWriters Association); Hărţuiala (“The Harassment,” 1984); andOglinda salvată (“The Saved Mirror,” 1986). Autobiographicalelements going back to his life as a teenager in the Moldavian
town of Bârlad became more obvious in these works. Settlingin Israel in 1988, he continued his literary activity, publishing(in Romania) novels with a preponderance of Jewish themes,
including the impact of the Holocaust and the Communist
period: România, sfârşit de decembrie (“Romania, End of December,” 1991), Alvis şi destinul (“Alvis and the Destiny,” 1993),
A trăi în păcat (“To Live in Sin,” 1996), Viaţă cu efect întârziat(“Life with Belated Effect,” 1998), and Şase femei (“Six Women,”2002). A volume of essays, Evreul ca simbol (“The Jew as a
Symbol,” 2004) includes many subtle reflections on Jewish
intellectuals and writers (Franz Kafka, Isaac Babel, BenjaminFondane, Mihail Sebastian). Duda’s brother, Lucian Raicu, isa well-known Romanian literary critic.

ponents of modern racial antisemitism. He studied economics, law, and philosophy at the University of Berlin. Although
totally blind at 30, Duehring made significant contributions
to philosophy and the theory of national-autarkic economics.
A quarrelsome disposition, however, caused him to give up
academic teaching in 1864. Eventually he developed a pathological aversion to such bêtes noires as academicians, Social
Democrats, and all cosmopolitans, “whether Jews or Greeks.”
He propounded his theories on racial antisemitism in such
scurrilous pieces as his Die Judenfrage als Rassen-Sitten-und
Kultur-Frage (1881), Die Ueberschaetzung Lessings und dessen
Antwaltschaft fuer die Juden (1881), Sache, Leben, und Feinde(1882), Der Ersatz der Religion durch Vollkommeneres und die
Ausscheidung alles Judenthums durch den modernen Voelkergeist (1883). To Duehring, Karl Marx was the personification ofevil, both because of his theories and his race. He had “taken
his system from the Mosaic Law.” Baptism had not prevented
him from associating with his own kin (Sippe), namely “thedescendants of Judas,” in order to form a kind of international“Alliance Israélite.” As to Social Democracy, its aim was to exploit and enslave the people in the interests of Jewry. Duehring had a paramount influence on the development of German antisemitism in the 1880s, whether indirect or active,
and continues to inspire “voelkisch” elements to this day. In
his Der Wert des Lebens (1865), Duehring rejected Zionism forstrengthening Jewish “world power.” Instead he recommended
solving the Jewish question “by killing and extirpation” (durch
Ertoetung und Ausrottung).
Bibliography: F. Engels, Herrn Eugen Duehring’s Umwaelzung der Wissenschaft… (1878) (= Anti-Duehring); E. Silberner, Sozialisten zur Judenfrage… (1962), 150, 155ff.; A. Voelske, Die Entwicklung
des rassischen Anti-semitismus zum Mittelpunkt der Weltanschaung
Eugen Duehrings… (1936). Add. Bibliography: B. Mogge, Rhetorik des Hasses – Eugen Dühring und die Genese seines antisemitischen Wortschatzes (1976); R. Kirchhoff and T.I. Oisermann, 100 Jahre
Anti“Dühring” – Marxismus, Weltanschauung, Wissenschaft (1978).

°DUEHRING, KARL EUGEN (1833–1921), German economist and philosopher, born in Berlin; one of the initial pro-DUEÑAS, city in Castile, central Spain. Its Jewish community began to flourish in the 13t century. In 1221, Ferdinand
III transferred to the monastery of Huelgas near Burgos theJews settled on lands belonging to the monastery in Dueñas.
The first document referring to the Jews of Dueñas is from1225. At the end of the 13t century the Jewish community ofDueñas was one of the smallest in Castile. In 1290 the community paid taxes amounting to 2,427 maravedis. The Jews ofDueñas owned land and vineyards; in 1346, the king’s surgeon
Don Judah, an inhabitant of Dueñas, leased several gardens
belonging to the local church. The community was evidently
impoverished by the Black Death (1348–49), since in 1352 it
paid only 300 maravedis in tax. Among those who engaged in
tax farming in Dueñas were Don Çag Merdohay of Sahagún
and his sons David and Shem Tob (1365). During the Civil
War in Castile, the Jewish quarter of Dueñas was attacked
and sacked, around 1368. The Hebrew chronicler SamuelZarza, who gives this information, writes that the members

40

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: A. Mirodan, Dicţionar neconvenţional al scriitorilor evrei de limbă română II (1997), 180–89; Dicţionarul general
al literaturii române, 2 (2004), 768–70.
[Leon Volovici (2nd ed.)]dueren, isaac ben meirof the community were learned and righteous. Considering
the tax paid, the community remained small in the 15t century. Following the edict ordering Jews and Christians to live
in separate quarters, Ferdinand and Isabella gave instructionsin 1483 that the alcabalá (“indirect taxes”) should not be collected from houses owned by Christians which were situatedin the new Jewish quarter. In May 1492 the Jews of Dueñas
complained that they would not be able to leave the city on
the date fixed by the decree of expulsion, as they were being
hindered in selling their possessions and collecting their debts
and the townspeople kept presenting them with claims datingback for generations.
The Jewish quarter was near the castle.
Bibliography: Baer, Urkunden, index; Suárez Fernández,
Documentos, index; León Tello, in: Instituto Tello Téllez de Meneses,
25 (1966), index. Add. Bibliography: J.M. Lizoain Garrido (ed.),Documentación del Monasterio de las Huelgas de Burgos (1985).

terned in Buchenwald. In July 1941 the remaining Jews weredeported to the death camps. After the war, 15 Jews returned
there, but subsequently left, and Jewish community life was
not resumed.
Bibliography: W. Bruell, Chronik der Stadt Dueren (1895);
Germ Jud, S.V.; A. Kober, Grundbuch des Koelner Judenviertels (1920);
I. Kracauer, Geschichte der Juden in Frankfurt a.M., 1 (1925); Salfeld,
Martyrol; A. Schoop, Quellen zur Rechts- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte
der rheinischen Staedte: Juedische Staedte, 1 (1920); A. Wedell, in: Geschichte der Stadt Duesseldorf… zum 600–jaehrigen Jubilaeum (1888);
H.J. Zimmels, Beitraege zur Geschichte der Juden in Deutschland(1926); Hoeniger-Stern, Judenschreinsbuch. Add. Bibliography:
N. Naor, Erinnerung. Eine Dokumentation ueber die Juedinnen undJuden in Dueren (1994).
[Ze’ev Wilhem Falk]

DUEREN, city near Aachen, Germany. Jews from Dueren
are mentioned in 13t-century records. In 1238 Anselm of Dueren and his wife, Jutta, acquired some property in the Jewish
quarter of Cologne. In 1241 the Jews of Dueren paid ten marks
imperial tax. Judah of Dueren was involved in a famous controversy over a marriage mentioned in a responsum of Meirb. Baruch of Rothenburg. During the second half of the 13t
century Isaac ben Meir *Dueren lived in the city.
The community was annihilated during the Black Death(1348–49), and was not reconstituted until the 19t century. The
modern community, which had its own elementary school,numbered 252 in 1880, 268 in 1905, and 358 in 1933, but was
reduced to 184 in 1939. During Kristallnacht (November 10,1938) the synagogue and community center were burned downby the Nazis. One hundred Jewish men from Dueren were in-

DUEREN, ISAAC BEN MEIR (second half of 13t century),German halakhic authority on the laws of *issur ve-hetter.
Isaac’s surname Dueren derives from the town of that namein Germany. In his youth he studied under Tobias b. Elijah ofVienne in France. The period of Dueren’s activity has hitherto been uncertain owing to the possibility of his having
been confused with other contemporary local scholars of thesame name. His date however can now be determined withsome precision. Not only does Israel Isserlein state (Pesakim
u-Khetavim, no. 215) that *Meir b. Baruch of Rothenburg is
to be regarded as a batrai (“a later authority”) compared withDueren, but the recent discovery that the issur ve-hetter, inwhich Dueren is already referred to as an accepted authority, was written by a disciple of *Perez b. Elijah of Corbeil,
and not, as previously accepted, by *Jeroham b. Meshullam,fixes his dates as the latter part of the 13t century. The statement therefore that he was the teacher of Alexander Suslin
ha-Kohen, the author of the Sefer Aguddah, is erroneous.
Dueren is chiefly known for his Sha’arei Dura (Issur ve-Hetter shel Rabbi Yiẓ ḥ ak mi-Dura, She’arim mi-Dura, Dura, etc.),
which deals with the laws of forbidden food and of menstruant women. This book, based wholly upon the traditions ofGermany and France, became the basis of halakhah in this difficult sector, exerting a decisive influence upon all Ashkenazi
halakhic authorities after him from the Aguddah of Alexander
Suslin ha-Kohen through Terumat ha-Deshen of Israel Isserlein until Torat Ḥ attat of Moses Isserles. The early halakhic
authorities guided themselves by the rule that Isaac was to befollowed in issur ve-hetter even when he was lenient, although
the rule did not apply to terefot (Pesakim u-Khetavim, no. 215).
Sha’arei Dura was first published in Cracow in 1534. Since thenit has been republished ten times with the addition of many
glosses and commentaries by the greatest talmudists in eachgeneration, among them Israel Isserlein, Solomon Luria, Elijah Loans, and Nathan Spiro. These glosses, as well as thoseof the scholars who preceded Israel Isserlein, were sometimes
indiscriminately incorporated into the text, so that it is difficult, without the aid of manuscripts, to determine the original content of the book, a critical edition of which is still lacking. The book was regarded with such sanctity that Ḥ ayyim

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

41[Haim Beinart / Yom Tov Assis (2nd ed.)]DUENNER, JOSEPH Ẓ EVI HIRSCH (1833–1911), rabbi andtalmudist. Duenner was born in Cracow. He studied in theyeshivah there and subsequently at the University of Bonn. In
1862 Duenner was appointed director of the rabbinical seminary in Amsterdam and in 1874 chief rabbi of the Ashkenazi
community there. Regarded as the spiritual leader of Orthodox Jewry in Holland, Duenner nevertheless combined traditional learning with a critico-historical approach. The resultsof his researches and his new interpretations were publishedas glosses to 19 tractates of the Talmud (1896–1929). His main
work is Die Theorien ueber Wesen und Ursprung der Tosephta(1874). Duenner became a supporter of the early movement
for settlement in Ereẓ Israel in consequence of his contacts
with Moses *Hess while studying in Bonn. He later became aleader of the *Mizrachi party.
Bibliography: B. de Vries, in: Shai li-Yshayahu… Wolfsberg (1955), 247–83; idem, in: L. Jung (ed.), Guardians of our Heritage (1958), 337–44; idem, in: L. Jung (ed.), Men of the Spirit (1964),
624–44; Eẓ D, 1 (1958), 652–5.
[Jacob S. Levinger]duesseldorf
b. Bezalel, brother of Judah Loew of Prague, complains about
Moses Isserles’ daring to deviate in his Torat Ḥ attat from theorder of Sha’arei Dura. Another of Dueren’s books, Minhagim
mi-Kol ha-Shanah, was published by Elfenbein (see bibliography). He also wrote tosafot to Gittin and Kiddushin.
Bibliography: J. Freimann, in: Festschrift… D. Hoffmann(1914), 421 n. 4; A. Freimann, in: JJLG, 12 (1918), 244 n.4, 248 n.7,272; Elfenbein, in: REJ, 105 (1940), 107–19; idem, in: Horeb, 10 (1948),
129–84; Ta-Shema, in: Sinai, 64 (1969), 254–7.
[Israel Moses Ta-Shma]DUESSELDORF, city in Germany, capital of North RhineWestphalia. Jews are first mentioned there in 1418; the cemetery of the community then served the whole region of *Berg.
They were expelled from Duesseldorf in 1438. In 1582 permission was granted to one *court Jew to settle there. The community numbered 14 families in 1750 and 24 in 1775. Of thesethe most distinguished was the wealthy *Van Geldern family, one of whose members, the court Jew Joseph (d. 1727) inthe service of the duke of *Juelich-Berg, was head (parnas umanhig) of the Jewish community of the duchy. He donateda synagogue to the community in 1712, where services were
held until 1772. Joseph van Geldern’s son and grandson followed him in these communal offices. During the 19t century
Duesseldorf Jews achieved importance in trade and banking.
The community increased from 315 in 1823 to 5,130 in 1925. A
seminary for Jewish teachers functioned from 1867 to 1874. Leo*Baeck served as district rabbi from 1907 to 1912.
The events of November 10, 1938, were particularly calamitous for the Duesseldorf community since the diplomat
Vom Rath, who had been assassinated by Herschel *Grynszpan
at the German embassy in Paris a few days earlier, was a nativeof Duesseldorf. The main synagogue, built in 1905, and two
Orthodox synagogues were burned down. Seven Jews were
killed or died from the effects of their wounds, and about 70
were injured. In May 1939, 1,831 Jews remained in Duesseldorf,
dropping to 1,400 in 1941. Most were deported to Minsk, Lodz,
Riga, and Theresienstadt. Only 25 Jews remained in Duesseldorf in 1946. The community was reconstituted after the war,and in 1951 the Central Council of Jews in Germany was established in Duesseldorf. The main German Jewish newspaper, the Allgemeine Wochenzeitung der Juden in Deutschland(today Juedische Allgemeine), founded in 1946, was publishedthere until 1985. A synagogue was inaugurated in 1958. The
community numbered 1,585 in 1969. Owing mainly to the immigration of Jews from the Former Soviet Union, the number of community members rose to 7,237 in 2003. A Jewish
elementary school was opened in 1993.

A. Genger (ed.), Aspekte juedischen Lebens in Duesseldorf (1997);
Juden in Duesseldorf (1998); H. Schmidt, Der Elendsweg der Duesseldorfer Juden (2005).
[Zvi Avneri / Stefan Rohrbacher (2nd ed.)]°DUGDALE, BLANCHE ELIZABETH CAMPBELL(1890–1948), British Zionist; a niece of Arthur James *Balfour.
Blanche Dugdale was employed in the British Naval Intelligence Department and became a member of the League of
Nations Union and the British government’s delegation to
the League of Nations Assembly (1932). Described by Chaim
Weizmann as “an ardent, lifelong friend of Zionism,” “Baffy,”
as she was affectionately called, constantly tried to influencecabinet ministers and high commissioners by personal contact and in writing, stressing the justice of the Jewish cause inPalestine. She also addressed public meetings, Zionist conferences, and even World Zionist Congresses and advised Weizmann in his political dealings with the British. From 1940 untila few months before her death she worked daily in the political department of the Jewish Agency. During World War II
she served on various committees to aid Jewish refugees. She
regularly published articles in the Zionist Review and authoreda pamphlet The Balfour Declaration: Origins and Background(1940) and a two-volume biography, Arthur James Balfour(1936). Her diary is preserved in the Weizmann archives inReḥ ovot. Before she died, on May 15, 1948, relatives and friends
told her that the State of Israel had been established. Extracts
from her diaries, covering the period 1936–47, were edited
and published by Norman Rose in 1973. One of the most committed of British “gentile Zionists,” it has been said that she“thought of [Jewish] Palestine as her second country.”
Bibliography: Locker, in: Davar (May 9, 1958). Add. Bibliography: B.E. Dugdale and N. Rose (eds.), Baffy: The Diaries ofBlanche Dugdale, 1936–1947 (1973); ODNB online.
[Josef Fraenkel]

Bibliography: A. Kober, in: Festschrift… Martin Philippson(1916), 293–301; A. Wedell, in: Geschichte der Stadt Duesseldorf… zum
600 jaehrigen Jubileum (1888), 149–254; M. Eschelbacher, Die Synagogengemeinde Duesseldorf, 1904–1929 (1929); FJW (1932–33); B. Postal
and S.H. Abramson, Landmarks of a People… (1962); H. Lachmanski, Duesseldorf und Heinrich Heine… (1893); E.G. Lowenthal, in: Dieneue Synagoge in Duesseldorf (1958), 3–12. Add. Bibliography:°DUHM, BERNHARD (1847–1928), German Protestantbiblical scholar. Born in Bingum on the Ems, East Friesland,
Duhm studied at Goettingen (chiefly under H. Ewald). In 1877
he was appointed professor at Goettingen University and in
1899, at Basle University. His activities in Basle, which included
teaching in secondary schools and lecturing (Das Geheimnis
in der Religion, 1896; Das kommende Reich Gottes, 1912; Eng.
trans., The Evercoming Kingdom of God, 1914), extended beyond the academic sphere. His main works were devoted tothe study of the Prophets. His early work Die Theologie derPropheten… (1875) reflects a somewhat dogmatic understanding of the prophets, whom Duhm regarded as analogous to
the writers and orators of other ancient peoples, in particular
the Greeks. In this work Duhm (simultaneously with Wellhausen, with whom he was friendly) rejects the presupposition of an older “Mosaic” law. His last work on the prophets,
Israels Propheten (1918), is an overall exposition of the Israelite religion, based on his previous exegetical studies in his
commentaries on Isaiah (1892), Jeremiah (1901), and Minor

42

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

duker, abraham gordon
Prophets (1911), all of which contain impressive translations.
His outstanding capacity for understanding the prophets,
especially the irrational aspects of prophetic vision and audition and their subsequent expression, enabled him to set
forth a frequently violent (e.g., in conjectural criticism oftexts), but profound and imposing, portrayal of the prophetic
personalities. Duhm isolated the Servant Songs of Isaiah 40–
55 from Deutero-Isaiah. He proposed the separation of Isaiah 56–66 (as “Trito-Isaiah”) from Isaiah 40–55 and the rejection of the authenticity of Jeremiah’s prose orations. Of lessimportance are his commentaries on Job (1897) and Psalms(1899). The latter work contains exaggerated historical criticism (e.g., he dates most of the psalms to the Hasmonean
period).
Add. Bibliography: W. Thiel, DBI, 1, 310–11.
[Rudolf Smend]

DUISBURG, city in Germany. A small Jewish settlement
existed there from the second half of the 13t century whose
members were massacred in the wake of the *Black Death(1350). No Jews lived there subsequently until the 18t century,
when a few families are mentioned. A few Jewish students
studied medicine at the university between 1708 and 1817. In
1793 there were ten families living in the town, who formed
an organized community. A small synagogue was consecrated
in 1826 and replaced by a more impressive edifice in 1875. The
Jewish population increased during and after World War I asa result of immigration from Poland and Galicia. The community (united with Hamborn) numbered 2,560 in 1933. In
October 1938, 144 Polish Jews were expelled. On Kristallnacht,
the synagogue was set on fire; 40 Jewish homes and 25 stores
were vandalized and 25 Jews were sent to Dachau. In December 1938 Jewish youngsters were sent to Holland on a Kindertransport; some later reached England, where they survived
the war. The remaining 809 Jews were crowded into 11 Jewish
houses from which they were deported in 1941 to ghettos in
the East and later to death camps.
In 1969, 75 Jews lived in Duisburg and Muelheim an derRuhr, which constituted one community. In 1989 the joint
community of Duisburg, Muelheim, and Oberhausen had 118
members; due to the immigration of Jews from the Former
Soviet Union, their number rose to 2,653 in 2003. The new
synagogue, designed by Zvi Hecker and inaugurated in 1999,
is an architectural hallmark of the city.

went to Argentina as a child. In 1966 he settled in Israel andin 1973 returned to Argentina. For many years Dujovne was amember of the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters of the University of Buenos Aires. He published many books, the mostimportant of which are Baruj Spinoza – Su vida, su época, su
obra y su influencia, 4 vols. (1941–44); Martín Buber – sus ideas
religiosas, filosóficas y sociales (1966); La Filosofia y las teorías
científicas (1930); and Teoría de los valores y filosofía de la historia (1959), which received the First National Prize of Argentina. Dujovne also translated into Spanish Dubnow’s History of the Jewish People, Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed,
and works by Ibn Gabirol, Saadiah Gaon, Baḥ ya ibn Paquda,
and others. He was for many years president of the Sociedad
Hebraica Argentina and of the Instituto de Intercambio Cultural Argentino-Israelí as well as editor in chief of the Jewish
weekly, Mundo Israelita.
[Lawrence H. Feigenbaum and Kenneth R. Scholberg]

DUKAS, PAUL (1865–1935), French composer. Born in Paris,
Dukas studied at the Conservatory and taught there from 1909
until his death. In French music, his style formed a bridge
between the school of César Franck and that of Debussy. He
achieved fame in 1897 with his brilliant orchestral scherzo
L’Apprenti sorcier (“The Sorcerer’s Apprentice,” inspired by
Goethe), which, it was later suggested, was actually intended
as a satire on the fashion of “symphonic poems.” The mostimportant of Dukas’ works is the opera Ariane et Barbe-Bleue(1907, with text by Maeterlinck), symbolizing the struggle foremancipation from dictatorship. His other works also include
a symphony, several overtures, the ballet La Péri, chambermusic, and piano works. After 1912, Dukas, who had become
increasingly self-critical, gave up composition almost entirely.
He devoted himself to teaching at the Conservatory. Before
his death he destroyed his unpublished works.
Bibliography: G. Samazeuilh, Un musicien français, PaulDukas (1913); V. d’Indy, Emmanuel Chabrier et Paul Dukas (1920); G.
Favre, Paul Dukas, sa vie, son oeuvre (1948); Riemann-Gurlitt; Baker’s
Biog Dict; Grove’s Dict; MGG.
[Chanan Steinitz]

DUJOVNE, LEON (1899–1984), Argentine lawyer, philosopher, and community leader. Dujovne was born in Russia and

DUKER, ABRAHAM GORDON (1907–1987), U.S. educatorand historian. Duker, who was born in Rypin, Poland, went
to the U.S. in 1923. He served on the library staff at the Jewish
Theological Seminary (1927–33) and was research librarian at
the Graduate School of Jewish Social Work (1934–38). From1938 to 1943 he was on the staff of the American Jewish Committee, serving inter alia as the editor of the Contemporary
Jewish Record (1938–41). He was also an editor of the Universal
Jewish Encyclopedia (1939–43), Reconstructionist, and Jewish
Social Studies, a quarterly. Duker was president of the Chicago
Spertus College of Judaica (1956–62) and from 1963 director oflibraries and professor of history and social institutions at Yeshiva University. His works include education surveys, books,
and articles in his main fields of interest, Polish-Jewish relations and American Jewish sociology.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

43

Bibliography: I.F. Baer, Protokollbuch der Landjudenschaft
des Herzogtums Kleve (1922), 54–55; Kober, in: MGWJ, 75 (1931), 118–27;
Germ Jud (1934, repr. 1963), 90–91; 2 pt. 1 (1968), 178. Add. Bibliography: G. von Roden, Geschichte der Duisburger Juden (1986);
F. Niessalla, K.-H. Keldungs, 1933–1945: Schicksale juedischer Juristen in Duisburg (1993); M. Komorowski, in: Juden im Ruhrgebiet(1999), 541–54.
[Zvi Avneri / Michael Birenbaum and Stefan Rohrbacher (2nd ed.)]dukes, leopold
His books include Jewish Emancipation under Attack: Its
Legal Recession until the Present War (with B. Weinryb, 1942)and Emancipation and Counter Emancipation (with Meir Ben
Hurin, 1974). He also wrote about religious trends in American Jewish life (1949), Jewish community relations (1952), socio-psychological trends in the American Jewish community
since 1900 (1954), and the impact of Zionism on American
Jewry (1958).
[Sefton D. Temkin / Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]DUKES, LEOPOLD (Judah Loeb; 1810–1891), historian ofJewish literature. Dukes was born in Pressburg, Hungary. He
was a student of R. Moses *Sofer and of R. Ḥ ayyim Joseph Pollak; the latter introduced him to secular study. An inveterate,though poor, traveler, Dukes visited most of the important libraries in Europe, researching Jewish manuscripts and uncovering many hitherto unknown medieval works. His researchcovered various aspects of language and literature: aggadic
literature, Bible exegesis, medieval Jewish literature, Hebrew
grammar and the masoretic text, and talmudic maxims andtruisms. Frequently, however, his research was unsystematicand his edited texts in need of correction. Dukes’ translationof Rashi’s Pentateuch commentary into German was publishedwith Sofer’s imprimatur in Prague during 1833–38 (Ḥ amishahḤ umshei Torah im Ha’takah Ashkenazit al Perush Rashi [Raschi zum Pentateuch], 5 vols.). Dukes produced various studies on the poetry of Solomon ibn Gabirol and Moses Ibn Ezra.
His autobiography appears in AZDJ, 56 (1892).
Bibliography: Zeitlin, Bibliotheca, 1 (1891), 69–71; I. Davidson, in: PAAJR, 1 (1928), 43.
[Jacob S. Levinger]

DUKHAN (Heb. ‫“ ;דּ וּכָ ן‬platform”), an elevated platform. According to talmudic literature, the word was used in four instances.
(1) The place in the Temple where the levites sang while
the sacrifice was being offered (Ar. 11b). According to theMishnah (Mid. 2:6), this dukhan was placed upon a step one
cubit high, which was situated between the court of the Israelites and the court of the priests. It had three steps, each half a
cubit high. Hence the height of the dukhan was one and a half
cubits, or, together with the step, two and a half cubits.
(2) The place where the priests stood while reciting the*Priestly Blessing. The Talmud quotes R. Tarfon as saying “Ionce ascended the dukhan [for the Priestly Blessing]” (Kid.
71a). The Mishnah (Tam. 7:2) implies, however, that the priests
stood on the 12 steps between the porch and the altar whenblessing the people and not on the dukhan (cf. Tosef. Sot. 7:7).
The explanation, apparently, is that the steps of the porch werethe main site for the Priestly Blessing, but when there were too
many priests to fit on the steps, the others took up this position on the dukhan (cf. Tiferet Israel on Middot 2:6).
(3) After the destruction of the Temple, the meaning of
the word was extended to apply to the place in the synagogue
where the Priestly Blessing was recited (Shab. 118b; Sot. 38b;

44

et al.), and still later, to the Priestly Blessing itself. Hence thefamiliar phrase “to dukhan” was used for “to recite the Priestly
Blessing.”(4) The platform where teachers sat while teaching children (BB 21a).
393.

Bibliography: S. Krauss, Synagogale Altertuemer (1922),[Jehonatan Etz-Chaim]

DULCEA OF WORMS (d. 1196), wife of R. *Eleazar ben
Judah of Worms. Dulcea came from medieval German Jewry’s elite leadership class. Married to a leading figure in the*Ḥ asidei Ashkenaz, the German-Jewish pietist movement,
she was the economic support for an extensive household,including children, students, and teachers. A capable businesswoman, she was apparently entrusted with the funds ofneighbors which she pooled and lent out at profitable rates ofinterest on which she received commissions. Among R. Eleazar
ben Judah’s surviving writings are two Hebrew accounts, one
in prose and one in poetry, recounting the murders of Dulcea, and their daughters, Bellette and Hannah, by intruders inNovember 1196. Both documents are important sources of information about medieval Jewish women’s activities. Althoughmany scholars have assumed the attackers were Crusaders,
there were no massed Crusader forces in Germany at this time.
While the two miscreants may have worn Crusader markings,
they appear to have attacked the family out of criminal motives,probably prompted by Dulcea’s business reputation. These assaults did not go unpunished; the local authorities, in accordance with the German emperor’s mandate of protecting theJews of his realm, quickly captured and executed at least oneof the men. R. Eleazar’s elegy, an expanded alphabetic acrostic, links numerous details of Dulcea’s domestic, religious, andcommunal endeavors with the praise of the “woman of valor”
in Proverbs 31. R. Eleazar designates Dulcea as ḥ asidah (pious
or saintly) and ẓ adeket (righteous); in addition to noting her
domestic management and business finesse, he praises her
needlework, recounting that she prepared thread and gut to
sew together books, Torah scrolls, and other religious objects.
Unusually learned for a woman of her milieu, Dulcea is said
to have taught other women and led them in prayer. As a respected investment broker, Dulcea may have been involved inarranging matches and negotiating the financial arrangements
which accompanied them. She is also said to have bathed thedead and to have sewn their shrouds, meritorious endeavors
in Jewish tradition. More than anything, R. Eleazar reveres hiswife for facilitating the spiritual activities of the men of herhousehold; the reward he invokes for Dulcea at the conclusionof his lament is to be wrapped in the eternal life of Paradise, atribute to her deeds, on which so many depended.
Bibliography: J.R. Baskin, “Dolce of Worms: The Lives andDeaths of an Exemplary Medieval Jewish Woman and Her Daughters,” in: L. Fine (ed.), Judaism in Practice: From the Middle Ages
through the Early Modern Period (2001), 429–37; idem, “WomenSaints in Judaism: Dolce of Worms,” in: A. Sharma (ed.), WomenENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

dumaSaints in World Religions (2000), 39–69; I.G. Marcus, “Mothers, Martyrs, and Moneymakers: Some Jewish Women in Medieval Europe,”
in: Conservative Judaism, 38:3 (Spring 1986), 34–45.

DUMA, Imperial Russian legislature, in existence between
1906 and 1917. The electoral law establishing the First Dumaincluded no specific restrictions on the Jewish franchise. Although the Jewish socialist parties, and primarily the *Bund,
boycotted the elections to the First Duma, the majority ofJews took an active part, voting for candidates of the Russian
Constitutional Democratic Party (the Kadets). Twelve Jewish
deputies, including five Zionists, were elected: L. *Bramson,
G. *Bruk, M. Chervonenkis, S. Frenkel, G. Jolles, Nissan *Katzenelson, Shemaryahu Levin, *M. *Ostrogorski, S. *Rosenbaum, M. *Sheftel, M. *Vinawer, and B. Yakubson. Nine ofthe deputies were affiliated to the Kadet fraction and three tothe Labor group (Trudoviki). On May 15, 1906, a bill to grantcivil equality to the Jews and repeal all discriminatory legislation on the ground of religion or nationality was brought in.
When news of the pogrom in *Bialystok reached the Duma at

the beginning of June 1906, it sent an investigating commission there. The commission’s report placed the responsibility
for the pogrom on the Russian authorities, and the debate on
this burning issue terminated with the dissolution of the First
Duma by the Russian government in July. The Jewish representatives took part in the subsequent convocation of protest
held by Duma deputies in Vyborg, Finland, and joined insigning the “Vyborg Manifesto,” which called on the Russian
people to register passive resistance by refusing to pay taxes
or enlist in the army. Jews were also among the deputies who
were sentenced to three months’ imprisonment for signing the
manifesto and deprived of their elective rights.
The Second Duma, which met in February 1907, included
only four Jewish deputies, and they were hardly known to theJewish public: S. Abramson, L. Rabinovich, Y. Shapiro – affiliated to the Kadets – and V. *Mandelberg (Siberia), affiliated to
the Social Democrats. The small number of Jewish members
was the result of the organization and activities of the antisemitic groups who opposed the election of Jewish deputies on
principle. Since the Jews were in the minority throughout thecountry they were unable to return Jewish deputies without
the support of the non-Jewish electorate. A bill was laid before the Second Duma by the government abrogating all denominational restrictions in Russia excepting those imposedon the Jews. The premature dissolution of the Second Dumain June 1907 interrupted the debate on the bill.
The Third Duma (1907–12) was returned by a new electoral law which restricted ab initio representation of the national minorities and increased that of the landowners andclergy. It was overwhelmingly composed of right-wing elements. There were two Jewish deputies, N. *Friedman and L.
*Nisselovich. The Jews were constantly attacked, especially byrepresentatives of the extreme right such as Purishkevich andZamyslowsky. A bill to abolish the *Pale of Settlement signedby 166 deputies met with ridicule and abuse from the antisemites. On the other hand, the assassination of Premier Stolypin
and the *Beilis blood libel case provided an opportunity for
scurrilous anti-Jewish attacks. The antisemites also proposed
excluding Jews from the army.
Three Jews were elected to the Fourth Duma (1912–17), N.
Friedman, M. Bomash, and E. Gurewich. A political office wasestablished by a number of non-socialist Jewish parties to assist the Jewish deputies and provide guidance. The members of
this bureau included Y. *Gruenbaum and I. Rosow (Zionists),
S. *Dubnow and M. *Kreinin (Jewish Populist Party, Folkspartei), M. Vinaver and H. *Sliozberg (Jewish Peoples’ Group), L.
Bramson and A. *Braudo (Jewish Democratic Group), and O.
*Grusenberg. During World War I the Jewish deputies wereassigned to counteract the anti-Jewish vilification campaign
spread by the army general staff and the restrictions introduced in its wake. It was on the initiative of the political officethat deputy A. Kerensky paid a visit to the war zone: on his
return he denied the libels from the podium of the Duma. The
political office also appealed to the Duma to protest against
the government memoranda of 1916 which accused the Jews

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

45[Judith R. Baskin (2nd ed.)]DULZIN, ARYE LEIB (1913–1989), Zionist leader and Israeli
politician. Born in Minsk, Belorussia, he immigrated with hisparents to Mexico in 1928, where he was educated and was formany years active in commerce. From 1931 to 1937 he acted
as the honorary general secretary of the Zionist Federationof Mexico and in the years 1938–42 was president of the federation. From 1944 to 1946 he was chairman of the Mexicobranch of the World Jewish Congress and member of the General Zionist Council at the 23rd Zionist Congress in 1951, andat the 24t Zionist Congress in 1961 was elected to the Zionist
Executive of the World Zionist Organization (WZO), as representative of the Union of the General Zionists. He thus became the first Latin-American member. In 1965 Dulzin settled
in Israel, acting as head of the Economic Department of theJewish Agency and later head of the Aliyah and Absorption
Department. From 1968 to 1978 he was treasurer of the Jewish Agency and the WZO and in this capacity traveled widely
throughout the Jewish world to raise funds and to bring themessage of Israel to the Jewish world. In 1970–71 on behalf of
the Liberal Party, he was cabinet minister without portfolio in
the Israeli government but later returned to the Zionist Executive. In 1973–74 and again in 1975 he was acting chairman of
the Jewish Agency and the WZO. He was the president of theWorld Union of the General Zionists, chairman of the Central Actions Committee of the Liberal Party, and a memberof the Likud Executive. Among his many other functions he
was a governor of Bank Leummi, governor of the Land Development Company (Hachsharat ha-Yishuv), member of theboard of directors of Keren Hayesod, president of the IsraelAmerica Society as well as a member of a number of culturaland arts institutions in Israel. In 1978 he was elected chairmanof the Jewish Agency and the WZO.
[Benjamin Jaffe]dumuhof sabotaging the Russian war effort. After the February 1917
Revolution the Jews were granted equal rights and the “Jewish
question” disappeared from the agenda of the Duma.
Bibliography: Y. Maor, in: He-Avar, 7 (1960), 49–90; J.
Frumkin, in: Russian Jewry (1860–1917) (1966), 47–84; Dubnow, Hist
Russ, 3 (1920), 131–42, 153–6.
[Yehuda Slutsky]

DUMUH, village near Cairo, thought to be on the site of theancient Memphis. In the Middle Ages there was an ancientsynagogue called Kanīsat Mūsā after Moses, because according
to legend this was where he lived when he went on his mission
to Pharaoh. Al-Maqrīzī (d. 1442), an Arab historian, mentions
the miracles observed there and writes that the Jews of Egypt
customarily visited the synagogue on Shavuot. Joseph Sambari(17t century) says that they came there on the seventh of Adar,
the anniversary of Moses’ death. Regulations were initiated toensure proper conduct and, especially, that men and womenshould be separated. The leaders of Egyptian Jewry issued appeals for donations for the upkeep of the synagogue.
A 12t-century document reports that the elders of the
Cairo community rented a plot of land in the vicinity of thesynagogue to a Jew who wished to erect a building there so thatthe synagogue would not be isolated. Obadiah of *Bertinoro(end of 15t century) reports that there were two synagogues,
one belonging to the Rabbanite Jews and the other to the Karaites. On Sabbaths and festivals, Jews went specially there to
pray; thus it seems that Jews were still not living there. At the
beginning of 1498 the sultan al-Malik al-Nāṣ ir Muhammad II
ordered that the synagogue should be destroyed and this order was carried out in his presence; the synagogue may havebeen rebuilt, however. Sambari mentions some families who
were named “Dumūhī,” because of their origin.
Bibliography: Mann, Texts, 2 (1935), 206; Ashtor, Toledot,
1 (1944), 245–6; 2 (1951), 385, 503; Assaf, in: Melilah, 1 (1944), 18–25;
Goitein, in: Homenaje a Millás-Vallicrosa, 1 (1954), 718.
[Eliyahu Ashtor]

DUNAJSKA STREDA (Hung. Dunaszerdahely), town located on the largest island of the Danube River in S.W. Slovakia, now Slovak Republic. Towns and villages of the region
had dense Jewish populations and most were supervised by
the Dunajska Streda rabbinate.
The first Jews probably settled in the area around 1700.
Count Palffy granted the community legal rights in a charterof 1739. The Jewish population rose from 16 families in 1700
to 1,874 people in 1880 (44.8 of the entire population) andaround 2,700 in 1930.
From the outset, both the royal treasury and the Palffyfamily burdened the Jews with heavy taxes. The Jews were
occupied in crafts, agriculture, and trade in grain and spirits.
Rabbi Simeon David officiated in the mid-18t century and by
1780 the community already had a second synagogue and such
communal institutions as a ritual bath, kosher butcher, matzah bakery, talmud torah, and primary school (a *Beth Jacob

46

school for girls was opened in the 1920s). The Great Synagogue
was constructed in 1865. The earliest tombstones in the oldcemetery were from 1755. (All Jewish religious installations,with the exception of a small synagogue, were pulled down by
the Communist regime in 1950 and 1960.) In 1780 the Jewish
community of Dunajska Streda was the second largest in the
Hungarian kingdom, after Pressburg (Bratislava).
The community was a center of Orthodoxy and important yeshivot were also located there. Among the celebrated
rabbis who officiated in Dunajska Streda were Alexander Meislisch (1784–1800), David b. Menachem Mendel Deutsch, andJudah b. Israel Aszód.
In the late 1880s there was an outburst of severe antisemitism. After an extended anti-Jewish campaign the synagogue
was set on fire in June 1887. In the same year the Jewish quarter was sacked and hooligans attacked Jews in the street andin their homes. Not until military units were alerted did theattacks stop. In World War I, 220 Jewish men enlisted in thearmy; 46 of them died. During the war a large number of Polish Jews settled in the town. With the end of the war, the town
was hit by another wave of pogroms and robberies.
The Zionists were active in the town along with the Orthodox political bodies. Jews were well represented in themunicipal council, including Jewish members of the Communist Party.
With the entry of the Hungarian army in 1938, persecution increased. Budapest would not forgive Dunajska Streda
Jewry its loyalty to Czechoslovakia. Anti-Jewish laws in existence in Hungary were applied to the conquered territories.
Jews were left with no source of income, and lived on the charity of Hungarian Jewish organizations. In 1940 Jews were recruited into the labor brigades of the Hungarian army, where
many perished. Around 200 Jews who were not able to provetheir Hungarian citizenship were assembled in the late summer of 1942 and deported to the vicinity of Kamenets-Podolski
in Poland, where they were executed by the Germans. During
the years 1942–44 Dunajska Streda was one of the centers for
smuggling Slovakian and Polish Jews into Hungary.
In March 1944 German forces occupied Hungary. A new
wave of persecutions started immediately. On March 29, theproperty of local Jews was sequestered. The community institutions were closed down and in their stead a Judenrat wasorganized. On June 8, all Jews were ordered to assemble in
the Great Synagogue and on June 13–15 around 3,000 weredeported to Auschwitz.
In 1947 there were 404 Jews in Dunajska Streda. In 1948–
49, most of the Jews immigrated to Israel and elsewhere. A
community of around 20 families established regular services
in the small synagogue in the 1990s and the congregation organized social activities, including a yearly memorial service.
The well-known Orientalist Arminius *Vambery (1832–1913) was born in the town.
Bibliography: Magyar Zsidó Lexikon (1929), 208.
[Yeshayahu Jelinek (2nd ed.)]

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

dunash ben labrat°DUNANT, JEAN HENRI (1828–1910), Swiss Protestant philanthropist. Dunant was the founder of the Geneva Convention and the International Red Cross. Among his humanitarian causes was the settlement of Jews in Ereẓ Israel, which heregarded as essential for reviving the Middle East. During theearly 1860s he tried to arouse the interest of Napoleon III andleaders of West European Jewry in his Jewish settlement plan.
He established an association for the colonization of Palestine,
and in a letter to the Jewish Chronicle of December 13, 1867,
described its basic principles: the acquisition of land by the
association; the building of a Jerusalem-Jaffa railroad; and thedevelopment of agriculture “aided by the cooperation of Israelites.” He traveled throughout Europe in an attempt to interest
such personalities as Adolphe Crémieux and Moses Montefiore. Dunant was unsuccessful in his efforts, and his contention was that the indifference of the Jews was to blame. Herzl,
in his closing speech at the First Zionist Congress (1897), referred to Dunant as a Christian Zionist.

ins of Jerusalem. His religious poems include the Sabbath song
Deror yikra and Devai hasser, which has become part of theGrace said after the wedding meal. He also wrote piyyutim as
is clear from the remains of a kerovah for the Day of Atonement and other fragments. A genizah fragment indicates thatten rhymed riddles, previously thought to be the work of Ibn
Gabirol, were written by Dunash. E. Fleischer published ashort poem possibly written by Dunash’s wife when her husband was leaving Andalusia.
Collections of Dunash’s poems were published by D. Kahana in 1894 and by N. Allony in 1947 (see Mirsky, in: KS, 24(1947/48), 16–19; Shir u-Fulmus, ed. by Y. Zmora, 1944); M. Zulay, in Sinai, 29 (1951), 36ff.; E. Fleischer, in Tarbiz, 39 (1970),
33ff., and in Jerusalem Studies in Hebrew Literature, 5 (1984),
189–202; in 1988 C. del Valle published 56 poems by Dunash
with Spanish translation and commentary (El diván poético deDunash ben Labraṭ : la introducción de la métrica árabe).

Dunash as a Poet
It was Dunash who applied the Arabic poetic forms, genres,and meters to Hebrew, adapting them to the biblical language
and thus laying the foundation of medieval Andalusian Hebrew poetry. Though initially there was some opposition in
Córdoba, in the circle of Menahem ben Saruq, the innovation was immediately accepted and developed. Ibn *Gabirol
speaks of Dunash as the greatest poet of his generation andimitates his style in one of his compositions. Only some ofDunash’s poems have been discovered and a few of them are
known only by the lines quoted in his philological work. As
was common at the time, his secular poems include panegyrics (in honor of Ḥ isdai ibn Shaprut and other Jewish notables), songs of friendship and love, with praise to nature, thegood life, and wine, and also didactic and wisdom poetry. The
ambivalence of Jewish life in a Muslim atmosphere left deep
traces in his verses. He expressed his sadness for the situationof his people, among Muslims and Christians, and for the ru-

Dunash as a Linguist
When Dunash arrived in Córdoba, *Menahem b. Jacob ibn
Saruq, Ḥ isdai ibn Shaprut’s secretary, was working on his
dictionary of Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic in Hebrew, theMaḥ beret. Dunash, worried about some possibly heterodox
interpretations and dissenting from him in basic grammatical views, wrote some replies against Menahem and presented them, with praise and thanks, to Ḥ isdai (shortly after 958). The grammatical and lexical study of the languageof the Bible became for Menahem and Dunash a passionate
question that gave rise to one of the hottest debates that took
place in the Middle Ages. Dunash claimed to have disputed
200 items, but in the text which has been preserved there are
180 entries. Sixty-eight are included in the poem Le-doreshha-ḥ okhmot which is explained by parallel prose paragraphs,
a literary form borrowed from technical Arabic literature.
Many of Dunash’s comments deal with those grammatical or
lexical explanations which, in his opinion, are likely to leadto error in matters of halakhah and belief. This religious factor may explain the severity of his attack. From our perspective, it is not easy to understand that the meaning of a wordor its appropriate grammatical classification could give rise
to such vicious and scornful attacks. But it was not a merequestion of words: upon this discussion depended the entire
Jewish conception of God and his relation to the world, theway of understanding the moral obligations of mankind, andthe confirmation of rabbinic tradition over sectarian views.
Therefore, his could not be just a cold and objective science.
For Dunash the meaning of the biblical text and theology
could never be at odds. In some cases Dunash criticized interpretations of his adversaries which seemed to be close to
Karaism. Though Menahem was relieved of his position as aresult of accusations of heresy, there is no proof that Dunash
deliberately caused his downfall or that he benefited from it in
any way. Three of Menahem’s students, Ibn Kapron, Isaac ibn
Gikatilla (Ibn Janaḥ ’s teacher), and Judah Ḥ ayyuj, came out
against Dunash though Ḥ isdai was still alive. They wrote re-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

47

Bibliography: Die Welt, 1:22 (1897), 6f.; N. Sokolow, History of Zionism, 2 (1919), 259–61, 265–7; A. François, Aspects d’Henri
Dunant: le bonapartiste, l’affairiste, le sioniste (1948).
[Getzel Kressel]

DUNASH BEN LABRAT (mid-tenth century), Hebrew poet,
linguist, and exegete. Most medieval scholars believed that heand Adonim ha-Levi were the same person. Moses Ibn Ezra
described him as a Baghdadi by origin and a man of Fez by
education. He could have been born around 925, in Baghdad
or in Fez, and was one of the last students of *Saadiah in Baghdad. After the death of his master (942) he established himself first in Fez and later on in Córdoba, where he was teaching around 960. Some years later, after having had problems
with *Ḥ isdai ibn Shaprut, he abandoned Andalusia; in 985 hewrote a poem in honor of a prominent Andalusian Jew. We
have no more concrete references about the rest of his life or
about his death.

dunash ibn tamimsponsa dealing with 50 items, which imitated Dunash’s poemin their form. Dunash’s student, *Yehudi b. Sheshet, answered
sharply in the same manner. Rashi, who knew of the argument
between the school of Menahem and the school of Dunash,
quotes Dunash about 20 times, and many more times Menahem. R. Tam wrote “decisions” on the disagreements between Dunash and Menahem, and Joseph Kimḥ i, in his Sefer
ha-Galui, wrote against these decisions in favor of Dunash.
Although Dunash was correct in many of the points underdiscussion, his grammatical method is no more advanced
than that of Menahem. Both shared, for example, the search
for the “bases” of Hebrew words and verbs, a set of firm consonants very different from the diachronic concept of “root”
used in later philology. However, while Menahem rejected
for ideological reasons the comparison of Hebrew with otherlanguages, Dunash accepted the comparatist method, in particular in relation to Arabic.
The book Teshuvot ‘al Rav Sa’adyah Ga’on (“Responsa
on R. Saadiah Gaon”) is also attributed to Dunash, but manyscholars doubt if he was the author, since it is written in prose
full of Arabisms and, moreover, dissents on several points
from the opinion of Dunash in his dispute with Menahem andrecognizes that hollow roots are also triliteral. There are some
who believe that Dunash wrote this work when an old man,
perhaps after being influenced by Ḥ ayyuj, whom all consider
to be the founder of the new method in Hebrew grammar.
Dunash’s responsa were edited by Filipowski in 1855, andin a critical edition with new materials by A. Sáenz-Badillos
in 1980; the arguments, written in verse by students of Menahem and Dunash, were edited by S.G. Stern (1870); S. Benavente published the answers of the students of Menahem(1986); the replies by Yehudi ben Sheshet were published by
E. Varela (1981); the Teshuvot ‘al Rav Sa’adyah Ga’on, by R.
Shroeter (1866).

Bibliography: W. Bacher, Die hebraeische Sprachwissenschaft… (1892), 27–33; idem, in: ZDMG, 49 (1895), 367–86; idem, in:
MGWJ, 46 (1902), 478–80; H. Hirschfield, Literary History of Hebrew
Grammarians and Lexicographers (1926), 26–31; Davidson, Oẓ ar, 4(1933), 378; Englander, in: HUCA, 7 (1930), 399–437; 11 (1936), 369–89;
12–13 (1937–38), 505–21; Brody, in: Sefer ha-Yovel… S. Krauss (1936),
117–26; Yellin, ibid., 127–35; idem, in: Sefer Zikkaron… Gulak ve-Klein(1942), 105, 114; idem, Toledot Hitpatteḥ ut ha-Dikduk ha-Ivri (1945),
67–93; D. Herzog, in: Saadya Studies, ed. by E.J. Rosenthal (1943),
26–46; N. Allony, in: JQR, 36 (1945), 141–6; idem, in: Leshonenu, 15(1946/47), 161–72; idem, in: Dunash ben Labrat, Shirim (1946), 5–46
(introd.); idem, Torat ha-Mishkalim (1951). Add. Bibliography:
E. Ashtor, The Jews of Moslem Spain, 1 (1973), 252ff.; SchirmannFleischer, The History of Hebrew Poetry in Muslim Spain (Heb., 1995),
119–143; A. Sáenz-Badillos and J. Targarona, Gramáticos Hebreos deal-Andalus (Siglos X–XII). Filología y Biblia (1988), 39–89; idem, Los
judíos de Sefarad ante la Biblia (1996), 55–76; A. Sáenz-Badillos, in:
M. Saebo et al. (eds.), Hebrew Bible. Old Testament. The History of Its
Interpretation. Vol. 1, Part 2 (2000), 96–109.
[Chaim M. Rabin / Angel Sáenz-Badillos (2nd ed.)]Dunash as an Exegete
Dunash did not write complete commentaries to biblicalbooks, but practiced, like Menahem, a kind of grammaticalanalysis that was a true literal exegesis. For Dunash philology
was not an end in itself, it was an instrument for the adequate
comprehension of the Bible, the only correct way of interpreting the Scriptures. Dunash was very respectful toward theinterpretations of the Targum and the Masorah, remaining
faithful to the literal meaning of the text. This did not mean
disregarding the fact that the Scriptures uses metaphors andanalogies that should be understood as such, above all in thecase of the anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms in
Scripture. Dunash applied linguistic knowledge to the interpretation of the Scriptures, complementing it with “the 13 rules
by which most of the precepts, laws, norms, and instructions
are governed and measured.” He made moderate use of themethods of permutation or metathesis applied by some traditional interpreters, and continued the comparative methods
initiated by Saadiah and other grammarians in North Africa inorder to understand the most difficult words of the Bible.

DUNASH IBN TAMIM (c. 890–after 955/6), North African
scholar, known also as Adonim, the Hebrew form of Dunash, and by the Arabic surname Abu Sahl. (The descriptive
adjective shaflagi appended to his name by Moses *Ibn Ezra
is inexplicable.) Dunash was from Kairouan, and studied with
Isaac *Israeli, to whom he undoubtedly owed the greater partof his intellectual development. The philosophical and theological parts of his commentary on the Sefer *Yeẓ irah reflect
the neoplatonism of Israeli’s philosophical thinking. Dunash
probably also received from Israeli his medical knowledge,
displayed authoritatively especially in the last pages of hiscommentary. Dunash also demonstrates a thorough knowledge of certain theories of Arabic grammar, chiefly theories of phonetics. In addition to astronomy, of which he had
made a special study, this commentary shows that he hadread treatises derived from Greek sources on physics andthe natural sciences. Dunash is thought to be the author ofseveral works (all probably in Arabic). The following three
are no longer extant: (1) a comparative study of Arabic andHebrew, in which the author tries to prove the antiquity ofHebrew, and which is mentioned or quoted by Judah *Ibn
Bal’am, Abu Ibrahim Isak *Ibn Barun, Moses *Ibn Ezra, andAbraham *Ibn Ezra, but in deprecatory terms; (2) a book on
Indian calculus, probably bearing the title Ḥ isab al-Gubar;and (3) a treatise on astronomy in three parts (structure of
the spheres, mathematical astronomy, and astrology, probably critical). The last was written at the request of *Ḥ isdai ibn
Shaprut; another edition or copy was dedicated by Dunash
to the Fatimid caliph al-Mansur Ismail ibn al Qayyim. Extant
in manuscript is a treatise on the armillary sphere, an astronomical instrument, dedicated to a high Fatimid dignitary
and written in Arabic characters (as opposed to other Arabic writings in Hebrew script; Hagia Sophia Ms. 4861). There
are vague allusions to a commentary on the first chapter ofGenesis. The Arab physician Ibn al-Baytar (d. 1248) refers to48

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

dunedina medical work by Dunash, and there are other references toa “Book on Urine” as well.
The commentary on the Sefer Yeẓ irah, mentioned above,
was written in 955/6. Attempts made to attribute this work to
Isaac Israeli or Jacob b. Nissim may be disregarded. To date,
the Cairo Genizah has yielded only about one-third of the
Arabic original of this text; it has been preserved fully in four
Hebrew versions: the first by Nahum ha-Ma’aravi (c. 1240);
the second by Moses b. Joseph b. Moses (somewhat earlier),
based on the complete Arabic editions; the third by an anonymous author, probably of the 14t century, from a shorter Arabic text of perhaps the mid-11t century; and the fourth byanother anonymous author of unknown date, from an Arabic
abridgment, possibly of 1092.
Dunash’s exegetical method in Sefer Yeẓ irah is scientific.
He succeeded in incorporating in his commentary much of
the knowledge of his day without losing sight of the influence of philosophic and scientific truths on religion. He dealt
with such truths as an incorporeal God, creator of a perfectly
regulated universe, a hierarchy of souls of the spheres, andprophetic inspiration, said to coincide in its highest degree,
as in the case of Moses, with Plotinian ecstasy. Dunash did
not hesitate to criticize *Saadiah Gaon’s commentary on the
Sefer Yeẓ irah; however, these criticisms have been attenuated or suppressed in some of the Hebrew versions. Dunash’scommentary enjoyed some renown in the 12t century when
*Judah b. Barzillai, Joseph ibn *Ẓ addik, and perhaps *Judah
Halevi made use of it. It is mentioned several times in the 13t
century, particularly by Abraham *Abulafia; it was copied withslight alterations c. 1370 by Samuel ibn Motot, and traces of
it are found among 15t-century authors, such as Ẓ emaḥ Duran, Isaac Halayo (unpublished sermons on the Song of Songs,
Paris, Ms. Heb. 228), and *Moses b. Jacob (Oẓ ar Adonai, Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms. Opp. 556). However, Dunash’s
work, like that of Isaac Israeli, his teacher, played only a secondary role in the history of Jewish thought.

chorus and orchestra, a Requiem for reciter and quintet, andone work for jazz orchestra, the Rhapsody on Song-Themes of
the Peoples of the U.S.S.R. (1931). Among his operettas were
The Golden Valley (1934) and The Road to Happiness (1939).
His 12 scores for films include Circus (1935) and Volga-Volga(1938) which made a permanent contribution to Soviet popular song. For a time after 1933 he experimented with jazz idioms. He was awarded the Stalin Prize in 1941. Dunayevski diedin Moscow, and the collection Vystupleniya, statyi, pisma, vospominaniya (“Appearances, Articles, Letters, Memoirs”) was
published posthumously in 1961.

Bibliography: Poznański, in: Zikkaron le-Harkavy (1903),
190–2; H. Malter, Saadia Gaon, His Life and Works (1921), index; Vajda,
in: REJ, 105 (1939), 132–140; 107 (1946–47), 99–156; 110 (1949–50),
67–92; 112 (1953), 5–33; 113 (1954), 37–61; 119 (1961), 159–61; Goldziher,
ibid., 52 (1906), 187–90; G. Vajda, in: Annuaire de l’Institut de Philologie et d’Histoire Orientale et Slaves, 13 (1953), 641–52; Stern, in: Homenaje a Millás Vallicrosa, 2 (1956), 373–82 (Eng.); A. Altmann and S.M.
Stern (eds.), Isaac Israeli (1958), index; Baron, Social2, index.

Bibliography: Kamenetz-Podolsk u-Sevivatah (1965), 103–52;
Z. Scharfstein, Hayah Aviv ba-Areẓ (1953), 11–163.

Bibliography: L. Danilevich, I.O. Dunayevski (1947); I.
Nestyev, in: Sovetskaya Muzyka, 19: 11 (1955), 35–48; L.V. Mikheyeva,
I.O. Dunayevski, 1900–1955: kratki ocherk zhizni i tvorchestva (1963).

DUNAYEVTSY, town in Khmelnitski district, Ukraine. The
Jewish community numbered 1,129 in 1765, but by 1775 was
reduced to 484 as a result of the *Haidamak uprising of 1768.
From the beginning of the 19t century many Jews found employment as workers, dyers, and traders in the flourishing textile industry there. Dunayevtsy was the scene of a trial lastingfrom 1838 to 1840 in which a number of Jews were accusedof the murder of two informers. The Jewish population numbered 2,020 in 1847 and approximately 10,000 before the outbreak of World War I (about two-thirds of the total population). Dunayevtsy became known as a center of Hebrew andZionist literary and educational activity. The scholars andwriters Yeḥ ezkel *Kaufmann, Ẓ evi *Scharfstein, S.L. *Blank,
and Abraham *Rosen were born and educated there. After theestablishment of Soviet rule the town became impoverished.
Many Jews immigrated or moved to the cities of the Russianinterior. There were 5,186 Jews in Dunayevtsy in 1926 (60.5
of the total), dropping to 4,478 (68.23 of the total) before
World War II. The Germans occupied Dunayevtsy on July
11, 1941. They concentrated the Jews into a ghetto. On May 2,
1942, about 3,000 were murdered by the Nazis.

[Yehuda Slutsky]

DUNAYEVSKI, ISAAC OSIPOVICH (1900–1955), Soviet
Russian composer. Born at Lokhvitsa, near Poltava, Ukraine,
he began to learn the piano at the age of four and studied at
the Kharkov Conservatory, with Joseph *Achron. In 1919 hesettled in Leningrad. Dunayevski was one of the leading popular composers of Soviet Russia, and in 1937 was made presidentof the Union of Soviet Composers. His works include light operas, dance music, songs, choruses, and incidental music toplays and films, as well as a string quartet, a Song of Stalin for

DUNEDIN, city in Otago, New Zealand. Five Jewish families
had settled in Dunedin, the most southern Jewish community
in the world, before the discovery of gold in Otago in 1861. In
1862, the congregation had a membership of 43, including thepoet and novelist Benjamin *Farjeon. Jacob *Saphir of Jerusalem, then visiting Dunedin, wrote a megillah for reading on
Purim. The first synagogue was consecrated in 1864. A numberof congregational activities were initiated while B. Lichenstein
was minister, from 1875 to 1892. A synagogue was built in 1881.
From 1884 D.E. Theomin headed the community for almost
30 years. Wolf Heinemann, professor and examiner in German and Hebrew at Otago University from 1895, lectured in
the synagogue and founded the Dunedin Zionist Society in
1905. Other ministers included A.T. Chodowski, who offici-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

49[Georges Vajda]

Dunkelman, Benjaminated from 1898 to 1909 and later founded the Australian Jewish
Chronicle, and A. Astor (1926–30). Although a small community, it produced four notable members of the legislature – Sir
Julius *Vogel, Samuel Shrimski, Bendix Hallenstein, and Mark
Cohen. In the present century it dwindled and numbered only
100 in 1968 and about the same number in 2004.
Bibliography: L.M. Goldman, History of the Jews in New
Zealand (1958), index; Journal and Proceedings of the Australian Jewish
Historical Society, 1 (1943), 154–60; 2 (1948), 202–12, 269–80, 394–400;
New Zealand Jewish Review and Communal Directory (1931), 19, 47,
69. Add. Bibliography: S. Levine, The New Zealand Jewish Community (1999), index; JYB 2004.
[Maurice S. Pitt]

DUNKELMAN, BENJAMIN (1913–1997), Canadian manufacturer and volunteer soldier in World War II and Israel’s
War of Independence. Dunkelman was born in Toronto. His
father, David, was a wealthy Toronto clothing manufacturer
and retailer and his mother, Rose Miller (see *Dunkelman,
Rose), was a leading figure in Canadian Hadassah. After finishing at Toronto’s elite Upper Canada College, he visited Palestine in 1932 as a teenager and worked for several months at
Tel Asher, with the intention of joining a kibbutz. He returned
again in 1935 hoping to stay on and establish a new settlement
but returned to Canada and in 1939 – believing that he hada personal score to settle with the Nazis – tried to join theRoyal Canadian Navy. Rejected, he enlisted in the Canadian
Army and served in combat with great distinction, earning theprestigious Distinguished Service Order as a company commander in the Queen’s Own Rifles for, among other achievements, leading his men under fire through the heavily mined
Hochwald forest. He was recognized as an expert in mortars.
Arriving back in Palestine in April 1948, Dunkelman joined
Haganah forces battling on the roads to keep Jerusalem supplied and commanded one of the units in the fight for control
of Galilee. Troops under his command captured Nazareth. He
also organized and trained a heavy mortar support brigade.
He returned to Canada after Israel’s War of Independence andtook over the family clothing manufacturing business. In Toronto he was active also in many Jewish and non-Jewish organizations and later wrote a revealing autobiography, Dual Allegiance: An Autobiography (1976), which reflects the tension hefelt between his commitment both to Israel and Canada.

right manner she was partly responsible for making the organization an independent and powerful Canadian Zionist
force during the interwar and immediate postwar years. At
her Toronto home and summer estate, “Sunnybrook Farm,”she often entertained visiting Zionist leaders who kept her
informed of unfolding events in Palestine. Outraged by theexclusion of Jews from nearby vacation resorts, she founded
Balfour Beach on Lake Simcoe north of Toronto, where she
had 30 cottages built which welcomed Jewish vacationers. A
veritable whirlwind of energy and activity, she also worked for
the Canadian Red Cross and was awarded the King’s Coronation Medal in 1937. Miffed by the anti-Zionist editorials in theToronto-based Canadian Jewish Review, in 1931, together withher husband, she founded the Canadian Jewish Standard, andrecruited the talented Meyer *Weisgal, who briefly served as
editor. This monthly magazine reflected her deep commitment
to the Zionist cause. When she died in 1949 Rose Dunkelman
was buried in Israel at *Deganyah Alef. Her son, Benjamin*Dunkelman, fought in Israel’s War of Independence.
[Gerald Tulchinsky (2nd ed.)]DUNKELMAN, ROSE (1889–1949), Canadian Jewish communal leader and philanthropist. Rose Dunkelman (Miller)
was born in Philadelphia and moved to Toronto at age 13. She
married David Dunkelman, a major Toronto clothing manufacturer, in 1910. They had six children. Rose Dunkelman
was a formidable force in a number of Jewish causes, including the Toronto Talmud Torah and Hebrew Free Schools, theToronto YMHA and YWHA, and the Jewish Federated Charities. A passionate Zionist, however, her prime organizational
focus was in support of Canadian Hadassah and in her forth-°DUNS SCOTUS, JOHN (1265–1308), Catholic theologianand philosopher. Scotus opposed many of the views of Thomas*Aquinas. Against Aquinas he affirmed the limitations of philosophy, and argued that the will is superior to the intellect,
because the will is free while the intellect is bound by necessity, insofar as one is constrained to believe what the intellectrecognizes to be true. He objected to Aquinas’ contention that
attributes are applied analogically to man and God, holdingthat if man is to know anything at all about God, the attributes
applied to God and man must, in some sense, be univocal.
He affirmed the existence of individualized forms, maintaining that every object has its own unique form, its “thisness”(haecceitas), which differentiates it from other objects. Scotus is known for his support of the forcible baptism of Jewish
children, and his contention that a sovereign has the right tohave Jewish children educated in the Christian faith withoutparental consent. In this he opposed Aquinas who had argued
against forcible baptism on the ground that it violates the rightof parenthood which is a principle of natural law. Scotus heldthat conversion supersedes natural law, for nothing should
stand in the way of enabling man to achieve eternal salvation.
In the case of conflict between the right of parenthood andthe will of God, the right of parenthood ceases to be binding. He did maintain that forcible baptism, when carried out
by a private individual, violates natural law; however, when
carried out by a sovereign it is legitimate (L. Wadding (ed.),Opera Omnia, 8 (1639), 275).
In a polemical passage directed against infidels Scotus characterized the Jews in exactly the same terms as had
Aquinas: the laws of the Old Testament have become “tasteless” (insipidi) with the appearance of Christ (Opus Oxoniense
Prolog., pt. 2, in Opera, 1 (1951), 71ff.). His negative attitude
toward Judaism did not prevent Scotus from utilizing theviews of Solomon ibn *Gabirol, author of Fons Vitae (Mekor

50

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Gerald Tulchinsky (2nd ed.)]dura-europosḤ ayyim; “The Fountain of Life”), whom he knew under thename of Avicebron, and did not identify as a Jew, and *Maimonides. He defended Ibn Gabirol’s theory that even spiritual beings are composed of form and matter, a view which
was traditionally upheld by the Franciscans and rejected by
the Dominicans. Scotus refers to Maimonides’ discussion of
the relation of reason and revelation, and to his doctrine of
divine attributes, which he finds similar to that of Avicenna,and follows Maimonides in his doctrine of prophecy. He argues against the view that the temporal creation of the world
cannot be proved – a view which Aquinas adopted from Maimonides – but does not mention Maimonides in this connection. While there are no direct references to Scotus in theirwritings it had recently been suggested that Scotus and his
school exerted an influence on late medieval Jewish philosophers. Thus reflections of Scotus’ theory of individuation arefound in Ma’amar ha-Dan ba-Ẓ urot ha-Peratiyyot o Ishiyyot(“A Treatise Upon Personal Forms,” Paris Bibliothèque Nationale, Ms. Heb. 984) written by *Jedaiah ha-Penini. *Levi b.
Gershom, in his view that man’s freedom of the will is a deviation from the determinism that prevails in the universe, andin his rejection of negative attributes, appears to have been
influenced by Scotus. There are distinct similarities to Scotusin Ḥ asdai *Crescas’ criticism of the physical proofs of God’s
existence, in his theory of divine attributes, and in his seeing
a compulsory element in the activity of the intellect. (For further details on Scotus’ influence on Jewish philosophy, see S.
Pines, in PIASH, 1 (1967), 1–51.)
Bibliography: E. Gilson, History of Christian Philosophy in
the Middle Ages (1955), 454–71; idem, Jean Duns Scot. Introduction à
ses positions fondamentales (1952); F. Copleston, A History of Philosophy, 2 pt. 2 (1962), 199–275; idem, Medieval Philosophy (1952), 107–17;
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2 (1967), 427–36; JE, 5 (1907), 14–15; J.
Guttmann, Die Scholastik des dreizehnten Jahrhunderts in ihren Beziehungen zum Judenthum und zur juedischen Literatur (1902), 154–67.
Add. Bibliography: E. Bettoni, Duns Scotus (1961); J.K. Ryan and
M.M. Bonansea (eds.), John Duns Scotus 1265–1965 (1965).

has increased the knowledge of the Aramaic of the Book of
Ezra and of the culture of the Jews of Egypt in the Persian
period. His other published works include La doctrine gnostique de la lettre “Waw” d’après une lamelle araméene inédite
(1946), Les inscriptions araméennes de Sfiré (1958), and Observations sur le commentaire d’Habacuc découvert près de la
Mer Morte (1950).
[Zev Garber]

DU PRÉ, JACQUELINE (1945–1987), British cellist. Du Pre
was born in Oxford and began studying the cello at the age ofsix. In 1968, she graduated from the Guildhall School of Music, London, with a gold medal, then studied with Tortelier(in Paris), with Casals, and with Rostropovich (in Moscow).
After her London debut at the Wigmore Hall (March 1961),
she steadily acquired an international reputation as one of themost naturally gifted musicians England has ever produced.
In 1967, she met Daniel *Barenboim, the Israeli pianist, andthey were married in June of that year after her conversion to
Judaism (she was previously an Anglican). She and her husband made many tours together and performed frequently allover Israel, playing chamber music with Itzchak *Perlman andPinchas *Zuckerman and appearing in concerts with conductor Zubin *Mehta. In 1973, however, her career tragically ended
when she was stricken by multiple sclerosis.
[Max Loppert (2nd ed.)]DUQUE, SIMON DAVID (1897–1945), one of the last twoḥ azzanim of the Portuguese Synagogue of Amsterdam, Holland. Born in Amsterdam, Duque was appointed ḥ azzan in
1923. He was chosen from among three candidates because of
his adherence to the Amsterdam tradition. He also aimed at
an operatic style and had a beautiful voice. Among his many
moving ḥ azzanut features are his Kedushah for Sabbath Musafand Ve-Hu Raḥ um for the evening service. His falsetto was famous. He was deported by the Nazi occupiers of Holland anddied at the Dachau concentration camp.
[Amnon Shiloah (2nd ed.)]°DUPONTSOMMER, ANDRÉ (1900–1983), French Bible
scholar. Dupont-Sommer was director of studies at the Ecoledes Hautes Etudes from 1938, professor at the Sorbonne from1945, professor of Hebrew and Aramaic at the Collège deFrance from 1963, and president of the Institut d’Etudes Sémitiques of the University of Paris from 1952. He undertook archaeological excavations in the Near East from 1925 to 1934.
Dupont-Sommer was one of the first interpreters of the
Dead Sea Scrolls. He published many articles and a numberof books on them, including three that have been translated
into English under the titles The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Preliminary Survey (1952), The Jewish Sect of Qumran and the Essenes(1954), and The Essene Writings from Qumran (1961). His Les
Araméens (1949) is an outstanding contribution on the Arameans. His publication of an important collection of several
hundred Aramaic ostraca discovered in the French excavations at Elephantine, conducted by C. Clermont-Ganneau,

DURAEUROPOS, ancient city on the Euphrates River in
Syria. It was long known from the writings of the first-century geographer Isidore of Charax/Bosra, but its exact whereabouts, a site known as el-Ṣ alihiye, was discovered only accidentally by a British patrol in the aftermath of World War I
while they were digging military installations. A brief excavation was conducted at the site by F. Cumont in 1922–23. A
major Franco-American expedition carried out work at thesite between the years 1928–37. The city was founded in about
300 B.C.E. by Seleucus I Nicator. It served as a transfer post
where goods brought up the river from India were put on camels and carried to Palmyra and the Mediterranean. Dura-Europos was taken by the Parthians in 114 B.C.E. but it retained
its autonomy and Greek character. After being held briefly by
the Romans at the time of Trajan in 116 C.E., it was restored
to the Parthians in 118 C.E., and captured once again by the

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 651

dura-europos
Romans in Lucius Verus’ campaign of 168 C.E. The Romans
ruled it until its conquest and destruction by the Sassanids
under Shapur I in 256 C.E. Throughout its history the city
contained a mixed population and judging from its temples
it was largely eastern in orientation, with strong cultural ties
with Palmyra. In addition to a synagogue the excavators also
found a Mithraeum for the Roman soldiers and a small Christian chapel. The relative sizes of the pagan temples and thesynagogue seem to indicate that Dura-Europos’ Jewish population was a small minority in the city. Thus although the city
was only about 250 miles (400 km.) north of Nehardea, thegreat center of Babylonian Jewry, the Jews of Dura-Europos
must have lived as an isolated group in a pagan center rather
than as a fully Jewish community.
The synagogue at Dura-Europos, discovered in 1932, wasfound in a remarkable state of preservation. It lay just inside
the western city wall within an insula of ten houses (block L7)
and when the inhabitants, judged expendable by the shrinking Roman Empire, attempted to strengthen the wall against
the advancing Sassanid army, they tore off the roofs of thebuildings just behind the wall and filled them with sand fromthe desert. The synagogue was accordingly as securely buried
and protected as at Pompeii. The paintings, completed only
some five years before the city fell, emerged from the sandnearly as fresh as when painted. The synagogue was built inc. 244–45 C.E. by remodeling a private house and followed
the plan of the inner shrines of the pagan temples of the city.
Since it contained benches around the room, often found insynagogues elsewhere, it evidently served for group worship.
The benches, however, could accommodate only a small partof the congregation and wooden stools were probably used aswell. Beneath the synagogue the remains of another smaller
and more modest one was found, dating to the last quarterof the second century C.E. The entrance to the earlier synagogue was on the side adjoining the city wall through a narrow corridor which led to a courtyard with porticoes on twosides. The prayer room, 25 × 14 ft. (10.85 × 4.60 m.), contained
a niche (the Torah Shrine?) in its west wall, a bench along thewalls of the room, and two doorways, one of which may have
served as the women’s entrance (no sign of a women’s gallery
was found at Dura-Europos). The walls of the building werepainted in geometric designs and fruit and floral motifs. In
one corner of the court was a pool; adjoining it was a large
room with benches (bet midrash?).
The second (upper) synagogue has an inscription written in Aramaic indicating the date of the completion of its
construction in 245 C.E. Its entrance was on the street side far
from the wall; the entrance was well hidden and the prayer
room itself was accessible only through various passageways. The courtyard of the synagogue was expanded andsurrounded by porticoes on three sides and the prayer room
was also enlarged (to 45 × 25 ft. (13.65 × 7.68 m.)). Benches
were extended along all the walls and a stepped bimah (“platform”) built near the niche. A Greek inscription commemorates the building of the synagogue by Samuel b. Idi “elder of

the Jews” with the assistance of several members of the congregation. All the walls of the second synagogue were covered with paintings, most of them representing scenes fromthe Bible, and these must have been executed within only a
few years of the renovation. Into these scenes were incorporated pagan figures, forms, and symbols (see *Symbolism,
Jewish, in the Greco-Roman Period). The biblical paintings,
and others, which only by a flight of the imagination can beassociated with any specific biblical incident, were arranged
in variously proportioned rectangles separated by bordersof running grapevines. Pilasters painted with vines occupy
the corners and support the ceiling which seems originallyto have been made of square coffers decorated with painted
tiles and probably with plaster wreaths at the intersections of
the beams. The paintings around the bottom row of the room
show masks and harnessed felines holding fragments of their
victims. Both the masks and the felines are of the kind generally associated with Dionysus and also with other deities,e.g., the felines with Cybele, the Great Mother of fertility. The
many tiles preserved from the ceiling show a large number of
fertility symbols: bunches of fruit and grain, and many representations of female heads which Kraeling identified withthe “ubiquitous Demeter-Persephone of the eastern Mediterranean,” i.e., Cybele. This goddess also appears with the felines
and the masks in the dado. Other ceiling tiles show birds, fish,running gazelles, and centaurs holding out a fish. Several tiles
bear dated donor’s inscriptions in Greek and Aramaic; thecongregation was presumably bilingual. Since the ceiling wasabout 23 ft. (7 m.) high, the inscriptions, written in relatively
small letters, could have been read only by the sharpest eyes
and thus they were possibly designed to suggest the donors’
destiny in the heavenly setting of the ceiling itself, and not as
plaques for conspicuous notice.
The room was oriented for worship toward Jerusalem
by placing the niche, presumably for the Torah, in the longwest wall. On a panel above the niche were painted a menorah, etrog, and lulav, the temple facade, and a crudely drawn
scene of the sacrifice of Isaac (the Akedah), which was apparently used to represent a shofar (“ram’s horn”). This decoration,and the first stage of the high vine painted above the niche,
seem to have been executed even before the other paintings
had been planned. The high panel (the reredos) above theniche was repainted several times; this makes it the most important design in the room. After being exposed to light for a
few hours, the underpaintings came through the upper ones,
rendering the whole scene one of utter confusion. The various
stages of painting, however, can be fairly well reconstructed,
and show that the master directing the decoration planned
it during the execution of the paintings and did not merely
copy conventional models. First a great tree, rising nearly tothe ceiling, was painted with grape leaves and tendrils but
without grapes (and thus called a “tree-vine”) growing out ofa large crater. How many times this design was altered cannot be determined but at a later stage a king in Persian dress
seated on a throne and two throne guards were inserted at

52

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

dura-europos
the top of the tree-vine since leaves show through the white
Greek robes of the guards. Several other alterations were also
made. The crater at the bottom was painted out and the trunkawkwardly extended downward to leave spaces on either sideof the trunk. In the space at the left a table was painted with abread symbol, and on the right a crater with rampant felines
facing each other above it. Halfway up the vine a figure of Orpheus was added playing his lyre to an eagle and a lion, andperhaps other birds and a monkey. This group was not partof the original design since the vine leaves show through thebodies of Orpheus and the lion. These alterations were apparently made to indicate more clearly the meaning of the treevine, namely, through the salvation of music, bread, and wine,
the tree led to the great throne above. The design apparently
still did not seem specific, or specifically Jewish enough, forthe lower table and the crater with felines on either side of
the trunk were painted out and replaced by two new scenes.
On the left Jacob on his deathbed was represented blessing
his twelve sons, while on the right he blesses Ephraim andManasseh in the presence of Joseph. Representatives of the 13
tribes were also painted standing around the throne above.
The alterations in the design were made to show explicitly
what seems to have been originally implied by the tree-vine
alone, i.e., the salvation of Israel. Orpheus was left in as he wasapparently identified with some Jewish figure such as David
who saved Israel through his music.
On each side of the reredos two standing figures werepainted. The upper two clearly represent Moses at the burning bush and receiving the tablets of the Law on Sinai. Of thelower two figures one depicts a man in a white Greek pallium(as Moses was dressed in the upper two figures) reading ascroll on the model of readers in scenes of mystery religions,and the other an old man in similar garb standing under thearc of heaven with its sun, moon, and stars. The reader seems
to be Moses giving the Law to the Israelites after his descentfrom Sinai, and the old man, the dying Moses, who in Philo’s
account of his life was taken at his death to join in the song of
the heavenly bodies to God. Other identifications, however,
have been suggested for the latter two figures and no positive
judgment can be made. The painters now continued to cover
the walls with scenes based mainly on biblical incidents, all ofwhich are stylized and given midrashic or allegorical interpretation. On the bottom left side of the west wall Elijah is represented reviving the widow’s son, an infant dead and without
features who is held out to the prophet by his mother; next
the prophet holds up the baby alive but still with no features,and lastly he is again in his mother’s arms, glorified, and finally with features. Beside this scene a longer painting shows
three groups of people. On the right Ahasuerus, enthroned
with Esther, is humiliated as a messenger brings him news of
the massacre of his subjects. At the left Mordecai in full regal
splendor rides on a horse led by Haman in slave’s dress. Between these two scenes, in the dramatic center of the painting,stand four large figures dressed in pallia with three of theirhands raised in blessing. These are apparently angelic figures

representing God’s intervention in the Persian crisis. On thesame row to the right of the niche Samuel anoints David, whostands with his hands folded under a dark pallium, while alarge Samuel in a white pallium pours oil from a horn onto
David’s head. Jesse and five brothers stand behind in a hieratic row wearing white or light-colored pallia. To the right ofthis scene is the last painting on the bottom row of the west
wall, a large work based on the infancy of Moses. At the right
Pharaoh enthroned and in Persian dress orders the midwives(the mother and the sister of Moses) to kill all male Jewish
babies and a woman stoops apparently to put Moses into theark. In the center of a group at the left Moses is taken out of
the ark by a naked woman who stands knee-deep in the river.
She is identified as Aphrodite-Anahita by her peculiar necklace. She holds the baby up to three women standing on thebank; these are identified by the emblems they carry as thethree nymphs who were the nurses of all divine babies, actual
gods, and divine kings. As Aphrodite-Anahita holds the baby
up to the nymphs it has no features, but in the last scene thebaby is in the hands of the mother and sister and at last fully
formed with features. At the far left of the row above, Moses
again stands in the pallium, parts of which have a peculiar
checked design. He touches a well with his rod and from it 12
streams flow out toward 12 tents surrounding the well. In eachtent stands a short figure in Persian dress. A gabled doorway
with only darkness behind it occupies the back center of thepainting; a menorah and incense burners stand before it. It is
generally agreed that the scene is based on Moses’ bringing
water from the rock in the desert, and that the 12 tribes here,
as often in Jewish tradition, are equated with the Zodiac.
Adjoining this scene on the right, the artist depicted a
temple with Aaron in priestly dress dominating the scene.
Aaron is identified by his name written in Greek beside him.
Five much smaller men in Persian dress attend him, one holding an ax as if to strike a reddish bovine before him, and theothers carry horns (not like shofars). Another bovine, probably a bull, stands with a ram on the right. The main interest is
the temple itself, which instead of the curtained tabernacle of
Aaron’s priesthood, is a temple of stone, an outer wall forminga court around an inner porticoed sanctuary. In the outer wall
are three closed doorways; a pink-lined curtain blows backfrom the central one. Aaron stands in the court along with alarge menorah, two small incense burners, and an altar withan indistinguishable animal on it for sacrifice. The menorah
is the central object, but behind it, through the open door of
the inner shrine, can be seen the veiled Ark of the Covenant.
The Ark stands in front of the veil after the ancient custom
for revealing veiled objects. The form of the temple was takenfrom a common design which the Dura painter spaced out
so as to indicate the inner court with its objects. Even thewinged Victories bearing wreaths as acroteria for the inner
shrine were retained. This painting seems to represent thevalues of the Aaronic priesthood in general. Balancing this on
the other side of the reredos is a basically similar temple, butwith the design altered to express a more abstract idea. Again

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 653

dura-europos
three closed doors pierce what was meant as the outer wall
and above it is the inner shrine still with its winged Victories.
The outer wall, however, has become a series of seven stone
walls, each a different color, which rise from the bottom to the
top and from side to side of the painting. Thus the three doors
and the inner shrine seem to be artificially superimposed upon
the walls. The inner shrine has ten columns instead of thefive in the Aaron scene, and like the three doors, it is closed.
The temple does not stand on the ground and no ritual is indicated (and so it is called the “Closed Temple”). On each of
the two doors in the lower central doorway are three panels.
These depict, from top to bottom, a bull lying in the positionof sacrifice; a herculean figure standing naked and flanked bya small naked figure; and the figure of Tyche.
To the right of the “Closed Temple” is the last painting
on this register of the west wall which depicts a third temple,
open and empty, with cult objects and the fragments of two
Persian deities strewn on the ground before it. Beside it is the
Ark on a cart pulled by two bovines that are being whipped
and led by two men in Persian costume. Three dignified men
in light-colored pallia walk abreast behind the Ark. The painting was without doubt suggested by the biblical incident inwhich the idol of Dagon collapsed before the Ark and the Ark
itself was returned to the Israelites on a cart. The left side of
the top register of the west wall is almost totally destroyed although the base of a throne with “Solomon” written on it in
Greek and the bottom of various figures can be seen. Nothing, however, can be identified. Opposite this, a long painting presents the drama of the Exodus from Egypt. Egypt is
depicted as a walled town at the far right with figures of Ares
and two Victories above the open gate through which the Israelites march out. They advance in four columns. In the upper
three columns two bands of armed troops guard both sides
of a row of 12 men in white pallia, presumably the 12 heads oftribes. The bottom row is made up of ordinary people wearing
only the belted chiton. Leading them is Moses as a great heroic figure. In a white dotted pallium Moses strides vigorously
toward the Red Sea, which he is about to strike, not with therod expected from the biblical narrative, but with the knobby
mace of Heracles. The sea before him is already closed in theeconomy of narrative art and Moses is again depicted closing
it on its other side; the sea is filled with drowning people. Beyond this Moses again touches water with his rod; this time
the water is a pool filled with numerous leaping fish to indicate its vitality. The armed guards of the first scene stand behind the pool with the 12 heads of the tribes; they hold banners like those carried in mystic processions. When the sea
was divided, according to Jewish legend, 12 paths were made,one for each tribe, and these are apparently indicated by a tierof horizontal lines behind the third Moses. The other walls of
the room present biblical scenes in a similar vein but, since
they are only partially preserved, their overall plan, if any existed, cannot be reconstructed. Of the east wall only the lowest register and dado remain; one scene shows a few birds andpart of a table. Another apparently shows David and Abishai

approaching the sleeping Saul and Abner in the wilderness;half the painting is occupied by an army on white horses led
by a captain. In the Esther scene the artist seems to have represented divine intervention and this apparently also appears in
two scenes on the south wall. There, below a badly preserved
procession of the Ark of the Covenant are three scenes froman Elijah cycle which first depicts Elijah coming to the widow,
and then the sacrifice of the prophets of Baal. The sacrifice
is being vitiated by a great serpent that attacks the small figure of Hiel according to the legend in which Hiel was hidden
behind the altar to set fire to the sacrifice but was killed by asnake. Beside this, in the corner adjoining the west wall, Elijah offers his sacrifice while servants pour on water and threegreat figures dressed in pallia bring down heavenly fire. Although Elijah reviving the widow’s son should have preceded
the two scenes of sacrifice, it instead adjoins them on the wall
where it was apparently part of the original plan and the cycleon the south wall, an afterthought probably intended to show
the lesser triumphs of the prophet as preparation for his final
power to raise the dead.
The north wall is better preserved but still only part remains. In the single scene left at the top Jacob dreams of theladder. The design is identical with that in the catacomb of
Via Latina in Rome except that in the catacomb the angels
wear white pallia and at Dura-Europos, Persian dress. As thepallium is the original form, the change to Persian dress inthe East must be of significance, but nothing suggests what
prompted it. The register beneath this contains only unidentifiable fragments on the right; beside it is a fine representation of a great battle centering on two champions attacking
each other with lances as in other scenes of Eastern art while
warriors in identical armor fight above and below them. One
champion rides on a black horse and the other on a white. In
the same painting a group of six warriors guard the Ark of theCovenant while four men in Greek chitons carry it away fromthe battle. The scene must be based on the battle of Ebenezer
where the Ark was captured but it also shows the turmoil ofthe conflict between light and darkness (the two horsemen) as
against the triumphant reality embodied in the Ark. As in the
Elijah cycle the scene seems to be related to the one adjoining it on the west wall where the heathen idols crash before
the Ark after the same battle. The scene on the side wall again
seems to amplify the one on the west wall but the artist’s exact intention cannot be determined. Below this in the longest
painting in the room is a great pageant of Ezekiel. He is first
depicted being brought into the valley, then preaching to thebones, and supervising their restoration to life. The continuation depicts either the legendary beheading of Ezekiel or Mattathias the Hasmonean slaying the faithless Jew.
The paintings at Dura-Europos were executed by at least
two artists. One, influenced by Hellenistic art, portrayed
the major biblical personages (Moses, Jacob, Joseph, etc.)
as Roman citizens dressed in the tunic and pallium, and theIsraelite host as Roman soldiers. The other drew his inspiration from Persian art and portrayed his figures as horsemen

54

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

dura-europos
in Parthian dress (Mordecai, Ezekiel, the sons of Aaron, theIsraelites fighting the Philistines, etc.). The women (such as
Queen Esther, Pharaoh’s daughter, etc.) are dressed like theHellenistic city-goddesses (Tyche). Particularly forceful andvivid in artistic execution are the imaginative paintings, suchas the vision of dry bones which contains three episodes ofthe story of Ezekiel in one painting, and the souls of the deadare portrayed as Greek Psyches with wings of butterflies. The
Dura-Europos paintings contain a wealth of material from theaggadah, which was also apparently derived in part from theearly Targum, such as the descriptions of the miracle of thebattle of Meribah where water was sent through channels toeach of 12 tents which symbolize the camps of the tribes. Solomon’s throne and the sacrifice of the prophets of Baal on Mt.
Carmel are depicted according to the legends of the Midrash
and thus they contain details not present in the biblical narratives, as for example, Hiel bitten by a snake on the altar of theprophets of Baal (cf. Yal., I Kings 18:25 [214]). The architecturein the paintings generally follows Hellenistic style but Jewish
tradition can be recognized in several details, such as the Arkof the Covenant in the desert as a wheeled chariot (similar toa relief from Kefar Naḥ um). This tradition is also evident in
the dress of the high priest Aaron and other details.
From the social and religious historical standpoint it issignificant that in the third century a Jewish community in
the Diaspora did not hesitate to decorate the walls of a synagogue with the human form, with the major figures of the
Bible (although this was later on also done in synagogues in
the Galilee). The discovery of Dura-Europos is of primary
importance for the history of art: until then this Jewish-Hellenistic art style was known only from the paintings of early
Christians in the catacombs of Rome. Dura-Europos provided
a Jewish source of this art. Its paintings present a blending ofEastern and Western – Persian and Hellenistic – elements (notably in the frontal pose of the figures and the Hellenistic style
dress) which predates by centuries the same fusion which isthe basis of Byzantine art. The paintings provide a focal point
in ancient art in which influences of the past converge with
developments of the future. The Dura-Europos paintings werelater transferred to the Damascus Museum. A complete copy
was reconstructed at Yale.

their stylistic and iconographic sources? Why was the Second
Commandment (Ex. 31:45–: “You shall not make for yourself
a sculptured image or any likeness”) ignored? Does the cycleof murals have an overall purpose and meaning? Do they reflect a set form of theological Judaism of that time? Did theyexert any influence on subsequent Jewish and Christian art?
Goodenough dedicated three volumes of his Jewish Symbolsof the Graeco-Roman World to a detailed analysis of the DuraEuropas synagogue paintings. Goodenough’s attempts to read
Jewish mysticism into many of the details of the paintings,
especially in regard to the type of garments worn by the various figures, and the absence of certain symbols next to therepresentation of the menorah, and so forth, have met withmuch criticism by scholars, notably by Avi-Yonah (1973) andSmith (1975). Although Jewish religious symbolism and imagery undoubtedly existed in antiquity, and much of it was
clearly influenced by Graeco-Roman artistry, what remains
unclear is the extent of the values that Jews attached to thesesymbols and images as they appeared in the Dura-Europas
paintings. Most scholars are in agreement regarding many ofthe painted scenes, but a lack of agreement still prevails as towhether these scenes were connected to a central organizing
theme or whether they were made at random to enshrine various events in the destiny of the Jewish people. Grabar was ofthe opinion that the paintings in the synagogue had explicit
messianic associations; Flesher has recently shown this to be
misguided. Gutman commented in 1987 that “the Dura Europas synagogue paintings have opened up hitherto unforeseen
horizons in ancient religious art and history.”[Shimon Gibson (2nd ed.)]Later Scholarship
The synagogue paintings (approximately 29 panels are preserved) are thought to have been the work of Jewish artists,
perhaps hailing from Palmyra (Kraeling), utilizing patternbooks of artistic renderings of biblical stories available tothem, as well as inspired by Jewish liturgy, customs, and legends prevalent in Palestine at that time. Wright wrote in 1980
that the paintings “are too clumsy and provincial in execution to have been invented independently, without an iconographic model, in that desert outpost” (quoted in Gutmann1987). Among the questions that scholars have been dealing
with in regard to the paintings are the following: What are

Bibliography: Mayer, Art, index; F. Cumont, Les Fouilles
de Doura-Europos, 1922–1923 (1926); The Excavations at Dura-Europos… Preliminary Report of Sixth Season of Work, October 1932–March
1933 (1936), 309–96; T. Ehrenstein, Ueber die Fresken der Synagogue
von Dura Europos (1937); M.I. Rostovtzeff, Dura-Europos and its
Art (1938); R. Du Mesnil du Buisson, Les peintures de la synagogue
de Doura Europos (1939); H.F. Pearson, A Guide to the Synagogue ofDoura Europos (1939); Grabar, in: rhr, 123 (1941), 143–92, 124 (1941),
5–35; N. Schneid, Ẓ iyyurei Beit ha-Keneset be-Dura Europos (1946);
Sonne, in: HUCA, 20 (1947), 255–362; E.L. Sukenik, Beit ha-Keneset
shel Dura Europos ve-Ẓ iyyurav (1947); R. Wischnitzer, The Messianic
Theme in the Paintings of the Dura Synagogue (1948); R. Meyer, in:
Judaica, 5 (1949), 1–40; CH Kraeling, The Synagogue (The Excavations at Dura-Europos. Final Report, 8 pt. 1, 1956; 8, pt. 2, 1967); Eissfeldt, in: Reallexikon fuer Antike und Christentum, 4 (1959), 358–70;
E.R. Goodenough, in: iej, 8 (1958), 69–79; idem, in: jbl, 81 (1962),
113–41; Goodenough, Symbols, vols. 9–11 (1964). Add. Bibliography: M. Avi-Yonah, “Goodenough’s Evaluation of Dura: A Critique,”in: J. Gutmann (ed.), The Dura-Europas Synagogue: A Re-evaluation(1932–1972) (1973), 117–35; M. Smith, “Goodenough’s Jewish Symbols in Retrospect,” in: J. Guttman (ed.), The Synagogue: Studies in
Origins, Archaeology and Architecture (1975), 194–209; C. Hopkins,
The Discovery of Dura-Europas (1979); L.I. Levine, “The Synagogueof Dura-Europas,” in: L.I. Levine (ed.), Ancient Synagogues Revealed(1981), 172–77; J. Guttman, “The Dura Europas Synagogue Paintings: The State of Research,” in: L.I. Levine (ed.), The Synagogue in
Late Antiquity (1987), 61–72; L.M. White, Building God’s House in the

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

55[Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough / Michael Avi-Yonah]duranRoman World (1990); P.V.M. Flesher, “Rereading the Reredos: David,
Orpheus, and Messianism in the Dura Europas Synagogue,” in: D. Urman and P.V.M. Flesher (eds.), Ancient Synagogues: Historical Analysis
and Archaeological Discovery. vol. 2 (1995): 346–66.

DURAN, family which originated in Provence, settled in
Majorca in 1306, and after the persecutions of 1391 in Algiers.
ẓ EMAḥ ASTRUC DURAN (d. 1404), a grandnephew of Levi b.
*Gershom, was respected as a scholar by both the Jews andnon-Jews of Majorca. He died in Algiers. His son was Simeon
b. Ẓ emah *Duran (14t–15t century). Until the end of the 18t
century, the descendants of Simeon b. Ẓ emaḥ provided uncontested lay and spiritual leaders among Algerian Jewry. His
son was Solomon ben Simeon *Duran whose three sons weredayyanim in Algiers. They were AARON (d. c. 1470), a rabbinical authority consulted by such distant communities as Constantinople; Ẓ emaḥ ben Solomon *Duran who was married tothe daughter of the illustrious Rab (rabbi) Ephraim al-Nakawa
of Tlemçen; and Simeon ben Solomon *Duran. ẓ EMAḥ BEN
SIMEON BEN ẓ EMAḥ (d. 1590) wrote a commentary on thepoem for Purim by Isaac b. Ghayyat which was published inTiferet Yisrael (Venice, 1591?) by his son SOLOMON (d. c. 1593).
The latter wrote notes on the works of his grandfather Simeon
b. Ẓ emaḥ , Yavin Shemu’ah and Tashbaẓ , which are followed byhis casuistic responsa Ḥ ut ha-Meshullash, part 1. In addition,
Solomon wrote a collection of sermons, a commentary on theBook of Esther, and a treatise on temperance. All of these areincluded in his Tiferet Yisrael. He is also the author of a commentary on Proverbs, Ḥ eshek Shelomo (Venice, 1623). His sonẓ EMAḥ (d. 1604) was a talmudist whose death inspired Abraham *Gavison to write an elegy. AARON DURAN (d. 1676),
dayyan in Algiers, was probably his grandson.
Ẓ emaḥ ben Benjamin (d. 1727) was a prominent authority in religious matters. He also was active in Algerian commerce and left a large fortune to his sons: JOSEPH BENJAMIN(d. 1758), whose responsa were published in the works of Judah
Ayash, together with whom he was dayyan in Algiers; andḥ AYYIM JONAH (d. c. 1765), who settled in Leghorn, where
he published the first part of Magen Avot (1763). MOSES BENẓ EMAḥ , one of the notables of Leghorn, had a previously unpublished part of Magen Avot printed in 1785 from an original
manuscript which was in the possession of his family. DAVIDDURAN (18t–19t centuries), whose father JUDAH (d. c. 1790)
was a direct descendant of Simeon b. Ẓ emaḥ and one of thewealthiest merchants of Algiers, himself held a distinguishedposition in Algerian commerce from 1776. He became a rivalof the *Bakri-*Busnach merchant families who were then at
the height of their power. After the assassination in 1805 of
Naphtali Busnach and, two months later, of the dey himself,
David was appointed muqaddim (leader of the Jewish community) by the new ruler of Algiers, Aḥ mad Dey, but was replaced in the same year owing to the intrigues of Joseph Bakri.
He continued representing the interests of England in Algiers
as against those of France and Spain, whose side was takenby the Bakri-Busnach families. David Bakri was appointed

56

muqaddim in 1806 and held the position for over four years
but Duran’s machinations evidently caused his execution.
Although David Duran was again appointed muqaddim he
was himself executed the same year (October 1811) for no apparent reason, immediately after bringing the annual tax, orpresents, to the dey.
The descendants of Simeon b. Ẓ emaḥ who had established themselves in Leghorn settled in London before 1826.
Bibliography: Benjacob, Oẓ ar, 203 (no. 875), 222 (no. 215),
659 (no. 699), 674 (no. 995); I. Epstein, Responsa of Rabbi Simon ben
Zemah Duran as a Source… (1930), 1–5, 16, 102; I. Bloch, Inscriptions
tumulaires… (1888), nos. 7, 17, 27, 37, 46; A. Devoulx, Le Livre d’or desIsraélites algériens (1872), 4ff., 34, 65ff.; Hirschberg, Afrikah, index.
[David Corcos]

DURAN, PROFIAT (Profayt; d.c. 1414), scholar and physician, one of the outstanding anti-Christian polemicists of
Spanish Jewry. Duran was probably born in Perpignan andlater moved to Catalonia. He was the son of Duran Profiat,
himself the son of Profiat de Limos, both Jews of Perpignan.
His Hebrew name was Isaac b. Moses ha-Levi, and he signed
his books and letters with the pseudonym ‫“( אפד‬Efod”), theHebrew acronym of ‫אני פרופיאט דורן‬, Ani Profiat Duran (“I[am] Profiat Duran”). Duran acquired an extensive knowledge of sciences and languages and associated with Ḥ asdai*Crescas. He was the author of two polemical tracts against
Christianity, the dates of which are not known with certainty:
Al Tehi ka-Avotekha and Kelimat ha-Goyim. The decisive
event in his life was the wave of anti-Jewish persecutions in
Spain in 1391. According to R. Isaac *Akrish’s introduction to
Al Tehi ka-Avotekha (Constantinople, 1570), Duran himself
had been forcibly converted to Christianity in 1391 but reverted to Judaism. However, documents recently discoveredin the archives of Perpignan show that Duran lived there asa Christian, under the name of Honoratus de Bonafide, forabout 12 years after 1391/2, serving as astrologer to Juan I of
Aragon. This presents obvious difficulties, as it is certain thathe continued his Hebrew literary activity throughout this period. Tradition has it that he wrote the Al Tehi ka-Avotekha
when his friend David Bonet *Bonjorn, who was compelled
to undergo conversion with him, became a sincere Christian.
Duran apparently considered that the other should have remained like himself a Christian only in name, continuing tobelieve and act like a Jew. Nevertheless, how he managed to
do this remains a mystery.
Al Tehi ka-Avotekha is a penetrating satire on Christianity, its tenets, and the affairs of the Church (the schism
between Rome and Avignon), and especially on the Jewish
converts attracted by the Church. Duran emphasizes the irrationality of Christian doctrine and its insistence on feelings
and on “faith” alone. In contrast, he presents the view of Judaism in accordance with the approach of the Jewish philosophers that salvation is attained by faith that does not contradict
the demands of the intellect, combined with the performanceof the practical mitzvot. Because of its witty ambiguities sevENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

duran, profiat
eral Christians of the period understood the epistle as a panegyric of Christianity and it was cited by Christian authors,
who referred to it as “Alteca Boteca” a distortion of the opening words of the letter. When its real intention was recognized,
the epistle was condemned to public burning.
Kelimat ha-Goyim, an attack on the tenets of Christianity by historico-critical method, was written by Duran at theinitiative of Ḥ asdai Crescas. Duran reviewed the writings of
the Church Fathers and clarified inaccuracies and fabricationsin the translations of Jewish writings by those who attacked
Judaism. Kelimat ha-Goyim served as a source for subsequent
Jewish apologetic literature.
Duran’s grammatical work, Ma’aseh Efod (Vienna, 1865),shows his extensive knowledge of Semitic and Romance languages and Greek. More than a methodical presentation ofgrammatical rules in the conventional manner, the work isoutstanding in its original approach to grammatical problems
and its incisive logical analysis of a number of principles inthe same field through an impartial critique of his predecessors. Duran arrived at a new evaluation of the conjugationsof the verb by a system resembling that of modern Semitic
linguistics. His discussion of the theory of pronunciation
reveals exact observation of the functions of the organs ofspeech and describes in passing the accepted pronunciationof the Hebrew of his time in Spain. He emphasizes the social
function of language and stresses that writing is a matter ofconvention. Unique to Ma’aseh Efod is the discussion of theessence of Jewish music, to which Duran attributes two basic styles: chant, such as the cantillation for the reading of the
Bible, which is addressed to the mind and understanding,and free melody which arouses the feelings, such as used bysupplicants in prayer and by righteous men. Duran regards
Jewish melody as having a spiritual object and thus different
from the music of other nations, which aspires to aestheticism for its own sake.
Important historical details and an outline of his philosophical ideas are found in a letter of condolence which Duranwrote in 1393 to his friend Joseph b. Abraham on the death of
his father, R. Abraham b. Isaac ha-Levi of Gerona, a leader ofCatalonian Jewry. In the letter, Duran describes the desperateplight of the Jews in his day whose sufferings had increased tosuch an extent that the loss of their leaders and scholars was
not even felt. He blames the people for not observing the mitzvot with proper care and for being concerned only for personal
benefit. On the other hand he comforts Jews who had been
converted under duress and encourages them to repent.
The other works by Duran include replies on philosophical subjects; elucidation of various parts of the commentaryon the Pentateuch by Abraham *Ibn Ezra and of some of his
poems; works on astronomy including Ḥ eshev ha-Efod on the
Hebrew calendar (1395); explanations to the commentary of*Averroes on the Almagest; a criticism of the Or Olam of Joseph ibn *Nahmias; Ma’amar Zikhron ha-Shemadot, a historyof the persecutions and expulsions from the destruction of
the Second Temple until his own times (mentioned by Isaac*Abrabanel but now lost). The work was used by Jewish historians of the 16t century such as Solomon *Ibn Verga, *Joseph *ha-Kohen, and Solomon *Usque. Many of his writings
remain in manuscript; some were published as supplements toMa’aseh Efod. New editions of Al Tehi ka-Avotekha were published by A. Geiger in Koveẓ Vikkuḥ im (Breslau, 1844) and insome copies of Melo Chofnaim (Berlin, 1840); by P.M. Heilperin in Even Boḥ en (Frankfort, 1846); and J.D. Eisenstein inOẓ ar Vikkuḥ im (1928), which also includes Kelimat ha-Goyim.
His commentary on the Guide of Maimonides appeared after
1500 together with other commentaries.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

57[Jacob S. Levinger / Irene Garbell]

Philosophy
The introduction to Ma’aseh Efod contains Duran’s philosophical views. The Torah, he writes, is perfect, and its study is the
only means of attaining eternal, supreme felicity as well as happiness on earth. There are those who maintain that only theobservance of mitzvot can lead to eternal life. However, while
Duran does agree that the observance of the mitzvot is very
beneficial, he maintains that only knowledge can lead to eternal felicity. He criticizes the talmudists, who reject the studyof anything other than the Talmud, refusing even to study the
Bible. The philosophers, on the other hand, are also misled.
In attempting to reconcile two contraries – Aristotelian philosophy and the Bible – they attribute only a moral function
to the Torah. In reality, Duran states, philosophy too is consonant with Jewish teachings, since gentile philosophers borrowed extensively from Jewish sources. However, when Maimonides places the philosopher closest to the throne of God,
he is speaking of philosophy in the sense of true knowledge,
which is the privileged property of Israel alone. The kabbalists, whose aim is to achieve communion with God, also realize that the worship of God can reach perfection only in theLand of Israel, since the commandments are in harmony withthe stars which guide the destiny of that land. Thus the Kabbalah, too, conforms to the Torah and the prophetic books.
Nonetheless, since the principles of the Kabbalah are not easily
demonstrable and the dissensions among its adherents clearly
indicate its dangers, Duran concludes that the surest courseis the study of the Torah. The Bible, like the Temple of Jerusalem, has virtues which preserve Israel’s physical existence;for example, the Jews of Aragon were saved from persecution
as a reward for having recited the Psalms continually. In addition, the Torah has intellectual virtues: it is only the Torah
which contains both moral precepts and all of true philosophy. The sine qua non of Jewish survival and of eternal life isto preserve the Torah, its text, and its grammar. Thus, for Duran, the real doctrine of Judaism, which he ardently defended,encompasses both philosophy and the whole range of the human sciences, without being limited as are the latter. His commentary on Maimonides’ Guide (first published 1553) is quite
literal. He rejects any interpretations of Maimonides which
would portray the latter as a philosopher who holds the Torahin contempt. Nevertheless, he also emphasizes the dangers in-duran, simeon ben solomon
herent in certain Maimonidean doctrines. He is very close to
the astrological teachings of Abraham ibn Ezra. In response toquestions raised by his student, Meir Crescas, he wrote commentaries on various passages of ibn Ezra’s commentaries.

DURAN, SIMEON BEN Ẓ EMAḤ (RaSHBaẒ , Hebrew acronym of Rabbi Shimon ben Ẓ emaḥ ; 1361–1444), rabbinic
authority, philosopher, and scientist. He was born in Majorca
to R. Ẓ emaḥ Astruc Duran. In his youth Simeon studied inPalma (Majorca) at the yeshivah of Ephraim Vidal, who wasmartyred in the year 1391, and in Aragon at that of Jonah*Desmaestre, whose daughter he later married. Educated inaccordance with the old Spanish method, he acquired a thorough knowledge of mathematics, astronomy, science, logic,
and particularly medicine, which was to become his profession. After his return to Majorca, Simeon practiced as a physician and surgeon in Palma, and he seems to have been in
comfortable circumstances. He was also highly esteemed as arabbinic scholar and even his teacher Ephraim Vidal sought
his advice. His prestige there can be gauged from the factthat 44 years after he had left the island he addressed a letter to the Jews of the island reproaching them for negligencein some religious practices and admonishing them to change
their way of life.
After the massacre of 1391 in which he lost all of his fortune, Simeon left Majorca for Algiers together with his father
and family. Jews from other parts of Spain also immigrated
to North Africa, and the arrival of the immigrants had a beneficial effect upon the native Jews there. It caused a revival ofknowledge and scholarship, which had been neglected andwas in a state of great decline. Spanish rabbis now became
religious leaders of African communities. In Algiers the aged
*Isaac bar Sheshet was appointed chief rabbi and was also
nominated a supreme judge of the Jews by the king. Simeon
seems to have joined his bet din. Having lost all his fortune
and being unable to earn his livelihood from his medical profession, since the native population resorted to superstitious
practices rather than to medical help, he was forced to accept
a salaried office of rabbi. As Maimonides had prohibited theacceptance of a salary for a rabbinical office, and since in Algiers only Maimonides’ decisions were regarded as authoritative, Simeon later found it necessary to justify his action.
The nature of Simeon’s official activity during the lifetime of Isaac b. Sheshet can be seen from the following examples. In 1394 a commission to deal with matrimonial laws
was appointed, consisting of Bar Sheshet, Isaac *Bonastruc,a rabbi in Algiers, and Simeon, who was asked by the othermembers to draft the ordinances; his draft was accepted in its
entirety. Originally intended for the Spanish immigrants, theordinances were soon adopted by some of the native Jews aswell and were authoritative for African Jewry for centuries. A
ban against informers issued about that time was also signed
by Bar Sheshet, Bonastruc, and Simeon. From the very factthat Simeon signed third, it is obvious that he was not assistant chief rabbi as some scholars believe (at least not at thattime).
Much has been written about the relationship between
Bar Sheshet and Simeon. On the one hand Simeon respected
the older rabbi, but on the other hand the latter bitterly complained of Simeon, who himself also confesses “I was childish and behaved impudently toward a rabbi who was very old
and distinguished in learning” (Tashbeẓ , 1, no. 58). In view ofthis there can be no doubt that a certain tension had existed
between the rabbis, the active party being Simeon. The reason for this animosity is not quite certain; it may have been
the appointment of the chief rabbi which annoyed Simeon,
who although much younger, regarded himself no less worthy of the post owing to his secular and rabbinical knowledge. It seems that Isaac bar Sheshet, being good-natured andpeace-loving, succeeded in the course of time in dispelling
the greater part of the unfriendly atmosphere. Soon after Bar
Sheshet’s appointment as judge by the king, Simeon wrote a
responsum in which he tried to prove that such an appointment was not permitted, but he did not publish it (ibid., 162).
Bar Sheshet often consulted Simeon on various matters, asking him to deal with them and to write responsa. After Isaacbar Sheshet’s death (1408) Simeon was appointed chief rabbi(he himself says dayyan) with the request that his appointment not be confirmed by the king. (According to the reportof the Algerian rabbis in the introduction to Tashbeẓ , Simeon’s appointment already took place during the older man’s
lifetime.) During his period of office Simeon was very active.
While he had to fight some practices not in accordance with
Jewish religion current among the native Jews, he had to raise

58

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Colette Sirat]
Bibliography: Baer, Spain, index S.V. Profet Duran; F. Cantera Burgos, Alvar Garcia de Santa Maria (1952), 318–20; R.W. Emery,
in: jqr, 58 (1967/68), 328–37; Renan, Ecrivains, 395–407.

DURAN, SIMEON BEN SOLOMON (RaShBaSh, Heb.
acronym of Rabbi Shimon ben Shelomo ha-Sheni (“the Second”); 1438–after 1510), rabbi and author. Simeon, son of Solomon b. Simeon *Duran (called RaShBaSh ha-Rishon, “theFirst”), was born in Algiers and succeeded his brother Ẓ emaḥ*Duran as rabbi there. In 1499 he was active in the ransomingof 50 Spanish Jews who had been brought as slaves to Algiers(see Zacuto in bibl.). His attitude toward the Marranos fromthe religious point of view was lenient (his responsa Yakhin
u-Vo’az pt. 2 nos. 3, 19, 31), regarding them as Jews. In his old
age he had to flee from Algiers when the Spanish army wasapproaching Bougie and Tunis. He wrote responsa which are
printed as the second part of Yakhin u-Vo’az (Leghorn, 1782),
the first part being by his brother Ẓ emaḥ . They are quoted by
Joseph *Caro. He has been confused with Simeon (ha-Sheni)b. Ẓ emaḥ .
Bibliography: Abraham Zacuto, Sefer Yuḥ asin ha-Shalem,
ed. by Z. Filipowski (19252), 227; S.P. Rabinowitz, Moẓ a’ei Golah(1894), 32; H.J. Zimmels, Die Marranen in der rabbinischen Literatur (1932), index.
[Hirsch Jacob Zimmels]

duran, simeon ben Ẓ emaḤ
his voice against his own countrymen who criticized the doctrines of terefah and were lax in the observance of some commandments. As judge, Simeon was regarded as an undisputed
authority, and interesting facts have become known of his legal proceedings. From various communities, questions weresent to him about religious and legal matters. He had to deal
with the problem of the Marranos from the religious and legal
points of view. Of his pupils only Abraham ha-Kohen Sholal
is known by name, but he may have been his pupil when hewas still in Majorca.
Simeon was against adopting stringent practices (ḥ umrot)
which had no foundation in the Talmud; he said that one
should be stringent with oneself, but lenient with others. There
were some contradictions in him, however, which can also
be found among other Spanish scholars. On the one hand he
was meek, but on the other he praised himself for his wisdom.
Although he greatly admired Maimonides and followed his
philosophical views, he believed in astrology which Maimonides so strongly opposed, and he quoted Abraham *Ibn Ezrain connection with astrology, calling him “he-Ḥ asid.”
A characteristic feature of the method employed in his
decisions as posek is given by Simeon himself: “In reaching mydecisions I do not grope like the blind grope along the wall,for I give a decision only after studying the case carefully. I
have never given a decision which I later retracted” (Tashbeẓ ,pt. 3, no. 189). His decisions were indeed always correct; theyexhausted all existing sources and discussed all opinions,leaving no possibility of controverting them. His decisions
became authoritative in North Africa (see introduction to
Tashbeẓ ). The takkanot he drafted were in vogue among theJews in North Africa for centuries, and his responsa were a
guide to later posekim who frequently quote them (e.g., Joseph *Caro, Beit Yosef EH 119, 122, 126, 130, 134, 140, 141, 143;
they became known to Caro through Jacob *Berab; see introduction to Tashbeẓ ). Ḥ ayyim *Benveniste established theprinciple that in cases in which Simeon’s decisions contradict
those of Solomon b. Abraham *Adret, the decision is according to the former (Keneset ha-Gedolah, ḥ M 386). Preference
should also be given to Simeon when he is contradicted byIsrael *Isserlein.
Philosophy
As in his halakhic decisions, Simeon also respected the opinions of Maimonides in the area of philosophy, but often differed with him, even on important issues. He accepted Maimonides’ naturalistic views on prophecy but with addedemphasis on the role of divine grace. Like Ḥ asdai *Crescas,
he disagrees with Maimonides’ theory that eternal bliss depends on how much knowledge one has acquired. He accepts
the Aristotelian conception of the soul, but adds to it another,immaterial part of man, his neshamah, which is derived from
God and bears the intellective faculty, and which is eternal.
Thus eternal bliss is not proportioned only according to one’s
acquired intellect, as Maimonides claimed, but human felicity,
both in this world and the next, depends on one’s observanceof the mitzvot, as Naḥ manides had shown. Further, Simeon
disagrees with Maimonides’ theory that superior intellectdetermines the amount of divine providence to which one issubject. According to Simeon, divine providence is contingent
upon one’s performance of God’s commandments. Simeon’s
most important contribution (later repeated by Joseph *Albo)
was his fixing the boundaries of philosophical speculation inorder to safeguard the principles of traditional Judaism. Thus
he reduced the fundamental dogmas of Judaism to three,which, according to him, must be accepted by everyone: theexistence of God, revelation, and divine retribution. In doingso, he was not disagreeing with Maimonides but only commenting on Maimonides’ system of 13 principles of faith. He
insisted that “Every Jew must believe that the Holy Scriptures,and in particular the Torah, come from God and he must accept their contents as the absolute truth” (Ohev Mishpat, Introd.). Although, as has been mentioned, Simeon believed in
astrology (Magen Avot, 4:21), he defined himself primarily as
a disciple of the “masters of the truth,” the kabbalists (Ohev
Mishpat, Introd. to ch. 19), whose doctrines he often quoted
in his works.
Among Simeon’s writings as an exegete were a commentary on Job and glosses on Levi b. Gershom’s commentaryon the Bible (see list of his works). Only the former has beenpreserved, and shows that he was an adherent of the peshat(“simple meaning”) and strongly opposed allegories such as
those developed in the school of southern France in the 13t
century. He often quoted Targum, *Saadiah Gaon, Abraham
Ibn Ezra, Rashi, Naḥ manides, and Levi b. Gershom. When citing the Zohar he generally added “by R. *Simeon b. Yoḥ ai.” Headopted some doctrines from the Kabbalah (e.g., transmigration of the soul, Magen Avot, 88a). In his responsa he quotes
and uses gematriot, notarica (see *Notarikon), and letter mysticism. Sometimes he says (Tashbeẓ , 3 no. 54): “I can only explain what I have been permitted” and warns “You should give
only a plain interpretation and consider what is permitted.”
Simeon’s philosophy is included mainly in his Magen
Avot. However, his commentary on Job also contains several ofhis philosophic teachings. In it he refers to many philosophic
sources, constructs his exposition lucidly, and takes a clear
position on the philosophical problems which he treats. His
philosophical ideas and writings did not have much influenceon subsequent generations, except for Joseph *Albo, who inturn did make a significant impact on later philosophers.
As an apologist, Simeon deals with the *Karaites whenseeking to prove the divine origin of the *Oral Law. He shows
how important the Oral Law is for understanding Torah andfulfilling the commandments and states that many actions ofJewish leaders and institutions can only be explained as being based on oral tradition. He then attacks the doctrines of
the Karaites (e.g., their explanation of Ex. 16:29 which contradicts Isa. 66:23). Simeon was very well acquainted with Christian literature (it has to be studied, he says, in order to be refuted). He had a dispute with a Christian theologian (Keshet
u-Magen, 14a) who had to admit that Simeon was right. He

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 659

duran, simeon ben Ẓ emaḤquotes Saadiah Gaon, *Judah Halevi (Kuzari), the disputationof *Jehiel b. Joseph of Paris, and Naḥ manides. It is doubtful,
however, whether he used Ḥ asdai Crescas’ Bittul Ikkarei haNoẓ erim and the work of Profiat *Duran, since they are nevermentioned. He first refutes the attacks of the Christians andthen counterattacks. The Christians, he says, admit that the
Torah is of divine origin, but maintain that it is superseded by
the Gospels. He shows that Jesus and his disciples strictly observed the Law and that Jesus declared that he had come not
to destroy the Law or the teaching of the prophets but to fulfill them. His death was not due to his negligence of the Law
but to his assertion that he was “the son of God and Messiah”(Keshet u-Magen, 2b). Simeon points out the various contradictions regarding the origin of Jesus, his claim to be the Messiah (refuted by the fact that the criteria of the Messianic age
had still not occurred), and the assertion that the Torah had
been superseded by the Gospels, since the Torah, being of divine origin, is unchangeable. He draws attention to the many
mistakes and forgeries contained in Jerome’s Bible translation.
He also enumerates 21 misquotations from the Bible by Jesus
and his disciples. Simeon tries to prove that the Koran cannot be of divine origin owing to the great number of contradictions found in it (e.g., in regard to free will), to its many
unintelligible passages, and to its sensual views on the world
to come. What is good in it had been borrowed from the Midrash. Regarding Islam as a whole, Simeon did not consider
Islam as idolatrous, however, he did consider the pilgrimage
to Mecca as an idolatrous practice.
Simeon was also active as a poet and composed many piyyutim, kinot, seliḥ ot, and teḥ innot, some of which have been
printed (see below). He was a prolific writer, and there is no
subject with which he did not deal. His Magen Avot is morethan a philosophical treatise. It covers human and animal
physiology and pathology, psychology, science, phonology,
etc., and has the character of an encyclopedic work. Perhaps
the intention of its author was to write a book which should
serve as a source of knowledge and information particularly
for the Jews of North Africa. His responsa not only treat religious and legal problems, but also deal with grammar, philology, exegesis, literary history, philosophy, Kabbalah, mathematics, and astronomy.
The following list of his writings is given in the same order as mentioned by the author in Tashbeẓ , end of pts. 2 and 3:(1) Perush Hilkhot Berakhot le-ha-Rif, commentary on Alfasi’s
laws on Berakhot; (2) Piskei Massekhet Niddah, decisions on
the tractate Niddah; (3) Sefer ha-Hashgaḥ ah, called Ohev Mishpat, commentary on Job, printed together with Sefer Mishpat
Ẓ edek by R. Obadiah *Sforno (Venice, 1589); (4) Zohar haRaki’a, commentary on Solomon ibn Gabirol’s azharot (Constantinople, 1515); (5) Tashbeẓ (‫תשב״ץ‬, abbreviation of Teshuvot
Shimon ben Ẓ emaḥ ), responsa in three parts (the fourth partis called Ḥ ut ha-Meshullash, containing responsa of three rabbis of North Africa, including Simeon’s descendant Solomonb. Ẓ emaḥ Duran; Amsterdam, 1738–41); (6) Magen Avot, fourparts, philosophical work; the first three parts, without the

fourth chapter of the second part (Leghorn, 1785); the fourthpart is (7) Magen Avot, a commentary on the tractate Avot
(ibid., 1763); (8) Keshet u-Magen (fourth chapter of the second
part of Magen Avot (see above no. 6)), polemics against Christianity and Islam, printed together with Milḥ emet Mitzvahof his son Solomon (ibid., c. 1750); the sections dealing with
Christianity and Islam were published separately; (9) Perush
Massekhet Eduyyot, commentary on Eduyyot mentioned by
Simeon in his list; (10) Ḥ iddushei ha-RaSHBaẒ , novellae on
Niddah, Rosh ha-Shanah, and Kinnim (ibid., 1745); the novellae
on Kinnim were also printed with those of Solomon b. Abraham Adret on Niddah (Metz, 1770); (11) Perush Keẓ at Piyyutim,
commentaries on various poems, as well as poems composedby Simeon: (a) a piyyut by Isaac *Ibn Ghayyat for the Day of
Atonement with Simeon’s commentary appeared in B. Goldberg’s Ḥ ofes Matmonim (Berlin, 1845, pp. 85ff.); (b) a commentary on the Hoshanot (Ferrara, 1553); (c) an elegy on the destruction of the Temple appeared with Profiat Duran’s letter Al
Tehi ka-Avotekha (Constantinople, c. 1575–78); (d) an elegy on
the persecution in Spain was printed in Magen Avot (Leipzig,1855); (e) some piyyutim published by I. Marʿeli appeared in
Kobez al Jad, 7 (1896–97) under the title Ẓ afenat Pa’ne’aḥ (seealso A. Gavison, Omer ha-Shikhhah (Leghorn, 1748, 125); (12)Or ha-Ḥ ayyim, polemics against Ḥ asdai Crescas (mentioned
by Simeon in his list); (13) Livyat Ḥ en, glosses on the commentary of Levi b. Gershom and four discourses against Ḥ asdai
Crescas mentioned by Simeon in his list; (14) Yavin Shemu’ah
on Hilkhot Sheḥ itah u-Vedikah, on the laws of slaughteringand porging; (15) Ma’amar Ḥ ameẓ , commentary on the Haggadah; (16) Tiferet Yisrael, on the calendar; (17) Perush Eizehu
Mekoman, commentary on Mishnah Zevaḥ im ch. 5, and commentary on the Baraita of R. Ishmael in the beginning of Sifra.
Nos. (14), (15), (16), and (17) were published together with (18)
Tikkun Soferim of his son Solomon (Leghorn, 1744); (19) also
appeared in the Roedelheim Haggadah edition of 1882; novellae on Bava Meẓ ia, quoted in Shitah Mekubbeẓ et of Bezalel*Ashkenazi; (20) Sefer ha-Minhagim, on customs, in the responsa of Abraham Tawwah in Tashbeẓ , pt. 4 no. 32; (21) Sefer
Tikkun ha-Ḥ azzanim (ibid., no. 31); (22) commentaries on the
ketubbah and get (“divorce document”) and regulations about
divorce and ḥ aliẓ ah (Constantinople, 1516; cf. also Tashbeẓ , pt
3 no. 301); (23) Takkanot, see Tashbeẓ , pt. 2 no. 292.

60

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: Michael, Or, 601–5; Weiss, Dor, 5 (1904),
187–98; Graetz, Hist, 4 (19492), index; E. Atlas, in: Ha-Kerem, 1(1887), 1–26; H. Jaulus, in: MGWJ, 23 (1874), 241–59; 24 (1875), 160–78;
D. Kaufmann, ibid., 41 (1897), 660–6; J. Guttmann, ibid., 52 (1908),
641–72; 53 (1909), 46–79; I. Epstein, The Responsa of Rabbi Simon b.
Ẓ emaḥ Duran (1930); Davidson, Oẓ ar, 4 (1933), 487; A.M. Hershman,
Rabbi Isaac b. Sheshet Perfet and his Times (1943); Guttmann, Philosophies, 242ff.; M.M. Kasher and J.B. Mandelbaum, Sarei ha-Elef(1959), index; Hirschberg, Afrikah, index. Add. Bibliography:
M. Shapiro, in: Judaism, 42:3 (1993), 332–43; M.M. Kellner, in: PAAJR,
48 (1981), 231–65; J.D. Bleich, in: JQR, 69:4 (1979), 208–25; N. Arieli,“Mishnato ha-Filosofit shel Rabbi Shimon ben Zemach Duran,” dissertation, Hebrew University (1976).
[Hirsch Jacob Zimmels]

duran, zemaḤ ben solomon
DURAN, SOLOMON BEN SIMEON (known as RaShBaSh,
Hebrew acronym of Rabbi Shelomo ben Shimon; c. 1400–
1467), North African rabbinical authority; son of Simeon b.
Ẓ emaḥ *Duran. He was born in *Algiers, but no details are
known of his youth. His education embraced not only rabbinical knowledge but also science, medicine, and philosophy. It
appears from his responsa that he joined his father’s bet din
at an early age and was the head of the yeshivah. Some of his
responsa were written during the lifetime of his father. His
apologetical work Milḥ emet Mitzvah (1438) was written withhis father’s authorization. In it Solomon repulsed the accusations against the Talmud made by the apostate Joshua *Lorki(Geronimo de Santa Fé) and even made counterattacks against
the Christian clergy. He showed that Lorki’s accusation that
the Talmud favored immorality was wrong, and on the contrary that it teaches a high standard of morality and chastity;
and that it was the Christian clerical circles who indulged inimmoral conduct to such an extent that it became known by
the name “peccato dei frati.” After defending the halakhic partsof the Talmud he proceeded to explain the aggadot attacked
by Lorki. In Solomon’s view (as expressed already by *Jehielb. Joseph of Paris and by Naḥ manides in their disputations)they had no binding force.
In his youth he wrote a rhetorical epistle (meliẓ ah) to
Nathan Najjar in Constantine (Rashbash, no. 259) using talmudic idioms, style, and language (the use of this kind ofmeliẓ ah is characteristic of him). His letter made a deep impression upon Najjar as can be seen from his reply in which thefollowing passage occurs: “My son, my son, my heart was filledwith anxiety for I said ‘Who will sit on the throne of my master the rabbi, your father?’… Now, however, I know that Solomon, his son, will reign after him and will sit upon his throne”(cf. I Kings 1:13, 17, 30). After his father’s death Solomon
was appointed rabbi of Algiers. He seems to have also been
the head of a yeshivah and some of his pupils were mentioned
by name. His religious and general outlook can be derived
from his responsa. Thus when asked whether the dialogueof *Balaam and his ass (Num. 22:28), Jacob’s wrestling withthe angel (Gen. 32:25), and the visit of the angels to Abraham(Gen. 18:1ff.) took place in reality or were dreams, his reply was that all were real events, as Naḥ manides had alreadystated (Rashbash, no. 44). In responsum no. 3 he strongly criticized Haggai b. Alzuk in Mostaganem, who maintained that
perfection of the soul could be achieved by perfection of theintellect and that aliyah to Ereẓ Israel had no effect. In hisview settling in Ereẓ Israel is a great mitzvah, particularly as
many religious commands concern only Ereẓ Israel. With regard to the question whether the world will be destroyed ornot, he showed that the Talmud and Naḥ manides decided
in the affirmative, while Maimonides’ view was in the negative.
Solomon thought that while the belief in creation ex nihilo
is binding, belief in the ultimate destruction of the worldis not; it is left to one’s own discretion (responsum no. 436).
Concerning the Kabbalah he said of himself (no. 36): “I am
not one of its members” and expressed his indignation at
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

the doctrine of the ten *Sefirot (no. 188). His decisions werequoted by later authorities (including Joseph *Caro and Moses*Trani).
His works are (1) Teshuvot Ha-Rashbash (Leghorn, 1742),
cited above, which deal not only with the legal matters but
also with some philosophical problems and contain explanations of some biblical and talmudic passages; (2) Milhemet
Mitzvah, in Keshet u-Magen (ibid., 1750); (3) Tikkun Soferim,
dealing with contracts together with Yavin Shemu’ah of his
father (ibid., 1744); (4) the elegy Shamayim Laveshu Kadrut.
The bibliographers mention also Meliẓ ah le-ha-Rashbash; infact, this meliẓ ah is contained in his responsum no. 259 (Kerem
Ḥ emed, 9 (1856), 110ff.).
Bibliography: H.J. Zimmels, Die Marranen in der rabbinischen Literatur (1932), index; A.M. Hershman, Rabbi Isaac ben
Shesheth Perfet and his Times (1943), index; Hirschberg, Afrikah,
index.
[Hirsch Jacob Zimmels]

DURAN, ZEMAḤ BEN SOLOMON (15t century), North
African rabbinical authority. Ẓ emaḥ , the second son of Solomon b. Simeon *Duran, acted together with his brothers
Aaron and Simeon as dayyan in *Algiers. It appears from thesources that he was the most active of them and the greatest
scholar of the three. In an admonishing responsum written toa certain rabbi he says of himself: “I do not boast of my distinguished ancestry, of my sermons, and of my responsa, of mylearning – that I am familiar with all the tannaitic literatureand the whole of the Talmud, of the accuracy and profundityof my legal tradition, of my rational reasoning, though mypaternal grandfather [Simeon b. Ẓ emaḥ *Duran] praised andeulogized me from my childhood for my readiness to grasp
the truth.” Being rather sickly he went for a cure to Majorca,
returning in 1468. He had some knowledge of medicine anda great knowledge of philosophy and Kabbalah, and his attitude toward the latter was positive. His ideology and piety
are reflected in the responsum in which he tries to refute theviews expressed to him by R. Abraham Conque of Malaga,
who, following other philosophers, maintained that perfection
and immortality do not depend on fulfilling the commandments and studying the Talmud but rather on the study of sciences and philosophy. Ẓ emaḥ tries to show that perfection can
only be achieved through the fulfillment of the mitzvot. The
seven sciences (see Ibn Ezra on Prov. 9:1; Klatzkin, Thesaurus Philosophicus, I, 292ff.) serve only to teach fear and loveof God. They are not the end but only the means. He writes
that Maimonides wrote his Guide of the Perplexed to refutethe philosophers with philosophical arguments (cf. also hisfather’s responsum, Rashbash no. 3). Ẓ emaḥ dealt with the
problem of the Marranos (Yakhin u-Vo’az, pt. 1, nos. 75, 125),
whom he regarded as Jews from the religious point of view.
He wrote responsa which form the first part of his brother
Simeon’s collection Yakhin u-Vo’az. Some of them are quoted
by Joseph *Caro.
[Hirsch Jacob Zimmels]

61durazzo
DURAZZO (Durrësi, Durrës), chief port of Albania. Theremay have been Jews in Durazzo during the Roman period. The
community, referred to as Durachi(um), is mentioned however for the first time in 1204 in a responsum of R. *Isaiah b.
Mali di Trani. An English traveler found a group of Jews in
Durazzo in 1322. Documents of 1368 mention the community
leader (magister Yudayce) David, his business associates, andthe communal scribe. The Jewish merchants traded with Italy,
Serbia, and Dubrovnik exporting salt and importing textiles.
In 1401 the representatives of the Jews appealed to the Senate of Venice, which then ruled over Durazzo, to exempt or
partly exempt them from the obligation of presenting to thecivic authorities annually 16 cubits of finest velvet, in addition to a sum of money in cash. During the 16t century a few
Spanish refugees settled in Durazzo, but they do not seem tohave had a communal organization. In 1939, refugee families
from Vienna settled in Durazzo.

also functions as the provincial office of the South African
Jewish Board of Deputies. Zionist activity is directed by the
KwaZulu-Natal Zionist Council. The Jewish population of
Durban in 2004 was 2,750.
Bibliography: G. Saron and L. Hotz, Jews in South Africa(1955), index; South African Jewish Year Book (1929), 107–10; M. Gitlin, The Vision Amazing (1950), index.
[Louis Hotz / Gustav Saron]

DURBAN, port in KwaZulu-Natal, third largest city in the
Republic of South Africa. The relatively small Jewish population has always played a prominent part in the life of the city.
One of the founders of Port Natal (Durban’s original name)was Nathaniel *Isaacs, who came as a youth in 1825. Important contributions to the port’s early development were madeby Jonas *Bergtheil and by Daniel de *Pass. The first berit milah in Natal, for the son of a former Durban resident D.M.
Kisch, was performed in 1876 by the Rev. S. Rapaport, whocame from Port Elizabeth for the ceremony. In 1880 a Jewish
burial ground was laid out. Three years later a congregation
was formed and in 1884 a building which had been a Methodist chapel was converted into a synagogue, with Bernard
Lipinski (d. 1907) as the first president. Outstanding services
were rendered by Felix C. Hollander (1876–1955), who wasmayor of Durban (1910–13), a member of the Natal provincial executive committee (1914–23 and 1926–39), a senator(1939–48), and the head of the Jewish community. Charles
Phineas Robinson (d. 1938) was a member of the Natal legislature and later of the Union parliament. His son Albert also
sat in parliament and later became London high commissioner
for the Central African Federation. Other leading communal
personalities were Philip Wartski (1853–1948) and Solomon
Moshal (1894–1986).
Less affected by Eastern European immigration thanother communities of the Republic, Durban Jewry has at thesame time an active communal life. There are four synagogues(one Reform) and the usual fraternal and welfare organizations. Diminishing numbers, however, led to the closure of thecity’s Jewish day school, Carmel College, in 1997. The Durban
Jewish Club, the only institution of its kind in the Republic,
has played a major role in the community’s development. The
Council for KwaZulu-Natal Jewry is a coordinating body and

DURHAM, city in North Carolina, U.S. Jewish communal life
formed in the late 1870s as the agrarian village grew into a New
South industrial town. The Jewish population, with neighboring Chapel Hill, rose from 40 in 1880 to 305 in 1910. As the region evolved into a Sunbelt academic, research, and retirement
center, the Jewish population reached 5,000 in 2005.
In 1874 the first permanent Jewish settlers, Polish-bornbrothers Abe and Jacob Goldstein, opened a general store,
which served as a way station for peddlers. By 1880, ten
more Jewish merchants, all of German origin, had arrived
from Virginia to establish dry-goods stores. In the early 1880s
tobacco magnate James B. Duke contracted with a young
Ukrainian immigrant, Moses Gladstein, to bring more thana hundred East European proletarians from New York toroll cigarettes in his factory. These Jewish rollers formed achapter of the Cigarmaker’s Progressive Union and later anassembly of the Knights of Labor. In 1884 Duke automatedthe factory and dismissed the Jewish workers. Most returned
north although several, including Gladstein, opened Durham stores.
Immigrant peddlers, artisans, and storekeepers, mostlyof Latvian-Lithuanian origin, created a viable community.
Durham was a typical New South mill and market town.
Jews provided mercantile services to workers, farmers, andindustrialists. Durham’s appeal was enhanced by the educational opportunities of Duke University and the University ofNorth Carolina at Chapel Hill. Jewish faculty began establishing themselves in the 1930s. They included European émigré
scholars, notably Polish law professor Raphael *Lemkin, author of the Genocide Convention. In 1943 Duke became thefirst southern campus to institute Jewish studies with the hiring of Judah *Goldin.
East European Jews resided first in a ghetto near the African-American “Bottoms” and then in a middle-class neighborhood near Main Street. The community supported chaptersof B’nai B’rith, Hadassah, Mizrachi, and the Zionist Organization of America. In 1951, E.J. Evans, running on a progressive platform with black support, was elected to the first of
six terms as Durham mayor, and in 1991 Kenneth Broun waselected Chapel Hill mayor.
Religious services were held as early as 1878, and a burial
society formed in 1884, under Myer Summerfield, a Prussianborn Orthodox merchant. Two years later the Durham Hebrew Congregation organized, and by 1892, when it received
a state charter, it had evolved into an East European shul.
After meeting in rented halls, the congregation purchased

62

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: H. Bernstein, in: Jewish Daily Bulletin (April
17–18, 1934); J. Starr, Romania… (Eng., 1949), 81–83; A. Milano, Storia
degli ebrei italiani nel Levante (1949), 64–65.
[Simon Marcus]

durkheim, émile
a wooden house in 1905. In 1921 it built a brick, downtown
cathedral-style synagogue, renaming itself Beth El. Evolving
into a Conservative congregation, it dedicated a new suburban synagogue-center in 1957. Beth El also housed an Orthodox Kehilla.
In 1961 Judea Reform Congregation formed, and it built
a temple in 1971. Growing into the area’s largest congregation with 550 members, it built a new campus in 2003. The
Lubavitcher movement established Chabad houses in Durham and Chapel Hill. In 1996 the Chapel Hill Kehillah, a Reconstructionist congregation, organized, and it purchased a
synagogue five years later. The area also accommodated a Triangle Congregation for Humanistic Judaism. The communities are united by the Durham-Chapel Hill Jewish Federation
and Community Council, founded in 1977, which supports
Jewish Family Services, and Midrasha, a supplemental highschool. In 1995 the Lerner Jewish Community Day School
opened with a religiously pluralistic program. Both Dukeand UNC erected new Hillel centers and expanded their Jewish studies programs.
Durham-Chapel Hill’s growth reflects the national Jewish population movement toward the Sunbelt. With two major
universities and the creation of the Research Triangle Park in
1959 it also reflects the Jewish demographic movement into
the professions. Scientists Martin *Rodbell and Gertrude *Elion won Nobel Prizes at the Park. The moderate climate andcollege-town ambience also draw retirees.

DURKHEIM, ÉMILE (1858–1917), French sociologist. Born
in Epinal (Lorraine), France, of a long line of rabbinical ancestors, Durkheim initially prepared himself for the rabbinate. Although he never wrote directly on a Jewish topic, theinterest in law, ethnology, and the ethical implications of social relations, which were aroused by his early training, stayedwith him throughout his life. To be a sociologist always meant
for him, essentially, to be a moral philosopher as well as ascientist of moral behavior; and although he became a free
thinker early in life he remained conscious of his rabbinical
heritage. Durkheim studied in Paris, where he was a pupil ofthe philosophers Emile Boutroux and Jules Monod and of thehistorian Fustel de Coulanges. He was also influenced by the
French neo-Kantian Charles Renouvier and by his fellow students Lévy-Bruhl, *Bergson, and Jaurès.
Durkheim is a towering figure in the history of *sociology. The first chair in social science in Europe was establishedfor him at the University of Bordeaux in 1887. In 1902 he became professor of sociology and education at the Sorbonne;
a separate department of sociology, under his chairmanship,
was established in 1913. Durkheim was a founder and editor
in chief of L’Année Sociologique, which was published from1898 until the beginning of World War I. Durkheim attempts

to demonstrate that it is possible to trace regularities of behavior in human action regardless of the subjective motives ofindividuals. The physical, biological, and psychological factors
operative in the social life of man must be taken into account.
Yet, as soon as attention is focused on the interpersonal relationships characterizing group life, the special nature of “social
facts” becomes apparent: group products, such as art, morals,
and institutions are in the mind of the individual, and yet entities apart from him. These group products are irreducible facts
which must be studied in their own right. Society’s “collective
representations” have an objective existence outside the individuals and, at the same time, exercise a constraining powerover them. Even conceptual knowledge may be said to consistof collective representations having their roots in society.
The best exemplification of the fruitfulness of Durkheim’s
approach is his concept of social solidarity, as employed in his
studies on the division of labor, religion, morality, conscience,and suicide. Because society, at the same time, is above man
and penetrates man, it is ultimately the only thing that has
the power to inspire awe and reverence in individuals andto submit them to rules of conduct, to privations, and to thekind of sacrifice without which society would be impossible.
But society, on which the individual is absolutely dependent,
is not sufficiently concrete to be an object of direct reverential submission. Instead, the individual experiences his dependence indirectly, by focusing his attention on everythingessential to the maintenance of society: its principal norms,
values, institutions, its sacred symbols. Especially, the notionof divine authority is a sublimation of society. Thus religion
springs not from the nature of individual man, but from thenature of society. According to Durkheim, the effect of beliefs
and acts with respect to essential norms and symbols is to create a more effective society. Similarly, suicide is not a functionof race, climate, religious doctrine, and economic conditions,however close the correlations between any of these facts
and the phenomenon of suicide itself may be. The clue, says
Durkheim, lies in crucial social facts, that is, the breakdownof social solidarity and the ensuing normlessness, or “anomie.” Groups with little social cohesion tend to have higher
suicide rates than those providing strong psychic support totheir members in the various crises of life.
Durkheim stresses the concept of “collective consciousness” (or “conscience”). Durkheim initially explained social
control mainly in terms of external constraints. In his later
work, however, he stressed the internalization of culture, thefact that social norms are “society living in us.” On his conception of education he places no less heavy a burden. Througheducation, he holds, society implants general social values
and discipline in the individual. “Discipline,” he writes, “hasits justification in itself.” Yet, the nature of the discipline is
not wholly a matter of indifference. It depends not only onsociety in general, but on the particular society in question.
Not every society values the kind of individualism and democratic pluralism which Durkheim espoused in his personal
and political thought.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 663

Bibliography: E. Evans, The Provincials: A Personal Historyof Jews in the South (2005); L. Rogoff, Homelands: Southern Jewish
Identity in Durham and Chapel Hill, North Carolina (2001).
[Leonard W. Rogoff (2nd ed.)]duschak, mordecai
Durkheim’s early work, De la division du travail social(1893), still shows traces of evolutionary thought; but his opposition to the utilitarianism of the economists is clearlymarked there. In his subsequent works, especially in Les règles de la méthode sociologique (1895; The Rules of Sociological
Method, 1950) and in Le suicide: étude de sociologie (1897; Suicide, 1951), as well as in numerous scholarly papers publishedchiefly in L’Année Sociologique, he increasingly emphasized
scientific method and the combination of empirical researchwith sociological theory. His major work, cast largely in thelanguage of functionalism, is Les formes elémentaires de la vie
religieuse: le système totémique en Australie (1912; The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, 1965). Other treatises with astrongly historical and philosophical bent are Education etsociologie (1922; Education and Sociology, 1956), Sociologie et
philosophie (1929), L’éducation morale (1925), Le socialisme:sa définition, ses débuts, la doctrine Saint Simonienne (1928;
Socialism and Saint-Simon, 1958), L’évolution pédagogique en
France (1938), and Montesquieu et Rousseau; précurseurs de lasociologie (1953).
Bibliography: Analyses of Durkheim’s approach to sociology abound. The most influential of these are contained in G. Gurvich, Essais de sociologie (1936), and in T. Parsons, Structure of Social Action (1937). Among book-length evaluations the best known
are C.E. Gehlke, Emile Durkheim’s Contributions to Sociological Theory (1915); P. Faconnet, The Durkheim School in France (1927); R.
Lacombe, La Méthode sociologique de Durkheim (1926); E. Conze,
Zur Bibliographie der Durkheim Schule (1927); and H. Alpert, Emile
Durkheim and His Sociology (1939). A complete bibliography is foundin K. Wolff (ed.), Emile Durkheim, 1858–1917 (1960).
[Werner J. Cahnman and Joseph Maier]

DUSCHAK, MORDECAI (Moritz; 1815–1890), rabbi,teacher, and writer. Duschak was born in Triesch, Moravia.
He studied under Moses *Sofer in Pressburg, and later was appointed rabbi in Aussee and in Gaya, both in Moravia. From1877 he occupied the post of preacher and teacher in Cracow.
Toward the end of his life he moved to Vienna, where he remained until his death. Duschak published many studies on
talmudic topics and Jewish scholarship in both Hebrew andGerman.
His noteworthy books in German are Umriss des biblisch-talmudischen Synagogen-Rechtes (1853), Das mosaischtalmudische Eherecht (1864), Geschichte und Darstellung desjuedischen Cultus (1866), Das mosaisch-talmudische Strafrecht (1869), Zur Botanik des Talmud (1870), Die biblisch-talmudische Glaubenslehre (1873), and Tor Esier (against the
Blood *Libel, 1883). In Hebrew he published Yerushalayim
ha-Benuyah (1880, combining the Babylonian and Jerusalem
Talmuds in order to explain the mishnayot of tractates Eruvin,Pesaḥ im, Megillah, and Yoma).

DUSCHINSKY, CHARLES (Jacob Koppel; 1878–1944), historian. Duschinsky was born in Námestovo, Czechoslovakia;
he served as rabbi in Kostel, Moravia, from 1904 to 1907, andthereafter settled in London, where he engaged in business.
He continued publishing monographs in scholarly journals
on Anglo-Jewish history and other topics. His most important work was The Rabbinate of the Great Synagogue, London,
from 1756–1842 (1921).
[Cecil Roth]

DUSCHINSKY, JOSEPH Ẓ EVI BEN ISRAEL (1868–1948),
Hungarian rabbi, and later rabbi of the separatist Orthodox
community of Jerusalem. Duschinsky was born in Paks, Hungary, where his father was the sofer (“scribe”). He studied firstunder Moses Pollak, rabbi of Paks, and later under Rabbi
Simḥ ah Bunim Sofer (Schreiber, the Shevet Sofer) in Pressburg. In 1892 he married the only daughter of R. Mordecai
Leib Winkler of Brezovanad Bradlom (Slovakia) and spent
the next three years in his house. The years spent at Pressburgand his father-in-law’s fine personality were the main formative influences in his life. In 1895 he was elected rabbi to a congregation in Galanta established in opposition to the existing
one, and in 1921 went to Khust (Carpatho-Ruthenia). In 1932
he visited Palestine and on the death of R. Joseph Ḥ ayyim*Sonnenfeld was elected in 1933 to succeed him as rabbi of
the Edah Ḥ aredit (“Orthodox Community”) of Jerusalem. He
founded a yeshivah, Bet Yosef, which had hundreds of pupils.
Duschinsky, an active supporter of *Agudat Israel, appeared
before various commissions of inquiry of the British mandatory government, and although he did not normally cooperate with the official rabbinate, during the siege of Jerusalem in1948 he endorsed their permission to undertake defense andfortification work on the Sabbath.
Duschinsky was a discerning bibliophile of refined taste
and amassed a fine library of rare books. None of his own
works was published in his lifetime. From his literary legacy
two volumes of responsa, She’elot u-Teshuvot Mahariẓ (pt. 1,
1956; pt. 2, 1966), and three volumes of his homiletic commentary to the Bible (pt. 1, 1956; pt. 2, 1961; and pt. 3, 1965) havebeen published. His responsa in particular reflect his immense
learning and wide range of reading (e.g., vol. 2, no. 51 adduces
proof for a halakhic point of view from Emden’s anti-Shabbatean tract Mitpaḥ at Soferim, Altona, 1768). He died during
the siege of Jerusalem. His yeshivah continued to function
under the direction of his only son, Moses Israel.
Bibliography: A. Katzburg, Temunat ha-Gedolim (1925– );S.Z. Tennenbaum, Nata Sorek (1899), 167b–174b (HM 1–5).
[Abraham Schischa]

Bibliography: Zeitlin, Bibliotheca, 39, 71; M. Schwab, Répertoire des Articles… (1914–23), 106f., s.v.; A. Bauminger et al. (eds.),
Sefer Cracow (1959), 103f.; Kressel, Leksikon, 1 (1965), 546, s.v.
[Yehoshua Horowitz]

DUSHKIN, ALEXANDER MORDECHAI (1890–1976),
educator. Born in Suwalki, Poland, Dushkin was taken to theUnited States in 1901. He was associated with J.L. *Magnes’
Kehillah experiment in New York City (1910–18) and with its
Bureau of Jewish Education under Samson *Benderly, and in

64

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

dustan1916 went to Europe as a secretary of the American Jewish Relief Committee. In Palestine in 1919, he was inspector of Jewish schools and taught at David *Yellin’s Teachers’ Seminary
in Jerusalem. Returning to the United States, Dushkin was
appointed secretary of *Keren Hayesod (1921–22). From 1923
to 1934 he was director of Chicago’s Board of Jewish Education and founded that city’s College of Jewish Studies (1924).
In 1934 he was called by the Hebrew University in Jerusalem
to organize and conduct its Department of Education (since1952, the School of Education). He was lecturer in educational
methods and administration and also the principal of Bet haKerem High School, Jerusalem (1934–39). Upon his return to
the United States he became executive director of the Jewish
Education Committee in New York City (1939–49). In 1949
Dushkin was invited by the Hebrew University to establish
and direct its undergraduate studies and to teach educationand education administration. From 1962, he headed the Department of Jewish Education in the Diaspora in the Hebrew
University Institute of Contemporary Jewry. Dushkin wrote
the first doctoral dissertation on a Jewish educational theme(Columbia University, 1917), Jewish Education in New York
City (1918), and was the editor of the first educational journal
in English in the United States, The Jewish Teacher (1916–19);
edited and co-edited its successor, Jewish Education (1929–35,
1939–49); was coauthor of Jewish Education in the UnitedStates (1959); edited the third volume of the Enẓ yklopedyahḤ innukhit (“Educational Encyclopedia”); and wrote many
monographs and articles. In his educational philosophy Dushkin recognized the validity of pluralism in American Jewish
education, but saw its bases in common elements and values.
He saw Jewish education in the Diaspora as being one of themain responsibilities of Jewish communal efforts. As a student of Kilpatrick and disciple of the progressivist concepts,
he strove to base education on science and experience; hehad, however, a positive attitude to Jewish tradition, seeing it
as the unique force in the preservation of the Jewish people.
Dushkin was awarded an Israel Prize in 1968.

Poulenc, and others. Dushkin edited, and in some cases transcribed, virtuoso music for the violin. Some are in fact his own
compositions attributed to earlier composers, such as Johann
Benda and Boccherini. He also published teaching manuals
for the violin.
Add. Bibliography: Grove online; MGG2; R. Ellero, Le Composizioni Violinistiche di Stravinskij per Dushkin, Tesi di laurea Univ.
degli Studi di Venezia (1991/2).
[Max Loppert / Israela Stein (2nd ed.)]DUSHMAN, SAUL (1883–1954), U.S. chemist and physicist.
Dushman was born in Rostov, Russia, and was taken to Canada as a child of nine. He obtained a doctorate at the University of Toronto in 1912 and in the same year joined the General Electric Company Laboratory at Schenectady, N.Y., where
he worked for 40 years, from 1928 as assistant director. For aperiod he was also director of research at the Edison Lamp
Works. Dushman’s published books and papers were mainly
concerned with the development and use of high vacuumwith which his name is firmly associated. He introduced,
with Langmuir, the suffix -tron for equipment in which highvacuum was used; later the suffix was used in words such as
cyclotron, magnetron, etc. His books included High Vacuum(1923), The Elements of Quantum Mechanics (1938), ScientificFoundations of Vacuum Technique (1949), and Fundamentals
of Atomic Physics (1951).
Bibliography: Langmuir, in: Vacuum, 3 (1953–54), 113f.
[Samuel Aaron Miller]

DUSHKIN, SAMUEL (1891–1976), violinist. Dushkin wasborn in Suwalki, Poland, and studied with Guillaume Remy(violin) and Ganaye (composition) at the Paris Conservatoire,
and with *Amar and *Kreisler in New York. After his Parisdébut in 1918, he toured widely and gave many important first
performances, notably of Ravel’s Tzigane (Amsterdam, 1925)
and Stravinsky’s Violin Concerto (Berlin, 1931). Stravinsky,
who composed it with technical advice from Dushkin, often
accompanied him in it at subsequent performances. Dushkinalso collaborated with Stravinsky in making transcriptions
from Pulcinella and Le baiser de la fée and recorded the Duoconcertant with him. He gave the first performances of a considerable amount of chamber music by Prokofiev, *Milhaud,

DUSTAN (al-Dustān; Dositheans), Samaritan sect (or sects),
followers of Dusis or Dustis, which is probably the Aramaic
form of the Greek name Dositheos. In a somewhat different
form – Dosa or Dostai – it is quite common in Jewish sources
such as Mishnah, Tosefta, and Midrash. A Dostai and a Sabbai
are mentioned in the Midrash as the priests sent by the Assyrian king to Samaria to teach the new settlers the laws and customs of the country. In a legend told by Josephus about a religious dispute between Jews and Samaritans before Ptolemy IV
Philometer, Samaritan representatives are called Sabbeus and
Theodosius (Theodosius being another form of Dositheos).
But in all probability there is no connection between theseand the founder of the Dosithean sect. Information about
this sect is found in the Samaritan Chronicles and in patristic
and Islamic writings. The relation between this sect and the
11t-century C.E. al-Dustan of the Samaritan liturgy has not
yet been clarified. The accounts about the Dosithean sect (orsects) differ in many ways and contradict each other in someplaces. The Samaritan sources, the Annals of *Abu al-Fatḥ andthe New Chronicle, speak of two sects: one called al-Dustān,which arose shortly before the time of Alexander the Great,i.e., in the fourth century B.C.E., and a sect mentioned in the
Tolidah as founded by Dūsis or Dustis in the days of the highpriest Akbon, the brother of *Baba Rabbah, i.e., in the second half of the fourth century C.E. Patristic sources from the

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

65

Bibliography: J. Pilch and M. Ben-Horin, Judaism and theJewish School (1966), 60f.
[Nathan Greenbaum and Leon H. Spotts]

dustansecond–seventh centuries mention a founder of a Samaritan
sect, Dositheos, who claimed to be the messiah prophesied by
Moses in Deuteronomy 18:15. The dating of the sect is vague,
generally given as before or after the time of Jesus.
The Islamic writer al-Shaharastānī (1086–1153) describes
a Samaritan sect al-Dustāniyya, also known as al-Īlfāniyya.
Their founder, al-Ilfān, is said to have lived approximately
100 B.C.E. Al-Shaharastānī explains the name al-Dustāniyya
to mean the dissenting, mendacious sect. It is difficult totell from these accounts whether they render different traditions about one and the same sect which became blurredin the course of time, or whether there existed two or more
sects at different times. The main source for the account of
the fourth-century B.C.E. sect is the Annals of Abu al-Fatḥ .
There the sect is said to have been called al-Dustān because
they abolished the lawful festivals and the traditions of theirancestors. Their most important deviations were: changing of
the Samaritan combined solar-lunar *calendar, counting allmonths as 30 days; ceasing to recite the formula “Blessed be
our Lord in eternity” and to pronounce the Tetragrammaton,
substituting Elohim; counting the 50 days between Passoverand Pentecost from the day after the first day of Passover, as
the Jews do; and altering the laws of ritual purity. Because of
the above differences and others outside the sphere of belief
and religious rites, they started to build their own synagogues
and to appoint their own priests. The first to become their highpriest was the son of the then high priest. He was called Zarʿa,perhaps an allusion to Ezra, and was banned from the community for infamous conduct. He composed a compendiumof laws for them – a new Torah, derided the high priests, andwas esteemed the most learned of his time. The account concerning the Dosithean sect of the fourth century C.E., found in
the Tolidah, the Annals of Abu al-Fatḥ , and the New Chronicle,
is centered on the person of Dustes b. Pilpeloy, who went to
Shechem in the time of Akbon, Baba’s brother. He was not ofSamaritan extraction but descended from the Aravruba (Erevrav), the mixed multitude who left Egypt together with the Israelites. The Tolidah does not go beyond this brief statement,
whereas the other two chronicles, especially that of Abu alFatḥ , elaborate their story with much detail.
Dusis b. Fufti (or in the New Chronicle, Dusis) was living in Jewish territory, committed adultery there, and wassentenced to death. However, when he proposed to the Jewish elders the founding of a heretic sect in Samaria, they consented to release him. He went to Qaryat ʿAskar, where he won
the friendship of a very learned and pious man called Yaḥ dū.
Together they spent two years abiding by a vow of asceticism.
When their vow ended, they ate, drank, and became intoxicated. When Yaḥ dū was still sleeping off his drunkenness, Dusis took away his hood, gave it to a harlot, and bribed her totestify on the Day of Atonement before the community, gathered for prayer on Mt. Gerizim, that Yaḥ dū had sinned withher. But his plot was discovered by the high priest Akbon, whosought to kill him. Dusis fled to Shuwayka or Socho and hid
in the house of a widow called Amintū, whom he told that hewas the son of the high priest. During his stay there, he occupied himself with writing. When he had finished, he heard thatthe high priest was still looking for him, so he left the house of
Amintū and went to hide in a cave, where he eventually diedof hunger and was devoured by the dogs. Before leaving, he
had ordered Amintū to allow his writings to be touched onlyby those who had purified themselves in a nearby pool. Soon
afterward the high priest’s nephew, Levi, with seven companions, arrived at the house of Amintū in search of Dusis. She
told them faithfully all Dusis had taught her. Levi then sent
one of his men to immerse in the pool. Upon rising, the man
cried out, “My belief is in Thee O Lord and in Dusis Thy servant and in his prophetic mission.” Levi shouted at him andstruck him. However, the same happened to all of the sevenand at last to Levi himself. Then they read the books of Dusis
and learned that he had changed much of the Torah, similar
to Ezra and even more so. They kept all this to themselves andreturned to Shechem. On the first day of the Passover festival, when Levi was called upon to recite the Law, he substituted the word “zatar” for “ezov,” according to the books of
Dusis. When the community tried to correct his reading, Levi
insisted on it and blamed them for having rejected the prophetic mission of Dusis; he changed the days of the festivals,
the mighty name of YHWH, and sent pursuers after the second prophet sent by God from Mount Sinai. Thereupon, Leviwas stoned, and his followers went to a place near Jerusalem,from where they continued to win disciples from among theSamaritans. They venerated Levi as a martyr, kept a palm leafdipped in his blood in the books of Dusis, and allowed only
those who had fasted for seven days to approach and study
them. They believed that the dead would soon rise; they cut
their hair, prayed with their body immersed in water, did not
go from one house to another on the Sabbath, and observed
all the festivals on the Sabbath only. When one of the followers
died, they put a belt around his waist, sandals on his feet, anda rod in his hand so that he could rise from his grave in haste.
Some of them believed that as soon as the dead were buried
they rose from their graves and went to Paradise. After a shortstory about Simeon the Sorcerer (Simon Magus, who, according to most scholars, belongs to the first century C.E.) there isan enumeration of seven subsects that succeeded each otherand the fate that befell each of them. The narrative ends withthe words: “All these came forth from the Books of Dusis andcaused the Samaritans much hardship and great sinning.”
Especially interesting is one of the sects, founded by
Shaliyah ibn Ṭ īrūn ibn Nīn, because his followers are once
called al-Dustān. That is the only occurrence of this namein the narrative about the sect founded by Dusis. In this report antisectarian polemics are intermingled with the legend
about Levi, which is obviously borrowed from the literatureof the sect. The short notes speaking of Dositheos in the patristic sources all agree that he was a Samaritan heretic andfounder of a messianic sect. But they differ in details. Thus
Pseudo-Tertullian (second century C.E.) mentions the Samaritan Dositheos as the first Jewish heretic from whom the66

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

dutch literature
heresy of the Sadducees developed. He was the first to reject
the prophets, deny belief in resurrection, angels, and the last
judgment. According to the Pseudo-Clementines (third century C.E.), Dositheos and Simon Magus were pupils of John
the Baptist. The Samaritans, awaiting a prophet predicted by
Moses, had been prevented by the depravity of Dusis frombelieving in the prophetic mission of Jesus. Origen (second
and third centuries C.E.) mentions Dositheos several times.
After the time of Jesus, Dositheos tried to convince the Samaritans that he was the messiah prophesied by Moses, andhe succeeded in winning some of them over. Then he adds
that these are the Dositheans, still extant in his time, who own
scriptures of Dositheos and recount myths about him that hehad never died and was still alive somewhere. Similar to theabove is the account of Eusebius (third and fourth centuries
C.E.), who states that Dositheos appeared after Jesus’ time andwas acknowledged by the Samaritans as a prophet like Moses.
Epiphanius (fourth century C.E.) gives a report resemblingthat of Abu al-Fatḥ in some basic points about Dusis and his
sect. According to him, the Dositheans were a Samaritan sect;
kept circumcision, the laws of the Sabbath, and the Pentateuch; refrained from eating meat; venerated abstinence; andbelieved in resurrection. Dositheos was of Jewish origin andhad retired to a cave. However, out of an exaggerated desire
to gain knowledge, he fasted so that at last he died of starvation. Eulogius (seventh century C.E.) tells of two rival Samaritan parties, one believing that the expected prophet of Deuteronomy 18:15 was *Joshua son of Nun, the other claimingthat it was someone called Dosthes or Dositheos, who was a
disciple of Simon Magus, cast blame on the prophets and thepatriarch Judah, left scriptures, and did not believe in resurrection. Even from this scanty material, it becomes obviousthat the Dosithean sect must have had considerable influence in the beginning of the common era or even before it. It
seems quite plausible that several subsects branched off froman original major sect in the course of time. This may accountfor the double report of the Samaritan chronicles, includingthat of the seven subsects, and the discrepancies found in patristic and Islamic sources.

9–19; E. Kroymann, Pseudo-Tertullian, in: Corpus Scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, 47 (1906), 213, lines 4–8; J. Bowman, Transcript of the Original Text of the Samaritan Chronicle Tolidah (1957),
18a (Heb., with Eng. notes).
[Ayala Loewenstamm]

DUTCH LITERATURE.

Bibliography: J.A. Montgomery, Samaritans (1907; repr.
1968), 253–64; K. Kohler, in: American Journal of Theology, 15 (1911),
404–35; T. Caldwell, in: Kairos: Zeitschrift fuer Religionswissenschaft
und Theologie, 4 (1962), 105–17; J. Macdonald, Theology of the Samaritans (1964), index; B. Lifshitz, in: RB, 72 (1965), 98–107; A.D. Crown,
in: Essays in Honour of G.W. Thatcher (1966), 63–83; idem, in: Antichthon, 1 (1967), 70–85; Z. Ben-Ḥ ayyim, Ivrit ve-Aramit Nusaḥ Shomeron, 3 pt. 2 (1967), 17–18; H.A. Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge(1971) 122–37. TEXTS: E. Vilmar (ed.), Abulfathi Annales Samaritani…
(1865), lxxi–lxxiii, 82–83, 151–7, 159–64 (Arabic, with Latin notes andintroduction); E.N. Adler and M. Seligsohn (eds.), Une nouvelle Chronique Samaritaine (1903), 37, 64–67; P. Koetschau (ed.), Origines, in:
Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte, 2(1899), 108, lines 25–28; E. Preuschen (ed.), Origines, ibid., 10 (1903),
251, lines 15–19; H. Grossmann (ed.), Eusebius, ibid., 11 (1904), 33,
lines 24–27; K. Holl (ed.), Epiphanius, ibid., 25 (1915), 205, 206, lines
11–13; B. Rehm (ed.), Pseudo-Clementines, ibid., 51 (1965), 39, lines

Influence of the Bible
The arrival, on October 27, 2004, of the Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling, a completely new translation into Dutch of the Bible andthe Christian Apocrypha, initiated a fierce debate in Dutch
literary circles. At the core was the major influence of the
Bible on Dutch culture and linguistics. Many participants inthe discussion lamented the sometimes radical choices thetranslators had made to rephrase the biblical stories into amodern vernacular. They stated their desire to protect the language and imagery of the Statenbijbel, the official translationof the Bible which was commissioned by the Dutch Reformed
Church in the early 17t century. It was completed during theyears 1627–37. Similar to its English-language counterpart, theKing James Version, the Statenbijbel has enriched the Dutch
language with countless beautiful and poetic similes, expressions, and metaphors, most of which are still in use in present-day Dutch.
The original Statenbijbel translation project was one highpoint in the cultural revolution that brought Calvinism andHumanism to Holland. The Eighty Years’ War (1568–1648)
led to a new and powerful interest in the Bible as a source ofinspiration for a national Dutch identity, which was at thattime beginning to assert itself. In a famous poem which later
became the Dutch national anthem, “Wilhelmus van Nassouwe,” Prince William of Orange was compared to David,
king of Israel. The war against Spain was likened to Israel’s
war against her enemies. Among the many poetic adaptationsof the Psalms composed in these times were those of authors
such as Philips van Marnix van Sint Aldegonde (1540–1588),
and the poets Pieter Corneliszoon Hooft (1581–1647) and Constantijn Huygens (1596–1678).
Humanists and Reformers promoted the study of Hebrew in the Low Countries during the 16t century, particularly in such circles as that of the humanist Antwerp printerChristophe *Plantin (1514–1589), who at one time was obliged
to move to Leiden. During the 15t century, biblical drama
flourished in the many chambers of rhetoric (Rederijkerskamers) and later poets such as Carel van Mander (1548–1606)
and Dirck Volkertszon Coornhert (1522–1590) wrote a numberof biblical plays. Outstanding among these authors was Joostvan den Vondel, who wrote Joseph in Dothan (1640), Joseph in
Egypten (1640), Salomon (1648), Jephta (1659), Samson (1660),
and Adam in Ballingschap (“Adam in Exile,” 1664). The lastwork can be compared to *Milton’s Paradise Lost.
After the 17t century there was a sharp decline in interest in biblical subjects. In the late 18t century, Willem Bilderdijk wrote some biblical poetry, while Arnold Hoogvliet
composed an epic entitled Abraham de Aartsvader (“Abraham

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 667

dutch literature
the Patriarch,” 1729). In the 19t century, Allard Pierson published Israel, the first part of his study Geestelijke Voorouders(“Spiritual Ancestors,” 1887–91) and J.L. ten Kate wrote De
Schepping (“The Creation,” 1866).
Dutch biblical dramatists of the 20t century include
H. van den Eerenbeemt, the author of Judith (1916); F. Rutten, who wrote Hagar (1917); and the Flemish poet René deClercq, the author of biblical stories in verse form such as
Thamar (1917). The poet Albert Besnard composed an epic
poem about the history of the Jewish people called Drama(1959). In 1945 a Protestant author, H. de Bruin, published Job,a dramatic adaptation of the Book of Job. The Bible and theland of the Bible provide the themes of some of the writing of
Roman Catholic poet Bertus Aafjes, notably his poem In den
Beginne (1949) and his novels, Vorstin onder de landschappen(“Empress Among Landscapes,” 1952) and Arenlezers achterde maaiers (“Gleaners Behind the Reapers,” 1952).
During the 20t century Protestant religion lost its prominence in Dutch society. In mainstream fiction, Biblical themes
have almost disappeared, the work of author and artist Jan
Wolkers (1925 ) being the most notable exception. In 1990
Wolkers published Op de vleugelen der profeten (“On the
Wings of Prophets”), essays on the beauty of the Bible. As aliterary topos, the Bible can be found in the works of novelists
Maarten ’t Hart, Nicolaas Matsier, and Desanne van Brederode. From the 1960s onwards, poet and novelist Gerard Kornelis van het Reve (1923– ) created an original poetic aesthetic, mixing the language and imagery of the Statenbijbel
with Roman Catholic mysticism and explicit references tohomosexuality. This literary style is known as Revisme (“Revism”).

ism), and the noun voorzanger (lit. “singer in front,” Cantor),
which are not in use outside the Jewish community.

Hebraic Influences on the Dutch Language
The influence of the Statenbijbel on the Dutch language can
not be overestimated. Expressions deriving from this translation are still current in literature and colloquial usage. Besides such common words as Satan, cherubijn, etc., there areexpressions like “met de mantel der liefde bedekken” (“to coverwith the coat of love”), borrowed from the story of Noah (Gen.
9:23). The influence of Yiddish began to be felt with the appearance of Dutch books by Jewish authors, which contained
Yiddish expressions. Some Yiddish words that have become
part of standard Dutch are Mokum, the popular nickname
for Amsterdam (“place,” from makom); bajes (“prison,” frombayit); gabber (“friend,” from ḥ aver); stiekem (“in secret,” fromshetikah); and lef (“courage,” from lev). Many more are to befound in popular speech and thieves’ slang – jatten (“to steal,”
from yad), and kapoeres (“gone to pieces,” from kapparah).
Others which were mainly used by Jews are disappearing withthe dwindling of the Jewish community in Holland.
The Jewish community has coined some Dutch words for
its specific linguistic needs. By subtly changing the prefix ofverbs and nouns, meaning has shifted  predominantly in theverbs aanbijten (lit. “to bite onto,” to break the fast after Yom
Kippur) and uitkomen (lit. “to come out,” to convert to Juda-The Figure of the Jew in Dutch Literature
The physical presence of Jews in the Netherlands is not reflected in medieval Dutch literature. The Jew is made to symbolize the forces of evil, and his sufferings are pointed toas proof of the Christian concept of history. Examples ofthis are to be found in the Rijmbijbel of Jacob van Maerlant(c. 1235–1300), in the same writer’s Spieghel Historiael, in Van
den Levene Ons Heren (“On the Life of Our Lord”) by an unknown 13t-century author, and in various other sources. A
literary record of the pogroms following the plague of 1350 occurs in Brabantse Yeesten by Jan van Boendale. The alleged useof the blood of Christian children for healing purposes was described in the Bienboek, a medieval Dutch version of the Liber
Apum by Thomas de Cantimpré. Van Boendale’s Van den Joden
ende van haren Wesen (“Of the Jews and Their Nature”) was amore rational work. The secular morality poem Der minnen
Loep (“The Course of Love”) by Dirck Potter (c. 1370–1428)
denounces sexual intercourse with Jews. The Shylock motive
appears in the fragmentary rhetorical play Van den Gedinge
tusschen eenen Coopman ende eenen Jode (“On the Case Between a Merchant and a Jew,” c. 1515).
Despite the increase in the number of Jews in Holland
during the 17t century, none of the great authors of the Golden
Age dealt with Jewish themes, with the exception of Joost van
den Vondel, who wrote the poem Aan de Joodsche Rabbijnen
as an addendum to the play Hierusalem verwoest (1620). On
the other hand, many chronicles deal with Jews, mostly froma Christian, antisemitic point of view. An exception is the treatise on Jews and the Jewish religion in Bewijs van den waren
godsdienst (“Proof of the True Religion”) by the great Dutch
jurist Hugo *Grotius. After a speculation scandal in 1720, Jews
began to appear in low comedy, satirical poetry, and scurrilous
writings. Examples are to be found in the unfinished comedy
of manners De Spiegelder Vaderlandsche Kooplieden (“Mirrorof Native Merchants,” 1720) by Pieter Langendijk. Two periodicals founded by Justus van Effen, Spectatoriale Geschriftenand De Hollandsche Spectator, were influenced in their attitude
toward the Jews by the ideas of the Enlightenment.
In the 19t century, too, the number of literary works
dealing with Jewish themes was very small. They include
the poem De Israelitische Looverhut by Antonie Christiaan
Wynand Staring; descriptions of middle-class Jews in the
Camera Obscura (1839) of Hildebrand (pen name of Nicolaas
Beets); descriptions of the Amsterdam ghetto in the novel
Woutert e Pieterse (2 vols., 1865–77) by Multatuli (pen nameof Eduard Douwes Dekker); and the antisemitic novel Jeanne
Colette by W. Paap. At the beginning of the 20t century, Jewish types appear in the short stories collected in Vluchtige begroetingen (“Casual Greetings,” 1925) by Aart van der Leeuw.
An exotic Jewish girl figures in the novel Tobias en de dood(“Tobias and Death,” 1925) by Jan van Oudshoorn (pen nameof J.K. Feylbrief). The *Wandering Jew motif is to be found in

68

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

dutch literature
the novel De wandelende Jood (1906) by the Flemish author
August Vermeylen. The poet Johan Andreas dèr Mouw was the
only writer who tried to analyze his attitude toward Jews.
The first writer to react to rising Nazism and the persecution of the Jews was the outstanding essayist Menno ter Braak,
who had a great influence on Dutch literature. The change of
attitude to Jewish themes brought about by World War II canbe gauged by a comparison of two novels by Simon Vestdijk(1898–1971): Else Boehler, Duits dienstmeisje (“Else Boehler
the German Maid,” 1935) and De rimpels van Esther Ornstein(“The Wrinkles of Esther Ornstein,” 1958). A writer who often
used Jewish themes was Ferdinand Bordewijk, whose novels show a progressively antisemitic tendency. His works include the collections of short stories Fantastische vertellingen(“Fantastic Stories,” 3 vols. 1919–24), and the novels Noorderlicht (“Northern Lights,” 1948) and Bloesemtak (“Blossoming
Branch,” 1955).
In the years immediately after World War II, there wasa remarkable increase in literary works dealing with Jewish
themes and fictional characters. Some writers, like August Defresne in his play De naamloozen van 1942 (“The Nameless of1942,” 1945), tried to prove the unequivocally sympathetic attitude of the Dutch people toward the Jews. The theme of otherworks is the absence of differences between Jews and nonJews, as in Volg het spoor terug (“Follow the Track Back,” 1953),
an essay by J.B. Charles (pseudonym of W.H. Nagel), and in
the novel De ondergang van de familie Boslowits (“The Ruin of
the Boslowits Family,” 1946) by Gerard Kornelis van het Reve.
Nel Noordzij deals with collective guilt feelings as a personal
experience in Variaties op een moederbinding (“Variations on
a Mother Attachment,” 1958), and with Jewish self-hate in her
novel Het kan me niet schelen (“I Don’t Care,” 1955).
The difficulties arising in mixed marriages as a result of
traumatic war experiences form the theme of several novels,
including De donkere kamer van Damocles (“The Dark Roomof Damocles,” 1958) by Willem Frederik Hermans, Het wilde
feest (“The Intruder,” 1952) by Adriaan van der Veen, Allang
geleden (“A Long Time Ago,” 1956) by W.G. van Maanen, andJan Wolkers’ Kort Amerikaans (“Short American,”1962). A
worthy attempt to draw an authentic Jewish portrait is that by
the Flemish writer Marnix Gijsen (pseudonym of Jan-Albert
Goris), who went to live in New York in 1939, in his short stories “Kaddisj voor Sam Cohn” and “De school van Fontainebleau” in the collection De Diaspora (1961).
During the 1960s and 1970s, Dutch literature shifted direction as a result of rising tides of realism and early postmodernism. Also, many Jewish writers came into their own,with a staggering growth of publications on Holocaust andpost-Holocaust themes. As a result, Jewish experience andthe place of the Jew in Dutch society became almost a taboo
subject for non-Jewish writers. Jews all but vanished as characters in fiction by non-Jewish authors, with the exception of
Erik Hazelhoff Roelfzema’s Soldaat van Oranje (“Soldier of
Orange”), which was published in 1971, a picaresque autobiographical novel about his travails during 1940–45 that included

a Jewish love interest. The crime fiction that Jan-Willem van deWetering wrote during the 1970s and 1980s features a minor
character who is a Sephardi Jew.
It took until the late 1980s for a Jew to return to Dutch
fiction. The novel Mystiek Lichaam, published in 1986 by acclaimed author Frans Kellendonk (1951–1990), caused a major literary scandal. Kellendonk uses the relationship between
two siblings in a Roman Catholic family as the backdrop foran exposition of the intrinsic Otherness of homosexuality
and Jewishness in Dutch society. Some critics denounced thenovel as antisemitic. Since then, not many non-Jewish writers have dared touch the subjects of Jewish history, Jewish
identity, and Judaism.
The Jewish community in the former Dutch colonyof *Surinam has a long history. Cynthia Macleod-Ferrier(1936– ), a writer from Surinam, described the experiences ofa fictional Jewish family at an 18t century plantation in Hoeduur was de suiker (1987, “How Expensive Was the Sugar”).
In children’s fiction Karlijn Stoffels’ novel about two friends
during the Holocaust, Mosje en Reizele (1996, “Moshe andReizele”), attracted a large audience.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

69

The Jewish Contribution to Dutch Literature
17th AND 18th CENTURIES. The Sephardi Jews, arrivingin Amsterdam toward the end of the 16t century, were thefirst Jewish writers in Holland. Although they wrote in Latin,
Spanish, and Hebrew, they made a significant contribution to
Dutch literature. Prominent among them were poets such as
Jacob Israel *Belmonte; Paulo de Pina, author of the biblicalmorality play Dialogo dos Montes (1624); the satirist Abraham(Diego) Gómez Silveyra; and the dramatist and poet Antonio
Enríquez *Gómez. A vast but inaccurate source for the history of the Amsterdam Sephardi Jews is the poetry of Miguel(Daniel Levi) de *Barrios. Other important cultural figures
were the scholar and statesman Manasseh Ben *Israel and thephilosophers Uriel da *Costa and Baruch *Spinoza (see also
Spanish and Portuguese *Literature).
The literary production of the Ashkenazi Jews did notcross over into Dutch society in general. Until the 1750s Ashkenazi Jews mainly wrote in Yiddish. In addition to translations of religious books, they made adaptations of secular literature, such as the *Bove-Buch, Josef Maarsen’s Sjeine artliche
Geschichten (1710) translated from *Boccaccio’s Decamerone,
and a translation of the Travels of Benjamin of Tudela (1691)
by Ḥ ayyim ben Jacob.
During the second half of the 18t century, the elite of
the Jewish community slowly gained entrance into Dutch
society through their growing ease with the Dutch language.
A handful of young Amsterdam Jews actively participated in
the revolutionary movements of 1787 and 1795. Some Jewish
revolutionaries contributed to magazines and pamphlets in
Dutch, marking the entrance of Dutch Jewry into Dutch letters. The emancipation of the Jewish nation, as declared by the
French in 1796, officially opened the doors for their entrance
into Dutch society.

dutch literature
FROM THE 19th CENTURY TO WORLD WAR II. The 19t andearly 20t centuries saw a gradual entry of a growing number of educated Jews into most walks of Dutch life. Jews went
into law, medicine, commerce, and the fine arts. They enteredjournalism, the theater, and the entertainment industry. The
advent of liberalism and socialism profoundly influenced Jewish intellectuals. Jewish writers reflected upon social inequality and depicted scenes of squalor and misery in the poorer
Jewish communities and working-class neighborhoods of the
major cities. Also, many explored Jewish self-hatred, assimilation, and, to an extent, Zionism.
The first writer of Portuguese-Jewish descent to contribute to Dutch literature proper was the poet Isaac da *Costa,
who at first worked for Jewish emancipation but converted
to the Reformed Church in 1822 under the influence of thepoet William Bilderdijk. Da Costa was active in the Protestant Réveil movement, which strove for a deepening of religious experience. His works include a collection of poetry, De
Chaos en het Licht (“Chaos and Light,” 1850–53); the biblicaldrama Hagar (1848); and studies on various Jewish themes.
Da Costa’s friend Abraham Capadose (1795–1874), who also
converted, was another early contributor to Dutch literature.
He wrote several conversionist works, including Rome en Jeruzalem (1851). Other 19t-century authors were the satirist
Mark Prager Lindo, the poetess Estella Hijmans Hertzveld,
and the novelist Arnold Aäron Aletrino.
Herman *Heijermans, who is generally considered themost important playwright of his time, wrote naturalistic
works reflecting the struggle with Jewish identity and social
involvement. His many outstanding books include the novel
Diamantstad (“Diamond City,” 1904); Ghetto (1898), a dramaof Amsterdam Jewish life; and a play about the life of fishermen, Op hoop van zegen (“The Good Hope,” 1900), whichis generally considered one of the best plays ever written
in Dutch. The Sephardi author Israël *Querido wrote a number of novels on “ghetto” life, as well as several biblical works.
His brother, the publisher Emanuel Querido (1871–1943),
was also an author. Other writers of the time were Samuel C.
Goudsmit; Willem Schürmann (1879–1915), the author of the“ghetto” play De Violiers (1912); and the anti-assimilationist
rabbi Meyer de Hond (1873–1943), author of Kiekjes (“Snapshots,” 1926).
Jewish national feelings dominate the works of M.H. vanCampen and a few other writers. A.B. Kleerekoper (1850–1943),
who was a minor Hebrew poet, wrote a Dutch adaptation ofSong of Songs, Het Hooglied Zangen van Liefde (1903). A. van
Collem (1858–1933), the first president of the Dutch Zionist
Organization, wrote Russische melodieën (1891), the story ofa pogrom, and the lyrical poem God (1930). Outstanding forhis religious poetry was Jacob Israël de *Haan, a controversial
figure who was assassinated in Jerusalem. His collection Het
Joodsche Lied (“The Jewish Song,” 2 vols., 1915–21) is among
the finest religious poetry of modern times. De Haan’s sister,
the novelist Carry van *Bruggen, whose writing was mainly
autobiographical, often dealt with the rift between Jewish par-ents and children. Sebastian Bonn (1881–1930) wrote somefine poems in both Dutch and Yiddish on Jewish and socialist themes, notably those collected in Gewijde Liederen (“Sacred Songs,” 1926). The literary critic and poet Victor Emanuelvan *Vriesland published an essay on Jewish literature, De cultureele noodtoestand van het Joodsche volk (1915). An important impressionistic poet was Herman van den *Bergh. The
Catholic convert Herman de Man (1898–1946) wrote regional
novels such as Het wassende water (“Rising Water,” 1926).
Jewish themes play a large part in the works of the novelist
and literary critic Siegfried Emanuel van *Praag. Among his
books were Jerusalem van het Westen (“Jerusalem of the West,”
1961), an account of vanished Amsterdam Jewish life, and themonograph De West-Joden en hun letterkunde sinds 1860 (“TheWestern Jews and Their Literature Since 1860,” 1926). The novelist Maurits *Dekker wrote on Jewish and socialist themes, hisworks including Brood (“Bread,” 1933) and De laars op de nek(“The Jackboot on the Neck,” 1945), an account of the German
occupation of Holland. Another writer with strong socialist
leanings was David de Jong (1898–1963), whose collection ofpoems, Eenzame opstandigheid (“Lonely Revolt,” 1925), displays deep melancholy. Dola de Jong (1905–2003), who settled
in New York and Los Angeles, wrote the novel En de akker isde wereld (“And the Field Is the World,” 1947).

70

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

EARLY POSTWAR PERIOD. World War II and the Holocaust
are generally seen as the watershed in Dutch history. Since
1945, all Jewish novelists, poets, and playwrights have in one
way or another reflected on the Holocaust. Some have published their prewar memoirs, others have written about theirexperiences in hiding or in the Nazi death and concentration
camps. A younger generation has taken on the subject of thewartime and postwar experiences of their relatives. This contemplation has taken shape in many different genres. Someauthors pursued careers in academia, commerce, journalism,or the stage before turning to writing fiction. Others were already well-established writers when they finally found thecourage to give an autobiographical account of their wartime
experiences.
War journals are headed by the world-famous diary ofAnne *Frank, Het Achterhuis (1946; The Diary of a Young Girl,
1952). Others are Brieven uit Westerbork (“Letters from Westerbork,” 1961) by Etty Hillesum (1914–1943), whose letters anddiaries were rediscovered and reprinted in the 1970s, with dazzling commercial success. The diary In Depot (1964) by Philip
Mechanicus (1899–1944) was also rediscovered by a younger
audience in the 1970s and again in the 1990s.
Jacob *Presser wrote prose and poetry inspired by WorldWar II experiences, and the two-volume historical study Ondergang. De vervolging en verdelging van het Nederlandse Jodendom 1940–1945 (1965; Ashes in the Wind: The Destructionof Dutch Jewry, 1969). The prominent Zionist and lawyer Abel
*Herzberg wrote factual stories on the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, such as Amor Fati (1946) and Brieven aan mijn
kleinzoon (“Letters to My Grandson,” 1964).

dutch literature
A fine autobiographical novel on the war is Het bittere kruid (1957; Bitter Herbs, 1960) by Marga *Minco. She
has continued publishing one novella per decade, in a sober,
washed-out style.
Clara Asscher-Pinkhof (1896–1984), who settled in Israel,
wrote about children in Bergen-Belsen in her novel Sterrekinderen (“Starchildren,” 1946; Hebrew, Yaldei ha-Kokhavim,1965); Meyer Sluyser (1901–1973), a popular radio commentator, wrote several novels on vanished Jewish life in Amsterdam, notably Voordat ik het vergeet (“Before I Forget,” 1956).
Another war writer was Salvador Hertog (1901–1989), authorof the novel De Tuin (“The Garden,” 1957) and Meijer en ik(“Meijer and I,” 1980).
Early postwar poets include Maurits *Mok, author of Aande Vermoorden uit Israel (“To the Murdered of Israel,” 1950);
Leo Vroman (1915– ), who settled in New York and wrote in
Dutch and English; and Hannie Michaelis (1922– ). Novelist
Josepha Mendels (1902–1995), who settled in Paris, tasted literary success only late in life, when her novels about Jewish
family life Rolien en Ralien (Rolien and Ralien, 1947), and Als
vuur en rook (1950; Like Ashes and Smoke) were rediscoveredby an eager young readership.
1970–2005
Judith Herzberg (1934– ), the youngest daughter of Abel Herzberg, made her literary debut as a poet with Zeepost (“Seamail,” 1963). She developed into the most important poet andplaywright of her generation. She is revered for her clarity ofstyle and her use of seemingly simple language. She based 27
liefdesliedjes (1971, “27 Love Songs”) on the biblical Song ofSongs. She succesfully translated and adapted classics of the
Yiddish theater The Golem and The Dybuk for the Dutch stage.
Her play Leedvermaak (1982) was chosen the best play of the
1980s by her peers. It deals with the unspoken trauma of afamily of Holocaust survivors and the younger generationsof child survivors and Jews born after 1945. Herzberg subsequently wrote two more plays revolving around the Leedvermaak characters, Rijgdraad (1995) and Simon (2003).
The literary career of Harry *Mulisch (1930– ) has
spanned decades. He broke new ground in the early 1980s
with his highly successful De aanslag (“The Assault,” 1981).
In 1985, the film by Dutch director Fons Rademakers basedon the novel won an Academy Award for Best Foreign Film.
Mulish had dealt with Jewish themes in his novel Het stenen
bruidsbed (“The Stone Bridal Bed,” 1959) and wrote an accountof the *Eichmann trial, De zaak 40/61 (1968). His major epic
on the world’s redemption, as seen from a Jewish perspective
through the unwitting ministrations of a Dutch boy, De ontdekking van de hemel (1992; The Discovery of Heaven, 1996),
established his reputation worldwide.
A generation after the Holocaust, Dutch Jews who had
pursued non-literary careers started putting their wartime
experiences on paper. This has resulted in some exquisite fiction that has reached a large international audience. Andreas
Burnier, the pen name of criminologist Catharina R. Des-saur (1931–2002), published Het jongensuur (The Boys’ Hour,1969), the first of many novels and essays on Judaism, ethics,
and religion. Physicist Jona Oberski (1938– ) wrote Kinderjaren (1978; Childhood, 1983), a memoir of his experiences in
the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp as a small boy. Sociologist Gerhard Durlacher (1928–1996), a prewar refugee
from Baden-Baden in Germany, did not dare to start writing
fiction until the 1980s. His small body of work includes Strepen aan de hemel (1985; Stripes in the Sky, 1992), Drenkeling(1985, Drowning: Growing up in the Third Reich, 1993), and De
zoektocht (1991; The Search: The Birkenau Boys, 1998). Lisette
Lewin, who had previously worked as a journalist, published
her semi-autobiographical novel Voor bijna alles bang geweest (“Having Been Afraid of Almost Anything,” 1989). Eli Asser, a popular writer for television and the stage, changed direction in the early 1990s, which resulted in his war memoir
Rembrandt was mijn buurman (“Rembrandt Was My Neighbor,” 1995).
The autobiographical novel Brief aan mijn moeder (“Letter to My Mother,” 1974) by journalist and theater critic Ischa(Israel Chaim) Meijer (1943–1995) is credited with shattering
the taboo that children of Holocaust survivors have no cause
to complain. Meijer luridly described his troubled childhood
amongst Holocaust survivors. In Meijer’s wake many new,younger writers have emerged who have grappled with the
Holocaust “as part of their mental history, if not their own
physical history,” in the words of author Marcel Möring. Thisintense inner search has led to a large body of novels, poetry,and plays.
Leon de Winter (1954– ) is both a novelist and a screenwriter. He started out as the highly literary author of De(ver)wording van de jonge Dürer (“The Corruption of Young
Dürer,” 1979), Place de la Bastille (1981), and Zoeken naar Eileen (“In Search of Eileen,” 1981). With the publication of Kaplan (1986) De Winter seemed to have changed his pace. His
Jewish characters, bitter humor, and use of literary techniques
often used in crime fiction have made him a bestselling novelist, both in Holland and abroad, with Hoffman’s Honger(“Hoffman’s Hunger,” 1990), SuperTex (“SuperTex,” 1991), De
ruimte van Sokolov (“Sokolov’s Space,” 1992), Zionoco (1995),
De hemel van Hollywood (“The Heaven Above Hollywood,”
1997), and God’s gym (2002). Many of his novels were adapted
for film or television.
Marcel Möring’s (1957– ) highly accomplished novels
Mendels Erfenis (“Mendels Heritage,” 1990), Het grote verlangen (1995; The Great Longing, 1995), In Babylon (1997; In Babylon, 1999), and Modelvliegen (2001; The Dream Room, 2002)
seriously explore the emotional entanglement of children of
Holocaust survivors, a theme also explored by Wanda Reisel(1955– ) in her novel Het beloofde leven (1995).
Arnon Grunberg (1973– ) has been called the most interesting young author in the Dutch language. He made his
debut with the novel Blauwe Maandagen (1994; Blue Mondays,
1996). Grunberg moved to New York in the 1990s, but has continued to write in Dutch and concern himself with Dutch so-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

71

duty
ciety. His novels De figuranten (“The Extra’s,” 1997), Fantoompijn (2000; Phantom Pain, 2002), De asielzoeker (2002; “TheAsylumseeker”), and De Joodse Messias (2004, “The Jewish
Messiah”) gained him prominence. He has published poetry
and essays, made a new version of Desiderius Erasmus’ Lof
der Zotheid (1509, The Praise of Folly), called De mensheid zij
geprezen. (“Humanity Be Praised,” 2001). Grunberg also makes
use of the not overtly Jewish pseudonym Marek van der Jagt.
Both Grunberg and Van der Jagt have won many Dutch andinternational literary prizes.
In fiction for children and young people, the novel
Chaweriem (“Hawerim” (Hebrew for “Friends”), 1995) stands
out as a modest Dutch classic. In this tale of a group of young
Jews wanting to immigrate from Holland to Israel, Leonard deVries (1919–2002) caught the hopes of young child survivors
for a better future. Child survivor Ida Vos (1931– ) has gained
prominence with her many novels for children: Wie niet weg
is wordt gezien (1981; Hide and Seek, 1995), Dansen op de brugvan Avignon (1989; Dancing on the Bridge of Avignon 1995),
Anna is er nog (1991; Anna Is Still Here, 1995), Witte Zwanen,
Zwarte Zwanen (“White Swans, Black Swans,” 1992), De sleutel is gebroken (1996; The Key Is Lost, 2000), and De lachendeengel (“The Laughing Angel,” 2000).
Dutch literary critics include Joseph Melkman (1914– ),who settled in Jerusalem and wrote Geliefde Vijand (“Beloved
Enemy,” 1964), a book about the Jew in postwar Dutch literature. Historian Jaap Meijer (1912–1993) published a study onpoet Jacob Israël de Haan, De zoon van een Gazzan (“The Sonof a Cantor,” 1967). Meijer, the father of Ischa Meijer, also became known by his pen name Saul van Messel, a poet who
distinguished himself from his peers in the literary world by
writing in the Saxon dialect of Groningen province.
A few Jews have also written in Afrikaans, a dialect ofDutch containing other elements and spoken mainly by theSouth African Afrikaners; see *South African Literature.

DUTY, an action that one is obligated to perform; a feeling,or sense, of obligation. In Judaism man’s duties are determinedby God’s commandments. The entire biblical and rabbinic
conception of man’s role in the world is subsumed under thenotion of mitzvah (meaning simultaneously “law,” “commandment,” “duty,” and “merit”). The term ḥ ovah, meaning “obligation” or “duty,” which came into use later, is used interchange-

ably with mitzvah. To perform a divine commandment is tofulfill one’s duty, laẓ et yedei ḥ ovah (Ber. 8b). The translator
from the Arabic original into Hebrew of *Baḥ ya ibn Paquda’s major work Ḥ ovot ha-Levavot (“Duties of the Hearts”)
used the term ḥ ovah as a synonym for commandment, andthe term was taken up by other writers of *musar literature(for a discussion of the relationship between “mitzvah” and“ḥ ovah” see ET, vol. 12, S.V. ḥ ovah). Duty is the incentive tomoral action, and a morality-based duty is evidently different
from one that is based on pleasure. According to a talmudic
dictum “Greater is he who performs an action because he iscommanded than he who performs the same action without
being commanded” (BK 38a). The pleasure derived from theperformance of a commandment is irrelevant to its nature (cf.
RH 28a “the commandments were not given to be enjoyed”),
and conversely dislike of an action is no sufficient reason for
abstention from it, cf. the saying of R. Eleazar b. Azariah: “Saynot, ‘I do not like to eat pork’… but say, ‘I would like, but I will
not for it is God’s prohibition’” (Sifra 20:26; cf. Mak. 3:15). One
should not perform an action in order to gain a reward, but
because it is a divine commandment, and hence one’s duty:“Be not like servants who work for the master on conditionof receiving a reward…” (Avot 1:3).
The morality of an action is determined more by the motivation of the one who performs it than by its consequences:“You must do what is incumbent upon you; its success is up
to God” (Ber. 10a). The notion of intention (kavvanah) is central in Jewish ethics: “Whether it be much or little, so long as
the intention is pure” (Ber. 17a; Sif. Deut. 41); “God demands
the heart” (Sanh. 106b). That is not to say that an action performed without the proper motivation is worthless. The factthat its results are beneficial does give it some worth. Moreover, through performing an action without the proper motivation, one may come to perform it with the proper motivation: “From doing [good] with an ulterior motive one maylearn to do [good] for its own sake” (Pes. 50b; cf. Maim., Yad,
Teshuvah, 10:5).
The major problem in modern Jewish thought in connection with the concept of duty is posed by the Kantian notionof autonomy, according to which an action to be moral must
be motivated by a sense of duty, and must be autonomous (I.
*Kant, Fundamental Principles of Ethics, trans. by T.K. Abbott (194610), 31ff.). This appears to conflict with the traditional Jewish notion that the law is given by God, that is, that
it is the product of a heteronomous legislator. Moritz *Lazarus in his Ethik des Judentums (1898, 1911; The Ethics of Judaism, trans. by H. Szold, 1900) attempts to show that rabbinic
ethics are based on the same principles as Kantian ethics, thebasic underlying principle of both being the principle of autonomy (ibid., 1 (1898), no. 90–105). In so doing he somewhat
distorts the Kantian notion of autonomy. Hermann *Cohen,
in Die Religion der Vernunft aus den Quellen des Judentums,
in his attempt to deal with the problem of heteronomy andautonomy, interprets mitzvah to mean both “law” and “duty,”

72

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: S.E. van Praag, De West-Joden en hun letterkunde sinds 1860 (1926); J. Meijer, Zij lieten hun sporen achter(1964); P. Kat, Bijbelsche uitdrukkingen en spreek wijzen in onze taal
(1926); H. Beem, Jerôsche, Jiddische spreekwoorden en zegswijzen uit
het Nederlandse taalgebied (1959); idem, Resten van een taal, woordenboek van het Nederlandse Jiddisch (1967); C.G.N. de Vooys and G.
Stuiveling, Schets van de Nederlandse letterkunde (1966); J. Melkman,Geliefde Vijand (1964). add. bibliography: S. Dresden, Vervolging, vernietiging, literatuur, (1991); J. Snapper, De wegen van Marga
Minco(1997); D. Meijer, Levi in de Lage Landen (1999), J. Vos, Het geschrevene blijft te lezen (2004).
[Gerda Alster-Thau / Daphne Meijer (2nd ed.)]duwayk
the law originating in God and the sense of duty in man. Man,of his own free will, must take upon himself the “yoke of thecommandments.” Franz *Rosenzweig approaches the question of the duties imposed by Jewish law from a somewhat
different consideration. Distinguishing between “law” (Ger.,
Gesetz; Heb., ḥ ukkah) and “commandment” (Ger., Gebot;
Heb., mitzvah), he holds that the individual is confronted by
the body of Jewish law which is impersonal (Gesetz) and that
he must make a serious effort to transform it into commandments (Gebot) by appropriating whatever is meaningful to him
in the situation in which he finds himself (F. Rosenzweig, On
Jewish Learning (1955), 83–92, 109–24).
Bibliography: J. Heinemann, Ta’amei ha-Mitzvot be-Sifrut
Yisrael, 2 (1956), index S.V. heteronomiyyut.

DUVDEVANI, SHMUEL (1903–1987), Israel botanist. Duvdevani was born in the Ukraine. He studied botany in England and went to Palestine in 1921. He was an instructor at
the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and beginning in 1935 hetaught at the agricultural school at Pardes Ḥ annah. In 1936 heturned his attention to research on *dew. He invented an optical method of measuring the amount of dew precipitation
which has been accepted all over the world. The international
meteorological organization, accepted the Duvdevani Dew
Recorder as a standard method for the international measuring of dew. Duvdevani was instrumental in setting up a network of observation stations throughout Israel for recording
dew precipitation, the first such network in the world. In connection with his meteorological work, Duvdevani carried out
research on plant physiology, especially on the absorption ofwater by the foliage of the plant. In 1946 he participated in
the publication of Magdir le-Ẓ imḥ ei-Bar (1946), which is asystematic definition of flora, according to vegetative qualities alone.
DUVEEN, family of British art dealers. The famous firm ofDuveen Brothers was founded by Sir JOSEPH JOEL DUVEEN(1843–1908), who was born in the Netherlands, the son of a
Jewish blacksmith, and migrated to Hull, where he openeda curiosity shop dealing in china. Duveen developed a deep
knowledge of Nanking china, which he imported successfully,
and, in 1879, moved to London. There he opened an impressive gallery. With the help of his brother Henry in New York,
Duveen then specialized in selling paintings and other art
works to nouveau riches millionaires, especially Americans
and South Africans. He increasingly employed the renowned
American-born art expert resident in Italy, Bernard *Berenson, to authenticate the works he sold. Duveen also built luxury houses for his wealthy clients. He received a knighthoodin 1902 for his gift of £20,000 to build the Turner Gallery at
London’s Tate Museum.
Sir Joseph’s eldest son, Joseph *Duveen, first Baron Duveen of Millbank (1869–1939), with whom he is often confused, became head of the firm after the death of his father

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

and uncle (in 1919), and continued to maintain the firm as aleading international art house.
Bibliography: ODNB online; DBB, II, 213–17; S.N. Behrman,
Duveen (1972); E. Fowles, Memories of Duveen Brothers (1976).
[William D Rubinstein (2nd ed.)]DUVEEN, JOSEPH, LORD (1869–1939), English art dealer.
His grandfather was a Dutch Jewish blacksmith, and his father
a dealer first in lard, then in Delft pottery, furniture, and objets
d’art. Duveen was born in Hull, and later moved to London.
He began to deal in paintings in 1901 and by 1906 was buying
famous collections. In the same year he engaged Bernard *Berenson as his authenticator of Italian art. Duveen’s chief clientswere a relatively small number of American millionaires. He
encouraged in his clients a taste for the luxurious surroundings in which great works of art could be shown, sometimes
even going so far as to build and furnish their houses. At thesame time he “educated” them in an appreciation of the oldmasters and fostered in them a desire to achieve lasting famethrough the formation of important collections. He then met
their requirements by supplying the most magnificent examples available of the Italian, Dutch, French, and English
schools at the highest prices. His specialty was the English
masters of the late 18t and early 19t centuries. The collections he thus brought into existence were often donated to the
public on their owners’ death. Lord Duveen received many
honors. Most controversially, he was appointed a Trustee ofLondon’s National Gallery, National Portrait Galley, and theWallace Collection. The apparent conflict of interest of an art
dealer having a potential role in deciding which works of art
England’s leading art museums might purchase was widely debated, and led to Duveen’s dismissal from these posts shortly
before his death. Duveen received a knighthood in 1919, a baronetcy in 1929, and was awarded a peerage in 1933 – the firstever awarded to an art dealer – in large part for paying for thebuilding of the famous gallery at the British Museum whichhouses the Elgin Marbles.
Bibliography: S.N. Behrman, Duveen (Eng., 1952); J.H. Duveen, The Rise of the House of Duveen (1957).

DUVERNOIS, HENRI (pen name of Henri Simon Schwabacher; 1875–1937), French author and journalist. Duvernois’
popular melancholy and ironical stories of everyday life inParis, influenced by Maupassant, include the novels Crapotte (1908), Faubourg Montmartre (1914), Edgar (1919), andMaxime (1927). Duvernois also published a volume of oneact comedies (1928).
DUWAYK (Doweik ha-Cohen), family of rabbis and authors
in Aleppo, Syria. SIMEON BEN SAMUEL (first half of the 18t
century) was the author of Rei’aḥ Sadeh (Constantinople,
1738). ABRAHAM (d. 1900) was an author and presided over
the Jewish community of Aleppo for many years, until his dismissal in 1896. His wealthy brother SAUL (d. 1874 in Aleppo)

73

dvir
wrote Emet me-Ereẓ (Jerusalem, 1910). JACOB SAUL (d. 1919
in Aleppo) was acting chief rabbi of Aleppo beginning in 1906
and wrote Derekh Emunah (1914) and She’erit Ya’akov (1925),
sermons. The family was also found in India, Calcutta andBombay, and in the latter they had a certain influence on the*Bene Israel community.

[Haim J. Cohen]

DVIR, Hebrew publishing house, founded in 1922 in Berlin byḤ ayyim Naḥ man *Bialik, Shemaryahu *Levin, and Yehoshua
Hana *Rawnitzki as a successor to the *Moriah publishing
firm of Odessa. Bialik expressed Dvir’s program as: “Not justbooks, but basic books; books bequeathed from generation
to generation that provide light for our people.” The firm began publishing books in Tel Aviv in 1924. Dvir’s publications
covered all areas of publishing: reference books, dictionaries,
handbooks, anthologies, belles lettres, humanities, sciences,
social sciences, art, children’s books, and textbooks. Its list included many basic works in Judaica and the classics of modern
Hebrew literature. Its Sefer ha-Mo’adim (“Book of Festivals,”
9 vols., 1956 on, ed. Y. Lewinsky) contains a wealth of material about each holiday. A new edition of the Mishnah, vocalized by Hanoch Yalon and annotated by Hanokh Albeck, waspublished in cooperation with Mosad Bialik. Dvir also began
publishing the Babylonian Talmud with a Hebrew translation.
Authors published by Dvir, in addition to the founders, include *Shalom Aleichem, Sholem *Asch, Yiẓ ḥ ak Dov *Berkowitz, Simon *Dubnow, Isaac Leib *Peretz, Moshe *Smilansky,
Benẓ ion *Dinur, and Yeḥ ezkel *Kaufmann. Later Dvir mergedwith the Zemorah-Bitan Kinneret publishing house.
[Israel Soifer]

DVORETZKY, ARYEH (1916– ), Israeli mathematician.
Born in Chorol, Russia, Dvoretzky went to Palestine in 1922and studied at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, where hebecame professor of mathematics in 1951. As dean of thefaculty of science (1955–56) and as vice president (1959–61)
he adopted a policy of fostering basic research designed tokeep pace with advances in contemporary mathematics. He
was also chief scientist to the Israel Defense Forces. His special fields of study were mathematical statistics, the theory ofprobability, and functional analysis. In 1973 Dvoretzky wasawarded the Israel Prize in exact sciences, and in 1974 he wasappointed president of the Israel Academy of Sciences andHumanities, after serving as chairman of its science section(1963–68) and vice president (1968–74). In 1975 he establishedthe Institute for Advanced Studies at the Hebrew Universityof Jerusalem and from 1985 to 1988 he was president of the
Weizmann Institute.

affairs and a member of the Jewish Students’ Self-Defense Organization. He was also a permanent contributor to the Jewish press in Poland. In 1939 he was elected to the Executive of
the municipality of Vilna.
An officer in the Polish Army in World War II, he wastaken prisoner by the Germans but escaped and returned toVilna, where he took part in the Jewish self-defense against the
Lithuanian pogromists. In 1941–43 he was one of the foundersof the Jewish underground in the ghetto of Vilna and wrote adiary which is now in the historical archives of the city. During
this period he did research on ghetto life during the Middle
Ages on the basis of responsa existing in the ghetto library. In
1943 he was transported to a concentration camp in Estonia,
where he formed an underground group called She’ar Yashuv,
and where he also kept a diary. In 1944 he was transferred toconcentration camps in Germany. In 1945 he organized the escape of Jewish internees from the camp during a death march
and was finally freed by the French army. He organized andheaded a displaced persons organization and served as editorof the Yiddish daily Unzer Vort. From 1945 to 1949 he resided
in Paris, where he was active in the rescue of Jewish children
who had been hidden in monasteries.
From this time Dvorzetsky devoted himself entirely toresearch on the Holocaust, publishing numerous papers andbooks on the subject in Hebrew, Yiddish, French, and English. Immigrating to Israel in 1949, he was a member of theexecutive of Yad Vashem from its establishment, and an active member of all the organizations of ex-partisan fightersand ex-inmates of the concentration camps, as well as literaryorganizations, including the Israeli branch of PEN.
He was instrumental in founding the chair for research
into the Holocaust at Bar-Ilan University and lectured there
from 1960. He received the Israel Prize for social sciences.
in 1953.
[Benjamin Rivlin]

DVORZETSKY, MARK MEIR (1908–1975), writer, communal worker, and partisan fighter. Dvorzetsky was born in
Vilna, where he graduated in medicine in 1935 and received his
rabbinical diploma in 1938. He was active in Vilna in student

DWORKIN, RONALD (1931– ), U.S. legal philosopher. Bornin Worcester, Massachusetts, Dworkin received a B.A. degreefrom Harvard in 1953 and another B.A. degree in 1955 from
Oxford. Two years later he received his law degree from Harvard. After admission to the New York bar, he joined the law
firm Sullivan and Cromwell as an associate. In 1962 he joined
the faculty of Yale Law School, where he was named Hohfeld
Professor in 1968. In 1969 he was appointed professor of jurisprudence and Fellow at University College, Oxford; in 1977
he became professor of law at New York University without
resigning his position at Oxford.
Dworkin is recognized as a leading philosopher of law.
His best-known works are Taking Rights Seriously (1977), A
Matter of Principle (1985), and Law’s Empire (1986). In his
work Dworkin has contended against the philosophy of legal positivism, identified with Jeremy Bentham, John Austin,
and more recently H.L.A. Hart. Legal decisions, he maintains,should be based on principles and pre-existing rights, rather
than on discretion or policy. While rights may be controver-74

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Bracha Rager (2nd ed.)]dyche, john alexandersial, Dworkin holds that nonetheless there is always only one
right answer in hard cases. Rights, he holds, are inherent in
the Constitution and in the precedents that interpret it. Judges
make moral judgments as they apply precedents to factual situations – precedents on which principles are based and which
are the bases of decisions.
In Ronald Dworkin and Contemporary Jurisprudence(1984), the editor – Professor Marshall Cohen – states, “In theopinion of the editor, the jurisprudential writings of Ronald
Dworkin constitute the finest contribution yet made by an
American writer to the philosophy of law.”
Despite Dworkin’s close association, as student and asteacher, with Oxford, he is basically an American thinker.
Much more than would be true of a British jurist, Dworkinhas been influenced by American constitutional law and constitutional jurisprudence. His emphasis on principle is a reflection of this influence.
Dworkin holds the positions of professor of philosophy
and Frank Henry Sommer Professor of Law at NYU and chairat University College, London. He is a fellow of the British
Academy and a member of the American Academy of Arts
and Sciences, as well as co-chairman of the Democratic Party
Abroad, a member of the Council of Writers and Scholars
Educational Trust and of the Programme Committee of the
Ditchley Foundation, and a consultant on human rights to
the Ford Foundation.
Other works by Dworkin include Philosophical Issues in
Senile Dementia (1987), A Bill of Rights for Britain (1990), Life’s
Dominion: An Argument About Abortion, Euthanasia and Individual Freedom (1993), Freedom’s Law: The Moral Reading of
the American Constitution (1996), and Sovereign Virtue: The
Theory and Practice of Equality (2000).
Add. Bibliography: S. Guest, Ronald Dworkin (1991); M.
Cohen (ed.), Ronald Dworkin and Contemporary Jurisprudence (1984),
A. Hunt (ed.), Reading Dworkin Critically (1992).
[Milton Ridvas Konvitz / Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]DWORKIN, ZALMAN SHIMON (1911–1985), Lubavitch
rabbi. Dworkin was born in Rogotchov, White Russia. At theage of 11, he arrived in the city of Lubavitch, then the centerof activities of the *Chabad-Lubavitch movement, to study in
the Yeshivah Tomchei Tmimim Lubavitch. In late 1915, when
the fifth Lubavitcher Rebbe, Shalom Dov Baer, relocated from
Lubavitch and settled in Rostov, Dworkin also settled there.
As the need for additional Chabad grade schools and yeshivot
across Eastern Europe became apparent to the Rebbe in Rostov, Dworkin was one of the students that served as the seedgroup in establishing many of them, as the Rebbe’s emissary.
He received rabbinic ordination from the Rogotchover Gaon,
Rabbi Joseph *Rozin.
Following his marriage, Dworkin became the rabbi of
the city of Stardov, Russia. He also served as a rosh yeshivah
in Yeshivah Tomchei Tmimim Lubavitch in Samarkand andin later years in Paris, France. During World War II, he oversaw the kashrut of meat in Ireland. After the war, he arrived
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6in the United States and settled in the Lubavitch community in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, N.Y. In the mid-1960s, he
was appointed to the position of “rav” and “av bet din” in the
Lubavitcher community.
The Lubavitcher Rebbe, Menachem Mendel *Schneersohn, was very fond of Dworkin and would refer many people
with complicated halakhic questions to him, but also thosewith personal dilemmas that needed a bright and caring individual to assist them. The rabbi was exemplary in treating
every individual, no matter who he was, with great sensitivity and understanding. He was a renowned expert on sheḥ itah
(ritual slaughter) and many other issues. After his death his
responsa were published in book form as Koveẓ Razash.
[Michoel A. Seligson (2nd ed.)]DYATLOVO (Pol. Zdzięciol; Yid. Zhetl), town in Grodno
district, Belarus. Jews first settled there around 1580, and by
1670 a community was formed. Rabbi Ḥ ayyim ha-Kohen
Rapoport served there in 1720–29, and then moved to Lvov,
where he was an important participant in the dispute with theFrankists in 1759. The number of Jews in the town steadily increased; of the total population of 3,979 in 1897, 3,033 (75)
were Jews. Personalities associated with Dyatlovo include
Aryeh Leib ha-Levi Horowitz and Ḥ ayyim ha-Kohen *Rapoport. Dyatlovo was the birthplace of Jacob of Dubno (the“Dubner Maggid”) and Israel Meir ha-Kohen (the “Ḥ afeẓ
Ḥ ayyim”). Zalman *Sorotzkin was rabbi of the communityfrom 1912 to 1929. There were 3,450 Jews (75 of the total)
in 1926, comprising 621 Jewish families. Of these, 303 earned
their livelihoods from crafts, mainly as tailors and shoemakers, while 210 lived from trade. The community had a hospitaland an old age home. Two schools were in operation: a Hebrew Tarbut school and a Yiddish CYSHO school.Communal
and Zionist activities continued until the outbreak of WorldWar II. The Germans occupied the town on June 30, 1941. A
hundred and twenty prominent Jews were executed on July
25 and 400 were sent to the Dworzec labor camp on December 15. On February 22, 1941, a ghetto was created, housing
together with refugees 4,000 Jews. On April 30 around 1,200
were murdered and on August 6, 1942 another 1,500–2,000.
About 800 succeeded in escaping into the forests and joined
the Soviet partisans or later the Red Army. A hundred of themdied in the battles.
Bibliography: B. Kaplinski (ed.), Pinkas Zhetel (1957); PK.
[Shmuel Spector (2nd ed.)]DYCHE, JOHN ALEXANDER (1867–1939), U.S. labor
leader. Dyche was born in Kovno, Lithuania. He went to
New York City in 1900 after 14 years in England, where he
was active in trade unionism. Dyche soon became involvedin the newly founded International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, and from 1904 was its secretary-treasurer. Dyche
defended the principles of “pure and simple” trade unionism, including the sanctity of contracts, the use of the strike
only as a last resort and only under the strict control of a na-

75

dyeing
tional union, and the basic interest of the worker in self-advancement rather than solidarity and socialism. He strongly
supported the Protocol of 1910, arguing that this collective
bargaining agreement in the cloak and suit trade, with its unusual provision for arbitration, would aid the large clothing
concerns at the expense of the small contractors, and allow
the union and the employers to move toward a single wageschedule in the industry. He stressed that employers were prepared to raise wages if their competitors did likewise. However, the Protocol produced bitter disputes within the union,
and Dyche refused to seek another term in office in 1924. He
subsequently left the labor movement and became the ownerof a small business in the garment industry. He wrote Bolshevism in American Labor Unions (1926).

Mishnaic and Talmudic Periods
The craft had developed considerably by the mishnaic andtalmudic periods, both in the preparation of dyes and in thedyeing of materials and clothes. The sources describe thedyer’s workshop (MK 13b) and his equipment, such as thecoverings which protected his hands (Kelim 16:6); before hecast the ingredients into the crucible, the dyer made a small
sample for himself which was known as the “taste” (Men. 42b);
the ingredients were ground with a special handmill (Tosef.
Shab. 9 (10):19). During this period, some places were known
as centers of dyeing: Migdal Zevaya on the eastern bank of
the Jordan, which was noted for the production of cloth;*Haifa, which was also called Purpurin (Purple); and a placecalled Luz where the *tekhelet was manufactured (Sot. 46b).
After the Bar Kokhba War (132–135 C.E.) dyeing was developed in *Lydda and *Beth-Shean, both important weaving
centers.

Middle AgesAs the Jews had been masters of the techniques of the craftfrom ancient times, in some districts, especially in the Mediterranean region, the preparation of dyes and dyeing of cloth
was considered mainly a Jewish occupation. Such occupations
were generally despised and their practice by Jews was seen as
part of the general humiliation of the Jewish people. However,some sources indicate that dyeing was a highly respectableprofession. The apparent contradiction points to a differencein social and economic standing between the artisan engaged
in the craft and the merchant who dealt in the ingredients(though this distinction was not always clearly expressed in
the sources). During this period, Jewish trade in dyestuffs expanded extensively. Jewish merchants imported reseda fromeastern India, via Egypt and Tunisia, to Italy and Spain, andexported saffron from Tunisia to southern Europe. Those trading in indigo between Egypt and Europe were known as alnili (nil = indigo). Contemporary letters illustrate the rangeof the undertakings: a Jewish merchant of Kairouan wrote tohis friend in Egypt that in Sicily only indigo of the best quality could be sold; another merchant, head of the Babylonian
congregation of Fostat (Old Cairo), wrote to an associate in
Tyre in the 11t century, “The price of indigo has risen overthe last fortnight because it was in great demand among thepeople of Syria and the West… .” Documents also point to thehigh prices of these commodities: 270 pounds of indigo costfrom 100 to 300 quarter dinars.
Jews also developed the manufacture of dyes, especiallyin Greece and Italy, where they were most active in the south,
and in Sicily; important dyeing centers existed in *Brindisi,*Benevento, Salerno, Agrigento, Trani, and Cosenza. In these
localities, the dyehouse was sometimes the center of the Jewish quarter, along with the synagogue.
*Benjamin of Tudela found Jews engaged in dyeing inseveral localities in Ereẓ Israel, notably in Jerusalem, Jezreel,
Lydda, Bethlehem, and Bet Nubi. In Jerusalem, their shops
were situated in a special building which they had obtained
from King Baldwin II. In 1231, Emperor Frederick II createda crown monopoly of the silk and dyeing industries and Jewish firms in Trani were appointed to administer it. When themonopoly came to an end with the death of the emperor in
1250, the Jews continued to engage in this industry, which also
spread to the north of Italy. In *Montpellier, France, Jews wereprominent in the manufacture of dyes, while in Spain they
had engaged in the craft from the Muslim period, especiallyin *Seville and *Saragossa. After the Christian reconquest, theJews continued in this occupation, in particular in Saragossa
where they owned special workshops. Among the responsaof Solomon b. Abraham *Adret are clear allusions to the existence of dyers’ guilds. During the 16t century, the occupation expanded after *Safed had become the Jewish center ofthe wool weaving industry.
During this period, dyeing was highly developed in a
number of Jewish communities in the Ottoman Empire, especially in *Salonika and *Constantinople. During the 17t cen-

76

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: L. Lorwin, Women’s Garment Workers (1924);
L.P. Gartner, Jewish Immigrant in England, 1870–1914 (1960), 66.
[Irwin Yellowitz]

DYEING.
Biblical Period
The preparation of cloth for clothing required several operations. After the cleaning of the wool or flax, it was dyed thenecessary color, usually light blue or purple, with animal orvegetable dyes mixed with minerals and salts by chemical processes unknown today. Special dyeing plants and implements
were used in Ereẓ Israel. Dye tools were found at Tel BethMirsim, Gezer, and other places. They were made of stone,
like hollow barrels: on the upper surface a groove was carved,
which was connected to the inside by means of a hole. With
the introduction of the material to be dyed into the dye-filledbarrel, the liquid would rise, overflow through the hole, andbe collected in the groove. Upon the removal of the wet garment, the overflow would return through the reverse processthus permitting the material to be dyed again and preserving
the precious dyes. Some operations required heating or boiling, and portable earthenware vessels, which could be placed
over a fire, were used for these purposes.

dyhernfurthtury, the Salonika dye industry declined, along with weaving,
mainly as a result of competition from Venice and Ancona.
Jews of *Brest-Litovsk are often mentioned as experts in manufacture in Poland and Lithuania. Responsa literature contains
numerous accounts of the craft of dyeing, the tools employed,
and the various methods used in the preparation of dyes.
There are descriptions of a dyeing shop where the work was
carried out (Responsa of Abraham, the son of Maimonides,
no. 117); of a dye-pit (ibid., no. 101); and of barrels in whichwool was dyed (Responsa of Samuel b. Moses di Medina, ḥ M462). Documents also mention dyers who were expert in agiven color: Samāk, the expert in preparing dyes from the sumac shrub; quirmizini, the expert in crimson, etc.
Modern Times
In the Near East, the Jews continued to practice this profession during the 19t century. The surname Zebag (dyer), stillwidespread among Oriental Jews, is evidence of the fact. In
Damascus in the middle of the 19t century, 70 of the 5,000
Jews were dyers. Jews also played an important part in thedevelopment of dye ingredients in the Americas. Planting of
indigo was introduced in Georgia during the 17t century andMoses *Lindo from London invested large sums in the cultivation of indigo in South Carolina in 1756. The developmentof modern chemistry and the *chemical industry, in which
Jewish scientists and entrepreneurs played a considerable role,brought to a close the traditional methods in the manufactureof dyes and dyeing.
Bibliography: Demsky, in: IEJ, 16 (1966); G. Caro, Sozialund Wirtschaftsgeschichte der Juden, 2 vols. (1908–20), index, s.v.
Farben; R. Strauss, Die Juden im Koenigreich Sizilien … (1910), 66ff.;
A.S. Hershberg, Ḥ ayyei ha-Tarbut be-Yisrael bi-Tekufat ha-Mishnah
ve-ha-Talmud, 1 (1924), 207–316; I.S. Emmanuel, Histoire de l’industriedes tissus des Israelites de Salonique (1935), 16ff.; J. Starr, in: Byzantinisch-neugriechische Jahrbuecher, 12 (1936), 42–49; Ashtor, Toledot,
1 (1944), 176ff.; R.S. Lopez, in: Speculum, 20 (1945), 23f. (Eng.); Roth,Italy, index; J.R. Marcus, Early American Jewry, 2 vols. (1951–53), index, s.v. Dyeing Industry, Indigo; S. Avitsur, in: Sefunot, 6 (1962), 58ff.;
Hirschberg, Afrikah, 1 (1965), 200ff.; M. Wischnitzer, History of Jewish
Crafts and Guilds (1965), 127ff., 203f., and index; S.D. Goitein, Mediterranean Society, 1 (1967), index.

DYE PLANTS. The dye materials that were used in ancient
times were many and varied and were obtained from various mineral, plant, and animal sources. The last gave fastand beautiful colors, but these were so costly that only thewealthy could afford them. Of these the most famous werethe “blue and purple and scarlet” mentioned frequently in
the Bible in connection with the construction of the Sanctuary and the Temple (see *Crimson, *Tekhelet). In mishnaic
times cheaper dyes were obtained from such common plants
as the carob and the sumac (og; Tosef. Shev. 5:7). Green walnut and pomegranate shells were used to produce a brownblack dye (Shev. 7:3).
In the Bible three plants are mentioned from which dye
was obtained: karkom (*saffron), kofer (*henna), and pu’ah
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6(madder). The saffron provided an orange dye, the henna a
reddish orange one, and the madder a red-colored dye. Tola(crimson) and puvah (or puah) are mentioned in the Bible
as proper names (Gen. 46:13; I Chron. 7:1; Judg. 10:1). These
names, which were borne by the sons of Issachar, suggestthat this tribe was skilled in the production of these dyes
or in using them for dyeing cloth. Madder is obtained fromthe plant Rubia tinctorum which was grown in large quantities before the discovery of synthetic dyes. It is indigenous toEdom, and many species grow wild in Israel. The plant wascultivated in the mishnaic period and there is a discussion
on the methods to be employed in uprooting it in a sabbatical year (Shev. 5:4).
Other dyestuffs are mentioned in rabbinic literature. Isalis, koẓ ah, and rikhpah are mentioned together (Shev. 7:1). Isalis is obtained from a plant, Isalis tinctoria, from whose leaves
a blue dye was extracted. It grew in abundance until the end of
the 19t century; some 2,000 kg. (about 4,400 lbs.) of leaves per
dunam were harvested, from which four kg. (about 8¾ lbs.)
of dyestuff was produced. Koẓ ah is the Carthamus tinctorius
whose top leaves provide a dye of a reddish orange shade.
The seeds of this plant served both as a food and as a sourceof dye. In the Mishnah it has the additional name ḥ ari’a (Kil.
2:8; Uk. 5:3). In the Talmud it is also called morika, kurtemei (i.e., carthamus), and dardara. The latter means a thistle,
hence its mishnaic name koẓ ah as it is a thorny plant of thefamily Compositae. Rikhpah is dyer’s reseda, the Reseda luteolathat grows wild in the arid areas of Ereẓ Israel. Its leaves andflower provide a yellow dye. Leshishit (turnsole, Chrozophora
tinctoria) grows wild among the summer crops in many partsof the country. The various parts of the plant produce a blue
dye which is used for dyeing textiles and is used in Europe
for coloring food to this day. This plant is mentioned in the
Tosefta (Shev. 5:6). Kalilan (indigo, indigotin) was imported
from India during Roman times, and a dye of bluish shade
was obtained from it. It was not easy to distinguish it from thetrue blue (see *Tekhelet) permitted for the ritual fringes, andthe rabbis therefore warned against the use of ritual fringes
dyed with it.
Bibliography: Loew, Flora, 1 (1924), 394ff., 493ff., 595ff.;
4 (1934), 117f.; B. Ẓ izik, Oẓ ar ha-Ẓ emaḥ im (1944), 329–34; J. Feliks,
Olam ha-Ẓ ome’aḥ ha-Mikra’i (1957), 301–2; idem, Kilei Zera’im veHarkavah (1967), 225ff., 259ff.
[Jehuda Feliks]

DYHERNFURTH (Pol. Brzeg Dolny), town in Lower Silesia; from 1945 in Poland, near Wroclaw (Breslau). Its Jewish
community dates from 1688, when Shabbetai *Bass, founder ofmodern Hebrew bibliography, leased printing privileges fromthe local magnate who, in turn, held them from the emperor.
The first work he printed in Dyhernfurth was *Samuel b. Uri
Shraga Phoebus’ Beit Shemu’el, a commentary on Shulḥ an
Arukh Even ha-Ezer (1689). A community was formed by 13
families, all employed in Bass’s printing works. Both Bass andhis son Joseph had to contend with the hostility of the Jesuits,77

dykman, shlomo
but printing continued until 1762, from 1717 under Berel Nathan, husband of Bass’s granddaughter Esther, and later under Esther herself. Other printing houses were established bySamuel b. Abraham Katz (until 1767), Abraham Lewin (until
1771), Solomon Koenigsberg (1774–75), M.L. May (until 1819),
H. Warschauer & Co., and lastly D. Sklower whose press closed
in 1834 when he moved to Breslau. The Dyhernfurth productions, which included a complete Talmud and Maimonides’
Mishneh Torah, were very popular at the time, but businessdeclined due to outside competition. A Yiddish newspaper,
serving the Breslau community, was printed there in 1770. The
cemetery of Dyhernfurth was used by Breslau Jews until 1765;
a Memorbuch was started before 1700. The synagogue, consecrated in 1847, was sold in 1926. The numbers of the community declined from 191 in 1833 to 42 in 1885, and 5 in 1910, andit was dissolved in 1916.

DYLAN, BOB (Robert Allen Zimmerman; 1941– ), U.S.
folk singer, composer. Probably the most significant folk artist in the last half of the 20t century, Dylan was born in Duluth, Minn., and grew up in the small town of Hibbing. He
started writing poems at ten and taught himself piano andguitar in his early teens. He fell under the spell of the music of
the country, rock, and folk performers Elvis Presley, Jerry Lee
Lewis, Hank Williams, and Woody Guthrie. Dylan dropped
out of the University of Minnesota and went to New Yorkto be part of the burgeoning folk-music scene, and to meet
Guthrie, who was hospitalized with a rare, incurable diseaseof the nervous system.

Dylan spent all his time with other musicians and beganwriting songs, including a tribute, “Song to Woody.” He began to perform at local nightclubs, honing his guitar and harmonica work and developing the expressive nasal sound thatwould become the hallmark of his distinctive style. Aroundthis time he adopted the stage name Bob Dylan, presumably
in honor of the Welsh poet Dylan Thomas. In 1961, a reviewer
for the New York Times said he was “bursting at the seams withtalent.” Columbia Records soon signed him to a contract, andin 1962 his first recording, See That My Grave Is Kept Clean,offered the sound of an aging black blues man in the voice ofa 21-year-old from Minnesota. His next album, The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan, in 1963, contained two of the most importantand durable folk anthems, “Blowin’ in the Wind” and “A Hard
Rain’s A-Gonna Fall,” and two influential ballads, “Girl From
the North Country” and “Don’t Think Twice, It’s All Right”
as well as nine other originals, marking the emergence of themost distinctive and poetic voice in the history of American
popular music.
Dylan’s next album, The Times They Are A-Changing,
provided more of the same: the title cut, the protest song
“The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll,” and “Boots of Spanish Leather,” a sad but graceful love song. In 1965, as he grew
tired of the folk genre, Dylan recorded Bringing It All Back
Home, a half-electric, half-acoustic album of complex biting
songs like “Subterranean Homesick Blues,” which featured theline “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way thewind blows.” (It was a line that inspired the name, the Weathermen, an American antiwar protest group.) Also on the album were “Mr. Tambourine Man” and “It’s All Over Now,
Baby Blue.” When Dylan introduced his move from folk torock at the 1965 Newport Folk Festival, he was booed off thestage. Nevertheless, he released the album Highway 61 Revisited, which contained the monumental single “Like a Rolling Stone,” an angry six-minute-long song that found a hugeaudience.
Dylan had brought a new, literate standard to rock music writing. In Blonde on Blonde, a two-record set recorded in
Nashville, Tenn., in 1966, he offered the now-classic “Stuck
Inside of Mobile With the Memphis Blues Again,” “Visions ofJohanna,” and “Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands.”
After a near-fatal motorcycle accident on July 29, 1966,
Dylan retreated to his home in Woodstock, N.Y., to reevaluate his career. He produced more recordings: The Basement
Tapes, John Wesley Harding, Nashville Skyline (which included“Lay Lady Lay”). Over the years he dabbled, unsuccessfully,
as a film actor and toured extensively with various groups. In
the mid-1970s, one rock promoter said there were mail-orderrequests for more than 12 million tickets, though only 658,000
seats were available for 40 shows in one period. Dylan’s pain
after his marriage ended resulted in the album Blood on the
Tracks, a moving and profound examination of love and loss
that included the songs “Tangled Up in Blue,” “Idiot Wind,”and “Shelter from the Storm.” His religious explorations led
him to profess to be a born-again Christian in 1978, but in

78

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: M. Gruenwald, Zur Geschichte der juedischen
Gemeinde Dyhernfurth (1881); I. Rabin, Aus Dyhernfurths juedischer
Vergangenheit (1929); D. Weinbaum, Geschichte des juedischen Friedhofs in Dyhernfurth (1903); Landsberger, in: MGWJ, 39 (1895), 120–33,
187–92, 230–38; Brann, ibid., 40 (1896), 474–80, 515–26, 560–74; Brilling, in: ZGJB, 7 (1937), 109–12. Add. Bibliography: M. Marx, in:
C. Berlin (ed.), Studies in Jewish Bibliography … in Honor of I.E. Kiev
(1971), 217–36; H.C. Zafren, ibid., 543–80.

DYKMAN, SHLOMO (1917–1965), translator and literary
critic. Born and educated in Warsaw, he fled to Bukhara during World War II and taught Hebrew there. In 1944 he wasarrested for “counterrevolutionary Zionist activities” andsentenced to 15 years’ hard labor in the Vorkuta coal minesin the far north. He was released in 1957 and repatriated to
Warsaw. In 1960 he immigrated to Israel. He translated Bialik’s collected poems into Polish, and his translations of the
Greek and Roman classics into Hebrew include Virgil’s Aeneid (1962); Lucretius’ On the Nature of the Universe (1962);
Ovid’s Metamorphoses (1965); Sophocles’ Tragedies (1963); andAeschylus’ Tragedies (1965). He was awarded the Israel Prize
posthumously in 1965. Autobiographical notes on his years in
Vorkuta appeared in Ha-Ummah (1 (1963), 531–46; 2 (1963),
60–67, 230–45, 375–89; 3 (1965), 375–85).
Bibliography: Elḥ anani, in: Moznayim, 20 (1964/65), 529–
32; Ben-Shamai, ibid., 21 (1965), 415–25.
[Getzel Kressel]

dynow, Ẓ evi elimelech
1983 he reportedly returned to his Jewish roots and was said
to have observed the Jewish holidays.
Widely regarded as America’s greatest living popular
songwriter, Dylan was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hallof Fame in 1988. In 1990 he received France’s highest culturalaward, the Commandeur dans l’Ordre des Arts et des Lettres.
In 2001 he won an Academy Award and a Golden Globe forBest Original Song, “Things Have Changed,” for the film
Wonder Boys.
The 1967 documentary Don’t Look Back chronicles
Dylan’s 1965 tour of England, which includes appearances
by Joan Baez and Donovan. Martin Scorsese’s 1978 film The
Last Waltz is a documentary about Dylan and The Band performing their last concert after 16 years on the road. Among
Dylan’s publications are Bob Dylan in His Own Words (with C.
Williams, 1993); Tarantula, a book of poetry (1994); Younger
Than That Now: The Collected Interviews with Bob Dylan(with J. Ellison, 2004); and his autobiography, Chronicles,
Vol. 1 (2004).
Beginning in the mid-1980s Dylan hit the road full-time,
performing all over the world. His albums were not as successful as those of his early years, but he continued to performand sing in his nasal twang through the early years of the 21st
century. He rarely granted interviews, refused to explain themeaning of his songs, and remained a significant but enigmatic figure. He had millions of fans – he played in Rome at
the behest of Pope John Paul II – and inspired hundreds ofarticles, books, and websites. In December 2004 he was oneof five recipients of one of the highest awards for artistic excellence, the Kennedy Center honors.

DYMSHYTS, VENIAMIN E. (1910–1993), Soviet economist and engineer who became a deputy premier of the Soviet Union in 1959. He was a grandson of the Hebrew writer
A.A. Rakowski. Born in Theodosia (Crimea) he qualified as
an engineer at the Moscow Technical Institute and began
working as a construction engineer in 1931. By 1950 he wasdeputy minister of construction enterprises in the metallurgical and chemical industries. Later he went to India as chiefengineer of the Bhilai steel plant which was erected with Soviet aid. Dymshyts became chairman of the State Planning
Committee in 1959 and simultaneously was appointed deputy
premier, the only Jew in the upper echelon of the regime. He
was promoted to head of the National Economic Council in
1962, with responsibility for dealing with the daily problemsof overall economic management. Later he assumed the leadership of the new state committee to centralize the distribution of industrial products. Dymshyts was a member of theCommunist Party Central Committee for 1961 and a deputy
to the Supreme Soviet. He was awarded the Stalin Prize twice(1946, 1950). On March 4, 1970 he was the main representative of Soviet Jewry in a press conference about the situationand strongly criticized the State of Israel.
[Shmuel Spector (2nd ed.)]Bibliography: LNYL, 2 (1958), 502–4. Add. Bibliography: Z. Zylbercweig, Leksikon fun Yidishn Teater, 1 (1931), 557–62;
The Encyclopedia of Russian Jewry, 1 (1994), 448–9.

DYNOW, Ẓ EVI ELIMELECH (1785–1841), ḥ asidic ẓ addik
in Dynow, Galicia, often known after his main work as “theauthor of Benei Yissakhar” (Zolkiew, 1850). He was a discipleof Ẓ evi Hirsch of *Zhidachov, *Jacob Isaac “ha-Ḥ ozeh” (“theseer”) of Lublin, and the Maggid Israel of *Kozienice. Ẓ evi
Elimelech served as rabbi in Strzyzow, Halicz, Dynow, andMunkacs. His total opposition to Haskalah and philosophy
was evidenced in both his devotion to Kabbalah as the essence of Judaism and his statement that “there is no knowledge, either in the realm of science or philosophy, which is notalluded to in the Torah [which is higher than the intellect]”(Benei Yissakhar, Sec. 2:88). He considered philosophical enquiry a waste of time and of soul. Rational reason should not
be sought for the mitzvot, but they should be observed withlove, as divine decrees, whether rational or not, without questioning or seeking proofs. Man must have faith “even in two
opposite [commands of God] where the intellect cannot solve
the contradiction” (ibid., Sec. 1, 73). The task of the ẓ addik is ofutmost importance since by means of the high spiritual level
he attains he may help to unite the upper and lower worlds.
Ẓ evi Elimelech differentiated between two types of ẓ addikim:
the perfect one, “the servant of God” (eved adonai) and theone who only “worships God” (oved Adonai). Worship of God
must combine both love and fear. Fear corresponds to ẓ imẓ um
and love corresponds to hitpashetut (“expansion”). Just as there
can be no stability or survival for worlds without ẓ imẓ um,
so if it were not for fear, man would dissolve in ecstasy “andthe light of the soul would depart from its earthly container.”
Fear of Divine Majesty – in contradistinction to fear of punishment – is the acme of faith. A man “to whom God gives
knowledge (binah) is enabled to retreat within himself direct-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

79[Stewart Kampel (2nd ed.)]DYMOV, OSSIP (pen name of Joseph Perelman; 1878–1959),
Russian and Yiddish author and playwright. Dymov was bornin Bialystok, attended a Russian gymnasium and the Forest
Institute in St. Petersburg, and at 16 began publishing humoresques in Russian satiric journals. The first collection of his
stories, Solntsevorot (“The Sun Cycle,” 1905), artistically blending symbolism, irony, and wit, placed him in the mainstreamof Russian literature. The motif of Jewish suffering became
predominant in his plays Slushay, Izrail! (“Hear, Israel!” 1907;
Heb., 1913) and Vechny strannik (“Eternal Wanderer,” 1913),
which were staged in Russian, Hebrew, Yiddish, and other languages in Europe and in the U.S., bringing Dymov substantial
fame. He settled in New York in 1913 and over decades contributed hundreds of stories and humoresques to the Yiddish
press and wrote dramas and comedies for the Yiddish theater. He also reworked classical texts for Yiddish screenplays,
published two volumes of memoirs, and worked in Yiddish
radio. His most popular play, Yoshke Muzikant (“Yoskhe theMusician”) is included in the volume Dramen un Dertseylungen (“Dramas and Stories,” 1943).

dzialoszyce
ing his thought to his Creator also while in the company ofother men.” Dynow thus reformulates *Naḥ manides’ thesis(commentary on Deuteronomy 11:20).
Dynow’s writings comprise (1) kabbalistic: glosses to thecommentary of *Eleazar of Worms on Sefer *Yeẓ irah (Przemysl, 1888); commentary on the beginning of Eleazar’s SeferḤ okhmat ha-Nefesh (Lemberg, 1876); glosses to the Zohar(Przemysl, 1899); Ma’yan Gannim, a commentary on Or haḤ ayyim (1848) by Joseph Jabetz; Regel Yesharah (Lemberg, dateof publication not known), an alphabetical commentary on
names and concepts on the basis of the kabbalistic system of
Isaac *Luria. (2) Homiletic and exegetical works which became
popular among Ḥ asidim, among them Derekh Pikkudekha(Lemberg, 1851), homilies on the mitzvot; Igra de-Kallah (Lemberg, 1868), homilies on the Torah; Igra de-Pirka (Lemberg,1858); Likkutei Maharẓ a (Przemysl, 1885), on the Torah and
the Prophets; Keli ha-Ro’im (Lemberg, 1808), commentaryon Obadiah; Devarim Neḥ madim (Przemysl, 1885); Maggid
Ta’alumah (Przemysl, 1876), novellae to tractate Berakhot;
Rei’aḥ Duda’im (Munkacs, 1879), on tractate Megillah; VeHeyeh Berakhah (Przemysl, 1875), commentary on Mishnah
Berakhot; Berakhah Meshulleshet (Przemysl, 1896, commentary on the Mishnah); Tamkhin de-Oraita (Munkacs, 1926).
Bibliography: Horodezky, Ḥ asidut, 2 (19534), 201–18; idem,
in: Meẓ udah (1948), 284–9; Berger, Eser Ẓ aḥ ẓ aḥ ot (1909), 106–118;
M. Bodek, Seder ha-Dorot (1927), 67; L. Grossmann, Shem u-She’erit(1943), 21–23; R. Mahler, Ha-Ḥ asidut ve-ha-Haskalah (1961), index;
N.Z. Horowitz, Ohel Naftali (1964), 98–99.

DZIALOSZYCE, town in S. central Poland; passed into Austria in 1795 after the third partition of Poland, and to Russia
after 1915; from 1919 in Poland. From 1765 it had a considerable
Jewish majority. The community numbered 651 in 1765; 2,514(83 of the total population) in 1856; 3,526 (76.5) in 1897;
5,618 (83.3) in 1921; and about 7,000 (80) in 1939. Tanning,brickmaking, and tailoring were the principal occupations of
the community. After World War I Jews in Dzialoszyce owned
about 78 clothing stores, six tanneries, and brick kilns. In 1930
the artisans established an authorized union to protect theirstatus and assist their members in obtaining recognized technical diplomas. Although efforts were made to reconstruct life
in 1937, it had not returned to normal before the German occupation in World War II.
[Shimshon Leib Kirshenboim]

80

Holocaust Period
The German army entered on September 7–8, 1939, and theanti-Jewish terror began. In 1941 about 5,000 Jews from *Cracow, *Warsaw, *Lodz, *Poznan, and Lask were deported toDzialoszyce, swelling the population to 12,000. In June 1941
Jews were forbidden to leave the town, but no closed ghetto
was established. On September 2, 1942, the Germans carriedout the first Aktion against the Jews. At least several hundred
succeeded in fleeing to the surrounding forests and 800 wereselected for the labor camps, but up to 2,000 unfit to travel
were murdered in the local cemetery and about 15,000 weresent to Michow en route to Belzec. Several hundred Jews wereallowed to remain in Dzialoszyce.
RESISTANCE. Those Jews from Dzialoszyce who fled into thewoods joined other Jewish runaways from Pinczow and otherplaces in the vicinity. A number of Jewish partisan groups
were formed to resist actively the German police search units
and Polish antisemitic gangs. The biggest partisan units were
those organized by Zalman Fajnsztat and Michael Majtek.
They united to form the guerrilla unit “Zygmunt,” which wasrecognized by the Polish People’s Guard. This unit fought the
Nazis and provided armed cover for hundreds of Jews hiding in the forest until February 1944, when it suffered great
losses in a battle near the village of Pawlowice. The surviving
Jewish partisans joined different Polish guerrilla units, but
only a few of them were still alive by the time of the liberation of Dzialoszyce region from the Germans (January 1945).
The Jewish community in Dzialoszyce was not reconstituted
after the war. The town retains a 19t-century synagogue built
in the classic style.
[Stefan Krakowski]

Bibliography: Yad Vashem Archives; Sefer Yizkor shel kehilath Dzialoszyc ve-ha-Seviva (1977).

DZIGAN, SHIMON (1905–1980), Yiddish satirical actor.
Dzigan began his career in Lodz, Poland, where he was born.
He became popular in comic dialogues with Israel Schumacher, who played the sedate know-all to Dzigan’s quick-witted ignoramus. When World War II broke out, they escaped to
Russia and gave performances for the Polish Jewish refugees.
After the war, Dzigan and Schumacher performed in Western Europe and North and South America, before settling in
Israel in 1952. When the two parted as a result of personal differences, Dzigan staged his own revues.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Initial letter “E” of the word Ecclesia, from the Sacramentary of Gellone, E. France, eighth century. The
illumination shows the afflicted Job
sitting down among the ashes, andhis wife urging him to “curse God
and die” (Job.2:8–9), Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Ms. Lat. 12048
fol. 143.

Ea–Ez

usual biblical nesher, the griffon vulture, which has no feathers on its neck.
The biblical name for eagle is apparently ayit (cf. Gr.
aetos), described by Jeremiah (12:8–9) as carnivorous likethe lion and as ẓ avo’a, the latter in reference, it seems, to its
middle talon (eẓ ba) which is especially long for clutchingits prey. The powerful king, the conqueror of Babylonia, iscompared to an ayit (Isa. 46:11); the bird’s keen sight is referred to by Job (28:7). It is also mentioned several times in the
Bible as a general term for carnivorous birds of prey (Ezek.
39:4; Isa. 18:6; and apparently also Gen. 15:11). In Israel there
are six species of eagle of the genus Aquila, but they are rare.
The largest of the eagles, the Aquila chrysaetos, is seldom seenin Israel.

EAGLE, bird of prey of the genus Aquila, in particular the
Aquila chrysaetos, the largest of the birds of prey. The eagle has been identified by the translators of the Bible withthe biblical nesher, rendered by the Septuagint as aetos andby the Vulgate as aquila. Biblical passages, however, ascribe
to the nesher characteristics that do not belong to the eagle,
such as its feeding on carcasses (in the manner of Ugaritic
nšr.; the biblical dictionaries notwithstanding, there is nonative Akkadian našru for comparison) and having a bald
head, and already R. Tam pointed out the mistake of regarding it as the eagle (Tos. to Hul. 63a). The biblical nesher is thegriffon vulture (see *vulture), although its traditional identification as an eagle was accepted by the sages of the Talmud
who applied the word to the Roman eagle. Ezekiel also apparently understood it in this sense when he compared the
king of Babylonia to the nesher, which has “great wings andlong pinions, full of feathers” (Ezek. 17:2–3). This is not the

Bibliography: J. Feliks, Animal World of the Bible (1962),
66; M. Dor, Leksikon Zo’ologi (1965), 246f. Add. Bibliography:
CAD N/II, 79.
[Jehuda Feliks]

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 681earthEARTH.
In Biblical Literature
The earth is portrayed in the Bible as a flat strip (Isa. 42:5;
44:24) suspended across the cosmic ocean (Ps. 24:2; 136:6).
It is supported on pillars (Ps. 75:4; Job 9:6) or props (Isa.
24:18; Prov. 8:29) and is evidently surrounded by a mountain
range like the qār of Arabic folklore, to keep it from being
flooded (Prov. 8:29; Job 26:10). The ultimate bounds of theearth known to the ancient Hebrews were India and Nubia(Esth. 1:1; cf. Zeph. 3:10). A similar conception of the earth washeld by Herodotus (3:114) and is found in the Persian inscriptions of Darius. Sometimes, too, its furthermost inhabitants
were thought to be the peoples who resided in remote lands
north of Palestine – *Gog and Magog – a concept which finds
a parallel among the Greeks. It was believed that the fertility ofthe earth could be affected by the misconduct of men. It wasthen said to be “polluted” (Heb. ḥ anefah; Isa. 24:5). As a result of Adam’s sin, the earth yields grain only when man puts
heavy labor into it (Gen. 3:17–19), and for receiving the bloodof Abel it was forbidden to “yield its strength” to Cain under
any circumstances (Gen. 4:11–13). The idea that the land could
be rendered infertile by having innocent blood shed upon it
is widespread in other cultures, and probably stems from thenotion that “the blood is the life” and, therefore, represents theoutraged spirit of the murdered man who exacts vengeance
until the crime is redressed or expiated. Bloodshed could likewise cause lack of rainfall (II Sam. 1:21). Since it is usually aparticular land, especially the Land of Israel, that is affected bymisdeeds committed in it, such misconduct includes not only
moral turpitude but also disobedience to divine commandments. For example, a famine ensued for several years as a result of David’s taking a census, against the orders of God. According to Exodus 23:10–12, the land of Israel had to lie fallow
every seventh year; according to Leviticus 25, every 50t year
as well. This may be explained as a survival of the ancient belief that life is vouchsafed in seven-year cycles. Deuteronomy,
which speaks of the seventh year only as one of debt remission (Deut. 15) and enjoins a public reading of the Torah tothe pilgrims assembled in Jerusalem on the festival of Tabernacles of that year (Deut. 31:10–13), is believed to represent alate development. Among the gentiles particular lands wereregarded as the estates, or inheritances, of their tutelary gods;in the Bible yhwh is the Lord of what would later be known
as the universe, yet the land of Israel is the object of His special care (Deut. 11:12; 32:8–9; II Sam. 20:19; Jer. 2:7; Ps. 79:1). In
the apocryphal book of Ben Sira (17:17), the Lord parcels out
the earth among “rulers,” i.e., celestial princes, as an emperor
might apportion his dominion among satraps. Conversely,
waste places were deemed the natural habitat of demons (Isa.
34:13–14), and the winds which sweep the wilderness were depicted as howling monsters, just as in Arabic folklore the desert is called “howl-place” (yabāb; cf. Deut. 32:10). Earth, likesky, was sometimes called to serve as a witness in prophetic
denunciations of the people (Deut. 4:26; 30:19; 31:28). This82

reflects a common ancient Near Eastern practice of invoking
the earth and sky, along with the national and local gods, towitness covenants and treaties. There is no clear evidence in
the Bible of any worship of the earth, even by apostate Israelites. However, a goddess named Arṣ ay, i.e., Ms. Earth, is mentioned in the Canaanite texts from Ras Shamra (Ugarit) as oneof the brides of Baal, and the Phoenician mythographer Sanchuniathon (second quarter of the sixth cent. B.C.E.) speaksof a primordial woman, called Omorka, who was cut asunder by Belus (Baal) to make earth and heaven respectively. In
the six-day scheme of creation described in the first chapterof Genesis, earth is said to have emerged on the third day(Gen. 1:9–11). It was originally watered not by rain but by asubterranean upsurge (Heb. ed; Gen. 2:5–6). It is not impossible that this picture was inspired by conditions that actuallyobtain in parts of Palestine where, before the onset of the earlyrains and the beginning of the agricultural cycle in autumn,
the soil is moistened only by springs which burst forth at thefoot of the hills. It is possible – though this must be received
with caution-that the Hebrews shared with the Babylonians
the notion that the geography of the earth had its counterpart
aloft and that the portions of the heavens corresponded to terrestrial domains, for it is in terms of such a view that it may
perhaps be possible to interpret the words of Balaam (Num.
24:17) about the star which is stepping out of Jacob (i.e., theregion of the sky answering to the Land of Israel) and which
is destined to smite the borders of Moab. It was held that at
the end of the present era of the world, when a new dispensation was to be ushered in, the soil of the Land of Israel would
undergo a miraculous renewal of fertility. A stream, like thatwhich flowed through Eden, would issue forth (Zech. 14:8),
and there would be a prodigious increase in vegetation andlivestock.
Post-Biblical Literature
Ideas about the earth are elaborated in post-biblical literature.
The earth is represented as resting on a primal foundationstone, which also forms the bedrock of the Temple. The navel,
or center, of the earth is located at Zion, just as among the Samaritans it is located at the sacred Mt. Gerizim, and among the
Greeks, at Delphi. Earth, like heaven, consists of seven layers
superimposed upon one another. Its extent is reckoned in one
passage of the Talmud (Ta’an. 10a) as equivalent to (roughly)
190 million square miles, and it is 1,000 cubits thick. In IV Ezra
6:42 it is said that six parts of it are habitable, and the seventh iscovered by water. According to post-biblical sources, the earth
is sheltered from the blasts of the south wind by the gigantic
bird ziz, and, as in the Bible, it will become miraculously fertilein the messianic age (Ginzberg, Legends, S.V.). Earth’s pristine
fertility, it is said, was diminished through the sin of Adam,and its smooth surface was made rugged by mountains as apunishment for its having received the blood of Abel. Whenthe new age dawns, it will again become level. Just as in the
Greek myth the earth opened to rescue Amphiaraus, so in
Jewish legend it hid the tender babes of Israel hunted by Pha-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6east london
raoh. It likewise swallowed up the vessels of the Temple, toconceal them when that edifice was destroyed. On the other
hand, it engulfed the four generations of the offspring of Cainas an act of punishment; it also swallowed up the army massed
against Jacob, the unfinished part of the Tower of Babel, andthe city of Nineveh. However, it refused to receive the bodyof Jephthah who, as the result of a rash vow, had sacrificed his
own daughter (ibid., S.V.).
Bibliography: A.J. Wensinck, Ideas of the Western Semites Concerning Navel of the Earth (1916); R. Patai, Adam ve-Adamah(1943); T.H. Gaster, Myth, Legend and Custom in the Old Testament(1969), 5, 6, 98(d), 103(c), 144, 188, 294.
[Theodor H. Gaster]

EARTHQUAKE, ground vibrations produced generally bya sudden subterranean occurrence. Accounts of destructive earthquakes extend far into antiquity. In biblical times
earthquakes, like thunder and other natural cataclysms, wereregarded as demonstrations of God’s unlimited power. It
was believed that the phenomenon preceded divine manifestations (I Kings 19:11–12; Isa. 6:4; Ezek. 3:12–13), the revelation at Sinai (Ex. 19:18), divine wrath (Ps. 18:8; 104:8), andcollective punishment (I Sam. 14:15; Isa. 5:25; Nah. 1:5; 16:32;
Amos 9:1), and it was also envisaged as heralding the end of
the world (Ezek. 38:19–20). The descriptions of earthquakes
in the Bible – especially by prophets – indicate that suchcataclysms occurred from time to time and that people were
therefore familiar with their consequences. The almost scientific description of the phenomenon of earth dislocation andcracking related in a prophecy of wrath (Zech. 14:4–5) might
be based on a personal experience of an earthquake. Becauseof its powerful impact, the major earthquake which occurred
toward the end of King Uzziah’s reign (about 800 B.C.E.)
was referred to for some time in date references (Amos 1:1;
Zech. 14:5). In 31 B.C.E. a disastrous tremor in Judea claimed
10,000 to 30,000 victims (Jos., Ant., 15:122). In 749 a powerful earthquake, thought to be 7.3 on the Richter scale, hit
northern Israel, destroying *Bet(h)-Shean, *Tiberias, Kefar
Naḥ um (*Capernaum), and *Susita. The earthquake caused ahuge tidal wave that led to the death of thousands. Anotherseries of earthquakes occurred in 1033, striking Tiberias andits environs. During the last 2,000 years, earthquakes in Palestine and its neighborhood have been recorded in greater detail(see bibl. Amiran, 1951; Shalem, 1951; Arieh, 1967). These records reveal that, on the average, several damaging earthquakes have occurred in each century, but usually only one
reached disastrous proportions. Seismological observatories have been operated by the Geological Survey of Israel
since 1955 and by the Weizmann Institute of Science since1969. Recent seismographic measurements indicate that mostearthquake epicenters are situated in or near the Jordan Rift
Valley, an area where the two most destructive earthquakes
since the 19t century originated. The earthquake on Jan. 1,
1837, whose epicenter was near Safed, took about 5,000 victims, ruined much of the old city, and was strongly felt from

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Beirut to Jerusalem. This earthquake was preceded by one in1759 in which the walls of *Safed were ruined and many were
killed. On July 11, 1927, an earthquake occurred north of *Jericho violently affecting vast areas from Lebanon to the Negev,
and in Transjordan killing about 350 persons and ruiningsome 800 structures (mainly in Shechem). This earthquake
stopped the flow of the Jordan River for a few years owing torock collapse. The last significant earthquake in Israel was in1995 in Eilat (*Elath), when the epicenter was in the Red Sea,
therefore causing minor damages. In 2004 a series of tremors
struck Israel, mainly in the Dead Sea area. Experts argue thatsuch earthquakes are a warning sign of a bigger one yet tocome in the next few years. The extent of damage caused by anearthquake depends not only on magnitude, focal depth, andproximity to the epicenter, but also, and sometimes mainly,
on local ground features, topographic conditions, type offoundation and construction, and density of population. In
areas with long-standing earthquake records, seismic risk canbetter be evaluated than in areas without such records. Cities which have suffered relatively much from earthquakes are
Safed, Tiberias, Shechem (all near the epicenter zone, andpartly built on slopes and unconsolidated ground with poorly
built structures), Lydda, and Ramleh (unstable ground conditions). Jerusalem, with its rocky fundament, has remained
during its long history relatively undamaged by earthquakes,
as if to justify the psalmist’s verse: “Those who trust in the
Lord are like Mount Zion, which cannot be moved, but abides
for ever” (Ps. 125:1).
Bibliography: C.F. Richter, Elementary Seismology (1958);
N. Shalem, in: Jerusalem Quarterly, 2 (1949), 22–54 (Heb.); idem, in:Bulletin of the Research Council of Israel, 2:1 (1952), 5–16; D.H.K. Amiran, in: IEJ, 1 (1950–51), 223–46; 2 (1952), 48–62; E.J. Arieh, in: Geological Survey of Israel, 43 (1967), 1–14.
[Eliyahu Arieh]

EAST LONDON, port in Eastern Cape province, South
Africa. East London was founded in 1836 as a landing stage
and proclaimed a town in 1847. W. Barnett acquired a grant ofland in 1849, but the first known permanent Jewish resident
was Gustave Wetzlar, who arrived in Cape Town in 1861 from
Germany and settled as a merchant in East London in 1873.
A town councilor in 1881, he became mayor in 1889. John
Lewis Norton, a descendant of the British settlers of 1820,
became chief constable and messenger of the court. The
growth of the Jewish population resulting from immigration and an influx during the Boer War of 1899–1902 led tothe establishment of a Hebrew congregation in 1901. Julius
Myers and G.G. Deal, both immigrants from England, took
the initiative and continued to be active in communal life.
Emmanuel Lipkin, later of Oudtshoorn, arrived from England in 1903 as minister and a small synagogue was opened.
A larger synagogue was built 20 years later. A small Reform congregation was established in 1958. In the heyday ofthe community, which at its height in the mid-1960s numbered some 1,200 people, there was an active Jewish commu-

83eaton, joseph W.

EBAN, ABBA (Aubrey) SOLOMON (1915–2002), Israeli
statesman, diplomat, and writer, member of the Fourth to
Eleventh Knessets. Born in Cape Town, South Africa, Eban
was brought up in England. He studied Oriental languages andclassics in Queens College at Cambridge University, where he
was research fellow and lecturer in Arabic in 1938–40. Eban
was noted for his mastery of several languages. As an undergraduate, he was a founder of the University Labor Society
and became president of the Students’ Union.
During World War II Eban held the rank of major, serving on the staff of the British minister of state in Cairo from1941. In 1942 he served as liaison officer on behalf of the Allied
Command with the leadership of the Jewish yishuv in Palestine, and in 1944 as chief instructor in the Middle East Center for Arab Studies in Jerusalem, for the purpose of training

Jewish volunteers. At the end of the war he took up residence
in Jerusalem and in 1946 was appointed by the Jewish Agency
political information officer in London, and the following year
served as its liaison officer with UNSCOP. After serving as amember of the Jewish Agency delegation to the UN General
Assembly, Eban was appointed representative of the newly established State of Israel to the UN, and in the years 1949–59 as
Israel’s permanent delegate, serving in 1952 as deputy presidentof the General Assembly. In the UN Eban was known for his
eloquence and superb presentation of Israel’s case in the faceof Arab hostility. In 1950–59 he also served as Israeli ambassador to the United States. In 1958–66 Eban was president of
the Weizmann Institute in Rehovot and initiated the International Rehovot Conferences on “Science in the Advancementof New States.” In 1959 he was elected to the Fourth Knesseton the *Mapai list. He served as minister of education and culture in the years 1960–63, deputy prime minister in 1963–65,
and minister for foreign affairs in 1966–74. As minister for foreign affairs, Eban sought to consolidate Israel’s relations with
the United States and to secure association status for Israelin the European Economic Community. In May 1967 he paid
dramatic visits to Paris, London, and Washington in an effort
to avert the outbreak of war. Throughout the Six-Day War in1967 and the Yom Kippur War in 1973 he led Israel’s diplomatic
campaigns in the UN. Eban was reappointed minister for foreign affairs in the short-lived government formed by Golda*Meir after the Yom Kippur War and participated in the negotiations with Henry *Kissinger which led to the Disengagement Agreement with Syria on May 31, 1974. However, after
Meir’s resignation, following the publication of the *Agranat
Commission report on the background to the outbreak of thewar, he was not included in the government formed by Yitzhak *Rabin. Though continuing to serve in the Knesset, Eban
started to teach at Haifa University and at Columbia University in the U.S. as a visiting professor. In September 1974
he was appointed chairman of the Board of Governors of
Bet Berl, which was the ideological center of the Labor Party.
In the Eleventh Knesset he served as chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee and as chairmanof a subcommittee that dealt with the Pollard Affair. In the primaries held in the Central Committee of the Labor Party for aplace in the party’s list for the Twelfth Knesset, Eban failed tobe elected. Eban then withdrew from the political arena andconcentrated on the production and presentation of TV programs in the U.S. on Jewish tradition and the history of theState of Israel. His writings include Voice of Israel (reprinted
speeches, 1957), The Tide of Nationalism (1959), The Final Solution: Reflections on the Tragedy of European Jewry (1961),
Chaim Weizmann – A Continuing Legacy (1962), My People:
The Story of the Jews (1968), My Country: The Story of Modern
Israel (1972), An Autobiography (1977), Heritage: Civilizationand the Jews (1984), The New Diplomacy: International Affairs
in the Modern Age (1983), Personal Witness: Israel Through My
Eyes (1992), and Diplomacy of the Next Century (1998).

84

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

nal life, with Hebrew schools, Zionist and other organizations,regional branches of national bodies, and a country club. By
2004, however, it had dwindled to fewer than 150, mainly elderly individuals, though the main communal organizations
continued to function. Jews have been prominent in civic affairs, the mayors including (besides Wetzlar) David Lazarus,
1947–48 and 1966–68, Abraham Addleson, 1957–59, and Leo
Laden, 1962–64.
Bibliography: G. Saron and L. Hotz, Jews in South Africa(1955), 311–13.
[Abraham Addleson / David Saks (2nd ed.)]EATON, JOSEPH W. (1919– ), U.S. sociologist and educator. Born in Nuremberg, Germany, Eaton went to the UnitedStates in 1934. After graduating in 1948, he directed the studyof the Hutterites, an isolated Mennonite sect of northwestern
U.S. and Canada who lived in communities and held property in common. The results were published in 1955 in Culture and Mental Disorders (J. Eaton and R.J. Weil). Eaton published an analysis of prison reform and treatment programsin California (Stone Walls Not a Prison Make, 1962). In 1961
he published Measuring Delinquency and in 1964 Prisons in
Israel. He directed a long-range study of Israel’s youth organization and national service program financed by the U.S.
Office of Education (Influencing the Youth Culture: A Studyof Youth Organizations in Israel, 1969). His academic interests were in evaluative research, applications of social theory,and the sociology of social work. He also wrote Card-Carrying Americans: Privacy, Security, and the National ID Card
Debate (1986) and The Privacy Card: A Low Cost Strategy to
Combat Terrorism (2004).
Eaton became professor emeritus at the Graduate Schoolof Public and International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh, in the field of economic and social development andsociology. He remained actively involved in studying the Hutterites and was a consultant for a University of Pittsburgh research project on the causes of schizophrenia.
[Zvi Hermon / Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]eblaAdd. Bibliography: R. St. John, Eban (1972); A. Ron (ed.),Abba Even: Medina’i ve-Diplomat: Sefer le-Zikhro shel Sar ha-Ḥ uẓ
le-She’avar (2003).

EBLA, archaeological site in northern Syria, present-day Tell
Mardikh, located 35 mi. (60 km.) south of Aleppo and excavated by an Italian team of archaeologists starting in 1964. In
the 1970s thousands of cuneiform texts dated to the second
half of the 3rd millennium B.C.E. (in archaeological terms,
EB IV, or Early Bronze Age IV) were discovered at the site.
The language reflected in these texts was neither Sumerian nor
Akkadian, two well-known languages of the period written in

cuneiform, but rather was determined to be a previously unattested language, called “Eblaite” by scholars.
Scholars continue to debate the specific date of these texts.
The main issue is whether they are pre-Sargonic (i.e., from atime before the reign of Sargon of Akkad (2270–2215 B.C.E.
according to one standard opinion)), or whether they arecontemporary with the Sargonic period. The discovery of an
object bearing the cartouche of the Egyptian pharaoh Pepi
I is an important find – attesting to trade relations between
Ebla and Egypt, though perhaps only indirectly, through theintermediation of Byblos (see below) – but unfortunately thedate of Pepi I (and all the 6t Dynasty monarchs) is not fixed(2333–2283 B.C.E. is one approximation), and thus this artifact
cannot help answer the chronological question definitively.
The issue of whether the heyday of Ebla is pre-Sargonic or
Sargonic hinges in the main on who or what caused the destruction of Ebla (well attested in the archaeological record)during this period. Was the city destroyed by Sargon, by his
grandson Naram-Sin, or by accidental fire that simply could
not be controlled? Without attempting a definitive answer tothese questions, for our present purposes we will side withthose scholars who view the Ebla texts as pre-Sargonic. Accordingly, we proceed with the statement that Eblaite is theearliest attested Semitic language, antedating the oldest Akkadian material by about a century, though perhaps by only a
few decades.
Another scholarly debate concerns the exact identification of the Eblaite language. Some scholars hold that the language reflected in the Ebla texts is nothing more than a dialect or variation of Old Akkadian; according to this opinion
it would be incorrect to speak of a separate language called
Eblaite. Other scholars, meanwhile, hold that Eblaite is sufficiently distinct from Old Akkadian to merit the identification
as a separate Semitic language. Among the latter, though, there
is still no consensus: some hold it to represent an independent branch of Semitic to be called North Semitic, while others group Eblaite in the West Semitic branch. To be sure, there
are quite a few lexical and grammatical links between Eblaite
and the later attested Amorite (early second millennium) andAramaic (first millennium), thus suggesting a Syrian Sprachbund incorporating these three languages. An important pieceof evidence is the first person singular independent pronoun
ana ana ‘I’, exactly as in Amorite and Aramaic (in contrast to
Akkadian anāku).
The debate over the language is due in part to the nature of the texts written in Eblaite. The Eblaite texts use avery high percentage of Sumerograms, that is, words written
as Sumerian signs though meant to be read as Eblaite words.
Often, however, we do not know what Eblaite words lie behind these Sumerograms. For example, in the expression siin i-li-lu A-MU DINGIR-DINGIR-DINGIR, appearing in an incantation text, we can understand the words to mean “to Elilfather of the gods.” But the only Eblaite words that we learn
are the preposition si-in, to be normalized as sin, “to,” andENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

85[Edwin Samuel, Second Viscount Samuel /Susan Hattis Rolef (2nd ed.)]

EBENEZER (Heb. ‫) ֶאבֶ ן ָה ֶעזֶ ר‬. (1) Site of the Israelite camp facing the Philistine army at *Aphek before the battle in which thePhilistines captured the Ark of the Covenant (I Sam. 4:1). It is
generally identified with Majdal Yābā, which was still known
in the first century C.E. as Migdal Aphek. (2) Name of thestone set up as a victory monument by Samuel between *Mizpah and Shen after the Israelites had “pursued the Philistinesand smote them, until they came under Beth-Car” (I Sam.
7:11–12). Most scholars consider the two Eben-Ezers identicaland locate it on the Israelite-Philistine border.
Bibliography: Albright, in: BASOR, 11 (1923), 7; Abel, Geog,
2 (1938), 309; EM, S.V.
[Michael Avi-Yonah]

EBER (Heb. ‫עבר‬, Ever). (1) Great-grandson of *Shem, sonof Noah and ancestor of Abraham (Gen. 10:21ff.; 11:14ff.;
I Chr. 1:17ff.); presumably (but nowhere explicitly) intended as
the eponymous ancestor of the *Hebrews (Ivrīm). “All thechildren of Eber” (Gen. 10:21), a phrase which appears – possibly unintentionally – to include Arabian and other tribes
as well as Israelite, may or may not be related to the term
“Hebrews”; certainly there is no solid evidence that the Bible
understood any but Israelites to be Hebrews. The names appearing in the genealogies of Genesis 10 and 11 are, as in otherancient West Semitic genealogies, personifications of tribes,
nations, cities, and lands rather than individuals (see *Genealogy; *Nations, The Seventy). In view of this, many scholars
consider the name Eber to be derived from Ivri, rather thanvice versa, while others suggest that the term refers to theregion known as ever hanahar (“beyond the river [Euphrates]”; Josh. 24:2; cf. Num. 24:24). Such usage of the name wasfacilitated by the fact that Eber was probably also the nameof a clan or a personal name. (2) The head of a Gadite family(I Chron. 5:13). (3 & 4) The heads of two Benjaminite families (I Chron. 8:12, 22). (5) A post-Exilic priest (Neh. 12:20).
(In nos. 2–5 some Hebrew and/or LXX manuscripts read ‫עבד‬(ebed).)
Bibliography: A. Malamat, in: JAOS, 88 (1968), 165–8.
[Jeffrey Howard Tigay]

ebla
the name of the deity i-li-lu, to be normalized as ilîlu, “Ilil” or“Elil.” The remaining words are A-MU and DINGIR-DINGIRDINGIR, whose meanings are clear as “father” and “gods,” respectively. But these are the Sumerian forms. When the Eblaitescribe read this text aloud, he would have pronounced thesewords as their Eblaite equivalents. And while we can be almost certain that the former was based on the root ab and thatthe latter was based on the root il (as in all the Semitic languages), we lack the precise information in this case. Whenone multiplies this example several hundredfold, it becomes
clear how scholars can differ over the issue of the exact identification of Eblaite.
Most of the Ebla texts were found in several rooms of
Palace G from the 24t century B.C.E. (as per the statement
above that the tablets are pre-Sargonic). The total number oftexts is about 2,000 complete or nearly complete tablets andabout 10,000 fragments. The discovery of this archive in1974 came as a complete surprise to scholars. No one had
imagined that a city in northern Syria might be home to sucha literate culture. Even for the heartland of Mesopotamia at
this time, the discovery of such a large archive would havebeen astonishing. Moreover, the previous scholarly consensus held that the Tigris and Euphrates valley at one end of
the Near East and the Nile valley at the other end were thetwo great centers of culture, already in the third millennium
B.C.E., but that the vast area in between, including Syria,
was a cultural backwater, populated mainly by pastoralists
with their flocks, with no great urban centers of the typefound in Egypt or Mesopotamia. The excavations at Ebla andthe discovery of this large archive changed everyone’s conception.
The corpus of Ebla texts includes a wide variety of documents. The greatest number by far are administrative texts, recording in great detail the activities of the palace, the economyof Ebla centered mainly on textile production and the growingof barley and other grains, the far-reaching trade with cities
throughout Syria and Mesopotamia, and so on. The second
group consists of texts of a historical nature; these include
some important treaty texts. The best preserved of the treaty
texts is a highly detailed pact with Abarsil on the upper Euphrates; it includes about two dozen articles regulating commerce, taxation, emissaries, and the like. The third group ismade up of lexical texts, the most important of which are thebilingual dictionaries providing us with the Sumerian andEblaite equivalents of hundreds of words. While these dictionaries do not give us the words in literary contexts, they
provide us with very valuable information about the Eblaite
vocabulary (see further below). Finally, there is a series of incantation texts (a line from one was quoted above). (There
have been some reports about literary texts found at Ebla;
but at present only one such text has been published, and thatcomposition is a duplicate of a document known from Abu
Salabikh in southern Mesopotamia.)
The administrative and historical texts reveal that Ebla
had contacts with hundreds of cities throughout the region.

Many if not most of these cannot be identified with any confidence, but the toponyms that can be identified give us an
indication of Ebla’s power and influence. Here we may mention important urban centers such as Gublu (= Byblos) on
the Mediterranean (though not all scholars agree with thisreading); Emar and *Mari, both on the middle Euphrates; andKish, situated between the Tigris and Euphrates near Babylon; as well as KURki la-ba-na-an, “the mountain-country of
Lebanon.” (When the Ebla tablets first were discovered, there
were reports that the five cities of the plain listed in Genesis 14 appear at Ebla as well; but there is no substance to thisclaim.)The quantity of materials appearing in the administrative
texts is sometimes staggering. One text (ARET 2:20) gives a
total of 548,500 barley measures distributed (and of thisamount 360,400 appears in one line and 182,600 appears ina second line). Eblaite, in fact, attests for the first time in any
Semitic language a word for 100,000, namely ma-i-at (obviously based on the pan-Semitic word for “hundred”; cf. Hebrew ‫)מאה‬.
The deities attested at Ebla are better known from laterWest Semitic sources than from East Semitic sources. Important gods are Dagan, Hadd/Baal, Rashap, Ashtar, Kamish,
Malik, and Qura, as well as the sun and moon deities, though
their Eblaite names are unknown since the Sumerograms UD(“sun”) and ITI (“moon”) respectively, are used consistently.
(There is absolutely no validity to the claim (reported in theearly days of Ebla studies) that Ya (a shortened form of Yahweh) appears in personal names.)
Of particular interest is the god Kamish: the name appears in the city name Kar-Kamish (Carchemish) in northern Syria; it is attested in the pantheon of *Ugarit on the
Syrian coast from the Late Bronze Age, spelled alphabeticallyas kmt and syllabically as ka-ma-ši (= /kamāt/); and mostprominently it appears much later as the national god of the
Moabites, spelled ‫ כמוש‬and vocalized kәmôš in the Bible. Note,however, that in one passage, Jer 48:7, the name of the Moabite
god occurs as ‫ כמיש‬in the Ketiv. While previous scholars typically assumed a confusion between waw and yod in the scribaltransmission of this text, we now must consider another possibility, that the Ketiv in Jer 48:7 preserves an ancient alternative pronunciation, Kamish, harking back to the Early Bronze
Age as attested at Ebla.
An important deity hitherto unknown is Qura (typicallyspelled Kura in Ebla studies), clearly a major god given thenumber of times the name occurs, including some prominentcontexts. Apart from Ebla, we know nothing about this deity.
The name resurfaces, however, about 3,000 (!) years later as
the first element in the name of the angel Quriel, attested in
Aramaic, Syriac, and Greek magical texts of the first millennium C.E. In one passage Quriel occurs as the father of a demoness; this invites comparison with the demotion of *Baal,
worshipped throughout the Bronze and Iron Ages as a major
deity, but appearing in the New Testament as ruler of the demons in the form Baal-zebul.

86

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6ebner, meir
Whenever a new Semitic language is uncovered, the natural tendency among Hebraists and Biblicists is to mine the
new source for information that can help elucidate problems
in the Bible and can supply cognates for Hebrew lexemes. Several examples of this process were noted above. The remainderof this entry will present additional instances of contributions
from the study of Eblaite to the study of Hebrew (notwithstanding the temporal and geographical distances between
Eblaite in third millennium northern Syria and Hebrew infirst millennium southern Canaan).
A number of Hebrew words, which hitherto had no cognates within Semitic (see the standard dictionaries), now gain
etyma from the Eblaite lexicon. Examples include the following: ni-zi-mu (to be normalized as nizmu), “a type of jewelry” ≈ ‫נזם‬, “nose-ring, earring”; a-a-tum (to be normalized
as ayyatum), “a type of bird” ≈ ‫איה‬, “a bird of prey”; bar-su-um(to be normalized as parsum), “a type of bird” ≈ ‫פרס‬, “a birdof prey.” The first of these items appears in an administrative
text; the latter two appear in the bilingual lexical lists as theEblaite equivalents of Sumerian forms classified as birds dueto the presence of the MUšEN determinative.
The common Hebrew word for “cedar” is ‫ארז‬, but aunique feminine form ‫ ארזה‬occurs in Zephaniah 2:14. Thisnow has a parallel in Eblaite ar-za-tum, presented in the bilingual dictionary as the equivalent of Sumerian GIš-NUN-SAL(the GIš determinative indicates a type of tree).
The above represents but a handful of Hebrew lexemes
with parallels in Eblaite. In truth, however, the very large
Sumerian-Eblaite dictionary (attested in multiple copies atEbla) affords the scholar of ancient Hebrew much fodder for
lexical exploration. We permit ourselves one further example
here. The root ‫גדד‬, “cut, incise, divide,” yields the hitpael form‫התגודד‬, “make incisions upon oneself ” (Deut. 14:1; I Kings
18:28, etc.) and the noun ‫גדוד‬, “troop” (cf. English “division”
in a military sense). Cognates to this word occur in various
Aramaic dialects (Biblical, Samaritan, Jewish Babylonian, Syriac). The verb gadādu, “separate off,” occurs in Akkadian, but
only in Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian, and thus scholars
conclude that the word is a borrowing from Aramaic. The bilingual dictionary from Ebla glosses Sumerian TAR-TAR with
Eblaite ga-da-dum; since Sumerian TAR means “cut,” it is clearthat Eblaite ga-da-dum represents an Early Bronze Age forerunner of later Hebrew and Aramaic ‫גדד‬.
We move now from the realm of lexicon to the realm ofgrammar, with one representative illustration. Already prior to
the discoveries at Ebla, Francis Andersen opined that ancient
Hebrew included a morpheme ‫ומ‬-, that is, conjunctive waw+ enclitic mem. Andersen’s insight was strikingly confirmedby the presence of ù-ma in Eblaite, composed of the same twoelements. Biblical passages which include this morpheme areGen. 41:32, Num. 23:10, Judg. 13:19, I Kings 14:14, Ezek. 48:16,
48:22 (twice), Amos 6:10, Nah. 2:13, Ps. 147:3, Ruth 4:5, Neh.
5:11. A study of these passages reveals that Hebrew ‫ומ‬- has a
specific syntactic function: it serves as an emphasizing conjunction to be translated “indeed, even, verily, yea.” The rec-ognition of this form impacts most of all on the analysis of
Ruth 4:5, where the phrase ‫ ומאת רות‬does not mean “and fromRuth” (note the etnaḥ on the previous word), but rather is
to be analyzed as the emphasizing conjunction ‫ומ‬- followedby the direct object indicator ‫ את‬and then the proper name‫רות‬, thus yielding a translation for the entire verse as follows:“Boaz said, ‘On the day you acquire the field from the hand of
Naomi – ; verily, Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the deceased,
I have acquired [reading with the Ketiv] to raise the name ofthe deceased on his estate.’ ”
Our last instance of the interconnections between Eblaite
and Hebrew returns us to the world of magic. One of theincantation texts is directed against a demon named ha-bă
ha-bi, normalized as habhabi, who is bound and rendered̆̆̆
powerless by the magician. This name is the reduplicatedform of the demonic figure Hby attested in Ugaritic (Mesopŏ
tamian cuneiform has no symbol for [ḥ ] and here substitutes[h]; where he gains the epithet “lord of the horns and tail,”̆that is, the traditional imagery of a devilish character), andappearing in the Bible in two passages in variant forms (onethe basic form, the other with suffixed -ôn): ‫ חבי‬in Isa 26:20
and ‫ חביון‬in Hab 3:4. The occurrence of habhabi/ḥ by/‫חבי‬̆̆
in Early Bronze Ebla, Late Bronze Ugarit, and Iron Age
Israel attests to the tenacity of magical praxes throughout theepochs (see also the discussion above concerning Qura andQuriel).
Finally, we may note that Ebla was rebuilt after the major destruction noted above and achieved a second floruitc. 2050–1950 B.C.E., that is, during the Ur III period. We possess very few Eblaite literary remains from this period, however. Most of our evidence comes from other sites, including,for example, references to Ebla in inscriptions of Gudea, famous ruler of Lagash, whose great building projects necessitated his men to travel to the region of Ebla in order to procure quantities of timber and stone.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

87

Bibliography: A. Archi, (ed.), Eblaite Personal Names andSemitic Name-giving (1988); R.D. Biggs, in: ABD 2, 263–70; G. Conti,
Il sillabario della quarta fonte della lista lessicale bilingue eblaita (=Miscellanea Eblaitica 3 = Quaderni di Semitistica, 17; 1990); C.H.
Gordon and G.A. Rendsburg (eds.), Eblaitica, vols. 1–4 (1987–2002);
P. Matthiae, Ebla: An Empire Rediscovered (1980); P. Matthiae, Ebla,la città rivelata (1995); L. Milano, in: CANE, 2:1219–30; G. Pettinato,
Ebla: A New Look at History (1991); idem, Ebla, nuovi orizzonti dellastoria (1994); idem, Testi lessicali bilingui della bibliotheca L. 2769
(1982).
[Gary A. Rendsburg (2nd ed.)]EBNER, MEIR (Meyer; 1872–1955), Jewish leader in Bukovina and Romania, active Zionist. Born in Czernowitz, heparticipated in the establishment of the Jewish national student association, Hasmonea, in 1891. He earned the degree ofjurist doctor from the university in his native city. With theadvent of Herzl, Ebner joined the Zionist Organization, attending the First Zionist Congress and many succeeding ones.
He was active in Jewish affairs in Bukovina, at the same timeebonyworking to obtain Jewish representation in the local Landtag
and at the Reichsrat in Vienna. He was exiled to Siberia by the
Russian conquerors in 1915 and returned in 1917. In 1918–20
he was head of the Jewish National Council of Bukovina.
When Bukovina was annexed to Romania in 1918, he led thestruggle for Jewish rights and in 1919 founded the German
language periodical Ostjuedische Zeitung in which he advocated Zionism and a Jewish national policy in the Diaspora.
It was published until the end of 1937, when it was banned by
the government. Ebner attended the international Congressesof National Minorities in Geneva, becoming vice president of
the organization after the death of Leo *Motzkin in 1933. In
May 1926 (until July 1927) he was head of the Czernowitz Jewish community and was elected to the Romanian parliament,
where he frequently spoke with great courage, undeterredby threats from antisemites. In 1928 Ebner was elected to the
Romanian Senate and became head of the Jewish faction offour members. He helped found the Jewish Party of Romania
in 1930 and was elected on its behalf to the Romanian parliament. In 1934 his election was prevented through the machinations of the government. Ebner immigrated to Palestine in
the beginning of 1940, where he became a regular contributor
to Zionist publications in Palestine and abroad and was activein associations of immigrants from Romania and Bukovina.
He died in Israel.
Bibliography: M. Kleinman (ed.); Enziklopedyah le-Ẓ iyyonut, 1 (1947), 3f.; M Reifer, Dr. M. Ebner (1947); J. Gruenbuam, Penei
ha-Dor, 2 (1961), 176–80; S. Bickel, Yahadut Romanyah (1978), 326–31;
Parlamentari evrei (1998); D. Schaari, in: SAHIR, 4 (1999), 148–77; Z.
Yavetz, in: English Historical Review (1998).
[Yehuda Slutsky]

EBONY, heartwood of certain trees. The Hebrew word hovenim, which occurs in Ezekiel (27:15) in a reference to Tyre’scommerce in “horns of ivory and hovenim,” is identified bymost translators and exegetes as ebony, called hbn in Egyptian. Several tropical trees supplied the ebony used in ancient
times, the most important being the Diospyros ebenum, which
grows in India. Other species of the same genus grow in Africa. Ebony was extensively used with ivory ornamentation(as described by Ezekiel) for the effect given by the contrastof black and white.

broken staff and sometimes decorated with the Tables of the
Ten Commandments symbolizing the Old Testament. The
best known statues of this type are on the exterior of the cathedrals of Strasbourg and Bamberg. They are also found in
Rheims, Paris, and Bordeaux. In England, they figure, generally in a mutilated condition, in Rochester, Lincoln, Salisbury, and Winchester. The representation of the blindfoldedsynagogue was paradoxically reflected even in Jewish manuscript art: as for example in the miniature of the blindfolded
Torah with her spouse, the People of Israel, in a 14t-century
manuscript prayer book (Hamburg, Cod. Lev. 37; possibly
having a symbolic meaning, representing the Torah and thePeople of Israel).
Bibliography: W.S. Seiferth, Synagoge und Kirche im Mittelalter (1964); B. Blumenkranz, Juden und Judentum in der mittelalterlichen Kunst (1965); E. Roth, in: AWJD, 18:1 (1963); L. Edwards, in:
JHSET, 18 (1958), 63–75; P. Hildenfinger, in: REJ, 47 (1903), 187–96.
[Helen Rosenau]

ECCLESIASTES (Heb. ‫ ַה ּקוֹ ֶהלֶ ת‬, ‫) ּקוֹ ֶהלֶ ת‬, one of the group ofminor writings of the Hagiographa known as the Five Scrolls(Megillot). The name Ecclesiastes is Greek and probably means“member of the assembly.” It renders the Hebrew word kohelet(qohelet, or ha-qohelet = the Qohelet; 1:1, 2, 12; 7:27; 12:8, 9, 10).
Qohelet is not a proper name but means something like “onewho acts in the assembly” or “teaches the public” – see the description of his activities in 12:9. Qohelet is usually thought tobe the author, but he may be a fictional persona, the author’s“mouthpiece.” Though Qohelet never claims to be Solomon,
he does describe himself in Solomon-like terms: He is “kingin Jerusalem” (1:12) and “son of David, king in Jerusalem”(1:1). Traditionally, therefore, he was identified with Solomon.
Solomonic authorship, however, is ruled out by evidence of
language and content.

ECCLESIA ET SYNAGOGA, the name given to the symbolic representations in Christian art of the Middle Ages ofthe victorious Church and defeated Synagogue, symbolizing
the triumph of Christianity. The representation is often foundin medieval Christian manuscript art. It also became a conventional decoration in many medieval churches, especiallyin France, England, and Germany, and took the form of two
graceful female figures, usually on the outside of the building.
The Church is shown erect and triumphant, bearing a cross;
the Synagogue is usually blindfolded and dejected, bearing aLanguage and Date
The Hebrew of the book represents the latest stage in the evolution of biblical Hebrew. An example of the indicators of latebiblical Hebrew is the root tqf (4:12; 6:10), which can only beborrowed from Aramaic, and not before the seventh century B.C.E. Also, the nouns pardes “orchard” (2:5) and pitgam“decree” (8:11) are both borrowed from Persian. Persia only
emerged from obscurity in the middle of the sixth century
B.C.E., and no words are known to have been borrowed fromits language before that. Moreover, pardes, from the Persian
piridaēza (“rampart,” a domain of the king) was also borrowedby the Greeks (paradeisos) in the sense of “orchard,” the sense
it has in Ecclesiastes 2:5. The word avadeyhem “their deeds”
in 9:1 is Aramaic, not Hebrew. So too, ʾillu, the Aramaic andpost-biblical equivalent of the classical lu, occurs in the Bible
only in Ecclesiastes 6:6 and in *Esther 7:4 (the latter being obviously post-exilic and probably third century B.C.E.). There
are, in fact, Aramaisms in Qohelet at a much greater frequency
than we would expect in a pre-exilic work. Indeed it has beenargued – see the items by Ginsberg in the Bibliography – that88

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: Loew, Flora, 1 (1928), 588–9; J. Feliks, Olamha-Ẓ ome’aḥ ha-Mikra’i (19682), 126.

ecclesiastes

Teaching
The book of Ecclesiastes is written in an unusual, difficult
Hebrew, and its thought is self-contradictory and sometimes
opaque. Hence its interpretation has been marked by sharp
disagreement among the commentators.
Traditional commentators, following the Midrash (especially Kohelet Rabbah), regard the book to be King Solomon’s
words in old age. Having experienced both the world’s glories and its disappointments, he realized the futility of mun-dane strivings and the insignificance of earthly goods – matters “beneath the sun” (1:3 and often). These he deemed hevel(understood to mean “trivial”). In contrast, matters that are
not “beneath the sun” but rather belong to the transcendent,
spiritual realm, have great and everlasting value. These are,above all, the eternal life and study of Torah. The book teaches
that one must resign oneself to God’s will, for all his works
are good. Injustices will eventually be rectified and righteousness rewarded, if not in this life then in a blessed eternity, the“world to come.”
Most modern commentators understand the book to
express skepticism about traditional beliefs, especially theverities of the book of Proverbs and similar wisdom literature, in particular the axioms of God’s justice and the efficacyof wisdom and hard work. An example of a negative readingis that of Crenshaw, according to whom Qohelet directs aradical, unrelenting attack on the traditional beliefs of thesages and denies the reality of a moral order. All that is left,
Qohelet concludes, is the pleasure of the moment, which
may soothe the troubled spirit. A more positive reading is
advocated by Fredericks, who argues that Ecclesiastes isonly commenting on the human realm. This is characterized by transience, to be sure, but man can find ways to cope,
namely by simple pleasures, wisdom, the joy of work, andresignation to God’s will. Similarly, Seow argues that “all ishevel” does not mean that everything is meaningless or insignificant, but that the meaning of life and the rationale ofits inequities transcend human comprehension. Humans
must accept whatever happens, while making the most oflife’s possibilities.
Fox (1999, 2004) argues that the underlying issue that
Qohelet addresses is the question of meaningfulness in life.
For events to be meaningful, they would have to cohere in
a comprehensible picture, with deeds securely and predictably producing the appropriate consequences. The righteous
should be rewarded and the wicked punished; the one who
toils should get to enjoy the full fruits of his work while thefoolish should suffer penury; the wise should have a life thepolar opposite of the fool’s; and something should distinguishthem in death.
Qohelet sees that these things do not happen, at least notconsistently (see 6:2; 8:11; 9:11), and he is weighed down by thecollapse of meaning, which is revealed by the contradictions
that pervade life. These he repeatedly calls hevel – “absurd” or“senseless.” Qohelet is frustrated that life does not make sense.
The irrationality of the world is his fundamental grievance,and his other complaints – such as the brevity of life, the futility of effort, the triviality of worldly goods, the vulnerabilityof wisdom, and the anomalies in divine justice – are secondary to this one and serve to confirm it.
Qohelet believes, or at least tries to believe, that God will
eventually execute justice (3:17; 11:9b). The righteous, in principle at least, live long and the wicked die young (8:11–12a, 14).
But Qohelet does not see this happening at present and fears
that justice will come too late (8:10–11, 14). Qohelet sees injus-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 689

the book was written in Aramaic and later translated into Hebrew. This theory has not been accepted by other scholars, but
it calls for further examination. On the linguistic backgroundof the book, see especially the books by Schoors and Seow.
The content too points to a Hellenistic dating. There isreason to think that the author was influenced by Stoic philosophy (see Rudman in Bibliography). Also, competitive footraces, alluded to in 9:11, entered the Near East only in the third
century B.C.E. A deeper indicator of Greek influence (which
would scarcely be possible before the Hellenistic period) isthe book’s display of the mindset of Greek philosophy. This
enterprise tried to determine the good by the application ofhuman reason alone, without appeal to tradition or revelation.
Qohelet, alone of the Bible, follows this path.
Contents
The book of Ecclesiastes is a reflection on life together withadvice on making one’s way through it. Qohelet introduces
himself as a wise king who sought to examine all that happens on earth (1:12–18), including toil, wisdom, and pleasure.
His goal is to determine “what is good for man to do under
the heavens during the few days of his life” (2:3). He amassed
wealth and belongings, and this accomplishment seems tohave given him pleasure; but ultimately he found it senseless(2:4–2:26). As Qohelet proceeds on his investigation, he observes a variety of values and typical events. Most of these hefinds senseless and “bad,” but he does suggest various ways ofmaneuvering through life and, from time to time, does praisecertain modes of behavior and experiences. Still, he begins
and concludes with a judgment that recurs throughout thebook, “All is hevel,” a keyword usually translated “vanity” or“transient” but that might be better translated “senseless” or“absurd.”Recurring topics include injustices (3:16–22); social oppressions (4:1–3; 5:7–11); the futility of toil and pleasure (2:18–
26; 4:4–8; 5:12–6:9); the failure of wisdom and the frailty of
its achievements (4:13–16; 6:10–12; 7:13–14, 23–24; 8:16–9:10;
9:1–3). Occasionally he grants wisdom’s (limited) value (9:13–
18; 10:1–3). He more emphatically affirms life’s goodness andthe importance of grasping life’s pleasures when they present
themselves (9:4–10; 11:7–12:1) – an imperative made all themore urgent by the incessant awareness of death’s grim certainty (9:7–10; 12:1–8). He concludes with a mysterious description of the path to death (12:2–7). The opening declaration “All is hevel” concludes his words. An epilogue (12:9–14)
speaks about Ecclesiastes from the standpoint of a later sage.

ecclesiastes rabbah
tices but insists that God is just. Qohelet does not eliminate
this contradiction but is just frustrated by it.
God for Qohelet is an absolute, unpredictable autocrat.
He is a distant and all-powerful force who can be feared but
not loved (3:14b; 5:1, 2, 4; 6). But, though rather steely and remote, He is not uniformly hostile. If (for unpredictable reasons) God should grant someone good things, He wants thefortunate man to enjoy these gifts (5:20; 9:7).
For all his complaints, Qohelet is not a nihilist. “Everything is absurd” is to be understood as expressing a generalcharacterization of life, not an absolute negation of the valueof all activities and values. Qohelet shows how humans canrecover and reconstruct meanings. He does not arrive at a
grand logic or theology that makes sense of everything, but
he does recommend modest adjustments and small-scale accommodations in our individual lives.
Some things Qohelet does find worthwhile, such as moderate work, temperate enjoyment of the pleasures that cometo hand, love and friendship, gaining and using whatever wisdom is within our capacity, being reasonably righteous, andfearing God. Though their benefits are brief, imperfect, anduncertain, they are enough to make life worth living. Qohelet comes to realize that despite all its unfairness and absurdity, life itself is good, to be grasped all the more eagerly for
death’s finality.
Qohelet’s affirmations all look inward, to each individual’s benefit, and his concerns are internal as well: what troubles people, what cheers them up, how they can get along in aworld in which much is predetermined and opaque. Though
there are practical things we can do to reduce the risks, theonly real realm of real freedom and control is the humanheart – the domain of emotions, thoughts, and attitudes.
We are to enjoy whatever pleasures God makes possible andavoid whatever sorrow we can. This, we may note, is Stoic
doctrine as well.
A different theology emerges in the epilogue, 12:9–14.
This is commonly considered an addition by a later scribe,
but it may well be the words of the anonymous author. The
epilogue evaluates Qohelet from a more conventional standpoint. It assures the reader that Qohelet was a wise and eloquent teacher, but also warns that the words of the wise holdcertain dangers. What is of ultimate importance is to fear
God, obey His commandments, and live in awareness of His
ultimate judgment.
Bibliography: EARLY COMMENTARIES: MIDRASH QOHELET RABBA 8t–10t C. B.C.E.; ENGLISH TRANS. A. Cohen, Midrash
Rabbah, 8 (1983); Saadiah Gaon; Rashi; Abraham Ibn Ezra; Samuel b.
Meir; Samuel ibn Tibbon; Obadiah b. Jacob Sforno; Yosef Ibn Yaḥ yah;
Moshe b. Hayyim Alsheikh. MODERN COMMENTARIES: G.A. Barton(ICC, 1908); C.D. Ginsburg (1861; with extensive survey of older literature); E. Podechard (Fr., 1912); H.W. Hertzberg (Ger., 1932, 19632); R.
Gordis (1951, 19673); H.L. Ginsberg (Heb., 1961); J.L. Crenshaw (OTL,
1987); R.L. Murphy (WBC, 1992); M.V. Fox (JPS Commentary, 2004);
C.L. Seow (AB, 1997); T. Longman III (NICOT, 1998); N. Lohfink(Continental Commentaries, 2003). STUDIES: H.L. Ginsberg, Studies
in Kohelet (1950); E. Bickerman, Four Strange Books of the Bible (1967),90

139–67. Add. Bibliography: A. Schoors, The Preacher Sought toFind Pleasing Words (1992); idem, Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom(1997); M.V. Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up (1999);
D.C. Fredericks, Coping With Transcience (1993); E. Christianson, A
Time to Tell: Narrative Strategies in Qoheleth (1998); S. Burkes, Deathin Qoheleth (1999); R. Sandberg, Rabbinic Views of Qohelet (1999); D.
Rudman, Determinism in the Book of Ecclesiastes (2001).
[Harold Louis Ginsberg / Michael v. Fox (2nd ed.)]

ECCLESIASTES RABBAH (Heb. ‫ק ֶֹהלֶ ת ַר ָ ּבה‬, Kohelet Rabbah), *aggadic Midrash on the book of *Ecclesiastes, called“Midrash Kohelet” in the editio princeps. (On the term “Rabbah,” see Ruth *Rabbah.)
The Structure
Eccelesiastes Rabbah is an exegetical Midrash which gives achapter by chapter and verse by verse exposition of the Book
of Ecclesiastes. In the editio princeps, it is divided into three
sedarim (“orders”): (a) Chapters 1–6; (b) 6:1–9:6; (c) 9:7–theend of the book of Ecclesiastes. In later editions however it
is also divided into 12 sections, corresponding to the biblicalchapters. The Midrash opens with an anonymous proem of
the classical type found in amoraic Midrashim. It begins withan extraneous verse from the Book of Proverbs which is thenconnected with the opening words of the Book of Ecclesiastes.
It bears, however, a few signs of lateness, including its (introductory formula): “This is what the Scripture declared in theholy spirit by Solomon king of Israel.”
The Language
Ecclesiastes Rabbah is written for the most part in mishnaic
Hebrew. Galilean Aramaic is also used, and there are numerous Greek words.
The Date of its Redaction
The redactor used tannaitic literature, the Jerusalem *Talmud,*Genesis Rabbah, *Leviticus Rabbah, *Lamentations Rabbah,
and *Esther Rabbah. The work also incorporates material
taken from the Babylonian *Talmud, some of which, however, was added later. Several factors indicate that Ecclesiastes
Rabbah is of a comparatively late date, having been redacted
apparently not earlier than the eighth century C.E. It was usedby the paytan *Solomon b. Judah ha-Bavli, who flourished in
the second half of the tenth century C.E., and it is quoted by*Nathan b. Jehiel in his Arukh (c. 1100). Ecclesiastes Rabbah
contains much important material of the tannaitic and amoraic periods, and also numerous aggadot of a polemical character, some with anti-Christian references.
Editions
Ecclesiastes Rabbah was first published at Pesaro in 1519, together with Midrashim on the four other scrolls (Song ofSongs, Ruth, Lamentations, and Esther) to which, however,
it is entirely unrelated. The many subsequent ones are basedon this edition. Although several manuscripts of Ecclesiastes
Rabbah are extant (the earliest dating from the 14t century),
a complete scholarly edition has yet to appear. M. Hirshmanedited the four first chapters of the book in his dissertation
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

eckardt, roy A.
(1983). An English translation by Abraham *Cohen appearedin the Soncino Midrash (1939).
Bibliography: Zunz-Albeck, Derashot, 128–9. Add Bibliography: J. Wachten, Midrasch-Analyse: Strukturen im Midrasch
Qohelet Rabba (1978); M. Hirshman, in: Jerusalem Studies in Jewish
Thought, 3 (1982), 7–14; G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud
and Midrash (1996), 317f.
[Moshe David Herr]

ÉCIJA, city in Seville, S. Spain. We have no information on the
Jews of Écija in the Muslim period. The earliest information
concerning Jews there dates from the 13t century. Following
its conquest by Ferdinand III, Zulema, a Jewish courtier, wasgiven substantial property. The size of the Jewish community can be judged from the fact that for the year 1293 its tax
amounted to 5,000 maravedis. Its most prominent member
was the wealthy Don Yuçaf (Joseph) de *Écija (Joseph ha-Levi
ibn Shabbat), who distinguished himself in the service of Alfonso XI of Castile. In 1332 he endowed a yeshivah in Écija, andprovided stipends for the scholars who studied in it. The persecutions of 1391 struck Écija and its synagogue was destroyed
by order of Fernando *Martínez, who was archdeacon of Écija.
However, when in 1396 the archbishop of Toledo demandedfrom the vicar of Écija an account of the destruction of thesynagogue, he was told that it was razed by the mob. It is notknown when the community was reconstituted, but its tax assessment in 1439 was 6,800 maravedis, in old coin. The community apparently lasted until the expulsion of 1492. There wasalso an organized group of *Conversos, which in 1477 had as
its leader a New Christian named Fernando de Trujillo.

to him to relieve the Aragonese Jews from the obligation towear the Jewish *badge. In a letter of 1329 the Aragonese kingexpressed his regret over his inability to grant Joseph de Écija’srequest at that time. At court Joseph’s rival was the royal physician, Samuel ibn Waqar of Toledo. The two competed forthe farming of various royal revenues. Gonzalo Marténezde Oviedo, a protégé of Joseph, became royal major-domo
and commander of the Order of Alcántara. Marténez turned
against his benefactor and brought about the imprisonmentof both Joseph and Samuel. Joseph appears to have died inprison. Solomon *Ibn Verga in his Shevet Yehudah emphasizes the fact that Joseph, for all his high rank at court, was aloyal and devoted son of his people. He built a synagogue inSeville and endowed a house of learning in his native Écija,
providing for the maintenance of the dean and students. In
1342, the king asked Pope Clemens VI to permit the Jews ofSeville to worship in the synagogue that was built by Joseph.
He was also a lover of music, an interest which he shared with
Alfonso IV of Aragon, who asked Joseph to send him his favorite Castilian musicians.
Bibliography: Amador de los Ríos, Historia de los Judíosde España y Portugal, 2 (1876), 128f.; Y. Baer, in: Minḥ ah le-David(Yellin) (1935), 198f.; Baer, Urkunden, 1 (1929), 262f.; 2 (1936), 141f.,
163f.; A. Ballesteros, in: Sefarad, 6 (1946), 253–87; A. Shochat (ed.),Shevet Yehudah (1947), 52f., 181; Samuel ibn Sason, Sefer Avnei haShoham, ed. by A. Ḥ amiel (1962), 22f.
[Haim Beinart]

ÉCIJA, JOSEPH (Yuçaf) DE (Joseph b. Ephraim ha-Levi
ibn Shabbat; d. 1339/40). Écija was born in Écija, Andalusia,
and was chief tax farmer (almoxarife mayor) of Alfonso XI of
Castile. He played a major role within the Jewish communityand cooperated with R. *Asher ben Jehiel, then the leadinghalakhic authority in Castile. He was advanced in the royalservice through the patronage of Infante Felipe, son of Sancho IV. By 1322 he was almoxarife mayor and a member of theroyal council, besides two other Christians. In 1326 he was sent
by Alfonso XI to meet his betrothed, the daughter of the Portuguese king. While at Valladolid, some of the knights who
accompanied him stirred up the populace against him, but
he was saved through the intervention of Dona Leonor, theking’s sister. He was dropped from the royal council in 1328 asa concession to the Cortes, which had been summoned to approve extraordinary taxes. A year later, however, he was again
high in royal favor, conducting negotiations with Alfonso IV
of Aragon. He gained the latter’s favor as well and appealed°ECKARDT, ROY A. (1918–1997), theologian and Methodist minister. Born in Brooklyn, New York, Eckardt, a prolific
writer and a leading figure in the field of Jewish-Christian relations in the U.S., was from 1955 president of the American
Academy of Religion and, from 1956, chairman of the department of religion at Lehigh University (Bethlehem, Pennsylvania). His books on the Jewish-Christian dialogue (Christianity and the Children of Israel, 1948, and Elder and Younger
Brothers: The Encounter of Jews and Christians, 1967), and his
many articles on the subject, center upon three themes: themeaning of antisemitism; the theological and moral relations
between Christians and Jews; and the understanding of theState of Israel. He interprets Christian antisemitism as thepagans’ war against the people of God, and the Gentiles’ waragainst Jesus the Jew. The Jewish people, whether conceived
in religious or in secular terms, belongs to the unbreakablecovenant between God and Israel. In Jesus the Jew, the covenant is opened to the world, but not in any way that annuls
the election of the original Israel. Because the Christian has
been brought into the family of Jews, the fate of Israel, including the State of Israel, is also his fate. Together with his wife,
Alice, he wrote Encounter with Israel: A Challenge to Conscience (1970), which analyzed the distortion of facts related
to Israel frequently favored by antisemites, and Long Night’s
Journey into Day: A Revised Retrospective on the Holocaust(1982). Regarded as one of the most powerful and prolificteams working in the area of Christian-Jewish relations, they

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

91

Bibliography: Baer, Urkunden, index; Baer, Spain, index;
H. Beinart, Anusim be-Din ha-Inkviziẓ yah (1965), 62; Ballesteros, in:Sefarad, 6 (1946), 253–87; R. Menéndez Pidal, Documentos linguísticosde España, 1 (19662), 475–7; F. Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas Españolas
(1955), 203–12. Add. Bibliography: J. Aranda Doncel, in: Boletínde la Real Academía de Córdoba, 104 (1983), 5–18.
[Haim Beinart]eckhart, meistertraveled the globe to challenge Christians in the way they related to Jews, Judaism, and Israel. The couple made a point of
encouraging young people who worked in the field of Christian-Jewish relations.
Eckardt was an active member of the National Christian
Leadership Conference for Israel (NCLCI) since its establishment in 1979. That same year, President Carter appointed
him special consultant to the President’s Commission on the
Holocaust. From 1981 to 1986 he served on the United States
Holocaust Memorial Council as a special advisor to its chairman, Elie *Wiesel. Eckardt was also a senior associate fellowof the Center for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies and a Maxwell
Fellow at Oxford University.
Other publications by Eckardt include The Surge of Piety in America, an Appraisal (1958), Your People, My People:
The Meeting of Jews and Christians (1974), Jews and Christians, the Contemporary Meeting (1986), For Righteousness’
Sake: Contemporary Moral Philosophies (1987), Long Night’s
Journey into Day: Life and Faith after the Holocaust (1988),
Black-Woman-Jew: Three Wars for Human Liberation (1989),
Reclaiming Jesus of History: Christology Today (1992), No Longer Aliens, No Longer Strangers: Christian Faith and Ethics forToday (1994).
[Yona Malachy / Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]other Christian philosophers of the period. It should be emphasized that Eckhart’s interest in Judaism always remained
purely intellectual, and that he was not at all interested in thesocial role of the Jews in a Christian society.
Bibliography: Meister Eckhart, Die deutschen und lateinischen Werke, ed. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (1936); J.M.
Clark (ed. and tr.), Meister Eckhart: an Introduction to the Study of his
Works (1957); R.B. Blakney (ed. and tr.), Meister Eckhart, A Modern
Translation (1941); N. Smart, in: Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2 (1967),
S.V.; J. Koch, in: Jahresbericht der Schlesischen NDB, 4 (1959), S.V.; E.
Gilson, Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages (1955), index.
[Hans Liebeschutz]

ECKMAN, JULIUS (1805–1877), U.S. rabbi. Eckman wasborn in Rawicz, Posen. He began a mercantile career in London at the age of 14, but after three years left for Berlin to resume his studies. In 1846 he was appointed rabbi in Mobile,
Alabama, and subsequently in New Orleans, Richmond, andCharleston. In 1854 he was appointed rabbi of Congregation
Emanu-El, San Francisco, but his appointment was terminatedafter one year. A man of high principles and constant devotion
to scholarship, Eckman was in demand on account of his ability to preach in English as well as in German, but the reclusive
bachelor lacked the temperament to cope with the conditionsof congregational life in pioneer America. Eckman remainedin San Francisco for the greater part of his life. He took overthe congregational school as a private venture and devoted
himself to the education of Jewish children. In 1856 he established a periodical The Gleaner, which he published until 1862
and resumed in 1864. Shortly thereafter he merged it with the
Hebrew Observer. Eckman served as rabbi of congregations in
Portland, Oregon, during 1863–66 and 1869–72.

°ECKHART, MEISTER (c. 1260–c. 1327), theologian andmystic. Born Johannes Eckhart at Hochheim, Thuringia, hejoined the Dominican Order in his youth. Although someof his propositions were condemned as heretical by PopeJohn XXII, Eckhart exerted a great influence on medieval mysticism. Because Eckhart wrote little about the Jews, and, unlike other Christian theologians, did not discuss the questionof the continued existence of the Jewish people, it was generally assumed that he had nothing to do with Judaism. The
pioneers in the study of the influence of Jewish philosophy on
Christian scholasticism, Manuel *Joel and Jacob *Guttmann,
did not even bother to analyze Eckhart’s writings. However,in 1928, Josef Koch advanced the thesis that Eckhart was influenced by Jewish philosophy, in particular by *Maimonides.
According to Koch, Eckhart first came into contact with thewritings of Jewish philosophers in 1313, when he began toprepare a comprehensive collection of doctrinal statements
to serve as authorities for his own interpretation of religious
doctrines. Koch suggests that Maimonides’ method of biblicalexegesis, found in the Guide of the Perplexed, influenced Eckhart to change the direction of his work and to begin to write
biblical commentaries instead of the collection of doctrinalstatements he had originally begun. Maimonides’ doctrineof negative attributes had a profound influence on Eckhart,in that it showed him that it was possible for man to describe
God without obliterating the distinction between God andHis creatures, a distinction which Eckhart regarded as fundamental. While it was a matter of routine by the last decadesof the 13t century for Christian philosophers to refer to Maimonides, Eckhart was more dependent on Maimonides than

ECOLOGY. This survey deals with those Jewish sources
which have particular reference to environmental matters,
and the restrictions upon the actions of the individual bothin his own private domain and in public places, to the extent
that they affect his nearest neighbors and the community ingeneral. Four general observations may be made:(1) According to the Bible, the earth has not been given
over to man’s absolute ownership to use and abuse as hewishes; he merely acts as a custodian to maintain and preserve
it for the benefit of his contemporaries and future generations;stress is laid on the influence exerted by the environment on
the mind and spirit of man. The special talmudic approachto the individual’s duty to protect and preserve public property is illustrated by the story told in the Tosefta of the man
who threw boulders from his land onto the public highway. A
pious person (ḥ asid) chided him: “Dolt, why are you throwing stones from a place which does not belong to you to one
which does?” The man was scornful of the ḥ asid. Eventually,

92

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: J. Voorsanger, Chronicles of Emanu-El (1900),
141–51; O.P. Fitzgerald, California Sketches (1880). Add. Bibliography: F. Rosenbaum, Visions of Reform (2000).
[Sefton D. Temkin / Fred S. Rosenbaum (2nd ed.)]ecology
the man sold his land. One day, as he walked along the highway adjoining the land, he stumbled over the boulders. Only
then did he realize the wisdom of what the ḥ asid had told him(Tosef. BK 11:10; BK 50b).
(2) Protection of the public is a constant motive.
(3) Although the regulations in the Talmud are cast in
typical casuistic form, a number of general principles or basic
guiding rules may be inferred, which are capable of extended
application in the light of existing conditions.
(4) Although many of the rules fall within the specificcontext of what may be termed tort concepts, such as private
nuisance, they have clear public law projections because of thereligious character of Jewish law.
The Protection of Nature
THE FALLOW YEAR. The idea of preserving nature clearlyinspires the biblical command concerning the fallow year
(Lev. 25:1–5).
Maimonides in his Guide of the Perplexed (3:39) explains
as one of the reasons for the fallow year “that the earth shall
increase its yield and recover its potency.” The clearly religious
nature of the commandment extends its immediate utilitarian
purpose and turns it into a general overriding principle of thewidest application to the natural environment as a whole.
THE PROHIBITION OF WASTE. The peculiarly Jewish religious attitude towards nature is also to be seen in the rule
forbidding the purposeless destruction of things from whichhuman beings may derive benefit. The prohibition covers thedestruction of animal and vegetable life as well as inanimate
objects.
The reason for the prohibition in connection with fruitbearing trees (see below) is given by the author of Sefer haḤ innukh in the following words: “to inculcate in our hearts alove of the good and the beneficial so that it becomes part ofus and we separate ourselves from evil and destructiveness.
That is the way of the pious, of those who observe religious
practice – they love peace and rejoice in the well-being of
their fellow-men, not even a mustard seed will they destroy”(Commandment 529).

The rule is further extended to all objects, including
buildings, unless their demolition is necessary for essential
human needs. A case of the destruction of trees in the Bible
which appears to contradict the clear proscription containedin Deuteronomy (II Kings 3:19) is regarded by Rashi andKimḥ i as exceptional in view of the special circumstances, inwhich higher national considerations were involved.
THE REARING OF SMALL CATTLE IN EREẓ ISRAEL. The
Mishnah proscribes the breeding of small cattle except in Israel (BK VII:7), and the Talmud comments that it refers to“small cattle, but not to large, since intolerable restrictions are
not imposed on the community, and whereas small cattle canbe imported, large cattle cannot” (BK 79b). Rashi ad locum explains the prohibition by saying that the purpose of the regulation was to encourage settlement of Ereẓ Israel, and small
cattle crop the soil so closely that it is impaired; they are also
inclined to stay and trespass on the land of others.
The seriousness with which the prohibition was regarded
from a religious (public) viewpoint is illustrated by the following incident related in the Talmud: There was once a pious
person who suffered from heart disease. His doctors advised
him to drink warm milk each morning, and for this purpose
he acquired a goat which he tied to his bedpost. Some days
later, friends came to visit him and when they saw the goattied to the bedpost they said: “An armed robber is in the houseof this man. How can we go in to him?” When on the pointof death, he himself declared: “I know that I have not sinned
except as regards the goat, when I transgressed against what
my colleagues had said.” Further it is reported that R. Ishmael said: “My father’s family belonged to the landowningclass in Upper Galilee. Why were they ruined? Because they
pastured their cattle in the forest… but there was also a small
field nearby (belonging to another) and they led their cattle
on to it.” In the talmudic period the regulation was extended
to the Jewish settlement in Babylon (BK 80a).
Environmental Pollution
SEWAGE AND ODOR.

THE FELLING OF FRUIT-BEARING TREES. The Bible prohibits the felling of fruit-bearing trees in time of war (Deut.
20:19), and the halakhic Midrash to this verse extends the prohibition to failing to irrigate the trees. The rule, however, is
not confined to destruction in time of war, but is of more general application. Maimonides states it in the following terms:“Fruit-bearing trees growing in the countryside are not to be
cut down, nor are they to be deprived of water so that they
dry up and wither. Whoever cuts down (such trees) is liable
to the penalty of flogging, and this not only during times ofsiege, but whenever they are wantonly destroyed. They may,
however, be cut down if they damage other trees or a neighbor’s land, or because it is too costly to maintain them. The
Torah only forbids wanton destruction” (Yad, Melakhim 6:18;
cf. Talmudic Encyclopaedia, S.V. Bal Tashḥ it).

Human waste. The injunction of the Bible providing for thesanitary disposal of human waste (Deut. 23:13, 14) is formulated in a more comprehensive fashion by Maimonides: “Itis forbidden to withdraw within the camp or to any chanceplace in the open fields, but it is a positive precept to set asidea special place for the purpose… . Likewise it is a positive precept that each one shall have with him a spade as part of his
military equipment so that he can dig a hole for his needs andthereafter cover it up” (Yad, Melakhim 6:14, 15). In his comment upon this command, the author of Sefer ha-Ḥ innukh
stresses in a still wider perspective the importance of cleanliness as a means for promoting the life of the spirit. “It is very
well known that cleanliness is one of the virtues that conduces
to holiness of mind” (Commandment 566). The precept is notconfined to military camps, but applies to all human settlements (TJ Eruvin 5:1). Within the context of the Jewish law of

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 693

ecology
torts, there is an injunction against the construction of privies too close to human habitation, and their removal may beordered.
Sewage. The rabbis were stringent about public places being
made insalubrious. They distinguished between summer andwinter. “Nobody has the right to open up his drains or clear
his cesspits in the summertime; that may only be done during winter” (BK 6a). Rashi explains that during summer it ispleasant out of doors and therefore wrong to make the place
unsightly and malodorous, whereas this consideration does
not apply to the rainy season.
The same passage also provides that although the disposalof sewage may be permitted, any injury caused thereby must
be compensated for. The same rule is laid down by the Codes(Maim., Yad, Nizke Mammon 13:13; Sh. Ar., HM 104:31).
The Mishnah also prohibits pollution by industrial effluent. “Flax water must be kept away from vegetables” (BB
11:10), and the principle underlying it is naturally of generalapplication.
Odors. The ruling of the Mishnah (BB 2:9) that “carrion,
graves, and tanneries must be 50 cubits from a town” is ascribed to the bad odor which they emit, and for the same reason the Mishnah states that a tannery may be sited only on theeast of a town, since the winds prevailing in Israel are northwesterly. The odors of privies are also included (BB 23a). These
instances given by the Talmud are merely examples, and all
like instances are comprehended in the prohibition. Thus R.
Asher b. Yehiel (1250–1327, Germany-Spain), replying – interalia – upon a geonic responsum regarding water pollution,
gave a ruling about stagnant water which penetrated a neighbor’s house and gave off an offensive smell (Responsa 108:10;
cf. Tur HM 155:20–26; Sh. Ar. 155:20).
On the other hand, the rabbis composed a special benediction on fragrant odors “which give enjoyment to the souland not to the body” (Ber. 34b).
AIR POLLUTION. Air pollution is also the subject of a numberof mishnaic provisions. “A permanent threshing floor must be
kept at a distance of 50 cubits from a town. One should not
set up a permanent threshing floor on his own property unless there is a space of 50 cubits in every direction” (Mishnah
BB 2:8). Rashi explains that the prohibition is because of thechaff which is injurious to humans and is also liable to affectsown fields. The same applied to all industrial waste, and Maimonides states that it applies to any operations which create
dust, whatever the direction of the prevailing winds (Yad,Shekhenim 11:1).

tle can be acquired by prescription (BB 23a). The geonim later
did not prescribe a specific minimum distance for removal,
but insisted that kilns must always be kept at such a distancethat the smoke will not be a source of injury or give rise to
any nuisance or annoyance (cf. S. Assaf, Teshuvot ha-Geonim
10:32).
The particular significance of smell, smoke and similarsources of damage are explained by Naḥ manides in the 13t
century: “Since they cause injury to the person no prescriptive right can arise, for that only applies to pecuniary damage.
Pools of water, lime, stones, and debris will affect only the fabric of a person’s house and he may well acquiesce therein, even
if real damage is done. Smoke, however, and privies give riseto damage and annoyance to the person, and no prescriptive
right can be acquired” (Novellae to BB 59b).
WATER POLLUTION. According to the Tosefta, a person who
digs a cistern or water hole for public use may wash his faceand hands and feet there, unless there is mud or excrement on
his feet. If the cistern and water hole, however, provide drinking water, he may not wash himself at all (Tosef. BM 11:31).
The fear of polluted drinking water is also manifested in
the talmudic prohibition against drinking water which has
been left uncovered for any length of time, since insects orother harmful matter may have contaminated it (AZ 12b; seealso 30a and b).
The protection of water from pollution served as a causeof action against anyone who dug a cesspit close to a neighbor’swell. The geonic responsa cite an instance which came before
R. Samuel bar Ḥ ofni of Sura in the early tenth century. Reuven had a well adjoining the boundary of his land. Shimon
came along and built a privy nearby at the prescribed distanceof three tefaḥ im. Reuven sued Shimon for the damage caused
to his well water. Shimon defended by claiming that in accordance with rabbinical precept his privy did not adjoin the pit.
R. Samuel was asked whether Shimon came along and built a
privy nearby at the prescribed distance of three tefaḥ im. Reuven sued Shimon for the privy must be removed from thewell to a distance even up to 20 amot, at which the well water
would not be affected. It was no argument, he added, that theprivy had already been built, since no prescriptive right canbe acquired when serious damage is suffered.

SMOKE. Among the ten regulations enacted on entering Ereẓ
Israel is one which, in order to preserve the amenities of Jerusalem, proscribed the erection of kilns which emit smoke
and blacken the surrounding buildings (BK 82b). R. Nathan in
the Tosefta generalized this rule by providing that kilns must
be kept 50 cubits from any town (BB 1:7), and smoke damage
is included among those injurious acts to which no legal ti-

NOISE. Noise is an actionable civil wrong. According to the
Talmud, millstones which create noise and vibrations must be
kept at a prescribed distance (BB 18a and 20b). The Shulḥ an
Arukh extends the principle by making the distance vary withthe size of the millstones, and making it apply to noises fromother sources (HM 155:7).
An exception is made in the case of a school where theconvenience of neighbors must give way to the needs of education (ibid.). This exception is again extended by the Shulḥ an
Arukh to all activities connected with the performance of religious precepts. In the case of a large school having at least
50 pupils, Rashi and Naḥ manides would, however, enableneighbors to prevent its continuance on account of excessive

94

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

economic history
noise, when it is possible to moderate the noise by conducting the school in smaller classes (Rashi to BB 21a; Naḥ manides
Novellae, ibid.).
AMENITIES OF PROSPECT. The Bible prescribes for an open
space to be left surrounding the levitical cities (Num. 35:1–5).
Maimonides, in summarizing the law, adds that it applies
equally to other towns and cities in Ereẓ Israel (Yad, Shemittah 13:1–2, 4–5). Rashi explains that the reason for this open
space, uncultivated, without trees or buildings, is to allow for
free passage of air (Sotah 27b). The Sefer ha-Ḥ innukh suggeststhat since the levitical cities served national requirements(the levites were chosen to conduct divine services and people always came to consult them), they were to be kept pleasant and attractive to add to the luster of the people as a whole(Commandment 342). The same consideration lies behind themishnaic rule that trees generally are to be kept at a distanceof 25 cubits from a town, and carob and sycamore trees up to
50 cubits. R. Solomon b. Adret went further and introduced therule that townspeople cannot forgo or waive anything which
has been prohibited in the interest of the town’s amenities.
Conclusions
Major environmental protection problems which concern us
today are dealt with extensively in old Jewish sources. They
indicate various ways in which spoiling of the environment
in its various aspects may be prevented. Rules are laid downwith some degree of particularity to control and inhibit theabuse of private rights to the detriment of others, both neighbors and local inhabitants.
Biblical passages dealing with the preservation of nature
were elaborated in the Mishnah and Talmud to circumscribeand even remove possible sources of environmental damage.
Its importance was emphasized by the fact that the rabbis were
not merely content to rely upon the sanctions of the generallaw, as the law of torts but promulgated enactments specifically
devoted to the environment and its protection, such as regulations relating to Jerusalem because of its special status, whichwere subsequently in part given wider application. Of utmost
significance in this regard was the rule that while a particular
injury might not be actionable according to the letter of thelaw, it was, nevertheless, forbidden. Equally important was therule that no prescriptive right could be acquired in respect ofany environmental tort of a serious nature which resulted ininjury to the person, individual or collective, as distinct frominjury to property, on the basis that no real acquiescence obtains in such cases.
The precise standards imposed by the Talmud to measure and control the injurious effects of the various sourcesof environmental injury were treated not as absolutes, butaccording to prevailing conditions, and thus were (and stillare) adaptable, as times change. Injury to the environment included not only cases of proximate causation, but also thosein which conditions were created which might reasonably
give rise to nuisance.

For the Jewish contribution to the environmental sciences, see *Environmental Sciences. See also *Conservation.
Bibliography: E.C. Freudenstein, in Judaism, 19, 406; N.
Lamm, Faith and Doubt (1971), ch. 6; Talmudic Encyclopaedia, S.V.
Bal Tashḥ it, Behemah Dakah, Gilui, Harḥ akat Nezikin; B. Yashar,
Ha-Torah v’ha-Medinah, 2 (1950) 59–64; M.Z. Neriah, Shevilin, 1(1962), 47–49.

ECONOMIC HISTORY.
This article is arranged according to the following outline:
First Temple Period
Exile and Restoration
Second Temple Period
Talmudic Era
Muslim Middle Ages
Medieval Christendom
Economic Doctrines
Early Modern Period
Sephardim and Ashkenazim
Economic Environment
Jewish Migration
Patterns of Employment
Resource Endowment and Sources of Income
Attitudes of and Relations with the Society at
Large
Role of the Jewish Community Organization
Social Stratification within the Jewish
Community
Transition Period
Modern Period
Jewish Migration
Penetration into Industrial Employment
Maintenance of Positions in the Service Sectorof the Economy
Employment in the Agricultural Sector
IncomeWestern Europe
Eastern Europe
The United States
Palestine
Epilogue[Nahum Rakover]First Temple Period
Reconstruction of ancient Jewish economic conditions isgreatly hampered by the paucity of available documentation. The main source of information still is the Bible; but its
general orientation is either normative in the legal sections,exhortatory in the prophetic enunciations, or romanticizing
in some of the historical descriptions. Thus a great deal may
be learned of what the leaders believed the economic conditions ought to be rather than what they really were, the Sollen
rather than the Sein. Archaeology, on the other hand, which
has greatly enriched our knowledge about such realia as theutensils employed in agricultural and industrial production,
the size and shape of buildings, sudden devastations by earth-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 695

economic history
quakes or wars, and the like, has proved wholly inadequate
in reflecting the daily economic relationships or the dynamics of economic evolution. More informative have been the
documents found in the archaeological mounds, such as theel-Amarna and the Lachish Letters and the Samarian ostraca.
But these documents are too few and limited to certain localities which may not warrant generalization from them to otherareas and periods. Much can also be learned, however, fromthe vaster accumulation of materials in the neighboring civilizations (including the more recently explored Mari, Nuzi,
and Ugaritic collections), provided one does not lose sight of
the great differences prevailing between the respective countries and the many unique features which characterized theeconomy of ancient Israel as also Israelite society and culture
at large. Utilizing these and other sources, as well as the combined results of many generations of intensive research byscholars, often of high competence, one may perhaps obtainsome approximation of the actual economic evolution of ancient Israel after its entry into Canaan and the formation ofits monarchy.
One conclusion which seems clearly to emerge from thestate of knowledge today is that we must abandon the longheld assumption of both traditionalists and critical scholarsthat the historic evolution of ancient Israel must be explainedin terms of a gradual emergence of a nomadic people into an
agricultural society which was later combined with an urban
civilization characterized by an increasing division of labor.
This evolution, it was believed, required several centuries ofslow growth. Such gradualism was used to explain not only
the changing economic trends but also the general societal andreligious transformations; it supposedly proved helpful even in
the dating of biblical sources. It is now known, however, thatthe ancient Middle East, including the land of Canaan, had afairly advanced civilization more than 2,000 years before theappearance of Israel on the historical scene. Even according
to the biblical narratives, the first patriarch, Abraham – now
widely accepted as an historic personality of prime magnitude – combined in his career an intimate acquaintance withhis native Babylonian city of *Ur (the excavation of which has
revealed its rich and ramified social stratification at the beginning of the second millennium B.C.E.) with that of Egypt,which he visited for a time and of Canaan, in which he settled.
The segment of the Canaanite people which appears under
the name of Phoenicians was soon drawn into the orbit of amaritime empire extending all the way to Spain. Hence evena primitive, nomadic tribe conquering one Canaanite city after another could quickly learn its methods of production
and adopt its mode of living, skipping many stages of the accepted economic evolution.
It may be assumed, therefore, that very early Israel replaced nomadic cattle raising by agriculture as its dominantsource of livelihood. Settlers in the formerly Canaanite cities also turned to crafts and even commerce as their primaryoccupation. With the establishment of a monarchy and thebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem there also arose a sub-stantial royal and priestly bureaucracy. The new capitals of
Jerusalem and Samaria, especially, revealed many characteristics of major urban centers where upper classes indulged inconsiderable luxuries in dwellings and personal attire, suchas are described by Isaiah in his censure of the ladies of Jerusalem (Isa. 3:18ff.). At the same time, the old occupations of
cattle raising and even the still more “primitive” activities offishing and hunting – the latter was never a mere sport evenamong the Israelite kings – were never completely given up.
They flourished particularly in the peripheral areas of thesouth and Transjordan.
This great diversity of pursuits was aided by both climaticand hydrographic conditions in the country. Despite its relatively small size, it has been found that ancient Palestine consisted of no less than 40 distinct geographic units, each witha different set of natural conditions, which not only affected
the type of production but also colored the entire system ofpolitical and social life by promoting local independence,even tribalism. That is also why throughout the First Temple period Israel continued to share its land with Edomites,
Moabites, Ammonites, Philistines, and some Arameans, while,
beginning with a sort of “amphictyonic” alliance, its own 12
tribes gradually built up whatever unity existed later in theirdivided kingdom.
Although the country was dotted with many localities
called cities (arim), these settlements did not resemble, as
has often been assumed, the medieval and modern cities inbeing primarily centers of industry and commerce. Whileno less than 400 such “cities” existed in the territory of Israel
and Judah, their population, as a rule, numbered no morethan 1,000 persons and consisted principally of farmers who
had banded together to live behind city walls for protection
against raiders. Their livelihood was derived from cultivating their fields, vineyards, and orchards, for the most part located outside the city walls, to which they proceeded in themorning and from which they returned in the evening (notethis sequence in Ps. 121:8; II Kings 19:27). Beyond their fields
and vineyards there also were some pastures where the farmers could maintain some sheep and goats, particularly for the
purpose of producing milk.
Nutrition of the ancient Palestinian population was about
equally divided between grain and fruit. Barley was a particularly important staple which, if the prices are deduced
from better known Babylonian parallels, was at times morein demand, and even more costly, than dates. Among the
fruits grapes, dates, olives, and figs loomed very large in the
popular diet. Meat was always considered a luxury and wasconsumed by the majority of the population only on festive
occasions. The cultivation of vineyards and orchards often
required intensive irrigation – already practiced in the preIsraelitic period – and years of waiting for actual production,
further aggravated by certain ritualistic taboos and imposts(orlah, kilayim, bikkurim). This system presupposed investment of much capital and human labor. But the ultimate returns were quite rewarding in produce yielded by small plots

96

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

economic historyof land. The quality of some ancient Israel fruits seems to havebeen as high as that of similar products of the Second Temple
era (see below).
Industrial production, on the other hand, was usuallyin the hands of artisans who were often organized in clans orguilds or both. We know of villages dedicated to single crafts(I Chron. 4:14). Entire families or clans served as scribes.
While there is no evidence of guild monopolies, it appears
that admission to certain crafts depended on a fairly long apprenticeship and hence was beyond the reach of ordinary laborers. At the same time we also learn about royal enterprises
employing, for instance, numerous potters. The frequent occurrence of potsherds bearing the imprint of la-melekh (“tothe king”) suggests that it might have been a trademark ofroyal potteries. Some scholars, however, interpret that markas a fiscal receipt for a certain quantity of wine or oil delivered
to the royal treasury in payment of taxes. No final decision
can be made on this score, since the entire subject of ancient
Jewish taxation is shrouded in obscurity, deepened by many
unresolved controversies.
A certain number of Israelites also entered mercantile
occupations. Some of them did this as “the king’s merchants,”
especially in the days of King Solomon (I Kings 10:28). At
that time the international trade of ancient Israel made rapid
strides both because it was fostered by the concentrated royal
power and because, ever since David’s conquest of Edomite
territory, Israel had gained access to Ezion-Geber-Eloth on
the Red Sea (I Kings 9:26). The new open route to the Indian
Ocean made Israel a very welcome ally to Hiram, king of Tyre.
Even earlier some northern Israelites seem to have hired themselves out as sailors to Phoenician shipowners (this seems tobe the meaning of “Dan, why doth he sojourn by the ships?” in
the Song of Deborah; Judg. 5:17). But now the two kings could
collaborate in sending ships both to the Indian Ocean and thewestern Mediterranean where the Phoenicians had long been
exploiting the copper mines of Sardinia and were ultimately
to establish a colony in Tartessus, Spain. A combined Phoenician-Israelite expedition to Ophir, probably located on thewest coast of India or even further east, was a landmark in thehistory of eastern navigation.
This condition did not last, however. After Solomon’s
death and the ensuing partition of the country into two kingdoms, Israel lost its overlordship over the Edomites, not to regain it except for a short time under Jehoshaphat. Nor could
Israel any longer exploit the copper mines and use the refinery
built by Solomon in Ezion-Geber. These losses contributed tothe overall decline in both the commercial and political activities of Northern Israel and Judah, which often became tributary to foreign monarchs and occasionally indulged in internecine struggles. As a result, most of the country’s mercantile
activities were now conducted by strangers, mainly Phoenicians and other Canaanites. The term kena’ani now became asynonym for merchant in popular parlance.
All through that period Israelite commerce was abetted
by a more or less stable system of weights and measures which

the country shared with other Middle Eastern nations. There
was also an increasing demand for money to facilitate mercantile transactions, and even in his day Abraham purchased thecave of Machpelah for “four hundred shekels of silver, current
money with the merchant” (Gen. 23:16). At first the currency
circulated in the form of silver bars which had to be weighed,
but soon their weight was standardized and officially marked.
By the end of the First Temple era regular coins, whether first
introduced in Lydia or in Babylonia, gained the ascendancy.
Curiously, gold never became the main instrument of exchange. Down to the Roman period it was often considereda mere commodity, valued at so-and-so many silver shekels,
although its price was steadily gaining.
Another effect of the political weakness of the two kingdoms was the relative absence of *slaves from the productive processes in the country. Even Solomon’s ambitious public works, including the building of the royal palace and theTemple, required more manpower than could be supplied byslaves. Hence the royal imposition of corvée labor on hundreds of thousands of free Israelites. After Solomon’s deaththe supply of unfree labor must have further dried up, since
the country now was rarely victorious in battle and thus could
recruit only a small number of slaves from among prisoners ofwar. On the other hand, to purchase slaves in the Phoenicianslave market became increasingly unremunerative. As early as
the early days of the Book of the Covenant (ninth century or
before) the indemnity for a male or female slave was set at 30
shekels of silver (Ex. 21:32). Later on the price seems to havegone up to 50 or more shekels. With the prevailing high rates
of interest throughout the ancient Middle East, which ranged
from a minimum of 20–25 on cash loans and of 33⅓ on
grain loans, up to 100 and more for more risky credit or inperiods of scarcity of capital, it simply did not pay for a landowner or craftsman to acquire a slave and maintain him to
the end of his life while free day laborers were readily available at very low cost. “Hebrew” slaves probably originatedonly from debt bondage or a condemned criminal’s inability
to pay the fine. But the legal restrictions on the treatment ofHebrew slaves, the enforced manumission at the end of a sixyear term, and the (probably utopian) demand of the Deuteronomist that a manumitted slave should be provided byhis master with means for earning a living (Deut. 15:13–14),
made the possession of a Hebrew slave very irksome. It was,therefore, not for productive purposes but rather for domestic service or concubinage that a few slaves were acquired bybetter situated masters. However, unemployment among freelabor was often so great that one or another Hebrew slave may
have chosen voluntarily to forego freedom and stay on after
the expiration of the six-year term.
Surplus of free labor must have grown toward the endof the First Temple period as a result of the sharp inequalities
which the prophets denounced. At that time many small farmers fell into debt and, unable to earn enough to pay the highrates of interest (probably collected under some subterfuge to
avoid the even more far-reaching laws against usury), lost their

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 697

economic history
land. Isaiah was not alone in exclaiming: “Woe unto them thatjoin house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no roomand ye be made to dwell alone in the midst of the land” (5:8;
see also Hos. 5:10; Micah 2:1–2). The ensuing social unrest gave
rise to the immortal calls for social justice by the great Israelite
prophets. It also stimulated much idealistic social legislation(see below), the practical implementation of which left muchto be desired. The rumblings of discontent among the masses
helped to undermine the existing social order, particularly inNorthern Israel with its constant revolts and assassinations ofreigning monarchs. Of its ten ruling dynasties in the relatively
short period of 931–721 B.C.E. all but two were replaced after
the reign of one or two kings. Such instability was also ruinous for the country’s economy and helped to bring about thedisastrous fall of Samaria in 721 and of Jerusalem in 586 B.C.E.
which spelled the end of the First Temple period.
Exile and Restoration
The fall of Jerusalem marked a turning point also in the economic history of the Jews. Not only was Palestine severely
devastated – the reservations voiced by some modern scholars were disproved by the widespread desolation evidenced
by archaeological diggings – but a large segment, perhaps the
majority, of the Jewish population either perished during thewar, was deported by the Babylonians, or emigrated voluntarily. The removal of the most active members of the community, including the royal house, the priests, the great landowners, and the artisans, further aggravated the effects of the
depopulation and material destruction. Like the Philistine
overlords of the early Israelite tribes, many ancient conquerors saw in the exile of smiths, the main suppliers of weapons
as well as of industrial and agricultural tools, the best methodof disarming the conquered population. Deprived of theirleadership, the Israelites who remained behind were prone toadopt some of the more primitive ways of life and thought of
their pagan neighbors.
On the other hand, the exiles to Babylonia joined theever-growing Jewish dispersion. There are reasons to believethat a number of those deported from Northern Israel by
the Assyrians in 733–719 B.C.E. had continued to profess theirancestral religion on the foreign soil. Their descendants, aswell as those of the Judeans deported by Sennacherib in 702,
now joined the groups of the new arrivals to form a powerful new community. (Only thus can we explain why those returning from the exile half a century later included descendants of families who had lived in Northern Israelite localities
before the fall of Samaria; see Ezra 2:2ff. and the commentaries thereon.) They developed a new center in and around Nippur, the second largest city in Babylonia, which was located on
the “river” Chebar, or rather the canal connecting the Euphrates and the Tigris. Here, both the new and old settlers now
enjoyed the distinguished leadership of Ezekiel and many
former Palestinian elders. They were also supported by surviving members of the royal family after Amel Marduk (“EvilMerodach”) released the imprisoned king of Judah, Jehoi-

achin, and restored him to a high position at the royal courtof Babel. This release, narrated in the Bible (II Kings 25:27ff.)
and confirmed also by Babylonian sources (E.F. Weidner
in Mélanges Dussaud, 2 (1939), 923–35), seems to have laid
the foundation for the development of the exilarchate, a remarkable institution which lent the dispersed Jews a focus ofleadership, with few interruptions, for the following 2,000
years.
Besides Babylonia, Egypt also accommodated a number of Jewish communities; the best known being the Jewish
military colony of *Elephantine in Upper Egypt, establishedperhaps as early as the seventh century by Psammetichus I
to help defend the southern frontier of Egypt against Nubian raiders. Before long, Jewish settlers spread throughout
the Middle East, especially after 549 B.C.E. when Cyrus andhis successors founded the enormous Persian Empire, territorially exceeding in size even the later Roman Empire at theheight of its grandeur. The author of the Book of Esther did
not hesitate to place in the mouth of Haman, the anti-Jewish
courtier in the capital of Susa, the accusation against “a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of thy kingdom; and their laws arediverse from those of every people” (3:8). Nor was DeuteroIsaiah guilty of vast exaggeration when he prophesied that “I[God] will bring thy seed from the east and gather thee fromthe west; I will… bring My sons from far and My daughtersfrom the end of the earth” (Isa. 43:5–6).
This multitude of Jewish settlers appears to have beenrather speedily integrated into the environmental economic
structures. Despite their vivid messianic expectations, theirmajority followed Jeremiah’s advice and built houses, took
wives, and generally established themselves in their new countries on a semipermanent basis. In Babylonia, particularly,
which at that time marched in the vanguard of a semicapitalistic civilization, Jews entered the stream of advanced mercantile exchanges. The people who at home had devoted itself
largely to agriculture and small crafts now assumed an important role in *banking and far-flung commerce. Whether or not
Jacob, the founder of the leading banking house of Egibi, was
Jewish – there is some support for this hypothesis in the factthat loans were formally extended without interest, though
the bankers collected the revenues from the mortgaged properties including slaves and cattle – there is no question thatsome Jewish landowners and businessmen wrote significant
contracts with leading Babylonian capitalists. In the archivesof the House of *Murashu, an important banking and warehousing firm, no less than 70 Jewish names have been identified. Some of the Jewish contracting parties, to be sure, merely
undertook to raise sheep and goats in return for a specified
annual delivery of cattle, butter, wool, and hides. Others obligated themselves to deliver to the firm 500 good fish within
20 days if they were provided with five nets and permits tofish in the firm’s waters. But some major contracts were signed
by wealthy Jewish landowners in their own right who tradedwith the Murashu Sons on a basis of equality.

98

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

economic history
In contrast, the Aramaic papyri of the Elephantine colony include business contracts representing rather small
amounts, as was to be expected from a typical soldiers’ campwhich derived its main livelihood from cultivating the soil.
Other Egyptian localities, particularly Migdol, Taphanhes,
and Noph – mentioned by Jeremiah (44:1) and identified byscholars with Magdalos, Daphne, and Memphis in Lower
Egypt – doubtless offered the Jewish settlers and other arrivals from the Asiatic mainland much wider business opportunities. Certain glimpses of such “higher” activities may beobtained from a number of other papyri which have come tolight in recent decades.
In short, by acclimatizing themselves to their surroundings many Jews, especially those living in Babylonia, acquiredconsiderable wealth and extensive political as well as businesscontacts with the ruling classes in the empire. They now could
undertake the ambitious program of resettling thousands oftheir coreligionists in Palestine and to secure from the friendly
Persian regime charters guaranteeing full autonomy to the reestablished community. In his original proclamation, *Cyrus
himself provided that the Jews remaining behind shouldequip the returning exiles “with silver, and with gold, andwith goods, and with beasts, beside the freewill offering forthe house of God which is in Jerusalem” (Ezra 1:4). As a result,some 50,000 Jews, including approximately 7,000 slaves, left
with Zerubbabel and another 5,000 later on under Ezra.
Not surprisingly, the returning Jews found the country
in a chaotic state; they also encountered considerable hostility on the part of their new neighbors. To begin with, thosefamilies which, on the basis of their excellently kept genealogical records, started reclaiming the landed possessions of theirancestors evoked, as has often been the case elsewhere, thestaunch resistance of the new owners. Before very long their“theocratic” leadership (a term later coined by Josephus to describe the new form of government in the Second Temple period) had to fight a protracted battle to stave off both the hostileactions of neighbors and excessive assimilation to them. For
several centuries the Jewish autonomous area covered no morethan some 1,200 square miles in and around Jerusalem. Cut off
from the coastal region occupied by Phoenicians (as evidenced
by the so-called Eshmunazarid inscriptions), they engaged insmall-scale farming and petty trade and crafts. The socioeconomic difficulties encountered in the First Temple period now
returned with increased severity because of the greater yokeof taxation imposed by the Persian bureaucracy, made doubly
burdensome by the numerous gifts, bribes, and other “voluntary” contributions extracted by the Persian officials.
Once again the economic shortcomings brought abouta state of unrest which boded ill for the future of the country. The complaints of the masses to the new governor, Nehemiah, were eloquently restated by him in his memoirs. They
claimed:houses; let us get corn, because of the dearth.” There were alsothat said: “We have borrowed money for the king’s tribute upon
our fields and our vineyards. Yet now our flesh is as the flesh of
our brethren, our children as their children; and, lo, we bring
into bondage our sons and our daughters to be servants, andsome of our daughters are brought into bondage already; neither is it in our power to help it; for other men have our fields
and our vineyards” (Neh. 5:2–5).

We are told, to be sure, that Nehemiah succeeded in persuading the upper classes to renounce their claims, to restore
the fields to their rightful owners, and thus to reestablish fora while the social equilibrium. But the activities of this disinterested high official, who emphasized that he “demanded
not the bread of the governor, because the service was heavy
upon the people” (5:18), undoubtedly could offer but temporary relief. The conditions in the city of Jerusalem were no
more satisfactory. Nehemiah actually had to take measures
to prevent the flight of Jerusalemites, particularly the Temple
personnel, to the countryside. Yet, the prolonged era of peace
within the borders of the Persian Empire made life more orless bearable in the long run, and the country could look forward to better times.

“We, our sons and our daughters, are many; let us get for themcorn, that we may eat and live.” Some also there were that said:“We are mortgaging our fields, and our vineyards, and ourSecond Temple Period
The boundaries of the autonomous Jewish state, as establishedunder Ezra and Nehemiah, did not expand, but there was a
possibility for some Jews to settle in other parts of the country on both sides of the Jordan. While fertile Galilee was still
called the gelil ha-goyim (“the district of gentiles”), the Jewish
minority there was becoming a substantial factor. Transjordan, too, had a growing number of Jewish settlers. Alexander
the Great’s conquest of western Asia and the replacement of
the Persian domination by that of Ptolemies and Seleucids
opened up vast new opportunities for both Palestinian andDiaspora Jews. The new pervasive Hellenistic civilization
greatly encouraged exchanges between the various provinces,including those between the Jews of Palestine and their evergrowing Diaspora. Legally, too, under Alexander, Ptolemy I,
and Antiochus the Great, Jewish self-government, with its implied economic freedoms, received a favorable interpretation.
If, in time, the new Hellenistic culture began attracting many
Jewish individuals, fostered their assimilation to Greek waysof life, and thereby created deep internal cleavages within the
Jewish people, the ultimate result was the Hasmonean revolt
and the establishment of a new and enlarged sovereign Jewish
state. In the century between 165 and 63 B.C.E. the Hasmoneans conquered all of Palestine and Transjordan, converted
most of the subject population to Judaism, and established astrong and populous Jewish country with but a few enclavesof Samaritans and Hellenistic city-states along the coast andin Transjordan.
Because the Temple of Jerusalem now served as a focal
point for millions of dispersed Jews, the country benefited
greatly from the influx of the half-shekels, imposed annually
upon all adult male Jews, and from additional gifts voluntarily added by benefactors in various lands. A wealthy Egyp-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 699

economic history
tian Jew by the name of Nicanor, for example, provided theTemple with a brass gate named after him which allegedly required 20 men to open or close. In addition, thousands upon
thousands of pilgrims from all lands considered it a high religious duty to visit the Temple and offer their sacrifices there
at least once in a lifetime. Even Egyptian Jewry, which, forhistoric reasons, had built an independent Jewish “Templeof Onias” in the district of Leontopolis after the outbreak of
the Maccabean revolt, continued to send to Palestine groupsof pilgrims, including their spiritual leaders such as the Alexandrine philosopher Philo. Some pilgrims brought alongwith them substantial funds they had collected for Palestinein their home communities. Naturally, the coins collected bythese cosmopolitan groups, as well as those spent by themduring their stay in the Holy Land, greatly differed from one
another in weight and value since many municipalities issued
currencies of their own. To facilitate exchanges, the Palestinian authorities arranged for the opening of money-changing
establishments in all parts of Palestine, including the Temple
Mount, several weeks before Passover at the height of the pilgrim season. When Jesus “overthrew the tables of the moneychangers” in the Temple precincts (Matt. 21:12), he merely removed a facility which the visitors from many lands greatly
appreciated.
Not surprisingly some large collections aroused the cupidity of Roman officials. One of them, Lucius Valerius *Flaccus, governor of Apamea, confiscated a local collection of 100
pounds of gold on the excuse that gold was not to be transferred to what in 59 B.C.E. still was a foreign country (despite
Pompey’s conquest of Palestine four years before). But infact he merely sought to line his own pocket with the seizedamount. However, he was promptly accused before the Roman
senate of having committed a “sacrilege” on property belonging to a temple. He escaped severe punishment only after an
effective defense by Cicero, whose eloquent plea, mixing Jewbaiting with purely legal arguments, still serves as a Latin textbook in many schools today. Later, Roman legislation, however, clarified the issue by placing all funds destined for theJerusalem Temple, and later for the Palestinian patriarchs, under the protection of the laws governing sacrilege.
Domestically, too, the economy was surging upward. Agriculture still was the mainstay of the entire social structure.
Benefiting from the accumulated energies of many generations, irrigation systems were installed in new areas, stimulating the annual output. True, in time, the needs of a quickly
expanding population forced the farmers to put many marginal lands under cultivation. Probably for this reason R. Yose(second century) spoke of the seed yielding on the average afivefold return in finished products (Ket. 112a), which contrasted with much higher yields in earlier periods. But someareas still produced the ten- or fifteenfold return characteristic of ancient Italy and even higher than ones recorded bothin the First Temple era and in the talmudic period (see theexaggerations cited ibid.). Once again it was barley rather
than wheat which was the mainstay of the bread diet. Dates,

grapes, olives, and figs continued to furnish major ingredientsfor both domestic consumption and the export of surpluses.
Remarkably, despite the growing population and the excessive costs of transportation, Palestine was able to export both
cereals and fruits. Some of its choice fruits were served at theimperial tables in Rome, notwithstanding the competition of
Italy, Spain, and Greece, all of which yielded similar products.
A rarer plant was the papyrus grown in the Negev, the highprice of which, however, maintained by the Egyptian state monopoly, made it noncompetitive as writing material with the
far less expensive parchment, and still less costly ostracon. For
its part Palestine had a sort of monopoly on the balsam tree,
the growing of which was largely limited to the “fat lands ofJericho.” Balsam was often sold for its weight in gold. During
the Roman-Jewish War of 66–70, Pliny informs us, the Jewish defenders cut down the balsam trees lest they fall into thehands of the enemy; and “there have been pitched battles in
defense of a shrub” (Historia naturalis, 12, 54:113).
It is small wonder that plants were considered a vital social asset of the country and cutting them down wantonly wastreated as a serious crime. The term for cutting down plants
was extended metaphorically to cover infringement on thefundamentals of the Jewish law and religion. To be called a“cutter, son of a cutter” became a superlative insult. The vine,
palm, and olive trees were often used as symbols of the Jewish people; they still adorn many extant Jewish graves in ancient cemeteries and catacombs. Compared with agriculture,
cattle raising played a rather minor role. While sheep werestill needed to provide wool and milk products, meat was a
relatively minor article of consumption. According to a second-century rabbi, “a man who owns 100 shekels shall buy
a pound of vegetables for his stew; 1,000 shekels, shall buy apound of fish; 5,000 shekels, a pound of meat [it is later explained: for the Sabbath]. Only if he owns 10,000 shekels, hemay put his pot on the stove every day” (Ḥ ul. 84a). A major
consumer of cattle was the Temple with its sacrificial worship,particularly on Passover when thousands of families lined
up to offer their paschal lambs. However, the total production could probably be provided by the outlying steppes inTransjordan and the south, where more intensive cultivation
was impeded by the shortage of water. With this geographic
differentiation also went a cultural disparity, since the cattleraising areas were removed from the main center of learning.
As a result we may understand the transition from the highesteem of the shepherd in the First Temple period to the low
status he held before and after the second fall of Jerusalem.
Although conscious that in the Hebrew Bible God Himself
was often compared to the “good shepherd,” the rabbis now
deprecated the shepherd not only as an illiterate person but
also as a man untrustworthy to testify in court. Pigeon fanciers were likewise rejected as witnesses because they often engaged in aleatory games which were very popular throughout
the Greco-Roman world.
In trade and industry the changes created by the newopportunities consisted in the main of the intensification of

100

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

economic history
existing trends rather than of any change of direction or basic innovation. During most of the period the Jewish population remained cut off from the coastal area, the old Philistines
and Phoenicians having been replaced by the Hellenistic citystates. Josephus’ observation, “Ours is not a maritime country; neither commerce nor the intercourse which it promoteswith the outside world has any attraction for us” (Against Apion, 1:60) was generally true, in spite of the Maccabeans’ determined drive to the sea, which was blocked by the Roman
conquest, and the presence of substantial Jewish minorities in
Jaffa and Caesarea, the harbor newly founded by Herod. Yet
some Jews engaged in maritime commerce, owned ships, andeven participated in Mediterranean piracy. During the Jewish War of 66–70, the pirates actually threatened to reduce thesupplies to the Roman legions by blockading the port of Jaffa.
But the majority of Jewish merchants consisted of shopkeepers, agents, and other petty traders.
Industry, too, was conducted on a very small scale. As before, Jews often organized guilds of their own. This movement
was stimulated by the growth of Greco-Roman guilds whichwere often endowed with special privileges by the administration. As before, some crafts were concentrated in special
villages or had assigned to them special quarters in the cities.
In the battle for Jerusalem, the Romans stormed “that district of the new town, where lay the wool shops, the braziers’smithies, and the clothes market” (Jos., Wars, 5:331). Whilethe country was poor in metals, almost all of which had to beimported, it distinguished itself in the production of textiles,
particularly linen. In the later price list of Emperor Diocletian the highest price was assigned to the linen produced at
Beth-Shean (Scythopolis). The Dead Sea region supplied thecountry with a variety of minerals; it was renamed by the Romans the “Lacus Asphaltitis.” Another series of industrial opportunities was created by the Temple. Because of its holinessand partial inaccessibility to laymen some tasks had to be performed by priests, so that we hear of 1,000 priests serving as
skilled craftsmen at one time.
In general, the economic situation in the country might
have been tolerable, were it not for the excessive fiscal exploitation by both Herodians and Romans and their corrupt bureaucracies. Ancient governments usually placed the main
tax burdens on the farmers. As a major concession Caesar reduced the state’s share in the farm produce from one-third to
one-quarter. However, in actual practice the publicans, who
farmed the taxes against lump sums, as a rule exacted morethan their due. In Jewish Palestine, moreover, according tobiblical law, the farmer was also expected to set aside a firsttithe to the levite, a heave offering averaging 2 to the priests,
and an additional second tithe to be consumed in two out of
three years in Jerusalem, and to be distributed among the poor
every third year. Through the observance of the year of fallowness the farmer not only lost the crop of the seventh year but
often had no incentive to cultivate the soil in the preceding
year. There also was much chicanery in the collection of tithes.
The total number of priests and levites seems not to have ex-ceeded 3 of the population – it may not have exceeded 1 ofthe world Jewish population – and hence the 12 of the produce should have provided sufficient income for all of them.
Yet the powerful priestly families used their political power
to the disadvantage of their fellow priests. Josephus states thatthe servants of High Priest Ananias (47–59 C.E.) “went to thethreshing floors and took away tithes that belonged to thepriests by violence, and did not refrain from beating such as
would not give these tithes to them… so that priests that ofold were wont to be supported with those tithes died for wantof food” (Ant., 20:181).
As a result many farmers, crushed by these combined
burdens and unable to resist the state-supported publicans, often disregarded the law of tithing altogether. In consequence,
they appeared suspect to the orthodox leadership. Because of
the prohibition on consuming untithed food there was practically no conviviality between observant Pharisees (or Sadducees) and the am ha-areẓ (“people of the land”), creating analmost unbridgeable class division (see Ber. 47b, and the exaggerations in Pes. 49b). Economically, too, the farmers were
often unable to meet their obligations and lost their properties to better situated neighbors. Although Palestine never developed latifundia comparable with those existing in contemporary Italy, the number and size of “large estates” grew fromgeneration to generation. The concomitant evils of absentee
landlordism became even more manifest now, since after the
Maccabean expansion the capital, Jerusalem, was located at aconsiderable distance from those estates.
The great difficulties confronting the small farmer andhis ensuing migration to the cities resulted in a rapid increaseof the urban proletariat. Although many small towns continued to engage in a mixed economy in which agriculture stillplayed a predominant role, the larger cities, especially Jerusalem, developed into centers of trade, industry, and governmental bureaucracy. Into such cities streamed thousands oflandless peasants seeking employment as unskilled laborers
at below-subsistence wages. Understandably, the role of slavery constantly diminished. Not being a conquering country,
Palestine had few prisoners of war, while purchasing slavesat the prevailing high prices was even less remunerative now
that a vast army of underpaid free laborers was readily available. Hebrew slavery, in particular, hedged around by a varietyof legal restrictions, to all intents and purposes disappeared
completely. The rabbis phrased it metaphorically: “The Hebrew slave existed only when the Jubilee Year was in force”(Kid. 20a, 69a). Gentile slavery, too, played a small role in the
agricultural and industrial production and was largely limited
to domestic service.
Once again economic disarray combined with other socioreligious and political conflicts to bring about a social turmoil in the country which prepared the ground for its ultimate
downfall. The great Roman-Jewish War of 66–70 was an almost unavoidable consequence. With it came the destructionof the Temple and the end of its hierarchy as well as of whatever residua of national independence had still remained after

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6101

economic history
6 C.E. when Judea was incorporated into the Roman Empire
as a mere subdivision of the Syrian province. Thenceforth thecenter of gravity of the whole people shifted more and moreto the Diaspora lands.
Talmudic Era
Before the fall of Jerusalem the majority of the Jewish people had long lived outside Palestine. Yet the course of Jewish
history was largely determined by the Palestinian leadershipand society. Only Egypt acted in a more independent way andAlexandria, its great emporium of trade and culture, served
as Jerusalem’s counterpart, as it was designated by the Palestinian leaders in their letter to Judah b. Tabbai (TJ, Ḥ ag. 2:2).
Even Babylonia, upon which soon descended the mantle ofleadership of the whole people, was rather inarticulate about
its Jewish life until the third century C.E., when it came under
the neo-Persian domination. Outside these two centers there
is some information about the Jews of *Rome, owing to thepreservation of numerous catacomb inscriptions, as well as
occasional references, mostly in an anti-Jewish vein, in contemporary Latin letters. As to the multitude of Jews inhabiting Syria, Asia Minor, the Balkans, and North Africa west of
Egypt, we are limited to stray flashes of light thrown by a few
surviving inscriptions, the Pauline Epistles, and other sporadic
sources. Before long, the distinction between Palestine Jewry
and those of other countries became increasingly blurred as
the former gradually lost their position as a majority of thePalestinian population.
Minority status understandably affected also the Jewish
economic structure. Many Mediterranean communities may
have owed their origin to Jewish prisoners of war taken by the
Romans and sold into slavery. This was particularly true of thecapital itself. To be sure, the Jews did not long remain in bondage. Because many Jewish slaves insisted upon observing the
Sabbath rest commandment and abstained from consuming
ritually forbidden food, they must have been uncomfortableworkers and domestic servants. On the other hand, Jewish
families and communities bent every effort to redeem captives, a commandment placed high in the hierarchy of values
by the ancient rabbis. Roman law facilitated manumission inasmuch as freedmen retained certain connections with theirpatrons – whose family names they usually assumed – andperformed important economic services for them. According
to law, moreover, freedmen enjoyed a limited Roman citizenship, while their descendants were treated as full-fledged citizens with rights far superior to those of other citizens in thecomplex political structure of the empire before 312 C.E. Economically, however, such privileged citizens at first joined only
the vast group of landless proletarians. Especially in Romemany of them joined the estimated 200,000 welfare clients(about a fourth of the population). In fact, Augustus singled
out the Jewish welfare recipients for special favors. Taking into
account their religious scruples, he allowed them to demanda double portion of the grain due them on Friday so that theywould not have to violate the Sabbath. He also gave them theoption of refusing oil, the other major article of consumption
given away free, and to ask for money instead. In this way the
Roman emperor decided a question still controversial among
Palestinian rabbis as to whether “the oil of gentiles” was prohibited for Jewish consumption.
Nevertheless some former slaves and many free immigrants found ultimate employment in agriculture. Most ofthem had been engaged in farming at home and, wherever
given the opportunity, they tilled the soil either as small farmers or as hired hands. In the major countries of their settlement, particularly Egypt and Babylonia, many of them cultivated vineyards, which they and the Greeks seem to haveintroduced into Egypt, and olive groves, in the planting of
which their ancestors appear to have pioneered in Babylonia.
They also helped produce dates and other fruits, as well as
grain. Dates were particularly plentiful and inexpensive. The
Palestinian rabbi Ulla upon arriving in Babylonia exclaimed:“A whole basket of dates for a zuz [28 cents] and yet the Babylonians do not study the Torah!” But after overindulging in
dates, which caused him a stomach upset, he varied his epigram by saying: “A whole basket of poison for a zuz, and yet
the Babylonians study the Torah!” (Pes. 88a). To facilitate theircoreligionists’ agricultural pursuits in competition with nonJewish farmers, the Babylonian sages quite early suspended theobligation of Diaspora Jews to observe the years of fallowness
and even the payment of levitical tithes. They included theserequirements among “commandments dependent on the land”
of Israel, that is, as being binding only for Palestine. Later on,under the pressure of Roman taxation and particularly after
the reform of Diocletian (who instituted the collection in kindof the land tax from territorial groups (so-called iugera) regardless of the ethnic or religious differences among the owners of particular parcels of land) R. Yannai ordered even thePalestinian farmers to “go out and sow during the SabbaticalYear because of the tax” (Sanh. 26a).
Certain industrial activities, such as the brewing of beer,
were also connected with *agriculture. Unlike Palestine, whose
population preferred table wines, Babylonia had from ancient
times consumed much beer, one variety being brewed from a
mixture of barley and dates. No less than three distinguished
Babylonian rabbis, *Huna, *Ḥ isda, and *Papa, are recorded
as having amassed considerable wealth from brewing. Jews
were also active in many other crafts, and at times organizedspecific Jewish guilds. The crafts of tanners (see *Leather), collectors of dog dung, and copper miners were, however, considered so malodorous that the law permitted wives to sue fordivorce on this ground. Nevertheless everybody knew thatthey were socially necessary and all that Judah ha-Nasi could
say was that “the world cannot get along without either a perfumer or a tanner. Happy is he whose occupation is perfuming. Woe unto him who must earn a living as a tanner” (Kid.
4:14; 82a-b). Complaints of unethical practices by craftsmen
were also heard; an example of such prejudices was the popular adage that “the best of surgeons belongs to Hell, and themost conscientious of butchers is a partner of Amalek.” Judah

102

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

economic history
bar Ilai, who reported this saying, also drew a line of demarcation between different types of transport workers. He contended that “most of the donkey drivers are evildoers, mostof the camel drivers are honest, most of the sailors are pious.”
The latter’s reputation may have been owing to the fact that*shipping had now become an even more important occupation than in earlier centuries. The Alexandrian Jewish guildof navicularii had become so important that even the hostile
Roman administration had to extend it important privilegesin 390 C.E. (Codex Theodosianus, 13, 5, 8).
Perhaps the most significant economic change, resulting from the transfer of the center of gravity to the dispersion, occurred in the much larger Jewish participation incommerce. It is a well-known sociological phenomenon thatalien immigrants often turn to mercantile endeavors because
they have no attachment to the foreign soil, shun isolated living among native majorities, are familiar with two or morelanguages and cultures, and hence are able the better to mediate between distant localities. If, as seems to have been thecase, a large number of former Phoenicians and Carthaginians had joined the Jewish community via conversion, theymust have brought some of their commercial skills and contacts into their new communities. Jewish slaves, if employedin their masters’ businesses, must also have acquired certain
aptitudes which they put to good use upon obtaining freedom.
For all these reasons the number of Jewish traders, ranging
from peddlers to big merchants, must have greatly increased.
Yet their ratio in the Jewish population of the Diaspora neednot have greatly exceeded the general mercantile ratios among
the majority of peoples.
Even banking began to assume a certain role in Jewish
economic life. True, would-be Jewish moneylenders faced thetremendous obstacles of the traditional Jewish anti-usury laws.
In fact, some rabbis tried, on segregationist grounds, to forbid their coreligionists to lend money with or without interest
even to gentiles, unless they found absolutely no other meansof earning a living (BM 70b). However, there were always legal
subterfuges which made loans profitable, such as high conventional fines for missing the repayment date, intervening inutilization of mortgaged properties, and the like (see, e.g., The
Tebtunis Papyri, 3, 1902, ed. by B.P. Grenfell et al., 315ff., nos.
817–8; E.N. Adler, introd. to his ed. of The Adler Papyri, 1939,
5f.). In Alexandria Jewish banking may have played a certain
role even in nurturing the anti-Jewish animus of the population. This is, at least, the interpretation given by some scholars
to an Alexandrian merchant’s warning to a friend “to bewareof the Jews” recorded in a single papyrus dated 41 C.E. (Aegyptische Urkunden aus… Berlin, Griechische Urkunden, 2, no.
1079). But this explanation has been cogently disputed. Thereis no question, however, that Philo’s relatives, Alexander and
Demetrius, holding the high position of alabarchs (the meaning of this term is still controversial), could enter banking ona large scale. For example, Alexander extended to Agrippa I
the substantial loan of 200,000 sesterces (about $30,000), thebulk of which he paid out to the Jewish king from his Italianbranch office in Putoli-Dikaerchia (Jos., Ant., 18:160). But
these were exceptions confirming the rule that the majority ofJews were still very poor and eking out a living by hard workin various occupations.
On the other hand, in the talmudic age Jewish slavery
played even less of a role than before. Jewish masters, rigidly
circumscribed by law, did not enjoy employing coreligionists
as slaves. A popular adage had it that “he who buys a Hebrew
slave acquires a master unto himself ” (Kid. 20a). Certainly, as
aids in production, even gentile slaves could not compete withthe readily available free laborers. The Roman colonate withhalf-free sharecroppers tilling the soil for the landlords only
developed toward the end of antiquity. Characteristically, the
new Christian empire after Constantine I, which totally outlawed Jewish ownership of Christian slaves and encouraged
pagan slaves to obtain freedom by conversion to Christianity,
was prepared to tolerate the employment of Christian coloni
by Jewish farmers (Gregory I, Epistolae, 4:21, 9:38). Even Jewish slave trading (see *Slavery and the *Slave Trade), which
was to play a certain role in the early Middle Ages still, wasquite insignificant.
In all these activities Jews depended even more than
before on the general economic transformations which took
place during the first centuries of the Christian era. The Roman
Empire’s semicapitalistic economy of the first two centuries
increasingly gave way to a semifeudal system. The Sassanian
Empire never reached the stage of relative economic freedomof the early Roman Empire. Jews, as well as their intellectual
leaders, had to make constant adjustments to both economic
systems through the adaptation of traditional laws by way ofinterpretation. As a consequence of this pliability, rabbinic
legislation was to prove quite useful to the Jewish communities in their medieval pioneering. One result of the growing
state controls in both empires was a certain regimentation in
occupations and price structures, which also induced the Jews
to organize their own zoning tariffs in transportation, supervision of weights and measures, and even setting maximum
prices. Even the unfriendly Theodosius I decreed in 396 that“no one outside the Jewish faith should fix prices for Jews” – aprinciple upheld by his successors (Codex Theodosianus, 16, 8,
10). On the other hand, because of the ensuing commercial
restrictions, customs barriers, and innumerable official fees,
the exchanges between the provinces of the Roman Empire
were now severely hampered. This reduction in imperial andinternational commerce greatly stimulated the local and regional autarky and helped to create in many parts of the empire highly diversified occupational structures, providing formost of the needs of the local populations. These developments account also for the greater diversity of occupations
among Jews from the third century onward.
Economically perhaps even more important was the
sharp decline in the class struggle within the Jewish community. Confronted with indiscriminate hostility on the part ofmany neighbors, Jews, whether rich or poor, employers or employees, had to close ranks. Since the hostile state legislation

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6103

economic history
often interfered with their ability to earn a livelihood, many
Jews now depended on the ramified Jewish welfare system.
The economic effects of anti-Jewish riots also were quite significant. Although far from resembling medieval massacres,the occasional anti-Jewish outbreaks in the Middle Easterncities seriously interfered with Jewish business activities. The
first major anti-Jewish riot, staged by the Alexandrian mobwith the support of the Roman governor Avilius Flaccus, iswell described by Philo, an eyewitness. In his indictment ofFlaccus, the philosopher wrote:

Muslim Middle Ages
After the rise of Islam and its speedy expansion from southern France to India, Jewish economic life took a drastic turn.
Together with the simultaneous developments in Christian
Europe, *Islam’s perennial antagonist, the new political andsocioeconomic evolution for the first time converted a predominantly agricultural Jewish population into a people ofmerchants, moneylenders, and artisans. This lopsided economic stratification carried over into the modern period andwas only slightly rectified in the emancipation era.
A major cause of this epochal change was the new treatment of Jews by the host nations as primarily an indispensable source of fiscal revenue for the respective governments
and bureaucracies. In the declining Roman Empire and, still
more, in Sassanian *Persia, Jews were often considered important objects of fiscal exploitation. This, however, was largely

done by administrative chicanery within the generally oppressive taxation systems in the two empires. Jews and pagans in
the Christian Roman Empire and Byzantium, and Jews andChristians in Zoroastrian *Iran may have been mere defenseless victims of arbitrary acts by rapacious officials; or, for special historic reasons, they may have been forced after the fallof Jerusalem to pay for a time a special tax, the so-called fiscus judaicus (in lieu of the old Jewish Temple tax); but they
were not singled out, as a matter of principle, as a separate
class of taxpayers on whose shoulders was supposed to rest
the main burden of financially maintaining the existing governmental structures.
It was left to the founder of Islam to enunciate the broad
general commandment: “Fight those who do not practicethe religion of truth from among those to whom the Book
has been brought, until they pay the tribute by their hands,
and they be reduced low” (Qur’an 9:29). Later Muslim jurists
and statesmen, constantly invoking this injunction of theirmessenger, interpreted it to mean that Jews, Christians, andfor a time also Zoroastrians, as “people of the book,” thatis as adherents of scriptural religions, be tolerated in Muslim countries, provided they pay “tribute,” that is taxes ofall kinds, and are kept in a low social status without exercising
any control over faithful Muslims. The latter provision (similar to Christian Rome’s denial to Jews of the honos militiae
et administrationis) was supposed to entrust all responsibility for the defense of the country and its administration to
the Muslims, while delegating the entire fiscal burden andthe task of keeping the economy alive to the infidel or “protected” peoples. Though *Muhammad himself left the details
open, some extremists, such as Ash-Shafiʿī, founder of oneof the four influential schools of Muslim jurisprudence, contended that a Muslim state could exact tribute to the extent
of two-thirds of all his possessions from a Jewish or Christian subject.
The prevailing practice was to collect from these religious
minorities a land tax of 25 of the crops and a poll tax fromadult and able-bodied males. According to Abu Yusuf, Caliph
Harun al-Rashid’s chief fiscal expert, the Christians and Jews
were divided into three income classes and paid 1 dinar, 2 dinars, and 4 dinars, respectively (Kitab al-Kharaj, 69ff. (Ar.),
187ff. (Fr.); a dinar was valued about $4 by its weight in gold,
but had many times that value in purchasing power). Despite
the great inflationary changes in the following three centuries,*Obadiah (Johannes), the Norman proselyte, recorded an increase by only half a dinar for each of these classes. He addedthat if a delinquent Jewish taxpayer died his body could not beburied unless his family or the Jewish community paid up all
tax arrears (Fragment, ed. by A. Scheiber, in: KS, 30 (1954/55),
98). These basic imposts were augmented by a variety of local and individual taxes, enforced “gifts” and loans, and otherservices which made the life of the Jewish masses very difficult. But at least in periods of rapid economic progress, as in
the ninth century, some Jews of the upper classes were able toamass sizable fortunes.

104

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

But cessation of business was a worse evil than plundering. The
provision merchants had lost their stores, and no one was allowed, either farmer or shipper or trader or artisan, to engage
in his normal occupation. Thus poverty was brought aboutfrom both quarters, both from plunder, for in one day they
were dispossessed and stripped of their property, and frominability to earn a living from their normal occupations (InFlaccum, 7:57).

Even in less stormy periods the Jewish masses required theintercession of their leaders to counteract inimical measuresby unfriendly officials. Under these harsh conditions the old
ritualistic animosities between the learned and the illiterate
am ha-areẓ paled into insignificance. In any case, the main
obstacle to rapprochement between the two classes was eliminated when the levitical tithes were discontinued in the Diaspora. Differences in the study of Torah were likewise toned
down by the leading Palestinian rabbi Johanan’s declaration(in the name of R. Simeon b. Yoḥ ai) that the biblical commandment, “This book of the law shall not depart out of thy
mouth” (Josh. 1:8), could be fulfilled by the mere recitation of
the Shema in the morning and evening. If, because of fear thatthe disclosure of this statement might discourage study, therabbis forbade its being given wide currency; the fourth-century Babylonian Raba, however, insisted that it be divulged tothe public (Men. 99b; see also the anecdote about Judah haNasi’s reconsideration in BB 8a). In short, even illiterate Jews
could now fulfill their religious duties to the satisfaction of
their more learned brethren.

economic history
Methods of tax collection aggravated the generally arbitrary and unpredictable forms of fiscal exploitation. They werealso designed to demonstrate the taxpayers’ inferiority. A description preserved in an old papyrus gives an inkling of thedeliberately humiliating ceremony accompanying the delivery
by a representative Jew or Christian of a sum collected fromhis community. “Then the emir,” we are told, “gives him a blowon the neck, and a guard, standing upright before the emir,drives him roughly away… The public is admitted to enjoy thisshow” (J. Karabacek, in Mitteilungen aus der Sammlung der
Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer, 2–3, 1962, 178). Occasionally, following an old Babylonian custom, the tax receipt was stamped on
the taxpayer’s neck in a more or less indelible form. Needlessto say, the Jews resented such excesses. However, they realizedthat their special taxation was the main justification for their
being allowed to live in Muslim countries altogether. A Jewish
family chronicle mentions that the prominent Baghdad Jewishbanker, Netira, on being told by Caliph Al-Mutadid (c. 892)
that the administration wished to eliminate all special Jewish
taxes, allegedly dissuaded the ruler from such drastic action.
He agreed that a reduction of the tax to its original size would
be a blessing for his community, but he added, “Through the
tax the Jew insures his existence. By eliminating it, you would
give free rein to the populace to shed Jewish blood” (A. Harkavy, in: Festschrift Berliner (1903), 36 (Ar.), 39 (Heb.)). In theback of Netira’s mind may also have loomed the danger thatanyone of Al-Mutadid’s successors might not only reinstate
the taxes but also demand from the Jews the instantaneous
repayment of all arrears thus accrued.
One effect of this discriminatory fiscal pressure wasthe constant diminution of the Jewish share in agriculture.
Even after the extension of the land tax to the growing Muslim majority, many farmers were unable to meet their obligations to the state. Jewish farmers had the additional burden of
the heavy poll tax paid in produce at a price arbitrarily set by
the tax collector. The requirements of Jewish law, too, particularly the Sabbath rest commandment, which was much
more stringent than the rest precepts of the Muslim Friday
and Christian Sunday, generally made Jewish agricultural endeavor less competitive. There is evidence that in the days ofHarun al-Rashid (766–809) the land flight of Palestinian farmers was so severe that the government was forced to appeal
for their return under the promise of permanent tax abatement. The chances are that fewer Jews returned after having
found shelter in one or another urban Jewish community. The
growing disorders in the great caliphate from the tenth century on must also have induced many Jewish villagers, whose
defenselessness invited attacks by marauders, to leave theirlanded properties – despite their great attachment to theirancestral soil attested by some geonic sources – and settle ina somewhat more secure urban Jewish quarter. Beginningin the 12t century the increasingly powerful trends toward
semifeudalism throughout the Middle East further militatedagainst Jewish farming as they did, on a larger scale, in contemporary Christian Europe.

On the other hand, new opportunities beckoned to Jews
in the commercial area. The general upsurge of the Middle
East economy during the first centuries of Muslim rule, therise of great metropolitan areas such as *Baghdad and *Cairo,and, for a time, uniformity and stability of currency and relative security in travel and transportation, all stimulated the
expansion of mercantile activities on the part of merchantsof various nationalities. Commerce was generally held in
higher esteem than agriculture among Middle Eastern Muslims, Christians, and Jews. Al-*Farabi voiced the prevailingnotions that “villages are in the service of cities.” While in theinternal exchanges within the caliphate the Jews encountered
severe competition on the part of several equally gifted mercantile groups, including Greeks, Armenians (increasingly
muslimized), Syrians, and even Arabs – a popular Middle
Eastern adage was to state later that one Greek could cheat
two Jews, and one Armenian could cheat two Greeks – Jewish merchants had certain advantages in domestic and, evenmore, in international trade.
In the first place their competitors often came from regions of diverse legal systems. Most of the Christian merchants followed deep-rooted customs and traditions of theformer provinces of the Byzantine Empire. The Muslims, too,
were divided in their mercantile and other civil laws throughthe disparate teachings of their four major schools of Muslim
jurisprudence and the great variations of local and regionalcustoms. These factors were far less pronounced in the case ofJews. Although the Babylonian and Palestinian laws often differed in many significant details, a growing majority of Jews,
settled in the great caliphate and adjoining countries, increasingly came under the sway of the Babylonian Talmud and its
official interpretation by the geonic academies of Babylonia. At
the same time the presence of Jewish communities throughout the far-flung empire and in many neighboring countries,
both east and west, assured Jewish merchant travelers a brotherly reception and help in emergencies wherever they went.
They could also readily establish branch offices, and engage anumber of dependable local agents. Examples like those recorded in the documents preserved in the Cairo *Genizah
have shown the vast geographic extension of the mercantile
dealings of certain Cairo-Fostat firms. In 1115–17 one Abu
ʿImran gave a power of attorney to an agent surnamed “thecandle maker” to look after all his business undertakings in
Sicily, *Morocco, and other localities, as well as to manage hishouses in Spain and Sicily. Another businessman, Ḥ alfon b.
Nethanel, after returning to *Aden in 1134 from a prolonged
stay in India, soon thereafter traveled to Cairo. In the following year we find him in Morocco and *Spain before his returnhome (H. Hirschfeld, in: JQR, 16 (1925/26), 280f.; S.D. Goitein,Speculum, 29 (1954), 186f.)
An even greater advantage accrued to Jewish merchantsin the burgeoning international trade with Western Europe.
Although the Carolingian Empire and its successor states
were still economically quite backward, their growing landed
aristocracy furnished many customers for the luxury articles

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6105

economic history
imported from Eastern lands. Here Jewish traders served asimportant mediators in a world divided between Islam andChristendom. Few Western merchants traveled to the Middle East, despite occasional Christian pilgrimages to the Holy
Land, while even fewer Arabs dared to enter the hostile Christian countries for any length of time. Jews were tolerated under both civilizations. The legal advantages arising from theuniformity of their law were even greater in this area, since
Christian and Muslim laws diverged very greatly and familiarity with each other’s legal systems was extremely rare. The
Jews also had a linguistic advantage in being able to communicate with one another, whereas few Christians knew Arabic and still fewer Arabs could converse in Latin or any local dialect. But a few polyglot individuals could occasionallyserve as interpreters. We hear of a ninth-century Jewish linguist named Sallam, apparently a native of Spain or Khazaria,
who in 845 reached the “wall of Gog and Magog” in China
and who allegedly was able to converse in 30 languages. Multilingual documents were also found in the Cairo Genizah.
When Charlemagne decided to send an embassy to Harun
al-Rashid he had to add a Jewish interpreter, named Isaac, tothe mission. It turned out that the chief noble envoys died on
the journey and Isaac alone returned from Baghdad, bearing
gifts from the Eastern potentate to the Western emperor. In
general, however, Hebrew could easily serve as the regularmedium of communication among Jewish merchants underboth Islam and Christendom, and by the ninth century it had
become a leading international language.
In his oft-cited Kitab al-Masalik (“Book of Routes”), written in 846 and revised some 40 years later, Ibn Khurdadhbah,
who held in the caliphate an office approximating that of amodern postmaster general, described the routes taken by the
Jewish *Radaniya (Radhanites; a word of uncertain etymology
and meaning) from northern France and southern Morocco
to India and China. He wrote:

There is some reason to believe that Western Jewish merchantsquite early reached even Korea and Japan.
Ibn Khurdadhbah’s statement helped support what soon
became a Christian ecclesiastical myth, adopted by some modern historians, about an extensive Jewish slave trade in the
Middle Ages. Medieval and modern controversialists from
St. Agobard, archbishop of Lyons, onward, often pointed afinger at the medieval Jews as the main slave traders whotransported Christian slaves, especially from Slavonic countries, to the ever more manpower-hungry Middle East andMuslim Spain. They readily overlooked the staggering legal
barriers erected against that trade by both Jewish and gentile
laws. Islam and Christendom severely outlawed the possession by Jews of Muslim or Christian slaves respectively. On its
part, the Talmud had long demanded that a slave acquired bya Jewish master should be circumcised, made to observe theseven Noachide commandments, and live an essentially Jewish life. If a slave refused to be converted within 12 months,
he was to be freed or sold to a gentile master. Female slavery,
mainly intended to serve sexual purposes, was made difficult
for Jewish slaveholders by the strict prohibition on sexual relations with slave girls. Typical of the provisions of Jewish law
was the following statement by the ninth-century Babylonian
teacher Natronai Gaon: “If a son of Israel is caught with his
slave… she is to be removed from him, sold, and the purchaseprice distributed among Israel’s poor. We also flog him, shave
his hair, and excommunicate him for 30 days” (Sha’arei Ẓ edek,
fol. 25a, attributed to Amram Gaon). The trade in eunuchs, somuch in demand for Oriental harems, depended on whether
the Jewish slave trader could acquire castrated males. Otherwise talmudic law had long included castration among thephysical mutilations which entitled the slave to seek immediate release. Responsibility for a slave’s hidden blemishes, bothmental and physical, was greatly delimited by talmudic law
and hence anyone acquiring a slave ran considerable risks. If
some Jews, defying these legal difficulties, were attracted tothis extremely lucrative commercial branch, they must haveconstituted but a minority among the international slave traders and doubtless played an even smaller role in the various
domestic slave markets throughout the world of Islam. It is
not surprising, therefore, to find that in the vast, populous,and affluent North African lands, hardly any reference toJewish slave traders appears in the extant Muslim and Jewish
sources of the time.
Under the rule of medieval Islam Jews also entered themoney trade in all its ramifications in an important way.
Some of them played a considerable role in the very *mintingof coins. Under Caliph Abd al-Malik (695–96), for example,
one Sumeir helped set up a very important monetary reformwhich so impressed a Jewish homilist that he placed it among
the signs of the approaching Messiah (PDR, XXIX, ed. by Michael Higger, in: Horeb, 10 (1948) 193f.; in G. Friedlander’sEnglish trans., p. 221). Other Jewish minters are recorded invarious Muslim and Christian countries, though not in Byzantium where minting was an effective state monopoly. Someof the first coins issued by Poland in the 11t and 12t centuries
bore inscriptions in the Hebrew alphabet, probably because
the minter was most familiar with that script. Money changing likewise became a very widespread and profitable trade,particularly after the dissolution of the caliphate when diverse
coins from various lands began appearing in all large mercantile centers. Considerable expertise was required in order to106

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

These merchants speak Arabic, Persian, Roman [Greek and
Latin], the Frank, Spanish, and Slav languages. They journeyfrom West to East, from East to West, partly on land, partly bysea. They transport from the West eunuchs, female slaves, boys,
brocade, castor, marten and other furs, and swords. They takeship from Firanja [France] on the Western Sea, and make for
Farama [Pelusium]… On their return from China they carryback musk, aloes, camphor, cinnamon, and other products ofthe Eastern countries… Some make sail for Constantinople tosell their goods to the Romans; others go to the palace of theKing of Franks to place their goods… These different journeys
can also be made by land (pp. 153 ff.; E.N. Adler, Jewish Travellers, 1966, p. 2).

economic history
recognize defects, whether inflicted by coin clippers or by the
admixture of undue amounts of alloy. Here, too, internationally experienced Jewish dealers were often in a favored position. Deposit banking also assumed a major economic role.
Unlike the ancient temples and medieval churches, neither
mosques nor synagogues ever served as important depositories of funds. Because of the relative absence of expulsions
and large-scale massacres of Jews in Muslim countries, Jewish bankers were considered a fairly secure outlet for surplus
funds which, if profitably invested, could yield substantial
profits to both depositors and depositaries. To be sure, in unstable periods an arbitrary official (for instance, Al-Baridi,
governor of Al-Aḥ waz) could seize the bankers’ possessions,
including deposits held by them for other accounts, withoutcompensation. But the depositors running afoul a dignitary’s
personal greed or whim found keeping their funds at homeno less risky. In general, however, the frequency and usefulness of the new methods were so great that the rabbis had torelax some ancient restrictions and alter the areas of responsibility on the part of the depositaries in order to facilitate
their operations.
Similarly, the transfer of large amounts from one province to another in the vast empire and beyond its boundaries became the more imperative as carrying cash to a distantlocality by land or sea became increasingly hazardous. Gangsof robbers on land were far exceeded in number and efficiency by both Mediterranean and Indian Ocean pirates. The
North African coast and the extended coastline of the Arabian Peninsula served as particularly useful hideouts for corsairs. If the Talmud had objected to the method of transferring money through a deed called dioqni (derived from sign),
and some medieval rabbis still opposed the bearer instrument
called suftaja in Arabic (which Jews apparently helped develop
jointly with the Arabs), the economic realities were such thatthe geonim had to yield and recognize its employment as alegitimate mercantile usage, “lest the commercial transactions of the people be nullified” (Teshuvot ha-Ge’onim, 1887,
ed. by A.E. Harkavy, nos. 199, 423, 467). Ultimately, Samuel b.
Hophni, head of the academy of Sura, felt impelled to write a
special legal monograph on “Letters of Authorization” (Sefer
ha-Harsha’ot). Nor did the *Kairouan scholar Nissim b. Jacob
hesitate to use a suftaja in forwarding a gift for the support ofthe Babylonian academies.
Even more important, of course, was the large-scale Jewish participation in the increasingly vital credit system. Although all three major religions tried to outlaw usury – theMuslim riba being even more broadly defined than the Christian usura or the Jewish ribbit – the economic needs of credit
became overwhelming. Since most loans were now extended
not to impoverished farmers but rather to businessmen or
government officials for use in trade or public administration,
the outlawry of any kind of increment over the amounts lent
lost its moral justification. Jews were in a strategic position to
overcome the legal obstacles, as they were the relatively smallest group in the population and, even if observing the prohi-

bition of charging interest to coreligionists, could engage in
profitable *moneylending with the large majority of borrowersof other denominations. All sorts of legal evasions, moreover,were conceived by jurists of all groups, although this system
was never quite so refined as it was to become in medieval Europe. One of the simplest expedients appeared to be a fictitious
sale of income-producing property with the right of repurchase which gave the lender the opportunity of collecting therevenue of that property during the interim. The widespreadcommenda contract, in which the investor appeared as a partner in the enterprise, likewise offered him the opportunity ofexacting the pledge that he would participate in the ultimate
sale with a specified profit regardless of possible losses. It was
this form of purported silent partnership with a guaranteed
revenue which was most widely used to secure for the lender
an income agreed upon in advance. Until today, some pious
Jews still enter on a bond of indebtedness the words al ẓ adhetter iska (often in abbreviated form, see *Usury) to indicate
their mental reservation against the transgression of the biblical commandment.
During periods of quiet, profits derived from banking
could be enormous. As a result there emerged a number ofwealthy Jewish bankers, especially in the metropolitan areasof Baghdad, Cairo, *Alexandria, Kairouan, *Fez, and *Córdoba. These banking firms did not limit their activities toloans but usually engaged in related businesses such as tradein jewelry and precious metals, investment in real estate, andthe like. They often had at their disposal large funds deposited
with them by high government officials secreting away illicit
income from briberies. Ibn al-Furat, a leading vizier of earlytenth-century Baghdad, admitted having had large deposits
with the two Jewish bankers Aaron b. Amram and Joseph b.
Phinehas. In return, the bankers had to perform services forthese officials which went much beyond ordinary businessrisks. For example, ʿAli ibn ʿIsa, Ibn al-Furat’s more virtuous rival, did not hesitate to force his Jewish banker to advance him monthly the equivalent of $40,000 in gold for thewages of the imperial infantry. This loan was to be covered by
the banker’s revenue from tax farming in the province of AlAḥ waz. Another Jewish tax farmer, Ibn ʿAllan al-Yahudi ofBaṣ ra, who had lent both the sultan and the famous Persian
statesman Nizam al-Mulk the equivalent of $100,000, was assassinated in 1079. Sometimes the whole Jewish community
was held responsible for a banker’s refusal to lend money to adignitary. In one such case, in 996, the mob attacked the entire Jewish quarter.
Less dramatic, but equally significant, was the expansion of Jewish activities in the traditional fields of handicrafts
and professions. Needless to say, these occupations offered
vast opportunities to many more Jews than did commerceand banking. Regrettably no exact occupational statistics canbe offered, but a few extant lists show that the proportion ofcraftsmen considerably exceeded that of merchants, even
including the petty shopkeepers and peddlers. Three suchgenizah lists show percentages ranging from 38.4 to 52.1 for

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6107

economic history
industrial occupations, compared with 17.3 to 37.5 for commerce and banking. According to Al-Jaḥ iẓ , Jews predominated in the industries of dyeing and tanning in Egypt, Syria,
and Babylonia and formed the majority among the Persian
and Babylonian barbers, cobblers, and butchers. Another contemporary Arab observer, Muqaddasi, contended that “for themost part the assayers of corn, dyers, bankers, and tanners are
Jews; while it is usual for physicians and scribes to be Christian” (J. Finkel, ed., in: Journal of the American Oriental Society, 47, 311–34; Muqaddasi, K. Aḥ sam at-taqasim, p. 183; in
Le Strange’s English trans. in his Description of Syria, p. 77).
In fact no less than 265 different crafts are mentioned in the
genizah records, showing both the extensive Jewish participation in industrial occupations and their great specialization.
Gradually Jews also penetrated the medical profession, someof them achieving considerable fame as medical theorists andwriters (Asaph, Israeli, *Maimonides, and others). One must
add, of course, a considerable number of Jews who were employed by their own communities as rabbis, teachers, cantors,shoḥ atim, sextons, and in administrative capacities, forming
a sort of Jewish civil service.
This occupational diversification was greatly facilitatedby the openness of Muslim society and the relatively large
measure of economic equality for subjects of all faiths. The
latter included much freedom of movement, except in Egypt
where the traditional state-capitalistic order presupposed governmental controls over the influx of foreigners and the exitof natives. Only Egypt enacted strict regulations concerning
passports. In industry, too, there was much freedom of choice.
Even where industrial *guilds existed, they were neither somonopolistic nor so discriminatory in the admission of Jewish
members as their counterparts in Europe. It was also possible
for the autonomous Jewish communal organs to use considerable discretion in enforcing their own price controls whenever needed, supervising weights and measures, and generally
policing the markets in the Jewish quarters.
It was unfortunate for the Jews and non-Jews alike that
this flourishing commercial-industrial civilization sharply declined after the tenth century as a result of the caliphate’s dissolution and its constant foreign and civil wars. By the time of
the 13t-century *Mongolian invasions much of the grandeurof that great civilization had given way to a slow process of
decay. Coming on top of the Christian *Crusades, these invasions dealt further severe blows to both the international andlocal commerce of the eastern lands. While Christian Europe
was marching ahead on the road toward a flourishing economic structure, the eastern lands began to stagnate. Amongthe numerous departures were Jews, fleeing from foreign invaders as well as domestic enemies and seeking whatever uncertain shelter they could secure in Western lands. The centerof world commerce now began shifting westward, with thevarious Italian merchant republics taking over the offensive,
establishing colonies in the eastern Mediterranean and laterin the Indian Ocean, and ultimately displacing the East evenin the Levantine trade.

Medieval Christendom
At first, to be sure, far fewer Jews lived under Christendom.
Only from the 13t century on, as a result of the general upsurge of the Western nations, the Spanish reconquest, and thesimultaneous sharp decline of the Eastern countries, did thecenter of gravity of the Jewish people slowly move to the European area. Here the far better accumulation and preservationof archival materials and the concerted efforts of generationsof scholars have yielded much reliable and detailed information about general and Jewish economic developments. Jewish
documents, too, such as the “starrs” of England, the records of
the Laurenz parish in Cologne, the vast collection of Arabicand Hebrew documents in Toledo and other parts of Spain,
the numerous notarial records, and even occasional privatearchives of Jewish firms, have made the study of economic
Jewish history much more reliable and concrete.
Clearly, the existing trends toward the alienation of Jews
from agriculture were much stronger in Europe than in the
Muslim Middle East and North Africa. In certain areas theinsecurity of Jewish life and the ever-present danger of massacres, expulsions, and forced conversions made landholdings
far less attractive for Jews. Whenever a landowner had to depart suddenly or was otherwise obliged to dispose of his property within a very short time, forced liquidation, if not total
confiscation, resulted in enormous losses. For example, twoyears after the expulsion of Jews from France in 1306 a Christian landlord was able to acquire 50 Jewish houses in the oldand venerable community of Narbonne for the mere pittanceof 3,957 livres. This transaction so aroused the ire of both theviscount and the archbishop, each of whom had special feudal
rights in the city, that, to appease them, the purchaser gave anadditional 5,000 livres, two houses, and a plot of land to theviscount and an unspecified, but undoubtedly large, amountto the archbishop (S. Luce, REJ, 2 (1881). Of course, the Jewish exiles received nothing. Similarly, according to the court
historian Andrés Bernáldez, after the promulgation of the
Spanish decree of expulsion in March 1492, anyone could acquire a Jewish vineyard for a piece of cloth or linen (Historia
de los Reyes Católicos (1870), 338f.). In addition to such countrywide expulsions, there were local and regional forced exiles of varying frequency. For instance, the city of *Speyer, towhich Jews had originally been admitted in 1084 by Bishop
Ruediger-Huozmann “in order to enhance the city’s honor,”subsequently often ousted them on short notice. To mention
only the events of the 15t century: Jews were expelled from
Speyer in 1405, readmitted in 1421, banished again in 1430,
and allowed to return in 1434, to be once more evicted a year
later. Yet they were there again in 1465. They became objectsof renewed Episcopal legislation in 1468–72.
The first major blow of this kind came to the Jews of Byzantium as a result of Emperor *Heraclius’ decree of 632 forcing all Jews to become Christians. Although incompletely carried out even in the areas which remained Byzantine after the
expansion of Islam soon after, such Byzantine decrees wererepeated in the following three centuries. It was truly amaz-

108

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

economic history
ing, therefore, that during his visit to the Balkans in the 1160s
Benjamin of Tudela found an entire Jewish community of 200
families in the village of Crissa who “sow and reap on theirown land” (Travels, pp. 12 (Heb.), 10 (Eng.)). Similar forced
conversions occurred in Visigothic Spain, Merovingian Gaul,
and Langobard Italy in 613–61, and were replaced in Spain bymany sharply discriminatory laws against the Jews who survived or were allowed to return before the Muslim conquestof 711–2. To all intents and purposes these hostile actions put
an end to all forms of organized Jewish life there and only asmall Jewish remnant remained under Catholic dominationin central and southern Italy. Even if not all the Jews left thesecountries, their ownership and cultivation of land must havepractically ceased, while returning Jews may have had little
incentive or opportunity to acquire new agricultural property. Similar effects were later produced by the successive expulsions of Jews from royal France, England, Spain, Portugal,
various Italian states, and other parts of Christian Europe between 1182 or 1290 and 1600.
An equally important factor was the growth of European
feudalism. Land now not only became the source of economic
power but also the mainstay of political and military force. He
who owned land exercised dominion over a multitude of peasants whether they tilled the soil as half-free sharecroppers solong as the Roman colonate persisted, or as villeins furnishing parts of their produce and corvée labor to their masters.
While since Pope Gregory the Great the Church had allowed
Jews to maintain Christian coloni on their land, it became increasingly awkward for Jews to be either vassals taking oathsof fealty to Christian lords, or seigneurs administering suchoaths to Christian barons. Remarkably, this system persisted
in Provence up to the 12t century and beyond. In AngevinEngland, kings also protected Jewish feudal holdings throughdecrees such as that issued by Richard the Lion Heart in 1190
in favor of one Isaac, son of R. Joce, and his sons or, more
broadly, through the generic decree by John Lackland in 1201.
It was in the royal interest to protect the Jewish holding of a“baronial state, claiming for themselves wardships, escheats,
and advowsons,” as did Henry III. Even the antagonistic Edward I had to allow Jews to acquire feudal possessions if theirnoble owners defaulted on the payment of their debts. But theantagonisms aroused in such cases contributed to the baronial revolt against the crown in 1264–66. The barons argued
that the kings selfishly promoted feudal acquisitions by Jews
because through the royal overlordship over Jews noble property was thus indirectly transferred to the royal domain. Ultimately, beginning in 1269, the kings themselves had to oblige
Jewish creditors to dispose of such foreclosed estates to Christian owners within a year. In short, feudalism and Jewish landholdings appeared incompatible in the long run and it was theweaker Jewish side which had to yield ground.
On the other hand, unlike under Islam, Jewish landowners were not subjected to a special land tax. “In our entire
realm,” declared *Meir b. Baruch of Rothenburg, “[Jews] pay
not tax on land. Sometimes capitalists have tried to change

this system, but when the matter was brought before us, we
disallowed it” (Responsa (Prague, 1607), 50c no. 452). In otherareas, however, the general land taxes became so burdensomethat the Barcelona rabbi Solomon b. Abraham *Adret complained that “frequently the very best fields yield insufficient
harvests to pay the royal taxes” (Responsa, 3 (Leghorn, 1778),
no. 148). More universal and irksome was the ecclesiasticaldrive to force the Jews to pay tithes on property they acquired
from Christian owners, lest the parish priests or monasteries
lose the income from such lands. Finally, the Fourth Lateran*Council of 1215 insisted that these contributions be universally collected from Jews, riding roughshod over the religious
scruples of some Jewish pietists who saw in such payments
subsidies for the erection of churches and monasteries devoted
to the worship of another faith.
Employment of Christian agricultural workers by Jews
became another important issue, anti-Jewish agitators of all
kinds clamoring that Jews be forced to cultivate the land with
their own hands. The nobles, on the other hand, even in Mediterranean countries, often tried to eliminate Jewish landholdings altogether. Such a proposal was advanced, for instance,by the Castilian Cortes in 1329. These opponents readily overlooked the early medieval Jewish pioneering contributions
to European agriculture. Coming from the more advanced
Eastern countries, Jewish groups settling in the West are often still remembered in such names as Terra Hebraeaorum,
Judendorf, Żydaczów, and the like. Even a Spanish name like
Aliud is probably a derivative of Al-Yahud. As late as 1138 threeJews of Arles bought from Abbot Pontius of Montmajour theentire output of kermes of the district of Miramar, thus stimulating the farmers to produce that dyestuff. They were also
very active in introducing the silkworm into Sicily and other
Mediterranean countries.
Yet it was only the opposition of the crown which prevented general prohibitions of Jewish land ownership. Wherever such were enacted, they usually bore a local characterand even these were not always fully implemented. Evenin fervently anti-Jewish Germany after the *Black Death of
1348–49, the assertion of the author of the Rechtsbuch nachDistinctionen (iii. 17, 1) that “Jews are not allowed to own real
property in this country” was a clear exaggeration. In the
Mediterranean lands, especially, Jews continued to own andcultivate landed properties; this they did to the very end of
their sojourn in Spain, Portugal, Provence, Sicily, and Naples.
Their endeavors were particularly flourishing in those areas
where extensive orchards and vineyards, located in the neighborhood of towns, enabled them to combine fruit production with other occupations. Queen Maria of Aragon was notwrong when in 1436 she upheld the right of *Huesca Jewry todispose of the grain and wines produced on its property, “since
the Jews of the said city for the most part live as workers andcultivators of fields and vineyards and derive a living from thelatter’s produce” (Baer, Urkunden, 1 (1929), pt. 1, 858f. no. 535).
The city council of Haro (Faro), close to the Navarrese border,
complained that Jewish and Muslim landowners in the district

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6109

economic history
had in 1453 signed a covenant not to sell any land to Christians.
In the council’s opinion this created a threat that before longthe entire land of the area would fall into the hands of infidels(N. Hergueta, in: Boletin de la Real AcademÍa de Historia, 26,
467ff.). Less exaggeratedly, a modern scholar of the rank of
F. de Bofarull y Sans claimed (in his Los Judíos en el territorio
de Barcelona) that between the 10t and 12t centuries onethird of all the land around Barcelona was owned by Jews. In
short, Jewish agriculture never completely disappeared fromthe European scene and the alleged complete outlawry of Jewish landholdings throughout medieval Europe is another example of a widely accepted historical myth.
Jewish land ownership was particularly frequent in urban
settlements, particularly in Jewish quarters. Understandably,
wherever the Jewish population grew rapidly and its quarter
could not enlarge its area, the real estate owned by a family
was often subdivided into small parcels by the numerous progeny. In the Laurenz parish of Cologne a Jewish couple sold in
1322 a one-eighth and one-96t portion of “a large house” inwhich two other coreligionists owned another quarter andone-16t part. Thirteen years later another Jewish couple acquired a share of one-third and one-60t minus one-700t of ahouse from a Christian neighbor. For the most part, however,in Europe north of the Alps and the Loire Jews were rarely allowed to live long enough to create many such subdivisions
over several generations.
In Europe, too, Jewish industrial occupations were far
more significant. In this area early Jewish immigrants from theMiddle East and North Africa, often in possession of an advanced technology, could perform many pioneering services.
In 1147 Roger II of Naples attacked Byzantine Thebes, a major
center of the silk industry, and evacuated “all” Jews to southern
Italy, where they helped establish a flourishing silk industry.
Another trade in which Jews played a considerable role sinceancient times was that of dyeing. When Benjamin of Tudela
arrived in Brindisi he found there ten Jewish dyers. A particular “Jewish” dye existed in the Neapolitan kingdom. Weaving, too, had long been a prominent Jewish craft. It was partly
stimulated by the biblical prohibition on *sha’atnez (mixing
wool and linen) which, carried down through the ages, became an important factor in preserving Jewish tailoring andother branches of the clothing industry in many lands. Another religiously stimulated industrial craft was that of slaughtering animals according to the Jewish ritual. Even where, as
in most German areas, the Christian guilds tried to suppress
Jewish competition, they had to make some exceptions in favor of Jewish butchers and tailors who were permitted to produce such ritually restricted goods for the Jewish customers.
Many Jewish crafts were stimulated by Jewish pawnbroking.
Since most pledges consisted of articles of clothing, furniture,or jewelry which, upon the debtor’s default, became the property of the pawnbroker, it was natural for him to try to refurbish the pawns for sale to the public at a higher price.
In fact, many restrictive ordinances inspired by Christian merchants made a special allowance for Jewish trade in

used articles (see *Secondhand Goods). For instance, in Romeduring the Counter-Reformation Jews performed a major
service by acquiring secondhand clothing from the luxuryloving high clergy and nobility for resale to the masses of the
population. Indirectly, such business furnished employment
also to tailors, dyers, and other craftsmen.
Beyond these specially Jewish areas there were also Jewish craftsmen in almost all domains of industry, although specialization here was far less developed than in the contemporary Islamic world. In Cologne, for example, where the guilds
succeeded in ultimately barring Jews from almost all industrial
occupations, they still allowed them to become glaziers, probably because no other qualified personnel was available. This
exception was reminiscent of the Greek glassblowers in seventh-century France who claimed to be able to produce glass
as well as the Jews did. The few extant Spanish occupational
statistics are very enlightening indeed. For example, the 20
Jewish families in the small town of Valdeolivas near Cuenca
embraced, in 1388, six shoemakers, three tailors, one weaver,
one smith, and one itinerant artisan. Some of the wealthiest of
the 168 Jewish taxpayers in Talavera de la Reina shortly before
the expulsion in 1492 consisted of 13 basketmakers and threegoldsmiths. Jewish cobblers, tailors, blacksmiths, and harness
makers also seem to have made a reasonable living there. True,in 1412–13 Castile and Aragon, in sharply anti-Jewish decrees,
forbade Jews to serve as veterinarians, ironmongers, shoemakers, tailors, barbers, hosiers, butchers, furriers, rag pickers, or
rag dealers for Christians. Yet the very man who inspired thatlegislation, Anti-Pope Benedict XIII, himself employed a Jewish bookbinder, two Hebrew scribes, and even a Jewish seamstress-laundress for his ecclesiastical vestments. A Roman listof 1527 recorded the presence of 1,738 Jews in a population of
55,035 in the city. The more than 80 Jewish families whose occupations were recorded included about 40 Jewish tailors anda substantial number of other craftsmen. Twelve years earlier
Cardinal Giulio de’ Medici had urged his cousin Lorenzo toattract some of the Jewish manufacturers of saltpeter from
Rome to Florence or Pisa, since “such opportunities do notoccur every day.” Although similar detailed data are not readily available elsewhere, it appears that wherever Jews lived inlarger numbers their majority derived a livelihood from one
or another craft.
In some Spanish cities there were enough Jewish craftsmen to form independent guilds. The statutes of the Jewish
cobblers’ guild in *Saragossa, approved by Pedro IV in 1336,
offer mute testimony to the continuity of Jewish craftsmanship from the ancient associations of Jewish master artisans.
When the Spanish decree of expulsion was extended to Sicily
on June 18, 1492, the Christian leaders of Palermo and other
cities protested that “in this realm almost all the artisans are
Jews. If all of them will suddenly depart there will be a shortage of many commodities, for the Christians are accustomed
to receive from them many mechanical objects, particularly
iron works needed both for the shoeing of animals and for
cultivating the soil; also the necessary supplies for ships, gal-

110

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

economic history
leys, and other maritime vessels.” In the north, of course, there
was no opportunity for Jews to organize guilds of their own,
whereas the Christian guilds in their constant drive for monopolistic control of their trades and political power in theirmunicipalities not only sought to suppress Jewish competition
but, if possible, to get rid of the Jews completely.
At the same time Jewish commercial activities played anever-increasing role in Western Europe. There are relatively
few records of Jewish *peddlers. Apart from the insecurityof roads in most European countries, aggravated by the hostility toward Jews on the part of many peasants and townsfolk – even hostile legislators often freed Jews from wearing
their badges on journeys for this reason – the majority of thevilleins had little cash available to purchase goods from itinerant merchants. Most of their needs were provided for by theirown agricultural production and the home work of their wives
and daughters in spinning, weaving, and tailoring. With thegrowth of the urban centers, Jewish shopkeepers increased in
number wherever Jews were tolerated at all. Of course, there
was a constant struggle with the growing burghers’ class which
wanted to monopolize whatever trade was available locally or
regionally. In many cities these commercial rivals sooner orlater succeeded in ousting Jews completely and even in obtaining from the royal power, whose self-interest dictated protection of Jewish tradesmen, special privileges de non tolerandis
Judaeis. In England, for instance, where Henry III’s exorbitantfiscal exploitation depended on the presence of a prosperous
Jewry, there was a wave of such enactments in favor of many
cities in the 1230s and 1240s. In many continental localities thelaw restricted Jewish shopkeeping to the Jewish quarter andoften forced the Jewish merchants to abstain from displaying
their wares on Sundays and Christian holidays – a major burden indeed for observant Jewish shopkeepers who kept theirstores closed on the Sabbath and Jewish festivals. Nevertheless economic necessity forced Jews to use all means at theirdisposal to earn a living from merchandising.
Jewish international trade, which in the Carolingian age
had been a major incentive for Christian regimes to invite Jewish settlers, later suffered greatly from the competition of the
Italian merchant republics, the prevalence of Mediterraneanpiracy, highway robbery on land routes, discriminatory tolls
at the multitude of feudal boundaries, and special Jewish taxation. Nevertheless, many rulers still tried to maintain freedomof movement and trading for their Jewish “serfs.” The major
imperial privileges for German Jewry often repeated, withminor variations, the provision in the 1090 privilege for the
Jews of Speyer given by Emperor Henry IV: that they “shouldhave the freedom to trade their goods in just exchange withany persons, and that they may freely and peacefully travel
within the confines of Our kingdom, exercise their commerce
and trade, buy and sell, and no one shall exact from them any
toll or impost, public or private” (Aronius, Regesten, 71ff., no.
170, etc.). Similar sweeping provisions were enacted by John ofEngland in 1201 and other monarchs (J.M. Rigg, Select Pleas,
2). If in practice Jews often suffered from attacks and despo-

liation by local barons and arbitrary officials, this was the effect of the poorly organized governmental systems in most
European countries rather than of the rulers’ intent. In thisrespect Jews had plenty of fellow sufferers among their gentile competitors.
International fairs in particular (see *Markets and Fairs)
offered many opportunities for Jewish traders to profitably
exchange goods with other merchants, Jewish and non-Jewish. Even in the less hospitable northern lands they played aconsiderable role in the famous Champagne fairs and thoseof Cologne. When in the last three medieval centuries most ofthese fairs lost their international character and catered more
to regional needs, Jews still appeared as welcome visitors evenin areas from which they were generally barred. They enjoyed
the special protective devices developed by many communities seeking to attract foreign trade without discriminating
among the visitors according to their faith or country of origin. One important concession generally granted at fairs was
the suspension of the group responsibility of merchants ofthe same origin for each other’s misdeeds or insolvency. Suchmutual responsibility affected non-Jewish burghers as well as
Jews, but the process of generalization in blaming all Jews forthe misconduct of any coreligionist was generally much moreprevalent. Even in Mediterranean commerce, where group responsibility was less strongly stressed, Pedro III of Aragon felt
obliged to intervene in 1280 on behalf of many Jewish Levant
traders, when one of their coreligionists, Isaac Cap of Barcelona, had been accused of unethical business dealings in the
Middle East. The main argument advanced by the king in his
epistle addressed to the Templars and Hospitalers in Jerusalem, the consuls of Pisa and Venice, and the representativeof the king of Cyprus was not that other Jews should not beheld responsible for Cap’s actions, but that Cap had long sinceleft Aragon. It so happened that in time Cap was able to returnto Barcelona, settle his debts, and again become an honored
member of his community.
Another major concession to Jewish traders was the acceptance by many regimes of the prevailing Jewish practice inrespect to the so-called law of concealment. In the talmudic
age the rabbis had already come to the conclusion that a merchant who had unwittingly acquired some stolen object was
not to suffer complete loss in returning that object to its legitimate owner. They provided, “for the benefit of the market,” that
if the acquisition was proved to have been made in good faith,
the owner had to compensate the merchant to the full amountof his investment. The more primitive Teuton laws, which
dominated many European legislative systems, had made nosuch provisions in favor of the bona fide merchant. Jews, especially in areas where they were largely restricted to dealing
in secondhand merchandise or lending on used pledges, could
not carefully investigate the title of each seller or borrower. At
times fraudulent borrowers might actually scheme to offer,through impecunious intermediaries, pledges for loans andsubsequently as owners reclaim these objects without paying
their debts. There were antecedents for such protection of le-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6111

economic history
gitimate merchants in other laws. Yet Jewish traders were in
the vanguard of those clamoring for redress. Ultimately, thisprovision, which German antisemites often denounced as a
Hehlerecht (privilege for “fences”), became a widely accepted
principle in most modern mercantile laws.
Despite these and other legal safeguards, the general insecurity of Jewish life affected the Jewish merchants as well. A
remarkable illustration is offered by the business ledgers kept
during the years 1300–18 by the important mercantile firmof Héliot (Elijah) of Vesoul in Franche-Comté. These extant
ledgers reveal both the firm’s effective method of bookkeeping and its far-flung business interests. Principally a banking
establishment endowed with vast resources, it also bought
and sold merchandise of all kinds either through commenda
agreements with Christian or Jewish traders, or by direct shipment of its own. It dealt in cloth, linen, and wine produced in
its own vineyards. Héliot also served as a tax collector for thegovernment. Characteristically, the ledgers also include entries
relating to horses and carriages used by members of the firm
for business travel as far as Germany and Flanders. Héliot wasalso very precise in delivering the ecclesiastical tithes to thechurches, notwithstanding scruples he may have had in thus
contributing to the upkeep of non-Jewish religious institutions. His career was cut short, however, when in 1322 Philip
the Tall extended his decree of expulsion of the Jews from
France to Burgundy as well. Two years later Héliot’s house wasgiven away to a lady-in-waiting of the queen.
In spite of all these difficulties Jewish commerce, particularly in the more friendly Mediterranean lands, frequently
flourished and became another mainstay of the Jewish economy. In the 12t century a German rabbi, Eliezer b. Nathan,
could assert that “nowadays we are living on commerce only”(Sefer Even ha-Ezer (Prague, 1610), 53d no. 295).
Commerce included money trade in its various ramifications, particularly moneylending. Because of their general
insecurity and frequently enforced mobility, Jews under Christendom were not good risks for deposits. Unlike the Jews under Islam, they could not compete with the stability of deposits
in churches or such major banks as the Banco di San Giorgio in 12t-century Genoa. Their rabbis, therefore, fell backon the talmudic regulation that treasures should be buried in
the soil, which was not always feasible in the crowded Jewish
quarters. Burying them out of town subjected the owner tothe risk of some stranger accidentally discovering the placeof burial and appropriating the treasure trove. Moreover,even accumulations of savings by Jewish communal bodies were subject to seizure by unfriendly rulers. In 1336 KingJohn of Bohemia not only confiscated the communal “treasure trove” kept in the old synagogue of Prague but also fined
the Bohemian elders for concealing its presence from him.
Minting could occasionally help support a Jewish individual,
especially in backward areas. But generally the manufactureof coins was a governmental enterprise, even if exercised bysome local baron or city council (there were, indeed, manykinds of coins and even scrip circulated by such local rulers).

On the other hand, coin clipping, whether for the purpose ofreminting or for that of using the gold or silver in the fabrication of some industrial objects, was considered a major crime
if indulged in by private individuals, although it was accepted
as a perfectly legitimate performance on the part of governments. One such accusation of coin clipping, real or alleged,
supposedly resulted in 1278–79 in the execution of 293 English
Jews and was partially responsible for the decree of expulsionof 1290 (H.G. Richardson, English Jewry, 218ff.). Finally, notwithstanding the great variety of coins in circulation, moneychanging likewise seems to have been only a minor sidelineof Jewish banking, if we are to judge from the paucity of references thereto in the extant sources.
Moneylending, however, increasingly became the lifeblood of the Jewish economy at large. It was abetted by theincreasing Christian prohibition on usury which was broadly
defined by Richard, son of Nigel, as “receiving, like the Jews,
more than we have lent of the same substance by virtue of acontract” (Dialogus de Scaccario, trans. by C. Johnson, 99f.).
It was an uphill struggle for the Church because, down to the
12t century, the clergy themselves often indulged in moneylending on interest, a practice surreptitiously pursued bysome priests even later. Jews also encountered stiff competition from Lombards and Cahorsins, often styled the papal
usurers for their major services in transferring ecclesiastical dues to Rome. However, Jews had the advantage of being
able openly to engage in this legally obnoxious business; as amatter of fact they did it as a rule with considerable governmental support.
In fact, kings considered Jewish gains via moneylending
as an increase of their own resources. This was basically themeaning of “belong to the imperial chamber,” a stereotype
phrase referring to Jews found in many imperial privileges inGerman, implying that the Jews were the “king’s treasure,” asthey were designated in Spanish decrees. When in 1253 Eliasof Chippenham left England and took along his own bonds,
Henry III prosecuted him because he had “thievishly carried
off Our proper chattels.” This nexus did not escape the attention of hostile observers who often blamed the princes forthe excesses of their Jewish usurers. In his letter of 1208 to thecount of Nevers the powerful Pope Innocent III complainedthat while certain princes “themselves are ashamed to exact
usury, they receive Jews into their hamlets [villis] and towns
and appoint them their agents for the collection of usury” (S.
Grayzel, The Church and the Jews in the 13t Century, 126f.). Although in a special pamphlet De regimine judaeorum Thomas
Aquinas tried to appease the conscience of Princess Aleyde (orMargaret) of Brabant for deriving benefits from Jewish taxation largely originating from usurious income, one of his mostdistinguished commentators, Cardinal Tommaso Vio Cajetan,
sweepingly declared that “the gain accruing to a prince froma usurer’s revenue makes him an accessory to the crime.” Thebetter to control Jewish revenues, the English administration
introduced in 1194 the system of public chests (*archae) into
which all bonds had to be deposited, supposedly to avoid con-112

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

economic history
troversies between lenders and debtors. Philip II in France
tried in 1206 and 1218 to emulate the English example, as did
Alfonso IV of Aragon in 1333, and in a somewhat different
way Alfonso XI of Castile in 1348. But outside of England thissystem broke down, apparently because neither lenders nor
debtors wished to comply. In any case, the Protestant clergyof Hesse was not wrong when, in its memorandum of 1538
to the landgrave, it compared the role of Jewish moneylending with that of a sponge, used by the rulers to suck up thewealth of the population via usury ultimately to be squeezed
dry by the treasury.
Despite all opposition, Jewish moneylending was an imperative necessity in many areas. Because of the prevailinghigh rates of interest it also was a lucrative business. Emperor
Frederick II’s Sicilian constitution of Melfi of 1231 restricting
the permissible interest rate to 10 remained a dead letter evenin his own kingdom. Somewhat more effective were the maximum rates of 20 set by certain Aragonese kings and Italian republics. But for the most part the accepted rates ranged
between 33⅓ and 43⅓, although sometimes they went up
to double and treble those percentages, or more. Upon theirreadmission to France in 1359–60, Jews were specifically allowed to charge up to 86⅔. Even some Silesian princes arerecorded to have paid 54 to their Jewish moneylenders. In
the case of the innumerable small loans by petty pawnbrokers, these high rates were justified by the lenders’ overhead
in receiving weekly interest payments, slow amortization, andmuch bookkeeping. But the Lombards who, for the most part,
dealt in large credit transactions nevertheless likewise charged
what the trade could bear.
So long as the economy was on the upswing the resentment against these high rates of interest was moderate. But
when the European economy entered a period of deceleration in the late 13t century, further aggravated by recurrent
famines and pestilences, such exorbitant charges, though economically doubly justified because of the increased risks,created widespread hostility. They were an important factor
in the growing intolerance aimed at the English, French, andGerman Jews. Of course, expelling the Jews from the country,
as England did in 1290 and France in 1306, merely meant replacing one set of moneylenders by another. Christian creditors, as a rule, charged even higher rates, partly to compensate
for the increased opprobrium and sinfulness connected with
their trade. As a result, Philip IV’s successor, Louis X, in 1315
revoked the decree of expulsion and called the Jews back to
the country as he claimed, in response to “the clamor of thepeople.” Yet when the Jews returned under the royal pledge
that they would be tolerated for at least 12 years, the popular outcry became so vehement that Philip the Tall broke his
predecessor’s promise and banished the Jews again in 1322.
At the same time in neighboring Italy, where the grandeurof the Florentine and Genoese bankers was on the decline,
Jews began to be invited by various republics to settle in their
midst and to provide credit “to the needy population.” These
condottas, resembling formal treaties between the govern-ments and groups of Jewish bankers, extended to the latter avariety of privileges for specified periods of time, subject torenewals. The city of Reggio (Emilia) went so far as to guarantee to the incoming Jewish bankers that, if they ever wereto sustain losses from a popular riot, the city would fully indemnify them. This significant chapter in Jewish economic
history, however, began drawing to a close in the latter part ofthe 15t century on account of the emergence of the new, rivaling institution of monti di pietà. These charitable loan banks
were supposed to extend credit to the poor without any interest and thus make Jews wholly expendable. In itself this was a
laudable idea and spread quickly into countries such as France
from which Jews had long disappeared. At times the monti
were supported by Jewish bankers themselves (for instance,by Isaac b. Jehiel of Pisa). But most of them assumed from theoutset a strongly antisemitic character. They were propagatedby outspoken anti-Jewish agitators and rabble rousers, especially *Bernardino da Feltre. Only in Venice, which refused
admission to Da Feltre, did the Serenissima reach a compromise with the Jews by persuading them to establish the socalled banchi del ghetto which, financed entirely by Jews, wereto serve an exclusively Christian clientele at nominal rates ofinterest. These institutions lasted until the emancipation era
when, upon the entry of the French army into Venice in 1797,
the Jewish community voluntarily transferred the assets of its
five banks to the new republic.
Connected in many ways with banking was Jewish public
service. As under Islam, the Christian rulers could not scrupulously adhere to the demands of their religious leaders tokeep “infidels” out of any public office lest they exercise dominion over the faithful. Governments often had to rely on
the religious minorities to provide fiscal experts whose specific experiences as taxpayers as well as businessmen could be
put to good use by the treasuries for tax collection and necessary cash advances. In his petition to Alfonso IV of Aragon(before 1335), requesting the king’s assistance in the collection of loans from Hospitalers, the Navarrese Jewish banker,
Ezmel b. Juceph de Ablitas, boasted that Alfonso “had neverreceived so great a service from either a Christian or a Jew as
you have received from me at a single stroke” (M. Kayserling,“Das Handelshaus Ezmal in Tudela,” in: Jahrbuch fuer Israeliten, 1860, 40–44).
Most widespread was the Jewish contribution to tax
farming. The medieval regimes, as a rule, aided by only small,inefficient, and unreliable bureaucracies, often preferred todelegate tax collection to private entrepreneurs who, for a
specified lump sum they paid the treasury, were prepared toexact the payments due from the taxpayers. Of course, therisks of undercollection were, as a rule, more than made up by
considerable surpluses obtained, if need be, by ruthless methods. So indispensable were the Spanish Jewish tax farmers that
the Catholic Monarchs signed such four-year contracts with
Jewish entrepreneurs as late as 1491, only a year before the expulsion. Among their most prominent collectors was Abraham Seneor, officially the “rabbi of the court” or chief rabbi

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6113

economic historyof Castilian Jewry, and Don Isaac b. Judah *Abrabanel. In theearly days of the Christian reconquest, the services of able Jewish financiers and administrators were even more indispensable. Members of the Cavalleria and Ravaya families were particularly prominent in 13t-century Aragon. For one example,
Judah b. Labi de la Cavalleria served from 1257 on as bailiff ofSaragossa, from 1260 on as chief treasurer to whom all royalbailiffs had to submit regular accounts, and finally in 1275 also
as governor of Valencia. Jews were also active in diplomatic
service, for which their familiarity with various lands andlanguages made them especially qualified. In vain did Pope
Honorius II address a circular letter to the kings of Aragon,
Castile, Navarre, and Portugal, warning them against dispatching to Muslim courts Jewish envoys who were likely to reveal
state secrets to the Muslim enemies, since “you cannot expect
faithfulness from infidels.” Yet his successor, Gregory IX, generally even more insistent on the observance of all canonicalprovisions, conceded in 1231 and 1239 that the Portuguese andHungarian monarchs had no workable alternative.
In other countries Jews exerted political influence moreindirectly. Even in some antagonistic German principalities of
the 14t and 15t centuries some Jews were called upon to provide the necessary funds for raising mercenary forces as wellas to supply them with food, clothing, and other necessities.
Such a combination of large-scale financing and contracting
was performed, for example, by a Jewish banker, Jacob Daniels, and his son Michael for the archbishop-elector Baldwin ofTrier in 1336–45. This adumbration of the future role of *Court
Jews in helping build up the modern German principality
was cut short, however, by the recurrent waves of intolerance
which swept Germany in the last medieval centuries and resulted in the expulsion of the Jews from most German areas.
Economic Doctrines
Notwithstanding these constant changes in the Jewish economic structure and the vital role played by the Jewish economic contributions for the general society, no ancient or
medieval Jewish scholar devoted himself to the detailed interpretation of these economic facts and trends. No Jew wrote
economic tracts even of the rather primitive kind current inHellenistic and early Muslim letters. All Jewish rationales must
therefore be deduced indirectly from the legal teachings. Even
Maimonides who, in his classification of sciences, recognized
the existence of a branch of science styled domestic economy,
or rather the “government of the household” (a literal translation of the Greek oikonomia), did not feel prompted to
produce a special monograph on the general or Jewish economic life. Speaking more broadly of political science which
included that branch of learning, he declared: “On all thesematters philosophers have written books which have beentranslated into Arabic, and perhaps those that have not beentranslated are even more numerous. But nowadays we no longer require all this, namely the statutes and laws, since man’s
conduct is [determined] by the divine regulations” (Treatiseon Logic [Millot ha-Higgayon], Arabic text, with Hebrew andEnglish translations, by Israel Efros, 1937, 18f.). In consonancewith this conception, the great codifier devoted the last three
sections of his Mishneh Torah to economic matters regulated
by civil law. He also often referred to economic aspects in theother 11 books, following therein the example of both Bible
and Talmud. None of these normative sources, however, which
always emphasized what ought to be rather than what is orwas, can satisfactorily fill the lacuna created by the absence of
dispassionate analytical, theoretical, and historical economic
studies. From the outset we must, therefore, take account of
the idealistic slant of our entire documentation. The emphasis upon ethics and psychology far outweighs that of realistic
conceptualism. Only indirectly, through the use of the extant
subsidiary factual source material, can we balance that normative slant by some realistic considerations.
Typical of such idealistic approaches is the biblical legislation. For example, the commandment of a year of fallowness
may have resulted from the practical observation that land
under constant cultivation was bound to deteriorate and toyield progressively less produce. Similar experiences led otheragricultural systems to adopt the rotation of crops and othermethods. But there is no hint to such a realistic objective inthe biblical rationales. The old Book of the Covenant justifies
the commandment by stating that in this way “the poor of
the people may eat” (Ex. 23:11). The more religiously oriented
Book of Leviticus, on the other hand, lays primary stress on
the land keeping “a Sabbath unto the Lord” (25:2) so that itprovide “solemn” rest for servants, foreign settlers, and evencattle. Similarly, the Jubilee Year was conceived as a measureof restoring the landed property to the original clan, envisaging a more or less static agricultural economy, at variancewith the constantly changing realities of the then increasingly
dominant urban group. No less idealistic were the provisions
for the poor, particularly widows and orphans. We also recall
the extremely liberal demand that, upon manumitting his
Hebrew slave, the master should also provide him with somenecessaries for a fresh start in life.
That these and other idealistic postulates did not represent the living practice in ancient Israel we learn from the reverberating prophetic denunciations of the oppression of thepoor by the rich and other social disorders. But here again wedeal with even more extravagant idealistic expectations than
had been expressed by the lawgivers. In the main, the Bible
reflects in part the “nomadic ideals” carried down from thepatriarchal age and in part the outlook of the subsequently
predominant agricultural population. But the landowningaristocracy, as well as the priesthood and royal bureaucracy
often residing in Jerusalem and Samaria, and the impact offoreign relations, especially wars, shaped the actual affairs of
the people to a much larger extent than normative provisions
or prophetic denunciations, although the latter’s long-range
effects far transcended in historic importance the immediate realities.
Even the far more realistic legal compilations of theMishnah, the Talmud, and other rabbinic letters are still in the114

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

economic history
main ethically and psychologically oriented. This remains true
for most periods of Jewish history until the emancipation era.
Certain economic factors are simply taken for granted. Not
even Maimonides, who tried to find rationales for many biblical rituals, considered it necessary to offer any justification
for such a fundamental economic fact as private versus public ownership. There only was common agreement that good
fortune is bestowed upon man by God’s inscrutable will, while
poverty is to be borne with patience and submission to fate.
Asceticism never became a major trend in Jewish socioreligious life, although certain groups and individuals practiced it
as a matter of supererogation. Similarly, the postulates of communal ownership raised by the *Rechabites in the days of Jeremiah and the *Essenes toward the end of the Second Temple
period were only part of their rejection of alleged departuresfrom the purity of the old law. But they remained rather ineffectual fringe movements.
At the same time the “normative” Judaism of the majority subjected private ownership to severe limitations becauseof ethical requirements. From the restatement by Maimonidesof talmudic law, as modified by the subsequent rabbinic literature, the following categories of property clearly emerge: “(1)public property belonging to no one and accessible to everybody for free use, e.g., deserts; (2) public property belonging
to a corporate group, but open to general use, e.g., highways;(3) potentially private property belonging to no one, but available for free appropriation, namely all relinquished and somelost objects; 4) private grounds belonging to the ownerless estate of a deceased proselyte, equally open to free appropriation; (5) private grounds not yet taken over by a Jew from a
gentile, open to appropriation against compensation; (6) private grounds in a walled city, open to everybody’s use but not
to appropriation.” To these must be added the “sacred property” (*hekdesh) of the Temple of Jerusalem, which, however,
did not apply to the later synagogues; objects placed outside
ordinary use or sale by ritualistic law; as well as the theoretical claim of every Jew in the world to the possession of four
ells of land in Palestine. Based on the assumption that forcible deprivation of land never eliminates the rights of the real
owner, the latter legal fiction was of practical significance onlyin connection with certain technical restrictions on the formal transfer of property.
With all their emphasis on private ownership the rabbis
recognized its limitations necessary for the common good.
To begin with, they did not acknowledge the riparian rightsof owners, but considered four ells along all shores as belonging to the community at large. They also accepted the rightof expropriation for purposes of roadbuilding, the erectionof city walls, and other necessary public works. A city also
had a right to banish certain odiferous trades, such as thatof tanning, outside its walls. Even individuals trying to sellland had to respect the neighbors’ right of preemption at theprice offered by strangers. In general, referring to an old tradition going back to the agricultural economics of Palestineand Babylonia, Jewish leaders placed land outside the rangeof ordinary commodities. During the very era of semicapitalistic prosperity under Islam, they still believed in the stability of land ownership as against the fluctuations in the valueof any other property. Going beyond the advice of talmudic
sages that prudent men should invest one-third of their funds
in land, one-third in commerce, and keep one-third in readycash, Maimonides, perhaps inspired by the severe businesslosses sustained by his own family on account of his brotherDavid’s shipwreck on a voyage to India, counseled his readers not to sell a field and purchase a house, or to sell a houseand acquire a movable object. They should rather generously“aim to acquire wealth by converting the transitory into thepermanent.” The rabbis also greatly stressed the responsibilityof relatives for one another, not only in such dire emergencies
as the redemption of captives but they also generally taughtthat “a relative may prove to be extremely wicked, but he nevertheless ought to be treated with due compassion.”
Other ethical and psychological criteria were employedin the rabbinic approximation of the doctrine of the just price,later extensively debated by the medieval Christian scholastics.
No one questioned the community’s right to supervise weights
and measures. Any deficiency, if purely accidental, called forrestitution, but if it was premeditated it was to be punishedseverely. Maimonides waxed rhetorical on this subject: “Thepunishment for [incorrect] measures is more drastic than
the sanction on incest, because the latter is an offense against
God, while the former affects a fellow man. He who denies thelaw concerning measures is like one who denies the Exodus
from Egypt which was the beginning of this commandment”(Yad, Genevah 7:1–3, 12; 8:1, 20 with reference to BB 89b). The
community also had the right as well as the duty to set maximum prices whenever conditions demanded it. Of course,
under the general rabbinic doctrine of dina de-malkhuta dina(“the law of the kingdom is law”) all market regulations by
the state, including the maximum prices set by it, were to berespected by the Jews too, except when they specifically conflicted with the divinely revealed Torah. Conversely, in many
areas (for instance in Majorca in 1344) the government specifically forbade the local market supervisors to interfere inany business dealings in the Jewish quarter. In any case, with
their inveterate conservatism the rabbis were reluctant to accept the law of supply and demand as the determining factor
in controlling prices.
A convenient psychological expedient was found in thetheory of “misrepresentation” (*ona’ah). To prevent overcharges by sellers and, to a lesser extent, the taking of excessive advantage of an existing “buyers’ market,” the ancient
sages had already established the principle that if the pricepaid for an object exceeded or was below its market value by
one-sixth, the sale could be nullified by the injured party. Thisrabbinic doctrine of “misrepresentation,” which seems to haveinspired some related teachings of the Church Fathers and,through them, the Code of Justinian, could prove to be a serious obstacle under the freer economy of medieval Islam ormodern Europe. An escape clause was opened by the rabbis,

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6115

economic history
however, through their emphasis on psychology. They taughtthat if a seller openly declared to the purchaser that he had
overcharged him by so and so much and the purchaser accepted the deal, there was no redress. Also by removing suchimportant areas as land, slaves, and commercial deeds – thelatter particularly important in transferring properties from
one individual to another – from the operation of this principle, the economic realities could reassert themselves without formally altering the law. The same exception facilitatedbarter trade. A man could trade, for example, a needle for acoat of mail if, for some psychological reason, he preferred theneedle. This was particularly true in the case of jewelry where
emotional preferences might well have outweighed purely
market considerations.
Among the transactions also not subject to the law of“misrepresentation” was free labor. Although the economic
importance of hired workers was much greater than that ofslaves, there was no comprehensive labor legislation in rabbinic law (see *Labor Law). Generally, the leaders preferred theemployment of Jewish workers as a matter of ethnoreligious
policy. Typical of the rabbinic attitude was Maimonides’ contention that “he who increases the number of his slaves fromday to day increases sin and iniquity in the world, whereas
the man who employs poor Jews in his household increases
merits and religious deeds” (Yad, Mattenot Aniyyim 10:17).
This doctrine implied a general right to work for Jewish laborers, just as it conversely stressed everybody’s duty to workin order to make a living. “Skin a carcass on the streets [thelowest type of labor], rather than be dependent on other people” was an old rabbinic watchword. Because of the primarily
psychological interpretations, an employer could overtly arrange with a free laborer to do work which he could not impose upon a slave, since this was but a voluntary agreement
on both sides. Similarly, the ancient protective regulation in
the Bible that the payment of a daily worker’s wages must not
be delayed overnight could be modified by mutual agreement
if a labor contract extended over a longer period. On his part,the employee was obliged to do an honest piece of work andnot waste any time. Following ancient precedents, however,
the rabbis allowed agricultural workers to partake of some of
the grapes or grain on which they were working, though notof the fruit from orchards or vegetables from truck gardens.
There also were many specific regulations concerning different categories of labor, such as shepherds. Each category had
its own regulations, largely derived from age-old customs prevailing in particular localities.
The most difficult problem confronting the Jewish leaders was that of moneylending on interest. From biblical times
there existed the outright prohibition, “Unto thy brotherthou shalt not lend upon interest” (Deut. 23:21). Once again
the approach of the ancient and medieval interpreters to that
passage was based on ethics and psychology rather thaneconomics. We are told in the same verse that “unto a foreigner [or stranger] thou mayest lend upon interest,” but it did
not occur to any of these interpreters to look for an economic

rationale for this distinction. Under the conditions of ancient
Palestine, lending money to a fellow Israelite usually meant
extending credit to a needy farmer or craftsman for whom
the return of the original amount plus the prevailing highinterest was an extreme hardship. At the same time the foreigner, that is, the Phoenician-Canaanite merchant, as a ruleborrowed money to invest it in his business for profit. Sucha productive form of credit fully justified the original lenderto participate in some form or other in the profits derived by
the borrower.
Instead, the interpretation was always purely moralistic, namely a demand that lending to a fellow Jew had to be
purely charitable, while extending credit to a non-Jew could
be a businesslike proposition. Without going to the extremeof St. Ambrose who considered lending to a stranger a legitimate hostile act against an enemy (ubi ius belli ibi ius usurae),
nor sharing the equally extreme view of some Jewish jurists
who considered the biblical phrase, la-nokhri tashikh a commandment: “thou shalt,” rather than “thou mayest,” lend on
interest to a stranger, most rabbis followed the talmudic rulethat for segregationist reasons all but well informed scholars
should abstain from moneylending to gentiles altogether. Yet
they admitted that many Jews could not make a living anyother way. Remarkably, not even the medieval Jewish Aristotelian philosophers quoted, as did their Christian counterparts,
Aristotle’s doctrine of the essential sterility of money. Whatever the theoretical justification of this point of view was, it
ran counter to the daily experience of most Jewish sages thatmoney could, in fact, earn greater increments than did landor any other movable property.
In their extremist ethico-psychological bent of mind
the rabbis even outlawed such external forms of “usury” asnonmonetary gains. They taught, for example, that, unlessthe borrower used to do so before securing the loan, he was
not entitled to greet the lender first or even to teach him the
Torah. Echoing talmudic teachings Maimonides insisted that“it is forbidden for a man to appear before, or even to passby, his debtor at a time when he knows that the latter cannot pay. He may frighten him or shame him, even if he does
not ask for repayment” (Yad, Malveh ve-Loveh 1:1–3). Needless to say, only a few pietistic moneylenders could live up tothese high expectations. On the other hand, economic realities, particularly in countries like medieval England, France,
northern Italy, and Germany, where banking became the very
economic foundation of many Jewish communities, forced theJews to make some theoretical concessions. In his apologetic
tract, Milḥ emet Mitzvah of 1245, Meir b. Simon of Narbonneargued that “divine law prohibited usury, not interest… Not
only the peasant must borrow money, but also the lords, andeven the great king of France… The king would have lost many
fortified places, if his faithful agent, a Jew of our city, had notsecured for him money at a high price” (cited by Adolph Neubauer from a manuscript in Archives des missions scientifiques,
3d ser., 16, 556). Addressing his own coreligionists, a German
rabbi, Shalom b. Isaac Sekel, insisted that “the reason why the

116

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

economic history
Torah holds a higher place in Germany than in other countries is that the Jews here charge interest to gentiles and need
not engage in a [time-consuming] occupation. On this score
they have time to study the Torah. He who does not study
uses his profits to support the students of the Torah” (citedby Israel Isserlein’s disciple, Joseph b. Moses of Hoechstadt,
in his halakhic collection, Leket Yosher, ed. by J. Freimann(1903–10), 1, 118f.).
Like their Muslim and Christian colleagues, the rabbis
had to legitimize many practices aimed at evading the prohibition of usury. The ingenuity of businessmen and jurists
invented a variety of legal instruments which, formally notreflecting borrowings, nevertheless secured sizable profits
for the capitalist advancing cash to a fellow Jew. Called inEurope the contractus trinus, contractus mohatrae (the purchase of rents, and the like), these instruments were also employed by Jewish lenders with telling effect. It was also easy
to circumvent the law by the purchase of bonds. Since deeds
were generally exempted from the prohibition of usury andcould be discounted below their nominal value, a lender could
extend a profitable loan to a third party by using an intermediary. Agents, too, were entitled to charge a commission for
securing credit for any borrower. Most importantly, the various forms of the commenda contract, which enabled a lender
to appear as a silent partner in the enterprise, opened the gate
very widely for “legitimate” profits by the “investor.” The permission of that type of iska (“deal”) became quite universal
and served as the major instrument for credit transactions
among Jews.
These examples of the rabbis’ economic teachings, which
can readily be multiplied, must suffice here. They give an inkling of the great power of halakhic exegesis which madeit possible for scholars to read into the established texts ofBible and Talmud provisions, as well as limitations, to suit thechanging needs of Jewish society. In this way the people’s intellectual leaders were able to preserve a measure of continuity
within a bewildering array of diverse customs and usages. At
the same time ample room was left for individual opinions,which often sharply differed. Some interpretations were derived from the simple operation of juristic techniques which
had an autonomous vitality of their own. However, in manycases the communal leaders, rabbinic and lay, often personally immersed in a variety of economic enterprises and thus
acquiring much practical experience, consciously made interpretive alterations to reflect genuine social needs. Since theentire system of Jewish law operated through inductive reasoning on the basis of cases rather than the deduction fromjuristic principles, as advanced by Roman jurists and their
medieval disciples, the sages of various countries and generations were able to maintain a certain unity of purpose andoutlook among the different segments of the Jewish dispersion. They thus lent the Jewish economic rationales the samekind of unity within diversity that permeated the entire Jewish socioreligious outlook on life.
[Salo W. Baron]

Early Modern Period
The variety of place, social condition, and economic development puts any review of the economic aspects of Jewish life
since the end of the 15t century beyond the reach of a simple
unified framework. For this variety to be seen in a meaningful way, for an analysis of the leading features of the subject,
there must be some preliminary, if crude, divisions of the subject. Yet even a simple temporal division of the developmentsof almost 500 years is not free from difficulty. The pace andpattern of Western economic development differed markedly
from country to country and from region to region, and as amatter of course the economic situation and activities of theJews in those countries and regions differed widely also. The
striking event, the momentous date, that might symbolize aqualitative change in Western economic structure is not to befound. If there is some basis for separating the early modern
economic history of the Jews from the later modern developments, it must be sought in other criteria: the basic structure
and leading characteristics of the economy and the goals of
the society.
If we accept these criteria, it is not difficult to divide thewhole period into two phases. During the first, economic
development and economic policy were clearly and rigidly
subordinated to noneconomic considerations of the society,and there was relatively little room for activity prompted byconsiderations of economic rationality as determined by theindividuals concerned. In the second phase economic interests were articulated more openly and clearly, and the idea of
freedom of economic activity was accepted as leading to results generally beneficial to the community as a whole. The
transitional period between the two phases saw fundamental
changes occurring throughout society: the legal and social
framework had to be adjusted to the new demands, as symbolized by the substitution of the voluntary contract for traditional, customary relationships or for relationships hitherto
determined and regulated by the usage of special privileges
and governmental orders. Equality before the law was established as a principle that overrode the predominant institutionally ingrained system of legal and social inequality.
This transformation took place slowly and unevenly.
Decades and even centuries apart in the various regions ofEurope, the process nevertheless was continued and was accompanied by major differences in the legal status, pattern of
employment, and other characteristics of the various Jewish
communities at each point in time. Thus, the study of the economic aspects of Jewish life over the 500 years is basically thestudy of the participation of the Jews in the process of economic change and of the impact of the changing conditions
upon the economic and social structure of the Jews. Even
within the first period, which for reasons of convenience andconvention will be called the early modern one, the conditionsof the Jews living in the economically advanced regions must
be distinguished from conditions in the economically less developed regions of Europe. Examples of the advanced regions
are the city-states and major commercial centers of Italy and

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6117

economic history
the Low Countries; examples of less developed regions are thecountries of Central and Eastern Europe.
The discussion here of the early modern period will be
confined almost exclusively to Europe because most Jews
lived there (although Jews of course lived within the boundaries of the Ottoman Empire, in the Middle East, and otherareas). Although the variety and heterogeneity of the European situation make generalization hazardous, much of what
was done in one part of the continent to the Jews was moreor less emulated in other parts, because of the cultural affinities within Christian Europe.

of a developed money economy. These were areas actively engaged in foreign commerce in which the knowledge of commodity and money markets possessed by Sephardi Jewish
merchants could be profitably utilized. An additional asset ofsome Sephardi Jews was their knowledge gained from family and former business connections in the Iberian Peninsula
and the overseas empires of Spain and Portugal. The Jewish
participation in trade with Spain, Portugal, and their colonies
never ceased, contrary to the myth of a worldwide Jewish boycott of the Iberian Peninsula.

SEPHARDIM AND ASHKENAZIM. The Jewish communities in
Europe at the end of the 15t century were not homogeneous in
the cultural sense. The two mainstreams or dominant groups
were the *Sephardim, originating from the Spanish-Portuguese Jews, and the *Ashkenazim, originating from the French
and German Jews. These two branches grew apart, especiallyfrom the time of the Crusades. By the end of the 15t and beginning of the 16t century, when the Sephardi Jews were
finally expelled from the Iberian Peninsula, the two major“tribes” of European Jewry came into a much closer contact, one resulting not in integration of the two, but in tolerable coexistence and peripheral cross-cultural interchange.
The intellectual impact of the Sephardim was noticeable
primarily in one area, namely that of religious mysticism.
In other areas the Ashkenazim excelled the Sephardim in
the creative development of what could be termed Jewish
culture.
In the area of economic and social activity, the difference
between the Sephardim and Ashkenazim was profound. The
Sephardim were on the average much more affluent, skilled,
and better educated (at least in the secular sense) than the
Ashkenazim. In comparison the Ashkenazim were not only
less prosperous but less culturally influenced by the gentile
environment and less successful in any attempts at finding an
intellectual symbiosis between their own and the surrounding
culture. Therefore, the elements of the resource endowmentof the Sephardi Jews made them the more attractive groupof the two for settlement and employment in any European
country. The Sephardi Jews were able to bring into the new areas of their settlement highly developed skills and craftsmanship in the areas of luxury consumption and were therefore
highly valued by the influential consumers of such products
and services, by the nobility, gentry, and patricians – the ruling classes of the contemporary societies. From available direct and circumstantial evidence it becomes clear that someof the Sephardi Jews were able to transfer portions of theircapital out of Spain and Portugal, and thus their settlement
in an area was accompanied by a capital import. It is interesting to note that in most cases, as far as the Christian countries are concerned, the Sephardi Jews were attracted to andsought opportunities in the more economically advanced regions, areas with both developed trade and crafts and with alegal framework that did not hinder the economic activities

ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT. Thus it could be roughly assumed that the “territory” of the Sephardim, at least during
the 16t and 17t centuries, was the city-states and commercial centers of Europe, while the “territory” of the Ashkenazim was the interior, the landmass or hinterland of Central
and Eastern Europe.
The economy of city-states like Genoa, Venice, and Dubrovnik (Ragusa), or of commercial centers like Antwerp,
Amsterdam, and Hamburg, was based on international andinterregional trade and the exploitation of politically dependent territories where trade was carried on or which were administered by corporate bodies either in the form of trading
companies or governmental agencies acting on behalf of organized mercantile interests. The main problem for the Jews,
as for any group of outsiders, and even more so because ofsome peculiar restrictions or prejudices, was to gain entry
into the organized institutions of economic activity, whether
registered partnerships, trading companies, or later the commodity and money exchanges. It was difficult, if not impossible, for the Jews as newcomers to operate outside the institutional framework except in areas where their specializedskills or professions (such as medicine or science) would berecognized as exceptionally useful for the polity or economy.
Thus, each outsider, including the Jews as individuals, had to
fit into the preexisting economic structure and social fabric,
upon neither of which he could expect to make any significant impact. The process by which the Jews were economically integrated in the city-states and commercial centers wastherefore primarily the sum total of adjustments by individuals in these occupations and activities. Much depended on
individual skill or wealth, with very limited room left for thecollectivity of the Jews, the autonomous and organized Jewish
community, to influence significantly the pattern of economic
activity of its members.
The economic environment of the majority of the Ashkenazi Jews in the areas of Central and Eastern Europe differedfrom that in the city-states and in the major commercial areas. In the latter the Jews were restricted in terms of numbers, place of habitat, and areas of gainful employment, andformed almost exclusively an urban element concentrated in
the major cities and confined largely to trade, some specialized skills, and money and lending operations. The situationof the Jews in Central and Eastern Europe, by contrast, canbe described as characterized by both greater opportunities

118

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

economic history
and more severe constraints. The peculiar combination is aparadox of underdevelopment and discrimination, both operating simultaneously.
There is an inherent conflict in societies with a highpropensity to have rigid institutional arrangements in theireconomic sphere, even if within the institutions there may
be provisions and conditions enabling the exercise of individual initiative. This is the conflict between such a propensity
for institutional stability and the need to innovate, for it is
only through innovation that the economy can grow. Withinsuch societies it is particularly difficult for newcomers, whohave to be integrated and accepted, to innovate. Outsiders areoften forced to follow a circuitous road and assume greaterrisks to achieve their objectives. An interesting case in pointis presented by the penetration of the Jews into the international *sugar trade. Apparently finding it initially difficult
to enter via trade activity, Jews of Amsterdam entered thesugar plantation business in Brazil, Surinam, and the West
Indies. The result was beneficial for many parties: for Amsterdam, a widening of its foreign trade; for the Jews, entrance
into sugar production and sugar trade; for Europe, presumably a decrease in the price of sugar as a result of a rapid increase in supply.
In the predominantly agrarian economies of this period,a very large sector of the population was on a subsistence leveland for all practical purposes outside the exchange and money
economy. The money economy included the court, the nobility, gentry, and the urban classes, but only to a very limited
extent the majority of the rural population, the peasants orserfs. While the areas of traditional or routine economic activity were circumscribed and regulated to an extent that made it
virtually impossible for the Jews to enter the established institutions, there was a relatively wide spectrum of activities thatwere not institutionalized or controlled and that broadened
the market or money economy. This presented a range of opportunities for individuals who possessed or were forced tohave a lesser-than-average risk aversion for activities in which
returns proved to be higher and for whom accordingly the
returns could be higher than average.
The Jews suffered from discriminatory legislation; very
seldom did their legal or social status as individuals depend
upon their individual skills or the size of their personal wealth.
There was no institutional arrangement by which a Jew could
be integrated into his economic class or professional group.
In a sense, he was the eternal outsider regardless of the economic function he performed, operating under conditionsof discrimination and extreme uncertainty, dependent upon
the arbitrary decisions of the rulers, and paying a high price(in the form of high taxes, bribes, ransom, etc.) for his rightto be employed. Thus with the environmental conditions differing between the more advanced and less advanced countries, the ranges of opportunities and the areas of economic
activity of the Jews differed, which in turn influenced thepatterns of utilization of their resource endowment and theirsocial structure.

JEWISH MIGRATION. One of the chief characteristics of Jewish economic activities in Europe during the early modern
period was the relative (for this period) mobility of both
capital and labor of the Jews. Even if we could consider
exclusively voluntary mobility, the two other outstanding
groups, the Italians and the Dutch, are in quite a different
class when compared with the Jews. Thus, the migration
phenomenon can be considered as one of the most significant dynamic elements of the economic and social history of
the Jews. Jewish migration from the end of the 15t century
was from Western to Central and Eastern Europe; this continued as the main vector until the second half of the 19t century. The eastward movement overshadowed in its intensity
the “return” of the Jews to the countries of Western Europe
from which they were exiled in the earlier centuries and towhich they gradually returned between the 17t and 19t centuries.
The process of migration did not take the form of aneven, continuous flow but proceeded through spurts andmovements differing in intensity, with interruptions, reversals, and resumptions that defied regularity. It is also difficult
to ascertain, apart from the general vector of the migration
movement and the main routes, the average distances andtime periods of the earlier phases of the migration. For theSephardi Jews two general directions can be established: one
from the Iberian Peninsula to the areas adjacent to the Mediterranean toward Italy, the Balkans, and Asian Turkey; theother toward southern France, the Netherlands, Hamburg,and England. For the Ashkenazim the direction of migration
was from Western Germany over Austria toward Bohemia
and Hungary, with another branch through Bohemia leading toward Poland, Lithuania, Belorussia, and the Ukraine,
while the Jewish population of eastern and northern Germany consisted of primarily Austrian and Bohemian Jews
and to a lesser extent of western German Jews. Many aspectsof Jewish migration still await thorough investigation. Nevertheless, certain generalizations can be made on the basis ofavailable evidence:(1) By and large the eastward migration was in fact a
movement of labor and capital from more highly developed
to less economically developed countries and regions, fromareas of greater availability of skilled labor and capital to areasof greater scarcity of these factors of production.
(2) The mobility of labor and capital and thereby the migration process was facilitated not only by religious identity
but also by the cultural affinity of common customs and language, by the availability of established and organized Jewish
communities not far from the destination of the migrationroute, and by the relatively high level of liquidity of capital on
the part of capital owners.
(3) The significance of the migration process for the
economy of the Jews was due to a large extent to the fact thatthrough migration and mobility a more remunerative distribution of human and capital resources could be achieved overa large territory, while both cultural and economic intercourse

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6119

economic history
could be maintained thanks to the continuing ties between
the older and newer communities.
(4) Some of the benefits of the process of mobility accruing to the Jewish communities were congruent with thebenefits to the economies of countries that absorbed the Jewish migrants, namely the import of skilled labor and capital
resources to meet a strong demand.
(5) The migration process of the Jews in the eastward direction, although caused to a very large extent by economic
considerations, even by the differential of economic well-being or differences in the rates of return to skills, had significant effects in other areas as well. It became a part of the “strategy for survival” either in cases of mass expulsions and exile
or under conditions of a clear worsening of the legal status.
Moreover, the absence of effective internal barriers supported
the prevailing notion of a single, general Jewish community inCentral and Eastern Europe. Leading schools drew students
from far afield; famous scholars and rabbis were not bound toa particular locale; mystics and messianic claimants attracted
multitudes from all over the continent.
The first reversal of the direction on a larger scale in theeastward migration took place around the middle of the 17t
century during the times of the *Chmielnicki massacres in the
Ukraine, the Swedish and Muscovite invasions of Poland, andthe subsequent worsening of the economic situation there. The
flow of refugees from Eastern Europe reached western Germany and even the Netherlands. From the middle of the 18t
century, there was a small but continuous flow of Central andEastern European Jews trying to settle in Western Europe andNorth America. But this early ebb of migration had a minimal
effect upon the economic life of the communities that they leftor the ones that they joined. It only indicated that change waspossible if not imminent.
PATTERNS OF EMPLOYMENT. Any systematic insight into
the economic activities of the Jewish population in Europe
during this period requires an examination of the patterns of
employment. If the chief economic characteristic of Jewish
migration was the movement from more developed to lessdeveloped countries one would expect the Jews to be employed primarily not in areas of an abundant labor supply but
in the economic sectors with a scarcity of labor and capital,
namely trade and highly skilled crafts. Only when the employment in such areas had reached a level of saturation or was
encountering barriers would we expect the migrants to turnto less remunerative employment. The great majority of theJews was employed in sectors of the economy that were directly connected with the market. Very few operated outside
the exchange and money economy, while most derived theirincomes from the production and sales of goods and services. It is true that the markets differed, but it is important tobear in mind that the market psychology affected the activities of the great majority. It is therefore appropriate to begin
the review of the patterns of employment with the type of
employment and activity most intimately connected with theorganized markets and also yielding the highest returns. The“big business” of that period was carried on by a small groupof enterprising individuals who either combined or fulfilled
separately the functions of wholesale merchants, bankers, andindustrial entrepreneurs. Such individuals in the economicallyadvanced countries acted mostly in their private capacity, inthe economically backward countries mostly in conjunction
with the government, and were termed *Court Jews.
It is impossible to measure directly the volume of international trade carried on by Jewish wholesale merchants fromthe 16t to the 18t century, or the share of Jewish trade in the
countries they inhabited, or even the share of these countries
in the total volume of international trade. Such data are notas yet available, but it should be clear that, for example, a 10
share in the Dutch trade would probably be more than a 50
share in Poland’s international trade, because of the relative
sizes of the trade volume of the two countries. Direct and indirect evidence indicates that the Jews were involved in the tradeof precious metals, the colonial trade, and trade of products
possessing a high value per unit. Only later, with the improvement of shipping technology and cheapening of transportation
costs, did Jews enter the trade in grain and other bulk products, thus expanding the trade with the agrarian economies
of Central and Eastern Europe.
As bankers and bill brokers in the economically developed countries, their operations did not differ from others of
the profession. The two advantages that they might have possessed over some of their competitors were their ability totransfer money rapidly from one locality to another, as they
had either family or business connections with members ofother Jewish communities, and the extension of credits byusing the savings deposited with them by members of thecommunity. Jewish bankers’ preference for short-term overlong-term credit could perhaps be explained by the desire
for a quicker turnover of their capital and the unwillingness
to accept land or real estate as security for loans outstanding.
Industrial entrepreneurship of the Jews in the developed areas was due to the availability of technical skills and businessexpertise in a number of craft and industry branches that theincoming Jews had brought with them.
In the less developed countries the Court Jews played asignificant role, and the gradual transformation of their functions reflected the economic development of such countries
as well as the contribution such individuals made to the development process. The shortage of money and the low credit
standing of most European rulers and their governments werenotorious. Accordingly, the initial role of the Court Jews, as
the title implies, was to serve the rulers in a double capacity,
as lenders of money and as suppliers of precious metals to themint, precious stones, and other luxury items for consumption of the court. The form of payment and security given
were often tax farming, toll collection, and other privilegesthat provided for the principal and interest of the transaction.
Thus the Court Jews not only provided credit for the rulers
but also performed functions in the revenue collection of the120

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

economic history
states. Two major factors contributed to the transformationof the nature of the service of the Court Jews. The first were
the wars of the 17t and 18t centuries which called not only
for greater monetary outlays and thus expanding demand for
credits, but also for the organizational talent to supply the numerous armies in the field with weapons, ammunition, clothing, food, and fodder. The need to contract and pay for, andto deliver large bulks of necessary supplies at great distance,
called for new and substantial organizational talents. The
Court Jews performed well when requested to carry out theabove tasks, and in the process of doing so gained new knowledge in large-scale operations requiring greater efficiency inmobilizing vast resources in relatively backward economies.
In so doing the Court Jews were assisting the political interests of the rulers or of the state.
Another factor contributing to the transformation of
their service was the entry of the Jews into the ranks of industrial entrepreneurs. The setting-up of mining and manufacturing industries in the economically backward countries
was not a market response to a demand for such products. It
was in most cases either a direct result of government action
or an indirectly induced development as a result of a conscious
government policy. Government policies in those countries
pursued two goals: first, to develop armament industries tostrengthen the countries militarily and politically in theirstruggles for hegemony or for the restoration of a power balance in Europe; secondly, to develop industry branches that
produced import-substitutes, which meant primarily products used by the wealthy upper classes of society. The militaryneeds on the one hand and the maintenance of a positive balance of payments on the other were mainly responsible for thestate initiative and support given to early mining and manufacturing industries. Given the government financial or tax
support for the industrial establishments, the critical factors
were skilled labor and entrepreneurial and managerial talents.
In providing technical skills the contribution of the Jews wasprobably inferior to the possibilities of importing skills fromthe advanced countries, so the primary area of their contribution, by no means exclusively Jewish, was that of entrepreneurial and managerial talent. Their previous experience inlarge-scale banking, military contracting, etc., provided thenecessary background. The involvement in previous services
for the state gave them the knowledge and political connections necessary for obtaining licenses, privileges, and often
the labor force for the budding industrial enterprises. Thus
the former Court Jew became an industrial entrepreneur, continuing social innovation, creating new types of economic organization, and helping to break old patterns and traditional
systems. The economic significance for the Jewish communityof this group of wholesale merchants, bankers, and industrial
entrepreneurs consisted not only in their role in the accumulation of capital, but also and primarily in their collective rolein creating employment opportunities for other Jews. The
relatively large-scale operations of this entrepreneurial classgave rise to a demand for services that could be performed byother members of the community. For example, in such enterprises as supply-contracting, a system of subcontracting wasestablished that provided income for a relatively large number of smaller-scale merchants, and even the administrationof large landed estates provided employment for many innkeepers, alcohol distillers, and other self-employed membersof the Jewish community.
A second area of employment, which was represented bya massive participation of the members of the Jewish community, was that of smaller-scale and retail trade and of commercial intermediaries operating with limited capital resources, inmany cases not their own. In the economically more advanced
centers the economic activities of this employment group wererather specialized, with heavy concentration in limited areasof the retail trade and specialized services as commercial andfinancial intermediaries. Here too their activities were limited by the existing institutional structure of the commercial
centers. In order to compete with the more established firms
or individuals, the Jewish merchants tried to deviate from thestandards of goods being marketed and provided a greater variety in terms of quality for a broader range of prices. The economic effect of such – for that period – unorthodox behavior
was a broadening of the market and an increase in the number of consumers attracted by a wider range of quality. In theless advanced economies of that period, the Jewish merchants
had to overcome both the power of the urban guilds and thecustomary location of actual markets in the cities. Therefore
a major area of the trade of the Jewish merchants consisted
in reaching the social circle beyond the orbit of the exchange
economy, the peasants. The merchants sought out the areas ofa marketable surplus of agricultural products. By increasing
the size of shipments from the outlying areas it was possible todecrease the costs of transportation that previously had madeit unprofitable to bring these products to market.
A number of varied and interesting phenomena attended
this Jewish mercantile activity. First, through their penetrationof the rural areas Jewish merchants and peddlers supplied boththe manor and the peasant huts with manufactured goods
that were in demand, and simultaneously collected the marketable surplus of grains, flax, wool, and livestock. This twoway trade enabled the Jews to compete relatively successfully
with the local merchants who conducted their trade at fixed
points, primarily in the cities, and were relatively protectedby their status as city dwellers and merchants. Secondly, thepenetration of Jewish peddlers and merchants into the countryside enabled them to organize early, still primitive forms ofa putting-out system, making use of and helping in the further
development of cottage industries in the rural areas, and thusorganizing and supporting a form of production in competition with the urban crafts controlled and protected by thecity guilds (see *Peddling). Thirdly, the employment of Jews ininnkeeping, alcohol distilling, and livestock production in therural areas helped further to inject into the agricultural sector
the elements of an exchange and money economy. The resultof the activity of the Jewish small merchants in the rural areas

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6121

economic history
was to encourage the production of an agricultural surplus, tostimulate the consumption of nonagricultural goods, and tofoster the alienation of some part of the former agriculturallabor force from the land and to channel it into the cottage
industries and into transportation services, thus helping tocreate a nonagricultural labor force in the rural areas that depended upon wages rather than upon returns from land.
The second largest employment group within the Jewish
community was that of the artisans. Given the limited size ofthe market and the degree of organization of the craft guilds,
the Jewish artisans faced a constant struggle for the right tocompete. Since they were refused admittance to the craft
guilds, they suffered from the constraints imposed on nonmembers of the guilds and at best could count on a compromise that would allow them to continue their activity at theprice of compensatory payments to the guilds. The alternative
was to be restricted to the very narrow market for craft production provided by the Jewish community. Faced with thischoice, the Jewish artisans accepted the conditions of higher
costs of production, including the payment of compensation
to the guilds, until such time as the burden of discrimination
could be lessened or alternative arrangements could create
new opportunities. The range of Jewish crafts was very wide,
beginning with highly specialized gold- and silversmiths andjewelers, ranging to masons, carpenters, and blacksmiths, butwith a heavy concentration in the clothing crafts like tailoring,
cap-making, furriery, and shoemaking. This concentration
indicates a reliance upon a mass market. Through this orientation toward an expanding market the survival of Jewish artisans was guaranteed and new arrangements for production
and marketing were developed. The new arrangements took
the form of what amounts to a putting-out system organizedby Jewish merchants who provided the artisans with raw materials and occasionally with advance payments for their work.
Thus, the artisans were converted almost into wage laborers.
The arrangement, however, freed them from the necessity of
having their own or borrowed capital tied up in stocks of raw
material or finished goods and also from involvement in theprocess of distribution, these functions being performed by
the merchants. From the end of the 16t century the artisans
started to organize Jewish craft guilds. Although there is stillmuch debate about the actual effectiveness of these Jewish
guild activities, there is no doubt that their establishment wasa response to a deeply felt need for collective action and forarticulating their interests at least within the Jewish communities. Under such arrangements Jewish artisans were better
able to survive at least until the time when modern industry
posed new threats to the positions of small crafts and the putting-out system.
A description of the various employment categories
within the Jewish milieu would be incomplete if it did not notethat a certain part of the economically active population was
employed within the Jewish community itself. This generalarea of employment can be divided into two groups: (1) the
occupations that served the Jewish community exclusively;(2) those providing services for which an assured demand existed within the Jewish community but of which outsiders also
could avail themselves. Among the first category were rabbis,
schoolteachers, ritual slaughterers, scroll scribes, employees of
the ritual bathhouse, and keepers of synagogues and cemeteries. The demand for the services of this group was determinedlargely by religious laws and customs and therefore was notvery flexible. Among the other category were butchers, candlemakers, bookdealers, and prayer-shawl weavers. The demand
for their employment could have been a joint demand since
they were capable of providing services for non-Jews as well.
Nevertheless the Jewish community had to sustain the costs ofmaintaining the bulk of their services when outside demand
proved insufficient. The percentage of all these intracommunity services in the total of gainful employment varied for theparticular communities according to their size; but there wasless variation if the Jewish population of each of the countries
was viewed as a unit. While smaller communities could haveshared in some of the services that none alone could afford, thecombined percentage of intracommunity employment, when
standardized for size, was not much different from that of thelarger communities. As a rule of thumb it would probably becorrect to assume that at least 10 of total employment wasdevoted to the internal community services.
These various categories of employment constituted awide spectrum within the Jewish communities and absorbed
much of the energy of its members. In terms of the percentage of gainful employment or actual volume of labor input
within the year they were probably greater than the averagefor the population at large for whom seasonality of agriculture reduced the volume of labor input. Apart from them,
however, there existed a numerous group of unemployed or
unemployable members of the community. It would be fair
to assume that the primary responsibility for the support andmaintenance of the unemployed or unemployable rested withthe extended family which was the basic social unit within
the community. Whenever the family was unable to provide
such support, the community accepted such people as publiccharges. The three major ways in which the community met
its responsibilities were through private charity; institutionalized voluntary associations organized for the purposes ofproviding assistance through institutions, such as hospitals,
homes for incurables or the aged, and loan-societies; andthrough direct community support out of the taxation leviedupon the tax-paying members. In accord with traditional beliefs, private charity was not only considered a responsibility
but also an opportunity for the more prosperous members of
the community. The activities of voluntary associations concerned with this type of welfare and social services prevented
a full bureaucratization of functions, which would otherwise
have been taken over entirely by the community authorities,
and left thus much room for individual initiative and energy.
Needless to say, neither private charity nor the work of thevoluntary associations sufficed to meet the problem. Since
the number of unemployed and unemployable also depended

122

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

economic history
upon general economic conditions, in times of relative prosperity the economy would tend to absorb the unemployed andthe community would be in a better condition to support the
unemployable, while the reverse was true during periods of
economic decline. Thus the role of community taxation increased at times when the tax burden was already felt mostheavily. Nevertheless, the communities accepted this “welfare
responsibility” either out of a sense of moral obligation or inorder to mitigate the social friction and conflicts that a refusal
would have entailed. It is difficult to estimate the proportionof unemployed or paupers within the Jewish communities forthis period, but depending upon the economic and legal conditions of the Jews, it would be no exaggeration to estimate
their number as between 15 and 25, with a secular tendency
to rise since the second half of the 17t century.
It is likewise difficult to document the employment distribution within the Jewish communities for countries scattered all over the map of Europe, although there are data forseparate local communities either for irregular intervals orfor single years. The employment distribution for the largest Jewish community in Europe – Poland-Lithuania – in the
middle of the 18t century can roughly be reconstructed. The
employment distribution differed markedly among the Jews
settled in the larger cities, among those inhabiting the small
towns, and among those scattered in the rural areas. In addition, the peculiarity of the settlement pattern of the Jews in
Poland-Lithuania during this period was the large proportion of Jews living in rural areas, about one-third of the total
Jewish population. While in the rural areas leaseholding (see*arenda), innkeeping, alcohol distilling, and ancillary agriculture were the main occupations, the mass of Jewish artisans inhabited the larger cities and smaller towns. The social
structure which emerges from the approximate data reflects
the following employment distribution of the Polish Jews by
the middle of the 18t century: wholesale merchants, financiers, etc. – about 2–3; small traders, including leaseholders and innkeepers – less than 40; artisans and other urban
wage earners – more than 33; employed in intracommunity
services – about 10; unemployed and paupers – at least 15.
The most obvious conclusions that could be drawn from this
employment distribution is that the vast majority of the Jews
earned their livelihood from physical labor and that a substantial proportion of the population was either already living on
charity or on the threshold of poverty.
RESOURCE ENDOWMENT AND SOURCES OF INCOME. The
consideration of the employment distribution within the Jewish community sheds some light on the problem of the sourcesof Jewish income and on one particularly interesting aspect,that of resource endowment and returns to labor and capital,
the factors of production. For a long time the prevailing view
among historians of the period has been that capital was themore important component of the resource endowment of theJewish community and that returns to capital were also quantitatively the more significant component of the income earned

by the Jews. Needless to say, this view was more congruent
with popular images than with documentary calculations.
Both progress in historical research and increased sophistication of economic analysis have led to serious questioning of
this view. There is no doubt that a substantial part of the capitalwith which the Jews operated was borrowed from non-Jews,
as evidenced by the bankruptcy of the Jewish communities
in Poland during the 18t century and their large debts to thenobility and clergy. It is also increasingly clear that the returnto skills in the pre-industrial period was relatively higher than
was initially assumed. If first the labor income derived fromthe goods produced by Jewish artisans and craftsmen is calculated and then the labor component of the earning in retailtrade is added, the result arrived at would be a very substantial
share of the total income earned by all employed. The vast majority of the Jews during this period earned the bulk of theirincome from labor services. The profit rate of owners of capital could be maintained only by using capital in new areas oftrade and industry, thus counteracting the secular tendencyof the profit rate to decline while capital was becoming relatively more abundant. The capital earnings of the members of
the Jewish community were in part used, through a process of
income redistribution, to maintain intracommunity services
and to aid the poorer members of the community.
The income position and income level of the Jewish community depended upon prevailing economic conditions andtheir changes. If the Jewish community is considered as being
involved in an exchange of goods and services with the community at large, the economic well-being of the Jewish community would depend not only upon its employment composition and resource endowment, but also upon the “terms oftrade” of its production of goods and services with the products for which it traded with the community at large. If, forsimplicity’s sake, it is assumed that the Jews were producing
manufactured goods and consuming food and raw materials, their prosperity or lack of it would depend to some extent
upon the terms of trade between manufactured goods andraw materials. In fact, the income of the Jews depended upon
the economic situation of the various countries and particularly upon conditions in the agrarian sector which provided
the bulk of the consumers of the products and services produced and marketed by the Jews. Since the goods sold by theJews were more sensitive to the income position of consumers
and since prices tended to vary with regard to relatively smallchanges in the demand or supply of such goods, their income
probably fluctuated even more than that of the primary product producers. At the same time the volume of consumption of
the Jews was less liable to fluctuate, thus tending to underscoreeven more the vulnerability of their net income position.
The secular trend of the economic well-being of the Jewish community in Europe varied from country to country,
making it difficult to establish a general trend that would fit
all countries during identical periods. The most general trend
in the economic conditions of the Jews, and one that helps
to explain the historical direction of the migration process,

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6123

economic historyis the continuous improvement of their economic status andincome level in Eastern Europe until the middle of the 17t
century when the decline set in. About the same time, actually after the recovery following the Thirty Years’ War in Germany (1618–48), a slow process of improvement of the economic conditions favorable to the Jews started in Central andWestern Europe. While the 18t century reinforced the two
diametrically opposed tendencies, the reversal of the migration pattern became discernible. The dependence of the Jews
upon the economic conditions of the country and the particular society is self-explanatory. What is less clear, however,is the existence of significant differences in the attitude of different social groups toward the Jews behind the facade of ageneralized “attitude.”
ATTITUDES OF AND RELATIONS WITH THE SOCIETY AT
LARGE. The pattern of economic and especially social relations between Jews and non-Jews remained almost unchanged
throughout most of the early modern period. These relations
were initially established to a very large extent upon the basisof the expected or actual utility of the Jews to the interests ofparticular social groups. The similarities and differences of
economic interests of the social groups and their relative political strength played a decisive role in shaping the constraints
upon the economic activity of the Jews. The following socialgroups might be differentiated: the crown and the nobility;
the gentry; the merchants, with differentiation between the
more advanced and backward countries; the craftsmen; andthe peasants. From the outset it should be noted that the Jews
had no economic counterpart to some of the social groups(crown and nobility, gentry, peasants) and thus no problem of
economic competition could enter into the relationship. In thecases of the craftsmen and merchants, however, the problem
of direct competition created almost an a priori presumptionof an antagonistic relationship.
For the crown, the Jews were either a source of revenue
or a vehicle of economic development in the areas of foreign
trade, money and credit, and later manufacturing industry.
The dependence of the Jews upon the crown allowed them
to be considered both as a pliable instrument of government
policies and as an important source of money income, fullycompensating for the distaste or religious resentment generally felt toward the Jews. In the countries where the upper nobility shared in the power of the government, the economic
convenience and money incomes from the Jews derived by
the nobles employing them on the large private estates or in
the discharge of the nobility’s public offices rivaled the gains
derived by the crown. The attitudes of the gentry toward theJews were somewhat more ambiguous than that of the nobility. The Jews served the gentry as middlemen in the sale oftheir agricultural surplus and as suppliers of manufactured
goods on terms more favorable than other merchants would
customarily offer. In addition they often served as a sourceof credit for the money-hungry, debt-ridden gentry. Like thenobility, the gentry preferred in many cases to have the Jews

act as a buffer between them and the peasantry, so that forthe opportunity of employment and income the Jews often
assumed the role of the gentry’s agent in the economic exploitation of the peasantry and in effect became the scapegoat of
the justified wrath of the peasants. The presence of the Jews
as a threat of competition to the urban dwellers was useful tothe gentry in resisting the merchants’ demands for economic
and political privileges, which the gentry were loathe to giveup or to share. The gentry, therefore, appeared as a defenderof the Jews and of their activities as traders and craftsmen. The
ambiguity in the gentry’s position arose mainly in connection
with their role as debtors who were quite unwilling to live up
to their obligations.
With respect to the merchants, a distinction has to bemade between the advanced and the economically backward
countries. In the economically advanced countries, the merchants during this period had already given up many of their
special privileges in exchange for the legal protection of thebusiness contract. The existing institutions and organizational
forms of trade allowed a certain degree of competition; andthe merchants as a group did not feel terribly threatened byan influx of newcomers, as long as the newcomers subscribedto the generally accepted rules of business conduct, were subject to the common jurisdiction, and were contributing to the
expansion of trade. Therefore, even if the Jewish merchants
were not socially accepted, they were tolerated as performing the same social function as the merchants in general. In
contrast, the merchants in the economically backward countries were hostile for a number of reasons: (1) the occupationof merchants was circumscribed by sets of special privileges
and regulated by the guild organizations in the areas of entry,
business behavior of the guild members, and the nature of themarkets; (2) the merchants in those countries subscribed verystrongly to the erroneous notion that there is at each point intime a given volume of business, and the admission of more
people into the profession will only reduce the share everyone
already enjoys; (3) the fear of competition, which might leadto a decrease of the profit rate, made the merchants hostile tonewcomers in general and particularly to the Jews who wereoutside their jurisdiction; (4) many of the merchants in theless developed countries were themselves ethnically of foreign
stock and by keeping the conspicuous Jews out they tried tomollify the popular impression that trade was almost exclusively in the hands of foreigners. Thus the merchants in suchcountries did their best, wherever they could, to limit the occupations of the Jews, trying to eliminate competition fromthe most lucrative areas of trade and from the conventional
channels of trade.
The social group that felt subjectively most threatenedby competition from the Jews were the artisans who relied
even more than the merchants upon benefits derived fromold privileges and the guild organization. They tried to augment their incomes by following monopolistic practices, byregulating entry into guilds, setting a long time period forapprenticeship, prescribing the production process in detail,124

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

economic history

ROLE OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION. To
the extent that the relations between some groups of the general community and various social groups within the Jewish

community appeared to the contemporaries as antagonistic,
and to the extent that the legal framework and policies ofmany European states were discriminatory, there existed
a strong tendency within the Jewish community to engage
in self-defense. In addition, there manifestly existed a desire
to free themselves of the fetters of restrictions and controls
imposed by the state, guilds, and other existing corporate
bodies. But the latter attitude did not lead necessarily to alaissez-faire attitude even in areas of autonomous choice.
The Jews’ demand for freedom of trade or for the free exercise
of one’s skills in crafts and manufacturing did not include ademand for the abolition of regulations by the Jewish community itself of the economic activity of its members. The
adoption of such an attitude would clearly clash with existing
economic realities and with the basic tenet of governmental
policy toward the Jews, which was accepted, willingly or unwillingly, by the Jewish communities. The point of departureof governmental policies was the principle, explicitly statedor implicitly assumed, of collective responsibility of the community for the acts of its members. In order for the Jewish
community to discharge this responsibility at least a modicum of autonomy had to be granted in areas of taxation andcivil law.
Seen in historical perspective, the measures of self-regulation and control by the autonomous authorities of the Jewish community over the economic activities of their members
were perhaps only minor alterations in the general frameworkof the economic life of the Jews, which was determined largelyby the conditions of the economy and major policies of thestate. Nevertheless, the details and alterations seem to havebeen important since they apparently influenced the well-being of many and helped minimize some effects of discrimination. In general the spirit in which particular adjustments
and arrangements were made was one of pragmatic realism.
Broadly it coincided with the abolition of the restriction uponJews charging interest to their coreligionists, a move that officially sanctioned a usage originating much earlier than the
beginning of the 17t century. The basic criteria for community control appear to be in the same spirit: (1) maximum economic effectiveness for the community, the collectivity as thesum of its members; (2) conformity with traditional standardsof justice and welfare; (3) minimal interference with individual
initiative; and (4) continuity of religious traditions and maintenance of the existing authority structure, social order, andeconomic stratification.
Among the most outstanding examples of community
activity as a self-regulatory agency influencing the economic
life of its members, the following may be mentioned: (1) The
right to accept new settlers enabled communities at least to
some extent to regulate and direct the flow of migration. By
granting or refusing the “right of entry” in the community(which was tantamount to the right of habitat and employment in a certain locality; see *Ḥ erem ha-Yishuv), the communal authorities were able to exercise a degree of control upon
the supply of labor and the extent of competition for employ-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

125

and trying to control the market. The artisan guilds in urban
areas were relatively powerful, closed corporate bodies, quite
effective in controlling urban crafts. As a social group the artisans had a much narrower outlook than the merchants, weremuch more under the influence of the Church, and resentful and suspicious of outsiders. During this period the Jewish
artisans did not succeed in being incorporated into the general guilds and had to operate outside the Christian guild organization. Attempts to set up guilds of Jewish artisans werenumerous and always argued for on the basis of the need fororganization for successful competition or income maintenance. Needless to say, the artisans, the plebeian masses of
the cities, quite often linked their struggle against competition from Jewish craftsmen and traders to the social struggle
against the gentry and urban patricians. Thus anti-Jewish sentiment often accompanied particular forms of the class struggle of the urban plebeians.
The attitudes of the peasantry to the Jews did not matter in terms of the policies toward the Jews, except in cases of
peasant wars and uprisings. Nor could the peasants prevent
Jews from acting on behalf of the crown, gentry, and nobility.
Nevertheless they affected some of the economic activities of
the Jewish traders and artisans and were of importance in thesocial sphere since the peasants constituted the vast majorityof the population. There is no doubt that in the situations inwhich the Jews acted as economic agents for the landowners
they were strongly resented by the peasants. But even in the
many instances when the Jews helped to bring the peasants
into the money economy the attitude was not one of unqualified gratitude. This was due to the fact that the peasants’ entry
into and participation in the money economy was accompanied by rising demands for incomes on the part of both thelandowners and the state at the expense of the peasants. In asense, with peasant incomes rising, rents and taxes tended torise accordingly. It would probably not be incorrect to conclude that in spite of tangible benefits provided for the peasants by some economic activities of the Jews, the peasants did
not differentiate among the various roles played by the Jews in
the rural economy. They were certainly either unable or unwilling to distinguish between different categories of Jews, a
trait which they share with other social groups. The Jew was
the stranger who, in the eyes of the peasants (as well as of theartisans), was suspected of undermining the traditional order.
That old order was one that the peasants did not like, but they
were too conservative to substitute another for it because of
all the accompanying uncertainties. The Jews, in turn, especially those that settled in the rural areas, were perhaps only
a notch above the peasants economically, but they were separated from the peasants by a cultural gulf that could not be
bridged. Thus suspicion on the one side was reciprocated bycontempt from the other.

economic history

SOCIAL STRATIFICATION WITHIN THE JEWISH COM MUNITY. Since the Jewish community was differentiated in respect to economic functions, it would be well to inquire into
the pattern of social stratification among the Jews during thisperiod. The society at large was hierarchically organized, andthe social conditions of its members were largely predetermined either by birth (by hereditary status) or by the roleand functions assigned to them by prevailing custom or by
the state. There was no perfect identity, however, between thestratification of the society at large and the Jewish community
for the simple reason that the Jews were excluded from landownership and were therefore lacking the equivalent of thenobility, gentry, and serf-peasantry. Within the Jewish community there was the equivalent of three large groups which
had their counterparts in the society at large, namely: theequivalent of the urban patricians, the equivalent of the small
producers (craftsmen) and middlemen (merchants), and thewage earners and paupers.

The first group, in terms of wealth, was represented byrich merchants and entrepreneurs engaged in international
and interregional trade, in ownership of industrial establishments, in banking and moneylending, as court factors, tax
farmers, etc. In terms of social prestige this group also included famous rabbinical scholars and book publishers, although the last two categories were far inferior in terms ofwealth. The second group, representing the majority of theJewish population, included all the owners of some capital,in the form of tools or stocks of goods, to which their own orfamily labor was applied and who employed a small numberof workers. They were the ones who, like the vast majority of
the first group, came into direct contact with the market andwere exposed to all the irregularities of the early, imperfectmarkets of the time. Although social mobility from this group
into the upper stratum was not prevented by any legal means,the dichotomy between the two groups was noticeable both in
the economic and the social spheres, and the grievances voicedby this group against the upper stratum are a clear witness tothe cleavage existing between them. The third group included
wage earners engaged in crafts, trade, transportation, services(including domestics), and a large number of unemployables
for whom the community had to provide a livelihood. Whilesocial mobility from the third group into the second was a
possibility, the “plebs” of the community constituted a distinctgroup, inferior not only in terms of income, but also in education and skills and separated by many social and cultural barriers from the ones who were economically independent.
While the intergroup mobility was limited by economic
factors and perhaps also by some cultural factors, intragroupmobility was much more free and frequent; and in this respect
the Jewish community was ahead of its times in comparison
with the society at large. There were also special reasons why
the tensions among the various groups and social classes were
dampened and less explosive than in the society at large. Two
reasons were especially significant: first, the generally oppressive attitudes of the society at large, which apart from exceptional cases and special situations was hardly in a mood todifferentiate among the various categories and groups within
the Jewish community; secondly, the institutionalized systemof welfare within the Jewish community acted as a form of income redistribution and provided for the most basic needs of
its indigent members. But even this mitigation of the internal tensions could not eliminate the intensity of the discord
and the deep resentment that existed among the various social groups within the community, contrary to the superficial
impressions of casual outside observers who were convincedthat the Jewish community was a model of internal harmonyand solidarity. The internal conflicts were at times so intensethat external, governmental authorities were called upon totake sides and intervene either to strengthen the forces ofauthority within the community or to curb the arbitrarinessof the decisions and limit the authority of the ruling bodies.
The various intellectual and religious movements within the
Jewish community also exhibited strong social overtones and126

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

ment and business opportunities. (2) The community had theright of enforcing the principle of *ḥ azakah – of seniority or
preferential option granted in the bidding or negotiation ofa new contract to the previous partner over his competitors.
This was a rule that benefited the previous or current party
over any new entrant and effectively limited competition
among Jewish businessmen. (3) There was a right and obligation to guarantee the solvency of the members of the community in business transactions whenever such guarantee wererequired or requested. In practice such guarantees helped
members of the community avail themselves of business opportunities and strengthen their credit position, but in somecases the community, by indicating the limits of credit, wasboth protecting itself and preventing its members from engaging in high-risk operations. (4) There was a right to distributethe tax burden of the community among its members both forthe purposes of poll tax payments and for its intracommunity
needs (see *Taxation).
The paradox of the situation is that most of the cited examples appear to be in conflict with the liberal idea of granting freedom of economic activity to individuals. It is, however,congruent with the conviction that for a minority to survive as
a distinct group it has to place the interests of group survival
above the short-run interests of the individual members. It
is also plausible that when the state was regulating economic
life and practicing economic discrimination, an autonomous
group could not afford a laissez-faire practice and still maintain its identity and internal cohesion. In fact, when during alater period the state started to withdraw from the positionsof control and regulation, the Jewish communities also had
to give up most of their regulatory functions under the pressure of the individual members in order to survive at least as
voluntary associations. But during the period under consideration the Jewish community organization was still very strong
in enforcing its control over an economically heterogeneousand socially stratified population.

economic history
in some cases revealed the strength of subterranean resentments and open protest on the part of the lower classes of thecommunity.
The real power in the community was located in thehands of the upper social group, and the wealthy occupied
offices of consequence and social prestige. Although Jewish
communities strongly resented the appointment of officers
by government authorities – which guaranteed office-holding
for the wealthiest – as an interference in community affairs,
the system of electing officers (who were often personally responsible for the fiscal obligations of the community) no lessfavored the election of the rich, the ones who could afford theburden of office. Wealth became almost a prerequisite for office and could be augmented by holding office, since offices
provided access to information and opportunities that could
be turned to business advantage by their holders. In part, someof the power of the wealthy elite was exercised because of theeconomic dependence of members of the community directly
employed or indirectly influenced by the elite. The relatively
large-scale business operations by the members of the elite
provided employment opportunities for agents, salesmen, domestics, etc., which assured the elite of the support of the dependents in community affairs. The symbol of the autonomyof the Jewish communities was their right to elect their spiritual leaders, the rabbis. The communities viewed any attemptby governmental authority to appoint rabbis as an assault on
their right of religious autonomy. Nonetheless, the power ofthe spiritual leaders was more important in maintaining thecontinuity of tradition and is to be seen more in their role as
mitigators in internal conflicts than in the internal policies or
the routine economic activities of the community. It was left
to the business elite to regulate and supervise the economic
activities of the community. In cases where a conflict arose between the spiritual leaders and the upper stratum in the community, the real power, that of the elite, usually asserted itself.
In the communities in which the power of office was shared by
the upper stratum with representatives of the middle group,
the important decisions were usually left to the “patrician”
families. An important result of the existing social stratification during this period was the degree of stability provided
by community leadership recruited basically from one socialgroup. In a period when all other societies were hierarchicallyorganized, the Jewish community could hardly afford to beorganized according to any other principle.
Transition Period
The transition between the “old” conditions and the “new”
was neither smooth nor short. It spanned two distinct periods,
which differed markedly from one another in respect to thegeneral framework of economic activity, the prevailing ideologies, and the social groups that made the important decisions.
The transition reflected the change in social and economic
development, in this sense exhibiting both its revolutionary
aspects regarding some institutions and individuals and its
evolutionary aspects of piecemeal transformation of other in-stitutions, habits, and activities. The major characteristics ofthe transition in the economic sphere included accelerationin the accumulation of tangible assets (capital) as well as thepossibility and willingness to transfer increasing amounts ofcapital from one area of economic activity to another. Thisphenomenon was accompanied by the development of technology, which provided labor-saving mechanical devices forthe production of goods, and in turn became a strong force increating the demand for new capital and for new skills.
Concurrent with these economic changes were new developments in generally held beliefs and opinions. Among themany, some must be singled out for their significance. Especially important was the rise of secularism at the expense of
traditional religious and theological views. The turn toward
secularism put man in the center of the universe and assumed
that he was able and willing to subordinate the forces of nature to serve him. This led both to the development of a moregeneralized utilitarian approach and, with the weakening ofearlier dogmatic attitudes, to the development and penetration of scientific thought, thus providing the basis for innovations and inventions in the field of technology. The spread of
the idea of egalitarianism was another important element in
the change of social thought. While not a characteristic feature of the period, the fact that man in the abstract was now
at the center of the universe, led egalitarianism to challenge
the basic premises of a hierarchical society in which the accidents of birth largely determine the social position of individuals. Though egalitarianism was not yet successful during
the period of transition in securing the political and social
participation of a broad spectrum of the populace, it at leastachieved the legitimization of merit and achievement rather
than birth as the leading criteria for joining the social elite.
The change of criteria was of utmost importance, while theimplementation of the principle could proceed only slowly if
the social fabric was not to be torn by revolution. If ideas ofsecularism and egalitarianism are to be intellectually tenable
and socially effective, equality before the law is perhaps thefirst necessary step. Thus the establishment of a new legality based not upon divine law or the will of the sovereign but
upon the consensus of the governed led to new forms of individual freedom and to social responsibilities or disciplines
being shared by all citizens or inhabitants of the particularcountries. That social discipline required the resolution of
conflicts within a legal framework was obvious, and for theframework to be effective it had to approach universality andoffer equitable treatment to all.
The transition period in Western Europe dates fromabout the middle of the 18t century until after the NapoleonicWars, and in Eastern Europe runs from the Napoleonic Wars
until the third quarter of the 19t century. The distinction andthe lack of overlap in time is important to the extent that theWestern European experience could have been considered as amodel of the future economic and social development of Eastern Europe. However, if a comparison were made of the situation in Western Europe with that of Eastern Europe during a

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6127

economic history
particular point in time, more striking contrasts than similarities would be found. At a time when the economies of Western
Europe were caught up in the process of economic growth,
those of Eastern Europe during the same period were in a stateof relative stagnation in which the process of economic development either did not get off the ground or was arrested by
the prevailing political regime. While in the West the end of
the 18t and the beginning of the 19t century witnessed new
economic opportunities for its indigenous population and for
immigrants, the Jews included, the wholesale bankruptcy of
the Jewish community organizations of Poland in the second
half of the 18t century and the economic plight of the majority of the Polish and Russian Jews around the turn of the 19t
century were examples of the different situations of the Jewish
communities in various countries at those times.
How did the Jews fare under the conditions which were
defined as the transition period? There is no doubt that theinitial benefits were considerable since they signified thechanged status of the Jews. Even in the absence of equal civilrights or true emancipation they meant an increased sense of
personal security, a decrease in arbitrariness, and a greater
recourse to the prevailing law of the land. It is possible to describe, rather than measure, the economic effects of these transitional changes upon the activities of the Jews in two distinct
areas, labor and capital.
The loosening of restrictions affecting places of habitat or work made it possible for labor to move more freely insearch of markets with higher earnings. Thanks to the relaxation of restrictions, on entering particular professions Jews
could avail themselves of training opportunities or enter educational institutions with hopes for upward social mobility
and higher incomes. The rising demand for new types of employment, spurred by the accelerated pace of economic development, provided possibilities for absorption of at least apart of the relatively large groups of unemployed membersof the Jewish communities in the labor market. The greater
degree of personal safety and security of their assets had anumber of effects upon Jewish owners of capital. There was a
reduction of the size of reserves previously kept as personal
insurance against various emergencies. The size of such reserves for Jewish merchants was variously estimated as up toa third of their wealth. By reducing the reserve it was possible
to devote a larger part of the total wealth to productive use.
The improvement of the legal position of the Jews increased
the amount of credit that could be extended to them without
excessive risks on the part of the lenders. This developmentin turn probably led to a decrease in the rates of interest at
which Jews could borrow. Added security and new opportunities enabled the Jewish owners of capital to use it in a numberof areas (real estate, industry) hitherto closed to them, thusincreasing both the returns and effectiveness of capital. The
removal of some discriminatory regulations (such as double
taxation), which previously increased the costs for Jews ofcarrying on economic activities and affected the size of theirincome, had the effect of increasing their disposable income

and could have led to simultaneous growth in, or to a redistribution of the shares of, consumption and savings. In somecases an increase of savings (or investment) could be expected;
in other cases an increase of consumption or an increase infamily size could follow. With regard to the last, it is clear thateven partial removal of some discriminatory rules applied to
the Jews, like restriction on settlement, on marriage, and thelike (see, e.g., *Familiants Laws), resulted in an increase in thebirth rate and population growth.
The transition period can be characterized as the beginnings of consideration of the “Jewish problem” as a matter ofsocial and national policies for the states and societies in Europe, in contradistinction to earlier preoccupation with fiscal
interests, Church concerns, or narrowly defined group competition. The growing concern of the state with the economic
activity of the Jews was exhibited in various attempts by governments to influence such activity. Some attempts could beclassified as representing a policy of “productivization” of Jews
and attempts to change the social composition of the Jewish
population. Interesting examples of such policies, perhaps inpart also inspired by physiocratic thought, were the attempts
to settle Jews on the land by “enlightened absolutist” regimes
such as those of *Joseph II in Austria and Alexander I in Russia. It is immaterial here that such attempts were completely
unsuccessful, either because the schemes were insufficiently
prepared and financed or because they were sabotaged by thebureaucracy that was to administer them. The disappointments of tens of thousands of Jews and the sufferings of thousands who participated in the failing experiments are also not
at issue. The important feature was the clearer realization thatin part, at least, government policies were responsible for thepeculiarities of Jewish economic activities or social structure and that state policies – as a part of the social and legal
framework of Jewish activity – had to be brought in line withor adjusted to the economic changes that were taking place.
Therefore, while during the transition period, governmentsponsored agricultural colonization in southern Russia resulted in settling on land only a few thousand Jewish families
and failed abysmally in Austria, it nevertheless raised by implication the problem of legal tenancy and ownership of land
for Jews. This in turn resulted in the subsequent developmentof a small but socially diverse farming element in the Jewish
communities of Eastern Europe during the 19t century.
Whatever the impact of the changing economic and social conditions on the economic activities of the Jews, during
the transition period the Jewish communities had to face animminent, fundamental change. For the Jewish communities
the problem was how to continue as a distinct group in thegeneral society, not under conditions of forced separation
but under those of free choice by their members. For the firsttime within the general period under consideration, it became possible for larger numbers of Jews to break away culturally and socially from the Jewish community, even while
maintaining their religious beliefs, and to be accepted by thecommunity at large. Social acceptance was offered to a small

128

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

economic history
but influential minority of the Jews as remuneration for cultural assimilation. The price to pay was basically severance of
their relations with the rest of the Jewish community and theabandonment of the active desire to perpetuate this community. Under the circumstances, the offer of social acceptance
was a tempting one since it involved social advancement by
the criteria of the community at large. That not every socialgroup would accept its Jewish counterpart even at the priceof cultural assimilation was obvious, but during the transition
period personal or narrow group interests were strong and thefight for universal civil rights still very much ahead. The situation presented a challenge to the Jewish communal authority
and called for surrender of its traditional power of exclusive
representation of the Jews and of its power of *taxation. The
weakening of the authority of the Jewish community organization could also be traced to the growing unwillingness of themore affluent groups in the community to subject themselves
to income redistribution in favor of the poor. Poor relief was“scaled down” from a duty concept to one of discretionary
charity, and paupers were “encouraged” to find employment.
Although the full impact of the newly created situation of defining one’s identity, under conditions of relatively free choice,
was to be felt during a later period, the difficulties and problems thus created – psychological and social – were alreadybecoming apparent during the transition period.

vided the Jews with opportunities, it could not provide themwith a right to work, to compete on equal terms, to the same
extent that such a “right” was traditionally enjoyed by the various classes of the majority population. In addition, the phaseof economic liberalism as a chief characteristic of the capitalist system was neither a permanent feature nor a very longlasting one, nor even one universally followed in all countries
experiencing the capitalist type of economic growth.
In most countries of Eastern Europe the capitalist stageof development coincided with a rise of nationalism, which atvarious points exhibited a discriminatory attitude toward theJews in general or toward some social groups within the Jewish
community, in attempts to promote the interests of the ethnic
majority. Tariff policies against foreign goods were accompanied not infrequently by discriminatory taxation imposed
upon “foreigners” within the country, meaning national minorities. In the multi-national states of Eastern Europe there
were ample opportunities for labeling various minorities as“foreign,” “alien,” and so on. Under such conditions it could
hardly be expected that the Jewish masses, who were adversely
affected by discriminatory policies, would consider the capitalist economic system as more desirable or attractive than analternative promising them the “right to work.”

Modern Period
The main features of the development of the economy of theJews during the modern period are patterns of migration, penetration into areas of industry, maintenance of a strong position in the area of services, and very limited involvement inagriculture. Decades ago economic historians were engaged ina debate about the role of the Jews in the development of capitalism, some trying to define the historically objective role of
the Jews as active agents of capitalist development. Now withhistorical hindsight the discussion would probably be conducted and conclusions reached within a different framework.
The implicit notion that capital was abundant in the Jewish
sector of the economy would now be refuted and therefore thelogic of portraying the Jews as “objectively acting” on behalf ofa capitalist order would be rejected. It would probably be accepted, however, that an order of economic liberalism is one
that provides greater opportunities for any minority, the Jews
included, than an alternative economic system based upon adifferent ideology and set of political principles. An impersonal market and a high degree of division of labor may create
alienation and other social ills, but by not requiring that thecommodities produced have any other labels than the pricetag, the free market works against discrimination. A competitive market may injure high-cost producers or cause unemployment, but its principles were compatible with the ideas ofsocial and cultural pluralism. The relatively favorable responseof Jews and other minorities to the liberalization of the economic order was based primarily on an expected reduction indiscrimination. However, while a liberal economic order pro-JEWISH MIGRATION. It is against the background of insufficient employment opportunities and discrimination that theprocess of migration has to be viewed. The pattern of Jewish
migration, of spatial mobility of labor, during the modern period differed in many respects from previous migration patterns. The general direction was westward, from Eastern Europe to the West, and from Europe overseas. As a matter offact, the migration from Western Europe overseas was morethan made up for by an influx of Jews from the East. This general direction of the migration was significant as a movementfrom less rapidly developing countries to more rapidly developing ones. In terms of its time dimension the inter-country
migration was intensified during the 19t century and reached
its peak during the decade prior to World War I. But apartfrom the inter-country migration, of very considerable significance was the intra-country migration from the less urbanized areas to the more urbanized areas, a development that
increased the degree of concentration of the Jewish populationin large urban and metropolitan areas, with their developed
industry, trade, and other social or cultural characteristics.
Both the domestic and international migration and the patternof settlement of the Jews contributed to urban concentrationand had an impact upon the social and economic structureof the Jewish population. While it is tempting to assign therole of prime mover in Jewish migrations to purely economic
causes, it would be erroneous to omit political elements suchas discriminatory legislation, violent antisemitism, pogroms,
and revolutions. Political upheavals and governmental policies influenced the pace of the migration process, but could
not stop it for any appreciable length of time (the case of theSoviet Union being an exception).

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6129

economic history
What were the characteristic features and effects of the
migration process as a whole and of its various forms? The migration process started as soon as the Jewish population could
rise above the level of poverty and isolation to which it had deteriorated in Eastern Europe by the end of the 18t and first halfof the 19t century and regain its age-old habits of mobility. In
terms of numbers, the migration stream from continental Europe during the 100 years preceding World War II accounted
for approximately 4,000,000 individuals, of which over 70
went to the United States, about 10 each to South America
and Palestine, and the rest to Britain, Canada, South Africa,
Australia, and other countries. Thus, in view of the fact that
the North American continent absorbed three-quarters of thetotal international (or overseas) migration, the characteristicsof this migration may be assumed as the most typical.
The available data indicate that the migration was afamily one (of whole families, even if separated by a one- or
two-year period) rather than of single individuals; that it wasa migration for settlement and not for work, saving, and return; and that it was a migration involving a relatively very
high percentage of skilled workers. With respect to the last
characteristic, only the data can be relied upon and little investigation beyond these can be done: the explanation of thisphenomenon can only be surmised. It is logical to assume thatthe process of overseas migration required payment of transportation costs, in other words some amount of savings, andthus could not involve paupers. Therefore, it is logical to assume that the migrants were either members of the industrial
labor force, or entrants into the labor force who already had
acquired skills, or individuals who acquired particular skills
in anticipation of their migration, having made an investment
over and above their transportation costs or borrowed in anticipation of future returns. It was in large measure due to theindustrial skills and some working habits of the migrants that
their future relative success can be explained.
Three further points need to be emphasized in connection with the migration problem. First, given the nature of
the family ties within the Jewish community, the financing of
migration took place within the extended family of the immigrants and was later also subsidized by the earnings of theimmigrants, often virtually out of their first savings. Secondly,
prior to the end of the 19t century there were already in operation well-organized voluntary associations that assisted
in the migration process. In their absence the economic andpsychological costs of migration would have been considerably higher. Thirdly, by organizing voluntary associationsof mutual assistance, in part copying the models from Eastern Europe, the immigrants were able to help the new arrivals more effectively. Some relatively small part, probably not
more than about 3 of the total of the migration movement,
was financed and assisted by funds donated or collected onbehalf of the migration, especially in the presence of an ideological or programmatic background. The two most outstanding examples were Palestine and the agricultural settlements
in Argentina.

The primary effect of both the intraregional and international migration of the Jews was to decrease the competition
for employment opportunities where such were scarce andprovide a higher return for the migrants where their laborand skills were in greater demand. Thus while the incomeof the migrants increased in comparison with their previous income level, the income level of those who remained
behind did not fall. However, it must be admitted that the
movement of millions of people within a few generations deprived the established Jewish communities of a young, enterprising, and skilled element. This movement had a numberof demographic, economic, and cultural repercussions on theEuropean Jewish communities. It is difficult to pinpoint such
effects, but it certainly affected the age structure of the European communities by removing some of the middle groups(age groups 20–40 in particular). It also perhaps affected adversely the growth rate of the Jewish population in Europe,
although it would be difficult to predict what that rate would
have been under worse economic conditions in the absenceof migration. In terms of its impact upon the social structure,
it probably increased the economic polarization within the
Jewish communities since neither the rich nor the very poor
contributed to the migration stream. In another sense the migration movement contributed to a greater stability within the
Jewish communities since it absorbed much of the unruly andnontraditionally inclined element of the community. Last but
not least, the migration movement contributed to an activatedexchange among Jewish communities, with a money transfer
to Eastern Europe that not only subsidized further migration
but supported relatives and community institutions, and thatwas in part compensated by an export of cultural and spiritual
services from Europe to the areas of new settlement.

130

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

PENETRATION INTO INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT. Some assessment must be made of the conditions that enabled Jews
to penetrate into industrial employment and maintain theirposition in the areas of services under conditions of modern
industrialization. What adjustment was required on theirpart to attain their goals? Here we are concerned with entrepreneurial activities in the industrial sector as well as thetransformation of handicraft employment into small-scaleand larger-scale industrial employment. This entrepreneurial activity is not being considered here in terms of “Jewish
contributions” to the development of this or that country, or
the amassing of wealth by individuals of Jewish descent. It isbeyond the purview of this account to dwell upon the Rothschilds in England and France, on the German-Jewish bankers, or on mining magnates in Africa or South America. In
addition, a distinction should be made between large-scaleand small-scale entrepreneurs. While a few Jews entered industrial entrepreneurship via high finance, the banking system, etc., the multitude consisted of small-scale industrial
entrepreneurs who were recruited mostly from the ranks ofcraftsmen and merchants, previously engaged in the puttingout system. They were subordinate to and dependent upon

economic history
the large-scale industrial establishments because they could
hardly compete with large-scale industrial firms in the production of goods and had therefore either to become suppliers to the large firms of some specialized goods or producers
of market goods that were outside the assortment manufactured by large-scale industry. Given the scarcity of capital in
the social milieu from which the small-scale producers or entrepreneurs were recruited, their proximity to industrial centers and markets was absolutely crucial. Small-scale industrial
firms did not possess the capital to carry large stocks, and aquick turnover was their only mode of survival. A great dealof flexibility in product-mix and in assuring sources of demand was required to keep the enterprises in operation. They
also required a labor force skilled but not overly specialized
and with relatively few employment alternatives to accept aless-than-regular employment. This was a typical solution foreconomic branches that operated with a basically backward
technology at low levels of productivity, low wages, and longhours of work, in what were fringes of the consumer goods
industries. It was due to the declining role of handicraft production, which was suffering from industrial competition, that
this type of industrial employment was acceptable to Jewish
industrial job seekers.
Jewish entrepreneurs did, however, play an importantrole in providing gainful employment for large numbers ofJews. It may be assumed that for a Jewish entrepreneur there
existed a “psychological income” in providing employment forother Jews, whether he did so for reasons of greater familiarity and cultural affinity or because it was considered a “gooddeed” in cases when discrimination in favor of Jewish employees increased his operational costs. Those costs, in turn, depended upon the nature of the labor supply and the distribution of skills within the Jewish labor force and within the total
population. If the costs of hiring Jewish labor were less thanor equal to those of hiring other members of the labor force,it can be assumed that there were no costs in the discrimination in favor of employing Jews. As will be seen from a number of examples, the employment pattern of Jewish labor by
Jewish entrepreneurs did not in fact impose additional costs
upon the employers. There were, however, two other obstacles
that had to be overcome in order to have the employment ofa Jewish labor force reach a significant level. The first constraint was the assumed or real strength of the religious taboo
against work on the Sabbath, regardless of whether the taboo
was expressed in the behavior of workers or in the attitudesof the entrepreneurs. The second constraint was the assumed
animosity of non-Jewish workers and foremen toward Jewish co-workers. There is no doubt that such constraints upon
the entrepreneurs were real, especially in the later part of the
19t century in Eastern Europe.
The cases of a few industries in Europe and one in the
U.S. are instructive since they provide a broad spectrum of
employment opportunities created by Jewish entrepreneurs
for Jewish workers. One is the *textile industry in Russian
Poland in which Jewish spinners, weavers, and other textile

workers were predominantly employed in the smaller-scale
enterprises, while the larger-scale factories refrained from
employing them. Second is the case of the forestry trade, inwhich few Jewish workers and laborers could compete successfully with the low-paid peasants seeking off-season employment in lumbering. Therefore, thousands of Jews were
employed in this industry by Jewish firms as overseers in theforests, sawmills, and transportation of the products, much of
the output being destined for export or railroad construction.
Thus, the demand for trained personnel with a degree of familiarity with the operation and quality standards in forestry
and with some clerical skills attracted many Jewish workers
and employees. While such a combination of skills was rare in
the general labor force, and the wages and salaries accepted by
the Jewish workers were generally low, there was hardly any
cost of discriminating in favor of Jewish employment in theforestry trade. In the third case, the sugar and oil industries
may be subsumed under one type of employment. Neither insugar-beet growing nor in the processes of sugar refining were
Jews represented. The same is true for the oil industry locatedoutside the Jewish *Pale of Settlement. The Jews could compete neither with the peasants and local oil-workers nor withthe highly skilled specialists in sugar and oil refining. The areas of employment for Jews provided for them by Jewish entrepreneurs were those of distribution and trade. Thus, thousands of Jews were employed as clerical personnel, salesmen,
and sales agents in the trade networks of both the sugar andoil industries. The outstanding case of industrial employment
provided by Jewish entrepreneurs for Jewish workers in the
U.S. is the garment industry. The levels of skill brought overby the Jewish immigrants, the relatively low wage scheduleof the garment industry, and the relatively small scale of theoperations of the firms led to a high concentration of Jewish
workers, with the industry as a whole serving as a massive
source of employment.
The above examples illustrate some of the patterns of
the penetration by Jews into areas of industrial employment.
They are indicative of the manner in which masses of former
artisans and pauperized elements of the Jewish community
could join the ranks of industrial workers and employees. As
in other societies, child labor and long-term apprenticeshipwere the chief means of skill-acquisition for the poor. Although the capital-goods industries were virtually closed forboth Jewish entrepreneurs and workers alike, industrial employment concentrated in consumer goods industries signified
the adjustment to modern, industrial society and injected a
new dynamism both in the social relations within the Jewish
communities and with the community at large.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

131

MAINTENANCE OF POSITIONS IN THE SERVICE SECTOR OF
THE ECONOMY. The service sector includes employment intrade, transportation and communication, public and private
services, and the liberal professions. For the huge segment of
the Jewish population previously employed in it, largely intrade and particularly commodity trade, the problem of eco-

economic history
nomic survival within this sector became absolutely essential.
During the early period of industrialization when massive
investments are made in the build-up of physical industrial
capital – primarily in construction and equipment and insome of the services of the social overhead type such as railroad and road building – the majority of the services are notrecipients of capital. It is only when the basic capital in industry is created, and both the producers’ goods and consumers’
goods branches are producing at relatively high levels of productivity, that the demand for services increases on the partof a population whose general level of income has risen very
substantially. The fact that Jews were heavily concentrated in
the service sector in countries whose pace of development
was slow, whose market growth was sluggish, and whose levels of personal income were among the lowest in Europe, did
not augur well for service employees. It was, therefore, not somuch a matter of historical foresight but a lack of viable alternatives that kept large masses of Jews within this sector during
the early stages of industrialization. It was the gradual processof commercialization of agriculture that provided outlets forthe commodity trade and thus for service employment for the
Jews who were living in rural areas or small towns. Urbanization provided other opportunities for employment in trade
and also in other services; but paradoxically the process of urbanization and the development of service opportunities in
the large cities significantly undercut or substituted the service
functions previously performed in small towns. The process ofurbanization was accompanied by the development of a more
dense transportation network which created direct links between the big cities and the hinterland, decreasing transportation and travel costs and making the big city and rural areas accessible to one another. The result was that many of theservices concentrated in the small towns could no longer be
performed at the prices offered in the big cities where economies of scale were more likely; and the decline of small towns
under the conditions of a competitive market followed. The
problem for Jewish service employment was whether the opportunities available to Jews in the big cities were sufficient tocompensate or substitute for the disappearance of such opportunities in the small towns and also allow for the rate of Jewish
population increase. The answer for Eastern Europe appears
to have been negative, for Western Europe positive. In the U.S.
there was a secular trend of employment growth in the service
sector for the Jews. In Eastern Europe the crisis of the small
towns remained a continuous problem, especially exacerbating for the Jews when coupled with discriminatory policies
of limiting access or prohibiting the influx of Jewish service
employees in such branches as the civil service, central government or municipal services, and public transportation. In
countries that did not openly follow discriminatory policies,
the solution of the service employment problem for the Jews
became very much dependent upon both the general pace ofeconomic development and the urbanization process.
The diversity of service employment makes it very difficult to estimate the degree of substitution of one type of

employment for another or the mobility of individuals fromone category to another within this sector. The required educational background differed substantially; and substitution
or transfers were possible probably at the lower levels of skills
in which literacy could be considered the predominant, if not
the universally sufficient, prerequisite. Internal mobility within
the service sector was much less frequent at higher levels of
specialization and especially when the specific training presupposed a higher level of schooling. The explanation of thecontinuity of a high proportion of Jewish employment in thearea of services would be incomplete if two other factors wereoverlooked. The first was the opening up of opportunities in
the liberal professions; the second was the continued demand
for special services generated within and performed expressly
for the Jewish communities. The first phenomenon, entry into
the free professions, was a result of the reduced effectivenessof discriminatory policies toward Jews in the area of secondary and higher education relative to the areas of the public
services. Educational opportunities that provided employment possibilities in the free professions became attractive
avenues of social and economic advancement for the Jewish
middle class, previously employed primarily in commodity
trade. Therefore, with employment in the public sector and in
the civil service very much restricted and curtailed for eligible
Jewish candidates, the typical employment pattern was in theprivate service sector, including health services, educational
services, and legal services. In addition, the private service sector provided employment opportunities for a certain numberof educated individuals as salaried employees, such as bookkeepers, legal clerks, and pharmacist’s assistants.
The demand for services by and for the Jewish communities continued during this period, although the process of
secularization tended to shift the demand from the purely religious areas to those of education, health, and social services.
Attempts to maintain a general cultural and not only an exclusively religious identity helped to sustain the demand for
educational services. Meanwhile, the pattern of settlement inurban and metropolitan areas created a demand for the development of a communication network by which some of
the cultural needs could be met and thus supported the activities of the press, theater, literary activities, and the like. Given
the fact that public services in the area of health for the total
population were highly inadequate and that the Jewish population received even less than a proportionate share of those,the demand for health and social services provided within
and by the Jewish community was very strong. This stimulus
was instrumental in the provision of such services either ona private basis or as a part of the welfare activities carried onby the community authorities for needy members.

132

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

EMPLOYMENT IN THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR. Farming
played a very subordinate role in the employment structure of
the Jewish population during this period and its share in total
employment was relatively small. It is not difficult to provide
an explanation for this phenomenon. During the 19t cen-

economic history
tury and later, agriculture in Europe was a declining industry,
releasing rather than attracting labor. In addition, previous
discriminatory policies prevented land ownership and restricted land tenure for Jews to the extent that farming as askill did not develop within the Jewish milieu. Although thelifting of some of the most severe restrictions rendered farming a plausible alternative to the precarious positions of smalltown traders or artisans, a number of circumstances mitigatedagainst a mass influx of Jews into farming. Land was becoming relatively expensive in Eastern Europe, and the returns
to both capital and labor in agriculture were relatively small.
Settlement on large land tracts and the establishment of colonies required sizable capital outlays and a degree of organizational effort beyond the available resources and authorityof the organized Jewish communities. The pattern of individual settlement in a dispersed manner was discouraged on the
one hand by religious and traditional attitudes, since it typically involved a high degree of cultural isolation, and on theother hand by an often hostile rural environment, suspiciousof any aliens settling in its midst. Within the Jewish milieu oras part of Jewish folklore, the stigma of boorishness or coarseness was associated with Jewish farmers, characteristics of alow prestige status, not so much in economic terms as in general cultural ones.
Outside of Europe, however, two types of development
have to be considered: (1) countries of rapidly developing agriculture in which the employment of Jews in this sector of theeconomy was not significant, the United States and Canada
being prime examples; (2) countries in which the employment
share of agriculture was higher than in most of Europe, thespecific cases being Palestine and Argentina.
With respect to the first group, two factors might explain
the relatively low share of agriculture in the employment distribution. The foremost was the greater attraction that employment opportunities had for immigrants in the industrial andservice sectors coupled with the preference for urban settlement, which provided additional security to the immigrants
as members of their own ethnic communities. The second was
the timing of the large migration streams, which took place
after the closing of the so-called “agricultural frontier.” In thecase of Palestine and Argentina there was an induced process
in which some noneconomic variables were of utmost importance. In Palestine the ideological aspect, the Zionist idea, motivated a relatively high percentage of the immigrants to settleon land, beginning with the last decades of the 19t century;
farming became as much a way of life as a profession. In Argentina a substantial segment of the immigration was sponsored by adherents of agricultural colonization schemes who
induced agricultural employment by paying the transportation
costs and providing land for agricultural group settlement in
the name of ideas of “productivization” of unskilled and unemployed members of the Jewish community. However, thelong-term trend both in Palestine, later the State of Israel, andin Argentina was the relative decrease of farm employment
under the impact of industrialization and urbanization.

INCOME. Given the employment structure of the Jewish population during the modern period, what could be said about
the level and distribution of income within this population?
At the beginning of the period, and in a number of countries during most of the period, the average income of the Jews
was below that of the population at large, including the peasants. However, the level of income increased both as a resultof the total increase of incomes in Europe in general and because of the impact of migration, which, given its direction
from economically less prosperous areas to economically more
prosperous ones, had a net impact of increasing the average
income level of the Jewish population. In addition, because of
its composition as an increasingly urbanized population and
one concentrated in the industrial and service sectors of theeconomy, its income during the 100 years preceding WorldWar II probably increased at a higher rate than the average
income of the total population of the countries they lived in.
As a rule of thumb it would not be incorrect to assume thatthe average income level of the Jewish population by the endof the period reached a level that was higher than the average for farmers and industrial workers, although probably notabove the level of the skilled stratum of industrial workers andsalaried employees. Another way of saying this is that Jewish
income was at about the average level of the urban population.
The level of Jewish income fluctuated around the general upward trend. The fluctuations were pronounced, first becauseof the relatively large proportion of self-employed, a socialgroup whose income is less stable than that of salaried workers and employees; secondly, because of the impact of exogenous factors such as wars and major upheavals during which
the property of the Jews was much more vulnerable than thatof other population groups (e.g., the forced mass exile of Russian Jews from the war zones in World War I and the wave of
pogroms in the Ukraine (1918–21), during which property waseither destroyed, expropriated, or simply taken away by force
from its rightful owners). Thirdly, during the downturns of
the business cycle, Jews as a minority group usually suffered
more than the average member of the society at large. But
notwithstanding such fluctuations, the general trend of Jewish income growth on a global scale was upward.
How was this income distributed, and what were thebasic determinants of its distribution? Both tendencies to increase and to decrease the income inequality were at work,
and it would be very difficult to measure the separate effects
with any degree of precision. Following intuitive judgment it
would be sensible to assume that in the countries in which theimpact of discrimination against Jews was the strongest, income inequality within the Jewish community was probably
more pronounced than in the countries that followed a more
liberal policy toward the Jews. That income inequality within
the Jewish community led to tensions, internal struggle, andorganized activities of one social group against the other isobvious. That the divergency of interests led to the development of different ideologies and as such intensified the divisive
tendencies in the community is no surprise, being a reflection

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6133

economic history
within the Jewish milieu of what was taking place within the
population at large. It is also true that the internal struggles
within the Jewish communities during the last decades of the
19t century and beginning of the 20t century made a considerable contribution toward reforming the community authorities toward their democratization and modernization.
They thereby became much more responsive to the needs oftheir members. But whatever generalizations are attempted inorder to bring under a common denominator the economic
and social trends prevailing during the modern period, thesignificant differences of the developmental patterns of theJewish communities can be better understood only upon acloser examination of at least the major Jewish communities.
The ones selected for further scrutiny are the Western European, the Eastern European, the U.S., and the Palestine Jewish communities.
WESTERN EUROPE. The economic development of Western
European Jewish communities during the modern period
can be generally characterized by their successful attempt
to join the middle class. Their problems roughly paralleled
the problems of the middle class in Europe, in the sense thatthey enjoyed apparent well-being and security under normal conditions and discovered the precariousness of theirposition in times of crisis. Western Europe, following theexample of England, experienced the industrial revolution
around the middle of the 19t century and was busily involvedin adjusting its institutional structure to fit the new economicorder. Since the institutional adjustment was more complicated while vestiges of the older order had to be destroyed,
eliminated, or transformed, and the state played a much moredecisive role in the process of economic transformation on
the European continent than in England, there was a greater
degree of politization of economic issues than in England.
The politization of economic issues provided a specific impetus for the activities of the middle class and had a profound
impact upon the activities and attitudes of the Western European Jews.
At a time when new economic opportunities were being
created in Western Europe, the Jewish population of thosecountries was relatively sparse and the Jews constituted a negligible percentage of the total population. Therefore, there waswithin the Jewish communities very little of the fierce competition for relatively scarce economic opportunities whichcharacterized the situation of the Eastern European Jews.
The process of urbanization and concentration of the Jewish
population in Western and Central Europe started relatively
early, but proceeded gradually, largely undisturbed by outside political factors. Migration, both internal and overseas,by the less prosperous members of the Jewish communities
helped to achieve the aims of both the migrants as economic
opportunities in the new centers of industry and the drive topenetrate into the middle class. The gradualism of the process of economic growth resulted in strengthening commerce,
helped to develop among the Western European Jews a pref-

erence for independent economic activity. Economic integration of the Jews in Western European society meant self-employment in trade, finance, industry, and the free professions
and not in manual labor. This process was facilitated by theirutilization of the opportunities provided by the educational
system and the marked decrease in discriminatory attitudes
and policies.
The groundwork for the development of more liberal attitudes toward the Jews and for the readiness of the Jews totake advantage of the new economic and social opportunities was laid by the Enlightment (*Haskalah) and its impact
on the Jewish milieu. Originally the new opportunities andsocial acceptance were offered to the upper strata of Jewish
communities for the price of language assimilation and severance of their ties with the Jewish community. The upper
strata of the Jews found the conditions acceptable and acted
accordingly. When the opportunities to join the middle classbecame available to a larger number of Western European
Jews and after they joined the political struggle of the middle
class for broader suffrage, the problem of emancipation andof their civil rights was raised by the members of the Jewish
middle class. Emancipation and civil rights for Jews meanta further integration of the Jews with the society, not within
the concept of a Christian state but within a modern, secularized state. In the latter case language assimilation of the Jews
was considered an insufficient prerequisite. The existence ofJewish Orthodoxy both as a symbol and major characteristicof their culture was considered a serious obstacle to real integration. Thus at the roots of the religious Reform movement
which spread from Germany, there were both the changing
patterns of employment among the Jews and the desire forcultural assimilation. As a result the gradual adjustment ofreligious rituals to modern conditions and some relaxationof the Orthodox law, which previously supported the exclusiveness and guarded the separation of the Jews from theirenvironment, gained in appeal to the majority of the Western
European Jews. An interesting by-product of the changes inthe social position and cultural attitudes was the growing gulf
between the Western European and East European Jews. The
cultural ties were becoming looser and the sense of a common destiny weaker.
The penetration of the Jews into the middle class was aslow process which marked the second half of the 19t century.
Its success over the period was unmistaken, but not necessarily
continuous and certainly not without problems. It was challenged first by a wave of nationalism at the end of the century,
when it became clear that the new social order in Europe could
not guarantee the universal fulfillment of the rising expectations in the short run. The new wave of nationalism exhibited
antisemitic aspects which gained currency among membersof the European middle class. The *Dreyfus affair and othermanifestations of antisemitism had a profound impact uponsome members of the Western European Jewish communities
and forced them to rethink and revise their notions of socialand cultural integration. Although the majority continued

134

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

economic history
to behave according to previously established patterns, a minority turned to solutions of either cultural pluralism or Jewish nationalism as the more satisfactory for the long run. A
greater need was also felt for the maintenance of Jewish cultural (including religious) continuity and for closer ties withother Jewish communities. The net result was a somewhat
decreased atomization of the Western European Jewish communities and their activities as well as the development of
new cultural and economic institutions which strengthened
the sense of Jewish identity and were instrumental in the moments of crises that lay ahead.
EASTERN EUROPE. To explain the economic activities of theJewish communities in Eastern Europe during the third quarter of the 19t century and until World War II in purely economic terms, in terms of the market opportunities, demandfor products, and labor supply would not only be a difficult
task but provide incomplete and sometimes misleading answers. Since so much more is known about the economic
conditions of this period, the interaction of the economicand extra-economic factors, be they political, legal, or psychological, is keenly felt. The outstanding characteristic of theother factors was the existence of a measure of discrimination
against the Jews that was much more intense in this part of
the world than elsewhere. Thus, in spite of the progress of amodern market economy, in spite of the process of industrialization that took place there, there was a strong residue of
discrimination that limited the benefits of economic progress
for the Jews and affected their economic activities. One rather
striking example is to be found in the exile of Jews from therural areas of Russia in the 1880s. The process of urbanization that took place as a result of industrial development is afamiliar phenomenon and one that affected Jews in the rural
areas. But there is a qualitative difference between a processthat creates new opportunities in urban areas and draws laboraway from the rural areas, and a mass exile that uproots tensof thousands and forcibly transplants them in a new economic
and social environment with no visible means for their economic survival and with no economic alternatives since thedemand for their labor or service is absent. Apart from suchmajor catastrophes, the conditions of discrimination included
a whole chain of minor calamities which created an atmosphere of uncertainty and determined the behavior of large
masses of the Jewish population in Eastern Europe. Thus, thedevelopment of a capitalist society in Eastern Europe, while
creating new economic opportunities was, as far as the Jews
were concerned, accompanied by unsettling features thatwere constantly threatening to destroy the benefits bestowed
by the economic progress. It is, therefore, proper to emphasize that the economic and social conditions of the majorityof the Jews in Eastern Europe were influenced by a numberof external constraints, one of which was the Pale of Settlement in Russia. The existence of the Pale limited the mobilityof most of the Jews and virtually excluded them from someof the more important regions and dynamic centers of indus-

try, trade, and public life and often forced them to accept opportunities that could be described as second best. The existence of legal and economic discrimination made the processof social mobility much more difficult and expensive for the
Jews. The limitations on entering areas of employment, professions, public service, and education decreased their chancesof fully contributing to the process of economic development
and benefiting from it. While the advancement of the industrialization process destroyed some of the traditional areas ofJewish economic activity and created new ones, the processitself was erratic and did not allow for the formation of longterm expectations or less costly adjustments. Thus, while on
the whole the Jewish population benefited from the process,growing in size and slowly improving in income position,
the accompanying hardships were burdensome and unsettling. Given the relatively slow pace of economic progress of
the regions of concentrated Jewish population in Eastern Europe (western part of the Russian Empire, northeastern partof the Hapsburg Empire, and Romania), coupled with theexistence of discriminatory policies, these regions were primarily involved in the migration of Jews to Western Europe
and America. But although emigration had the function of asafety valve, it could not counteract the impact of the industrialization process, which, while injecting a new dynamism in
the economic and social sphere, affected the life of the Jewish
communities by creating new areas of internal conflicts andthreatening to destroy the traditional values built up throughcenturies of relative cultural isolation. To the extent that they
represented breaks with previous traditions and emphasized
the existence of new opportunities, the very processes of industrialization and urbanization raised the level of expectations of the Jewish masses and made them more aware of theirrelationship to the outer world. This led to the developmentof new patterns of thought, increased sensitivity to the conditions of discrimination, and a more intensive search for new
solutions to the specific problems of the Jews. The awarenessof common specific problems was demonstrated not onlyin the economic but also in the cultural sphere. In spite ofsome tangible returns to the cultural assimilation of groupsof Jews, until the end of the period a cultural homogeneity of
the Jewish population in Eastern Europe was preserved. This
culture embraced the basic elements of traditional moral andreligious values with an addition of modern elements developed during the period following the Enlightenment in Eastern Europe. While the symbiosis of the elements of the traditional culture with those of a secular, modern, and nationallyoriented one was by no means harmonious, the tensions had
a culturally stimulating effect. It was a period of very intensive cultural activity and creativity by the Eastern European
Jews, marked by the revival and modernization of Hebrew literature and development of modern Jewish literature in Yiddish. Cultural activities, in addition to rudimentary religious
training and bare literacy, penetrated and affected the Jewish
lower classes which had previously been excluded from mostof their cultural heritage.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6135

economic history
The period between the two world wars witnessed anumber of new developments in Eastern Europe that were ofmajor significance for the Jewish population. The most important events were the Russian Revolution and the establishment of new national states in the region on the ruins of thetwo large empires that had long dominated the political scene
in Eastern Europe prior to World War I. The positive effect ofthe political changes was the granting of citizenship and civilrights to the Jews in the new states. On the negative side were
the growth of nationalism of the dominant ethnic groups andthe continuation of de facto discrimination against the Jews
in most countries. Coupled with the difficult economic conditions in those countries, which were even more aggravatedby government interference in the economic sphere, the precarious power balance in Europe, and the impact of the economic depression of the late 1920s and 1930s, this worsened
rather than improved the economic conditions of the Jewish
population.
In the Soviet Union, after an initial gain resulting fromthe granting of civil rights and the abolition of the Pale ofSettlement by the democratic government of 1917, the period of the civil war inflicted heavy population losses upon
the Jews, particularly in the Ukraine. The three outstanding
features of Soviet policy toward the Jews were the following:(1) The isolation of Soviet Jews from the Jewish communities
abroad and the slow but consistent policy of destruction of
their cultural autonomy, institutions, and organized forms ofcommunal life, leaving cultural assimilation as the solution totheir problems as individuals. (2) The destruction of the small
town, the former locus of economic activity of the majority ofRussian Jews as a result of the forced industrialization drive
and the mobilization of human resources to build up the industrial base of the country. This policy led to a mass migration from the western parts of the Soviet Union (Belorussia
and the Ukraine) to the metropolitan areas and new centersof industrial activity. (3) Since education became one of the
major vehicles of social advancement and was made available
in the first instance to the urban population, a large proportion of the Jewish population took advantage of the opportunities and a marked shift in the employment pattern as wellas in the professional composition took place. The Jews entered en masse into industrial employment and various service branches, all of which were nationalized and under thecentralized control of the government. Although the socialand economic advancement of the Jews in the Soviet Union
should not be disputed, it raised two grave issues: one of cultural assimilation and the loss of group identity of the Jews,of their existence as a distinct cultural or religious entity; andthe second, of their dependence as a group or as individuals
upon the decisions lodged in the hands of the supreme policy
makers of the country. The gravity of both issues arose, however, in a later period, following World War II.
THE UNITED STATES. The chief characteristic of the development of the Jewish community in the United States during thelate 19t and early 20t century was its rapid numerical growthby comparison with other Jewish communities. The growthoccurred primarily as a result of the immigration of the Jews,
rather than because of the birth rate of the Jewish population
per se. The attraction of the U.S. for Jewish immigrants could
be explained both in terms of a wage level relatively higher
than in Europe as well as an open immigration policy, and thelack of specific anti-Jewish discrimination. However, the paceof immigration cannot be explained only in terms of increasing attraction. The impetus to immigration of the Jews can betraced to events in the European countries of their origin, andthe influence of the turns of the business cycle in the UnitedStates on the size of the immigration stream can be demonstrated. During the modern period there were two streamsof Jewish immigration, one of Western European Jews andthe other involving almost entirely Eastern European ones.
Each of these streams, although different in terms of its occupational or professional endowment, was faced by similar
problems of economic integration and general acculturation
with the environment.
While the German Jews arrived with the experienceof language assimilation, a weakened sense of culture traditions, and the articulated desire to join the middle class, theEastern European Jews arrived with industrial skills and theexpressed willingness to be employed in any sector of theeconomy where opportunities were available, but without theexperience of previous cultural assimilation. In addition, theytransferred some of their habits of group behavior from their
European environment. There was, therefore, among Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe a strong preference forsettling in compact masses for reasons of economic and psychological security. At the time of the first waves of mass immigration from Eastern Europe, the Western European Jews
(mostly immigrants from Germany) had already acquired in
the U.S. a basically middle-class or quasi-middle-class status
and their pattern of employment reflected a high percentage ofself-employment and concentration in the area of services. The
mass influx of Eastern European Jews changed for at least twogenerations the social composition of the Jewish community
in the United States. It became a predominantly industrial andlabor-oriented community concentrated in major cities. The
symbiosis of the two elements, the German and the East European, was ridden by conflicts and prejudices, by distinctions in
wealth and status, the latter being derived from the degree of“Americanization” or the duration of residence in the U.S. The
German Jews, often in the role of employers of the recent immigrants, especially in the garment industry, tried to maintainthe social distance between themselves and the immigrants
arriving from the culturally most backward areas of Europe.
Faced with the model of success presented by the German
Jews, the East European immigrants could not avoid aspiring
to positions of social and economic advancement. While they
accepted their status as manual workers and laborers as inevitable, and drew from it a number of conclusions, expressed bytheir political orientation, trade union activities, and so on,

136

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

economic history
they actively sought an improvement in the economic position and status for their offspring. Thus, while the process ofacculturation of the immigrants took time, the gradual social
advancement of some was counterbalanced by the successive
waves of immigration swelling the ranks of the Jewish industrial working population. It was not until after World War I
and the harsh restrictions against East European immigrationthat the process of penetration into the service sector and selfemployment category became much more visible.
The rapid growth of the economy, the decline of agriculture, and changes in industrial structure, accompanied bya sustained, relatively high level of income, made it possible
for the service sector to develop. Aided by the availability ofeducational opportunities, the almost exclusively urban Jewish population found outlets for its employment in the service
sector, and the percentage of employment as unskilled labor,
domestic service, or low-paid industrial employment declined.
It would be wrong to assume that the shift in employment andthe resulting improvement in the income position of the Jews
in the United States before World War II took place in the total
absence of discrimination. There was in fact a whole range of
discriminatory attitudes operating against the Jews, as against
many other ethnic groups representing relatively recent immigration. There was, however, a major difference between
the U.S. and Europe in that discrimination was a de facto attitude rather than a de jure, statutory, or legal arrangement;that it was a private matter rather than one of public policy.
Like other groups of European origin, the Jews were relatively
successful in minimizing the effects of discrimination, first by
improving their economic position and second by using political power derived from their numbers and concentration
in some major urban centers of the country. In addition, discrimination was met by the Jews with an almost atavistic reflex of communal activity. The Jewish community developed atime-honored self-defense mechanism against discriminationin the form of institutions designed to meet specific needs ofindividuals or groups within the community. In the absenceof organized communal authorities, recognized either by theoutside world or by the Jews themselves, or representing theircollective interests, the role of voluntary associations and institutions was even more significant for the discharge of groupresponsibilities and for the maintenance of whatever cohesion
was possible within the Jewish community.
The numerical growth and economic advancement of
the United States’ Jewish community resulted in a change inthe relationships among Jewish communities in the world,the U.S. Jewish community becoming an important sourceof economic assistance for the others. In a certain sense thebonds between American and European Jews provided a
community of interest and purpose for the various groups ofAmerican Jewry, giving expression to their Jewish identity.
At a time when the process of language assimilation was inprogress, and the commonalty of cultural concerns was diminishing, the “foreign aid” of American Jews provided themwith a much-needed psychological satisfaction and helped tomaintain their identity. This process turned out to be of particular importance for the subsequent developments during
and after World War II.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

137

PALESTINE. While the first systematic attempts of organized
mass colonization in Palestine go back to the 1870s and 1880s,
a marked acceleration of the immigration stream occurred at
the beginning of the 20t century, primarily as a result of thegrowth of a modern nationalist movement making immigration and settlement in Palestine the cornerstone of its ideology. The more organized manner of immigration and settlement, in part directed by a long-term national vision, led tothe establishment of a social infrastructure within and for
the Jewish population in Palestine, and to the establishmentof modern social, economic, and educational institutions in
an otherwise primitive and backward country. The introduction of modern institutions was accompanied by a striking
attempt to modernize agriculture, a successful undertaking
that integrated the need for economic modernization with
the ideological factor of the need to recover the land, producing a sizable agricultural sector within the Jewish community
in Palestine. The fact that the agricultural sector embraced avariety of organizational forms of production, that alongsideprivate agriculture a cooperative and even a communal network of farms was created, was of considerable importancefor the further development of the economy. The ideas of cooperation were also applied to other sectors of the economy:
in industry, construction, and the services. Such enterprises
had to reconcile private and social criteria in their decisionmaking and had to accept procedures for social control, arrangements that provided a particular atmosphere for economic activity within the Jewish community.
The continuous numerical growth of the Jewish population, resulting from successive immigration waves and natural
population increase, and the emotional intensity of the issues
connected with its development and its role among Jewish
communities in the world often obscured the interesting pattern of economic and social development of the Jewish community in Palestine. An important feature of the Jewish population in Palestine was its relatively homogeneous cultural
background since the majority of immigrants came from Eastern Europe. It possessed or created a full array of industrial,
agricultural, and service skills at various levels, coupled witha level of education that was compatible with, if not excessiveof, the existing level of skills. The economic activities of theJewish population were conducted under conditions of virtual
absence of discriminatory policies, apart from restrictions on
immigration, particularly during the interwar period. This inturn created a basically stable economic structure; the employment distribution did not change drastically with time. Therewas relatively less income inequality than within other Jewish
communities because skills were distributed differently. The
level of income of the Jewish population in Palestine provided
for the consumption needs of the population, with investment
funds either imported by private investors from abroad, bor-

ecstasy
rowed abroad, or provided as a form of nonreturnable transfers (gifts) from other Jewish communities to the Jewish community in Palestine.
While the above characteristics appear to portray themain features of economic and social conditions of the Jewish community in Palestine until World War II, they obviously
do not convey the dynamics of the process of economic development per se. A more detailed treatment of this subject
would have to include the economic relationships with the
majority of the population, the Arabs; the extent of self-sufficiency achieved within the Jewish community; and the economic relations with the foreign markets to which some ofthe products of Jewish labor, land, and capital were exported
and from which income was derived (see *Israel, State of,
Economic Affairs).
Epilogue
The interwar period that ended with the catastrophe of WorldWar II, an event in the history of the Jews whose dimensions
and consequences our present generation is still unable toperceive let alone define, was marked by the following characteristics: (1) the forced separation and isolation of one of
the largest Jewish communities, namely that in the Soviet
Union, from the rest of world Jewry; (2) the growth of the Jewish population in the United States and its relative economic
strength in comparison with Jewish communities elsewhere
created a new element in the balance and relationship between
Jewish communities and indicated a future trend; (3) the economic situation of the European Jews, and especially of theEast European communities, which worsened since economic
and political uncertainty had become the norm even before
the rise of Fascism and Nazism; (4) the rise of Nazism which
created a direct danger to Jewish life and property in Central
Europe, and the spread of discriminatory policies modeled
upon the early legislation of Nazi Germany which became areal threat to a large part of European Jewry; given the limited opportunities for migration, the European Jewish population did not possess any real alternatives; (5) the growth of
the Jewish community in Palestine which became an important cultural factor in the life of other Jewish communities,
but its small relative size and the severe limitations imposedby the British upon Jewish immigration kept it from having
a larger impact and from contributing toward a solution ofEuropean Jews’ distress.
Therefore, prior to World War II, the Jewish communities
found themselves at a crossroad, with the direction of their
future fate and development depending upon exogenous, primarily political forces. The tragic results of World War II haveleft most of Europe virtually without Jews. There are now two
major communities: that of the United States and that of theState of Israel, to shape the future of the Jews as a national entity. This situation of the Jewish communities, recovering fromthe physical disaster and psychological shock of World War II,
made the economic relationship between the American Jewish community and the State of Israel one of the cornerstones

138of a policy of survival. The economics of the Jews, apart fromthe parochial interests of economists and economic historians, was geared toward the survival of the group during mostof its recorded history.
[Arcadius Kahan]

Bibliography: GENERAL: Baron, Social2, with extensive
documentation. FIRST TEMPLE PERIOD – EXILE AND RESTORATION: M. Weber, Ancient Judaism (1952); A. Bertholet, A History of
Hebrew Civilization (1926); M. Lurie, Studien zur Geschichte der wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Verhaeltnisse im israelitisch-juedischen Reiche (1927); D. Jacobson, The Social Background of the Old Testament(1942); Pedersen, Israel; E. Ginzberg, Studies in the Economics of the
Bible (1932 = JQR, 22 (1910/11)); I. Mendelsohn, in: BASOR, 80 (1940),
17–21; S. Daiches, The Jews in Babylonia in the Time of Ezra and Nehemiah (1910). SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD–TALMUDIC ERA: S. Yeivin(ed.), Ha-Misḥ ar ve-ha-Ta’asiyyah (1937); V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic
Civilization and the Jews (1966); L. Herzfeld, Handelsgeschichte derJuden des Altertums (18942); Juster, Juifs; A. Buechler, The Economic
Conditions of Judaea after the Destruction of the Second Temple (1912);
Krauss, Tal Arch; E. Lambert, in: REJ, 51 (1906), 217–44; 52 (1906),
24–42; D. Farbstein, Recht der unfreien und der freien Arbeiter nachjuedisch-talmudischem Recht (1896); Neusner, Babylonia; J. Newman, The Agricultural Life of the Jews in Babylonia between the Years
200 C.E. and 500 C.E. (1932). MUSLIM MIDDLE AGES: S.D. Goitein, A
Mediterranean Society, 1: Economic Foundations (1967); Fischel, Islam;
Hirschberg, Afrikah; Ashtor, Toledot; Ashtor, Korot; M. Wischnitzer,
A History of Jewish Crafts and Guilds (1965); R. Levy, An Introduction to the Sociology of Islam, 2 vols. (1929–31); C. Cahen, in: Studia
Islamica, 3 (1955), 93–115. MEDIEVAL CHRISTENDOM: G. Caro, Sozial-und Wirtschaftsgeschichte der Juden im Mittelalter, 2 vols. (1908[1924]–1920); Schiper, Yidishe Geshikhte, 4 vols. (1930); idem, Toledot
ha-Kalkalah ha-Yehudit, 2 vols. (1935–36); idem, Wirtshaftsgeshikhte
fun di Yidn in Poyln (1926); M. Hoffmann, Der Geldhandel der deutschen Jude bis zum Jahre 1350 (1910); I. Abrahams et al. (eds.), Starrs
and Jewish Charters Preserved in the British Museum, 3 vols. (1930–32);
H.G. Richardson, English Jewry under Angevin Kings (1960); Baer,
Spain; Roth, Italy; A. Milano, Vicende economiche degli Ebrei nell’Italia meridionale ed insulare durante il medioevo (1954); J. Starr, Jews
in the Byzantine Empire, 641–1204 (1939). ECONOMIC DOCTRINES:
S.W. Baron (ed), in: Essays on Maimonides (1941, photo-offset, 1966),
127–264; S. Bernfeld et al. (eds.), Die Lehren des Judentums (excerpts
from primary sources), 3 vols. (n. d.); S. Ejges, Das Geld im Talmud(1930); E. Cohn, in: Zeitschrift fuer vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft,
18 (1905), 37–72; S. Eisenstadt, Ein Mishpat (1931), lists numerous,
economically relevant, juristic monographs.

ECSTASY, from Greek ekstasis, “displacement,” “movement
outwards,” “distraction of mind,” “drunken excitement,” “entrancement,” or secondarily, “astonishment.” (See Mark 5:42.)
In Greek religion two fundamental types of ecstasy, dionysiac
and contemplative, are well attested; the former is induced bymeans of narcotics, alcohol, music, and dance; the latter bycontemplation and prayer. Only the dionysiac is represented
in the Bible. Several scholars have maintained that ecstasy was
the fundamental experience of all prophecy. This view ultimately can be traced back to *Philo who maintained that noprophecy is without ecstasy (see Spec. 4:49). Some scholars
have distinguished between two groups: the classical prophets, or literary prophets, allegedly did not suffer from loss of
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

ecuador
identity, but maintained their consciousness and were awareof a divine encounter to which they responded. The second
group, the pre-classical prophets, sometimes manifested groupprophecy, which was ecstatic and contagious (cf. Num. 11:16ff.,
where the 70 elders “speak in ecstasy” after the spirit of theLord rests upon them – the Hebrew verb used is hitnabbeʾ).
Thus, when Saul meets “a band of prophets coming downfrom the high place with harp, tambourine, and lyre before
them,” he, too, is overwhelmed: “A spirit of God came mightily upon him and he spoke in ecstasy among them” (I Sam.
10). Similarly, when Saul sends men to capture David, who
was staying with Samuel, they find Samuel at the head of agroup of ecstatic prophets. The messengers are overcome by
the spectacle and begin to rave. After this has happened tothree sets of messengers, Saul goes himself, and, in a violent
ecstatic fit, strips off his clothes and lies naked a whole day andnight (I Sam. 19:18–24). Both these incidents are cited as theorigin of the proverbial expression “Is Saul among the prophets?” Scholars who maintain the pre-classical ecstatic/classicalnon-ecstatic distinction also cite I Kings 22, where some 400
prophets rave in ecstasy before kings Jehoshaphat and Ahazon the eve of their united attack against Ramoth-Gilead. Theynote, correctly, as well that this feature of collective dionysiac
frenzy is not confined to early Israelite prophets. In I Kings
18:28–29, 450 Canaanite prophets of Baal and 400 prophetsof Asherah “cried aloud and cut themselves after their manner with swords and lances till the blood gushed out uponthem … They prophesied in ecstasy until the time of the evening offering. …” Individual prophets, too, might fall into an
ecstatic trance. Thus, Elijah ran before Ahab’s chariot when
the hand of the Lord was upon him (I Kings 18:46). An extrabiblical example, in addition to the Canaanite prophets of Baal
just mentioned, is found in the 11t-century Egyptian tale of
Wen-Amon, which relates that while Zakar-Baal, king of Byblos, was offering a sacrifice, “the god seized one of his youths
and made him possessed” (Pritchard, Texts, 26). In such astate the person turns into “another man” (e.g., Saul, I Sam.
10:6) and may behave madly (I Sam. 18:10ff.). This is doubtless
why a disciple of the prophets is referred to as “the madman”(II Kings 9:11). But a careful reading of the classical prophets
shows that they too manifested odd behavior. Jeremiah is referred to as “madman” and “ecstatic” (mitnabbeʾ) in the same
breath (Jer. 29:26; cf. Hos. 9:7). Isaiah walked about barefootand naked for three years (Isa. 20:3). Ezekiel lay on his left
side for 390 days and 40 days on his right. From Zech. 13:4–6
we learn that a prophet might be expected to wear a hairshirt
and have sores on his back, perhaps from some ritual beating. Indeed, the Hebrew word for madman, meshuggaʿ, may
be a terminus technicus for a type of god-inspired individual
who is called in the *Mari letters a muhhu (fem., muhhutum),̆ ̆̆ ̆“frenzied,” “mad,” “ecstatic.” Such an ecstatic seizure may be
induced by external means: music (cf. Elisha, II Kings 3:15,
and the musical instruments carried by the bands of prophets, I Sam. 10:5 and II Chron. 35:15) or dancing (mentioned inconnection with the prophets of Baal, I Kings 18:26). SomeENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6times this ecstatic seizure is described as caused either by“the hand of God” (I Kings 18:46; II Kings 3:15; Jer. 15:17) orby “the spirit of God” (I Sam. 10:6, 10; 18:10; 19:23), an indication that seizure and strange behavior might lend credibility
to claims of prophecy.
Bibliography: G. Hoelscher, Die Propheten (1914); T.H.
Robinson, Prophecy and the Prophets (1923); C.J. Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Israel (1962); A.J. Heschel, The Prophets (1962). Add.
Bibliography: R. Wilson, in: JBL, 98 (1979), 329–37; G. André,
Ecstatic Prophecy in the Old Testament (1982); S. Geller, Sacred Enigmas (1996); J. Roberts, The Bible and the Ancient Near East (2002),
95–101, 157–253.
[Shalom M. Paul / S. David Sperling (2nd ed.)]ECUADOR, South American republic; population 13,363,593(2005); Jewish population 900.
Unlike most other Latin American countries it was onlyin the wake of the Nazi persecution in Europe that a considerable number of Jews arrived in Ecuador. With the Spanish
conquerors Jews, too, had in fact come to Ecuador, but their
number was small. Also after independence from Spain comparatively few Sephardi Jews immigrated; these assimilated orat least did not practice their tradition in public. Certain family names among established Ecuadorian families attest until
today to their Sephardi descent. At the end of the 19t century,and in the 1920s and 1930s, Jews emigrated mainly from Eastern Europe and settled chiefly in Guayaquil but did not become visible as a group. It is related that the first meeting fora New Year’s celebration took place in 1934 in a private apartment. In 1914 Vienna-born Julius Rosenstock was appointed
by the Ecuadorian government to head the construction of
the Sibambe–Quito highland railway. Because of his excellent connections in government circles he successfully foughtfor the entry of persecuted Jews to the country. The stream ofrefugees to Ecuador began in 1938, reaching its peak in 1939.
On Rosenstock’s initiative a HICEM Committee was founded
and the government negotiated the conditions of immigration
with him. Because of his personal intervention, he succeededin obtaining the repeal of the 1937 decree by the dictator Alberto Enríquez Gallo ordering Jews who did not work in agriculture or industry to leave the country within 30 days.
A relatively small number of Jews, 3,500–4,000, foundrefuge in Ecuador through 1942. Settlement projects fromthe mid-1930s, including the plan for long-term settlement of
50,000 families in mostly remote areas, were supported neither by the Ecuadorian public nor by the Jewish settlers andproved to be untrustworthy and impractical. For most of theJews who found refuge in the country until 1942, Ecuador,
with its three million inhabitants, was a second-choice placeof exile, since they had failed to find asylum in another, preferred country. The majority came from Germany and Austria
after the pogrom of November 1938 (*Kristallnacht) having lost
hope that they could stay in their native country. Part of themsettled in Guayaquil, the biggest city of the country, which
was a real trading center with a population of about 180,000.

139

ecuador

Located near the Pacific coast, it had a tropical climate. The
vast majority, however, preferred the capital, Quito, situatedin the Andes at an altitude of 9,200 ft. (2,800 m.). Few settled
in small towns like Ambato (100), Banos, Cuenca (30), andRiobamba, or in the jungle around Puyo.
In Quito as in Guayaquil they were concentrated in several streets in the city center or not far from it. Quito with
150,000 inhabitants had no industry and only one multi-story
building. Compared to middle-class European standards theliving conditions were cramped and primitive, with no infrastructure and with infectious diseases and a lack of hygiene
threatening their health. Many of the immigrants had only
meager financial means, though many of them had brought
their household goods and other possessions. Since the authorities returned the deposits that the immigrants had madeto receive their visas (a few hundred dollars each), most ofthem had money to invest. Many had to earn their livingsin unfamiliar occupations. But wherever it was possible they
tried to continue in their former professions or similar ones.
Despite the regulations restricting immigration to industrial or agricultural laborers, only a minority worked inagriculture. Because of the difficult living and working conditions and their lack of knowledge such onerous attempts
were given up. The project of HICEM and the Joint in 1937 tosettle 60 families in the area of Ambato for chicken farming
was among those failed attempts. A considerable number ofthe immigrants were active in trade, as peddlers, in retail andwholesale, and in the import and export trade. While the majority of the enterprises in the first years required hard workby all family members to reach a subsistence level, some ofthe enterprises reached a considerable size by 1942 and exist until today. The most successful were those that found aniche in the market, offering services and goods unknown inthe country or absent from the market because of the war. In
the field of food and textile production, in the metallurgical(El Arco, Ideal, Siderúrgica SA.) and pharmaceutical indus-

tries, in services and the hotel trade, they played an importantrole and brought a dynamic element into business life. Names
like Rothschild, Seligmann, Neustätter, Di Capua, and Ottolenghi stand out.
The fact that the authorities as a rule did not enforce
industrial or agricultural employment made it easier for theimmigrants to integrate into the economic process but soon
led to anti-Jewish pressure on the part of the local population. While the presidents José Maria Velasco Ibarra (1934–35,
1944–47) and Carlos Arroyo del Rio (1940–44) approved theimmigration of Jews, some circles espoused an antisemitic
line with recourse to the German-based press and deep-seatedChristian prejudices. Also textile merchants of Arab origin, especially from Lebanon, who had lived in Ecuador for decades,
considered the Jews undesirable competitors. In August 1944
Velasco Ibarra rescinded the regulations that restricted immigration to industrial or agricultural employment, but alreadyat the end of the 1940s the authorities stepped up the controlof Jewish enterprises and in 1952 another law was passed requiring proof that a foreigner was engaged in the occupation
stipulated in his entry visa. This legislation was counteracted
by the intervention of the World Jewish Congress. Withinthese limited political and social limitations the immigrants
were free to do whatever they wished. There was no bar topracticing their religion or founding associations.
The biggest group among the refugees was in Quito. Its
nucleus was the above-mentioned HICEM Committee founded
in 1938. In the same year the Asociación de Beneficencia Israelita was founded, reaching its peak with over 540 members (heads of families) in 1945. Unlike most Latin Americancountries, where Jewish communities already existed and thenewcomers founded their own separate organizations according to their countries of origin, the “Beneficencia” united Jews
from Germany, Austria, Italy, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, the Soviet Union, and the Baltic states.
Though there was some religiously motivated separation
this was of minor significance. While in Guayaquil differencesof opinion about Zionism were a greater potential cause of discord than in Quito, in religious matters the situation was quite
the opposite. In Guayaquil the strongest organization, Comunidad de Culto, with more than 140 members, combined theSociedad de Beneficencia, founded in 1939–40, and the Centro Israelita, which had split off in 1944, both competing for
cultural primacy. Under the impression of the foundation of
the State of Israel all organizations in Quito united under theumbrella of the “Beneficencia” while in Guayaquil it took almost 20 years more to reach such unity.
The “Beneficencia” did a great deal to create a center ofreligious, social, and cultural life for its members. A bulletincalled Informaciones para los Inmigrantes Israelitas, in the first
period mainly written in German, informed readers about
the community, the host country, and international affairs.
Based on the model of their European countries a court ofarbitration, a ḥ evra kaddisha, a women’s association, a cooperative bank, Maccabi, and B’nai B’rith were established. In

140

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

OCE

AN

C O L O M B I A

Quito
E

C

U

A

D

O

R

Ambato

PACIFIC

Riobamba
Guayaquil
CuencaP E R U

Major Jewish Concentration

Major Jewish communities in Ecuador.

Edah
Quito and in Guayaquil Zionist organizations were foundedthat succeeded in winning the support of public figures in
the host country for the objectives of Zionism. The Ecuadorian representative cast his vote in the UN General Assembly
resolution of November 29, 1947, in favor of the partition ofPalestine. Ecuador and Israel established diplomatic relations.
From the late 1960s a network of technical cooperation andassistance was developed between the two countries, especially in the fields of agriculture, water development, youth
training, and technology.
Jews achieved prominence in Ecuadorian society beyond
the economic field. They contributed to cultural developmentin music, painting, theater, arts and crafts, architecture, literature, science, journalism, and publishing.
In the 1940s the Kammerspiele theater was established
on a high artistic level, directed by Karl (Carl) Loewenberg,
co-founder of the Juedischer Kulturbund of Berlin. In the
1950s the theater continued to perform in Spanish before appreciative local audiences. An international reputation wasachieved by the painter Olga Fisch-Anhalzer, co-founder of
the Instituto Ecuatoriano de Folclor. The painter and sculptress Trude Sojka, who had survived Auschwitz, arrived in
1946. Paul Engel, a physician and writer (pen name Diego
Viega), who immigrated to Ecuador in 1950 from Colombia,
became known as an endocrinologist. Benno Weiser (Benjamin Varon) made a name for himself as a journalist. Like his
brother Max Weiser, who was the first Israeli consul to Ecuador, he entered the Israeli diplomatic service.
As the majority of the immigrants had regarded their stayin Ecuador as a temporary episode, emigration after the endof the war was considerable. By 1948 about half the Jews in
Quito had emigrated, mainly to the U.S. On the other hand,a considerable number of survivors of the Holocaust arrived
in the early postwar years. Because of continuous emigration,mortality, and partial assimilation of the following generation, which considered Spanish its mother tongue, the immigrant organizations lost their pivotal role as preservers ofsocial and cultural identity. However, the Jews continued toform a small middle-class group largely cut off from the strong
Catholic upper class and the masses of mestizos and the indigenous population.
In 1972 the Informaciones ceased publication. Different attempts to revive tradition did not persevere. The small
communities of Ambato and Cuenca disbanded. At the beginning of the 1970s, in the course of the oil boom and thanks
to easier-to-obtain entry permits, Jewish families from other
Latin American countries arrived. As a result of political developments under the presidency of Salvador Allende a large
number of families preferred to exchange Chile for Ecuador
as a domicile. Towards the end of the 20t century many Jews
from Argentina settled in Quito.
In 2005 the Jewish community (Comunidad Judía delEcuador) of the city of Quito with its 2 million people numbers 200 families, or 550–600 members (the community of
Guayaquil has 20 families, or some 70 members). The com-

EDAH, U.S. grassroots organization comprised of rabbis, laity, intellectuals, and communal leaders who joined forces torevitalize a distinctive Modern American Orthodoxy. By thelate 1960s, most observers had abandoned earlier predictionsof the imminent demise of American Orthodoxy. Championsof Orthodoxy, as well as more neutral observers, pointed to
the growth of day schools, the strength of the Orthodox family, and the intensity of Orthodox commitments as markers
of sustained vitality. Generally, however, these commentators pointed to Modern Orthodoxy as the wave of the future.
Ḥ aredi Orthodoxy remained in retreat and on the defensive.
Israel’s victory in the 1967 war signaled the ascendancy ofreligious Zionism. Yeshiva University, the flagship institution of Modern Orthodoxy, was experiencing unprecedented
growth. High-profile Modern Orthodox intellectuals – notably
Emanuel *Rackman, Irving *Greenberg, David *Hartman, andEliezer *Berkovits – were eagerly probing the bold and exciting challenge of defining the shape of a Judaism that would
wed modern values with the teachings of Torah.
By the end of the 1980s, much had changed. Although
increasingly vibrant, American Orthodoxy seemed decreasingly modern. Some pointed to a Ḥ aredi ascendancy. Others
underscored the widespread Orthodox practice of attending
year-long post-high school programs in Israel, which had intensified Orthodox commitment and attachment to Israel, butwhose faculties loudly proclaimed the bankruptcy of Modern
Orthodox culture and values. Historians pointed to a newwave of Ultra-Orthodox immigration to America. Survivorsof the Holocaust, these individuals spared no effort to rebuild
Ultra-Orthodoxy on American shores. Lastly, Modern Orthodox parents, unlike their Ḥ aredi counterparts, generally
failed to perceive Jewish education as a suitable profession for
their children, thereby creating a vacuum that Ḥ aredi educators eagerly filled.
Thus, within short order, Modern Orthodoxy appeared
to be more in danger of eclipse than on the cusp of renewal.
Interdenominational programs, such as the Joint Chaplaincy
Board and the Synagogue Council of America, were closed
down in 1987 and 1994, respectively. The very nomenclature

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

141

munity has modern facilities for its social, recreational, andadministrative needs. There is a synagogue and a rabbi forreligious services. A ḥ evra kaddisha and a home for the aged
continue to function as well as the women’s association as anindependent organization. About 75 children go to the Colegio
Alberto Einstein, a private school founded in 1973 by members of the community where the great majority of the pupils
are non-Jews. The community is in contact with other Jewish
organizations in Latin America and worldwide.
Bibliography: M.L. Kreuter, Wo liegt Ecuador? Exil in einem
unbekannten Land 1938 bis zum Beginn der fuenfziger Jahre (1995);
Dónde queda el Ecuador? Exilio en un país desconocido desde 1938
hasta fines de los años cincuentas (1997); Organizaciones Israelitas enel Ecuador, La Colonia Israelita en el Ecuador (1948).
[Marie Luise Kreuter (2nd ed.)]edel, yiẒ Ḥ ak“Modern Orthodoxy” was dropped in favor of the more neutral and less ideologically-charged “Centrist Orthodoxy,” achange that Dr. Norman *Lamm, then president of Yeshiva
University, for one, publicly regretted by the close of the century.
In this context, it was easily understandable that somesought to restore the “modern” in American Orthodoxy. In
the late 1990s, a group of Orthodox intellectuals and lay leaders established Edah under the banner of “the courage to bemodern and Orthodox.” Launched initially as a grassroots
initiative, with Rabbi Saul Berman as president, Edah’s founding conference in February 1999 attracted over 1,500 participants. At stake were the questions on which the founders of
Edah maintained that Modern Orthodoxy has ceded leadership. These included the challenge of feminism and women’sequality, the hijacking of religious Zionism by *Gush Emunim, the pursuit of secular education as a value in itself rather
than purely for utilitarian or instrumental reasons, and thecontinuing need for cooperation with the non-Orthodox religious movements and their leaders. More specifically, Edah
hoped to redress women’s inequality, notably in Jewish divorce law, to train a cadre of Modern Orthodox educators, tohelp define religious Zionism for the 21st century, and, perhaps above all, nurture an atmosphere of open dialogue andfreedom of exchange that was so sorely lacking in an Orthodox world dominated by roshei yeshivah. Significantly, during
these years, one of the most prominent of Yeshiva University
Talmud faculty had pronounced Modern Orthodoxy to be the“Amalek of our time.”
Yet Edah’s hope to reclaim Yeshiva University as Modern
Orthodoxy’s stronghold remained unfulfilled. For one thing,notwithstanding Edah’s impressive turnout of supporters
and intellectual leadership, Yeshiva University faculty generally were absent. At best, Yeshiva University remained neutral towards Edah if not outright dismissive. Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein wrote from Israel that he was certain that
his late father-in-law, Rabbi Joseph B. *Soloveitchik, upon
whose memory as Modern Orthodox scholar and communal leader Edah had sought to build, would today have little
identification with Edah and its program. More generally,
Yeshiva University leadership dismissed Edah as unnecessary,
pointing to Y.U.’s Orthodox Forum which claimed the virtueof continuing dialogue between Orthodox intellectuals androshei yeshivah. Nonetheless, Edah, under Rabbi Berman’sleadership, persisted into the 21st century. By 2005, it had
held four national conferences and several regional ones. Fivevolumes of the Edah journal had appeared, containing impressive scholarship and dialogue on critical issues, e.g., aliyot
for women, generally not found elsewhere in the Orthodox world. Other institutions, notably the Jewish Orthodox
Feminist Alliance (JOFA), Rabbi Avi Weiss’ Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, proclaiming its commitment to an “open Orthodoxy,” and, in Israel, the Lavi Conference, all loosely alignedwith Edah in an effort to spearhead a Modern Orthodox renewal.

In the final analysis, however, the struggle for the Orthodox future remained open. Most observers agreed that Yeshiva
University, given its enormous resources and prominence inside the Jewish community, would continue to set the tone forModern Orthodoxy in America. To be sure, Yeshiva’s direction, under the presidency of Richard Joel, who was appointed
in 2003, remained unclear. Yet the purposes for which Edah
had come into being in the late 1990s remained as compelling in the 21st century.

142

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Steven Bayme (2nd ed.)]

EDEL, YIẒ Ḥ AK (1896–1973), composer and teacher. Edelwas born in Warsaw and from 1924 to 1927 he taught musicin the orphanage of Janusz *Korczak, in Warsaw. In 1929 he
immigrated to Palestine where he worked as a music teacher
in teachers’ colleges. His works include orchestral and pianomusic, quartets for strings and wind instruments, songs, andcantatas. His musical style shows the influence of Eastern
European Jewish tradition.
EDELMAN, GERALD MAURICE (1929– ), U.S. biochemist
and immunologist, Nobel Prize laureate. Edelman was bornin New York. He originally studied as a violinist but turned
to biochemistry and received his M.D. from the University ofPennsylvania in 1954 and his doctorate from the Rockefeller
University in 1960, where he was appointed associate professorof biochemistry, and associate dean of graduate studies in 1963.
One of the leading immunologists in the United States, he devoted himself to research in the elucidation of the structureof antibody molecules and established the complete chemical
structure of gamma globulin, which defends the body against
foreign bodies and disease. In 1977 Edelman and his colleagues
discovered cell adhesion molecules. Subsequently he turned
his attention to neuroscience, becoming director of the Neurosciences Institute in San Diego, California. He has proposed
a global brain theory called Neural Darwinism, which provides the basis for understanding the origin of consciousness.
Edelman is a member of numerous scientific bodies, including
the National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy ofArts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Chemical Society. In 1972
he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine and Physiology
together with Dr. Rodney Porter.
EDELMAN, MAURICE (1911–1975), author and politician.
Born in Cardiff and educated at Cambridge, Edelman was aLabour M.P. from 1945 until his death. He was president of theAnglo-Jewish Association in 1963. His works include France:
The Birth of the Fourth Republic (1945); David Ben-Gurion(1964), a biography; and political and other novels, including
A Trial of Love (1951), Who Goes Home and A Dream of Treason (both 1953), A Call on Kuprin (1959), The Fratricides (1963),
The Prime Minister’s Daughter (1964), and Shark Island (1967).
Edelman’s best-known work was probably the novel Disraeli
in Love (1972). Although a Labourite, Edelman was such anedels, samuel eliezer ben judah ha-leviadmirer of Disraeli that, in 1972, he leased and lived in a wingof Hughenden manor, Disraeli’s country house. Once a leftist
supporter of the Soviet Union, by the end of his life Edelman
was active in the movement for Soviet Jewry.
Bibliography: ODNB online.
[William D. Rubinstein (2nd ed.)]EDELMANN, RAPHAEL (1902–1972), Danish scholar andlibrarian. Born in Latvia, Edelmann immigrated to Copenhagen as a child. In 1933 at the recommendation of David*Simonsen he began working in the newly established Jewish
department of the Royal Library of Copenhagen, which consisted of the rich library of Simonsen; from 1938 he headed thedepartment. From 1948 he lectured at the University of Copenhagen, where he was in charge of Judaic studies, including Yiddish. In 1955 he founded the Association of Libraries
of Judaica and Hebraica in Europe and in this capacity organized training courses for Jewish librarians. Edelmann published extensively in several scholarly fields and made important contributions to the dissemination of Jewish scholarshipin Denmark. Among his works are Bestimmung, Heimat andAlter der synagogalen Poesie (1932), and Zur Fruehgeschichte
des Machzor (1934), important works on the early history of
liturgical poetry. He compiled the catalog of Hebrew incunabula of the library of L. *Goldschmidt, now at the Royal
Library (in Fund og Forskning, 3 (1956), 82–90); edited the series Corpus Codicum Hebraicorum Medii Aevi (1954– ); andedited the Subject Concordance to the Babylonian Talmud by
L. Goldschmidt (1959). He also arranged successful exhibitionsof the treasures of the Royal Library in Paris, Strasbourg, Milan, and New York.

libraries for Hebrew manuscript material. Edelmann published editions of hitherto unpublished medieval Hebrew literature such as Estori Ha-Parhi’s Kaftor va-Ferah (1851, repr.
1959); Ginzei Oxford (translated into English by M.H. Bresslau
and published in Treasures of Oxford, 1851), a collection (with
L. Dukes) of liturgical and secular poetry by Spanish-Jewish
poets; Derekh Tovim (also translated into English by M.H.
Bresslau and published in Path of Good Men, 1852), varia by
Maimonides, Judah ibn Tibbon and others; Ḥ emdah Genuzah (1856), an important collection of philosophical writingsand letters, mainly by, to, or about Maimonides; Divrei Ḥ efeẓ
(1853), another collection of philosophical and poetical material; and also M.Ḥ . Luzzatto’s La-Yesharim Tehillah (1854).
Edelmann also published a number of important liturgical items: Seder Haggadah (1845), with critical notes; Haggadah Le-Leil Shimmurim (1845), with commentaries andnotes; and Siddur Hegyon Lev (1854) containing Edelmann’s
critical notes and emendations, No’am Megadim by J. Teomim, and Mekor Berakhah by E. Landshuth. Edelmann’s firstpublications, which were purely talmudic, were Haggahotu-Vi’urim li-Me’irat Einayim (1839) and Alim le-Mivḥ an, including Megillat Sefer Iggeret ha-Purim (1844) on Esther. He
also wrote an historical study on Saul *Wahl, the alleged oneday king of Poland, Gedullat Sha’ul (1854), with an appendix
Nir David. His considerable publishing ventures were carriedout under conditions of great financial stringency. Edelmann
lived in Berlin from 1852 and died in the ward for the insane
in a Berlin hospital.
Bibliography: Jewish Chronicle (1841–1941) (1949), 55; A.
Berg, Birkat Avraham (1882); Kressel, Leksikon, 1 (1965), 24–25.

EDELMANN, Ẓ EVI HIRSCH (1805–1858), Hebrew scholar,
printer, and publisher. Edelmann, who was born in Svisloch,
Belorussia, published books at Danzig, Koenigsberg, andLondon. In England, in particular, he carefully searched the

EDELS, SAMUEL ELIEZER BEN JUDAH HALEVI(known as MaHaRShA – Morenu Ha-Rav Shemu’el Adels;1555–1631), one of the foremost Talmud commentators. Born
in Cracow, he moved to Posen in his youth, where he married
the daughter of Moses Ashkenazi Heilpern. His mother-inlaw, Edel, by whose name he was later known, was a wealthy
woman and supported him and his numerous disciples for aperiod of 20 years (1585–1605). After her death, Edels took up
a rabbinic position in Chelm. In 1614 he was appointed rabbi
of Lublin, and in 1625 of Ostrog, where he founded a large
yeshivah. On the lintel of his house (burned down in 1889) was
inscribed the verse: “The stranger did not lodge in the street;but I opened my doors to the traveler” (Job 31:32). His commentary on the Talmud is one of the classical works of talmudic literature included in almost every edition of the Talmud.
The commentary is divided into two parts. In his Ḥ iddushei
Halakhot he explains the talmudic text with profundity andingenuity. In his introduction to the work he writes that “outof love for terseness” he would refrain from elaboration. He
ends most of his comments with the phrases: “And weigh carefully” or “And the meaning is simple,” although in reality it isfar from clear and many later scholars often found difficultyin understanding his point. Often he poses a difficulty andsays: “And this may be solved,” leaving it to the students to

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

143[Menahem Schmelzer]

EDELMANN, SIMḤ AH REUBEN (Sar ha-Adulammi;
1821–1893), Lithuanian Hebrew scholar. Edelmann was bornin Vilna and studied at the Volozhin yeshivah. He tried his
hand in various branches of Jewish scholarship, and also wrote
poetry and was one of the first to “discover” J.L. *Gordon,
whom he befriended.
Among his published books are Shoshannim (1860);
Ha-Mesillot (1875); Ha-Tirosh (1871), on Genesis Rabbah; andDoresh Reshumot (1893), on I.H. *Weiss’ historical work Dor
Dor ve-Doreshav, which Edelmann criticized for its liberal
views. Edelmann also contributed to Hebrew periodicals.
Part of his literary remains were used by A.D. Lebensohn and
I. Benjacob in their edition of the Bible (1849–53) and published by Edelmann’s son Mordecai Isaac in his Me’arat Adullam (1922) and Tovim ha-Shenayim (1913). An autobiographical fragment was published by the son in his biography of his
father, Hakḥ am ve-Sar (1896).

edelstadt, davidfind the answer. He was fond of talmudic casuistry, and used
to say: “No one can arrive at the root and depth of a talmudic
problem without a master who teaches him pilpul”; but hevehemently opposed the kind of casuistry which, in his time,came to be known as ḥ illukim, where students would engage
in fruitless debate to try to demolish one another’s arguments.
In his Ḥ iddushei Halakhot, Edels’ explanations of talmudic
problems are generally in accordance with the view of Rashi
and the tosafists. His book gained such wide currency that anunderstanding of Edels’ comments came to be regarded formany generations as one of the qualifications of the averagetalmudic scholar. The second part of his commentary is calledḤ iddushei Aggadot, in which he attempts to explain the difficult talmudic aggadot in a rational manner, sometimes taking
them as parables with interpretations which are at variancewith their literal meaning. He criticized, however, the prevailing tendency of preachers to distort the plain sense of biblicaland talmudical passages. Although censuring “those people
who in the present generation give all their time to the study of
Kabbalah,” he nonetheless quotes extensively from kabbalistic
literature. He also made use of his acquaintance with Jewish
philosophy in his interpretation of talmudic aggadot.
He adopted a positive attitude toward the secular sciences, considering them important for a fuller understandingof Torah, and their acquisition as vital for learned Jews in theirdisputations with non-Jews. His statements are sometimes
marked by a spirit of critical inquiry. He decides, for example, that the Targum to the Pentateuch ascribed to Jonathan b.
Uzziel is not by him. He senses that the tosafot to the tractate
Yoma are different in style from those to other tractates. He
established that some statements or passages in Rashi’s commentary and in the tosafot had originated as marginal comments by students who had not understood the passage, andin the course of time these comments had come to be interpolated in the text. Edels reproved his contemporaries for making light of certain precepts, e.g., those who drink to excess at
the melavveh malkah meal on Saturday night and so neglect
the recitation of the Shema upon retiring, and rise too latethe following morning for the statutory time for the readingof the Shema and the recital of the morning prayers. He wasa sharp critic of social evils in the communities, such as thedishonesty and egotism of some rich parnasim. He reproached
the rabbis of his time with overawing their communities for
motives which were not purely altruistic, and was irked by
the fact that “in these times, whoever possesses wealth is appointed to public office for a price and is in constant pursuitof honor.” In 1590 he participated at a session of the *Council of the Four Lands which pronounced a ban on those whopurchase rabbinic office. Edels was held in high esteem by thescholars of his day. Joel *Sirkes in his address to the leaders of
the Council of the Four Lands in Lublin, said: “You have inyour midst the greatest man of the present generation … withwhom to consult and deliberate.” On his tombstone, Edels is
described as “a holy man … exemplary in his generation …
whose fame traveled far and wide. His great work was a lightto the eyes of the Sages of Israel.” He was also highly regarded
by later generations. Jonah *Landsofer enjoined his sons to pay
close attention to the works of Edels, “because his writings areamazingly terse and plumb the depths of Torah’s truth … The
spirit of God spoke through him, for without divine inspiration it would have been impossible for a man to write sucha book.” Edels’ other works are Zikhron Devarim, novellae ofthe group of scholars at Posen (published by his mother-inlaw in 1598); a penitential prayer beginning with the words:“El Elohai Dalfah Einai”; and a penitential prayer written inmemory of the Warsaw martyrs (1597).
His brother’s son, whose name has not been preserved,
made his way to Morocco, and apparently settled there. His
work Sha’arei Ḥ okhmah, on aggadah and homiletics, is extant
in many manuscripts. In it he quotes his uncle and many of theother great 17t-century scholars of Poland, including Israel
Spira, son of Nathan *Spira, whom he calls “my teacher,” andAbraham Abele *Gombiner. He died before 1674.
Modern rabbinic teachers lament the forsaking of Edels’
talmudic commentary. In addition to the profundity of his
ideas, Edels’ work is instrumental in teaching the correct analysis of the talmudic text.

144

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: Dubnow, Hist Russ, 1 (1916), 129–30; R.
Margulies, Toledot Adam (1912); S.A. Horodezky, Le-Korot ha-Rabbanut (19142), 183–90; H.H. Ben-Sasson, Hagut ve-Hanhagah (1959),
index; J.M. Toledano, Sarid u-Falit (1945), 74f. Add. Bibliography: Y. Barka’i, “Shitato ha-Parshanit shel ha-Maharsha be-Ḥ iddushei
Aggadot,” dissertation, Hebrew University (1995).
[Shmuel Ashkenazi]

EDELSTADT, DAVID (1866–1892), Yiddish poet. Edelstadt was born in Kaluga, the son of a cantonist. After the
Kiev pogrom of 1881, he immigrated to the U.S. as part of the
agricultural *Am Olam movement but settled in Cincinnati
to work in the garment industry, joined the anarchist movement (which at the time wielded great influence among Jewish workers), and became one of the first Jewish socialist poets, initially composing radical poetry in Russian. In 1888 hemoved to New York and continued working in sweatshops,
writing increasingly in Yiddish. In works such as “In Kamf ”(“In Struggle”), “Vakht Uf ” (“Awaken”), and “Mayn Tsavoe”(“My Last Will and Testament”), Edelstadt called upon his
working-class audience to revolt against the upper classes andseize the means of production. In 1890, he became a regularcontributor to and, a year later, editor of the newly founded
anarchist weekly Fraye Arbeter Shtime. His lyrics, sung insweatshops and on picket lines, depict the world’s imperfections and the wondrous life to come after a social revolution.
After he contracted tuberculosis in 1891, he traveled to Denver to recuperate but died there the following year at the ageof 26, becoming a romantic legend to the young Jewish labor
movement and a central figure, along with Joseph *Bovshover,Morris *Rosenfeld, and Morris *Vinchevsky, of the *Sweatshop Poets. His collected works were published in London in1910 and in Moscow in 1935.

eden-tamir
Bibliography: Rejzen, Leksikon, 2 (1927), 718–21; LNYL, 6(1965), 554–63; K. Marmor, Dovid Edelstadt (1950), incl. bibl.; B. Bialostotsky (ed.), Dovid Edelstadt Gedenkbukh (1953); N.B. Minkoff,
Pioneren fun Yidisher Poezye in Amerika (1956), 89–128; H. Leivick,
Eseyen un Redes (1963), 195–207. Add. Bibliography: S. Liptzin,
A History of Yiddish Literature (1972), 94–96; I. Howe, World of Our
Fathers (1976), 420; O. Kritz, The Poetics of Anarchy (1997).
[Sol Liptzin / Marc Miller (2nd ed.)]EDELSTEIN, JACOB (d. 1944), Czech Zionist leader andhead of the *Theresienstadt ghetto. Born in Horodenka, Galicia, Edelstein went to Bohemia as a refugee during WorldWar I. He first joined the Social Democrat youth movement
there, and then the Zionist movement. From the early 1930s
he was one of the leaders of the Labor Zionist movement inCzechoslovakia, a member of the presidium of the nationwide
Zionist Federation, and director of the Palestine Office of theJewish Agency in Prague. After the invasion of Bohemia andMoravia by Nazi Germany in 1939, Edelstein became the central figure of the Zionist movement and of Jewish life in the
Nazi Protectorate. In the autumn of 1939, he visited the groupof Jewish deportees at Nisko, in the Lublin region, and reached
the conclusion that in most cases deportation of Jews to theEast meant their death. In order to avoid deportation of theProtectorate’s Jews, he suggested establishing a labor camp forthem within the Protectorate that would employ the Jews tofurther the economic needs of the occupying power.
The establishment of the ghetto in Theresienstadt (Terezin) was apparently due to Edelstein’s initiative. He was appointed its first Judenaeltester (Jewish Elder), serving in thispost from December 1941. His courageous stand on behalf ofthe ghetto inmates made him the object of hatred of several
heads of the *Gestapo. His jurisdiction was restricted, and in
November 1943 he was arrested for having falsified the lists
in order to rescue several inmates. He was sent to *Auschwitz,
where he was kept in a punishment cell and shot on June 20,
1944, after having been forced to witness the execution of hiswife and young son. He went proudly to his death. Opinions
are divided in the evaluation of his activities during the Holocaust. Some (such as H.G. Adler) contend that Edelsteinmisunderstood the situation and thus engaged in a measureof cooperation with the Nazis; others, particularly survivors
from the Zionist pioneering movement, see in him a tragic
martyr, who fought the enemy for the rescue of Jews until his
defeat. The liberated inmates of Bergen-Belsen named theircamp school for him.

ister (1955–57). Eden resigned in 1938 in protest against Neville Chamberlain’s policy of “appeasement” to the Axis andbecame Churchill’s right-hand man during World War II. In
1936 Eden signed the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of Friendship andAlliance, which was unilaterally denounced by Egypt in 1951.
During World War II he increasingly advocated Arab unity,
which in 1945 took the form of the *Arab League that eventually turned against Britain. Eden was aware of the Holocaust
and, indeed, made a famous statement in the House of Commons in 1942 confirming that the Nazis were exterminating
Europe’s Jews, but that Britain could do little or nothing tothwart it apart from winning the war. In 1955 Eden led Britain
into the Baghdad Pact, an additional source of friction with
Egypt. In November 1955 he suggested a compromise between
the Arab demand that Israel withdraw to the boundaries of the
UN Partition Plan of 1947 and Israel’s stand on the borders of
the armistice agreements of 1949. In October 1956, after thenationalization of the Suez Canal by Egypt, he and Guy Mollet,
the prime minister of France, mounted the Suez Expedition,
the object of which was to gain control of the Canal. The Suez
campaign had the secret backing and cooperation of David*Ben-Gurion and the Israeli government. (See *Sinai Campaign.) Under the extraordinary agreement reached between
Britain, France, and Israel, Israeli forces were to take controlof the Sinai – which they proceeded to do in short order – atwhich point Britain and France were to intervene to keep the
belligerents apart but also to retake the Suez Canal for themselves. The Suez Campaign failed, thanks in large measure
to American opposition. It aroused fierce hostility from the
British Labour party and left-wing sources, but also marked
the first time in which Israel’s military prowess was displayed
successfully. Soon afterwards, Eden became seriously ill andretired from the prime ministership and from political life
early in 1957. In retirement, he wrote Full Circle (1960), Facing the Dictators (1962), and The Reckoning (1965). In 1961,
Eden was given an earldom. He had been made a knight of
the Garter in 1953 and was known as Sir Anthony Eden during his prime ministership.
Bibliography: R. Churchill, Rise and Fall of Sir Anthony
Eden (1959). Add. Bibliography: R. Lamb, The Failure of the
Eden Government (1987).
[Sh.Be / William D. Rubinstein (2nd ed.)]°EDEN, SIR ANTHONY, EARL OF AVON (1897–1977),
British Conservative statesman, foreign secretary (1935–38,
1940–45, 1951–55), secretary for war (1940), and prime min-

EDENTAMIR, Israeli piano duo. Bracha Eden was bornin Jerusalem (1928) and Alexander Tamir (1931), a native ofVilna, settled in Jerusalem after World War II. Both studied
with Alexander Schroeder (a pupil of A. Schnabel) at the Rubin Academy of Music in Jerusalem. After graduating in 1952,
they formed a piano duo. In 1955 they continued their studies
with Vronsky and *Babin at Aspen. They made their debutin Israel in 1954 and appeared in New York (1955) and Rome
(1956), where they won the 1957 Vercelli Competition. Eden
and Tamir founded the Max Targ Music Center in Ein Kerem,
near Jerusalem (1968), and taught as senior professors at the
Rubin Academy. During the 1990s they began to perform and

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6145

Bibliography: Y. Ereẓ (ed.), Theresienstadt (Heb., 1947);
H.G. Adler, Theresienstadt, 1941–45 (Ger., 1965); idem, Die verheimlichte Wahrheit (1958); Ch. Yahil, Devarim al ha-Ẓ iyyonut ha-Czekhoslovakit (1967). Add. Bibliography: R. Bondy, Edelstein neged
ha-Zeman (1981).
[Chaim Yahil]

eder, montague davidteach regularly in China, Russia, and Poland, and in 1997 they
became directors of the International Duo Piano Seminary.
Well known for their artistry, virtuosity, and immaculate ensemble playing, the duo made an important contribution to
the revival of works for two pianos and piano duet.
Among their recordings are the complete works fortwo pianos and piano duet of Mozart, Schubert, and Rachmaninoff, and works by Bach, Brahms, Debussy, Ravel, Bartók,
and Poulenc. They gave the American première of Lutoslawski’s Paganini Variations (1955) and, at the suggestion ofStravinsky (1968), were the first to perform and record the
piano duet version of The Rite of Spring. Tamir has made several transcriptions for piano duo and duet and has written a
few works for piano duo.
Add. Bibliography: Grove online.
[Uri Toepliz, Yohanan Boehm / Naama Ramot (2nd ed.)]EDER, MONTAGUE DAVID (1865–1936), Zionist leader,
psychoanalyst, and physician. Born in London into an assimilated family, Eder devoted himself to the medical care of thepoor in London’s slums and mining villages, becoming a member of the Labour Party. One of the first British psychoanalysts
and protagonists of Sigmund Freud, together with Ernest Jones
he founded the Psychoanalytical Association in England in1913. Eder also established a children’s clinic and founded andedited the journal School Hygiene. His interest in Jewish affairs
was aroused by his cousin, Israel *Zangwill, and his brotherin-law, Joseph *Cowen. Eder joined the Jewish Territorialist
Organization (JTO) and participated in a mission on its behalf
to Cyrenaica to evaluate the possibilities for Jewish settlement
there. In 1918 he was invited by Chaim *Weizmann to join the*Zionist Commission for Palestine, as a representative of JTO
and as medical officer. He arrived there in 1918 and stayed forover four years, becoming an enthusiastic Zionist. He played a
key role in the Commission, being its only member to extend
his stay after 1918. He conducted the negotiations with the military and civil administration of Palestine and helped actively
in the absorption of the first groups of immigrants of the Third*Aliyah, displaying great understanding for their pioneering
spirit. Eder was a member of the Zionist Executive 1921–23
and 1922–28, first in Jerusalem and later in London. His kinship with the Soviet diplomat Maxim *Litvinov (to whom he
was related through his wife) enabled him to visit the Soviet
Union in 1921, where he tried, unsuccessfully, to achieve somedegree of legal status for the work of the Zionist Organization
there. Upon his return to Britain, Eder was active on behalf of
the Hebrew University, the Political Department of the Zionist
Executive, and the British Zionist Federation, which he headed
for a short time in 1930. An agricultural farm for the trainingof Palestine pioneers, established in 1935 in Ringelstone, Kent,
was called the David Eder Farm.

EDESSA, a city in the upper Euphrates Valley (today Urfa in
Turkey). Archaeological remains are known in the area of thecity going back to the second millennium B.C.E., and Edessa
may very well have been a Hurrian city alternatively known
as Orrhoe, Orhai, or Osrhoene. Until 11 C.E. Edessa was partof the border area that passed on various occasions from Parthian to Roman hands. The city was conquered in August 116
by Lusius Quietus, and remained a Roman possession until
216, when it was officially incorporated into the Roman Empire. The suppression of the Parthian resistance against the
Romans meant also the subjugation of the Jews of the city (seeSegal). By the end of the second century C.E. Edessa had become the center of Christianity beyond the Euphrates, and thisdevelopment suggests a Jewish influence in the area duringthat period. It is known, for instance, that the local king during the early second century, Abgar VII, was a son of *Izates of
Adiabene, a monarchy already converted to Judaism. Eusebius,a primary source regarding the establishment of Christianity
in Edessa, relates that Abgar V had corresponded with Jesus
himself, and as a result immediately accepted the teachings ofthe first Christian disciple to arrive at Edessa, the preacher Addai. The story is also given in the “Doctrine of Addai,” whichclaims that the conversion involved, among others, Jewish silkmerchants. The story is a Christian invention. The Palestinian
Targum identifies the Erech of Genesis 10:10 with Edessa andrefers to it, together with Ctesiphon and Nisibis, as one of thethree Babylonian cities ruled by *Nimrod. In the Talmud thename of the community is Hadass.
[Isaiah Gafni / Shimon Gibson (2nd ed.)]Bibliography: David Eder, Memoirs of a Modern Pioneer(ed. by J.B. Hobman, with foreword by S. Freud, 1945). Add. Bibliography: ODNB online.
[Getzel Kressel]

The Edessa chronicles mention an order issued by theemperor in 411, to erect a convent on a spot occupied by a synagogue; other reliable sources, however, describe the bishop
who was then in office, and was alleged to have built the convent, as a friend of the Jews (see Overbeck, Opera Selecta, 195;
reports on Jews in Edessa are also available for the year 499:
REJ, 6 (1883), 137). The participation of Edessa Jews in the wars
between Heraclius I, the Byzantine emperor, and the Persians(610–42), on the side of the latter, gives reason to believe that
their number was quite substantial.
For a considerable period after its capture by the Arabs(who renamed it al-Ruha), the town remained predominantly
Christian. Islam, of course, spread in the town, at the expenseof Christianity and Judaism. There is a source about a false
Messiah in c. 735, who was a native of Edessa. According to
Bar-Hebraeus, Muḥ ammad b. Ţāhir built a mosque in 825 on asite previously occupied by a synagogue. In the 9t century thephysician Yizhaq Ben Ali Al-Rohawi (Odessa man) was bornin Edessa. In 1098 the town was conquered by the Crusaders
and the Jews were expelled. There is a document from December 1101 in Ruzafa (150 km. south of Edessa) which notes
the Jews of the castle of Ruzafa (one of the names of Edessa);
probably these Jews were the refugees from Edessa who had
fled to Ruzapa. When ʿImād al-Dīn Zengi captured the town
in 1144, he settled 300 Jewish families there; and in 1191 when

146

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

edinger, tilly
R. Samuel b. Ali, head of the Baghdad Academy, addressed acircular letter to the communities in northern Babylonia and
Syria, he included the al-Ruha community among those addressed. *Al-Ḥ arizi (13t cent.) also mentioned the Jewish community and noted that the local Jews were polite and cultured.
He noted the Ḥ azzan Joseph and another person, Hasan. He
mentioned that the origin of the Jews in Ruha was from AlEin. Maybe he referred to the settlement of 300 Jewish families
in Edessa two generations earlier which had been organizedby the Mamluk Ruler Zengi I in 1144. From the 12t century
the Karaite scholar Yehuda Hadassi (from Edessa) is known.
Jews continued to live there during the Ottoman rule, when
the town’s name was changed to Urfa. In the 17t century, thetraveler Pedro de Texeira found many Jews there. In 1834, 500
Jews lived there and the general population was 50,000. *Benjamin II, who visited the town in 1848, wrote of a communityof 150 families, whose economic standard was very good, but
their cultural standard was so low that only about a third wasable to read the prayerbook. Benjamin also gave details of thelocal legends relating to biblical figures; the Syriac name of
the town, Orhai, for some reason appears always to have been
identified with Ur Kasdim (Ur of the Chaldees), and thus the
town came to be regarded as the scene of various events in thelife of Abraham. Among the sights pointed out to Benjamin II
was a cave which was regarded as Abraham’s birthplace andthe oven into which Nimrod had been thrown. These places
were venerated by both Jews and Muslims. In 1876 the Jewsof the place spoke Aramic. In 1880 the Jews survived a big firethat had spread in the city. In 1893, 1,000 Jewish families lived
in Urfa. At the end of the 19t century and the beginning of the
20t, the number of Jews in Urfa dwindled steadily; in 1904
there were 322 Jews there, and thereafter their number was
further reduced. Many of the town’s Jews settled in Jerusalem,
where they formed a separate community, that of the “Urfalis.” During World War I most of the Jews in Urfa were merchants. Following a blood libel many of them were murdered
and the survivors fled to Syria, Lebanon, Istanbul, and Ereẓ
Israel, where many of the immigrants settled in Jerusalem.
There have been no Jews in Urfa since the late 1960s.
[Eliyahu Ashtor / Leah Bornstein-Makovetsky (2nd ed.)]Bibliography: R. Duval, Histoire politique, religieuse et littéraire d’Edesse (1892); J.J. Benjamin, Acht Jahre in Asien und Afrika(1858), 49–53; H. Pognon, Inscriptions semitiques de la Syrie… (1907),
7; Krauss, in: Zion Me’assef, 3 (1929), 17–21; J. Obermeyer, Landschaft
Babylonien (1929), 132f., 261, 280 n. 1, 299 n. 4; A. Ben-Ya’acov, Kehillot Yehudei Kurdistan (1961), 129–30; Neusner, Babylonia, 1 (1965),
62 n. 1, 89, 166–9. Add. Bibliography: A. Sharf, Byzantine Jewryfrom Justinian to the Fourth Crusade (1971), 51, 133, 181; J.B. Segal,
Edessa: The Blessed City (1970), 41–43, 100–5, 182; M. Gil, Be-Malkhut
Yishma‘el, 1 (1997) 42, 152, 209, 296, 367; M. Yona, Enẓ yklopedya shel
Yehudei Kurdistan, 1 (2003), 70, 82.

lished in 1816 with 20 families. The first minister was Moses
Joel of London, who served in the office for 46 years. With the
influx of Russian and Polish Jews at the close of the 19t century, the community grew and many communal institutions
were founded. For many years Salis *Daiches was the rabbi.
In 1968 the community numbered approximately 1,100 out ofa total population of 468,770. There was one synagogue andextensive communal and Zionist activity. In the mid-1990s theJewish population numbered approximately 500. According
to the 2001 British census, 763 Jews lived in Edinburgh. Thereis an Orthodox synagogue.
Bibliography: Daiches, in: Publications of the Scottish
Church History Society (1929); C. Roth, Rise of Provincial Jewry (1950),
57–59; Levy, in: JHSET, 19 (1960), 129–62. Add. Bibliography:
K.E. Collins, Scotland’s Jews: A Guide to the History and Communityof the Jews in Scotland (1999); JYB, 2004.
[Cecil Roth]EDINGER, LUDWIG (1855–1918), German neuroanatomist
and neurologist; considered the founder of modern neuroanatomy. Edinger was born in Worms on the Rhine, Germany,and began his academic studies at Heidelberg University. He
completed his medical studies at the University of Strasbourg
and became a licensed physician in 1877. In 1879 he beganteaching at the University of Giessen and in 1883 he moved
to Frankfurt to practice neurology. That same year he started
lecturing on the structure of the central nervous system. In
1885 he joined the Senckenberg Research Institute in Frankfurt and conducted further studies in neurology, particularly
in brain anatomy. That year marked the appearance of Zehn
Vorlesungen ueber den Bau der nervoesen Zentralorgane, latertranslated into English as Twelve Lectures on the Structure of
the Central Nervous System, his most famous text on the structure of the nervous system.
By 1907 his division had become one of the most modern
neurological departments of the time and he became professor of neurology at Frankfurt University. In his research Edinger described the ventral and dorsal spinocerebellar tract,
clarified polioencephalon and neoencephalitis, as well as the
paleo-cerebellum and the neo-cerebellum. His studies and research appeared in many publications, and his name became
associated with several parts of the human brain that he elucidated, including “Edinger’s nucleus,” “the Edinger fibers,”and “Edinger’s tract.”
Edinger was also a gifted artist and achieved considerable notoriety in the field of hypnosis.
Bibliography: S.R. Kagan, Jewish Medicine (1952), 381f.; Biographisches Lexikon der hervorragenden Aerzte (1932), 349–50.
[Suessmann Muntner / Ruth Rossing (2nd ed.)]EDINBURGH, capital of *Scotland. No trace of Jews is to befound in medieval Scotland generally. Apart from individual
Jews, a community possibly existed in Edinburgh at the closeof the 18t century, but the present congregation was estab-

EDINGER, TILLY (1897–1967), vertebrate paleontologist.
Born in Frankfurt on the Main, Edinger received her doctorate in paleontology from Frankfurt University. Her main research interest was brain development and she created the fieldof paleoneurology. She was fascinated by the disproportionate

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6147

Edirnegrowth of the forebrain in many mammals and the implications for the emergence of Homo sapiens. She worked initially
at Frankfurt University’s Geological Institute but, under antisemitic pressure, left for London in 1939 before moving to
the U.S. in 1940. She joined Harvard University’s Museum of
Comparative Zoology and became a research associate in paleontology. Her classic works are Fossil Brains (1929) and The
Evolution of the Horse Brain (1948).
EDIRNE (Adrianople), town in Turkey located in eastern
Thrace near the Turkish-Greek-Bulgarian frontier. According to the 2000 census, the city’s population was recorded as
119,316. The city was named after the Roman emperor, Hadrian(125 C.E.). Individual Jews went to Adrianople even before
the destruction of the Second Temple, but certain knowledgeof a Jewish settlement comes only from the beginning of the*Byzantine period. The Adrianople Jews then traded in textiles, leather goods, and wine. The community is mentioned
in connection with the opposition to the messianic ferment in
the Byzantine Empire at the time of the First Crusade (1096),
and the synagogue of the Greeks (or Romaniots), burnt downin 1905, probably dated back to that period. After the Ottoman
capture (1361) the city, now renamed Edirne, became the new
Ottoman capital and the main administrative and militarybase from where the *Ottomans set off to conquer the Balkans. The city maintained this latter position even after thecapital moved to Constantinople/*Istanbul following the conquest of the Byzantine city in 1453. The Ottomans populated
Edirne with many immigrants; among them there were a large
number of Jews arriving from the newly conquered lands in
the Balkans. The community developed further following theinflux of immigrants from Hungary after the expulsion of 1376
and from France after 1394. R. Isaac Zarefati, the leader of the
Ashkenazi community, issued an appeal to West European
Jews to settle in the *Ottoman Empire (after the capture ofConstantinople in 1453). He and his descendants held office
until 1722. The Ottomans transferred some of the local Jews
to Constantinople. After 1492 many exiles from Spain came to
Edirne followed by refugees from Portugal, and Italy as well.
These new immigrants, who had different customs from the
Romaniots, established their own congregations (kahal, pl. kehalim) according to their place of origin. In 1656 there were 15
different kehalim, most of them named after locations in Spain,
Portugal, and Italy. On the basis of Ottoman fiscal registers,
we can estimate that the city’s population in 1580 was around
30,000 inhabitants. During the second half of the 17t century,
the general population grew to about 100,000; many of them
arrived in Edirne following the temporary transfer of the sultan’s residence to the city (until 1703). At the time the Jewish
population of the city grew from 2,500 people to about 5,000.
*Shabbetai Zevi was brought to Edirne for questioning before
the sultan in September 1666, and after his apostasy, some ofhis disciples in Edirne also converted to Islam. Shabbetai lived
another ten years after his conversion, mostly in Edirne. His

influence lingered in the city: Samuel *Primo (d. 1708), theleading rabbi of Edirne, was a secret adherent of Shabbatean
mysticism, covertly giving instruction in it to small groupsof followers. The decline of the Ottoman central authority
brought new burdens on the local Jewish community, which
had to accommodate itself to the changing local political circumstances. Nineteenth-century developments, encouragedby the new policy of reforms (tanzimat) led to the emergenceof a new bourgeoisie in the non-Muslim communities of Edirne. The Jewish economic elite was composed of moneylenders and traders. The 19t century was also marked by a deterioration in the relations between the Jews and their Christianneighbors: the Jews suffered, for example, from *blood libels,
spread by the Armenians (1871–72). The rise of nationalism
in the Balkans was another and much more menacing threat
to the community: when the Bulgarians temporarily occupied
Edirne during the First Balkan War (March 1913), following
a six-month siege, the Jews suffered and many of them foundtemporary shelter in Istanbul.
The Ottoman census of 1831, which counted only theadult male population, registered 1,541 Jewish men in the city.
In 1873 there were approximately 12,000 Jews in the city; a report submitted to the *Alliance Israélite Universelle in Paris in1897 on the various handicrafts and occupations in the Jewish community mentioned some 815 workers in 47 different
categories. The community developed further following thearrival of refugees from the newly established Balkan states.
The Ottoman census of 1906–7 put the number of the Jews
in Edirne at 23,839. They lived in various neighborhoods according to their professions. Each neighborhood maintained
its own community organization, synagogue, and bet din under the general supervision of the city’s chief rabbi (the first
chief rabbi, ḥ akham bashi, was appointed in 1836 as part of
the formal recognition of the Ottoman Jewish community
as an official one). Before World War I their numbers rose to
28,000 but thereafter they declined in 1921–22 to 13,000, in
1927 to 5,712 Jews, the community being reduced by 1943 to
2,000. The decline can be explained in part by the changed
status of the city which became a border town, in part by the
impoverishment due to the wars, which resulted in immigration to *Salonica, France, and America, and later to Palestine.
Apart from the Rabbanite community there was also a *Karaite community dating from the Byzantine period; among its
members was the *Bashyazi family which became famous in
Karaite history. For a time, Edirne was one of the important
Karaite centers in Europe. At the beginning of the 20t century no trace of the Karaites remained.
The Jews of Edirne played an important part in the city’s
economy. They traded with Jewish and Christian merchants inother countries, either directly or through the latter’s Jewish
agents in Edirne. Local Jews held at times the lease (iltizam) of
the import taxes and manufactured glass. Government taxes
were paid on the basis of a fixed assessment which took into
account one hundred families, although the number of Jews
had increased. These taxes were imposed on the 13 congrega-

148

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Michael Denman (2nd ed.)]Edirnetions. In accordance with a special firman of 1783, the Jewish
community was allowed to collect the gabela, a tax on meat
which covered the poll tax (*kharaj), the clothing of the poor,and other communal needs. Tax collectors appointed by thegeneral body apportioned the taxes among the congregations
making evaluations every three years. Edirne was long a center of learning. In the 15t century Mordecai *Comtino lived
there and at the beginning of the 16t century R. Joseph *Carowrote most of his famous Beit Yosef commentary there. In the
16t century there lived in Edirne the *Ibn Verga family andthe poet R. Avtalyon b. Mordecai (see Avtalyon *Modena). In
the court of Sultan Mehmet II (1451–81) there was a famous
Jewish physician, Hekim Ya’akub, with widespread diplomaticconnections. He later converted to Islam.
The printers Solomon and Joseph *Jabez set up a Hebrew printing press in Edirne in 1554 when they fled fromthe plague in Salonica but returned a year later. During thisshort period they produced She’erit Yosef by Joseph ibn Verga;
Shevet Yehudah by Solomon ibn Verga; and Joseph Jabez’s own
commentary on Avot. A press reappeared in Edirne only inthe late 19t century.
The last of the rabbis of the Zarefati family was Abraham(d. 1722). After his death the jurisdiction of the Edirne rabbinate was divided between Abraham Gheron, Zarefati’s son-inlaw, and Menahem b. Isaac Ashkenazi (Bekhemoharar), eachof whom had his adherents; the Bekhemoharar family officiated for approximately 180 years and counted among its descendants halakhists and authors, and the Gheron family officiated for approximately 170 years. Each family maintained
its own *bet din. In the 18t century R. Isaac Molkho, authorof Shulhan Gavoha (1756), a popular handbook on the lawsof shehitah, lived in Edirne. In the middle of the 19t century,
the haskalah movement penetrated Edirne through the philologist Joseph *Halevy (1827–1917). While the role of Edirne’s
maskilim in diffusing these new ideas was only secondary
when compared to the role of Istanbul or Salonica, we can stillrecognize some of their contributions: on the request of themaskilim, the *Alliance Israélite Universelle opened a schoolfor boys in 1867 and one for girls in 1870. The writer, historian, and poet Baruch b. Isaac Mitrani (1847–1919) taught at
the Alliance schools. He endeavored to implement new methods of education. To achieve these aims he established a newschool – Akedat Yitzḥ ak – and published books on educationin Hebrew and a grammar of spoken Judeo-Spanish. He edited the first newspaper that was published in Edirne: Karmi(1871–81) and Kerem Sheli (1890; in Hebrew and Ladino), calling for Jewish colonization in Palestine and national revival.
Abraham *Danon (1857–1925), a pupil of Joseph Halevy, established under the latter’s influence the Doreshei Haskalahgroup and in 1888 edited the historical periodical Yosef Da’at(in Hebrew and Ladino) in order to collect and publish Jewish historical studies. The periodical was closed down by thegovernment after a short time. In 1891, Danon opened a rabbinical seminary that taught both secular and religious subjects. The teaching was partly in Turkish – a major innova-

tion for the period. The seminary moved to Istanbul in 1898
with its 11 students. In his writings, he attempted to reconcile
traditional and Western knowledge. The Ladino press was
the major printed product of the period: Joseph Barishak edited the major political-literary Jewish journal of Edirne: La
Boz de la Verdad (“The Voice of Truth”) in 1911–22. Nissim
Behar published the weekly L’Echo d’Adrianople in Frenchin 1921–22. Many of the graduates of the Alliance joined the
newly founded alumni associations. A B’nai B’rith lodge wasestablished in 1911. These associations – including reading
clubs and mutual-aid fraternities – were chiefly meant to support and propagate the new trends of modernization among
the community’s members. In this capacity they contributed
to the Westernization and secularization of the local community. Following the great fire of 1905 in which all the 13 synagogues of Edirne were burned to the ground, the community
constructed a new synagogue in 1907 which was modeled on
the synagogue of Vienna. It could accommodate 1,200 worshipers – 900 men and 300 women – and was designated todemonstrate the community’s achievements and modernity.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

149[Simon Marcus / Eyal Ginio (2nd ed.)]The demise of the Ottoman Empire and the foundation of theTurkish republic put unprecedented pressure on all the Jewish communities of Turkey. They were required to assimilate
linguistically and culturally into Turkish society. This pressuremust be seen as part of the overall anti-minority attitude inpublic opinion in the republic’s first years. It seems that the
lot of the Jewish community in Thrace (including Edirne) was
the harshest. Living in a sensitive border area and remaining
the only non-Muslim minority following the transfer of the
Bulgarian, Greek, and Armenian populations, the Jews of Edirne suffered from verbal and sporadically physical assaults
as well as from legal restrictions on their economic activities.
The local Turkish press played a major role in inciting the local population against their Jewish neighbors. This reached
its peak with the outbreak of assaults on Jews in the major
towns of eastern Thrace in 1934. The agitation of mobs in Edirne, which involved physical attacks on the Jews and threatsagainst the community, caused panic among Edirne Jewry.
Thousands moved permanently to Istanbul, although the government intervened to stop the attacks and assured the Jews of
their safety. The community never recovered from this blow.
The conscription to labor battalions and the imposition of adiscriminatory head tax caused impoverishment and further
decline in the community. The town suffered economic crises after World War II. The community diminished throughmigration to Israel and other countries and also to Istanbul.
In 1948, 2,750 Jews remained in Edirne, while by 1960 their
number dwindled to 438, and in 1977 there were only 72 Jewish inhabitants in the city. In 1948 the community was still
well organized and levied dues from its members. Its council
maintained charitable institutions, a Bikkur Holim society(which then provided medical care for 730 patients), a Mahazikei Torah association (which provided Hebrew and reli-edman, irwin
gious education), the ‘Ozer Dallim association (which cared
for the needy), and several synagogues. By 1969 most of theinstitutions had closed and the community was left with only
one synagogue. In 1971 the municipality prohibited the community from using its cemetery and in 1975 it confiscated it
altogether. Subsequently the cemetery was destroyed. The
shrinking community used the synagogue until 1983. In 1998
there were only three Jews living in Edirne.
[Hayyim J. Cohen / Eyal Ginio (2nd ed.)]Music
Edirne was also a center of Jewish music. A choral societyof Maftirim was founded in the seventh century. It sang every Sabbath at dawn from a book of religious hymns whichwere locally called jonk (the Persian-Arabic designation of“harp”). A great number of able cantors and assistant singers(maftirim, mezammerim) came from Edirne. Congregations
from as far away as Bulgaria and Romania appealed to thiscommunity whenever there was need of a good synagogue
singer. The activity and reputation of the Maftirim Society
helped Edirne become a center for hymn writers. Among thebest known were Aaron b. Isaac *Hamon (18t century; possibly the composer called Yahudi Harun by the Turks), Abraham Zemah (late 19t century), and Joseph Danon (d. 1901).
A large repertoire of Ladino folksongs from Edirne was collected and published by A. Danon in 1896. Danon contended
that the proficiency of the local Jews in Eastern music had
been stimulated by, and modeled after, the style of the Muslim Dervish brotherhoods.

1860–1925 (1990); S.J. Shaw, The Jews of the Ottoman Empire and theTurkish Republic (1991); A. Levy, “Ha-Pra’ot bi-Yehudei Trakya, 1934,”
in: Pe‘amim, 20 (1984), 111–32; Shaul Tuval, “Ha-Kehillot ha-Yehudiyot be-Turkiyah ka-Yom,” in: ibid., 12 (1982), 114–39; A. Yerolympos,“A Contribution to the Topography of 19t Century Adrianople,” in:Balkan Studies, 34:1 (1993), 49–72.

EDMAN, IRWIN (1896–1954), U.S. philosopher. He was bornin New York, earned his Ph.D. at Columbia in 1920, and taught
there until his death. He was appointed full professor in 1935.
Edman wrote poetry, essays, and philosophical works. He wasgreatly influenced by John Dewey and American naturalism,
while drawn to the philosophical classics. He once called himself “an empiricist homesick for Platonism.” Edman was interested in aesthetics, social and political philosophy, and thephilosophy of religion. He published many works, including
Human Traits and Their Social Significance (1920); The Mind of
Paul (1935), on St. Paul’s religious outlook; Philosopher’s Holiday (1938), a popular presentation of philosophical anecdotes
from his own life; Arts and the Man (1939); and Philosopher’s
Quest (1947). Edman also edited English editions of Plato,
Boethius, Schopenhauer, and Santayana. An anthology of his
writings, The Uses of Philosophy, was published in 1955.
[Richard H. Popkin]

Bibliography: Rosanes, Togarmah, passim; A. Hananel
and E. Eshkenazi, Fontes hebraici… balcanicarum…, 2 (1960), index(Hebrew text with Bulgarian translation, summaries in Russian andFrench); Nathan, in: JJSO, 6 (1964), 180ff.; Marcus, in: Sinai, 21 (1947),
48–63; 29 (1951), 7–23, 318–44; 45 (1959), 376–86; idem, in: Mizraḥ
u-Ma’arav, 5 (1930), 173–84; W. Reich, in: Oesterreichische Wochenschrift, 30 (1913), 7–26; M.S. Goodblatt, Jewish Life in Turkey in the
16t Century (1952), index; Rosanes, in: B. Joseph (ed.), Shirei Yisrael
be-Ereẓ ha-Kedem (1921), preface; Danon, ibid., 8–10; Behar, in: YIVO
Bleter, 31–32 (1948), 400–5; Ch. D. Friedberg, Toledot ha-Defus ha-’Ivri(19562), 144; M. Benayahu, in: Reshumot, 2 (1946), 144–54; Cowen, in:Jewish Life (July-Aug. 1969), 24–30. Add. Bibliography: R. Bali,“Edirne Yahudileri,” in: E.N. İşli and S. Koz (eds.), Edirne, Serhattaki Payitaht (1998), 205–27; E. Benbassa and A. Rodrigue, Sephardi
Jewry: A History of the Judeo-Spanish Community, 14t–20t Centuries(2000); P. Dumont, “Jewish Communities in Turkey during the Last
Decade of the Nineteenth Century in the Light of the Archives of the
Alliance Israélite Universelle,” in: B. Braude and B. Lewis, Christians
and Jews in the Ottoman Empire, 1 (1982), 209–42; M.A. Epstein, The
Ottoman Jewish Communities and their Role in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries (1980); H. Gerber, “Yehudim be-Edirne (Adrianople)
ba-Me’ot ha-Tet Zayin ve-ha-Yud Zayin,” in: Sefunot, 18 (1985), 35–51;
A. Levy, “The Siege of Edirne (1912–1913) as Seen by a Jewish Eyewitness: Social, Political, and Cultural Perspectives,” in: A. Levy (ed.),Jews, Turks, Ottomans: A Shared History, Fifteenth Through the Twentieth Century (2002), 153–93; idem, The Sephardim in the Ottoman
Empire (1992); A. Rodrigue, French Jews, Turkish Jews: The Alliance
Israélite Universelle and the Politics of Jewish Schooling in Turkey,

EDMONTON, capital of Alberta, Canada. Edmonton was firstincorporated as a town in 1892. At that time, there were about
700 permanent residents. Founded on the banks of the North
Saskatchewan River on the site of the former Hudson’s Bay
Company’s Fort Edmonton, it gradually began to attract settlers. Abraham and Rebecca Cristall, Edmonton’s first Jews, arrived in 1893. Their children, George and Rose, were the town’s
first Jewish-born children. Abe became a successful businessman and encouraged Jews from his native Bessarabia to come.
By 1901, there were 17 Jews in Edmonton. In 1904, Edmonton
became incorporated as a city, and in 1905 Alberta officially became a province and the Canadian Pacific Railway arrived.
In 1905, William “Boss” Diamond came to Edmonton
from Calgary, where his businessman brother Jacob had been
Alberta’s first Jewish citizen. William set up in the clothingbusiness in competition with Abe Cristall, but the two competitors worked together to establish Edmonton’s Jewish community. Together with eight other men they formed the Edmonton Hebrew Association in 1906. They hired Rabbi Hyman
Goldstick of Pilton, Latvia, to be rabbi, shoḥ et, and mohel toserve both the Edmonton and Calgary Jewish communities.
In 1907, Abe Cristall purchased land on the south side
for a Jewish cemetery and the hevra kaddisha was formed. In
1912, the foundations were laid for the Orthodox Beth Israel
Synagogue. Cristall served as its first president, and William
Diamond its second president, a position he held for 31 years.
In 1912, the newly founded Edmonton Talmud Torah Society
organized classes in the synagogue basement. In 1925, the Society erected its own building and in 1933 it was incorporated
as the first Hebrew day school in Canada.

150

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Hanoch Avenary]edom
In 1928, a second congregation was started in the basement of the Talmud Torah building, which in 1932 became theConservative Beth Shalom Congregation and engaged Rabbi
Jacob Eisen, who became one of the first English-speaking
rabbis west of Winnipeg. Also at that time, the Peretz or New
Yiddish School was organized and opened its own building.
An offshoot of the Arbeiter Ring, which started in Edmonton
in 1922, it had its heyday in the early 1930s, but had to close in1939 due to declining enrollment. By 1941, Edmonton’s population had increased to 93,817, and the Jewish populationstood at 1,449. Of the 120 men and women from Edmonton’sJewish community who served during World War II, 11 were
killed in action.
The postwar years saw rapid growth in both the Jewish
and general population of Edmonton. With prosperity anda shift by Jews into the city’s West End, a new Beth Shalom
Synagogue was built in 1951. A new Beth Israel Synagogue
building was also constructed as well as a new Talmud Torahbuilding. In 1954, the Edmonton Jewish Community Council
was formed as a community-wide umbrella organization andserved as such for 28 years. On September 20, 1982, the Community Council merged with the Edmonton United Jewish
Appeal to become the Jewish Federation of Edmonton.
Alberta’s booming oil-based economy brought increased
immigration to Edmonton including that of Jews from otherprovinces in Canada, as well as from Hungary, Russia, andSouth Africa. From a Jewish population of 1,748 in 1951, thecommunity grew to 2,910 in 1971 and 5,430 in 1991. In 2001 it
stood at about 6,000.
All these new immigrants contributed to Edmonton’svibrant Jewish community life. Local branches of prominent
Jewish organizations thrive, including the Canadian Zionist
Federation, Edmonton Hadassah-WIZO, chapters of ORT and
Na’amat, B’nai B’rith and Emunah, all of which are actively
working for the welfare of the State of Israel. Local offices of
the Jewish National Fund are located at the Edmonton Jewish Community Centre, founded in 1970. The now defunct
Edmonton chapter of the National Council of Jewish Women
was responsible for founding the city’s Jewish Seniors’ Dropin Centre (formerly the Golden Age Club) in 1954, as well as
Jewish Family Services.
The community’s third congregation, Temple Beth Ora
Reform Congregation, was founded in 1979, and incorporated
in 1980. It rented space at the Jewish Community Centre. In
1996 Congregation Beth Tzedec, a breakaway from Beth Shalom, incorporated and began to hold services at the Talmud
Torah. Chabad Lubavitch arrived in Edmonton in 1991, andin 1993 a second Hebrew day school, the Orthodox Menorah
Academy, was founded. In 1999, a new building for Edmonton Talmud Torah was erected and the next year a new BethIsrael Synagogue was opened reflecting a further westward
shift in population.
In the fall of 2004, Edmonton elected its first Jewish
mayor, Stephen Mandel. Mandel had previously served as acity councilor, continuing a long tradition of Jewish city counENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6cilors, including Dr. Morris Weinlos, Helen Paull, Mel Binder,
Tooker Gomberg, and former MLA Karen Leibovici. There has
also been a strong tradition of Jewish civic involvement in thelarger Edmonton community, with members serving on theboards and executives of many local arts, cultural, educational,
and fundraising organizations, as well as on the judiciary.
The Jewish Archives and Historical Society of Edmonton and Northern Alberta (JAHSENA) was founded in 1996
to preserve and promote the history of this vibrant Jewish
community.
Bibliography: U. Rosenzweig (ed.), The First Century of Jewish Life in Edmonton and Northern Alberta, 1893–1993 (2000).
[Debby Shoctor and Ed Mickelson (2nd ed.)]EDOM (Heb. ‫) ֱאדוֹ ם‬, a land in the south of eastern Transjordan, the southeastern neighbor of Palestine.
The Country“The land of Edom” is the most common name for the Edomite
territory. It had, however, other names and appellations, bothprosaic and poetic, i.e., “the field of Edom” (Judg. 5:4), “Seir”(ibid.), “Mount Seir” (Deut. 1:2), “the land of Seir” (Gen. 36:30,“the lands of Seir,” cf. mâtātid še-e-ri k i, in el-Amarna letter no.
288, line 26; Pritchard, Texts, 488; J.A. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna-Tafeln, 2 (1915), 1340), and a combined name, “the land of
Seir the field of Edom” (Gen. 32:3). There are also in Egyptiansources the equivalents of two names: Seir (Pritchard, Texts,
262) and Edom (Papyrus Anastasi VI, Pritchard, Texts, 259). It
is possible to establish, according to the Egyptian and Akkadian sources, that the name Seir is chronologically first, since
it is mentioned at the beginning of the 14t century B.C.E. in
the Tell el-Amarna document, as well as in an Egyptian list
from the time of Ramses II, i.e., from the first half of the 13t
century B.C.E. On the other hand, the first mention of thename Edom in Egyptian sources occurs only at the end of
the 13t century B.C.E.
The name Seir is apparently related to the Horites; this isespecially evidenced by Genesis 36:20: “These were the sons ofSeir the Horite, who were settled in the land” (cf. Deut. 2:12).
The name Edom is related to the Western Semitic settlers whocame after them.
It appears that the Edomite territory consisted of themountain which extends from the Dead Sea in the north to
the Red Sea in the south. The northern border of Edom was
the Zered River (Wadi al-Hesa), which was also the southernborder of Moab (Deut. 2:13). Its eastern border was the desert
and its inhabitants were the Kedemites. Its southern border
was Elath and Ezion-Geber (Deut. 2:8), i.e., the gulf of Elath.
There was probably no fixed western boundary; during the
Exodus from Egypt, the Israelites who requested permission
to pass through Edom said to the king of Edom: “Now we arein *Kadesh, the town on the border of your territory” (Num.
20:16). Another place mentioned as being on its western border is “Mount Hor on the boundary of the land of Edom”(Num. 20:23). The western border is described more compre-

151

edom
hensively as “the boundary of Edom to the wilderness of Zin at
the farthest south” (Josh. 15:1), and in an abbreviated manneras “south, toward the boundary of Edom” (Josh. 15:21).
In later periods there was an Edomite expansion beyond Mount Seir, especially after the fall of the kingdom of
Judah (see below). Ezekiel thus terms the Edomite territory“Mount Seir and all Edom” (Ezek. 35:15). The capital of Edom
was probably Bozrah (see especially Amos 1:12, “the palacesof Bozrah,” similar to the palaces of other capital cities mentioned in this prophecy). Bozrah was the principal city, theother cities of Edom being called Bozrah’s cities: “For I havesworn by myself, says the Lord, that Bozrah shall become ahorror, a taunt, a waste, and a curse; and all her cities shall be
perpetual wastes” (Jer. 49:13). Among the other cities of Edommentioned in the Bible are Teman, which is used as a parallel for Bozrah (Amos 1:12), and Dedan (Jer. 49:8). The principal cities of Edom, which were also the royal cities, can belearned from the list of kings, who reigned “before any kingreigned over the Israelites” (Gen. 36). In this list, Bozrah andTeman are mentioned with other towns such as Avith, Rehoboth Hanahar, Masrekah, and Pau, about which nothing is
known from the Bible or from other sources.
The People
In the biblical tradition about the origin of the Edomites or,more precisely, in accounts about the eponym “Esau who isEdom” (Gen. 36:1), the Edomites are related to the Hebrews.
Esau was the grandson of Abraham the Hebrew and the son of
Isaac. The close relationship of *Esau to Israel is especially emphasized in the narratives which point out his closeness with
Jacob-Israel, and describe their birth as twins. In parentheticalnarrative comments and especially in genealogical lists, thecomplexity of the Edomites’ ethnic composition is demonstrated. In the accounts of Esau’s marriages, which should beviewed as etiological-ethnological stories, it is told that Esau
married Canaanite-Hittite women (Gen. 26:34; cf. 36:2). It is
likewise told that he married Ishmaelite women (Gen. 28:9; cf.
36:3). He also took Hivite wives (Gen. 36:2). These parenthetical narrative remarks substantiate and confirm the contentsof the genealogical lists of Edom. The ethnic composition appears to be even more heterogeneous when in addition to the
Canaanite-Hittite, Hivite, and Ishmaelite elements, Kenazite(Gen. 36:15), Amalekite (36:16), and especially Horite (36:20,
21, 29, 30) elements are found in the genealogical list of Esau’s descendants and in the list of the chiefs of Esau. A similar
picture is reflected in the names appearing in the genealogical lists of Edom. West-Semitic names are listed side by sidewith Horite names. It is possible to distinguish earlier andlater elements in the ethnic composition of Edom. Traditions,whose authenticity is beyond doubt, have been preserved in
the Bible about the antiquity of the Horites in Edom. In theDeuteronomic tradition about the ancient settlers of eastern
Transjordan before the advent of the Hebrews, it is stated: “Seirwas formerly inhabited by the Horites; but the descendants of
Esau dispossessed them, wiping them out and settling in their152

place” (Deut. 2:12). This tradition is reported in brief also inthe chapter specifically dealing with Edom, Genesis 36, wherea parenthetical remark is made: “these were the sons of Seir
the Horite, who were settled in the land” (36:20). Thus, theancient ethnic element of Edom is the Horites, to whom werelater added those descendants of Esau who were from a Western-Semitic origin. This is corroborated by epigraphic sources
and archaeological findings. From Akkadian and Egyptian
epigraphic sources it is known that toward the first half of thesecond millennium B.C.E. “Horite” (Akk. ḥ urru) tribes penetrated all the areas of the Ancient East and settled in theseareas including Canaan and eastern Transjordan. There is also
information about waves of migration of Western-Semitic elements who infiltrated western Asia, including Transjordan,
and apparently conquered these territories and defeated the
Horite population. According to biblical tradition, Esau andhis descendants first inhabited the land of Canaan (Gen. 36:5),
and when “the land in which they sojourned could not support them because of their livestock,” Esau, together with Jacoband his children, “took … all the members of his household …
[and] settled in the hill country of Seir” (36:6–8). From thearchaeological survey of eastern Transjordan conducted by
Nelson Glueck the same picture emerges. It appears that thesettlement which existed from the 23rd to the 20t centuries
B.C.E. was highly civilized, but the 19t century B.C.E. saw asteep decline and the total extinction of all the great fortresses
and settlements. The blow was final and the destruction, total.
The cities were not rebuilt and most of Transjordan became acamping spot for shepherds and nomads until the end of the
14t century B.C.E. The archaeological survey demonstrated
that at the end of the 14t and the beginning of the 13t centuries B.C.E., there was a revival of an agricultural civilization
among the Edomites, the Moabites, the Ammonites, and theAmorites, who quickly divided into national groups within
defined territorial boundaries. Thus, Transjordan was divided
into the kingdoms of Edom, Ammon, and Moab, which wereseparated mainly by the deep and wide natural boundaries of
the Zered, Arnon, and Jabbok rivers. These kingdoms underwent a fast development of prosperity and growth, primarily
material, from the 13t to the 8t centuries B.C.E. There followed a period of decline which ended in utter destruction in
the sixth century B.C.E.
Biblical Sources
These latter comments would have exhausted our knowledge
about Edom had the Bible not preserved much information
about this kingdom, more so than about any of the other kingdoms neighboring Israel. This great amount of material in the
Bible is very valuable from both the historical and historiographical points of view. Biblical information about Edom may
be divided into two types, which are distinctly separable. The
first type is the original and authentic material, which apparently originated in Edom itself and somehow made its way to
Israel, and which is found mainly in Genesis 36. The second
type is information about Edom which is connected with the

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

edomhistory of Israel. These two types of material give a chronological coverage of the two periods of Edom’s history (see below). The original and authentic material about Edom is fromthe period before the monarchy was established in Israel (it is
not intended here to discuss R.H. Pfeiffer’s Edomite-Seirite,
or Southern source (S); for its scope, character, and time see*Pentateuch). This material describes the history of Edom
until its conquest by David. On the other hand, the material
about Edom which is contained in the Israelite history covers the period of the monarchy in Israel and Judah, and, infact, beginning with the time of David, the history of Edomis contained within the history of Israel.
History until Its Conquest by David
From the information contained in Genesis 36, it may belearned that the Edomites were governed by chiefs (allufim)
and kings in the period which preceded its conquest by David.
The question arises as to whether chiefs and kings ruled at
one and the same time, the kings being only the most powerful of the chiefs, or whether there were two periods, a firstof chiefs and a subsequent one of kings. It appears thattwo periods should be distinguished, the “period of the chiefs”
and the “period of the kings,” typologically paralleling the“period of the judges” and the “period of the monarchy” inIsrael.

ruling in Edom: “Now are the chiefs of Edom dismayed” (Ex.
15:15). There are also sources outside the Bible which confirm
this. In the Papyrus Anastasi VI from the time of Merneptah(end of the 13t century B.C.E.) the population of Edom and its
adjuncts is divided into “tribes” or shasu: “[We] have finishedletting the Shasu (šʾsw) of Edom (ʾidm) pass the Fortress [of]Merneptah” (in Pritchard, Texts, 259). Ramses III (beginningof the 12t century B.C.E.) boasts: “I destroyed the people ofSeir among the nomad tribes. I razed their tents: their people,
their property, and their cattle as well, without number, pinioned and carried away in captivity, as the tribute of Egypt”(see Papyrus Harris I, in: Pritchard, Texts, 262). In any event,it becomes evident from these two Egyptian sources that there
was a tribal organization, the population was nomadic, andthere was no monarchy.

THE PERIOD OF THE CHIEFS (Allufim). It appears that thechiefs were the heads of the thousands (alafim), which weretribes or clans (in the broad sense of the word), and later,
heads of regions. This form of organization was prevalent
among nomadic tribes. Actually, only 11 chiefs of Edom are
mentioned, but there is reason to accept the opinion that a 12t
name, which is found in the Septuagint, was left out. The tradition of the 12-fold organization in Edom is based on, and confirmed by, the organization of other tribes which are closely
related to Edom in terms of race and origin. This 12-fold organization is found among the Nahorites (Gen. 22:20–24), theIshmaelites (25:13–15), and the Israelites, and it is M. Noth’s
opinion that this system is based on “principles such as were
customary in tribal societies which were still lacking settled
political institutions” (Noth, Hist Isr, 87; for details). Taking asa starting point the conclusion of Nelson Glueck’s survey that
the Edomites arrived in Edom at the end of the 14t and the beginning of the 13t century B.C.E., it may then be assumed thatthe rule of the chiefs lasted approximately 150 years, until the
middle of the 12t century B.C.E. Actually, the Bible appears tocontain information to the contrary, since in the narrative on
the Exodus from Egypt and the penetration of Canaan it is toldthat the Israelites had dealings with the king of Edom (Num.
20:14; if it is assumed, as is the accepted opinion today, that the
Exodus was during the second half of the 13t century B.C.E.).
It is known, however, that the source for the narrative (Num.
20) is late and “the king of Edom” is an anachronism. Moreauthentic evidence from a very early poetic source, the Song of
the Sea, testifies that at the time of the Exodus the chiefs were

THE PERIOD OF THE MONARCHY. The genealogy of Edomin Genesis 36 contains a list of the kings of Edom who ruled“before any Israelite king reigned” (probably meaning “before
any Israelite king ruled over Edom”). It is not certain whether“kings” were merely judges or tribal chiefs, or whether they
were literally kings. Those scholars who hold that they were
judges point to the following supporting evidence: the absenceof succession, the absence of a fixed capital city, the parallelismof melekh/shofet (“king”/“judge”) in Ugaritic and the Bible, as
well as the formula “in those days there was no king over the
Israelites,” which recurs repeatedly in the Book of Judges inreference to the period of the judges. Thus, king here means
judge (this opinion has been expressed by S. Talmon). It appears that the second opinion is the correct one, however, andthat kings is meant literally.
The list of the Edomite kings (36:31–39) resembles a“royal chronicle” in that it includes various details found in
the Judean and Israelite chronicles contained in Kings andBabylonian Chronicles. Details given in this list – though not
all the details are given for every king – are the name of theking, his father’s name, the name of his city (or place of origin),
and an informative comment. This list includes eight kings.
The names of the fathers of four of them are given, and thecity (or place of origin) of seven out of the eight is mentioned.
An informative comment is made about two of them. The informative comment about Hadad son of Bedad is distinctly
historical. It is stated that he “defeated the Midianites in the
country of Moab” (36:35), while the comment about Hadar, thelast king, refers to his wife’s genealogy: “and his wife’s namewas Mehetabel daughter of Matred daughter of Me-Zahab”(36:39). This list has been analyzed by numerous scholars in
an attempt to derive from it information about the historyof Edom, its chronology and the possibility of synchronization, its monarchy, and its character. It is clear from this listthat the monarchy in Edom was not dynastic. Not one of thekings of Edom is said to be son of the former king. However, it
should not be deduced from this, as has been done by several
scholars, that the monarchy was not consistent. The formula:“when … died, … succeeded him as king” attests to the con-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

153

edom
sistency and continuity of the monarchy. Further, it should bepointed out that there was no central authority based in one
capital city. The fact that the king’s capital or place of origin is
mentioned shows that there was no common ruling city foreven two of the kings (cf. the absence of a regular capital cityin the kingdom of Israel until the establishment of Samariaby Omri). The two informative statements were variously interpreted by scholars. From the statement about Hadad sonof Bedad E. Meyer tried to establish a synchronistic connection with events in Israel, namely that Hadad, who defeatedthe Midianites, was a contemporary of Gideon who defeatedthe Midianites. On the basis of this they attempted to derivechronological conclusions with regard to the history of thekings of Edom. There is no certainty, however, about Gideon’stime, and even less about the time of the kings of Edom, concerning whom there is no chronological information. Fromthe information about Hadar’s wife’s lineage on her mother’sside, and from the naming of her mother and grandmother,
W.F. Albright attempted to deduce the existence of a royal dynasty in Edom which passed in succession on the side of themother and not the father. Thus, the king’s son-in-law because
he marries the queen’s daughter is heir to the throne. A general conclusion of this nature, derived from a single comment,is, however, difficult to maintain. Moreover, there are no examples of such a custom in the ancient Near East to support
this hypothesis (the example of Saul-Michal-David cannot be
explained in this way).
It is most difficult to assess the dating of Edom’s kings
since, as has been stated, there is no chronological information
given in regard to this period. It is only known that it ended
at the time of David’s conquest of Edom. If this assumption
is correct, namely, that at the time of the Exodus, Edom was
ruled by chiefs and not by kings, then the period of these kings
can be set from the middle of the 12t century to the end of
the 11t century B.C.E., i.e., a period of around 150 years, andan average of approximately 20 years per king.
During this period of chiefs and kings, Edom was strong
and its borders well-fortified by a series of border fortresses
which prevented the penetration of nomadic tribes from thedesert. A series of fortresses was discovered during the archaeological survey in eastern and southern Edom, and some also
in western Edom. (In the north, Edom shared a common border with Moab, with which it apparently had close and goodneighborly relationships.) There is almost no biblical information in regard to contacts between Israel and Edom during thisperiod, except that Edom is listed among the nations oppressing Israel which Saul defeated at the end of this period (I Sam.
14:47; it is possible that this refers to Amalek which is related
to Edom). In Psalm 83, which is assumed by B. Mazar and S.
Feigin to be from the period of the judges, Edom (as well as
Amalek and Gebal which belong to Edom) is also mentioned
as joining with Israel’s other neighbors against Israel. It appears, however, that these two mentions are schematic and it
is difficult to arrive at historically valid conclusions from theappearance of Edom in these lists.

From David until the Destruction of JudahTHE TIME OF DAVID AND SOLOMON. In David’s wars of expansion, Edom was conquered after a decisive defeat in theValley of Salt. This is echoed in three biblical sources – actually three accounts of the same battle. According to II Samuel
8:13 it was David who defeated Edom (this should be read instead of Aram) in the Valley of Salt, slaying 18,000 Edomites.
According to I Chronicles 18:12, “Abishai son of Zeruiah slew
18,000 Edomites in the Valley of Salt,” while according to
Psalm 60:2, it was Joab who defeated Edom, and here there
is a different number given for Edom’s casualties – 12,000.
While a few scholars held that these are accounts of battles
led by the different people mentioned, it appears that they are,in fact, different accounts of the same event, and the numbers
are schematic. In any event, in order to clarify the historicalaspects, it appears that the original historical version is that
Joab defeated Edom. The introduction of Abishai in Chronicles is aimed against Joab and is based on the wars in eastern
Transjordan in which Joab and Abishai led the armies. The war
was attributed to David because it appears that the victories
of Joab, his military commander, were credited to the king,David, as was the case in the defeat of Rabbath-Benei-Ammon(II Sam. 12:26–31). Edom suffered a decisive defeat, apparently
after a difficult battle. Contrary to his custom with regard to
the other nations of Transjordan, David did not leave theEdomite monarchy in power but made Edom into an Israelite
province ruled by appointed governors (II Sam. 8:14; I Chron.
18:13). There is additional information about this battle in
I Kings 11:15–16 which states that “For six months did Joabremain there with all Israel, until he had cut off every male inEdom.” His reasons for turning Edom into a province which
rendered tribute and was ruled by governors were probably
primarily economic, since Edom controlled the trade routes,
both overland – the “King’s Highway” – and maritime – theport of Ezion-Geber-Elath. Israel’s rule of Edom by means ofgovernors lasted throughout David’s reign and apparently also
through most of Solomon’s time, until Hadad, a descendant of
the last Edomite king, rebelled against Solomon. (It is difficult
to determine whether Hadad was the son or the grandson of
the last king of Edom. Actually, this was the introduction of adynastic monarchy in Edom. In the opinion of Edward Meyer
the Edomites were loyal to their last king.) This Hadad, who
fled to Egypt during the conquest of Edom, received personal
aid and political support in Egypt, and returned to Edom afterDavid’s death (I Kings 11:14–22). According to the Septuagint,
what is said about Aram in I Kings 11:25 refers to Edom, andit thus turns out that this Hadad rebelled at the beginning ofSolomon’s reign and ruled Edom. It is difficult to accept thisversion, however, since it would mean that at the beginningof his reign, a time of prosperity and growth, of the development of the Negev and Arabah, and of maritime and inland
trade, Solomon did not have absolute control over Edom andover the routes which crossed its territory. It would therefore
appear that Edom’s liberation was possible only at the end of
Solomon’s reign.

154

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

edom
FROM JEHOSHAPHAT TO AHAZ. There is no information about Edom from the end of Solomon’s reign until Jehoshaphat’s, either from the Bible or from other sources. It
may be assumed that after the collapse of Solomon’s kingdom
and its division, and especially after Shishak’s campaign inJudah and Israel, Edom finally overthrew the yoke of Israel’s
rule and established an independent kingdom, which lasted
around 50 years, until the time of Jehoshaphat. With the expansion of Judah southward in the time of Jehoshaphat, thesubmission of the Arabian tribes (II Chron. 17:11), and the institution of a mercantile fleet at Ezion-Geber (I Kings 22:49),
Edom was probably conquered. In fact, there is an explicit
statement in this regard from which it can be understood that
not only was Edom conquered by Jehoshaphat but he dealt
with it as did David and turned it into a province ruled bygovernors. Chronicles writes in connection with Jehoshaphat
that “there was no king in Edom; a deputy was king” (I Kings
22:48 (47)). The conquest of Edom probably stemmed fromthe same economic motivations which existed at the time ofDavid and Solomon. Edom became subject to Judah, and,during the period of subjection, “the king of Edom” (probably the “deputy” mentioned above) joined the campaign ofJoram king of Israel and Jehoshaphat king of Judah against
Mesha, the rebellious king of Moab, which passed “throughthe wilderness of Edom” (II Kings 3:8). The participation of
the “king of Edom” angered the king of Moab, who attempted
first and foremost “to break through opposite the king ofEdom” (3:26). The failure of this campaign led to the weakening of the rule of Judah and Israel in eastern Transjordan,
as well as Judah’s rule in Edom. It is explicitly stated that during the time of Joram, Edom rebelled against Judah: “In hisdays Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah, and madea king over themselves” (II Kings 8:20). Joram attempted at
the beginning of his reign (probably in 848 B.C.E.) to reinstate
Israel’s hegemony over Edom in a great campaign including“all the chariots” (8:21–22), which apparently failed (the biblical text is corrupt here), and Edom was completely liberated
from the domination of Judah. Edom maintained its independence for about 60 years, until the middle of Amaziah’s reign.
At the time of Amaziah, Judah recovered from the pressure ofAram, to which it paid heavy taxes. This recovery is expressedin the undertaking of a military campaign against Edom inorder to renew the rule of Israel there. It is said of Amaziahthat “He slew of Edom in the Valley of Salt 10,000, and took
Sela by war, and called the name of it Joktheel unto this day”
(II Kings 14:7). The battle was waged in northern Edom, theValley of Salt (as in David’s time), and in Sela. Amaziah (likeJoab) treated the Edomites with cruelty, as is recounted in
II Chronicles 25:11–12: “…and [Amaziah] smote 10,000 menof Seir. The men of Judah captured another 10,000 alive andtook them to the top of a rock and threw them down from the
top of the rock; and they were all dashed to pieces.” It seems
that the changing of Sela’s name can be interpreted not only
as a symbol of renewed domination but perhaps also as theintroduction of Judahite settlers in the new important town

Joktheel which “on account of its geographic conditions, itsdistinctly strategic location, its close proximity to the capital
Bozrah which lay south of it, and its control over the approachto the mines of the Arabah, … was subject to a violent controversy between Israel and Edom” (S. Abramsky). With the conquest of Sela, Amaziah assured Judah of control over northern Edom and the copper mines of the Punon area. It appears
that Uzziah son of Amaziah completed his father’s activity byconquering Edom. Uzziah, who expanded his kingdom in the
direction of south and the Negev, “built Elath and restored it
to Judah” (II Kings 14:22); this was the climax of his activity
in the Negev and the Arabah, in developing agriculture, industry, and commerce, which has been confirmed by archaeological excavations and surveys. Apparently, in the days of
Jotham son of Uzziah as well, Judah ruled over Edom. The“‫( ”ליתם‬lytm) seal found at Ezion-Geber may have belonged
to Jotham. This period of Judah’s rule over Edom did not lastlong, and ended with the establishment of the Aramean-Israelite coalition between Rezin king of Aram and Pekah kingof Israel: “At that time the king of Edom recovered Elath forEdom (the MT text reads Aram instead of Edom) and drove
the men of Judah from Elath; and the Edomites came to Elath,
where they dwell to this day” (II Kings 16:6). The Edomites
took the opportunity to penetrate Judah itself: “For again the
Edomites had come and smitten Judah, and carried away captives” (II Chron. 28:17). There was probably a final attempt on
the part of Judah, during the time of Hezekiah, to renew its
hegemony over Edom. In the genealogical list of Simeon’s descendants, it is stated parenthetically that “some of them, 500
men of the Simeonites, went to Mount Seir … and they destroyed the remnant of the Amalekites that had escaped, andthey have dwelt there to this day” (I Chron. 4:42–43). This
attempt, however, was probably limited to the western border district of Edom and had no real results since Edom, like
Judah, was subjugated by Assyria.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

155

FROM AHAZ UNTIL THE DESTRUCTION OF JUDAH. From
the time of Ahaz, Edom became an Assyrian vassal state,
like the other nations of Palestine and Syria. Tiglath-Pileser III (745–727 B.C.E.) mentions, together with the kings ofPalestine and Syria, Qosmalaku, king of Edom, who surrendered to him (Pritchard, Texts, 282). Sennacherib mentions
the king of Edom, Aiarammu (ibid., 287), who surrenderedto him in his campaign against Jerusalem (701 B.C.E.). Esarhaddon (680–669 B.C.E.) mentions Qosgabri king of Edom
together with the 22 vassal kings whom he swore to loyalty at
Nineveh (ibid., 291). In addition to its subjugation to Assyria,
Edom was, beginning with the eighth century B.C.E., underpressure from the Arabian tribes that impoverished the landand brought about its decline in material culture. Toward theend of the kingdom of Judah (beginning of the sixth century B.C.E.), when Judah was rising up against Babylonian
rule, Edom was among the peoples preparing to rebel against
the Babylonian king. The king of Edom sent messengers toa meeting of rebels called in Jerusalem by Zedekiah king ofedom
Judah (Jer. 27). Later, however, during the destruction itself,
Edom was on the other side, sending its troops against Judah(II Kings 24:1; “the bands of Edom” should be read in place of“the bands of Aram”), and even participating in its destruction. This is verified from the recently discovered Arad letters,
in which Judah is guarding itself against Edom’s penetration
into the land (Y. Aharoni). Edom’s participation in the destruction of Judah aroused the great anger and strong condemnation of the poets (Ps. 137; Lam. 4:21–22) and prophets (Isa. 34,
which is to be dated to this period; Jer. 49; Obad.) of Judah.
The anger and condemnation continued in the following generation in the prophecies of Deutero-Isaiah (Isa. 63).
Edom, too, was subject to destruction in the sixth century
B.C.E. Nomadic tribes infiltrated Edom and exerted pressure
on the Edomites, who turned toward Judah and settled in its
southern region. This settlement was long known in Hellenistic sources as *Idumea.

The wisdom of Edom was held in esteem by the prophets.
Jeremiah asked in amazement: “Is wisdom no more in Teman? has counsel perished from the prudent? has their wisdom vanished?” (49:7); Obadiah 8 repeats the same idea: “destroy the wise men out of Edom, and understanding out of
the mount of Esau.”

Religion and Culture
The gods of Edom were mainly fertility gods, as is evidenced by
the numerous clay figures found in Edom. Like Ammon andMoab, Edom had one chief god, Qos. This name is known to
be a theophoric element, both from the names of the Edomite
kings mentioned in the inscriptions of the Assyrian kings (seeabove) and from names which are preserved in the Bible (e.g.,
Barkos, Neh. 7:55). This name also appears as a first name in aseal in Hebrew-Edomite script on oil jugs from the eighth andseventh centuries B.C.E. which were found at Tell al-Khalayfa“‫לקוסענל עבד המלך‬,” “lqwsʿnl servant of the king.” There aresome scholars who read instead of the unclear name Alqum
in Proverbs 30:31, Alqus, on the assumption that the name isincluded here in the context of Edomite wisdom. Although
Edom had one national god, it cannot be described even as
monolatry. Biblical evidence emphasizes Edomite polytheism. It is told of Amaziah after “he came from the slaughterof the Edomites, he brought the gods of the men of Seir, andset them up as his gods, and worshipped them, making offerings to them” (II Chron. 25:14).
Apparently there was an early connection between thereligion of the men of Seir and the early religion of Israel, aconnection deduced from an Egyptian list from the time ofRamses II (13t century B.C.E.) from a statement in which
there is the unusual juxtaposition “the land of the Shasu of
JHW” (see Herrmann in bibl.). In the same list there is theequivalent juxtaposition “the land of the Shasu of Seir.” (Theconnection between YHWH and Seir can be learned from anumber of early biblical verses, e.g., Deut. 33:2; Judg. 5:4.) Of
course, one cannot speak of the identification in this periodof this name with YHWH but rather about the origin of YHWH
from the same area and ancient contacts between the peopleof Israel in its early period and the sons of Seir. In this way thebiblical tradition is confirmed.
From the archaeological excavations and surveys in
Edom it appears that its material culture was developed. The
only evidence with regard to its spiritual culture is biblical.

In Second Temple Times
The geographical conception of Edom during the Second
Temple period differs radically from that at the time of theFirst Temple. Following the movement of Edomites fromsouthern Transjordan and into southern Palestine, across the
Arabah, in the late seventh and early sixth centuries B.C.E. (IIKings 24:2; Ezek. 35:6), the area to the south of the territory ofJudah came to be referred to as Edom/Idumea. The territoryof “Darom” (“south”) in Talmudic literature usually refers toIdumea. Idumea in Second Temple times was further norththan in the previous period and covered a considerable partof the territory of the tribe of Judah, including Hebron. The
border with Judea passed south of Beth-Zur. This change cameabout on the one hand in consequence of the invasion of Old
Edom by new tribes from the desert and the establishment
there, in the course of time, of the Nabatean kingdom; andsecondly through the weakening of Jewish resistance during
the time of the destruction of the Temple and the Babylonian
exile. The return only changed the situation slightly; in general
the returning exiles did not settle south of Beth-Zur. Even in
the list of those who built the walls of Jerusalem in the daysof Nehemiah, there is no mention of men from places southof the line Tekoa-Beth-Zur-Keilah-Zanoah.
During the Hellenistic period the Idumean region
formed a separate administrative district and is mentioned
as such by Diodorus in connection with the period of the Didache (Bibliotheca Historica, 19, 98, 1). Marissa and Adorah
were the main Idumean settlements in the Hellenistic era.
Marissa became an important junction during the Ptolemide
era and served, as can be inferred from one of the Zenon papyri (C.C. Edgar, Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes
du Musée de Caire, 1 (1925), 34, no. 59015 verso), as the seat of
the government administration. From the inscriptions andpainted designs in one of the tombs, it is possible to follow ingreat measure the process of Hellenization of Marissa during
the Ptolemide era. Among other things, a Phoenician settlement, which was the standard-bearer of the Hellenistic movement in Idumea, existed in the town, and had organized itself as a politeuma of Sidonians in Marissa (W. Dittenberger,
Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, 2 (1905), 284–5 no. 593).
The Ptolemide government of the country also helped in the
migration of many Idumeans to Egypt. Hostile relations between the Idumeans and the Jews persisted throughout theHellenistic period. Ben Sira enumerates the Edomites amongthe “nations whom his soul abhorred” (50, 25–26). The same
enmity is reflected in the quotation from the Greek writer
Mnaseas given by Josephus (Apion 2:112ff.) describing how
Zabidus of Dorii fooled the people of Jerusalem. During the156

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

edom
Hasmonean wars the Idumeans assisted the Seleucids against
the Jews. Judah Maccabee fought the Idumeans, and was particularly active against Hebron (I Macc. 5:65).
A decisive change in the relations between the two nations took place in the days of John *Hyrcanus (end of second
century B.C.E.). Hyrcanus conquered the whole of Idumea andundertook the forced conversion of its inhabitants to Judaism (Jos., Ant., 13:257ff.). Thenceforth the Idumeans became
a section of the Jewish people, Idumea becoming one of theordinary administrative districts of the Hasmonean state. It
appears that the Hasmonean dynasty used some of the respected families of Idumea to establish its dominion in thatcountry. During the reigns of Alexander Yannai and his wife
Alexandra Salome, *Antipas, who was an Idumean, served as
ruler of Idumea on behalf of the Hasmoneans (Ant., 14:10).
*Herod, appointed king of Judea by the Romans in 40 B.C.E.,
was his grandson. During the reign of Herod, Idumea servedin general as the firm basis of his authority. He considered the
Idumeans to be much more loyal to him than the Jews, andalso depended upon them for the military settlement in Transjordan; three thousand Edomites being settled in Terakhan(Ant., 16:285). Despite this, even during his reign, an attempt
was made to sever the link between Idumea and Judea. The
king’s brother-in-law, Costobar, entered into a conspiracy with
Cleopatra, queen of Egypt, for the purpose of annexing Edom
directly to Egypt, but the plot was foiled by Herod. After thedeath of Herod in 4 B.C.E. Idumea was included with Judeaand Samaria in the ethnarchy of Archelaus. When the latter
was deposed in 6 C.E., Idumea became part of the Roman
province of Judea. Furthermore Gaza was severed from any
administrative connection with Idumea and added to theprovince of Syria. Consequently, the size of Idumea was reduced – and in view of the fact that by degrees the differences
between the Idumeans and their northern neighbors became
blurred – the Roman government decided to abolish theseparate status of Idumea as an administrative district equalin status to Judea or Samaria. Toward the end of the Second
Temple era, Idumea appears as one of the 11 ordinary toparchies of Judea (Jos., Wars, 3:55).
The Idumeans participated in the Roman War of 66–
70 C.E. They were organized into their own detachments and,at the time of the fratricidal war in Jerusalem between the
Zealots and their opponents under the leadership of Ananb. Anan, hastened to the help of the Zealots, on the assumption that Anan and his associates intended to deliver the city
into the hands of the Romans. The Idumeans were led by fourcommanders. They penetrated into Jerusalem on a rainy nightand freed the Zealots who were besieged in the Temple, thus
triumphing over their enemies. During the siege of Jerusalem
by Titus they constituted a special division, numbering 5,000
men. They were led by ten officers, the most prominent among
them being *Jacob b. Sosas and Simeon b. Katala. They acted
under the high command of Simeon b. Giora (Jos., Wars,
5:249). Johanan, the brother of Jacob, was killed during thesiege (6:290), and the Idumeans were prominent in the defenseof Jerusalem (9:358–6:92, 148). Titus, too, regarded them as animportant element of the Judean military force (8:379). It is
not known which were the most important Idumean centersof settlement at the end of the days of the Second Temple. At
the time of the Parthian invasion in 40 B.C.E., Marissa had
already been destroyed, and Adorah no longer appears in thesources of the period. On the other hand Hebron is mentioned (4:529, 554).
Idumea is frequently mentioned in Latin poems of theperiod, usually as a synonym for Judea.

EDOM AS ROME. The identification of Edom with Rome isnever found in the literature of the Second Temple period.
It appears for the first time close to the Bar Kokhba revolt(cf. Margolioth, p. 610/2). R. Meir even connects it with theverse (Isa. 21:11), “The vision of Dumah” = the vision of Dome(‫רומי = דומי‬, Rome, TJ, Ta’an. 1:1, 64a see ed. princ.); also “There’emim [wild-oxen] shall come down with them” (Isa. 34:7)
is read as “The Romans shall come down with them” (Pd RK 7,11, ed. Mandelbaum, p. 134). The previous verses (5–6) speakof Edom (cf. also Targ. Jon. ed. Sperber, Isa. 9, “The streams
thereof shall be turned into pitch”: “The streams of Rome shallbe turned into pitch”). Many scholars are of the opinion thatthe source of this identification lies in the connection between*Herod, a descendant of Edomite proselytes, whose evil ruleover Judea left a harsh impression and the intensification of
Roman rule in Judea, especially as Herod was virtually a vassal of Rome. However these conjectures cannot be accepted.
Not only are substantial proofs lacking, but the identification
appears only in the second quarter of the second century C.E.,
more than four generations after the death of Herod. It seems,
therefore, that its source is to be sought elsewhere.
In the Bible Edom is described as the eternal enemy ofIsrael (and Judah, Amos 1:11; Ezek. 35:5) who not only always
oppressed Israel, but at the time of the destruction of the First
Temple took advantage of the situation and seized control ofparts of Judah (Ezek. 25:12; 35:5, 10, 2; Obad. 11–16), and it ishinted that Edom also took part in the destruction of Jeru-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

157[Isaac Avishur]In the Aggadah
Edom appears sometimes in the aggadah as referring to theactual Edomites and sometimes to the Romans, who are identified with them (see *Esau aggadah).
THE HISTORICAL EDOM. The historical Edom is chiefly discussed from the point of view of its relations with the Israelite
people as these are reflected in the books of the Bible. Besidethe enmity and hatred already stressed there, the aggadah emphasizes that Edom oppressed the people most closely akinto him. There are interesting aggadot which discuss, for example, the legal aspects of Israel-Edom relations in the timeof King David (Gen. R. 74:15; ed. Theodor-Albeck, p. 872ff.),
and also attempt to justify David’s wars against Edom despite
the biblical command laying down that Edom was not to bea heritage of the people of Israel (Deut. 2:5).

edrehi, moses ben isaac
salem (Ps. 137:7; Obad. 11) and even in that of the Temple itself (Obad. 16). In consequence, during the Second Temple
period there spread a belief that it was actually the Edomites
who burned the First Temple (I Esdras 4:45; Ethiopian Enoch
89:66), and also interfered with the building of the Second
Temple (ibid., 72). Hence the intense enmity toward Edom
which grew stronger in the course of time (Ecclus. 50:25–26),
until the conquest of Edom and its conversion to Judaism in
the time of John Hyrcanus – a conquest which is the background to the descriptions of the wars of Jacob and his sonswith Esau and his sons in the Book of Jubilees (37–38) and in
the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (Judah 9). Edom iseven compared to a black boar (I En. 89:12, 42–43, 49, 66; Jub.
37:20, 24). The intense hatred of Rome after the cruel crushing of the revolt of the Diaspora in the time of Trajan and still
more after the harsh suppression of the Bar Kokhba revolt
and the decrees of persecution in Hadrian’s days; the fact that
Rome, like Edom, had destroyed the Temple; the similarity ofEdom, compared to a pig, with Rome, for whom the pig (or,more correctly, the sow) was a most important symbol; theallusions to Edom dwelling on high like an eagle and the factthat the eagle, too, was an important Roman symbol; and perhaps finally even the similarity to the name Rome and Romans
in several verses that speak of Edom, Seir, and Esau – all theseapparently combined to cause the application to Rome of thebiblical references to Edom, the eternal enemy of Israel.
At the end of the tannaitic period, and still more in theamoraic, the identification became very widespread, and theoverwhelming majority of homilies about Edom speak explicitly of Rome. Thus it was stated that Rome was foundedby the children of Esau, and Rome was identified as one of
the cities of the chiefs of Esau enumerated at the end of Genesis 36 (these identifications occur not only in the Midrashim
and the Talmuds but also in the Palestinian *Targums of the
Torah and in the Targums to Lamentations and Esther). Ata still later period the term became a synonym for ChristianRome and thence for Christianity in general, and allusions
were even found to *Constantinople among the cities of Edom(and see *Caesarea).

EDREHI (Heb. ‫)אדרעי‬, MOSES BEN ISAAC (c. 1774–
c. 1842), Moroccan scholar. Edrehi was born in *Agadir, Morocco, but when the Jews were expelled from that city Moses,
while still a boy, was taken with his parents to *Mogador, andafter 1784 to Rabat. He began to preach in public at the ageof 14, and became an itinerant preacher in North Africa. In
1791 he reached London, where he studied for a time in the
bet ha-midrash Eẓ Ḥ ayyim and was accustomed to preach every Sabbath. In 1792 he published his Torat Ḥ ayyim readings
for Friday nights according to the custom of the Jews of Morocco. In 1802 he proceeded to Amsterdam, where he published his Yad Moshe (1809), consisting of sermons preachedin various places; and Ma‘aseh Nissim (1818), tales of the ten
tribes, with a Yiddish translation. An English edition of thissomewhat preposterous work was published in London in1834 under the title, Book of Miracles… With… an Accountof Many Millions of Israelitical Children… Dwelling Beyond
that River, later expanded as An Historical Account of the Ten
Tribes Settled Beyond the River Sambatyon in the East (1836)
which was prefaced by letters of commendation from Dutch,
French, and English scholars and clergymen. About 1829 he
met the writer John Wilson (“Christopher North”) in Edinburgh who described him in his series Noctes Ambrosianae
in Blackwood’s Magazine. Edrehi finally left for Ereẓ Israel,
traveling by way of France, Italy, Malta, and Smyrna and taking four years on the journey. While in *Izmir in 1841, his belongings and manuscripts – among them a grammar of theFrench and English language with a translation in Spanish –were destroyed by fire. In 1842 he published in *Jerusalem the
Azharot of Isaac b. Reuben *al-Bargeloni. After his death his
son Isaac published his History of the Capital of Asia and theTurks, together with an Account of the Domestic Manners of
the Turks in Turkey, 3 vols. (1855).
Bibliography: Slouschz, in: Revue du Monde Musulman, 7(1909), 53–68; J.M. Toledano, Sarid u-Falit, 1 (1945), 79–80; A.M. Hyamson, Sephardim of England (1951), 263; Yaari, in: KS, 33 (1957/58),
521–8; 35 (1959/60), 269–72; Raphael, ibid., 34 (1958/59), 526–7; Roth,Mag Bibl, index.

Bibliography: F. Buhl, Geschichte der Edomiter (1893); M.
Noth, Das System der Zwoelf Staemme Israels (1930); N. Glueck, The
Other Side of the Jordan (1940); R.H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old
Testament (19522), 159–67 (on the S. Document); S. Abramsky, Mesillah ba-Aravah (1959); J. Liver (ed.), in: Historyah Ẓ eva’it shel Ereẓ
Yisrael… (1964), 190–205; S. Herrmann, in: Fourth World Congressof Jewish Studies, Papers, 1 (1967), 213–6 (Ger.); Y. Aharoni, in: Eretz
Israel, 9 (1969), 10–21 (Heb. pt.), 134 (Eng. summ.). SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD: Klausner, Bayit Sheni, index; S. Klein, Ereẓ Yehudah(1939), 249–54. IN THE AGGADAH: M. Gruenbaum, in: zdmg, 31(1877), 305–9; A. Epstein, Kol Kitvei, ed. A.M. Habermann, 2 (1957),
33; Ginzberg, Legends, 5 (19476), 272–3; Schuerer, Hist, 3 (19094),
320–11; I. Heinemann, Darkhei ha-Aggadah (1954[2]), index, S.V.
Esau; H. Fuchs, Der geistige Widerstand gegen Rom (19642), 69ff.,
78. Add. Bibliography: A. Kasher, Jews, Idumeans, and Ancient
Arabs (1988).

EDREI (Heb. ‫) ֶא ְד ֶר ִעי‬.
(1) A biblical town in Transjordan. It may be recorded
among the towns captured by Thutmosis III in c. 1469 B.C.E.,
but that reference may be to (2) below. In all likelihood the
toponym is found in Ugaritic (KTU 1.108:3). It is first mentioned in the Bible as the city of *Og, king of Bashan, whom
Moses and the Israelites defeated before entering Canaan(Num. 21:33; Deut. 1:4; 3:1; Josh. 12:4; 13:12). Og’s lands wereallotted to the half-tribe of *Manasseh (Num. 32:33ff.; Josh.
12:6; 13:7–12, 29–31; cf. Deut. 3:5; I Kings 4:13). In Romantimes, as Adraene, it was a well-known town in Provincia Arabia, located on the highway leading from Bozrah to Bet Reshah (Capitolias) 24 mi. (40 km.) from the former and 16 mi.
(26 km.) from the latter. Edrei contained a Jewish community
up to the 14t century. It is identified with the modern townof Darʿā in Syria, near the Jordanian border, 1,887 ft. (575 m.)

158

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Moshe David Herr / Carl Stephen Ehrlich (2nd ed.)]education
above sea level, with a population of about 8,000 Muslims.
Potsherds ranging from the Early Bronze Age to the Arabperiod have been found on an adjacent tell. Within the town
were discovered fragments of an early medieval Hebrew inscription. As a junction on the Hejaz Railway, Darʿā had great
strategic importance during World War I and played a part in
T.E. *Lawrence’s campaign.
(2) A town in the territory of *Naphtali in Upper Galilee(Josh. 19:37). Aharoni identified it with the Edrei mentionedin Thutmosis III’s list.

EDUCATION. The Jewish people has an educational tradition as old as history (see *Education, Jewish). From the very
beginning of their identification as a distinct entity, Jews havecontributed not only to the advancement of their own education, but also to that of the world at large. The educational
principles of the Bible found their way into the educational
thought of Christians and Muslims. As an example one mightcite the moral, spiritual, and character education through thefamily and community described in the Book of Proverbs.
Compulsory teaching, incumbent upon the father in the first
instance, is ordained in Deuteronomy 6:6–9 and 11:18–20.
Compulsory school attendance was decreed by *Simeon b.
Shetaḥ in 75 B.C.E. and by *Joshua ben Gamla in 64 C.E. In
recent years, educators have come to recognize that ancient
Jewish education anticipated, and no doubt indirectly and remotely influenced, modern education. Thus the National Education Association of the United States cited the Babylonian
Talmud as authority for a maximum class size of 25 pupils (BB21a). The same source requires, under Joshua ben Gamla’s ordinance, that children start school at six or seven, the age at
which children all over the world traditionally enter school.
Adult education is sometimes traced by educational historians,
such as I.L. *Kandel, to the bet ha-midrash of Second Temple
times. The importance of the teacher in the learning process
is repeatedly emphasized in the Talmud (Avot), as is the significance of motivation in teaching and of vocational training-principles, which are basic to effective instruction and amodern educational system. The practice of “each one teachone,” inaugurated by Frank C. Laubach in teaching literacy tothe people of developing nations, has a talmudic prototype.
For most of their history, Jews educated their children in
their own institutions and expressed their educational ideas
in their own languages, until the late 18t century. There waslittle contact between Jewish and non-Jewish pedagogues. Jews
made few, if any, contributions to general education during
the greater part of the development of education from an-

cient times. One outstanding exception may be Constantinus Afer or Africanus (d. 1087), believed by some historians
to be Jewish. He influenced the course of medical education
at the University of Salerno and other medieval universities,
chiefly through his Latin translations of Greek and Arabic
medical works, many of the latter of Jewish origin. Africanus had learned Hebrew and Kabbalah from a Jewish teacher
and transmitted his inspiration to the German humanist Johannes *Reuchlin. Reuchlin then learned his Hebrew from
Jacob Loans, physician to the emperor Frederick III, and fromR. Obadiah *Sforno, the biblical exegete. Reuchlin went on to
introduce the study of Hebrew as a learned subject in German
universities. In this way Jews exercised an impact on the development of the European university curriculum.
The Edict of Tolerance issued by Emperor Joseph *II ofAustria in 1782 applied the principles of the Enlightenment to
the Jews of his empire. Among other reforms, Jews were permitted to enroll their children in government schools and toestablish secular schools of their own. Young Jews could now
attend institutions of higher education. These changes were
hailed by Naphtali Herz *Wessely, a disciple and collaboratorof Moses *Mendelssohn, in his Divrei Shalom ve-Emet (Berlin,1782). The separation of Jews from the general stream of education was now beginning to be bridged. This German Haskalah *period ushered in a growth of interest among Jews in
the secular pedagogical theories and practices of their Christian neighbors. Especially of interest to Jewish educators were
the new ideas and methods of Johann Bernhard Basedow, Johann Friedrich Herbart, and Friedrich Froebel of Germany,
Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi of Switzerland, and Andrew Belland Joseph Lancaster, founders of the mutual or monitorial
method of instruction in England.
Among the Jewish contributors to education in the early
19t century was the Austrian philanthropist Joseph Ritter von*Wertheimer who, among other things, was responsible forthe development of Austrian kindergartens, the first of which
he founded in Vienna in 1830. Another was Sir Isaac Lyon
*Goldsmid, the first Jewish baronet in England, who helped
to finance the establishment of University College in London(1825). The list of Jewish philanthropists in education is long.
It covers many types of institutions in many countries. Amongthe men who made munificent and influential benefactions
to education were Julius *Rosenwald, who contributed hugesums for the founding of schools for Blacks in the Southernstates of the U.S.; James *Loeb, patron of the Loeb ClassicalLibrary; Sir Ernest *Cassel, founder of the Anglo-German Institute for the advancement of cultural relations between thetwo countries through the encouragement of mutual studies;and the Baroness Mayer de *Rothschild, who founded the Association for the Oral Instruction of the Deaf and Dumb in
London on the basis of the lip-reading method practiced byWilliam van Praagh. The kindergarten movement received
much attention from Jewish educators and philanthropists.
Adolf Pick (1829–1874) founded a pioneering kindergarten in
Italy on the German model. In Germany, the original home

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

159

Bibliography: S. Klein (ed.), Sefer ha-Yishuv (1939), S.V.;
G. Schumacher, Across the Jordan (1886), 121–48; Albright in: BASOR, 19 (1925), 16; Alt, in: PJB, 29 (1933), 21; Abel, Geog, 2 (1938), 310;
Noth, in: ZDPV, 61 (1938), 56; Aharoni, Land, index; Press, Ereẓ , 1(1951), 10; T.E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom (1935), index, S.V.
Deraa. Add. Bibliography: B. Margulies (Margalit), in: JBL, 89(1970), 293–94.
[Michael Avi-Yonah]educationof the kindergarten, the well-known feminist Lina *Morgenstern-Bauer was an ardent propagandist of the movement
through her writings on childhood development, as well as afounder of kindergartens and seminaries for training kindergarten teachers. In still another branch of education there wasa Jewish pioneer in the 19t century. Otto Salomon (1849–1901)
promoted the teaching of manual skills in Swedish schools. In
1875 he established the Sloyd Seminarium at Nääs, where hetrained teachers of manual crafts from all over the world. His
impact on education was extensive not only in Sweden, but
in other countries as well. A notable educator in the specialized field of teaching deaf-mutes was the Frenchman Jacob
Rodrigues *Péreire. The first teacher of deaf-mutes in France,
Péreire was to influence Maria Montessori a century later in
her teaching of handicapped children. The international authority Edouard Séguin has also testified to the significanceof Péreire’s work. Perhaps the most long-lasting contribution
to general education was the opening in 1805 of a school in
Seesen, Germany, by Israel *Jacobson, an initiator of the Jewish Reform movement and an ardent advocate of closer Christian-Jewish relations. Among German historians this type ofschool is known as a “Simultanschule,” an institution where religious instruction is given to different religious groups within
the same school building. For 30 years, between 1838 and 1867,
there was an equal number of Jewish and Christian pupils
in the school, but because of the shortage of Jewish teachersof secular subjects, especially the sciences, as a result of theearlier limitations on higher education for Jews, there was amuch larger proportion of Christians on the staff. Jacobson’s
school remained in existence until the advent of the Nazis in
1933. Few other Jews in the 19t century made any recognizable mark on general education. Félix Hément (1827–1891)
rose from elementary teaching in France to become inspector
of primary schools in the department of the Seine and, upon
his retirement, honorary inspector-general of public instruction. Naphtali Herz *Imber, author of Ha-Tikvah, contributed
bulletins on ancient Jewish education to a series published by
the U.S. Bureau of Education.
In the 20t century, the liberalization of the position ofJews in the Western world made it possible for more of them toparticipate in the educational thought and work of the world
at large. Ferenc Kemény (1860–1944), a Hungarian convert toChristianity who served as teacher, principal, school inspector,
and professor at the University of Budapest, was active in promoting plans for international education toward world peace.
Emile *Durkheim, professor of sociology and education at theuniversities of Bordeaux and Paris, won an international reputation not only as a sociologist, but also as author of a numberof influential and scholarly works on education. International
figures in education included William *Stern, an émigré from
Hamburg to Duke University in the U.S., whose Psychologie
der fruehen Kindheit (1914; Psychology of Early Childhood,1924) and interpretation of the nature of intelligence weremost helpful to teachers on both sides of the Atlantic. Alsoof international interest was Kurt Hahn (1886–1974), anotherrefugee from Nazi Germany, who moved his Salem progressive school to Gordonstoun, Scotland, where Prince Philip andhis son Prince Charles received their education.
To obtain a balanced view of the Jewish contribution
to education the subject should also be considered from thestandpoint of particular nations.
In Germany, Clara Stern, the wife of William Stern, wrote
on and put into practice principles of child development inrelation to education. Erich *Stern, a doctor of medicine andphilosophy, was a professor at the universities of Giessen andFrankfurt before leaving for the University of Paris after 1933.
His educational work was concerned with intelligence tests
and with the application of child psychiatry. Curt *Bondy,
who returned to Germany after World War II to become
professor of social and educational psychology at the University of Hamburg, planned a system of education for juvenile prisoners. In the theoretical aspects of education, Jonas*Cohn, the neo-Kantian philosopher, wrote several works
on educational philosophy, among them Geist der Erziehung(1919). Like Cohn, Richard *Hoenigswald approached pedagogy by way of his philosophical specialty, and wrote bookson the theoretical foundations of education. He left Germany
for the U.S. in 1933 after having been professor of philosophy
at the universities of Breslau and Munich. There were many
German Jewish educators who were concerned with the education of girls and women. Susanne *Engelmann wrote on
the psychological foundations of girls’ education, as well as astudy of the teaching of German literary history. Ulrike Henschke (1830–1897) and her daughter Margarete (1859–?) wereactive in the promotion of secondary and vocational education for girls. Higher education for women was the special interest of Henriette Goldschmidt (1825–1920), who also madesignificant contributions, as a follower of Froebel, to the development of the kindergarten movement. This movement
benefited immensely from the activities and writings of Clara
Morgenstern and Johanna Goldschmidt. Eugen Pappenheim(1831–1901) opened kindergartens and seminaries, edited Der
Kindergarten, and founded the Deutscher Froebelverband(1873). Among the other prominent German Jewish educators
were Kurt Levinstein, author of research on the history ofeducation and the teaching of literature; Leo *Kestenberg,
author and editor of books on musical education; and Fritz*Karsen, head of the Karl-Marx-Schule in Berlin, a specialist
in experimental schools and later professor of education at
Brooklyn College, New York. August Homburger (1873–1930),a psychiatrist, founded in Heidelberg in 1917 the first German
counseling center for the education of the mentally handicapped.
In Austria, Theodor *Heller pioneered in the teachingof the blind and the mentally handicapped, wrote and edited
works in these fields, and organized societies. Alfred *Adler
founded kindergartens and experimental schools, and edited
and published works on education from the standpoint of160

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

educationindividual psychology. Ferdinand Birnbaum (1892–1947), a
psychologist, promoted through his teaching, writing, editing, and organizational work, the education of mentally handicapped children on an international basis. Siegfried *Bernfeld,a Freudian psychoanalyst, was active in youth psychology andeducation. In Denmark, Ernst Trier (1837–1893) founded theVallekilde Folk High School (1865) in accordance with theprinciples of Grundtvig. Sofie *Elkan, a novelist, translated thewritings of Comenius, Salzmann, and Pestalozzi into Swedish, thus making pedagogical classics available to the teachers of Sweden.
Jean *Zay, a youthful minister of education in France in
1936–39, introduced a school reform involving careful guidance of 11-year-old pupils before classification in secondary education. Among contemporary educators have been Lamberto*Borghi, professor and director of the Istituto di Pedagogia,
University of Florence, and author and editor of pedagogicalworks and journals; Leon van Gelder, professor of education at
the University of Groningen and former director of the Dutch
teachers’ association; and Joseph Katz, professor of comparative education at the University of British Columbia, founderpresident of the Comparative and International Education Society of Canada, and author and editor of significant writingson Canadian and international education.
Jews have played a significant role in general educationin the U.S.S.R. Moses M. Rubenstein wrote extensively on theapplications of psychology to education. Sergey L. *Rubinstein, of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences, worked along
similar lines. Moses M. Pistrak (1888–1940), author of thefirst textbook on education for pedagogical institutes (1934),
also wrote works on educational theory. Yevgeni Y. Golant,
professor at the Hertsen Pedagogical Institute in Leningrad,became a leading figure in the historical and methodological aspects of education. Sholom Izrailovich Ganelin, of the
Academy of Pedagogical Sciences, is recognized as a specialist
on the theory and history of education. Alexander R. Luria,
a psychologist in the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences, won
an international reputation as an expert on the education of
the mentally handicapped. Elye I. Monoszon, another of themany Jews in the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences, wrote
important works on didactics. Distinction in editorial work
was attained by M.S. Epstein, coeditor of the pedagogical encyclopedia (1927–30), and by David A. Epshtein, an editor of
the new children’s encyclopedia.
In England, Sir Meyer A. Spielman (1856–1936) served as
inspector of schools for juvenile delinquents and as a pioneerin the Borstal movement for their rehabilitation. Sir Philip J.H.
*Hartog was a well-known specialist on higher education andon education in India. Susan *Isaacs applied psychoanalytic
methods in early childhood education, published importantstudies on the social and intellectual development of children,and headed the department of child development at the University of London’s Institute of Education (1933–43). A refugee
from Nazi Germany, where he was professor of psychology at

the University of Frankfurt, Karl Mannheim enhanced his international reputation when he was professor at the Universityof London’s Institute of Education by his publications on thesociology of knowledge and education.
In the United States, the Jewish contributions to general
education in the 20t century have been varied, frequent, andprofound. Probably the single most influential force in changing American education was Abraham *Flexner, the author ofreports on medical education (1910) and universities (1930).
The arguments of Louis *Marshall, the lawyer on behalf ofprivate schools, influenced the U.S. Supreme Court’s Oregon
decision (1925) upholding the constitutionality of parochialschools. Lillian D. *Wald, a social worker, pioneered in public school nursing in New York City. Vice Admiral Hyman G.
*Rickover emerged as a widely read critic of the U.S. educational system. Of particular value was the analysis by Fred M.
Hechinger, who replaced Benjamin Fine as education editorof the New York Times. In the professional field of education,
numerous Jews have distinguished themselves: Isaac B. *Berkson, Harry S. *Broudy, and Israel *Scheffler in the philosophyof education; Bernard Bailyn, Lawrence A. *Cremin, and Saul
Sack in the history of education; Isaac L. Kandel and Harold
J. Noah in comparative education; David P. *Ausubel, Bruno*Bettelheim, Benjamin S. *Bloom, Frank S. Freeman, Kurt
*Lewin, and Irving *Lorge in educational psychology and research; Jacob Greenberg, Mark M. Krug, Morris Meister, Paul
C. Rosenbloom, and Joseph J. *Schwab in methods of teaching various subjects; Harold H. *Abelson, Paul *Klapper, andHarry N. *Rivlin as deans of university schools of education;and Myron *Lieberman as specialist on the professional status of teachers. Abraham A. *Ribicoff and Wilbur J. *Cohenboth served as U.S. secretary of health, education, and welfare;David H. Kurtzman was superintendent of public instructionin Pennsylvania. Rose Shapiro was elected president of New
York City’s Board of Education in June 1968. Most of these experts exercised considerable influence on education in othercountries. Another powerful force in education was the mostly
Jewish United Federation of Teachers in New York with over
140,000 members. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, with thecontroversial Albert *Shanker serving as president 1964–74,
it led a number of major strikes to improve the conditions of
the city’s teachers.
Two Israelis have won international recognition in
education. The philosophical and educational writings of Martin *Buber have had a profound impact in educational theory and on teaching in Protestant theological seminaries invarious countries. Ernst A. *Simon pioneered in the teaching of general educational history and theory in Israel, in
research in these fields, and in advancement of comparativeeducation.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6161

Bibliography: S. Kaznelson (ed.), Juden im deutschen Kulturbereich (19592), 307–22; C. Roth, The Jewish Contribution to Civilisation (19563), 37–53 (bibl.), 281–2.
[William W. Brickman]

EDUCATION, JEWISHEDUCATION, JEWISH. This entry is arranged according
to the following outline. Bibliography at the end of a section
is indicated by (†).
In the Biblical Period
The Nature of the Sources
Historical Survey
The Patriarchal Period and the Settlement
The Kingdom
The Babylonian Exile and Hellenistic Times
The Goals and Orders of Instruction
Religious Education
Educational Institutions
Intra-Family Relationship
Occupational Training
Military Training
Religious Education
Specific Training
The Education of Royalty
Diplomacy and Government
Religious Education
Scribal Education
Curriculum
Education of Priest and Prophet
The Education of Women†
In the Talmud
GeneralCharacter and Aims
Age Levels
The Educational Framework
The Family, the School, the Teacher
Methods of Instruction†
In the Middle ages
Babylonian, Pre-Geonic and Geonic Periods
The West Mediterranean Lands
Northern France and Germany
Eastern Europe and Asia
Community Responsibility†
Jewish Education – 16th–18th centuries
GeneralEurope – North and East
Italy
East Mediterranean and North African Lands†
The Modern Period, 1800–1939
GeneralItaly and Western Europe
Germany and Austria
Eastern Europe
The Balkans and the Lands of Islam
The Period between the Two World Wars†
Jewish Education in Europe (War and Postwar)
The War Years
The Period Since World War II†
Yiddish Education
In Czarist Russia

162

The Ukraine and Belorussia
PolandBorderlands
United States and Canada
Latin American Countries
GeneralJewish Education in the United States of America
Early National Period
Emergence of Sunday Schools
Educational Currents in the Era of Heightened GermanJewish Immigration, 1840–1880
Educational Responses to Mass Migration from Eastern
Europe, 1881–1910
Institutional Development, 1910–1945
Non-Formal Education
Institutions of Higher Learning, National Organizations,
New Initiatives
Jewish Education in a World Transformed, 1945–1975
Growth of Day Schools
Congregational Education in the 1960s and 1970s
New Settings of Jewish Education
Educational Trends at the Close of the 20th Century
Challenges at the Beginning of the 21st Century†
Great Britain
Early Period
The 19t Century
The 20t Century
Early Postwar Developments
Secondary and Higher Education
Hebrew Teaching
Subsequent Developments†
Australia†
Canada†South Africa†
Argentina†
BrazilUruguay†
MexicoNorth Africa†Iranin the biblical period
The Nature of the Sources
The Bible is the primary source for an understanding of theprocess of education in ancient Israel. Since there is no biblicaltext that formulates a philosophy, methodology, or curriculumof education such information must be pieced together fromoccasional admonitions and narrative references and episodes
supplemented by known facts about ancient Near Eastern institutions. Additional information is contained in the growing
amount of ancient Hebrew epigrapha and relevant artifacts
from archaeological digs.
Because of geographic proximity and cultural contact,
extra-biblical Near Eastern material can be used to clarify the

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

EDUCATION, JEWISH
nature of biblical educational institutions. However, this material must be used judiciously, with an eye to the particular
limitations of each society. For example, higher education orbook learning in Mesopotamia and Egypt was formal and limited to the scribal class, which does not seem to have been thecase in Israel. The difference was no doubt due to the simpler
alphabetic system of writing used by the Hebrews.
Any description of education in the biblical period isnecessarily incomplete and must ultimately rely on general
impressions of what was applicable to most levels of society,as it is reflected in the Bible and later Jewish sources.
Historical Survey
The sources at hand do not allow for a precise, chronologicaldescription of the development of pedagogical institutions or
methodology. Three major periods may be discerned, eachdisplaying a distinctive political, social, and economic orderin ancient Israel.
THE PATRIARCHAL PERIOD AND THE SETTLEMENT. During this crucial but sparsely documented period, the Israelites developed national-religious institutions that were tohave a profound influence on them and on the world at large.
For most of this period, they were seminomadic, residingin the great cultural centers of the ancient world, from Ur in
Babylonia to the eastern Nile Delta in Egypt. Politically they
were subject to greater and lesser powers in the Fertile Crescent.
The family or bet av was the basic socioeconomic unit
tending to the communal needs of its members, including
educating the young. In matters of war and external affairs
the families acted concertedly with related groups to form
the tribe and nation. There was little economic diversity. As
the need arose, other clans that had specialized as scribes
joined the confederation of shepherds and farmers (I Chron.
2:55).
The character of the Israelite nation was shaped during
this period. Central to the religion of Israel were the promise
to Abraham (Gen. 15), the exodus from Egypt (Ex. 7ff.), andthe theophany at Sinai (Ex. 19–20). These historic moments
welded the tribes into a nation related through blood and history. Guided by prophets and priests, they set upon the united
goal of the conquest and settlement of the Land of Canaan.
The revolutionary ideals of monotheism were later crystallized in the laws of the Torah and the historical narratives ofthe lives of the Patriarchs.
THE KINGDOM. Through the genius of David, the Israelite tribal union was reshaped into a politically independent,
centralized monarchy. Over the following 400 years, and in
spite of the internal split into two kingdoms, Israel and Judah
were able, at times, to control politically and influence theirneighbors (David-Solomon, Ahab, Jeroboam II, Uzziah, andHezekiah). To serve the needs of this society, new institutions
evolved. Tribal allegiances were subordinated to the new order. The country was redivided into administrative areas, not

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6always along tribal lines (I Kings 4:7–20). A bureaucracy, patterned after local Canaanite models, came into existence, introducing new administrative forms (I Sam. 8:11–18).
The portable tabernacle and local shrines were overshadowed by the Jerusalem Temple, which was patronized by theking and officiated at by his appointees. The king’s conquests
and military establishment superseded the tribal holy wars.
Professional soldiers and mercenaries now fought the battles
of Israel (Song 3:8).
The centralized monarchy and subsequent urbanization
directly affected all aspects of education. The need was felt
for trained professionals and skilled artisans. Religious idealsof the covenant were transmitted to the people at the Temple
and sanctuaries by a recognized priesthood. In reaction to theincreased social injustice found in urban society, the classicalprophets appeared in the eighth century to interpret the social
implications of the election of Israel to the people.
THE BABYLONIAN EXILE AND HELLENISTIC TIMES. The
Jewish people successfully overcame the trauma of the Babylonian Exile. The small province of Judah that was established subsequently was politically part of the Persian Empire and economically dependent upon the gifts of wealthierJews in exile.
Ezra the Scribe and his colleagues were empowered toteach the Torah to the Jews (Ezra 7:25), and under his guidance the Torah became the accepted basis of individual andcommunity life. Beginnings of a program of mass education(Deut. 31:12–13; II Chron. 17:7–9) matured under Ezra into
new institutions, intensifying the study of Torah and raising
the quality of popular knowledge. Recognized instructors,
called mevinim, were appointed to teach publicly. The Torah
was read out and explained (Neh. 8:7–8). It was the beginningof the regular public lection of the Torah, later connected withthe synagogal liturgy and ascribed anachronistically to Ezra
(BK 82a). The internal tensions between stipulations of the
Torah, on one hand, and between the Torah and the realityof the period on the other, led to a search for new meaning in
the biblical text, thereby creating Midrash (Dan. 9:23–27; Neh.
8:13–15). In Hellenistic times there began to appear schools for
public instruction (Eccles. 12:9; Ecclus. 39:1–3). Ben Sira, thelate third century B.C.E. pedagogue, seems to have introduced
tuition-free education (51:28–30). It was not uncommon for an
informal study session to take place even at a student’s house(Avot 1:4). Finally, toward the end of the second century B.C.E.,*Simeon ben Shetaḥ inaugurated the first known system ofcommunity-supported public education. A new intellectualmodel had emerged: the biblical ḥ akham, or wise man, gave
way to the rabbinic talmid ḥ akham, or scholar.
The Goals and Orders of Instruction
The goals of education may be broadly summed up: (1) To
transmit knowledge and skills from one generation to another or from one person to another; (2) To broaden therange of man’s knowledge and skills; and (3) To concretize

163

EDUCATION, JEWISH
cultural values into the form of accepted group and individual behavior.
In each of the three main orders of study in ancient
Israel – religious education, the learning of occupational skills,
and military training – these goals were pursued to varying
degrees. Each type of instruction had its own specific goals,
methods of study, and pedagogic institutions.
Occupational and military training were subject to social
and technological changes. For example, with the appearanceof professional soldiers, military training for the average man
became less important and at times nonexistent. On the other
hand, religious education was conservative, retaining its goals
and some of its methods well after the biblical period.
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION. The goal of religious education was
to produce “a kingdom of priests, a holy people” (Ex. 19:6).
Wisdom literature stated the corollary, reshit ḥ okhmah yiratadonai (“The essence of knowledge is fear of the Lord”; Ps.
111:10; Prov. 1:7).
The means of achieving this goal were twofold: first, therecognition of the divine will in the laws of the Covenant; andsecond, the study of Israel’s history, which reflected God’s concern for His chosen people. Learning God’s law and Israel’s
history became the basic means of receiving a peculiarly Israelite religious education.
The law was regarded as the conditions of the berit, or
covenant, between God and Israel (Ex. 24:7). Near Easternvassal and parity treaties help to clarify many aspects of the
berit as it is found in the Bible (see *Covenant). Since the covenant at Sinai was accepted by all those present when they said
“We will do and obey” (Ex. 24:7), it followed that the whole
nation would have to be taught the laws incumbent uponthem. It is for this reason that Moses, Israel’s first teacher, isrepeatedly commanded to “Speak unto the Children of Israel
saying ….”
How were the laws to be taught? Some Near Eastern treaties contained a “document clause,” i.e., a clause providing either for the public display of the treaty document or for its deposit in a temple, where it was read at regular intervals before
the vassal king and citizens. Parallels are found in the Torah.
The text of the covenant was read at the time of the agreement (Ex. 24:7) and an authentic copy was kept in the holy ark
guarded by the priesthood (Deut. 31:9, 26). The covenant was
to be reread publicly once every seven years during the Feastof Tabernacles (31:10–11); this was the earliest prescription formass education in ancient Israel: “Gather the people – men,
women, children and the strangers in your communities – thatthey may hear and so learn to revere the Lord your God and toobserve faithfully every word of His Teaching. Their children,too, who have not had the experience, shall hear and learn torevere the Lord your God as long as they live in the land which
you are about to cross the Jordan to occupy” (Deut. 31:12–13;
II Kings 23:1–3; Neh. 8:1–8; Sot. 7:8).
The second means of acquiring a religious education
was through the study of Israelite history. The belief in a God

164

acting in events, coupled with a high regard for oral tradition, made the telling of history a most effective pedagogicalmethod. These collective memories took the literary formsof song and story that made up so large a part of biblical literature.
In the words of the psalmist:
Give ear, O my people, to my teaching;
Incline your ears to the words of my mouth.
I will open my mouth with a parable;
I will utter riddles concerning days of old.
That which we have heard and known,
And our fathers have told us,
We will not hide from their children,
Telling to the generation to come the praises of the Lord,
And His strength and His wondrous works that He has done
(Ps. 78:1–4; cf. 44:2).

A periodic reading of a written covenant in addition to
the recital of an oral tradition of sacred history were the distinctive features of the Hebrew religious education. If the laws
specified man’s duty, it was history that revealed God’s concern. Together, they instilled in the Israelite a sense of identification with his God and people.
Educational Institutions
During the biblical period various social and religious institutions served to disseminate the ideals and the amassed
knowledge of society. Some of these were relatively shortlived, already disappearing during the biblical period, e.g., themonarchy and prophecy. Others, like the Temple itself, lasted
through the Second Temple period.
One institution, the *family, has remained a vital educational influence in Israel from biblical times to the present. The
family educated the whole man, only delegating some of its responsibilities in periods of technical specialization. While it istrue that in most societies the family plays the key role in thechild’s socialization, in Israel new emphases were developed.
INTRA-FAMILY RELATIONSHIP. The ancient Israelite family
was characterized as having respect and awe for parents (Ex.
20:12; Lev. 19:3) and love and responsibility toward the children(Mal. 3:24). The parents were allowed almost complete control
over the lives of their offspring, except where the Torah limited their authority, as in cases of dispensing capital punishment (Deut. 21:18–21) or in disallowing the birthright of theeldest son (21:15–17). Fatherly love, even for the disobedientchild, is a favorite prophetic image (Jer. 31:20).
Disciplinary measures were an expression of concern
for the child’s well-being (Prov. 13:24; 22:15; 29:15) and were tohelp him control the inherent evil inclination (Gen. 8:21; Ps.
51:7). At the same time, the child’s natural abilities were to be
encouraged (Prov. 22:6).
An especially close relationship between mother andson seems to have existed in the polygamous family. This
motif plays a major part in the patriarchal stories (Sarah andIsaac; Hagar and Ishmael; Rebekah and Jacob; Rachel and Jo-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

EDUCATION, JEWISH
seph; Leah and Reuben). While sibling rivalry was a decisive
factor in these and later narratives, fraternal concern is also
not lacking (Reuben for Joseph; Judah and Joseph for Benjamin; Miriam, Aaron, and Moses; Eliab for David; Absalom
for Tamar).
OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING. It was a simple matter for thechild to learn the rudiments of herding and farming by observing his elders and taking on these responsibilities at an
early age (I Sam. 16:11). Girls learned the basic home trades
necessary to make the family self-sufficient.
During the nomadic period some families may havespecialized as merchants along the trade routes of the Fertile Crescent (cf. Gen. 37:25), while others were wanderingsmiths, as represented in a 19t-century B.C.E. picture from an
Egyptian tomb. After they settled in Canaan, extended families and even whole villages were employed in a single trade(I Chron. 4:21–23).
Some families became artisans, eventually developing
into professional societies. The terminology employed by these“guilds” was drawn from family life. The founder was called“father” and the members were “sons.” The biblical term forthese groups was, among others, the mishpaḥ ah, or “family”(I Chron. 4:21; cf. lehakah (lehaqah) and ḥ evel).
This same system seems to have been common among
Israel’s neighbors: “Adah bore Jabal, he was the father of those
who dwelt in tents and amidst herds. The name of his brother
was Jubal; he was the father of all who play the lyre and thepipe. As for Zillah, she bore Tubal-Cain, who forged all implements of copper and iron” (Gen. 4:20–22). In Israel the noted
craftsmen Bezalel son of Uri and Oholiab son of Ahisamachtaught their skills to others (Ex. 35:30–34). Even the courageous Shiphrah and Puah may have become eponyms of“households” or professional midwives (Ex. 1:21).

17:14–18). At that time, though, foreign mercenaries, professional Israelite soldiers, and sophisticated arms and defense
systems were introduced, ultimately reducing the importanceof the tribal warrior.
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION. The Israelite home was consciously
employed for the religious education of the young (Deut. 4:9;
6:7). The content of this education centered on the telling offamily, tribal, and national history:
Remember the days of old,
Consider the years of ages past;
Ask your father, he will inform you,Your elders, they will tell you(Deut. 32:7).

The many prophetic allusions to bygone generations assume a wide popular knowledge of Israel’s early history.
Deuteronomy makes a particular point of ensuring thatthe child be instructed orally in the laws of Israel. The headof the household was put under obligation to teach his own
children (Deut. 6:6–7). The naturally inquisitive boy mighthimself initiate such lessons (6:20–25). Copies of appropriate sections of the Torah were to be attached to the doorposts (6:9; 11:20) or (so literally the scriptural phrases werelater interpreted) worn on the person (6:8; 11:18; cf. Prov. 1:9;
3:3; 6:21; 7:3).
An outstanding innovation of biblical pedagogy was thereligious home ceremony, which became the primary means ofconveying cultural values from one generation to another. The
Passover home ritual is found at the very inception of Israel’s
national history (Ex. 12:21–27) and other home rituals wereassociated with other holidays of the Hebrew calendar (Deut.
16:10–12; I Sam. 20:5–6). The home as an educational institution would become the hallmark of the Jewish people.

MILITARY TRAINING. Before the establishment of the Davidic monarchy, the tribes were beset by continual local wars,
necessitating general military training (Judg. 3:2).
The boys learned agility (II Sam. 22:34, 37) and couragein face-to-face combat (II Sam, 2:14ff.). They traveled with
their warrior fathers and took active part in warfare (Judg.
8:20–21). They learned to handle the simple weaponry of thetribesman – sling, bow, sword, and spear.
The youth’s training was probably supplemented by thetelling of heroic exploits (Judg. 14–16; II Sam. 21:15–22), including tactical blunders that were not to be repeated (Judg.
9:50–53; II Sam. 11:20–21).
The tribes fought as units, each under its own banner(Num. 1:52). Some tribes seem to have developed their own
military specialty. The tribe of Benjamin was noted for what
seems to be the ambidextrous use of the sword (Judg. 3:15ff.)
and the sling (Judg. 20:16), whereas the tribe of Judah waspracticed in the bow (II Sam. 1:18). The monarchy probably
exploited these local talents in homogeneous units in the organization of the national army (I Chron. 27:1–22; II Chron.

Specific Training
THE EDUCATION OF ROYALTY. The young prince grew up
in the harem where he was raised by his mother. She was his
first teacher and continued to exert her influence on him after he reached his majority (I Kings 1–2; Prov. 31:1–9). In theevent that her son became king, her influence was enhanced
when she assumed the title and privileges of queen motheror gevirah.
As an infant the prince was placed in the hands of a
wet nurse, who was responsible for his physical well-being(Ex. 2:7–10; II Kings 11:2). After being weaned, the child wasgiven over to a governess (ʾomenet) until he reached the ageof five, approximately (II Sam. 4:4). Childhood and youth
were spent at court in the company of aristocratic contemporaries (II Sam. 8:10; 13:3; II Kings 14:14). Due to accident
or intrigue, the eldest son did not always succeed his father.
To prepare for this eventuality, all the young princes received
the same education. Upon maturing, they assumed positionsof political responsibility, either as advisors to their brother(I Kings 12:8) and/or as governors of key cities in the kingdom (II Chron. 11:23).

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6165

EDUCATION, JEWISH
Already in Davidic times, provision was made for theformal instruction of the king’s sons (I Chron. 27:32). Ahab’s
70 sons were educated by leading men of the northern capital of Samaria, no doubt with specialized training by professional tutors (II Kings 10:1ff.). Neo-Babylonian administrative documents show that the exiled Judean king Jehoiachin
had a Hebrew attendant, perhaps a tutor, for five of his sons(Pritchard, Texts, 308).
Some princes had personal tutors. Solomon benefited
from the prophet Nathan’s guidance (II Sam. 12:25; I Kings
1); the young Joash was raised under the eye of his influential
uncle (according to II Chron. 22:11), Jehoiada, the high priest(II Kings 11–12). Similarly, Isaiah took great interest in theyoung Hezekiah, over whom he was to wield a strong influence (Isa. 9:5–6; 11:1ff.).
The king himself also had influence over his son’s upbringing. His own personality played a major part in theirrelationship. Some, like Saul, tended to harshness, while others, like David, were over-lenient. Both extremes led to family
tragedies. In general, the king supervised the transfer of responsibilities to his sons (II Kings 15:5; II Chron. 21:2–3). On
his deathbed, the king gathered his royal progeny to deliver
his last testament, charging them in religious and diplomatic
matters (I Kings 2:1–9; Isa. 38:1; cf. Gen. 48–49).
Drawing on the Former and Latter Prophets, it is possible to reconstruct broadly the curriculum of a prince’s education. To fulfill his duties properly, he had to be trained inthree main areas: physical and military training, diplomacy
and government, and the national religion of Israel.
The first kings, Saul and David, were famous for theirmilitary prowess; some later kings rose to power through thearmy ranks (Omri, Jehu, and Pekah son of Remaliah). However, not only soldier-usurpers but also princes must havelearned the art of warfare. Kings Jehoshaphat, Uzziah, andJosiah, to mention a few, took an active part in leading theirsoldiers. They trained with the bow (I Sam. 20:19–20, 35ff.;
II Sam. 22:35), could handle horse and chariot, and probably learned the fundamentals of military strategy (I Kings
20:13–14; II Kings 3:6–8). Some were known for bravery andon more than one occasion a king died from battle wounds(I Kings 22:34–35; II Chron. 35:23–24).
In contrast to ancient Near Eastern descriptions of contemporary royalty, the Bible is silent in regard to hunting expeditions. This pastime, which is mentioned in connection
with the non-Israelite Nimrod and Esau, was usually a basicpart of physical training.

which was during the eighth century B.C.E. the lingua francaof the ancient Near East.
The prince had also to learn the workings of government. Upon reaching his majority, he went through a periodof practical training, when he accepted responsibilities in theroyal bureaucracy. Jotham, Uzziah’s heir apparent, held thehigh position of ʿal ha-bayit or “chamberlain” (II Kings 15:5).
A personal seal inscribed only with lytm was discovered in the
excavations of ancient Ezion-Geber, and possibly belonged tothe prince. The absence of his father’s name reflects his highadministrative position. That other princes held minor administrative positions is suggested by several ben ha-melekh (“sonof the king”) seals found in and around Palestine.

DIPLOMACY AND GOVERNMENT. Because of the everpresent foreign influences at court, the prince had a goodmeasure of familiarity with the larger world. Through themany foreign wives, sons of vassals, and frequent diplomatic
envoys (II Kings 5:5ff.; 20:12ff.; Isa. 18), he learned of the customs of the gentiles and learned to appreciate their politicalstrength in relation to that of his father. In the later monarchy the prince may have acquired some fluency in Aramaic,

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION. The king was patron and administrator of the Temple and national cult (II Kings 12). Like allother kings of antiquity, he demonstrated his piety by lavish
donations to the cult (I Kings 8:63).
On the other hand, the prophets demanded of the kingallegiance to monotheism and the religious values of the
Torah, expressed in acts of justice (Isa. 9:5–6) and humility (Deut. 17:14–20). It was by these criteria that the Israelitekings were judged by the authors of the books of Kings andChronicles. These values were imparted to the princes by the
court prophets and priests, not always successfully.
From the very inception of the monarchy in Israel, theking was conceived to be the highest judge in the land (I Sam.
8:5–6). Most of the famous cases mentioned in the Bible are ad
hoc decisions demonstrating the king’s legal sagacity in finding a just solution (II Sam. 14:5–11; I Kings 3:16–28). In orderto fulfill this primary function of kingship, the prince musthave received a thorough education in common law and in thewritten law collections (II Sam. 15:1–6; II Kings 14:6).
Though there are no actual records, some kings may havepromulgated laws of their own (cf. Micah 6:16). Jehoshaphat
is said to have reorganized the judicial system, dividing it into
local courts and a high court of appeal, and appointing supervisors for religious and royal interests (II Chron. 19:5–11).
Such familiarity with Hebrew law assumes that the princes had
training in jurisprudence. Indeed, the Deuteronomic ideal entailed a literate king, well versed in the Torah (Deut. 17:18–19;
cf. II Kings 5:7; 19:14).
Not only in his judicial capacity, but in setting the toneof court life, the king patronized the literary arts. The moretalented among Israelite royalty were accredited even withcomposition in the various genres. David’s musical talent was
still proverbial in the Kingdom of Israel two centuries after his
death (Amos 6:5). His religio-national poems inspired later religious poets to see in him their own spiritual forebear (II Sam.
1:17–27; 22; 23:1–7, and 74 of the 150 psalms).
Solomon was the proverbial wise man, mastering all
forms of wisdom literature (I Kings 5:9–14). This literature
was edited from time to time by the court savants (Prov. 25:1).
Such was the case in the time of Hezekiah, who was also credited with poetic talents (Isa. 38:9–20).

166

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

EDUCATION, JEWISH
The importance of alphabetic writing for the history ofeducation must not be overlooked. It ushered in a break withthe traditional scribal cultures of Egypt, Mesopotamia, andsecond-millennium Canaan. To be literate was no longer theidentifying and exclusive characteristic of a class of professional scribes and priests, versed in the abstruse cuneiform
and hieroglyphic scripts.

CURRICULUM. Scribal education everywhere was the conservative study of traditional methods and subjects. The Israelite scribe had the easy task of learning the 22-letter alphabet,whereas his Egyptian and Mesopotamian counterpart had tomaster at least one system of hundreds of signs.
The alphabet was invented and developed by the Canaanites during the second millennium B.C.E., probably in one of
the major Phoenician cities. Indicative of the conservative nature of the scribal art is the fact that the form of the letters in
the three main alphabetic branches (Phoenician, Hebrew, andAramaic) did not differ radically during the period between
1200 and 600 B.C.E. While mastering the forms, the apprenticescribe learned their order. The standard order of the characters is found already in the 30-letter abecedaries of the scribal
schools of Ugarit (15t century B.C.E.). Minus eight letters, theseries reappears in biblical acrostics (Ps. 119, 145; Lam. 1–4) andis almost identical with the sequence of the modern Hebrew alphabet. Probably in the ninth century B.C.E. the form and orderof the letters were exported to the Greek islands as well.

It seems that Isaiah refers to an elementary class learning
the alphabet in one of his prophecies (28:9–13): he describes
the “first grade” lesson for the day when the children learned
the letters ẓ adi (‫ )צ‬and kof (‫)ק‬. During the excavations at Lachish, a list of the first five letters was found incised on one of
the steps of an Israelite building, perhaps the work of a childpracticing his alphabet.
The second stage of a scribe’s training was the copyingof short texts that may have been learned by heart and practiced at home. The *Gezer Calendar (tenth century B.C.E.) isa possible example of such an assignment. It divides the year
into eight agricultural seasons, noting the main characteristics of each. Gezer had been an important Canaanite city, andduring the tenth century it housed a levite community serving the Jerusalem administration. Perhaps it was in cities likeGezer that the Canaanite scribal traditions were conveyed to
the Israelites.
The young student next learned epistolary and other administrative formulae. After much practice, he could easily
produce the names of the city elders (Judg. 8:14). During themonarchy there was a standard tax form, as found in the Samaria Ostraca (mid-ninth or according to others mid-eighthcentury B.C.E.), and as more recently noted in the inscribedjar handles from Gibeon (late seventh century B.C.E.).
The local scribe had also to master the forms of deeds ofsale (Jer. 32:10–14), marriage contracts (Tob. 7:13 (14) and Elephantine Papyri), bills of divorce (Deut. 24:1–3; Isa. 50:1; Jer.
3:8) as well as court pleas (ostracon from Meẓ ad Ḥ ashavyahu;
Job 31:35). The latter, however, may have been part of the responsibilities of the shoṭ er or “court secretary.” This term isderived from the Akkadian šaṭ āru (“to write”) and related to
the later Hebrew sheṭ ar (“a written document”).
The king’s scribes received a broader and more cosmopolitan education. They had to be competent in diplomacy
and the exact sciences. Their knowledge of international diplomacy began with the study of Aramaic, the lingua francaof the period (II Kings 18:26; Dan. 1:4).
Because of the involvement of all the Israelite kings, from
Ahab to Zedekiah, in regional politics, it was necessary thatthe royal scribes know the workings of the Assyrian, Egyptian, Aramean, and Phoenician courts. Several kings even appeared in person before their Mesopotamian suzerains. International law and treaty formulae (II Chron. 20:35–37) as well
as far-reaching trade agreements (Ezek. 27) were the scribes’
normal business.
Simple arithmetic was probably learned in all formal
systems of education (Isa. 10:19). The Israelite court scribe,
like his Egyptian and Mesopotamian counterparts, mastered
the higher mathematics needed for solving problems of logistics and engineering (II Kings 20:9–11; II Chron. 26:15; 32:30).
While astronomy is not specifically mentioned in Israelite
sources, it was needed for the calendrical intercalations decreed by the central government (II Chron. 30:2–4; Pes. 4:9;
cf. Jub. 4:7; I En. 8:3). Cartography as well was a well-known
ancient art (Josh. 18:9; Ezek. 4:1).

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6167

SCRIBAL EDUCATION. The etymology of the term sofer,“scribe,” has not been conclusively determined. It may be derived from the Canaanite root spr, “to count,” “to tell.” Therabbis suggested a similar origin (Kid. 30a). Others derive
the word from the Assyrian, šaparū, “to send,” “to deliver amessage.” Whatever the origin, it seems clear that in the Biblea distinction should be made between a scribe, in the usual
sense, and a Scribe who because of personal ability or familyties was appointed a minister or secretary of state. Both, however, received the same basic training.
As in the ancient Near East, the scribal class (or “guild”)
in Israel was originally organized along family lines. An earlyexample is found in I Chronicles 2:55. Under the Davidic monarchy, the same principle of kinship is found in the positionof “the king’s scribe” (II Sam. 8:17; I Chron. 18:16; I Kings 4:3;
cf. Ezra 2:55 and Neh. 7:57). This was probably the case toward
the end of the kingdom of Judah. The family of Shaphan dominated the bureaucracy and held the position of king’s scribefrom the time of Josiah until the Exile (II Kings 22:3; Jer. 36:11,
12, 20, 21; 40:9).
Most professional scribes served the administrators of
the central government, city councils, and Temple bureaucracy. These institutions set up their own schools which taught
the specific scribal skills demanded.
Perhaps the youth of Judges 8:14 was a local scribe: “Andhe [Gideon] caught a young man of the men of Succoth, andinquired of him; and he wrote down for him the princes andelders of Succoth, seventy-seven men.”

EDUCATION, JEWISH
In addition to diplomacy and the exact sciences, thecourt bureaucracy developed what might be termed a “scribal
ethic.” Wisdom literature, more specifically the collections
now found in the Book of Proverbs, served as a primary text
for character education: they focused on the individual’s rather
than on the national interest.
Like the comparative Egyptian material, and the Book of*Ahikar (Aramaic), the Book of Proverbs was an outstanding
example of court literature. The book was meant to serve in
educating king and courtier (8:15–18) but especially the bureaucracy (22:29). The virtues stressed by these pedagogues
were, among others, religious piety, proper family relations,honesty, industry, sagacity, responsibility, social virtues, andloyalty to the king.
Various literary methods were used as memory aids forthe student. Key words (Prov. 25:4–5; 30:11–14) and common
ideas (25:2–3, 5–6) tied together independent statements. Similarly alliteration (rash, rashaʿ, raʿ, 28:3–5) and repetition of thesame or similar roots (25:18–20) served as learning devices.
Other units might be formed as number series (30:15–33). Another mnemonic device was the alphabet acrostic (31:10–31).
Foreign material was freely borrowed: Proverbs 22:17–
24:22 bears a great resemblance to the “Thirty Sayings ofAmen-em-Opet,” a famous Egyptian wisdom text (Pritchard,
Texts, 421ff.).
The Book of Proverbs may be the closest thing to an actual school text from the biblical period. Its explicit pedagogic
goal, as well as its employment of mnemonic devices, supports
this contention. The centrality of secular, royal figures (Solomon, Hezekiah, King Lemuel of Massa, “The Wise”) and its
affinities to non-Israelite wisdom literature further argue for
its role in the education of the officialdom.
EDUCATION OF PRIEST AND PROPHET. The nature of thepriest’s education can be determined through an inductive
analysis of his manifold functions in biblical society.
Foremost were the cultic duties centered on the elaborate and complicated sacrificial rites. Later, the sacrifice wasaccompanied by music and song, performed by levitic families, versed in liturgical composition (I Chron. 25).
Giving rulings on questions of ritual law and ritual purity
was intrinsic to the priest’s responsibilities (Lev. 10:8–11; 12–15;
Jer. 18:18; Haggai 2:11ff.; Mal. 1:4–8). The necessary knowledge
for these decisions was no doubt acquired by training andstudy, including the study of the body and its diseases. Professional secular physicians are mentioned in II Chronicles 16:12(cf. Ecclus. 38:7; Pes. 4:9, a “book of medicines”).
It was to the priests that Moses delivered the official copyof the Torah (Deut. 31:24–26; Jer. 2:8). They authenticated andsupervised the writing of subsequent copies (Deut. 17:18–19;
II Kings 22:8) and became the authoritative teachers of the
Torah (Deut. 31:10–13; II Kings 17:28; II Chron. 17:8–9; Ezra
the Scribe was a priest).
The priesthood, though ultimately subject to the kingadministratively, supervised the Temple finances (II Kings

168

12:8–17). (The Chronicler even has the priests assume trusted
positions in the centralized government system of David andSolomon, I Chron. 26:30–32.) Their religious and secular functions demanded that they be literate. This is apparent also inthe centrality of the written word in the cult (Ex. 34:27–28;
Num. 5–23) and upon the sacred vestments (Ex. 28:21, 36).
Though there are no actual records, the clergy must havereceived formal training. As was the case elsewhere, schools
probably were part of the Temple complex.
The clerical census counted priests only from the age of
30 (Num. 4:3) and levites from the age of 25 (8:24), when they
began to assume their cultic functions. This relatively late age
indicated a long period of apprenticeship necessitated by theircomplex duties.
Unlike the priesthood, there were no qualifications forjoining the prophetic orders. Even women achieved renown
as prophetesses (Miriam, Deborah, Huldah).
The prophets attracted a following known as bene hanevi’im, “sons (i.e., disciples) of the prophets.” Some encouraged
only a selected group of disciples (Isa. 8:18) or only a single
protégé (Moses-Joshua; Elijah-Elisha; Jeremiah-Baruch). The
disciple did not always succeed the master since true prophecy was not a skill to be learned but rather a result of divine
election (II Kings 2:9–10).
The disciple’s education was acquired through his ministering to the needs of the prophet. This type of training resembled the rabbinic concept of shimmush, attendance upona master (Avot 1:3). This, of course, is not to say that there was
no formal or literary side to the novices’ education. Several
prophets may have been trained in the court schools (Isaiah and possibly Zephaniah); others had a priestly education(Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and possibly Malachi). Both schools provided a thorough knowledge of the national-religious literature and more.
The prophetic order no doubt preserved and studied
the words and deeds of their illustrious predecessors (Elijah
and Elisha cycles; cf. II Kings 8:4; Jer. 26:17–18). The writingsof the prophets show unmistakable signs of their acquaintance with the writings of their predecessors (Isaiah of Amos’,
Zephaniah of Isaiah’s, Deutero-Isaiah with those of Isaiah,
Zephaniah, and Jeremiah) as well as with the older psalms
and other literature.
There must have been some training in prophetic oration, and musical accompaniment (II Kings 3:15). An enlightening passage, reflecting prophetic training, in addition to thegeneral popularity of the prophets’ presentation, is found in
Ezekiel 33:30–33: “… the children of thy people that talk of theeby the walls and in the doors of the houses and speak one toanother … Come, I pray you and hear what is the word thatcometh forth from the Lord … and, lo, thou art unto themas a love song of one that hath a pleasant voice, and can play
well on an instrument ….”
THE EDUCATION OF WOMEN. Women’s education was conditioned by several cultural factors which limited and set the
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

EDUCATION, JEWISH
goals of their training. Before marriage, the woman was protected by her father or older brothers; afterward, by her husband who represented her interests in the community. Her
dependent status is reflected in her being called by the nameof her husband, be she ever so illustrious in her own right(Deborah, the wife of Lappidoth; Huldah, the wife of Shallum). Likewise her personal seal always refers her to somemale: Elsegov, daughter of Elishama; Ne’ehevet, daughter ofRemaliah; Abigail, wife of Asaiah; Aḥ otmelekh, wife of Yesha;
Menaḥ emet, wife of Gadmelekh.
Her protected status was based on a religious and moral
outlook, sharply contrasting local Canaanite custom, as wellas on economic and social interests that predated the Settlement. These generally limited her activity to that of the homeand kindred occupations and provided the goals and limitations of her education, contingent upon her father’s position
in society.
The mother was naturally the girl’s primary teacher andmodel (cf. Ezekiel’s epigram “Like mother like daughter,”
16:44). Besides her religious obligations, the young girl learned
the domestic chores and special skills of her mother throughobservation and imitation in the informal atmosphere of thehome. She performed other tasks dictated by the family’s
work – attending the flocks (Gen. 29:6) or helping at harvest
time (Song 1:6; Ruth 2:8). She played in the streets and markets(Zech. 8:5). Recently discovered artifacts have demonstrated
that she also possessed an assortment of games and dolls.
The upper-class maiden was raised by her nurse, whosometimes accompanied her to her husband’s house (Gen.
35:8). If orphaned at an early age, she was raised by a close relative (Esth. 2:7). If there were no brothers, she could inherit her
father’s property, though in order to protect tribal interests shewould have to marry paternal relatives (Num. 27:1–11).
She was brought up on the virtues of sexual innocenceand chastity. Violation of her body demanded retaliation by
her menfolk (Gen. 34:25ff.; Judg. 21:22) and was considered agreat personal and family tragedy (II Sam. 13:11ff.).
Woman was created to be a helpmate to her husband(Gen. 2:18). A good wife was regarded as a gift of God andworth great riches (Prov. 31:10). Her subordinate social andeconomic status did not diminish the affection in which she
was held. A mother’s guidance was highly regarded by sonsand daughters, influencing them long after they had matured.
She was taught to be industrious and to take an active
interest in the economics of her home. The paean to a goodwife (Prov. 31:10–31) is an extraordinary celebration of woman’s industry. Other virtues lauded are foresight, thrift, good
judgment, devotion to her husband’s interests, and, above
all, piety. It has been suggested that this passage served as a
guide to a formal course of study in home economics for upper-class girls.
If a woman had a profession or skill, it was passed on
to her daughters. The usual skills were midwifery (Ex. 1:21),
weaving and cooking (I Sam. 8:13), and professional mourn-ing (Jer. 9:19). In the pre-Israelite period a musical profession,associated with the pagan cult, was regarded as a proper alternative to marriage. In a letter to a Canaanite nobleman living
in 15t century B.C.E., Taanach, a friend, advises “As for yourdaughter … let me know concerning her welfare; and if she
grows up you shall give her to become a singer or to a husband” (Pritchard, Texts, 490).
While Israelite women did not participate in the Temple
choirs at Jerusalem, they did sing at the royal court (II Sam.
19:36; Eccles. 2:8). Others were known for gifts of prophecy
and poetic expression (Ex. 15:20–21; Judg. 5). There were wise
women able to compose fables; still others practiced the blackarts and magic (I Sam. 28:7). Such skills indicate a formal
training, learned from experts.
Women raised at court later assumed positions of importance. Political marriages were not infrequent in Israel; such
women must therefore have received some formal education
befitting their future positions. Since some women had personal property (II Kings 4:8ff.) and seals of their own (seeabove), they may have known writing and calculation.

GeneralWhile the sages regarded education as a central instrumentin the preservation of Judaism, talmudic sources, characteristically, nowhere deal with the subject systematically in acomprehensive halakhic exposition. Instead, statements on
education are scattered throughout talmudic literature, not
as normative halakhot, but rather as incidental philosophicalor psychological ideas, which in the main express the educational aspirations of spiritual leaders during about 600 years(c. 100 B.C.E.–500 C.E.). It is possible to derive a good idea,
however, of the actual state of education at that time, which,when compared with the ideal, presents a unique cultural phenomenon – the approximation of pedagogical achievement
to the ideal, not only in the attainments of exceptional individuals but also in the numbers of outstanding contemporary
personalities. Here would seem to lie one answer to the riddleof the continued existence of Judaism despite the catastrophe

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6169

Bibliography: GENERAL: F.H. Swift, Education in Ancient
Israel from Earliest Times to 70 AD (1919); L. Duerr, Das Erziehungswesen im Alten Testament und im antiken Orient (1932); B. Dinur,
in: EM, 3 (1958), 114–21; S. Greenberg, in: L. Finkelstein (ed.), The
Jews, 2 (1960), 1254ff.; S. Talmon and M. Weinfeld, in: Enẓ iklopedyahḤ innukhit, 4 (1964), 144–68; J. Kaster, in: Interpreters’ Dictionary of
the Bible, 2 (1962), S.V. Education, O.T. ON GOALS AND ORDERS OF
INSTRUCTION: D.J. Mc-Carthy, Treaty and Covenant (1963). ON EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS: I. Mendelsohn, in: BASOR, 80 (1940),
17–21; A. Demsky, in: IEJ, 16 (1966), 211–5. ON SPECIFIC TRAINING:
W.F. Albright, in: BA, 5 (1942), 49–55; idem, Yahweh and the Gods of
Canaan (1968), 179–80; M.B. Crook, in: JNES, 13 (1954), 137–40; J. Katzenstein, in: IEJ, 10 (1960), 149–54; B. Uffenheimer, in: Oz le-David
Ben–Gurion (1964), 291ff.; U. Simon, in: Biblica, 48 (1967), 207–42;
A.F. Rainey, in: EM, 5 (1968), 1010–17; S. Aḥ ituv, ibid., 554–66; J. Liver,
Perakim be-Toledot ha-Kehunnah ve-ha-Leviyyah (1968).
[Aaron Demsky]

in the talmud

EDUCATION, JEWISH
which overwhelmed it in the first century C.E. History has
revealed the profundity of *Joḥ anan b. Zakkai’s insight in his
plea to the Roman ruler at the time of the destruction of theSecond Temple: “Give me Jabneh and its sages” (Git. 56b). It
was the study of the Torah which filled the breach left by theloss of the Temple service and which instilled new vigor into
the nation.
Character and Aims
The basis of education is, according to talmudic sources,
the study of the Torah, an all-embracing concept which includes means and ends alike. Two basic educational principles followed from the sages’ regarding Torah as the very
substance of their lives: (1) Education is not to be treated as
distinct from the inner content of life but as one with it; (2)accordingly, Torah study is not to be limited to a certain age
but to continue throughout one’s life under the guidanceof a teacher. The prompting of Rabban *Gamaliel, “Provide
yourself a teacher” (Avot 1:16; cf. also 1:6), was intended foreveryone, without regard to age or social standing. The uniquecharacter of Jewish education finds expression in the phrase“Torah for its own sake,” a concept which sets before thestudent of Torah two goals: the disinterested fulfillment of
the commandment itself – as it is written (Josh. 1:8): “Thoushalt meditate therein day and night” (Maim., Yad, Talmud
Torah 1:8) – and the orientation of his studies to observanceof the mitzvot. Torah study was actually regarded as greaterthan observance in that the first, aside from its intrinsic worth,
led to the second by its very nature (Kid. 40b). The sages,
in what was apparently designed to serve as a model for educators in all generations, defined the ideal man as one who
studies the Bible and the Mishnah, attends upon scholars,
is honest in business, and speaks gently to people (Yoma
86a).
Even as the supreme goal of study was Torah for its own
sake, so was the general aim of education, “Let all your actions
be for the sake of Heaven” (Avot 2:12), an epitomization whichbrings all actions, even those seemingly removed from Torahand mitzvot, into the sphere of man’s central purpose – the service of God. To the end that a man support himself by his ownlabors and not become a burden on society, the sages declared:“All study of the Torah that is unaccompanied by work is ultimately futile” (ibid. 2:2). Accordingly, the permission granted
parents to make arrangements on the Sabbath for the education of their children was extended to include arrangements“for teaching him a trade,” both activities being regarded as“the affairs of Heaven,” i.e., religious duties (Shab. 150a). One
sage even declared that whoever fails to teach his son a trade,encourages him to become a brigand (Kid. 29a). A child was
also to be taught swimming, undoubtedly for the preservation of life. As for other subjects, astronomy and geometry
were regarded as aids to the study of the Torah, philosophy(“the wisdom of the Greeks”) was not approved, and foreign
languages, though discouraged for fear of contaminating cultural influences, were apparently, in view of the number of170

non-Hebrew words that found their way into talmudic literature, not entirely prohibited (see *Greek and Latin Languages,
Rabbinical Knowledge of). Moreover, *Abbahu allowed girls
to be taught Greek as “a social accomplishment” (TJ, Pe’ah 1:1,15c), while Rabban Gamaliel established a school in which 500
pupils were taught philosophy so that they might be able tomaintain contacts with the ruling authorities.
Age Levels
A child’s education commences when he begins to speak,whereupon the duty devolves upon the father to teach him to
repeat selected biblical verses, such as “Moses commanded
us a law, an inheritance of the congregation of Jacob” (Deut.
33:4). This reveals the sages’ appreciation of the cultivation ofa child’s imitative, mechanical faculties even before the attainment of understanding. They were aware of the value of inculcating in young children the habit of observing the mitzvot: “A
minor who knows how to shake a lulav is obliged to observe
the laws of the lulav; a minor who knows how to wrap himself
in the tallit is obliged to observe the law of the ẓ iẓ it” (Tosef.
Hag. 1:2). The pedagogical rule in *Judah b. Tema’s statement:“At five years the age is reached for studying the Bible, at ten
for studying the Mishnah, at thirteen for fulfilling the mitzvot,
at fifteen for studying the Talmud” (Avot 5:21) was not always
rigidly adhered to. At variance with it is *Rav’s statement to*Samuel b. *Shilat, a schoolteacher: “Do not accept a pupil
under the age of six; but accept one from the age of six andstuff him [with knowledge] like an ox” (Ket. 50a). At Usha it
was laid down that up to the age of 12 gentle means were to
be used to induce a child to study (ibid., loc. cit.). A girl anda boy on reaching the age of 12 and 13 respectively were regarded as “adults,” whereupon the father was no longer obliged
to teach them Torah and the observance of mitzvot, the obligation now devolving upon the “new adults.” The studies ofadolescents did not thus represent a unique pedagogical stage.
The obligation to study Torah under their teachers for the restof their lives applied to them as it did to all other adults. Having learned Bible and Mishnah, they attended lectures on the
Mishnah together with the young scholars and were present
at the talmudic discussion centering around the mishnayot.
In this “yeshivah” no distinction was made on grounds of age
or status. Even those engaged primarily in earning a livelihood took part in the studies during the month of *kallah, thespecial lecture series given by the academy head during themonths of Adar and Elul when the studies of the intervening
periods were summarized.
The Educational Framework
THE FAMILY, THE SCHOOL, THE TEACHER. In biblical times,
as mentioned, the family, particularly the father, was thesource of education. After that time, however, the growing demands of life and the expanding boundaries of Torahstudy made an institutional framework necessary. At an earlystage it was apparently the custom to assemble children in the
synagogue, where they were taught reading from the biblical
scrolls. The first regulation that children be sent to school was
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

EDUCATION, JEWISH
Methods of Instruction
Instruction was two-pronged in intent – improvement of thememory by accurate transmission and frequent repetitionof material, and, at a later stage, the development of creative
thought. Pupils learned to transmit statements in the samephraseology used by their teachers (“one is obliged to use thelanguage of one’s teacher”). Since the Oral Law, which could
not be committed to writing, was continually expanding, accuracy in learning it was attainable only through endless repetition; hence the dictum, “He who has repeated his chapter
a hundred times is not to be compared to him who has repeated it a hundred and one times” (Ḥ ag. 9b). The pupils thus
acquired proficiency in recitation and a knowledge of thelanguage of Scripture and the basic equipment required forparticipation in the creative study of the Talmud, essentiallyan incisive analysis of the mishnayot and the beraitot. The
sages were strikingly modern in their practice of the pedagogic
art. When *Tarfon’s pupils said to him: “Tell us, teacher, by
what virtue did Judah merit the kingdom? he answered, ‘You
tell’” (Mekh., Be-Shallaḥ 5). On one occasion *Akiva deliberately stated a halakhah incorrectly “to sharpen the wits of
his pupils” (Nid. 45a). Every possible mnemonic device was
employed – notarikon, association of ideas, and many others. Only in this way could the vast body of talmudic thought
have been transmitted intact from generation to generation
until the end of the fifth century C.E., when it was finally redacted.
Discipline played a vital role in this system (see Shab. 13a,and Rashi, ad loc., S.V. ve-eimat rabban aleihem). Although
corporal punishment was inflicted when deemed necessary,
the sages sought to curtail it as much as possible and warned
against injuring a child. Rav’s directives to Samuel b. Shilat
the school teacher included the following: “When you punish a pupil, hit him only with a shoe latchet. The attentive student will learn of himself; the inattentive one should be placednext to one who is diligent” (BB 21a). This counsel applied
to younger students; with those who were older the teacher
might introduce the lesson with a humorous remark to create
an atmosphere congenial to learning. But the teacher’s mostvaluable asset was the example he set for his students. Wellaware of this, the sages sought to impress upon teachers theneed for circumspection in speech and deed. Thus *Ze’eira,a leading amora of the end of the third century, stated: “Oneshould not promise something to a child and then fail togive it to him, for he thereby teaches him to lie” (Suk. 46b).
Though the sages were remarkable pedagogues, the greaterpart of their achievement doubtless resulted from the atmosphere generated by their personalities, an atmosphere of unbounded love for the Torah and of supreme self-discipline in
the observance of mitzvot.

introduced by Simeon b. Shetaḥ , the brother-in-law of King
Alexander Yannai (c. 100 B.C.E.). The Talmud provides a more
explicit statement on the establishment of schools at the endof the Second Temple period (the beginning of the commonera) in which are noted the various stages in the developmentof institutional education: “Rav Judah said in the name of Rav:
‘Truly the name of that man is to be blessed, namely, *Joshua b.
Gamla, since but for him the Torah would have been forgotten
in Israel. At first, if a child had a father, his father taught him;
if he had no father, he did not learn at all… They then introduced an ordinance that teachers of children be appointed in
Jerusalem … Even so, if a child had a father, the father would
take him up to Jerusalem and have him taught there; but if he
had no father, he would not go up there to learn. They therefore ordained that teachers be appointed in each district andthat boys enter school at the age of 16 or 17. But because a boy
who was punished by his teacher would rebel and leave school,
Joshua b. Gamla at length introduced a regulation that teachers of young children be appointed in each district and town,
and that children begin their schooling at the age of six orseven’” (BB 21a). The basis of organized schooling for all ages
was laid by Joshua b. Gamla’s regulation. Most of these schools
were in synagogues and were under the supervision of beadles (see Shab. 1:3). “There were 480 synagogues in Jerusalem,each of which had a Bible school (bet sefer) for the study of the
Bible and a Talmud school (bet talmud) for the study of theMishnah” (TJ, Meg. 3:1, 73d). At a later period, the patriarch,as the chief spiritual leader, was concerned with education andwith the quality of teachers. *Judah III (third century C.E.)
sent emissaries throughout Ereẓ Israel to ascertain whether
each town had teachers of the Bible and of the Mishnah (TJ,
Ḥ ag. 1:7, 76c). *Rava, a leading amora of the fourth century
C.E., introduced, on the basis of Joshua b. Gamla’s regulation,
several important educational ordinances: (1) No child was tobe sent daily from one town to a school in another, but could
be sent from one synagogue to another in the same town. (2)The number of pupils to be assigned to a teacher was 25. If
there were 40, an assistant was to be appointed. Whether one
teacher could be replaced by a better one was the subject of adifference of opinion between Rava and *Dimi of Nehardea,
who also differed on which teacher was to be preferred, one
who taught a great deal but inaccurately, or one who taught
less but without mistakes. Dimi’s view, favoring the more careful teacher, was adopted (BB 21a).
All these institutions – the bet sefer for the study of the
Bible, the bet talmud for the study of the Mishnah, and theyeshivah – had as their purpose not only the imparting of
knowledge but also education for a life of Torah. This aim wasachieved thanks to the personal example set by the teachers,
who were held in awe by their students, as witness the statement of *Joḥ anan b. Nappaḥ a and *Simeon b. Lakish (prominent Ereẓ Israel amoraim of the third century C.E.): “We succeeded in the Torah only because we were privileged to see*Judah ha-Nasi’s finger projecting from his sleeve” (TJ, Beẓ ah
5:2, 63a).

Bibliography: Enẓ iklopedyah Ḥ innukhit, 4 (1964), 144–68,
includes bibliography; J. Ster, Die talmudische Paedogogik (1915); H.
Gollancz, Pedagogics of the Talmud and that of Modern Times (1924);
N. Morris, Toledot ha-Ḥ innukh shel Am Yisrael, 1 (1960); M. Eliav andP.A. Kleinberger, Mekorot le-Toledot ha-Ḥ innukh be-Yisrael u-va-Am-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

171

EDUCATION, JEWISH
mim (1960), 48–70; A. Berman, Toledot ha-Ḥ innukh be-Yisrael u-vaAmmim (19682), 25–35.
[Yehuda Moriel]

Babylonian, Pre-Geonic, and Geonic Periods
By the end of the fifth century, the time of the completionof the Babylonian Talmud, the Jewish community in Babylonia had become the leading Diaspora Jewry, a position it
was destined to maintain for another five hundred years. This
leadership expressed itself also in its educational system andin its high level of scholarship. Many synagogues had both a
bet sefer for elementary study, and a bet talmud for advanced
study. At the peak of this network of educational institutions
were the two major academies of *Sura and *Pumbedita that
contributed so richly to Jewish scholarship and, through theinterpretation of the halakhah, set the pattern for Jewish religious life and the place of study in it. The heads of theseacademies – known at first as rashei ha-yeshivot, and later as
geonim – were accepted as the authorities on religious law not
only in Babylonia but also in the other lands of the dispersion.
In the seventh century, Babylonia’s influence was enhanced by
the Arab conquests of many Mediterranean countries, extending as far as Spain, which united them with Babylonia in thebonds of a common language, Arabic. This last factor facilitated personal contact and communication between the Jewries of the geonic period and helped establish and solidify amore or less uniform style of Jewish life.
One of the chief components of this style of life was theupbringing of children. Their education was started at homewhere at a very early age they noted numerous observances,learned some of the benedictions and simple prayers and began participating, on their level, in many traditional practices,
especially on Sabbaths and holidays, where they became acquainted with the synagogue rituals and celebrations. The
home and the synagogue were effective educational agencies
from the child’s very infancy.
While some children were instructed by their fathers,
starting school at age six was the more common practice. The
school was usually in the synagogue or in a building near it,
and the pupils were accordingly referred to as “synagogue
children” (tinokot shel bet keneset). It was a community institution. However some affluent parents preferred private
schools for their sons.
The elementary school’s chief aim was to prepare theboy for participation in the synagogue service. The ability toread was therefore the first objective. Books being rare andexpensive, children learned the alphabet by copying its letters on parchment, or paper or slate. In the early stages oflearning, the teachers often outlined block letters which thechildren filled out, and sometimes colored. On the more advanced level, scrolls or sheets with biblical texts were available,or Torah scrolls that were unfit (pesulim) for synagogue use.
Prayers and sections from the Pentateuch came next on the
program, often starting with Leviticus. The Torah was stud-

ied assiduously in an attempt to cover the sidra (“portion of
the week”). Afterward the pupils delved into the books of theProphets and Hagiographa, but a later tendency was to neglectthese works in favor of Talmud. In some schools the native
language and arithmetic were also taught. *Hai ben Sherira(10/11t century), the last gaon of Pumbedita, permitted teaching these secular subjects, recognizing the need for them indaily life. However, their inclusion in the school’s curriculum
probably preceded Hai’s dictum.
Widespread and effective elementary education continued in Babylonia’s Jewry for a thousand years or so. Surely*Pethahiah of Regensburg exaggerated when he recorded in
his travel diary (of 1180) that “there is no one so ignorant in thewhole of Babylonia, Assyria, Media, and Persia, that he does
not know the twenty-four books [of the Hebrew Bible] with
their punctuation and grammar. …” This statement, however,reinforces information from other sources indicating that basic instruction was the lot of nearly all boys during the centuries of the gaonate.
The elementary teachers at this period were known asmelammedei tinokot, or simply melammedim. Their economic
position was relatively low, as was also apparently their social
status. Hai Gaon, who, in his didactic poem Musar Haskel(“Wise Instruction”), urged the people not to be miserly in
educational matters and engage good teachers for their children, also advocated generosity in the matter of teachers’ remuneration. Teachers enjoyed extra presents on special occasions and on gift-giving holidays, particularly from parents
pleased with their children’s achievements.
The elementary schools were also preparatory institutions for more advanced studies. There were two levels ofsuch study that may be characterized in the modern terms of
secondary and higher learning but this division did not reflect so much the age of the students as the level of studies.
In the intermediate stage, those engaged in Midrash Mishnah(study of the Mishnah) or Midrash Talmud (study of the Talmud) still needed the assistance of a rav – a teacher. On theupper level students proceeded with their learning independently. The subject was almost exclusively Talmud. The stresson Talmud brought about a nearly complete elimination of
Bible and Mishnah from schools beyond the elementary. *Natronai b. Hilai Gaon (nineth century) expressed the opinion
that adults, being pressed for time because of the need to earn
their living, should concentrate on the study of the Talmud,
since the Talmud contains much of the other two works. Thissame logic was later expressed by Rabbenu Jacob b. Meir
*Tam in France.
The Babylonian academies served substantial numbersof students, some of them from distant lands: Egypt, Tunisia,
Italy, Spain. During the pre-holiday months of Adar and Elul,
the kallah assemblies in the academies attracted many students. In Babylonia there thus developed a system of talmudic
learning also for the broader circles of the Jewish population,
something on the order of peoples’ universities or, to use still
another modern term, extension courses.

172

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6in the middle ages

EDUCATION, JEWISHThis entire educational enterprise, however, was restricted to the male population. Girls did of course learn agreat deal at home and were taught those observances thatapplied to their function as housekeepers. They knew the
benedictions and prayers related to these activities. Some ofthem also learned to read and attended synagogue services.
There are references to an organized girls’ class, to a girl that
attended school together with her brother, and even to some
women teachers. But these were exceptions. By and large theJewish women of that period were untutored and either completely or partially illiterate.
The West Mediterranean Lands
In the West Mediterranean countries of Spain, southern
France, and Italy, one finds in the eighth and ninth centuries
the same basic educational pattern that prevailed in Babylonia.
But in the course of time a substantial network of elementary
schools and important academies for advanced study were
established in Spain, which inherited Babylonia’s place as the
Diaspora’s leading Jewry, and the dependence on Babylonian
scholarship lessened considerably. The elementary Judaic
program remained much the same as in earlier centuries in
Babylon. On the more advanced levels, however, many new
books were introduced, most of them by Spanish authors,
but including the commentaries of northern France’s *Rashi.
There was also a tendency to engage less in pilpul (the casuistry of excessive arguing pro and con on all halakhic matters,
which was supposed also to sharpen one’s mind) and concentrate instead on works of such codifiers as Isaac *Alfasi and,later, *Maimonides.
Another innovation was the introduction into the curriculum of Hebrew language and grammar, a more serious
study of the Prophets and Hagiographa, and of contemporary Hebrew poetry. Judah *Al-Ḥ arizi (c. 1200, Spain) speaksof the “inspiration that descended upon the Jews of Spain …
in the year 4700 (940 C.E.) to train their manifold tongues inthe style of poems,” which was very poor at first but improvedin the course of a century until “they learned to construct astanza in meter and proper form.” In Spain also the curriculum
expanded, especially in the upper classes, to include general,secular instruction. The language of the country, Arabic, wasstudied in order to improve one’s professional or business opportunities. Judah ibn *Tibbon (1120–1190, Spain and France),
in his “testament” to his son, stated that “as you know, the greatmen of our people did not achieve their high position except
through their knowledge of Arabic.” Some students found it
feasible to combine the study of Bible and of Arabic, and Ibn
Tibbon advised his son to review the weekly sidra every Sabbath both in the original and in Arabic translation, “as thiswould be of benefit to you [in understanding] the vocabularyof Arabic books.” Good writing, too, was taught: fine penmanship to the young, proper language and good style to themore advanced.
The progression in the Judaic program of studies was, as
elsewhere, reading the Pentateuch, then Mishnah and Talmud.

Obviously, not everyone continued through all these stagesof learning. *Baḥ ya ibn Paquda, in a classification of educational accomplishments, describes the person on the lowest level of achievement as able to read a biblical verse without understanding its content, without even knowing themeaning of the words, as “comparable to an ass carrying
books.” There were then some, perhaps many, who remained
ignorant. Others advanced to substantial levels of knowledge.
During this period there appeared for the first time inJewish literature treatises on education, mostly chapters invarious books, testaments, or commentaries, some of which
are quite informative about the educational practices of thetime. A school curriculum was fully outlined by Joseph ibn*Aknin who lived mostly in North African lands, but whose
opinions represent typical Spanish views. Besides Torah,
Mishnah, and Talmud, he advocated the study of grammar,
poetry and continuation to logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, music, physical science, and metaphysics. Ibn
Aknin also expressed definite opinions about teacher qualifications and prerequisites for the good student. The teacher
must be well versed in the subject he instructs; must practicewhat he teaches or preaches; should be patient with students
and consider their learning abilities; should stress ethical behavior, etc. The good student is to acquire habits of cleanlinessand good manners; should not be too bashful to ask questions; should pay attention and subject himself to his teacher’s discipline; must never be idle; should study for the sake ofknowledge and not in order to acquire wealth or for any otherulterior purpose. The mature student should seek out communities that have good schools and try to learn from qualified teachers rather than exclusively from books. Other writers give programs of study similar to Ibn Aknin’s or to parts ofit, suggesting that in all likelihood some such programs wereactually followed in many communities. An even more detailed and ambitious outline by Judah ibn *Abbas (13t century,
Spain) offers curriculum guidance for virtually a lifetime. At
the age of three or three and a half the child learns the alphabet, reading, and proper vocalization. He is then taught the
weekly portions of the Torah, with stress on correct reading
and cantillations; the translation of the Torah into Aramaic,
which will prepare him for the language of the Talmud; theFormer Prophets, with emphasis on accurate meaning, syntax
and writing, to be followed by the Latter Prophets and the Hagiographa. This program should be covered by about the age of
13. The boy will then study grammar and language. Only after
such well-grounded preparation does one begin studying the
Talmud with commentaries. The halakhah requires separate
attention, and is taken up next, culminating in Maimonides’
Mishneh Torah. When the young man reaches the age of 18
or so, he studies medicine, mathematics, astronomy, logic,
and natural sciences. Specific works are named in textbooks
for the various subjects. Ibn Abbas warns that at all times thescholar must observe the commandments, and the more hedelves into the various subjects (ḥ okhmot), the more must

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6173

EDUCATION, JEWISH
he strengthen his fear of the Lord and the observance of the
mitzvot. This program may have been followed by a few ofhigh intellectual abilities who could afford to devote themselves entirely to study. But the unexceptional too, especiallyamong the wealthy, followed a rich curriculum of both the sacred and profane subjects. Even music and sports were learnedin affluent families, though most likely not in the schools, but
privately. King Affonso of Portugal is reported to have asked
some Jewish scholars why they taught their sons music andfencing when they are obligated to weep over the destructionof the Temple and they do not go into battle.
Such Spanish curricula, with extension into languages
and secular studies, were not universal. There were always
those who concentrated almost exclusively first on the Pentateuch (Ḥ umash), then on Talmud, to the neglect even of
Hebrew and of the post-Pentateuch Bible books. A compromise view was that “extraneous” subjects were permissible for
God-fearing and observant adults who had already become
thoroughly versed in Jewish lore. Jacob *Anatoli (1200–1250,
Marseilles) expressed the opinion that those who prohibitedthe study of “Greek wisdom” on the basis of the talmudic injunction not to teach “your sons” higgayon (meaning “Greek
wisdom”) erred in interpretation, and the word “sons” should
be understood to mean young boys who were not ready toassimilate it.
This issue of advanced “extraneous” studies stirred Jewish
communities repeatedly in both Spain and southern France
and led to serious controversies. In Montpellier (southern
France) it resulted in a violent split between the proponents
and opponents of philosophy and in mutual excommunication by and of the two groups. Solomon b. Abraham *Adret,rabbi of Barcelona and prominent leader of Spanish Jewry,
wrote a decision which prohibited “extraneous” teachings
to those below the age of 25, on threat of excommunication.
However, he permitted the teaching of medicine which wasneeded to heal the sick.
The fear of the effects of broad general education was notwithout foundation in reality. Spanish Jewry of the 12t and13t centuries experienced a weakening of the faith in some ofits best-educated circles. M. *Guedemann states that Jews of
Spain became in large measure “Arabized,” or, through Arabic learning of Greek philosophy, Hellenized (Guedemann’sterm in German is “graecisiert”). This resulted in a countertendency on the part of many leaders troubled by the phenomenon. They gained strength by the arrival from Germany in 1305 of *Asher b. Jehiel who became rabbi in Toledo.
R. Asher never studied “Greek wisdom” and rather gloried inthat fact. His opposition to this area of scholarship was resolute and effective. Talmudic study gained greatly due to his efforts and influence, and as a result Jewish education in Spain
took a turn away from the trend of the two or three previous
centuries, and by and large restricted itself to Torah and Talmud. In certain groups, particularly those in the higher economic and social strata, the practice of engaging in secularstudies persisted.

The Jewish settlements in Provence, southern France, resembled those of Spain in their educational and cultural development. Here too, learning had developed to a high level.
*Benjamin of Tudela, who traveled in the area in 1165, listed
a string of towns that had important academies and scholars.
Lunel is mentioned as a city with “about three hundred” Jews,
where the “holy community of Israel” is engaged in studying
Torah day and night and “people that come there from afar to
study are maintained by the community as long as they stay inthe house of study.” Posquières, with only “about 40 Jews,” has“a great yeshivah.” Marseilles, with “about 300 Jews,” is “a cityof geonim and sages.” Narbonne and Arles were centers of Jewish medical learning in the 13t century. Some Jewish schools
in the French cities must have been substantial institutions,as reflected in documents of the sale of Jewish properties that
accrued to the royal treasury after the expulsion of the Jews
in 1306. While ordinary houses were sold for 5–20 livres andbig houses for somewhat higher prices, Jewish school structures realized 350 livres for the building of the Midrash Katan
and 620 livres for the Midrash Gadol, both in Narbonne, andsimilarly for buildings in other cities. In Toulouse there was astreet named Rue des Ecoles Juives, suggesting more than one
school. These houses were sold for 700 livres.
The educational picture in Italy resembled that in Spainand southern France. A cultural spurt in Italy during theeighth century contributed to a parallel development in the
Jewish community. Apparently there were at that time wellestablished Jewish communities and schools in the south of
Italy. Abraham *Ibn Ezra, who visited Italy in mid-12t century, expressed little respect for Italian Jewish scholarship. Hebrew, however, was in use, at least in certain circles. Solomonb. Abraham *Parḥ on (12t century, Spain and Italy) observedthat Italian Jews spoke Hebrew better than those of Spain.
His explanation was that since all the “lands of Ishmael” used
one language (Arabic), the Jews understood each other without resort to Hebrew, but it was a necessity in the Christianlands that used diverse languages, and Jewish travelers fromthese lands used Hebrew among themselves. From the 13t
century on, Italian Jews were active in the study of Hebrew
poetry, Bible, and Talmud, but in all of these pursuits Italian
Jewry more or less followed the paths paved in Spain and insouthern France.

174

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Northern France and Germany
The educational aims of the Jews in northern France and inGermany during the first half of the previous millennium differed from those in Spain and Provence. Knowledge of Torah,strict observance of the commandments, and complete devotion to God and to Israel, even to the point of readiness to
be martyred, were the exclusive objectives in the rearing andteaching of the young generation. Philosophy did not hold any
lure for them and they delved into the study of the Scripture
and Talmud without the need to reconcile them with Greek
philosophy. The teacher’s task was thus to teach and not to
speculate; the scholar’s task to elucidate and explicate theEDUCATION, JEWISH
law where it was obscure and difficult, as did Rashi (Troyes,
France), the explicator par excellence whose commentaries
helped the young boy and fascinated the adult. With suchan attitude deeply implanted in the Jewish communities, Judaic knowledge was quite widespread. Guedemann states his
conviction that the study of the Bible in the original was so
widespread in 11t-century France, that there was hardly a Jew
there who did not know Hebrew and learned Jews spoke Hebrew out of preference.
The Franco-German educational literature of this period, both fragments found in various works as well as several documents dealing primarily with learning, provides afairly complete picture of education in the Jewish communities. The home, the rearing institution of early childhood,
was saturated with a motivating atmosphere and with practices that would later lead to effective Jewish learning. Someof these were performed long before the child could appreciate their meaning. Thus, the Maḥ zor *Vitry, a compilationof Jewish laws, prayers, and customs for the cycle of the year,
written by Simḥ ah of Vitry (d. about 1105), tells of a custom
that “some short time after circumcision, ten men would begathered [in the home of the infant], a Ḥ umash (Pentateuch)placed over the infant” in his cradle and the wish would be expressed “may this [boy] observe what is written in this [book].”As he was growing up the boy heard prayers and benedictions
on many occasions at home, and was taught to repeat manyof them. He soon began to carry his father’s prayer book to
the synagogue and sat there during services on low benches
provided for children. On Fridays after the Minḥ ah service
he would run home to notify his mother of the arrival of the
Sabbath and of candle-lighting time. On Passover eve children
were given nuts or chestnuts to play with, and wine glasses toarouse interest in their role at the seder ceremony. Similarly
there were various practices in which children participatedon other holidays: noisemakers on Purim, bows and arrows
on Lag ba-Omer, etc.
The start of formal schooling was a special event. The
boy was sent to a “ḥ eder” (the word meaning room), a term
which came into use in the 13t century, suggesting that certain
rooms in the synagogue were designated especially for study.
According to the Maḥ zor Vitry, “when a person introduces
his son to the study of Torah, the letters are written for him
on a slate. The boy is washed and neatly dressed. Three cakes(ḥ allot) made of fine flour and honey are kneaded for him
by a virgin and he is given three boiled eggs, apples, and otherfruits. A scholarly and honorable man is invited to take him toschool … The boy is given some of the cake and eggs and fruit,and the letters of the alphabet are read to him. Then the letters[on the slate] are covered with honey and he is told to lick it
up … And in teaching him, the child is at first coaxed and finally a strap is used on his back. He begins his study with thePriestly Code and is trained to move his body back and forth
as he studies.” This description is followed by an explanationof the rationale of each of these details. R. Eleazar b. Judah ofWorms lists some of the same details in his version of school

enrollment, as does also an anonymous document, Sefer Asufot, written probably around the year 1300. This initiation into
school was usually made when the boy was five years old, insome cases earlier, at the time of the festival of Shavuot, whichcelebrates the giving of the Torah. Another source gives themonth of Nisan as a suitable time weatherwise, “neither cold
nor hot,” for such a start.
The curriculum of the elementary school was the traditional one consisting, as R. Eleazar of Worms summarized it,of first learning the letters, then combining them into words,
then biblical verses, to be followed by Mishnah and Talmud.
But there was no need for pedagogues to outline this curriculum, since most Jews knew it quite well. The document Hukkei
ha-Torah (“Rules of the Study of Torah”) instructs the father
to bring his child to a teacher at the age of five and tell theteacher what he expects of him: “… you are to teach my son
knowledge of the letters during the first month, vocalizationin the second, combination into words in the third and afterwards this ‘pure’ child will take up the ‘purities’ of the book ofLeviticus. …” Later, the boy is to learn the weekly sidra, firstin Hebrew and then in the vernacular and the Targum (theAramaic translation of the Pentateuch) and its translation
into the vernacular. At the age of ten the boy starts Mishnahand certain tractates of the Gemara. By 13 he has completed
his course in the Midrash Katan and then continues in theMidrash Gadol (terms probably taken from the French petiteécole and grande école.)
These Ḥ ukkei ha-Torah, written in 1309, are unique inthat they constitute a complete set of regulations dealing with
community responsibility, school administration and supervision, course of studies, and other administrative and instructional elements. According to these regulations, teachers
should not instruct more than ten children in any one group.
The pupils should be trained to discuss their lessons with eachother, and thus sharpen their minds and increase their knowledge. “On Fridays teachers should review with their students
what they had studied during the preceding week, at the endof the month what they studied during the past month, inthe month of Tishri what they had studied during the summer, and in the month of Nisan what they had studied during the winter.” A supervisor is to be appointed to observe thepupils’ diligence or indolence. Should the supervisor note a
slow-learning, dull child, he should bring him to his father
and say: “May God bless your son, and may he be brought
up to perform good deeds, because it is difficult to bring him
up for study, lest on account of him brighter students be retarded.” Seven more years of talmudic study were to follow theelementary and intermediate schooling. This did not apply tothe masses (hamon). However, the numerous references in theliterature to yeshivot suggest that there were many bright boys
who did continue with such an advanced program.
*Judah b. Samuel he-Hasid of Regensburg in his Sefer
Hasidim advocated continuation of studies until the students
no longer need their teacher and “are already teaching others.”
He, too, felt that talmudic studies were not for everyone: “if

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

175

EDUCATION, JEWISH
you see that [the boy] can study Bible but not Talmud, do notpressure him to study Talmud.” For Talmud was practicallythe exclusive subject in the yeshivot, and talmudic erudition
was the highest educational objective. The starting of a new
tractate of the Talmud was an occasion for a minor celebration and a feast in which community leaders often participated. Hours of study were long, even for the young children,
but especially for the talmudic scholars. When the young boys(baḥ urim) arrived at an independent age, some of those whosought further knowledge wandered off to towns that had renowned yeshivot. This practice seems to have become fairly
widespread in the 14t and 15t centuries during the declineof the Jewish communities in Germany that followed the severe persecutions associated with the *Black Death. Many
schools closed their doors and young men in search of Torah
wandered about the land. Occasional yeshivot arranged accommodations for these nomadic scholars and communities
helped provide for their maintenance.
Here, as elsewhere, the educational program was aimed
at the male population only. Women were not taught Torah,although a few of them managed to learn some of it. Sefer*Ḥ asidim states that girls should be taught to pray, and also
those commandments that fall within their realm of activities,“for if she does not know the regulations of the Sabbath, howwill she observe the Sabbath?” The education of girls was thus
quite limited in France and Germany as elsewhere.

tary study of the Torah seems still to have been popular. In the
ninth century a deviationist tendency appeared in the work of*Ḥ iwi al-Balkhi, who apparently wrote an abbreviated version of the Pentateuch, omitting portions that he consideredunsuitable for children, and criticizing many biblical passages
and teachings. His book and opinions gained popularity also
in *Afghanistan, his land of birth, and in other countries, sothat *Saadiah b. Joseph Gaon found it necessary to attack itseverely. Jewish learning in Persia was already then on the decline, but the Jews, some of whom were active in Persian cultural life, retained their Hebrew alphabet for the Persian language in whatever writing they had to resort to. A number of
Persian language manuscripts of the 12t to the 16t centuries
authored by Jews, including poetry and fiction, were written
in Hebrew characters. Most of this literature was not Jewish
in content, but at least one major poet *Shahin wrote on Jewish themes and authored a poetical version of the Pentateuch.
There were Jewish communities also in other Asiatic lands orcities that preserved their Jewish identity, but their education
was mostly quite rudimentary.

Eastern Europe and Asia
The Jews from Byzantium who settled in southern Russia andthe Crimea around the turn of the millennium at first had
no rabbinic authorities of their own and maintained a correspondence with scholars in Germany in matters religious.
They also sent there some of their young men who desireda talmudic education. There is thus a suggestion that someelementary schooling, or elementary instruction, was available at home. Hebrew was not unknown in the region. One
Crimean Jew, Khoza Kokos, an influential agent of Ivan III
Vasilievich, grand duke of Muscovy, used to write reports
to the duke in Hebrew, causing the latter some difficulties infinding an interpreter for them. In Poland and Lithuania Jewish communities were formed in the 12t and 14t centuries,
mainly by refugees from German persecution. Among thesewere some rabbis, teachers, and cantors. The new communities continued for some time importing these functionaries
from Germany, so that the Jewish educational efforts in theselands were shaped in the German-Jewish style of the period.
The advanced scholarship of East European Jewry did not begin to flourish until later times.
In the Asiatic lands the Jewish communities could not,because of poverty and the extremely primitive conditions oflife in their physical and social environment, develop the typeof educational institutions that evolved in Western Europe.
However, elementary instruction was imparted among theJews in *Yemen and occasionally scholarly talmudists were
found among them. In Iran, during the geonic period, elemen-Community Responsibility
With the demand for education so widespread in the Jewish
population and with the heavy burden borne by parents forthe schooling of their sons, it was only natural that the organized community too undertook certain responsibilities inthe educational field. As far back as the geonic period teachers used to be appointed by the communities, paid by them,and considered community functionaries. Later, community
support of education was best organized in Spain. Various responsa that deal with this problem refer to community taxes
and to the handling of bequests for education. Meir ha-Levi*Abulafia (13t century, Spain) ruled that “communities must
engage teachers for young children; and in smaller villages …
it is the duty of the entire community, and not only of thechildren’s parents, to pay [the teachers].” A revealing document on the subject is the set of ordinances of the Valladolid
synod, convened by Abraham *Benveniste in 1432. Part I ofthese ordinances dealt with education, including its financing.
It imposed taxes on meat and wine, and imposts on circumcisions, weddings, and funerals, for education expenditures.
These taxes were not to be used for any other purpose thaneducation or “support of students who received maintenancefrom the aforementioned talmud torah contributions.” Eachcommunity of 15 householders was obligated to maintaina qualified elementary teacher who had to be paid according to the number of his dependents. Where the tuition feesfrom the pupils’ parents were insufficient for his needs, thecommunity had to supplement his income. The community
also exercised a measure of supervision as seen from rulings
about school practices, such as a limit on the number of children to be taught by one teacher (25), and other such administrative regulations.
Essentially the same type of responsibility obtained alsoin North European countries. Rabbenu Tam (12t century,

176

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

EDUCATION, JEWISH
Troyes, France) in his ordinances referred to communities
paying or supporting teachers’ salaries as established practice,and ruled that in cases of shortage of educational funds, moneys designated for other purposes might be diverted to meeteducational needs. These ordinances were accepted by the
Rhenish communities in the year 1220. Even very small Jewish
communities in many German towns managed to maintainschools, or at least a teacher. Reference is also made to suchpractices and to support of advanced students in Ḥ ukkei haTorah. Guedemann, who first published this document, expressed the opinion that while there can be no certainty thatit represents the exact reality of its period, he was inclined tobelieve that it did reflect prevailing practices. Nor was financial
support the only responsibility undertaken by the community.
Mention was made above of regulations dealing with size ofclasses, supervision, reviews of material covered, and similar
practices. Large schools were even required to have non-teaching supervisors, akin to the modern principals, who were to
manage the business aspects of the school as well as assure
proper instruction by the teachers (Ḥ ukkei ha-Torah). Thesemay have been concomitants of financial support, since in education, as in other endeavors, subvention is often linked withat least some regulation and supervision. In any case, Jewish
communities of the Middle Ages, even in extremely difficult
times and circumstances, undertook a substantial measure of
responsibility for the education of their young.

Europe – North and East
Elementary Jewish schooling in the German lands and in
Poland, Lithuania, and Russia was given either in the privateḥ eder or in the community talmud torah. The former was inmany places a rather shabby institution. Moses Moravchik,in a pamphlet entitled Keiẓ ad Seder Mishnah (“How to Organize Learning”), published in Lublin in 1635, listed among thecauses for the poor state of the ḥ eder the tendency of many
parents to change teachers each half-year term, low instruction fees and difficulties in collecting them, the melammed’s
inclination to promote pupils for fear of losing them, the difficulties of proper instruction in the melammed’s home, andimproper program and methods of instruction. The talmud
torahs, maintained primarily for the poor, were often betterorganized, because they were supervised by the community,
usually by a Talmud Torah Society (Ḥ evrah Talmud Torah).
At periods and in places of community strength the talmud
torahs too benefited. In the 16t and early 17t centuries, many
Jewish communities in Eastern Europe enjoyed considerable
autonomy and authority in their internal affairs, and they regulated both talmud torahs and private ḥ adarim. The Cracow
community ordinances (1594) are typical of those in many
communities. They imposed penalties on parents who failed
to pay the teacher in prescribed time and prohibited teachers
to accept children for whom tuition fee was owed to anotherteacher. A “truant officer” was to see that boys were not out inthe streets or market place during their school hours. Supervision of the schools was likewise quite common. It was the dutyof talmud torah officials to visit the schools, to ensure adherence to the program of studies, to test the pupils at specified
times, and to select those pupils who merited awards.
The age of school entrance was usually five, but many
three- and four-year-olds were sent to the melammed, even if
merely to sit in his ḥ eder and thus absorb some fragments ofknowledge or get into the habit of accepting learning. They
were referred to as “sitting children.” School attendance wasobligatory in most communities to age 13, in 16t-century
Moravia “even for boys who did not do well in their studies.”
In Metz (1690) education was compulsory to age 14, and thecommunity announced that it “will pay out of its tuition fee
fund for all the children whose parents request it … withoutinquiring into the applicants’ economic position.” Those aged
14–18 who did not continue attendance in a yeshivah were required to study at least one hour daily. Amsterdam regulations(1738) obligated the community to provide orphans with thebest teachers, to keep them in school until they were 13, andgood students to age 15. A 1750 revision changed these ages
to 14 and 17. The Sephardi community of the same city placedeven greater stress on equal quality of instruction for the richand for the poor. Similar specific concern for the poor andthe orphans is found in many towns across Europe, from Amsterdam to Belaya Tserkov in the Kiev region of Russia (1764).
Some regulations fixed the number of students per class: up to
40 pupils, with two boys as assistants (behelfers), in Cracow; or
25 in Dubno. However, Talmud classes in Dubno were limited
to 15; in Fuerth to 10; in Mikulov to 14. In Mogilev-Podolski alimit of 15 was set on Talmud groups, but of only ten for thosestudying Talmud with Rashi’s commentary and tosafot.
Education of girls remained very limited during this period as in previous centuries. A few of them received some
instruction in reading the prayers and no doubt some girls,
not tutored formally, managed on their own to acquire read-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6177

Bibliography: Assaf, Mekorot (1925–47); Baron, Community, 2 (1942), 169–207; S.M. Blumenfield, Masters of Troyes; a studyof Rashi the Educator (1946); W.J. Fischel, in: L. Finkelstein (ed.), The
Jews, 2 (19603), 1149–90; Graetz, Hist, 3 (1949); 4 (1949), passim; Guedemann, Gesch Erz (3 vols. 19663), index; N. Morris, Toledot haḤ innukh shel Am Yisrael, 2 (1964); Weiss, Dor, 4–5 (19247).
[Elijah Bortniker]

jewish education – 16th–18th centuries
GeneralJewish education during the 16t–18t centuries continued asa virtually universal practice. It was greatly facilitated by thethen recently developed process of printing which made reasonably priced books readily available. There was, of course,
one negative factor that interfered with Jewish life and hence
also Jewish learning. The constant prejudice and persecution,
the repeated expulsions, the frequent minor and occasional
major pogroms, reduced the numerical strength of the world
Jewish community which reached its lowest ebb in the 17t
century. However education seemed to persist in high priority in the Jewish family and in the Jewish community ofthe period.

EDUCATION, JEWISH
ing skills at home, where book learning was highly regarded
and assiduously practiced. From the 17t century on, after the
publication in 1620 of *Ẓ e’enah u-Re’enah by Jacob Ashkenazi of Janow, the Yiddish work which became immensely
popular among women, many girls learned biblical and later
stories, aggadic and midrashic homilies, comments on Jewish
life, customs and morals, as told by a remarkable raconteur.
Private instruction was given to girls in some affluent families, which in the German and Western lands in the late 17tand in the 18t century often included French and German aswell as music and dancing.
The elementary curriculum consisted, as in previous
generations and periods, of reading, prayers, and Ḥ umash. A
new development was the widespread use of Yiddish as thelanguage into which Ḥ umash lessons were translated, in mostcases word by word. Textbooks appeared of such translations,or of commentaries, some of which were based mostly on the
popular commentaries of Rashi, like the Be’er Moshe of Moses
ha-Levi (Prague, 1605) that became very popular, and othersimilar works. The weekly portion constituted the week’sḤ umash curriculum, but it was seldom completed. The stresson talmudic learning was so great that it was started at age
seven or eight, the Prophets, the Hagiographa, and Mishnah
being completely omitted. R. Joseph Yuspa *Hahn (d. 1637) ofFrankfurt wrote that “in our generation there are rabbis who
never studied the Bible.” Even less interest, or rather no interest whatever, was evinced in any area of study that was notdirectly related to the Jewish religious lore. Secular subjects
were completely excluded from the curriculum.
In the yeshivot of Central and Eastern Europe the aim
was to produce scholars with a thorough knowledge of the Talmud and its commentaries, the tosafot, and the major halakhic
codes. The talmudic pilpul method, a thorough dialectical examination of all possible arguments pro and con, was further
elaborated in this period and transformed, mainly under the
influence of Rabbi Jacob b. Joseph *Pollak of Prague, Cracow,and Lublin, into the “ḥ illuk,” extra-keen hairsplitting sophistry
and ability to come forward with innovations (ḥ iddushim)used in disputations and learned discourses, a sort of impressively complicated mental gymnastics, no matter how odd or
absurd, which led to neglect of genuine search for understanding and even to distortion of original meanings. Althoughtime consuming and apparently lacking in any practical purpose, it became very popular and highly valued in itself, to theneglect of more worthwhile scholarly pursuits.
Both the elementary and yeshivah programs and methods of study were severely criticized by R. *Judah Loew b.
Bezalel of Prague and a number of his disciples. He advocateda graded program in accord with the child’s readiness and in
response to actual needs, greater stress on the commandments
and practices taught in the Pentateuch rather than on Rashi’scommentaries which were in his opinion a waste of time, anda further study of Hebrew, Bible, and Mishnah. He also sought
the introduction into the school of certain secular subjects,
particularly natural science. In the Talmud, according to him,children need not engage in study of tractates that are meaningless to them, and the overly refined pilpulistic methodshould be avoided at any stage since “it distorts one’s intelligence.” A number of prominent rabbis and scholars followed
Loew’s ideas and an elementary teacher, Moses Moravchik of
Moravia (quoted above), wrote a pedagogic pamphlet basedon them. But except for a few followers in several localities,
these progressive ideas did not gain popularity.
The 17t century saw a decline of Jewish schools and of
Jewish learning. In Germany the cities suffered decimation of
population and impoverishment due to the Thirty Years War(1618–48). In Poland many Jewish communities were completely destroyed or reduced in the pogroms (1648–49) perpetrated by the *Chmielnicki rebellion, and the Jewish community organizations that flourished there broke down. Aftera slow and gradual recovery another development, mainly in
the German lands, was the rise among the Jews of a substantial body of wealthy financiers, merchants, and *Court Jews,
who lost interest in the traditional scholarship and observance.
Their business required the use of local European languages,
and “culture” decreed knowledge of French and Latin. Jewish
learning was reduced in these circles to mechanical readingof ideas, and fragments of the Pentateuch. These attitudes andpractices spread slowly into wider groups. Jonathan *Eybeschuetz (1690–1764), who served as rabbi in Metz, HamburgAltona, and Prague, and everywhere had many students anddisciples, nevertheless complained about this decline in traditional learning and, in the lessened community, lack of support for it at a time when there seemed to be sufficient means
for many other purposes, “some of them quite useless.”
The second half of the 18t century brought about further
changes in Jewish education in Germany and in the Austrian
empire, which included, besides Austria proper, also Bohemia, Moravia, Hungary, Galicia, and parts of the Slavic Balkans. Emancipation of the Jews in these and other North andWest European countries and the removal of many disabilities that afflicted them for centuries encouraged the spreadof Moses *Mendelssohn’s “Enlightenment” and of the educational views of Naphtali Herz *Wessely. Himself well educatedboth in traditional Jewish and general lore, Wessely advocatedmodernization of the Jewish school, through improved educational methods in the Jewish traditional subjects, which are
God’s law, and the introduction of secular subjects like thecountry’s language, arithmetic, geography, history, and goodmanners, which are man’s lore, into the Jewish school. Many
prominent rabbis bitterly fought Wessely’s proposals. But thedesire for liberation from the old ghetto atmosphere and theslogans of enlightenment appealed to many in Germany andin parts of Austria. The governments too helped strengthen
these tendencies.
In Germany, a high official, Christian Wilhelm von*Dohm, a friend of Mendelssohn, proposed reforms for the“civic improvement of the Jews” through modernized education. The very next year (1782) Emperor Joseph II of Austria
issued a Toleration Edict that lifted some of the restrictions on

178

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

EDUCATION, JEWISH
Jewish occupations and mobility, but also demanded “reform”
of some of their practices including educational ones. The
frank statements or implications that Jews needed “improvement” in order to merit improved civil status did not seem tooffend and were in fact accepted by many of the Jewish seekers
of emancipation and enlightenment. New schools were established by them in German and Austrian cities, where thingssoon took a very different turn from what Mendelssohn andWessely intended, and Jewish studies in them suffered a serious decline. However, the Jews of Galicia, whose backgroundand sentiments resembled more those of their fellow Jews in
Poland and Russia to the east of them, remained refractory
to the educational modernization efforts and only a few sent
their children to the many schools opened for them, on government instruction, by the Jewish educator Naphtali Herz
*Homberg.
Throughout this period, education of the youth in the
Jewries of Poland, Lithuania, and Russia was most nearly completely traditional. During the period of the kahal’s (“community”) greatest autonomy, traditional learning flourished. German cities exploited the scholarship of Polish and Lithuanian
communities by employing rabbis and teachers who cameWest upon invitation or on their own. These East European
Jews were influenced much less than their Western coreligionists by their environment, perhaps because this environment
was much more primitive. Neither political emancipation nor
cultural enlightenment and modern educational ideas had yet
had a serious impact on the Jewries of the Russian lands at theend of the 18t century.
Italy
After the expulsion of the Jews from Spain and Portugal, Italian Jewry became the major Jewish community of the Mediterranean lands. Here, too, education was the earmark of the
Jew. Even towns with only a few Jewish families, or for thatmatter a single one, had their local teachers. Nearly all the condottas (contractual agreements) drawn up with Jewish loanbankers allowing them to conduct business in towns where
no other Jews resided included permission to have a teacher
brought by the family to instruct their children. In larger communities, too, there was a tendency by the affluent to engage
private instructors. The talmud torahs, originally established
for the benefit of the poor, eventually as they became well organized were generally placed in the service of all membersof the community. The management of the schools was left
to Talmud Torah Societies that operated them according tocarefully formulated regulations. The manner and rate of assessment for the maintenance of the schools was usually distributed to all community members. In some towns, as in Casale Monferrato in the 16t century, school funds were raised
mainly from obligatory contributions made by those called
to the Torah. Minimum obligatory contributions were fixedin Ancona (1644) for those called to the Torah, for men getting married, for families celebrating the birth of a male child,and for the School Society members on specified holidays.

House-to-house collections were practiced in some places, as
in Modena (TT Society, 1597). Schools had overseers and supervisors. The Talmud Torah Society regulations of Ancona(1644) and of Verona (1688) specified the physical facilities ofthe building, the authority of the trustees, number of teachers,
teachers’ duties and salaries, discipline, the program of studies,and supervision. The Modena regulations, as well as several
others, state that the school is open to all comers, whether richor poor, whether local residents or out-of-towners. A number of these sets of regulations spell out in detail not only themanner of collecting funds but also of their disbursement,
occasionally specifying that teachers, both men and women,must sign receipts for the books given them, that these receipts
are to be handed over to the accountant and must be properly
recorded, and so forth.
While the schools were primarily for boys, it appears thatgirls learned a great deal at home through private instruction,and in the early years some of them seem to have attended
the schools as well. Women were knowledgeable enough to
instruct children of pre-school level, i.e., below age six, andperhaps some of the school children as well, in reading andprayers. The woman teacher (melammedet) was popular in
Italy and her functions and salary are set down in some of
the TT Societies’ regulations. David *Reuveni wrote in his
travel notes that in Pisa (in 1524) he met a young lady who“read” the Bible and prayed daily the morning and the evening prayers. He also met there a wealthy woman who served
as a schoolteacher. Later, in 1745, a talmud torah for girls was
opened in Rome.
Children attended school generally from age 6 to 14,
a practice that was virtually obligatory. Study to age 18 wasstrongly encouraged. The six-year-old who started school
could usually read, having been taught previously by themelammedet who in some cases was also a community functionary, like the teachers in the talmud torah.
The program of study in the early grades was the Pentateuch, the Prophets and Hagiographa, prayers, Hebrew and its
grammar. The weekly portion of the Torah was stressed, andthe Torah with Rashi’s commentary was continued in several
grades. In the third or fourth year, the Code of Maimonides
was introduced or Caro’s Shulḥ an Arukh, then Mishnah with
Obadiah of *Bertinoro’s commentaries. The Talmud, burnedin 1553 and by decree not printable in Italy, was for nearly two
centuries practically eliminated from the curriculum and replaced by the various Codes, particularly Isaac Alfasi’s Halakhot, a codified compendium of the Talmud.
An important feature of the Jewish schools in Italy, which
distinguished them from the ḥ adarim in Central and Eastern Europe, was the inclusion in the program of general subjects – Italian, arithmetic, good writing and style. Following
an educational trend that had its origins in the West Mediterranean European lands in the Middle Ages (see above), theschools aimed to train individuals to be at ease in Italian lifeand society as well as faithful Jews, rather than talmudic or
halakhic scholars. The teachers of the secular subjects in the

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6179

EDUCATION, JEWISH
talmud torahs and the yeshivot were often Christian. In affluent families private teachers also taught music, dancing, anddramatic reading.
Higher learning was provided in the yeshivot which were
established in the larger Jewish communities, such as Venice,Mantua, Padua, Modena, Ferrara, Leghorn, and elsewhere.
Jewish students also attended general higher schools, mainly
medical colleges. Reflective of the cultural tendencies among
the Jews of Italy during the Renaissance period is a proposal
circulated in all Italian Jewish communities by one David
Provenzale of Mantua in 1564, to establish a Jewish university.
It was to be a sort of combination yeshivah and university foradvanced study of Hebrew, Bible, the Oral Law, Jewish philosophy, good speech and good writing, as well as Italian, generalphilosophy, mathematics, astrology, and medicine. In such an
institution, the proposal stated, Jewish students would feel atease and would not be influenced by their Christian environment, a comment suggesting that there was at the time someconcern about assimilation and possibly conversion. The stresson good speech and good language, applied to both Hebrew
and Italian, is particularly illuminating. Good, grammatical,
and well-styled Hebrew seems to have been highly valued.
The period’s Hebrew documents evince great care in writingand editing. Fondness for Hebrew language and literature waswidespread. Shabbetai Ḥ ayyim *Marini, a physician, musthave been convinced that he would have a substantial reading audience when he translated Ovid’s Metamorphoses into
Hebrew. Moses Ḥ ayyim *Luzzatto, one of the earliest pioneersof modern Hebrew literature, learned his Hebrew in his native
town of Padua. But, Luzzatto’s work excepted, the bulk of Hebrew writing in Italy in this period seems to have been that of
poetasters, altogether lacking substance and originality. In the
18t century, with restrictions somewhat relaxed, the Talmud
became once more the main subject of study in the yeshivot,
and there seems to have been a lessening of the emphasis on
general secular studies. But when, toward the end of the 18t
century, new trends in Jewish education rocked Jewish communities in Germany and Eastern Europe (see next section),they caused only a ripple of controversy in Italy. When after
the French Revolution emancipation and liberation from theghetto came to Italy’s Jewry, it was on the one hand quite readyfor their concomitant educational and cultural “enlightenment,” and on the other hand quite unable to withstand theircorollary assimilating powers.
East Mediterranean and North African Lands
In the other Mediterranean lands traditional Jewish education
continued in all sizable Jewish communities and moreover
there was some intensification in Jewish life and schooling
due to the influence of the expellees from Spain who settled
in North Africa, the Balkans, and *Turkey. The Turkish cities*Constantinople and *Izmir had substantial Jewish communities in the 16t and 17t centuries and there is a reference toConstantinople as “a city of sages and scribes.” A report fromthe mid-18t century by a Constantinople rabbi speaks of about180

1,600 children in that city’s talmud torahs of whom about
1,000 received community assistance in the form of clothing. Izmir had a Talmud Torah Society and a talmud torah inwhich *Shabbetai Ẓ evi received his schooling. *Damascus in
the first half of the 16t century had about 500 Jewish families
and three synagogues. There was no yeshivah there but several teachers were teaching 30 or so pupils each. In 17t-century *Alexandria boys apparently studied to age 13, mostly
the Pentateuch, and at their bar mitzvah they held forth on
the portion of that week. There is reference to a yeshivah in
Arta, Greece, in mid-16t century. *Aleppo in the 17t century
had a ḥ eder or ḥ adarim maintained by two communities, oneof which was composed of “*Francos,” West European Jews
who settled there. A large and important Jewish community
in the eastern Mediterranean was that of *Salonika, which had
a number of private ḥ adarim in the early 16t century. These
were later merged to form a central community school. A
Talmud Torah Society was organized, buildings were put up,
and the institution apparently flourished. In 1564 the talmud
torah opened a clothing manufacturing shop, mainly to produce clothes for its pupils. In 1694 the Society also opened a
printing press to supply textbooks for the talmud torah andfor the yeshivah. This talmud torah and the yeshivah of Salonika became popular in the Balkan area and attracted students from other Greek towns, from Albania, and from someof the Greek islands. Out-of-town Jews contributed toward
their support.
In the Maghreb countries the Jews spoke Arabic andSpanish but also taught their children in accord with established tradition, first at home – various phrases, benedictions,and prayers, and even reading. Later, in school, they learned
the Torah, prayers, and some of the Oral Law as well. The
Bible was studied much more than in the Ashkenazi lands.
The majority of the Jewish population, however, was very
poor and could not afford adequate schooling. A 1721 document from *Meknes, Morocco, bewails the fact that poverty drives many families to send children of six and seveninto trade apprenticeship, appeals for the cessation of the practice, and enjoins tradesmen from accepting for employment
children below the age of 13. Even under these difficult conditions Jewish literacy seems to have been impressive to the
non-Jew. A Christian minister, Lancelot Addison, in describing the life of Maghreb Jews in his book The Present State of
the Jews (London, 1675), states that early in life children aretaught at home some Hebrew terms of daily use and fromage 5 to 13 they attend school. According to Addison, “there
is no boy in the world who can at the age of thirteen givesuch an accurate account of the laws of his faith as can the
Jewish boy.”
Bibliography: Dubnow, Hist Russ, 1 (1916), 114–39; I. Fishman, The History of Jewish Education in Central Europe, from the Endof the 16t to the End of the 18t Century (1944); Graetz, Hist, 5 (1941)
passim; Roth, Italy, index; M. Szulwas, Ḥ ayyei ha-Yehudim be-Italyahbi-Tekufat ha-Renaissance (1955).
[Elijah Bortniker]

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

EDUCATION, JEWISH
the modern period, 1800–1939
GeneralThe political emancipation of Jews in 19t-century Europe wasassociated with the so-called “Enlightenment” (Haskalah), in
the educational and cultural spheres. Its effects differed in thevarious European lands, depending upon the local culture andpolitics, and on the numerical strength and the social and economic status of the Jewish populations.
Italy and Western Europe
The small French Jewry, formally organized as a consistory,
opened two schools in Paris, one for boys (1819) and one forgirls (1821), which were shortly afterward taken over by themunicipality. Besides the general, secular subjects they offereda very limited program of Jewish studies. Additional schoolsof the same type came into being as the Jewish population
increased, in Paris and in several other cities, particularly
in southern France. After mid-century, however, most Jewish families began sending their children to the government
schools. Supplementary religious instruction was at a minimum. In Alsace and Lorraine Jewish education was more intensive, but here too it became mainly supplementary by the
beginning of the 20t century. Even more precipitous was thedecline of Jewish education in Italy, where for centuries prior
to the French Revolution a well-organized system of bothelementary and advanced Jewish schools was in operation.
Many small communities were virtually depleted of Jews by
their migration to bigger cities, but here too a desertion of
the Jewish schools took place, especially by those in the upper
economic strata. About 1,600 pupils attended Jewish schools
in 1901, mainly four-year elementary schools (some with twoyear kindergartens, known in Italy as “asili”), accepted by thegovernment authorities as fulfilling the legal requirements ofelementary education. Jewish instruction was given in theseschools for about one hour daily and consisted of reading,prayers, selections from the Torah, and a Jewish catechism in
Italian. Older pupils received “religious instruction.”
The rabbinical seminaries in France and Italy were similarly weak. The years 1827 and 1829 saw the establishment ofsuch higher institutions of learning in Metz and in Padua. The
Ecole Rabbinique moved to Paris in 1859, but continued to attract some students from the Alsace and Lorraine areas, andlater, in the pre- and post-World War I periods, also from theEast European Jews who settled in France. The Italian seminary, in its early years under the direction of Samuel David*Luzzatto, attracted a small group of eager young students, but
declined after Luzzatto’s death (1865). Removal of this Collegio Rabbinico to Rome (1865) did not improve its status. It
was reinvigorated when it was again transferred, this time to
Florence (1899), and came under the directorship of Samuel
Hirsch *Margulies, chief rabbi of that city, who raised its levelof scholarship and who introduced a Jewish nationalist spirit
into it and into Italian Jewry.
In England, prior to the introduction of compulsory education (1870), Jews maintained schools of their own, some

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6of which continued in existence for many years. When immigration brought many Jews from Eastern Europe, philanthropists established Jewish Free Schools for them in several
cities. One of those in London was toward the end of the 19t
century the largest school in England, with 3,000 pupils. Jewish studies were allotted limited time, no more than one hour aday. Some of the immigrants, displeased with this meager Jewish program, opened ḥ adarim for supplementary instruction.
Jews’ College, for the training of ministers, was established in
1855. It had at all times a very limited enrollment.
The few Jewish schools that were founded in the 19t century in the Scandinavian countries closed their doors after
the introduction of general compulsory education. Religious
instruction preparing for confirmation became the accepted
form of Jewish education. In Holland too, Jewish education
was converted into this type of schooling, but here the Jewish
community took it rather seriously, as did also the Dutch people their Christian religious instruction. After the enactmentof the law of 1889, which permitted various religious groups
to organize schools of their own to be supported by the government, Jewish full-time schools were opened in Amsterdam. Their program of Jewish studies was limited, but Jewish
practices were strictly observed, and a Jewish spirit prevailed
in them. Some private schools offered a more solid Jewish
education. A rabbinical seminary, founded in 1808, began totrain teachers as well as rabbis. A small Sephardi bet midrash
likewise trained teachers and occasionally a rabbi.
Germany and Austria
The German lands present a more complex picture. Hereemancipation and the “Enlightenment” brought about majorchanges in Jewish style of living and education, strong assimilationist tendencies, and considerable conversion. The old styleḥ adarim were replaced by modern Jewish schools for those
who did not wish to send their children to the general schools
where an anti-Jewish attitude often prevailed. The number ofthese modern Jewish schools was rather small. Besides, their
Jewish program was very meager: reading of prayers, some
portions of the Bible translated into German, bits of Jewish
history, mostly biblical, and religion and ethics. The traditional
study of Mishnah and Talmud was abandoned, even in thesecondary schools. After mid-century, when larger numbers
began to enroll in the general educational institutions, supplementary schools came into being, from which students usually
withdrew after the age of 13. Some religious instruction was
also given in the general schools to Jewish students.
There was, however, a movement in Germany that countered these tendencies. Samson Raphael *Hirsch opened a coeducational school in Frankfurt (1855) offering a substantial
program of Jewish studies, including Hebrew, Bible, and someTalmud, as well as the general subjects programmed after
the pattern of the government or private German schools. A
similar institution was opened in Fuerth (1862) after the previously existing Jewish school in that city was made nonsectarian. The Orthodox element, following Hirsch’s approach,181

EDUCATION, JEWISH
proved an anti-assimilationist force of considerable strength
throughout the 19t century and in the early 20t. Germany
also was a haven for many Jewish young men from Poland andRussia who, unable to gain admittance into the Russian universities, came for their higher education to Germany whose
language they partly knew via Yiddish. Waves of emigrationfrom Russia to the United States likewise passed through Germany. The students and migrants contributed to an ideological ferment that made Germany, in spite of the decline of its
Jewish educational system for the many, a forum for live debates and discussions and study of Jewish religio-cultural lifeand Jewish issues.
On the higher level of Jewish studies German Jewry madea substantial contribution to scholarship through the establishment in the 19t century of several outstanding rabbinicalseminaries. In 1854 the Jewish Theological Seminary was established in Breslau with Zacharias *Frankel at its head. It wasa modernly organized institution, open to critical scholarship,
yet traditionally oriented, in accord with Frankel’s theory of“positive historical Judaism.” The historian Heinrich *Graetz
was one of the institution’s early teachers, and many important
Judaic scholars received their higher education in it.
The Higher School for Jewish Science (Hochschule fuer
die Wissenschaft des Judentums) was opened in Berlin in 1872and under Abraham *Geiger’s influence came to represent Reform Judaism. However not all of its scholars were followersof Geiger’s views, and it included among its teachers strictly
observant talmudists and Zionist nationalists. An Orthodox
rabbinical seminary (Rabbiner Seminar fuer das orthodoxe
Judentum) was also established in Berlin in 1883 by Azriel*Hildesheimer, and it, too, soon became a school of high scholastic standing. These three rabbinical seminaries continued
in existence until World War II.
In the German-speaking areas of the Austrian Empire, Jewish education resembled that of Germany. Although
the Vienna Jewish community became numerically large,
Jewish education declined. Again as in Germany, a rabbinical seminary was established in Vienna in 1893 which
maintained high standards of scholarship. This, too, existed
until the eve of World War II. The Hungarian part of the
Empire had two paths of development, an assimilationist
tendency in one section of the population and a strong Orthodox one in another. The latter elements gave their children
an intensive Jewish education of the traditional type, as reflected in many yeshivot, some in rather small communities.
A modern rabbinical seminary was established in Budapest
in 1877.
The situation was different in Polish-Ukrainian Galicia,
home of about half of the Empire’s Jewish population. Heredevelopments resembled those in Poland and Russia. Mostof the government schools for Jewish children which wereorganized under the directorship of Herz *Homberg at theend of the 18t century closed in the first decade of the 19t.
The only remaining modern type Jewish schools were the one
founded by the esteemed educator Joseph *Perl in Tarnopol

Eastern Europe
Western ideas began penetrating into the Polish-Russian domain after a lag of some decades. In Poland, contiguous toGermany and with many German contacts, the “Enlightenment” first reached the more prosperous and worldly Jewish
circles who believed that talmudic training was obscurantist,that the educational system maintained by the communities
was backward, and that the cure for these ills was stress on
the Polish language and a school program similar to that in
the Polish schools. The government, too, was interested in thiseducational issue, its aim being polonization. A similar situation obtained somewhat later in Russia where the government
attempted a russification of the Jewish school and tried to destroy the ḥ eder and the yeshivah. Many Jewish assimilationists
in both Poland and Russia supported the government efforts.
Even some of the non-assimilationist maskilim cooperated
with the government, often not realizing its ulterior motives.
Isaac Baer *Levinsohn advocated a revolutionary change inJewish life, with return to such occupations as agriculture
and manual trades, and, educationally, a modernization of
the program of Jewish studies, and the introduction of secular subjects, particularly the Russian language and civics. He
believed that the government intended to improve the statusof the Jews. The government exploited this trend of thought
and tried to change the ḥ eder system under the direction of
the rabbi and educator Max *Lilienthal, who was invited from
Germany, first to administer a modern school in Riga (1840)and soon (1841) commissioned by the government to establish
a chain of modern schools throughout the Pale of Settlement.
Most of the Jewish population opposed Lilienthal’s enterprise.
After a few years Lilienthal himself became convinced of thegovernment’s ulterior objective of russification of Jewry andhe immigrated to the United States. A number of these newschools continued to function but the majority of the Jews resisted the attempt to convert the ḥ eder into a school and themelammed into a teacher and remained faithful to their traditional style of schooling.
The “enlighteners” nevertheless were gaining ground,even if slowly. Levinsohn’s ideas of better organized andgraded curricula and Lilienthal’s modern practices and organization proved attractive to many groups. Westernized
Jewish elementary and secondary schools began to appear invarious communities. In the 1860s the newly formed “Society
for the Promotion of Culture among the Jews of Russia” became influential in limited circles. At first this Society stressedknowledge of the Russian language and Russian culture, but

182

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

which was supervised by rabbis and gained the confidence ofmany traditional Jews, and a high school in Brody. The number of Jewish children attending government general schools
increased slowly and reached some 78,000 in 1900. A new
type of Jewish nationalist school (see below, Eastern Europe)
made its appearance in the last decades of the century. However most Jewish boys continued receiving their instructionin the old style ḥ adarim.

EDUCATION, JEWISH
toward the end of the century it came under the influence ofthe movement for the revival of the Hebrew language thatwas spreading among the Ḥ ovevei Zion and the intelligentsia. The revival of Hebrew as a national tongue became apassionate ideal in numerous nuclei of the large Diaspora of
Russian Jewry. Limited though they were in numbers, thesesmall groups soon began to exercise considerable influencein their communities. The search for effective ways to spreadthe knowledge of Hebrew led to the evolution at the turn ofthe century of a new type of Jewish school known as the ḥ eder
metukkan (improved ḥ eder) that derived its inspiration fromJewish nationalism, and which rapidly developed into an educational movement. Its leadership included active Zionists,
like *Weizmann and *Dizengoff, the poet *Bialik and othersof similar stature and status in the Russian Jewish community.
*Aḥ ad ha-Am spoke of the “invasion” of the school by Hebrew,
the national language. The early ḥ adarim of this “improved”
kind were founded in the south of Russia – in the Kiev area, in
Bessarabia, and in Odessa – and soon spread throughout thePale of Settlement as well as in Austrian Galicia and sectionsof Romania. The movement proved a powerful intellectual andadministrative stimulus. Men, and women, began studying
educational programming and method and successfully organized and taught in the new schools. Ḥ ayyim Aryeh *Zuta authored a curriculum for this type of school. Isaac Epstein, linguist and psychologist, pioneered in the method of instruction
which became known as Ivrit be-Ivrit (also referred to as the“natural method”). Samuel Leib *Gordon, later to gain renown
as a popular biblical commentator, opened a ḥ eder metukkan
in Warsaw in 1903, and soon afterwards a similar school was
opened by Ḥ ayyim Kaplan which continued in existence until the eve of World War II. Some of the “improved” ḥ adarim
were coeducational, but new schools for girls also made theirappearance following the example of Pua Rakovsky’s schoolin Warsaw, which gained considerable repute. A pioneer ofthe movement, Jehiel *Heilprin, organized a Hebrew kindergarten in Warsaw (1909), and as this enterprise was soon emulated in many other communities, Heilprin opened “Froebel courses” for the training of kindergarten teachers. Efforts
to establish a training institution to provide teachers for the“improved” schools were made as early as the 1880s. These
failed due to government opposition, but finally, in 1907, theSociety for the Promotion of Culture succeeded in opening“Pedagogic Courses” in Grodno under the direction of Aaron
Cohenstam in which all subjects were taught, at least partly,
in Hebrew. The students were recruited in large part from thecircles of yeshivah young men caught in the nationalist spirit.
A more limited program of teacher training, including summer seminars, was later started in Odessa. The teachers themselves began to organize under the leadership of P. Shifman in1906 for educational as well as for professional-economic purposes. A teachers’ association was also formed in Galicia under the leadership of S. *Schiller, with the aim of strengthening and guiding the “improved school.” Many new textbooks
appeared during this period as well as Hebrew publications

for children, youth, and adults. The Hebrew language was being revived as a modern language, even if in limited circles.
Some Orthodox elements opposed this trend, maintainingthat the sacred tongue (leshon kodesh) must not be turned to“profane” use. Assimilationist elements were likewise critical,
as they were of the entire nationalist-Zionist movement. The
revival of Hebrew however kept gaining ground. The term
Hebrew School (bet sefer ivri) that crept into use reflected the
new educational trend.
While the old style ḥ adarim in Eastern Europe declined
in quality, though not in enrollment, during the 19t century,
some of the yeshivot saw a remarkable development, this in
spite of government interference and of the indifference tothem of the modern, so-called enlightened Jewish groups.
Many of the leaders of Russian Jewry during the period under discussion were products of these yeshivot, in which highscholarship and originality raised the repute of talmudic studies and added dignity to those engaged in them. The community of the small country of Lithuania pioneered in thisrespect when the Volozhin yeshivah was established in 1803
and from the very start introduced innovations in the methodof study, considerable freedom in students’ choice of tractates
to be covered, and later the introduction of some general subjects as well, such as history and mathematics. Yeshivot were
founded in the following decades in Mir, Telz, Grodno, Radin,
and elsewhere. A number of these were centers of distinctive
Jewish philosophies, like the yeshivah of Slobodka (a suburbof Kovno), founded by Rabbi Israel *Lipkin, where his viewson ethics (Musar) became a major subject, or the Tomkhei
Temimim yeshivah of the Lubavitch ḥ asidim where ḥ asidic
ideology was stressed. Modern type yeshivot too made theirappearance, which included general studies as an integral
part of the program, like the yeshivah in Odessa, founded in
1865 and reorganized in 1906 under the directorship of Rabbi
Chaim *Tchernowitz (Rav Tza’ir) into an important institution of Jewish scholarship. The poet Bialik and the historianJoseph *Klausner served for brief periods as instructors in thisOdessa yeshivah. Another prominent yeshivah, traditional
but modernized in its program and organization of studies,
was the Torah v’Daas, founded by Rabbi Isaac Jacob *Reinesin Lida in 1905; it included in its program Hebrew grammar,
Bible, Jewish history as well as Russian, and several generalsubjects in the humanities. On the eve of World War I the enrollment in some 30 yeshivot in Russia, which at the time included the Baltic states, much of Poland and Bessarabia, wasabout 10,000 students.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

183

The Balkans and the Lands of Islam
In the Balkans, and in the Muslim lands of the Eastern Mediterranean and North Africa, an important factor in modernization of Jewish education appeared in the second halfof the 19t century, that of the *Alliance Israélite Universelle(AIU). This organization was an expression of the Jewish
group consciousness of French Jews, who, while themselves
strongly assimilationist, yet felt the responsibility incumbent

EDUCATION, JEWISH
upon them to help their coreligionists in these underdeveloped lands. The AIU began its activities in the political field
but after about 1860 concentrated mainly on education. It
was instrumental in westernizing to a great extent some of
the Oriental-style primitive kuttabs and talmud torahs of theold *Ottoman Empire and the Maghreb countries as well as
in *Persia and the Balkans. Its first schools were established in*Tetuán, Morocco, in 1862, in *Tangiers in 1864, in *Damascus and *Baghdad in 1865. Soon a large network of schools,
numbering on the eve of World War I more than 100, cameinto being. To train teachers for these schools the AIU founded
the Ecole Normale Israélite Orientale in Paris (1867). Students
were recruited from the AIU schools in the various countries
and their study in Paris was subsidized. The AIU educational
institutions stressed the French language and culture, but Hebrew, Bible, and other Jewish subjects were taught in them as
well, the extent of the latter varying in different communities
and sometimes depending on the personal opinions and sentiments of the local school directors. Other Jewish schools in
the communities where the AIU operated were influenced bythis educational enterprise. Old ḥ adarim underwent considerable modernization. In Izmir, Turkey, a society was formed(1869) to help the education of the poor, mainly in order toward off the influence of the missionary schools. In the samecity regulations were passed earlier in the century prohibiting
craftsmen from employing boys who do not know the threedaily services. School societies came into being in many other
cities of the Muslim lands. One of the largest schools, modern
in its organization and program, was founded in *Baghdad in
1865. Recognizing that withdrawal into Jewish studies alone
is disadvantageous, it introduced the study of the languagesof the country, Arabic and Turkish. In Bulgaria, Hebrew asa spoken language gained a foothold in some schools. The
trend reached also some non-Alliance schools in the North
African lands of *Egypt, Tripolitania, *Tunisia, and *Algeria. Education of girls, too, became acceptable practice during this period. A girls’ school was established in *Mogador,
Morocco, as early as 1840. Later in the century a number ofsuch schools, as well as several kindergartens, were openedin Egypt and in *Turkey.
A German society, the *Hilfsverein der deutschen Juden,
founded in 1901, also entered the educational area of activities
in the Balkan countries and in the Middle East. On the eve ofWorld War I it maintained some 50 schools in these regions,
including 29 in *Palestine.
The Period between the Two World Wars
The political upheavals that followed World War I brought
about radical changes in the fate of the Jews of Eastern Europe. The Russian Revolution cut off Russian Jewry from therest of the world and suppressed both Jewish religious andHebrew-nationalist education. Yiddish was recognized as thelanguage of the Jews in Russia, but in fact Yiddish schooling
too was discouraged and was rapidly reduced to near the vanishing point (see below).

A second major outcome of the war was the establishment in Eastern Europe of a chain of new or enlarged statesfrom the fragments of the broken Austrian and reduced Russian empires. The majority of Europe’s Jews lived in thesestates, and they were recognized as national minorities entitled to national-minority status and to specific rights in the
educational and cultural spheres. But the new states, as yet
uncertain of, and jealous of their new national sovereignty,
did not treat their minorities generously, and, steeled in theold tradition of antisemitism, the Jews found themselves a discriminated group. At the same time the Zionist ideal, whichin the pre-War period inspired only narrow strata of the Jewish population, suddenly became, on the heels of the Balfour
Declaration (1917) and the British Mandated National Homeauthorized by the League of Nations, a hope inspiring nearreality. This conjuncture of circumstances strengthened the
Hebraist-Zionist trend in Jewish education both in the secular and religious groups. (It also encouraged the creation by
the radical circles of a nationalist Yiddish movement.) The
extreme Orthodox, non-Zionist elements resorted to a passive withdrawal into the traditional life and education, slightly
modified to meet contemporary needs. During this period thecultural life of Jewry became strongly politicized, the schools
and various courses having come under the auspices or sponsorship of Jewish political parties.
The Orthodox Agudat Israel maintained or supported a
network of schools, “Ḥ orev,” which included ḥ adarim, talmud
torahs, and yeshivot, some of them full day schools in which
both general subjects and Jewish subjects were taught. In the
mid-1930s, “Horev” schools in Poland numbered about 350 and
had an enrollment of over 47,000 pupils. Another network, ofschools for girls, grew out of the activities of a Cracow seamstress, Sarah Schnirer (1883–1938). Having noted the neglect ofJewish education for girls, she organized a group of girls into aclass which eventually developed into a school. Its success encouraged the establishment of similar institutions, designatedas Beth Jacob Schools, in many other communities. In 1938
they numbered 230 in Poland including several day schools,
with about 27,000 pupils. In 1929 Agudat Israel took over thesponsorship of these institutions. The Mizrachi Zionist religious party sponsored the Yavneh network of schools. These
included kindergarten and elementary day schools and, on thesecondary level, mostly supplementary schools. In 1938 theYavneh system had 235 schools of all types with an enrollmentof over 23,000. A major difference between the Agudah andMizrachi school systems was the attitude to and the use of the
Hebrew language. The extreme Orthodox elements had not yet
made peace with Hebrew as a modern language. In their viewthe language of conversation and instruction was to be Yiddish,the language of the majority of Jews in Eastern Europe and theone in which many prominent rabbis had preached. The Mizrachi leaders, on the other hand, with their Zionist philosophy,
accepted Hebrew as the language of the National Home in Ereẓ
Israel and the desired language of the people in daily life everywhere as well as the language of the sacred lore.

184

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

EDUCATION, JEWISH
Another large school system was that of Tarbut. In theseschools students were imbued in the Jewish nationalist spirit
and were oriented towards ḥ alutziyyut (pioneering) in Palestine. The Bible was the core of the Hebrew traditional program,and modern Hebrew literature provided the contemporary nationalist orientation. The Tarbut educational institutions included many day schools, both elementary and secondary. By
and large the students came from the middle and upper middle classes, the poor being unable to afford them. Neverthelessthe Tarbut schools, which in 1918 numbered 50 with 2,500 pupils, grew by 1935 to 270 with about 38,000 students, scatteredthroughout the Baltic states, Poland, and Romania.
There were also some schools not formally identified
with these major trends in Poland and Lithuania, but thatwere actually under the same type of religious or secular sponsorship. Thus in Latvia Agudat Israel schools were known as“Moriah” and the Mizrachi schools “Tushiah” were similarin their Hebraic-religious program to the “Yavneh” schools
in Poland. In several Bessarabian towns and elsewhere there
were secondary schools not associated with the Tarbut network, but following virtually the same program. Aside fromthese major organized groups of schools private unaffiliatedḥ adarim of the traditional type continued to function, mostly
in Poland. These had, in the mid-1930s, an enrollment of some
50,000 boys.
The above school systems all had their teacher-training schools: the Beth Jacob school in Cracow (established
1925); the bet midrash “Taḥ kemoni” in Warsaw (1920), which
trained rabbis and teachers for the Mizrachi’s Yavneh schools,
and a similar institution in Vilna; and three Tarbut teacher
seminaries, in Vilna (1921), Lvov (1922), and Grodno (1926).
In Warsaw there was also a government school for teachers of
the “Mosaic Faith” which became Hebraically oriented during this period.
The decline in the economic positions of the Jewish communities brought about considerable enrollment in Jewish
trade schools and the study of agriculture in preparation for
Palestine. One of the Tarbut schools offered courses in agriculture as did some of the yeshivot of Yavneh. The *Ort tradeschools too were popular. In Poland alone in 1934 Jewish tradeschools had an enrollment of about 5,000.
The yeshivot suffered greatly from the war, some having
closed and others being forced to move. To recover from thisdecline a Va’ad Yeshivot (Yeshivot Committee) was organizedunder the leadership of R. Ḥ ayyim Ozer *Grodzinski, andnumerous yeshivot and “junior yeshivot” (yeshivot ketannot,
preparatory to the yeshivot proper) were established within a
few years by this committee as well as by other groups or individual rabbis. In 1937 there were in Poland 136 yeshivot withsome 12,000 students. Outstanding among these new institutions in its organization, physical facilities, and scholarship,
was the Yeshivat Ḥ akhmei Lublin (the Yeshivah of the Lublin
Scholars) founded in 1930 by R. Meir *Shapira, who had previously established yeshivot in several towns in which he served
as rabbi and who gained renown for his passionate advocacy

of “the page a day” idea (daf yomi), that every Jew study one
page of the Talmud daily.
In Central and Western Europe the Jewish educational
trend continued much in the same direction as it did before
World War I. Here and there new schools were founded, andsome old schools closed their doors. In Antwerp there were
two large day schools. A new day school was opened in Paris.
In Gateshead, England a yeshivah was founded in 1927 which
attracted students from the West European countries, especially after the beginning of the flight of Jews from Germany
and the other lands threatened by the Nazis. Most Jewish
learning however was in supplementary schools of limited
hours and programs. In the general schools for Jewish students
that continued functioning in Germany, England, Austria,
and elsewhere time allotted to Jewish studies also remained
minimal. On the eve of and immediately after the Nazi rise topower, study of Hebrew became widespread among the Jewish youth of Europe.
In the Muslim lands the Alliance Israélite continued tomaintain or support schools, although their number began to
decline in the 1930s. There still were 65 AIU schools in 1938, of
which 33 were in one country, Morocco. In *Iraq certain restrictions were imposed on Jewish education after the country gained its independence in 1932, but a substantial numberof schools continued functioning in *Baghdad and in several
other cities. In the East Mediterranean Arab lands the schools
took on a more modern Western character while the old styleḥ adarim declined. In the Maghreb lands the ḥ adarim andyeshivot remained numerous and popular.
All these educational activities of the period between thetwo world wars – modest in some of the countries discussed
above, extensive and vibrant with vitality in others – were
terminated in 1939 or soon after when the Germans invaded
nearly all of Europe and gained control of North Africa. Even
where the Jews were not physically destroyed as in Italy and
the North African lands, the restrictions imposed upon themand the dread and uncertainty in which they lived during theGerman occupation suppressed their educational and culturalfunctions. The largest and most creative Jewries of Eastern Europe were almost totally destroyed and with them disappeared
centuries-old centers of Jewish life, culture, and scholarship.
While about two and one half million Jews remained alive in
the Soviet Union after the Nazi Holocaust, the discriminatory
regime deprived them of opportunities for the free exerciseof their religio-cultural life. In this country there was practically no Jewish education of any kind. Fortunately the otherlarge Jewish population centers on the American continent
were unaffected by the ravages of World War II. One-half of
the world Jewish population of 13 million was to be found on
the American continent. The United States became the largest
Jewish population center with 5,750,000 Jews who have created institutions for Jewish learning for both young and old.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6185

Bibliography: A. Chouraqui, Between East and West: A
History of the Jews of North Africa (1968), 133–5, 204–13; Elbogen,Century, index; A. Levinson, Ha-Tenu’ah ha-Ivrit ba-Golah (1935); Z.

EDUCATION, JEWISH
Scharfstein (ed.), Ha-Ḥ innukh ve-ha-Tarbut ha-Ivrit be-Eiropa bein
Shetei Milḥ amot ha-Olam (1957); idem, Toledot ha-Ḥ innukh be-Yisrael ba-Dorot ha-Aḥ aronim, 5 vols. (1960–652); M. Eliav, Ha-Ḥ innukh
ha-Yehudi be-Germanyah bi-Ymei ha-Haskalah ve-ha-Emanẓ ipaẓ yah(1960), includes bibliography.
[Elijah Bortniker]

The Period Since World War II
The survivors of the war gathered in Displaced Persons camps.
About 250,000 Jews from Eastern and Central Europe were in
D.P. camps in Italy, Austria, and Germany. Few children had
survived, but for those who did come back from their various hiding places, schools were opened. An education board
consisting of representatives of the Jewish Agency, the Joint
Distribution Committee, and the DPs was set up in 1947. Work
had to start from scratch. Books were reprinted, teachers werebrought from Palestine, a complete network of schools was
set up, serving all the camps and Jewish communities in thelarger towns. Soldiers of the *Jewish Brigade played an important role in this work.
The camps were emptied with the establishment of
the State of Israel in 1948. The vast majority of the Jews in
the D.P. camps left for Israel. Those that remained behindsettled in various communities in Central and Western Europe. By that time Jews in Eastern European countries could
no longer freely leave their place of residence. New Jewish
communities grew up in Eastern Europe, whose educational
program depended on policies of the governments in theirrespective countries of residence. No serious educational
program was developed in any of the Communist countries
except for Hungary and, for a short period of time, in Poland. The Theological Seminary was reopened in Budapest. A
primary and secondary Jewish day school was also started,which continues to function to the present time. The total
number of children involved in Hungary, however, neverexceeded 200–300 out of a total Jewish population of
80,000.
The education program in Poland developed after theera of Stalin and with the return of Jewish refugees from theSoviet Union. Four Yiddish schools were opened for the re-turning refugees. The language of instruction was Polish, but
Yiddish and Yiddish culture were taught. These schools wereclosed with the reduction of the Jewish community in Poland
through emigration and because of a change in government
policy after 1967.
There were no Jewish schools in Romania, Czechoslovakia, or Yugoslavia. Very few children received a supplementary
Jewish education in any of these countries.
With the collapse of Communism and the dissolutionof the Soviet Union, Jewish communal life in Eastern Europe
underwent a marked revival in parallel with mass emigration. Community organizations now offered a wide range ofreligious, social, and cultural services, including Jewish education. In 2005 the Federation of Jewish Communities of theFormer Soviet Union operated 54 kindergartens, 72 elementary day schools, 15 high schools, and five universities in 65
cities, with a total enrollment of over 15,000 youngsters. In
addition it had 15 yeshivot with 700 students and over 100
Sunday schools in 13 countries. The Federation also operated
a teacher training institute and a resource center turning out
educational materials.
In Hungary there were just three Jewish day schools anda high school in Budapest in 2005, serving a population ofaround 80,000 Jews countrywide, of which only a few thousand were affiliated to the Orthodox or Neolog community.
However, it continued to operate the only rabbinical seminary in Eastern Europe. In Bulgaria formal Jewish education
was received at a state secondary school where Hebrew andJewish history studies were compulsory, while a few Sunday
schools were also in operation. Other countries of Eastern Europe, with their small Jewish populations, were also making
efforts, whether in talmud torah or Sunday schools, to perpetuate Jewish education.
In postwar Western Europe a new awareness spreadamong the surviving leadership that education is the foundation of Jewish communal life.
Several factors contributed toward the achievements incultural reconstruction.
a) The respective governments were sympathetic to theJewish communities and many helped in the maintenance ofthe schools. The Swedish government provided grants for the
day schools and so did the governments of France, Belgium,
Holland, Denmark, Finland, Germany, and Italy.
b) American Jewish aid, through the Joint Distribution
Committee, heavily subsidized educational reconstruction
in all Western European countries. The German government
paid compensation channeled through the *Conference on
Jewish Material Claims against Germany. These funds made it
possible to build new schools or to renovate old ones in practically all larger Jewish communities.
c) The creation of the State of Israel was an enormous
stimulus for Jewish education.
d) The Jewish Agency through its emissary-teachers
played an important role in upgrading the level of education
throughout Western Europe.

186

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

jewish education in europe (war & postwar)
The War Years
In Nazi-occupied Europe normal Jewish education practicallyceased to exist. In Western Europe the Germans initially insisted that Jewish children be removed from general schools
and educated in Jewish schools. Later, however, when the “Final Solution” was initiated, Jewish education was completely
disrupted, particularly in Eastern Europe, where it was officially prohibited. In spite of this ban, clandestine classes in
Hebrew and Yiddish were held, under highly dangerous conditions, in most larger ghettos such as Lodz, Warsaw, Vilna,and others. They continued until the liquidation of the ghettos
themselves (see *Holocaust). Jewish schools developed during these years in Italy, where all Jewish children had to leave
government schools.

EDUCATION, JEWISH
As a result of all these factors there were in 1969 over 40
day schools, some in communities where none existed before
the last war, such as Stockholm, Madrid, Zurich, and Basle.
Parallel with the building program went an effort to trainteachers and to prepare textbooks. Individual teachers weresent for training to Israel or to England and teacher-training
programs were set up in Italy, Holland, and Belgium, the last
one recognized by the Belgian government.
The Claims Conference encouraged the printing of textbooks, some of which were translated and adapted into various European languages.
Israel educators provided in-service training for European Jewish teachers.
Jewish education in 1970 embraced approximately 50
of all children of school age in Western Europe. Out of every
four children receiving some Jewish education, three attended
supplementary schools and one a Jewish day school. The underlying approach in all these schools was based on religious
teaching. Only one day school in Western Europe (Brussels)
declared itself to be non-religious. Even this school had to introduce the teaching of festivals and Jewish practices becauseof the demand of parents. Almost all schools taught Hebrew
as a language and were Israel oriented.
The day school system continued to thrive into the 21st
century, but with varying levels of enrollment. In Paris there
were over 20 such schools, including kindergartens, primaryand secondary schools, and religious seminaries, but only 4
of French Jewish children were enrolled in these frameworks,
despite the influx of tradition-minded North African immigrants that made France the third largest Jewish community
in the world. There was also a rabbinical seminary ordaining
rabbis. In Antwerp, most of the community’s children wereenrolled in seven Jewish schools, receiving an intensive religious education, while another four such schools operated
in Brussels.
There were three Jewish primary schools in Germany
in 2005, but with low enrollment, and a Jewish high school
in Berlin (opened in 1993). In Switzerland, nine schools wereoperating in five cities. Two Jewish day schools operate in
Amsterdam, one each for the traditional communities (primary and secondary school) and the ultra-Orthodox community (primary and secondary school). Furthermore, there
are three institutes of higher learning – a kolel, a seminary,and the Institute of Jewish Studies in Leiden. In Italy Jewish
schools were to be found in Rome, Milan, Florence, Genoa,
Livorno, and Trieste.
For Education in Israel see *Israel, State of.

In Czarist Russia
Yiddish had been the language of instruction in the ḥ eder
and the talmud torah for as long as it had been the vernacu-

lar. However, in recent centuries the language itself was introduced into those institutions as a new subject, i.e., the art ofwriting. The instructor in this subject bore the designation of“Shrayber” (scribe). Ordinances of communities and societies
determined his duties and assigned specific periods of time
during which he was to “write” with his boys. This was a newtendency in Jewish education, a sort of secularism, since the“Brifnshteler” (as the textbooks were known) introduced newcontent into the subject of writing.
In the first quarter of the 19t century several of these
Brifnshteler were stereotyped reprints of older editions. Thereis a list of 60 such letter composers. In 1826 there appeareda Brifnshteler by Abraham Leon Dor which was reprinted in
1843, 1861, 1868, 1870, 1873, 1876, and 1882. In 1850 his son,Hirsh Leon Dor, issued “letter learning,” a new Brifnshteler,in which he included various kinds of letters, customs, business letters, and arithmetic. This work, too, appeared in several editions. Gradually these works acquired the characterof reading textbooks. They introduced anecdotes and fables,
ideas for entertainment and humor that made reading “enjoyable,” even some elements of arithmetic and geography.
These scribes gained entry into all types of schools and insmall towns they organized groups and conducted systematic instruction for girls. The method of instruction of thesegroups carried the name Shura Greizel. In this manner the
study of “Yiddish writing” became an attempt at secular education in Yiddish. At first the Russian school authorities tolerated this study, but after 1863 they began to oppose it andfinally prohibited it.
A further development in the study of Yiddish was theestablishment of the “Sabbath and Evening Schools” for the
young (1859). In the 1860s such schools existed in Vilna, Berdichev, Zhitomir, Minsk, and other cities. The official languagein these schools was Russian, but lectures were also given in
Yiddish on nature study, geography, and Yiddish literature.
The Russian government mistrusted these schools, closed
some of them promptly, and authorization of new schools
was obtained with great difficulty. Nevertheless the number ofthese Sabbath and evening schools grew and toward the endof the 19t century such schools were found in Vilna, Homel(Gomel), Grodno, Kovno (Kaunas), Yekaterinoslav, Kishinev,
Kharkov, Lodz, and elsewhere. Some of these bore a culturalphilanthropic character; but there were also schools on which
the teachers and leaders bestowed an ideological character,and they valued the role of the Yiddish language in the program. In the officially required Russian subjects Yiddish wasused as an aid language. In this fashion did the Sabbath andevening schools prepare the ground for schools for secularstudies in the mother tongue of the children. Schools in the
Yiddish language were not legalized by the education authority, and this led to the opening of schools under disguised designations (as in Mir, Dokshitsy, Warsaw). Under various legal
excuses the study of the Yiddish language was carried on in theauthorized schools. Out of the 53 schools which the Society
for the Diffusion of Enlightenment (Mefiẓ ei Haskalah) sub-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

187

Bibliography: Enẓ iklopedyah Ḥ innukhit, 1–4 (1964). Websites: www.fjc.ru; www.worldjewishcongress.org/communities.
[Stanley Abramovitch / Fred Skolnik (2nd ed.)]yiddish education

EDUCATION, JEWISH
sidized in 1909, there were 27 schools that included Yiddish
in their programs, of which 16 were girls’ schools, 3 boys’, and8 coeducational. In 1910 there was a school in Kremenchug
which conducted instruction of all the subjects in Yiddish. In
1911, in the town of Demievka (a suburb of Kiev) a collectiveḥ eder established by several progressive teachers, who obtained certificates of melammedim, was legalized, and all thesubjects of study were taught in Yiddish. In 1912 teachers andcommunity leaders converted the Warsaw school Ḥ innukh
Yeladim into one of general studies in the Yiddish language.
Also the modernized talmud torahs in the country gradually
introduced Yiddish into their program.
When World War I broke out, Jewish refugees from Poland and Lithuania flooded the cities of central Russia and the
Ukraine. The Yiddishist teachers and the Progressive Democratic organizations began establishing schools for the refugees’ children where instruction was carried on in Yiddish,under the approval of the new law of 1914. By 1916 there wereseveral dozens of schools in which Yiddish was the languageof instruction. Teachers adopted new methods of instruction,and they created suitable textbooks for the pupils and pedagogic literature for the teachers. The Russian Revolution of
1917–18 brought about great changes in Jewish education.
The Ukraine and Belorussia
During the brief existence of the “Jewish Ministry” and after
its liquidation there were under the leadership of the “Kultur Lige” 63 active elementary schools, three secondary, anddozens of kindergartens and evening schools, all conductedin Yiddish. In 1920 the Ukraine experienced the Bolshevik
upheaval and the People’s Commissariat for Nationalities of
the Soviet regime became the school authority over the Jewish educational institutions in the Ukraine, Belorussia, andRussia proper.
The next decade, 1921–31, was very productive in theSoviet Yiddish schools. In the Ukraine there were in 1931 a
total of 831 schools with 94,000 students; Belorussia had 334
schools with 33,000 students; and there were also a numberof high schools; in all, 160,000 children were given schoolingin Yiddish. In the year 1933–34 the attitude of the authorities
to Yiddish underwent a radical change and a decline set in;
the number of schools diminished annually, reaching a catastrophic low level on the eve of World War II.
PolandWith liberation and unification of the Polish Republic a strong
school movement developed among the Jews of that country. In 1920 Warsaw already had 14 all-Yiddish schools with49 classes and 14 kindergartens, with a total of 2,000 children. Similar developments took place throughout the provinces. At a conference in 1921 attended by 376 delegates, theCentral Yiddish School Organization (CYS h O) was formed,
which included as its affiliates Yiddish schools of all trends.
In 1921 there were, in 44 Polish cities, 69 Yiddish elementary
schools and 35 kindergartens, having altogether 381 classes
with 13,457 children.

188

The Polish government took a hostile position to these
new secular Yiddish schools, but nevertheless freed their pupils from the obligation of attending other schools to meetthe requirements of compulsory education. Various absurd
police accusations were leveled against the schools. Schools
were closed and teachers arrested or removed. Neverthelessthe network of these CYS h O schools grew. In 1925 their numbers reached 91 elementary schools with 455 classes and 16,364
pupils; 3 secondary schools with 780 pupils. In 1929 there were
114 elementary schools with 17,380 pupils, 46 kindergartens, 52
evening schools, 3 secondary schools, and 1 teachers’ training
seminary, a grand total of 216 institutions with 24,000 pupils.
The Polish government became ever more reactionary andantisemitic, which resulted in a quantitative decline in theschools, but their quality kept improving. The character of the
CYS h O school became crystallized; its educational approach
included also the social and national upbringing of the child,attachment to his people, and an attitude of social responsibility. The methodology of instruction was in consonance withthese objectives. The pride of the CYS h O school movement was
the children’s sanatorium named after V. *Medem. This was agreat creative institution with many pedagogic achievements.
On the eve of World War II it had 250 children, and the institution was open the entire year. The children and teachers
were all killed by the Nazis.
The Educational and Cultural Union (Shul un Kultur
Farband) of the right-wing Poale Zion and of the nonpartisan organizations tried to open Yiddish schools with a stressalso on Hebrew and Yiddishkeit. In 1934–35 they had in Poland
seven elementary schools with 818 children. The ideologicaland programmatic effect of this movement was minimal. The
number of the religious schools was large, 2,560 schools with
171,000 pupils. These schools too conducted their program in
Yiddish. Thus, over 200,000 children received their schoolingin the Yiddish language.
Borderlands
The 1917–18 upheaval in Russia freed the countries of the borderland areas: Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and, in part, also Romania. In these countries the Yiddish language schools went
through the same development as in Poland. In 1934 there
were in Lithuania 16 elementary schools with 1,555 pupils and3 secondary schools with 420 students. In 1933 Latvia had 122
Yiddish schools with 6,000 children (45 of the total Jewish child population). The Fascist revolution destroyed theseschool systems in both lands. In 1934 Estonia had one Yiddish school with 80 children. For a time the Yiddish schools inthese countries enjoyed the same status as government schools
and were maintained by the state. In Bessarabia (Romania)
there were 62 Yiddish elementary schools with 5,757 pupils.
The decreed Rumanization of education gradually brought
about their liquidation.
United States and Canada
The October 1910 conference of the Poale Zion formulated apolicy for Yiddish National Radical Schools and soon afterENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

EDUCATION, JEWISH
ward the first such school was opened in New York. In 1911
the National Workers’ Farband formed a committee to organize and maintain these National Radical schools. This school
program was also supported by the Socialist-Territorialists andby non-partisan groups. However, differences of opinion aroseon the place of Hebrew in the curriculum. One school in the
Bronx seceded from the National Radical movement and, after the death of *Shalom Aleichem, took on the designationof Sholem Aleichem School. In 1918 several schools of thistype organized the Sholem Aleichem Folk Institute. The Farband likewise changed the designation of its schools to Jewish Folk Schools.
In 1915 a new type of school made its appearance. Members of the Jewish Socialist Federation opened a school in Harlem, New York, and a year later, one in Chicago. In 1916 theConference of the Workmen’s Circle decided to “demand of allits branches that they support the Socialist Yiddish Schools”;
and in 1918 their convention declared that the school enterprise was the duty of the entire organization and of its Education Committee. Thus there came into being three different
school organizations. The schools of the Workmen’s Circle andof the Sholem Aleichem Institute put the stress on Yiddish language and literature and Jewish history; the Farband stressed
Hebrew and national traditional upbringing. At the end of
1927 there were 103 Workmen’s Circle schools with 6,000 pupils. In 1928 the Farband opened in Montreal a day schoolvis-à-vis the Folkshulen, which operated as an institution for
supplementary education. By 1919 it had 559 pupils; the Peretz schools in Winnipeg had 600 pupils. In 1929 the Sholem
Aleichem Institute conducted three schools in Chicago, three
in Detroit including a secondary school, and the New Yorkschools with an enrollment of 1,400 pupils. World War II upset the whole school system. In 1956 the picture was as follows:
Workmen’s Circle, 85 elementary and six secondary schools;
the Farband, 57 elementary schools and seven day schools;
Sholem Aleichem Institute, 16 elementary schools and five kindergartens. The International Order, a left-wing organization(no longer in existence), maintained a number of schools withan enrollment of approximately 4,000 as of 1939. In 1969 thevarious organizations had the following numbers: Workmen’s
Circle, a total of 50 institutions (kindergartens, elementary,and secondary) with 2,500 pupils; Farband, 21 schools with1,700 pupils; Sholem Aleichem Institute, nine schools (five ofthem with pre-school educational programs) and, jointly with
the Workmen’s Circle, one secondary school.
All these schools faced extraordinary social and pedagogic problems in the early postwar period. The differencesin the educational ideologies of these organizations were substantially reduced. Yet each continued its work on its own(with the exception of the joint secondary school and theteachers’ seminary). Since that time the large majority of theseschools have disappeared.

ble Jewish community there were Yiddish schools of which
the majority were secular. Such schools were established inArgentina (1917–1921), Brazil (1945), and Mexico (1924) andoriginally the language of instruction was Yiddish. The schools
were oriented to a Yiddish Bundist ideology and in Argentina a teachers’ seminary was also established which by 1955
had graduated 265 teachers to work in such schools and had
170 pupils in 1967. However, with the steady acculturation of
the Jews the vernacular, by and large, replaced Yiddish as thelanguage of instruction although the schools still styled themselves as Yiddish. The establishment of the State of Israel andparticularly the Six-Day War in 1967 gave tremendous impetus to the study of Hebrew.
GeneralA few Yiddish language schools, all of them supplementary,
are to be found in cities throughout the world under both ultra-Orthodox and secular auspices. In Israel, particularly inJerusalem, there are many ḥ adarim in which the language of
instruction is Yiddish and in which the curriculum is hardly
different from that of Eastern European ḥ adarim of the Middle Ages. In most of the major yeshivot in Israel the languageof instruction is Yiddish; the students, however, speak mainly
Hebrew among themselves. In England, both in London andManchester, there were Yiddish language schools associatedwith the ultra-Orthodox ḥ asidic groups. In these schools aminimum of instruction in secular subjects was given in order to accord with the Compulsory Education Act.
Bibliography: H.S. Kazdan, Fun Kheder un “Shkoles” bis
Tsisho (1956), 452; idem, Di Geshikhte fun Yidishn Shulvezn in Umophangikn Poiln (1947); Z. Yefroikin, in: Algemayne Entsiklopedye Yidn,
5 (1957), 166–219, includes bibliography; N. Mayzel, ibid., 415–9; S.
Rojansky, ibid., 359–47, includes bibliography; E.H. Jeshurin, 100 Yor
Moderne Yidishe Literatur (1965), 260–458, a bibliographical list.
[Chaim S. Kazdan]

jewish education in the unitedstates of america

Latin American Countries
In most of the countries of Latin America with any apprecia-

Early National Period
During the colonial and early national periods, Jewish education was not regarded as a communal responsibility. Congregational life was led by volunteer trustees and non-ordained
religious functionaries (ḥ azzanim). Indeed, the first rabbi tosettle in the United States did not arrive until 1840. While Jews
acquired burial grounds, built synagogues for public worship,and established mechanisms for aiding the poor, education
was not treated as a public concern. Tutoring in Hebrew language, prayers, and Torah (primarily reading and translating) was provided for a fee, most commonly by independent
teachers. On occasion, congregations would contract with an
instructor to provide education to indigent children.
In the generation that the American colonies becamea nation, the most prominent Jewish religious figure in the
United States was Gershom Mendes *Seixas. Congregation
Shearith Israel in New York, at which Seixas received his edu-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

189

EDUCATION, JEWISH
cation and which he served as religious leader, conducted an
all-day school from 1755 to 1776 and, intermittently, throughthe early decades of the 19t century. The aim of this initiative
was to provide both Hebrew and general studies under Jewish auspices, as an alternative to secular training under nonJewish, sectarian auspices.
In the early national period, almost all schools in New
York City, as elsewhere, were religious in character. “Common pay” (i.e., private) schools generally assumed the religious identity of their headmaster; charity or “free schools,”
supported by churches, could draw funds from the state.
Through a bequest, Shearith Israel established a charity school
named Polonies Talmud Torah, in 1803. Starting in 1811, theschool achieved equal footing with the Protestant and Catholicschools in the city, benefiting from state financial assistance.
In New York, state support of religiously sponsored charity schools continued until 1825; public schools were, gradually, to achieve a monopoly over state funding of education
throughout the country.
Shearith Israel’s inability to maintain a school on a continuing basis was not only a function of uncertain state financial support, but of an apparent disinclination of its members
to enroll their children. This may, in part, have resulted fromthe lack of educational leadership on a sustained basis. For example, when Emanuel N. Carvalho, a well-qualified teacher
who had come to New York from London, served as theschool’s headmaster, 1808–11, there was a well-subscribed, fullday instructional program. When Carvalho moved to Charleston, the school experienced years of intermittent openings andclosings, depending on the availability and ability of teaching
personnel. The Polonies Talmud Torah eventually turned tothe provision of supplementary education, holding sessions on
Sunday morning and Tuesday and Thursday afternoons. Primary attention was given to prayers, Bible, preparation for bar
mitzvah, and elements of Hebrew language and grammar.
In Charleston, home to the largest population of Jews
in America in the early 19t century, the Jewish community
allocated no funds for a school – parents had to rely, exclusively, on private tutors. Savannah’s Mikveh Israel offered nocongregationally sponsored religious education before 1853.
With a modest population, rapid acculturation, and a negligible educational infrastructure, Jewish learning in the earlynational period was at a low ebb.
Emergence of Sunday Schools
As public, non-sectarian schools became increasingly predominant, many Christian Sunday schools, initially established by “benevolent societies” to provide poor children
with general as well as Christian religious educational opportunity – and to keep them off the streets on Sunday – became strictly religious institutions. By 1838, there were 8,000
Christian schools of this kind in the United States. Consistent
with this trend, American-born Rebecca *Gratz (1781–1869),
member of a prominent Jewish family of merchants and community leaders in Philadelphia, aided in founding the Female

Hebrew Benevolent Society (1819) and the Hebrew Sunday
School Society (1838). Rebecca Gratz was convinced that religious instruction for all Jewish children was imperative, particularly in the face of Christian proselytizing.
One month after securing the approval of the Female Hebrew Benevolent Society for this initiative, the Hebrew Sunday
School opened with 50 students and six teachers (including
Gratz, who served as superintendent). The volunteer faculty
consisted of women respected for their moral character andintelligence. From its inception, the Jewish Sunday School
movement was, as its Protestant counterpart, a women’s movement. Women founded, directed, and taught at the schools,
starting with the Philadelphia prototype, and girls attended
alongside boys. In America, children’s religious education wasconsidered part of the domain of women, and women thus required religious education to properly educate their children.
Financial support came from the FHBS, private donors, andMikveh Israel (Philadelphia’s well-established Sephardi congregation). Parents who could afford to do so paid $2 per year,
and an annual appeal was held at a festive public exam.
Gratz’s Philadelphia-based efforts benefited from the assistance of the ḥ azzan of Mikveh Israel, Isaac *Leeser. By 1845,
Jewish Sunday schools had been established in a number ofcommunities, including New York, Charleston, Cincinnati,
and Richmond. As in the Philadelphia model, Saturday and
Sunday schools established in other locales were conducted
on a coeducational basis. Jewish Sunday schools reinforced
the middle class values of public schools and Protestant Sunday schools: obedience, order, punctuality, cleanliness, andself-discipline. They embraced the Protestant division between universal morality (the domain of public education)and particularistic forms (the province of supplementary religious education).
Leeser, who championed Jewish traditionalism throughout his career, authored a Catechism for Younger Children(1839), used in many of the schools. The catechism opened
with reflections on religion in general, before turning to the“Mosaic Religion” in particular. He affirmed the divine origin of the Torah and its correct interpretation by the sages;
hence, the enduring imperative of both the moral and ceremonial law. The catechism concluded with Maimonides’ 13
principles of faith.
Leeser also published a Hebrew Reader, “Designed as an
Easy Guide to the Hebrew Tongue, for Jewish Children and
Self-Instruction,” in 1838. The text devotes 23 pages to the development of skills for Hebrew reading, with the ensuing 25
pages applying those skills to such recurring prayers as Adon
Olam, Shema, Ma Tovu, Modeh Ani, the opening paragraph of
Birkat ha-Mazon, and Yigdal. While the work was reprinted anumber of times, Leeser lamented, in his preface to the 1856
(fourth) edition, that though the book “has met with approbation, still the sale has been very slow, the demand for the various schools being quite small.” Leeser, who founded a shortlived Jewish Publication Society in 1845, produced dozens ofprinted works, along with a widely disseminated periodical

190

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

EDUCATION, JEWISH(The Occident). Improvements in print technology and thedeclining cost of printed material led, at mid-century, to expanded publications of all kinds, including evangelical literature. Consequently, Jewish education and Jewish educational
materials were essential both to strengthen the faith and toprotect against proselytizing missionaries.
Even as he expressed the highest regard for the work ofRebecca Gratz and her assistants, Leeser urged the establishment of an all-day Jewish school for two basic reasons. First,
it was impossible to achieve Hebrew literacy in “extra” hours.
Second, the public or private schools were, in Leeser’s view,
essentially Christian. Where it was impracticable to conduct
day schools, supplementary education needed to be strengthened – hence, Leeser’s support of Rebecca Gratz’s Sunday
School initiative.
Educational Currents in the Era of Heightened GermanJewish Immigration, 1840–1880
During the period 1840 to 1880, the American Jewish community grew from 15,000 to 250,000, primarily bolstered by theimmigration of Jews from German-speaking lands. German
Jews spread through the length and breadth of the expanding nation and, with their geographic diffusion, the number ofcongregations grew from 18 to 277 by 1877. As in the colonialand early national periods, congregations typically progressedfrom establishing a burial society to forming a synagogue and,
only later, providing some form of Jewish education.
In the 1840s and 1850s, many American schools were still
conducted by churches, and instruction in the Christian religion was part of the curriculum. Many public schools had
a distinctly Protestant tone. Within this context, Jewish day
schools were established by immigrant Jews in a number ofcommunities.
By the 1850s, seven Jewish day schools had been established in New York, enrolling more than 1,000 students. Similar schools were initiated in other cities, including Philadelphia, Baltimore, Chicago, Boston, Albany, Cincinnati, Detroit,
Essex County, New Jersey, Pittsburgh, and Washington, D.C.
A typical school of this kind was the one organized by Kehillath Anshe Maariv Congregation, in Chicago in 1853. The
school was patterned on similar schools in Germany, where
the curriculum included general studies supplemented by instruction in Jewish religion, Hebrew prayers, and Bible reading in German translation. At KAM, in addition to English,
German, arithmetic, geography, drawing, and singing, prayers
and readings from the Pentateuch, as well as catechism relating to Jewish religion and history, were part of the curriculum. The “common” school branches were taught by non-Jewish instructors, with a rabbi or cantor responsible for Jewish
studies. The commitment of German-Jewish immigrants tomaintaining German culture is reflected in the fact that of the
17 mid-19t century Jewish day schools with extant curricular
information, all schools included German.
Several private boarding schools teaching Jewish andsecular subjects also operated in the middle of the 19t cen-tury. The creation of this variety of day school reflected theirfounders’ interest in the Jewish education of their children,
an interest in preserving German culture, a desire for “quality assurance” in their children’s schooling (the developing
public schools were not, uniformly, seen as centers of educational excellence), and concern about sectarianism in public schools. Intensive Hebrew education was, not always, ofparamount interest; often, one hour per day was devoted toJewish studies.
In the 1840s, Hebrew literary associations, maintaining
libraries and conducting lectures, were founded in several cities. From references in Jewish newspapers, it appears that literary discussion groups typically were conducted separately
by and for men and women. During the 1860s and 1870s, a
new type of organization – the Young Men’s Hebrew Association (YMHA) – was established in a number of communities (the first YMHA had been organized in Baltimore in 1854
but suspended its activities in 1860–68). The YMHA aimed
to foster improved knowledge of the literature, history, anddoctrines of Judaism. The “Y” often included a library of Jewish reading matter and offered lectures and classes for young
men and women in Jewish history and Hebrew language. Y’s
thus met the need of young adults for a congenial social andintellectual milieu.
During the 1860s, Christian missionaries operating on
New York’s East Side operated a school teaching Jewish children Bible in Hebrew. Mission schools, with conversionary
aims, appeared in other poor Jewish neighborhoods. In 1864,
several congregations organized the Hebrew Free School, asa countermeasure. Five branches were established and, in addition to Jewish education, pupils were supplied with clothing
and other necessities. Similarly, Jewish Y’s introduced gymnasiums and sports as a counterinfluence to Christian missionaries, and in imitation of YMCAs.
While, in the development of American Jewry, the period
1840–80 was, primarily, an era of Western and Central European Jewish settlement and institution building, a trickle ofEastern European Jewish immigration was already apparent by
the 1850s. New York’s first East European congregation, BethHamidrash Hagodol, founded in 1852, established a talmud
torah (supplementary Jewish school) for the instruction ofchildren attending New York City public schools. This school
was, in the 1880s, to become a communally supported talmud
torah known as Mahazikai Talmud Torah.
As public schools, through exclusive state funding, cameto be viewed as superior educational settings, Jews (unlike
Catholics) increasingly opted for public education. For theAmerican-born generation of parents with children of school
age in the 1870s – by which time public education had become
well established throughout the country – public schooling
was a “given.” By 1875, no Jewish day schools remained inoperation.
Though, by 1860, there were 150,000 Jews in the UnitedStates, there was no institution of higher Jewish learning. All
American rabbis were foreign-born and -trained immigrants.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6191

EDUCATION, JEWISH
An attempt to create an academy of higher Jewish learning,
spearheaded by Isaac Leeser, was initiated, in 1867, with thefounding of Maimonides College in Philadelphia. Leeser diedin 1868, and the College disbanded in 1873.
An enduring college for the training of American rabbis
was established by Isaac Mayer *Wise, the institution-builder
of Reform Judaism in America. The Bohemian-born Wise,
who had immigrated to the U.S. in 1846, succeeded in forming a “Union of American Hebrew Congregations” in 1873,
with 34 participating synagogues. In turn, the Union, in 1875,
sponsored the establishment of the *Hebrew Union College
for the training of rabbis. The college, based in Cincinnati,with Isaac M. Wise as its president, was to take root and grow.
Though Wise’s vision of the possibility of a “Minhag America,”
an “American Way,” among the Jews of the U.S. was not realized, the UAHC and HUC were destined to become pillars ofAmerican Reform Judaism.
It is estimated that, in 1880, there were 40,000–50,000
Jewish children of school age in the United States. Of thisnumber, no more than 15,000 received some type of Jewish
education in “Sabbath school” one or two days a week (Saturday afternoon and/or Sunday morning) or through private
lessons. “Sabbath school” was generally of three to five years’
duration. The curriculum consisted of Bible stories, religious
thought (through catechism), and a few Hebrew verses usedin worship. The first Jewish children’s magazine in America,
The Hebrew Sabbath School Visitor, founded and edited by Dr.
Max Lilienthal, was initiated as an instructional aid for such
schools, in 1874. Commonly, the rabbi served as “Superintendent,” and volunteers taught the classes at these very part-timeschools. In a paper on “Pedagogics in the Sabbath-School,”presented in 1880, Moses Mielziner, professor at the HUC, reported that of 118 congregations affiliated with the UAHC (representing more than 40 of the then existing congregations),
only 12 did not have a Sabbath school.
Educational Responses to Mass Migration from Eastern
Europe, 1881–1910
Though East European Jews were to be found among the immigrants of earlier generations, a rising “wave” of such immigrants came to the shores of the U.S. in 1881–1910. The newimmigration resulted not only from political persecution but
from lack of economic opportunity, exacerbated by a fivefold
increase in East European Jewish population in the 19t century. Swelled by immigration, primarily (though certainly not
exclusively) from Eastern Europe, the American Jewish population reached two million by 1910.
East European immigrants transplanted to the UnitedStates the traditional educational institutions of their native
lands. The immigrants’ readiness to adjust to American life
was manifest in their adoption of the public school for theirchildren. On the Lower East Side of New York City, where Jewish immigrants were most heavily concentrated, 38 elementary schools, serving a total population of 65,000 students, included 60,000 Jews by 1905. The most prevalent form of Jewish

education established by the new immigrants (primarily forboys) was the ḥ eder, a private one-room school, open every
weekday of the year. The teachers in most cases were ill-educated men untrained in pedagogy. Parents were too busy with
their jobs in the sweatshops or small businesses to have thetime to consider the quality of their children’s education, or
to exercise some control of the ḥ eder, as was the case in theircountry of origin. The “curriculum” consisted of mechanicalreading of prayers, study of the Torah portion of the week, recitation of portions of liturgy, and bar mitzvah preparation.
The talmud torah, an educational framework maintainedin Eastern Europe for the children of the poor, developed as apromising alternative to the ḥ eder in America. It was, typically,
founded and managed by residents of a given neighborhood,financed by a paid membership and through synagogue appeals. These schools tended to be staffed by more competentteachers, among them nationalist Jews, products of the Russian *Haskalah and the *Ḥ ibbat Zion movement. The curriculum of most talmud torah schools approximated that of
the East European elementary ḥ eder: Hebrew reading (of theprayerbook), word by word translation – typically, into Yiddish – of the Pentateuch, and the commentary of Rashi on
the Torah.
Concomitant with the onset of mass migration was an“awakening” in Jewish life among young, American-born Jews
who, by the late 1870s, had lost confidence in the liberal, universalist visions of the era. This awakening expressed itself
in initiatives for the revitalization of Jewish education. One
manifestation of this agenda was the Jewish Chautauqua Society, launched by Henry *Berkowitz, one of the four men in
the initial (1883) graduating class of HUC, in 1893. The Chautauqua Society had been developed by Bishop John H. Vincent of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1874. Begun as anintensive training program for Sunday school teachers (witha summer assembly at Lake Chautauqua, New York), the society established local reading circles and adult correspondence
courses. By the 1880s, it had become a forum for the discussionof politics, literature, science, economics, and religion. Dozens
of local Chautauqua assemblies were launched; hence, Rabbi
Berkowitz’s initiative in launching the Jewish Chautauqua Society in Philadelphia (where he served as rabbi of Rodeph Sholom Temple) was also part of a national phenomenon.
The Jewish Chautauqua Society held its first summer assembly in 1894. By 1908, it had 125 circles, with 2,500 members.
Starting in 1909, it sent scholars to teach summer courses on
Jewish topics at universities (a function which, by the 1930s,
was to become the society’s central focus), and, in 1915, it initiated a correspondence school. This adult education project
sprang from the sense of its leaders and supporters that Jewish education was sorely lacking.
While the Jewish Chautauqua Society focused on adults,
the Jewish education of children was, likewise, a significant
concern. Indeed, the first book published by the newly established Jewish Publication Society, in 1890, was a revised
edition of a work (initially published in England, in 1886) by

192

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

EDUCATION, JEWISH
British children’s author Lady Katie Magnus, titled Outlinesof Jewish History. The book sold tens of thousands of copies
and went through numerous printings.
The first yeshivah day school in the U.S., Yeshivat Etz
Chaim, an all-day Jewish school for elementary school boys,
was established in New York in 1886. The school’s constitution
averred that “the purpose of this Academy shall be to give free
instruction to poor Hebrew children in the Hebrew language
and the Jewish religion – Talmud, Bible and Shulhan Aruk –during the whole day from nine in the morning until four inthe afternoon. Also from four in the afternoon, two hours shallbe devoted to teach the native language, English, and one hourto teach Hebrew – Loshon Hakodesh – and jargon [Yiddish]to read and write. The Academy shall be guided according to
the strict Orthodox and Talmudic law and the custom of Poland and Russia.” The general studies program also included
grammar, arithmetic, reading, and spelling. Though called a“yeshivah,” this elementary school, as others later to be established, differed significantly from its European predecessors,
both with regard to the age of its students and to the breadthof its curriculum (which included general education).
In the ensuing decades, additional yeshivah schools, including the Rabbi Jacob Joseph Yeshiva (1900), the Yeshiva
Rabbi Chaim Berlin (1906), and the Talmudical Institute ofHarlem (1908), were established. To meet the continuing Jewish educational needs of Etz Chaim graduates and of teenage
immigrants at advanced levels of talmudic study, the Rabbi
Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary (RIETS) was foundedin 1897, creating a framework for the training of (Orthodox)
rabbis. RIETS combined with Yeshivat Etz Chaim in 1915; theexpanded institution was headed by Lithuanian-born Bernard*Revel (1885–1940), a scholar who had studied at the yeshivahof Telz and who, after emigrating, had earned a doctorate fromthe recently established Dropsie College in Philadelphia.
The Reform Pittsburgh Platform of 1885 had led established (“Americanized”) traditionalists to band together
to create a more traditionalist seminary than the HUC. The
driving force behind the founding of the *Jewish TheologicalSeminary, which opened its doors in New York in 1887, was
Sabato *Morais (1823–1897), who had succeeded Isaac Leeser
as ḥ azzan of Mikveh Israel in Philadelphia. Among the seminary’s founders, in addition to Morais, were American-born,
European-ordained Rabbis Bernard *Drachman and Henry
Schneeberger, recently arrived Hungarian-born Rabbi Alexander Kohut, and the British-born ḥ azzan of Shearith Israel(New York), Henry Pereira Mendes. In the early years of the
20t century, the seminary received significant financial support from such well established (Reform) German Jews as
Jacob *Schiff, Felix M. *Warburg, David *Guggenheim, andLouis *Marshall, who hoped that it would attract Russian
Jews and prepare them to be leaders in the Americanizationof immigrants.
Under the leadership of Solomon *Schechter (1847–1915),
reader in rabbinics at Cambridge University, who assumed
the presidency of the fledgling Seminary in 1902, JTS be-came a center of Jewish scholarship and a core institution in
the emerging Conservative stream of Judaism. Of great significance in the unfolding history of Jewish education in the
United States was the establishment at JTS of a Teachers Institute (1909). Mordecai *Kaplan (1881–1983), himself a JTS
rabbinical graduate, was appointed dean of the new Instituteby Schechter.
The Teachers Institute, which was to play an importantrole in training a cadre of Jewish educators in the decades that
followed, was the second Jewish institution for the preparationof teachers to be founded in the United States. The first, *Gratz
College, had been launched in Philadelphia in 1893 through abequest of Philadelphia merchant and philanthropist, Hyman
Gratz, brother of Rebecca Gratz. Both of these teachers’ colleges, as others established in the ensuing years, were open to
and attracted significant numbers of women.
While an organic process of Jewish educational development was in evidence, an “external” event served as the catalyst for a pivotal, communal educational initiative in New York
City. In the September 1908 issue of the North American Review, New York Police Commissioner Theodore A. Bingham
commented that half of the city’s criminals were “Hebrews”
and that Hebrew juveniles were emulating the adults in thisregard. This accusation served to galvanize hundreds of New
York Jewish organizations – synagogues, federations, fraternal
lodges, and professional societies – to establish the “New York
Kehillah” in 1909. The Kehillah was headed by San Francisoborn, HUC-ordained Judah *Magnes (1877–1948), rabbi at New
York’s Temple Emanu-El. Magnes was close to the premierGerman-Jewish banking families who formed the leadershipof Emanu-el and was the brother-in-law of the prominentLouis Marshall. At the same time, he was attracted to the Yiddish intellectual milieu of the East Side Russian immigrants,
among whom he enjoyed a broad-based following.
One response to the Police Commissioner’s charge was
the establishment by the Kehillah of a Committee on Jewish
Education to survey the state of Jewish education and to develop appropriate responses to needs that would be identified.
The survey was undertaken by Professor Mordecai Kaplan of
the Jewish Theological Seminary and Dr. Bernard Cronson,
a public school principal.
The report identified six frameworks within which Jewish education was being conducted:

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6193(a) talmud torah schools(b) institutional schools(c) congregational schools(d) Sunday schools(e) Chedorim (ḥ adarim)(f) private tutors

The talmud torah schools, opined the researchers, “instill more
Jewishness into the lives of the children” than any of the othereducational settings; and this, despite the facts that: “homework is never allotted; the discipline is poor; the attendanceis very irregular and seldom kept up for any length of time.”

EDUCATION, JEWISH
The institution schools (operated by orphan asylums and social work agencies – often sponsored by German-Jewish-supported charitable groups) – had the benefit of good pedagogy
and materials, but lacked the confidence of the population
it aimed to serve, “because they do not regard it as Jewish
enough insofar as it makes Hebrew only secondary.” The congregational school, holding sessions three or more times per
week, was typically sponsored by a Conservative or Orthodox synagogue. Here, “the work covered is not very extensive, and is usually confined to the reading and translation of
the prayers, and of a few passages in the Bible, with a smattering of a few rules of grammar.” Sunday schools, reported
the survey, engaged a cadre of public school teachers, mostly
women, many of whom volunteered their services. However,these teachers lacked “the knowledge necessary for a Jewish school,” and carried out “a vague kind of curriculum….”
As to the ḥ eder, the researchers described it in the following,
critical terms:
A cheder is a school conducted by one, two or three men, forthe sole purpose of eking out some kind of livelihood which
they failed to obtain by any other means. It generally meets ina room or two, in the basement or upper floor of some old dilapidated building where the rent is at a minimum….The instruction, which seldom goes beyond the reading of the prayer
book, and the teaching of a few blessings by rote, is carried on
only in Yiddish. The method of instruction is quite unique. It
consists of about fifteen minutes of individual instruction, with
seldom or never any class work. Each pupil, not knowing when
he is needed, straggles in at random, and waits for his turn tocome, in the meantime entertaining himself with all sorts ofmischief. When his turn comes and the teacher has given him
the fifteen minutes, he runs off. There is hardly an ideal aim in
the mind of the teacher, except in some cases it is the training
for the Bar Mitzvah feat of reading the Haftorah.

The survey could not gauge the number of students who might
have been receiving private tutoring, nor did the tally include
the handful of day schools and their several hundred students.
It was estimated that 21–24 of 200,000 Jewish children ofschool age were in the talmud torah, institutional, congregational and Sunday schools, and the various ḥ adarim.
Ready to undertake communal action to address thesechallenges, the Kehillah of New York initiated a response
which was to be replicated in the decades ahead in scores ofAmerican Jewish communities. It established a Bureau of Jewish Education. The Bureau was to provide educational guidance and service, and organize and coordinate activities beyond the capacity of any one school unit to conduct. In theensuing generation, the concept of community responsibility
in the domain of Jewish education was to be embraced by federations and central Jewish philanthropies in cities across thecountry. The BJE, launched through a $50,000 contribution
from Jacob Schiff and $25,000 from the New York Foundation,
was, initially, to perform the following specific functions:
1. To study sympathetically and at close range all the Jewish
educational forces in New York City, including alike those that194

restrict themselves to religious instruction and those that lookprimarily to the Americanization of our youth, with a view tocooperation and the elimination of waste and overlapping.
2. To become intimately acquainted with the best teachers andworkers who are the mainstay of these institutions, and organize
them for both their material and their spiritual advancement.
3. To make propaganda through the Jewish press and otherwise,in order to acquaint parents with the problem before them andwith the means for solving it.
4. To operate one or two model schools for elementary pupils,
for the purpose of working out the various phases of primaryeducation, these schools to act also as concrete examples andguides to now existing Hebrew schools, which will undoubtedly avail themselves of the textbooks, methods, appliances, etc.
worked out in the model schools….

Dr. Samson *Benderly, of Baltimore, who had served as a consultant to the Kehillah on the Kaplan-Cronson survey and its
analysis, was engaged as director of the new Bureau. Having
worked with the Kehillah’s education committee for a year,
Benderly’s educational and ideological positions were clear to
Judah Magnes and to the Board which hired him. Benderly’s
ideas were to shape the work of the New York Bureau and influence scores of Jewish educators summoned to leadershipin communities throughout the country.
Samson Benderly (1876–1944) was born and raised in
Safed. At age 15, he traveled to Beirut to study at the American
University. After completing a B.A., he began medical studies.
In 1898, Dr. Aaron Friedenwald, professor of ophthalmology
in Baltimore, visited Beirut, and encouraged Benderly’s interest in coming to the United States. By September 1898 Benderly had moved to Baltimore, where he completed his medical
studies at the College of Physicians and Surgeons (he earned
his degree and began residency, in June 1900). Concurrently,
he undertook to teach Hebrew and direct a Jewish school.
Having, because of the demands of time, to choose between medicine and Jewish education, Benderly chose the latter. His Hebrew immersion program (Ivrit be-Ivrit) included
not only Hebrew language, but also Bible, holidays, history,
and activities designed to nurture strong connection to Israel.
In 1905, he initiated a youth group called “Herzl’s children.” He
used visual aids and incorporated music, dance, and drama
as instructional tools.
Though having begun his Baltimore career at a synagogue school, Benderly left, early on, to head the “Hebrew
Free School for Poor and Orphaned Children.” Interestingly,
early in his Baltimore stay, Benderly served as Hebrew tutor
to his “patron” Dr. *Friedenwald’s son, Harry, then in his thirties, who was to become president of the Federation of Zionists in America – later known as the Zionist Organization ofAmerica. At the same time, he tutored Henrietta *Szold (alsoan adult learner) who was soon (1912) to found Hadassah.
Benderly’s “Zionist-nationalist” bent was not unknown
to the Kehillah committee that enlisted him. His pedagogic
approach, centering on children and the development of aschool-based society, was rooted in the progressive education
ideals of John Dewey. For Benderly, as for Dewey, all human
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

EDUCATION, JEWISH
association – and most assuredly, the intentional constructs
of schools – were educative, ensuring cultural continuity.
The executive committee to which Benderly reported in New
York consisted of five individuals, four of whom were Zionists (Israel *Friedlaender, Judah L. Magnes, Mordecai Kaplan,and Henrietta Szold). The fifth, Louis Marshall, was close to
Jacob Schiff, and was likely keeping a watchful eye on the
project for Schiff.
Modern Zionism had, already, expressed itself in two“aliyyot” to Palestine, several Zionist Congresses, and numerous Zionist ideologies. For Benderly and his committee,
it was the cultural Zionism of *Aḥ ad Ha-Am combined witha commitment to Americanism, which shaped an emerging
approach to Jewish education. In the modern era, the Zionist
center (Palestine) would, it was supposed, serve as a spiritual
hub of renewed Jewish cultural creativity, nurturing Jewish lifein the Diaspora. Consistent with the findings of the KaplanCronson report, the vehicle which Benderly and his supporters saw as best suited to furthering Jewish consciousness andcommitment to Jewish ideals was the talmud torah school.
Institutional Development, 1910–1945
The New York BJE, created as a mechanism for improving andexpanding Jewish education in a burgeoning community, undertook a vigorous program of federating and supporting talmud torah schools, providing in-service professional training
to educators, writing modern textbooks, and recruiting pupils. Talmud torah curricula – typically, Hebrew-based (consistent with cultural Zionist nationalism) – included Hebrew
language and literature, Bible, festivals, Palestine (as the sourceof Jewish creativity), selections from Midrash and the Talmud,
Jewish history, and some degree of synagogue ritual familiarity (customs and ceremonies). Among the curricular innovations of the BJE was the use of arts and crafts and of music anddramatics in the instructional program. The BJE also gathered
together graduates of the various talmud torahs and organizeda Hebrew High School. A Board of Teachers’ License and a
Hebrew Principals’ Association were organized; a summer
camp was opened; the League of Jewish Youth was organized.
Benderly successfully encouraged a group of young American
Jews to study both Judaica and education, in preparation for
professional careers in Jewish education.
Bureau-supported communal talmud torah schools had
a decidedly Hebraic-Zionist emphasis, with much of the instructional program conducted Ivrit be-Ivrit (in Hebrew).
Communal sponsorship and the Hebrew language emphasis (acultural unifier) established the talmud torah as a community,“non-denominational” program. With few exceptions, talmud
torah schools operated on a coeducational basis, consistent
with the prevailing practice in public schools and Sabbathschools. As in Sabbath schools and public schools, women
were well represented in the teaching force.
Yiddish (secular) schools offered a significant alternative.
Starting in 1908, in Brownsville, New York – an area with alarge, working class population noted for socialist leanings –ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Yiddish schools of various kinds were founded in every major locus of Jewish settlement. Among the larger networks of
Yiddish schools were those of the Arbeiter Ring (Workmen’s
Circle), grounded in secularism and radicalism. Such schools
were essential, their sponsors believed, both because the public schools were largely controlled by capitalists and because
education in “Yiddishkeit,” the culture of the immigrant generation, would bridge the disaffection between immigrantparents and their American-born and educated children. By
the mid-1920s, the peak period of Yiddish secular education,
10,000 to 12,000 children attended folkshuln which centeredon the study of Yiddish. At the other end of the spectrum, Orthodox day schools continued to be established in the early
decades of the 20t century, though at a slow pace. In 1928,
4,290 students were enrolled in 17 such schools. Immigration
restrictions, implemented in 1925, put an end to the massive
influx of immigrants; by that time, more than 4 million Jews
called America home.
A noteworthy structural opportunity for part-time Jewish study presented itself, beginning 1913, with the spread of
the “Gary Plan” initiated in Gary, Indiana. The “Gary Plan,”among other innovations, authorized release time during theschool day for religious instruction, off campus. In New York,the plan was supported by the Reform movement and opposedby supporters of the talmud torah system. Reform educators
were finding Sunday-only instruction insufficient to meet their
Jewish educational goals. Release time might have represented
a “slot” for additional instructional time. The Gary Plan, on
the other hand, lengthened the school day. Supporters of the 5days-per-week talmud torah, which drew children from multiple public schools, were concerned about negative impact onscheduling and enrollment in the established, more intensive
Jewish educational programs. While the Gary Plan did notlong survive, it evoked varying pronouncements within the
Jewish community on church-state considerations relating
to education. Discussions of “strict separation” of church andstate were to become a matter of considerable debate later inthe 20t century surrounding the issue of public funding in
support of education in non-public schools.
Non-Formal Education
In 1913, many of the country’s YMHAs and YWHAs (which hadcome into being starting in 1888) organized to form the Council of Young Men’s Hebrew and Kindred Associations. The Y’s
cooperated with the Jewish Welfare Board, established in 1917,
to provide Jewish chaplains and support services (starting withmeeting religious needs) for Jews serving in the armed forces.
In 1921, the Council of Young Men’s Hebrew and Kindred Associations merged with JWB. Many mergers of YMHAs and
YWHAs ensued, with most of the “new” institutions taking
the name Jewish Community Center. In 1990, the JWB itself
was to be renamed the Jewish Community Centers Association of North America. From their inception, the centers inherited from the Y’s a culture of Americanizing Russian Jewish newcomers.

195

EDUCATION, JEWISH
The first Jewish residential camps date to the closing decade of the 19t century, and a 1936 directory of Jewish camps
sponsored by Jewish communal organizations listed 88 suchcamps in the U.S. and Canada. In the “fresh air” camps, Jewish experiences were, by no means, paramount; rather, good
health and Americanization were emphasized. Under the influence of progressive educational thinking which recognized
the rich possibilities for individual and group development inherent in camping, Jewish educational camping was launchedstarting in 1919 by Dr. Albert P. Schoolman. Schoolman, a disciple of Samson Benderly, founded CEJWIN (Central Jewish
Institute) camps, to use the summer months to continue andstrengthen the educational program of the Institute’s talmud
torah program. Jewish camps of diverse ideologies, both communal and private, were soon operating.
In the early decades of the 20t century, informal Jewish
youth movements were formed, including such Zionist youth
groups as Young Judaea (1909), Hashomer Hatzair (1923), AZA(1924), and Habonim Dror (1935). The (Reform) North American Federation of Temple Youth – NFTY (1939) and (Conservative) Leadership Training Fellowship (1945) followed suit. By
1940, there existed 30 American, nationally organized Jewish
youth groups. Many served young people ages 18 to 25 or 30;
only four (Young Israel, Agudat Israel Youth, Young Judea,and Hashomer Hatzair) served children under 12 years ofage. Tabulation of membership in 26 of the 30 national Jewish youth organizations for the year 1939–40, showed 61,019
males and 99,262 females participating.
As young immigrants and the children of immigrants
proceeded in increasing numbers to colleges, Jewish campus
organizations were initiated. The Menorah movement beganwith the founding at Harvard University of the Harvard Menorah Society for the Study and Advancement of Jewish Ideals,
in 1906. Jewish student organizations were, similarly, foundedat several other universities. At a convention at the University of Chicago, the Intercollegiate *Menorah Association was
launched, in 1913. The object of the IMA, as articulated in its
constitution, was “the promotion in American colleges anduniversities of the study of Jewish history, culture and problems, and the advancement of Jewish ideals.” Basic elementsof any Menorah Society were lectures and study circles. By
1917, there were more than 60 such societies.
The exclusively intellectual focus of the IMA made it lessappealing to many collegiates than the *Hillel Centers, which
emerged in the 1920s. Hillel, which began at the University of
Illinois in Champaign in 1923, encouraged social and cultural
as well as scholarly programs. B’nai B’rith undertook sponsorship of Hillel in 1925, and Hillel Foundations were soon established at Wisconsin, Ohio State, West Virginia, California,
Texas, and Cornell. The Intercollegiate phase of the Menorah
Association ended by the late 1920s.
Institutions of Higher Learning, National Organizations,
New Initiatives
In addition to Gratz College and the Teachers Institute of JTS,

institutions for the education of Jewish teachers were established in New York, Baltimore, Boston, Pittsburgh, Cleveland,
and Chicago between 1917 and 1929. The communal model oftalmud torah education seemed headed for ascendancy in theAmerican environment, and Hebrew teachers colleges, it was
anticipated, would train the necessary faculties for a growing educational system. Moreover, these institutions were
centers of higher Jewish learning, and their instructors often
saw their mission as nothing less than ensuring the continuity of Jewish life.
As the teaching profession grew – in number of practitioners and level of training – several teachers’ organizations were
established, including a Hebrew Teachers Union. To link the efforts of communities across the country, the National Council
for Jewish Education was created in 1926, as a forum for Jewish educational leaders. This organization became a catalyst
for the establishment (1939) of the American Association for
Jewish Education (AAJE) as a national service agency in thefield of Jewish education. The AAJE served, in part, as a linkamong and between local bureaus of Jewish education which
were, increasingly, becoming educational service providers tosynagogue schools, rather than talmud torah operators.
An enrollment shift towards synagogue-based schools (asJews moved from urban centers) was, already, in process afterWorld War I. In the generation of 1910 to 1935, the percentage
of children enrolled in synagogue-based Jewish schools rosefrom 35 to 60. While talmud torah schools commonly met
4–5 days, 10–12 hours per week, congregational schools typically provided no more than 6 weekly hours of instruction
and often lacked clear, curricular goals. In a notable resolution(1923) which, very gradually, came to be mirrored in practice,
the Commission on Jewish Education of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, headed by Emanuel *Gamoran,a disciple of Benderly, urged that UAHC schools add a weekday session to the existing Sunday program. The Conservative
movement’s Commission on Jewish Education of the United
Synagogue was established in 1940, and urged an educational
program of no fewer than 6 hours per week.
Despite the decline of the communal, Hebraic-Zionistoriented talmud torah, the supplementary schools operated
by congregations of the growing Conservative movement
continued to emphasize Hebrew language, and were commonly known as “Hebrew schools.” While Hebrew had, at
one time, been seen as a means to accessing classical Jewish
texts (“talmud torah” in the sense of studying Torah), Hebrew proficiency – both in communal and congregational
schools – gradually assumed paramount status, with classical(Hebrew) texts studied with the aim of improving Hebrew
language proficiency.
Beyond the earlier-established HUC, JTS, and RIETS, anumber of academies and yeshivot of higher Jewish learning
were established in the early decades of the 20t century, as
East European immigration continued. These included Tifereth Yerushalayim of New York (1908), Torah V’daath of New
York (1918), Hebrew Theological College of Chicago (1921),

196

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

EDUCATION, JEWISH
Ner Israel of Baltimore (1934), and the Jewish Institute of Religion, organized in New York, in 1922 (JIR, founded by Stephen S. Wise, was to become part of HUC in 1950). JIR, a liberal rabbinical seminary, was – unlike HUC – pro-Zionist andwelcoming of the immigrant East European Jews. Through abequest of Moses Aaron Dropsie, *Dropsie College, an independent, non-theological institution dedicated to research inJewish studies and related branches of learning, was established in Philadelphia in 1909.
In 1928, the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary(RIETS) opened a College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, alongside its rabbinical school. Yeshiva President Bernard Revel
recruited Rabbi Moses *Soloveitchik, scion of a world-renowned rabbinic family, to head the RIETS faculty in 1929. On
the death of Rabbi Soloveitchik (1941), his son, Rabbi Joseph*Soloveitchik, talmudic scholar and Ph.D. in philosophy fromthe University of Berlin, became head of the RIETS Talmud
faculty. The “Rav,” as Soloveitchik came to be known, was toemerge as the “towering ideologue” of American Orthodoxy
in the 1940s and beyond.
At Hebrew Union College, Kaufman *Kohler served aspresident in 1903–21. Kohler, whose religious ideology was expressed in the Pittsburgh Platform of 1885, expanded the faculty, brooking no tolerance of Zionist leanings. He was succeeded as president by Julian *Morgenstern, an HUC alumnus,
and professor of Bible. During Morgenstern’s tenure (1921–47),
a dozen European Jewish scholars found a haven at the College, largely through his efforts.
At the Jewish Theological Seminary, Solomon Schechter
was succeeded as president by Cyrus *Adler, who served until
his death in 1940. Adler, an American-born, Hopkins-trained
semiticist, took part in founding the Jewish Publication Society of America (1888), was a founder of the American Jewish
Historical Society (1892), served on the staff of the Smithsonian Institution, played a leading role in the reorganization of
the Seminary and its engagement of Solomon Schechter, was
President of Dropsie College, and edited numerous publications, including the first seven volumes of the American Jewish
Yearbook and the Jewish Quarterly Review (1916–40). Consistent with Adler’s personal interests, it was during his tenurethat JTS developed a pre-eminent library collection. Adler’s
successor was Louis *Finkelstein, a JTS alumnus. Both HUC
and JTS had thus succeeded in educating leaders who could
carry forward the spiritual-religious mission articulated bythese institutions’ founders.
Between 1917 and 1939, four “progressive” Jewish day
schools were established; these schools aimed to synthesize
progressive and Jewish education. Limited time was devoted
to Hebrew studies. Three of these schools closed their doors
after brief periods of operation for lack of pupils and financial support. The fourth of the progressive schools (Brandeis“bi-cultural” school) eventually affiliated with the Conservative movement.
In 1937, the Ramaz School in Manhattan and Maimonides School in Boston were established. These Orthodox

day schools aimed at providing outstanding general education alongside excellent, classical Jewish education. Each ofthese schools was to grow and develop (continuing into the
21st century), serving as a model to future generations of modern Orthodox day schools. In 1939, an experiment in Jewish
pre-school education was initiated in New York, with the establishment of Beth Hayeled (House of the Child) School.
Children entered the program at the age of three, remained at
Beth Hayeled five years, and transferred to public school (anda neighborhood talmud torah) in third grade. Soon after thisprogram began, additional such early childhood “foundation”
schools were established.
Though, by the beginning of World War II, there were
7,000 students in 30 day schools (almost all of which were in
New York), most Orthodox leaders shared the view that, when
it came to formal Jewish schooling, the congregationally sponsored talmud torah was to be the primary institutional framework for religious education. In 1942, the Union of Orthodox
Jewish Congregations published a curriculum guide for talmud torah education. The curriculum was designed, ideally,
for a ten-hours-per-week school. Interestingly, as in the educational programs developed and promoted by Samson Benderly
and his protégés, the Orthodox “Model Program” called for
Ivrit be-Ivrit (Hebrew-based) instruction. Though influenced
by the pedagogic approach of the Benderly “school,” the UOJC
manual made it clear that it brooked no tolerance for deviation from traditional Jewish belief and practice.
With the relocation of several leading personalities ofJewish educational life from Europe to the United States before and during World War II, a number of new institutions
appeared on the American scene. These included Lubavitcherschools, established with the arrival of the Lubavitcher Rebbe
in 1940, the creation of Bais Yaakov (*Beth Jacob) girls schools
in the early 1940s, and the establishment, in 1941, of the Telshe
Yeshiva in Cleveland and, in 1943, the Beth Medrash Govoha
in Lakewood, New Jersey. In 1944, under the impetus of Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz, an immigrant from Austria-Hungary,
who had studied with noted European rabbinic scholars andsignificantly expanded Brooklyn’s Torah V’daath yeshiva, anambitious Orthodox day school initiative was launched.
Mendlowitz, who had devoted himself to Jewish education in the U.S. since his arrival in 1913, aimed to “jumpstart” and unite a national network of (Orthodox) yeshivah
day schools. Towards that end, Mendlowitz enlisted Samuel*Feuerstein, a successful business executive, to serve as president of the “Torah Umesorah Society for the Establishmentof Torah Schools.” The articles of incorporation of the society firmly established the ideological authority of a body ofOrthodox rabbis in all matters of religious life appertaining
to its functions; indeed, the Rabbinical Supervisory Council
would determine the very scope of its jurisdiction, since itwould decide what constituted a religious matter. A group of
Orthodox rabbinical leaders was enlisted, and Torah Umesorah launched into the work of advocating the establishmentof hundreds of Jewish day schools, nationwide.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

197

EDUCATION, JEWISH
Jewish Education in a World Transformed, 1945–1975
The dominant motifs of American Jewish life in the period
1945–75 were suburbanization and institutional growth. In the
1950s and 1960s, at least a billion dollars were spent building a
thousand new synagogue buildings. Many of the young families who relocated to new suburban areas had not previously
been involved in synagogue life. The synagogue, however, represented an expression of Jewish group feeling and was seen
as a primary vehicle – particularly with the decline of “Jewish
neighborhoods” – for the Jewish education and socializationof the younger generation. The Union of American Hebrew
Congregations grew from 334 member congregations in 1948
to 664 in 1966, while the United Synagogue grew from 350 affiliates at the close of World War II to 800 by 1965. With thegrowth of Los Angeles Jewry – from 160,000 to 480,000, in the
period 1945–65 – a West Coast branch of the Jewish Theological Seminary (*University of Judaism) was established (1947),
as was a branch of Hebrew Union College (1954). In the 1950s
and 1960s, the rate of synagogue affiliation climbed from the20 of the 1930s to nearly 60. American society validated
Sunday school attendance as an expression of wholesome,middle class values.
One hundred forty thousand Holocaust survivors cameto the United States after World War II, joining more than
200,000 refugees who had been admitted to the U.S. between
Hitler’s rise to power in 1933 and America’s entry into the war,late in 1941. Among the most recent arrivals were Jews fromtraditional Jewish societies, who served as a “cultural booster
shot,” advancing demand for more substantial Jewish education. At the same time, the establishment of the State of Israel
heightened Jewish identification among many American Jews,
and excitement surrounding the founding of the State of Israel
seemed to validate the teaching of modern Hebrew.
The post-World War II baby boom, combined withheightened synagogue and Jewish (largely synagogue-sponsored) school attendance brought about a trebling – in one
generation – of students enrolled in Jewish schools, from
200,000 in 1937, to 588,955 in 1962. While, in the 1930s, only
an estimated 10,000 students (5 of total enrollment) were inhigh school programs of Jewish education, by 1959, closer to10 of the expanded population of students was to be foundin Jewish secondary schools. Conservative congregational
schools aimed to meet 6 hours per week (typically divided
among three sessions) and the curriculum included Hebrew,
prayerbook, history, Bible, customs and ceremonies, current
events, and songs. By the late 1940s, 25 of Reform congregational schools had introduced weekday (in addition to Sunday) sessions. Instruction included holidays, biblical and postbiblical heroes, Jewish history and literature, Hebrew, prayers,
Bible selections, singing, current events, and modern Jewish
problems, and Jewish contributions to civilization.
Growth of Day Schools
Spearheaded, often, by Orthodox refugees who had found asylum in the United States, Jewish day schools, which had beenrare phenomena before 1940, rapidly proliferated. From 30
day schools with 7,000 students in 1940, the “system” grew to
95 schools with 14,000 students in 1946, to 330 schools with
67,000 students in the early 1970s. By 1975, there were 425 Orthodox day schools (including 138 high schools) with a total
enrollment of 82,200.
Although most Torah Umesorah schools devoted half ofthe school day to “Torah studies” and half of the day to general
education, there was considerable diversity in outlook. Whilesome schools emphasized the complete subordination of all
study to a “Torah mindset,” “integrationists” sought to achieve“synthesis” of Judaism and Americanism. Such ideological differences influenced the apportionment of time between Torahstudies and general studies, the language of religious studies
instruction, the choice of texts (within the “sea” of classicalJewish sources), and the structure of the school day.
Writing in 1973, Alvin Schiff distinguished between Orthodox Hebrew day schools, traditional yeshivot, and ḥ asidic
schools, noting that in the latter two categories – accounting for one-third of U.S. day schools – 30–40 hours per week
were dedicated to Jewish studies and 10–15 hours (frequently
less) to general education. From the 1940s to the 1960s, significant numbers of Torah studies educators were European
immigrants. As Orthodox rabbinical seminaries grew andyeshivah day school enrollment escalated, American-educatedteachers – themselves yeshivah graduates – became, increasingly, common. While the great majority of day schools were
under Orthodox sponsorship, it was estimated, in the 1960s,
that one-third of the students enrolled in yeshivah day schools
were from other than Orthodox homes.
A number of Conservative congregations launched day
schools under synagogue sponsorship, in the years after WorldWar II. In 1946, Congregation Anshe Emet (Chicago) openeda day school, followed in 1950 by Temple Beth El in New York.
By 1958, there were 14 Conservative day schools. Additional
Conservative day schools were founded in the late 1950s and1960s; in 1964 the (Conservative) Solomon Schechter Day
School Association was formed. By 1977, nearly 10,000 students were enrolled in 50 Solomon Schechter schools.
Notwithstanding movement opposition to the establishment of day schools, two Reform temples – Congregation Rodeph Sholom in New York and Temple Beth Am in
Miami – opened such schools in 1970. The emergence of Reform day schools – in 1970, and subsequently – represented acoalescence of parental concern for quality secular educationand the interest of rabbinic leadership in quality Jewish education. Of great significance was the fact that, as confidencein public education eroded, private schooling was undergoing“democratization” in the eyes of many Reform Jews. By 1981,
there were nine Reform day schools. Not until 1985, however,were day schools approved by the UAHC, and, subsequently(1990), a Reform day school network (PARD e S – Progressive
Association of Reform Day Schools) established.
During the period of mass Jewish migration to the UnitedStates, the public school had been a key agent of American-

198

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

EDUCATION, JEWISH
ization. By the closing decades of the 20t century, at a timeof increasing acceptance of ethnic and religious diversity and,among Jews, of greater openness to and the economic meansof accessing private education, many children and grandchildren of Americanized immigrants chose to send their children to Jewish day schools. For many of these students andtheir families, the school experience now served a Judaizing
function, nurturing intensive knowledge of and commitment
to a Jewish way of life.

erence to the qualifications of teachers, the report (which
was based upon an extensive survey) noted that of the “pool”
of Sunday school teachers, 58 claimed nothing beyond elementary Jewish education of some sort, and 9 claimed no
Jewish education.
In 1950, the Jewish Educators Assembly of the Conservative Movement was established, followed by the (Reform)
National Association of Temple Educators in 1954. Yet, withthe collapse of the talmud torah system, there were few fulltime teaching positions outside of day schools in Jewish education, and a lack of qualified personnel. There was a decided
tendency, in the 1960s and 1970s, to embrace pedagogic trends
in public education, including audio-visual technology, programmed instruction, values clarification, and cooperative
learning. A 1967 study conducted by the American Association
for Jewish Education showed that 42.2 of students enrolled in
Jewish schools were in one-day-per-week programs; 44.4 in
2 to 5-days-per-week programs; and 13.4 in day schools.

Congregational Education in the 1960s and 1970s
Notwithstanding the rapid growth in enrollment and the proliferation of congregational schools, curricula had not developed, substantially, for decades. Responding to this reality,
and to the sense that congregational schools were missing
the mark, a flurry of curriculum initiatives was launched in
the 1960s and 1970s. The Melton Center (at the Jewish Theological Seminary) published curricular materials on Bible andholidays. Experimental editions of the UAHC’s Shuster Curriculum began appearing in 1977, and the United Synagogue
produced its Menorah curriculum in 1978. Behrman Housepublished textbooks at all levels, utilized by both the Conservative and Reform congregational schools.
One of the noteworthy additions to the new curricula
was the study of “comparative religion.”
The National Conference of Christians and Jews had
been established in 1928, and the interfaith “goodwill” movement gained strength after World War II. In 1955, Will Herberg
published his classic Protestant, Catholic, Jew. On this backdrop, the UAHC published Our Religion and Our Neighbors,in 1963, and Behrman House published Judaism and Christianity: What We Believe, in 1968. Students who mastered theinformation in these texts could recognize certain similarities
and differences between Jewish and Christian beliefs about
God, human nature, sin, and salvation. They would also learn
about various life cycle events, calendars, and liturgies. The
textbooks encouraged their readers to view themselves as nodifferent from their neighbors in values and citizenship, whilesuggesting the maintenance of boundaries between Jews andChristians in a narrowly circumscribed religious sphere.
In 1959, the AAJE published the “Report of the Commission for the Study of Jewish Education in the United States.”
The report estimated that 40–45 of Jewish children ages
5–14 were, in 1959, receiving Jewish schooling – though upwards of 80 were enrolled in Jewish education at some time
during their elementary school years. It “pegged” the average
stay at 3–4 years.
With regard to the profile of teachers teaching in various
school types, the report distinguished between Sunday school,
weekday (supplementary) school, and day school faculties.
It found that, among day school faculty members, 69 weremen/31 women, and that 62 of teachers were foreign-born;
among weekday Hebrew school teachers, the data showed 64
women/36 men – 61 foreign-born; among Sunday school
teachers, 64 women / 36 men – 90 U.S.-born. With ref-New Settings of Jewish Education
A much different educational phenomenon, first emerging on
a modest scale in the 1940s, was the kolel. The kolel, a full-time
program of advanced talmudic study for adult men (supported
by stipends) of outstanding scholarly ability, was introduced to
the U.S. by Rabbi Aaron *Kotler at the Beth Medrash Govoha
in Lakewood in 1943. The Lakewood kolel began with 12 graduates of American rabbinical schools. In 1945, 15 men who had
been Rabbi Kotler’s students in Europe joined the kolel.
A second kolel, Beth Medrash Elyon of Monsey – an extension of Brooklyn-based Mesivta Torah Vodaath – soon followed. While, in 1950, there were no more than 50–100 persons studying in American kolelim, by the end of the 1970s thenumber of kolel participants exceeded 1,000. Beyond the numerical growth, a cultural transformation had occurred overthe course of a generation: the latter-day kolel was no longer
exclusively for the elite, most outstanding students.
Yet another Jewish educational development which cameinto full flower in the 1940s was the Jewish residential summer
camp. Early Jewish residential camps, dating back to the years
before World War I, had been sponsored by philanthropic
agencies to provide relief from tenement conditions and toteach immigrant children “American ways.” As earlier noted,
camping as a Jewish educational vehicle was first explored byAlbert P. Schoolman, principal of the Central Jewish Institutein New York (an educational center influenced by the theoriesof Mordecai Kaplan) in 1919. Schoolman’s Camp CEJWIN, originally envisioned as a bridge between the school year and thesummer months, provided enveloping experiences in Jewish
living and served as a training ground for young adults entering careers in Jewish education and social service.
In the 1920s and 1930s, a number of Yiddish and Zionist
camps were launched, including camping initiatives by
Hashomer Hatzair, Habonim, Young Judea, and B’nei Akiva(then known as Hashomer Hadati). The first Hebrew-speaking camp, Camp Achvah, was established by Samson Benderly

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

199

EDUCATION, JEWISH
in 1927. Though it provided a rich educational experience, theDepression dashed its early promise.
A more enduring Hebrew-based, Zionist camp, Camp
Massad, opened in 1941, led for many years by founding Director Shlomo Shulsinger. In 1944, the Boston Hebrew Teachers College opened Camp Yavneh to advance the knowledgeof students of the Hebrew Teachers College and to encourage
the use of Hebrew outside the classroom. The Conservative
movement entered the arena of Jewish educational campingwith the opening of Camp Ramah in Wisconsin in 1947. NFTY
held its first encampment at the UAHC’s newly purchased campin Wisconsin in 1951. In the 1940s and 1950s, scores of Jewish residential camps were established, coast to coast. While,prior to 1947, Jewish camping had been avowedly pluralistic,
the opening of Ramah and, subsequently, of the Union Institute (Oconomowoc, Wisconsin), represented a move to adenominational agenda within the universe of Jewish educational camping. Within a few years, both Ramah and Union
Institute became full-scale camping movements, often serving
as training grounds for the development of the movements’leadership, lay and rabbinic.
Jewish youth groups continued their growth and development after World War II. Among the “new entries” were(Conservative) United Synagogue Youth (1951) and (Orthodox) National Conferences of Synagogue Youth (1959). Educators often encouraged students to participate in school, youth
group, and residential summer camp, to maximize Jewish educational opportunity.
During the first half of the 20t century, a variety of Jewish community centers were created. In the settlement houseera, such centers often focused on “Americanization” of Jewish immigrants. In the course of the Great Depression of the
1930s, JCC services to the broader community became common; many of the centers’ professionals saw JCCs as agents inthe mission of social reconstruction. During World War II,
many Jewish centers had organized nursery schools and kindergartens to provide care for the children of working mothers. These early childhood programs became an integral partof the centers’ “menu” of activities.
With increasing suburbanization, new Jewish community centers were built in emerging areas of Jewish population.
In the two decades after World War II, $125 million were invested in new JCC facilities. In an effort to clarify the missionof the JCC in the new era, the Jewish Welfare Board, umbrellaorganization of the Jewish Community Centers, commissioned a study (1945–47) aimed at articulating the direction to
be taken by Jewish centers at mid-century. Summarizing thedata, the author of what came to be known as the “Janowsky
Report” noted that very few centers provided an atmospherereflecting intensive Jewish interest or activity. While the report called upon centers to promote Jewish activity, it did notoffer guidance as to how the program of centers was to movetowards this outcome.
Though Harry *Wolfson and Salo *Baron had, by the
1930s, achieved scholarly eminence in Jewish studies at Har-vard and Columbia, respectively, it was the ethnic studies current of the late 1960s that brought courses in Jewish studies
to hundreds of American universities. The number of fulltime university positions in Jewish studies had risen from 12
in 1945 to 65 in 1965, and increased even more dramaticallyin the ensuing decades. In addition to the availability of andmounting interest in university-level Judaic studies courses,
the aftermath of the June 1967 Six-Day War saw a proliferation of and enrollment in Israel programs for high school students and collegiates.
While the “Foundation Schools” of the 1940s for students
ages three through eight (combining Jewish and general education) were being supplanted by day schools, early childhood (“nursery”) centers for pre-school children, which had
expanded significantly during and after World War II, continued to grow. As more women entered the work force, suchprograms served not only a Jewish educational function, but
assumed an essential child care role. Synagogues, Jewish centers, and elementary day schools were among the primary providers of burgeoning early childhood education services.
In the 1940s, adult Jewish education began a generationof renewed growth. The Conservative Movement’s National
Academy for Adult Jewish Studies was established in 1940,
followed in 1948 by the founding of the Department of Continuing Education of the UAHC. B’nai B’rith launched adult“Institutes of Judaism” in 1948. Another adult educational initiative destined to have a significant impact was the Brandeis
Camp Institute for college-age young adults, initiated by Shlomo Bardin in 1941. In 1965, the AAJE convened the first national conference on Jewish adult education in the UnitedStates. There was ample evidence that programs of adult Jewish learning were on the rise. This was consistent with the expansion, during the 1950s and 1960s, of adult education generally, as a result of increased leisure time and an escalated
level of education.
Despite the many positive trends in the Jewish educational landscape, there were some ominous signs of challenge
to continuing Jewish vitality. In 1957, the U.S. Census Bureau
reported the following regarding birthrates among Catholics,
Protestants, and Jews: Catholics, 3.1; Protestants, 2.8; Jews, 2.1.
Indeed, with the end of the post-World War II baby boom,
Jewish school enrollment declined to under 400,000 (froma peak of nearly 590,000 in 1962) by the mid-1970s. Perhaps
most shocking was the dramatic rise in intermarriage. The
National Jewish Population Study of 1971 reported that therate of intermarriage had risen from under 7 in the 1950s to
31 between 1966–70.
The vision of integration articulated by Benderly, Kaplan,and generations of educators was, it was beginning to appear,less tenable than once imagined. As Jewish communal leaders increasingly spoke the language of “Jewish survival,” thefocus of congregational education became Jewish identity –“to make young people feel more Jewish.” Adding to concern
about the success potential for ensuring Jewish survival in the
United States were two studies, published in 1975 and 1976,

200

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

EDUCATION, JEWISH
which “scientifically” demonstrated that a minimum thresholdof instructional hours of Jewish schooling (3,000 according
to one study and 1,000 according to the second) was required
to impart adult religious identification. These thresholds exceeded the level of Jewish education received by all but a small
minority of Jewish students.

Many of these initiatives were responses to the findings ofthe 1990 National Jewish Population Survey, indicating inter alia that the intermarriage rate had reached 52 (a figure

challenged by some as overstating a rate which stood “only”
at 43). Even before release of the NJPS, the Commission on
Jewish Education in North America, convened by respectedphilanthropist Mort Mandel, had issued its report, A Time toAct, giving expression to the malaise of American Jewry, andsuggesting Jewish education as the antidote.
As growing numbers of school-age children of the “echo”
of the post-World War II baby boom were enrolled in private
schools, including Jewish day schools, “community” (i.e., pandenominational) Jewish day schools were among the expanding educational venues. Alongside the Torah Umesorah, Solomon Schechter, and PARD e S School networks, there emerged
networks of pluralistic day schools, representing approximately 10 of day schools and of student enrollment. Community elementary schools were organized as RAVSAK: theJewish Community Day School Network. In 1999, the North
American Association of Jewish High Schools (NAAJHS) was
formed. Consisting chiefly of community day high schools,
this network had more than 20 member schools within three
years of its establishment. Its programs included joint student
activities, in addition to collaboration among educational professionals. The American Association of Jewish Education was,in 1981, reconstituted as JESNA (Jewish Education Service ofNorth America), and undertook to work with federations,bureaus, and school networks for the advancement of Jewish
education, nationally.
With the growth of non-Orthodox day schools – andthe enrollment in such schools of students whose families,
in many cases, represented the element within Conservativeand Reform congregations most interested in a more intensive Jewish life style – the primary focus of part-time congregational education came to be “Jewish identity” development.
Consistent with this change in emphasis, and responding tomember families’ expressed needs, many schools sponsored byConservative congregations modified their “traditional” 3 days
/6 hours per week standard in favor of two weekly sessions.
Concern about the efficacy of congregational schooling
was expressed not only by earlier research reporting on theinadequacy of instructional hours, but by a major study conducted by the Board of Jewish Education of New York in the
mid-1980s. Findings of the study were released in a report titled “Jewish Supplementary Schooling; An Educational System
in Need of Change.” The report urged that family educationand informal education became integral to supplementary
education and that training and the provision of educational
career opportunities be made available to attract and retain
qualified personnel for the type of instruction proposed.
The 1980s and 1990s saw significant growth in family
education initiatives. Early childhood Jewish education programs, in particular, were increasingly understood as portalsof entry offering the possibility of Jewish educational engagement with parents and families. At the same time, there were
those who argued that not only the family but the communities of families comprising congregations needed to “reimagine” themselves. In the 1990s, Joseph Reimer chronicled

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

201

Educational Trends at the Close of the 20t Century
The last quarter of the 20t century, particularly its closing decade, saw Jewish education emerge as a centerpiece of Jewish
communal and philanthropic efforts to address the perceived
challenges to “Jewish continuity” in the United States. During
this period, Jewish day schools came to serve nearly 200,000
students from the four-year-old pre-school level through highschool, participation in “Israel experience” programs by teensand collegiates was defined as a “birthright” and heavily subsidized, a Foundation for Jewish Camping sought to expand
the availability of residential camping as a Jewish educational
option, initiatives aimed at recruiting and training recent college graduates for service as Jewish educators were launched,
programs of systematic, comprehensive adult learning werecreated and embraced by significant numbers of participants,
and congregational change strategies aimed at nurturing communities of Jewish learning were conceived and piloted. Philanthropic foundations and individual funders with interest in
Jewish life came to play an increasingly more substantial rolein shaping Jewish educational projects. Evidence of intensification of Jewish learning and living was readily available, as wasevidence of declining Jewish population and the diminishing
Jewish involvement – at least on a communal level – of many
Jews. Sociologists aptly noted that, notwithstanding the plansand prescriptions of Jewish community leaders and organizations, the story and extent of individual Jewish involvement
was, increasingly, a function of the “sovereign self.”
Among the educational trends of note towards the closeof the 20t century were the following:
1. The growth of early childhood education programs
2. The “boom” in Jewish studies programs on college campuses
and the revitalization of Hillel
3. A more “holistic” approach to Jewish education, embracing
both formal and informal educational experiences
4. Family education in a variety of settings (including Jewish
community centers, schools, and retreat centers)
5. The proliferation of adult study opportunities
6. The impact (albeit touching a modest percentage of the population pool) of Jewish residential camping
7. Expanded Israel trips, including Birthright Israel (a partnership between North American Jewish philanthropists, Jewish
Federations, and the Israeli government to make it possible for
American Jewish college students to experience Israel on organized, ten-day trips, at no charge)
8. Foundation initiatives in funding broad issues in a systemic
fashionEDUCATION, JEWISH
a model of effective, school-based Jewish education in a congregation which had apparently transformed itself into a community of learning. Isa Aron led a systematic project, “The Experiment in Congregational Education,” aimed at facilitating areconceptualization of congregational education. In Dr. Aron’svision, synagogues needed to re-engineer themselves into
congregations of learners. On a parallel track, adult education frameworks such as Boston’s Meah program, the Wexner
Foundation Heritage program, and the Florence Melton Adult
Mini-School, each serving thousands of participants over a
two-year period of intensive study, aimed at effecting sociocultural transformation through Jewish learning.
An Avi Chai Foundation study of day school enrollment,
released in the year 2000, showed that 80 of the 185,000 students (pre-K–4-years-old–through 12t grade) enrolled in the
country’s 670 day schools were in Orthodox schools; morethan half of the total number of day school enrollees were in
the state of New York. Ḥ asidic and yeshivah day school enrollment – estimated at 33 in 1973 – had, a generation later,grown to nearly 50. That the day school phenomenon, however, was not exclusively the concern of Orthodox institutional
leadership was reflected in the emergence of PEJE (Partnershipfor Excellence in Jewish Education) – a consortium of mainly
other-than-Orthodox philanthropists organized to promote
access to and the quality of day school education – as a prominent advocacy group in support of day school education. The
end of the 20t century saw an escalating number of day highschools established, many of them “community” (non-Orthodox) schools. Within the Orthodox sector, an Association ofModern Orthodox Day Schools and Yeshiva High Schools(AMODS) was established, affiliated with Yeshiva University.
The 1990s saw the emergence of “Partnership 2000,”a series of “twinning” linkages between Israeli municipalities and various American Jewish Federations. Within thosepartnerships, educational initiatives between Israeli schools
and American Jewish schools (typically, day schools) werelaunched. These joint ventures commonly brought faculty(and, sometimes, students) together, often around the question of the nature and meaning of Jewish peoplehood andcore Jewish values. A century after Aḥ ad Ha-Am suggested
that, somehow, a critical mass of Jews constituting a majority
population in the land of Israel might resolve the malaise of
Judaism in the modern world, the legatees of his thinking –both in Israel and in the U.S. – were working jointly to meetthe continuing, complex challenge of articulating the very
meaning of Jewish identity. On both sides of these partnerships, Jewish communities aggregating 75 of world Jewry
sensed the need for such definition, knowing that, in the caseof Jewish education as with any other educational matter, coherent purpose is essential for effectiveness.
The 1990s saw renewed declarations regarding the importance of Hebrew language literacy. The Statement of Principles for Reform Judaism, for example, adopted at the 1999
Pittsburgh Convention of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, affirmed “the importance of studying Hebrew, thelanguage of Torah and Jewish liturgy, that we may draw closer
to our people’s sacred texts.” It remained to be seen what impact the “new” Pittsburgh Platform might have on emphases
in curriculum and instruction in the educational settings ofReform Judaism. Similarly, in the mid-1990s, the chancellorof the (Conservative) Jewish Theological Seminary of America, Ismar *Schorsch, issued a pamphlet describing the seven“core” values of Conservative Judaism. Schorsch identified
recognition of the importance of Hebrew as a core value ofConservative Judaism, urging that Hebrew must emerge as
the unifying language of the Jewish people. Writing at a time
when Conservative congregational education was, for increasing numbers of students, being restructured from three
weekly sessions to two weekly contacts, it remained to be seenin which settings this sentiment might be “translated” to an
action program.
By 1998, Jewish civilization was being taught or researched at over 700 American institutions of higher learning.
While the 2000–1 NJPS indicated that 41 of Jewish undergraduates took at least one course in “Jewish studies” during
their college years, it is important to keep in mind that theacademic analysis of aspects of Jewish civilization is neither
designed nor presented as an exploration which should, in any
way, inform the learner’s identity. A revitalized Hillel Foundation sought to meet – and, for many, to create – Jewish educational needs of an estimated 400,000 Jewish collegiates.
By the year 2000, an estimated 18,000 post-high school
young men – in addition to the 150,000 students of both genders in Orthodox Jewish day schools – were enrolled in yeshivot and kolelim. Of this number, approximately 2,350 studied
at the Beth Medrash Govoha in Lakewood and 1,500 were at
the United Talmudical Seminary of the Satmar ḥ asidim. An
emerging phenomenon was the establishment of small, “activist” kolelim in cities from Boca Raton to Atlanta to Pittsburgh, Chicago, Los Angeles, and elsewhere, in which fulltime, deeply Orthodox talmudists devoted significant time
to community education, engaging in study with non-traditionalist segments of Jewry. In addition to the growing number of kolel participants, thousands of American Jewish young
men and women were studying in yeshivot and seminaries in
Israel each year. Yet, even the Orthodox population was by nomeans impervious to acculturating tendencies. The estimatesfor dropouts by youth from Orthodoxy, though not from Judaism, ran as high as one-third.
The 2000–1 NJPS indicated that, among students ages 6
to 17 in once per week programs, 2–3 times per week, or Jewish day schools, the day school group represented a pluralityof students, with 29 of school age students receiving day
school education, 24 part-time (but more than once perweek) Jewish education, and 25 attending once-per-weekclasses, during the course of their educational “career.” Dayschool enrollment had become ubiquitous in Orthodox circles and PEJE was undertaking a series of initiatives designed
to double – over the ensuing decade – day school enrollment
in the non-Orthodox sector (this at a time of a shrinking po-

202

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

EDUCATION, JEWISH
tential student pool owing to the end of the “echo” of the postWorld War II baby boom). Issues such as government financial
support for the education of students attending (day) schools,
whether through voucher programs or funding of assorted educational services, continued to be vigorously debated within
the Jewish community. The growing number of “community”(non-denominationally affiliated) day schools, combined withthe emergence of two new non-denominational rabbinicalschools (Academy for the Jewish Religion, California, andthe Rabbinical School of Hebrew College, Newton, MA), suggested a growing strand of “post-denominational” American
Judaism in the making.
The notion of Jewish education as “enculturation” gaverise, in the closing decades of the 20t century, to increased
attention to “beyond the classroom” experiences engaging
children and families. Influenced perhaps by public discussion
and government action in the matter of providing appropriate educational services and opportunities for students withspecial learning needs, expanded initiatives to provide Jewish education for students with special needs were launched.
Programs built on “inclusion” and self-contained models were
established in schools, camps, and youth groups.
The trend towards maximizing the Jewish educational effectiveness of Jewish community centers continued at the turnof the century, as did “synagogue transformation” projects. If
the Pittsburgh Platform of 1885 was a statement of late 19tcentury American Jewish acculturation, the Pittsburgh Platform of 1999 reflected revitalized interest in the “whole array”
of Jewish teaching. Kaplan’s vision of Jewish organizations as
vehicles for promoting Jewish learning and fostering Jewish
consciousness was being realized in many settings.
Thus, by the end of the 20t century, trends of intensified engagement in Jewish education stood alongside diminishing numbers of Jews, and the spirit of individualism – longa distinguishing feature of the American ethos – was pervasive in Jewish life. The structures of Jewish corporate society,ruptured by modernity, never held sway on American soil.
Through the first half of the 20t century, however, immigrantties, the specter of antisemitism, and support of the emerging
State of Israel had served to nurture and sustain strong communal bonds. By the latter part of the 20t century, the “sovereign self ” reigned fiercely supreme. Individual “journey” had,for increasing numbers of Jews, supplanted community-centered Judaism. A growing array of Jewish educational frameworks aimed to respond to diverse needs and interests.
Challenges at the Beginning of the 21st Century
Within the many domains of Jewish educational activity, theissue of goal clarification, or educational vision, is an increasingly recognized focus. Articulating a vision (or multiple visions) of Judaism and its significance must, as generationsof concerned observers have noted, be the starting point ofJewish educational activity. One significant model of building education on a “platform” of vision and clearly defined
purpose was a pioneering school accreditation program de-veloped by the Bureau of Jewish Education of Greater Los
Angeles for Jewish day, supplementary, and early childhood
education centers in the 1990s. This comprehensive program,as the Experiment in Congregational Education, called forinstitutional articulation of the mission and goals of each
Jewish educational community as an essential starting point.
Towards the same end, the Mandel Foundation, prior to andsince publication of its Visions of Jewish Education (2003) – awork which “unpacks” the educational implications of alternative visions of Jewish education – has sponsored training
programs aimed at encouraging more careful reflection on
educational vision.
The challenge of personnel recruitment, training, and retention has been part of the “story” of Jewish education since
the earliest period of American Jewish life. The Mandel Commission report of 1990 highlighted personnel as key to addressing Jewish educational challenges in every domain – earlychildhood through adulthood; in 2004, JESNA convened a national “Summit” focused on addressing the personnel needsof Jewish education. This heightened attention to the essential
need for personnel has “translated” to a proliferation of fellowship and in-service programs, both preparing new recruits andstrengthening the skills of those already in the field.
In addition to clarity of vision and the training of educational personnel, the cost of providing and accessing Jewish education is a third, critical issue, early in the 21st century.
Having developed such outstanding – and costly – frameworks as day schools and residential camps, to name but two
examples, the need for ensuring student access is compelling.
If seats or beds, as the case may be, cost thousands or tens of
thousands of dollars per child per session, what is to be the“standing” of the majority of American Jews who are unable
to sustain the costs involved? The engagement of increasing
numbers of private foundations in the cause of Jewish education and the example of “Birthright Israel” represent “promising prospects,” but the challenge of financial access to Jewish
education remains considerable. The organic inter-relationship of the above issues is clear. Attracting and retaining qualified personnel surely has cost implications. A sense of visionand mission relates to attracting personnel and funds, andwill be rooted in notions of the very nature of Judaism andthe purpose of Jewish education.
If American Jews are to continue to flourish and contribute to the world as Jews, intensive and extensive Jewish educational opportunity must, surely, be available and accessible.
Though Jewish population is declining (because of low birthrates) and many Jews lack rudimentary Jewish education ormore than an ephemeral sense of Jewish identity, the percentage and numbers of American Jews involved in serious Jewish
study have never been greater. An Avi Chai report released
in 2005, for example, showed that, over the five-year period
1998–99 to 2003–4, day school enrollment had increased from
185,000 students to 205,000 students.
At the start of the century, new initiatives were also underway aimed at strengthening early Jewish education and

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6203

EDUCATION, JEWISH
engaging parents of early childhood students in Jewish experiences. The challenges of creating, sustaining, and providing access to frameworks of meaningful Jewish educational
engagement to nurture and facilitate lifelong Jewish learningand living are considerable. It is, however, the commitment
and sense of urgency of those who care deeply about the advancement of Jewish education and act accordingly in eachgeneration that ensures the vitality of Jewish life in the UnitedStates, as elsewhere.
Bibliography: W.I. Ackerman, “Jewish Education for
What?,” in: American Jewish Yearbook, 70 (1969); H.W. Bomzer, The
Kolel in America (1985); A. Dushkin, Jewish Education in New York
City (1918); A. Dushkin and U. Engleman, Jewish Education in the
United States: Report of the Commission for the Study of Jewish Education in the United States (1959); S. Fox, I. Scheffler, and D. Marom,
Visions of Jewish Education (2003); A.P. Gannes, Central Community
Agencies for Jewish Education (1954); L.P. Gartner, Jewish Educationin the United States (1969); S.A. Ginsburgh, “A Study of Nationally
Organized Jewish Youth Groups in America as Educational Agencies
for the Preservation of the Jewish Cultural Heritage,” Diss., Massachusetts State College (1940); W. Helmreich, The World of the Yeshiva(2000); O.I. Janowsky, The Jewish Community Center: Two Essays
on Basic Purpose (1974); D.Z. Kramer, The Day Schools and Torah
Umesorah (1984); J.B. Krasner, “Representations of Self and Other in
American Jewish History and Social Studies School Books: An Exploration of the Changing Shape of American Jewish Identity,” Diss.,
Brandeis University (2002); J. Pilch, A History of Jewish Education in
the United States (1969); E.L. Rauch, The Education of Jews and theAmerican Community: 1840 to the New Millenium (2004); J.D. Sarna,“American Jewish Education in Historical Perspective,” in: Jewish
Education (Winter/Spring, 1998); M. Schick, A Census of Jewish Day
Schools in the United States, 2003–2004 (2005); A.I. Schiff, The Jewish
Day School in America (1966); L. Sussman, Isaac Leeser and the Making of American Judaism (1995); J. Wertheimer, “Jewish Education in
the United States: Recent Trends and Issues,” in: American Jewish Year
Book, 99 (1999); J. Wertheimer, “Recent Trends in American Judaism,” in: American Jewish Year Book, 89 (1989); N.H. Winter, Jewish
Education in a Pluralistic Society (1966); M. Zeldin, “The Promise of
Historical Inquiry: 19t Century Jewish Day Schools and 20t Century Policy,” in: Los Angeles (1987).
[Gil Graff (2nd ed.)]torah school in 1732, records of the mid-18t century show thatthe more recent Ashkenazi community had managed to organize only two small “ḥ adarim” in which the language of instruction was Yiddish. An anonymous publication of the late
18t century, Sefer Giddul Banim (London, 1771), discussed
contemporary teaching methods and syllabi in the spirit of
the Haskalah. Despite its Hebrew title, this work was written
in Yiddish and its approach reflects the critical views of English maskilim of the time.

Early Period
Jewish education was quickly reorganized after the readmission of the Jews in the mid-17t century. The London Sephardi congregation established a boys’ school, Sha’arei Tikvah (“Gates of Hope”), in 1664, where instruction was at firstgiven in Spanish, Portuguese, and Ladino, although English
was one of the secular subjects taught. A talmudical college(Beth Hamedrash Heshaim, 1664) was also sponsored by theSephardim, and in 1730 the Villareal girls’ school was founded
to provide a training in Judaism, languages, and domestic science. During the 17t century, the haham of the London Sephardim had to devote several hours of his day to teaching
the children of his congregants. Jewish educational standards
among the British Ashkenazim were uniformly lower. Although the Great Synagogue in London established a talmud

The 19t Century
By the beginning of the 19t century, English had replaced Portuguese and Yiddish as the language of instruction in Jewish
congregational schools, which were reorganized and broadened. The Sephardi “Gates of Hope” school was reconstituted
in 1821 and the Villareal girls’ school merged with the Nationaland Infant Schools in 1839. Meanwhile, the Ashkenazim had
overtaken the Sephardim in numbers and importance and thisdevelopment was reflected in the comparatively large numberof educational projects established during the first half of the
century. In London, various “free schools” came into being:
the Westminster Jews’ Free School (1811); the (East End) Jews’
Free School (1817); and the Jews’ Infant Schools, founded tocombat missionary activities. The Western Metropolitan Jewish School flourished during the years 1845–97 and, from the1860s, other schools were established in the Bayswater, Borough, and Stepney districts. “Hebrew endowed schools” werealso founded in the major cities of the Provinces, such as Manchester (1838), Liverpool (1840), Birmingham (1840), and Hull.
By 1850, some 2,000 Jewish children attended schools of thistype in Britain, representing a remarkably high proportion of
the total Jewish school age population at a time when the Jews
of Britain numbered no more than about 35,000.
The “free schools” did not, however, enjoy a completemonopoly of Jewish education at this period. Some children
attended religion classes after spending the day at non-Jewish
schools, and their educational needs were catered for by the
Jewish Association for the Diffusion of Religious Knowledge(1860). Other children attended Jewish fee-paying schools run
by private individuals and these were often of vastly differing
educational standards. Among the best known were those of
the Hebraist Hyman Hurwitz (Highgate, c. 1800), whose pupils included many who later attained eminence in AngloJewry; Solomon Lyon (1754–1820), whose Jewish boarding
school at Cambridge was the first of its type in Britain; thewriter Grace *Aguilar (Hackney, 1842–47); and the Orientalist
Louis *Loewe, who was secretary to Moses Montefiore.
Jewish educational institutes of an advanced type alsocame into existence during the early and mid-19t century. A
chair of Hebrew was established at the non-sectarian University College of London in 1828 and attracted Jewish teachersand students; while the Jews’ General Literary and Scientific
Institution, inspired by the popular “mechanics institutes,”
was founded in 1845. Ten years later, Jews’ College was established in London to train Jewish ministers and preachers. Dur-

204

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6great britain

EDUCATION, JEWISH
ing the 1870s a Society for Hebrew Literature also flourishedin London. Boys intending to enter the Jewish ministry wereeducated at the Jews’ College Preparatory School (1855–79), a
forerunner of Aria College in Brighton.
Following the Education Act of 1870, which establishedfree primary schooling for children in Great Britain, no new
Jewish “free schools” came into being and the private, fee-paying establishments suffered a sharp decline. Toward the endof the 19t century, when Jewish immigration from Eastern
Europe swamped the old-established communities in London and the provinces, dozens of Yiddish-speaking ḥ adarim
and talmud torah schools were set up throughout the country.
Though despised by many of the anglicized Jews, these provided Jewish youngsters with a far deeper basic training in Judaism. The Association for the Diffusion of Religious Knowledge was reorganized as the Jewish Religious Education Board(1893) and, by the turn of the century, the Jews’ Free Schoolin London’s East End with its 3,000 pupils (2,000 boys and
1,000 girls) was the largest school in Britain and reputedly thebiggest Jewish teaching center in Europe, if not in the wholeworld. Many of its own teachers were former pupils and it provided the staff for many other Jewish schools in Great Britain
and the British Empire. However, as Israel *Zangwill observedin Children of the Ghetto (1892), the school’s primary aim wasto neutralize the more fiery Judaism of “alien” immigrants by
the process of anglicization; and by 1901 Solomon *Schechter
was already deploring the ignorance prevalent in the AngloJewish community.
The 20t Century
As early as the first decade of the 20t century, the established
Jewish educational organizations were feeling the pressure of
the more Orthodox bodies set up by, or on behalf of, the immigrant population. The process had a synagogal parallel inthe rivalry between the United Synagogue and the Federationof Synagogues in the London area, and there were similar repercussions in the major Jewish centers in the Provinces. A
Talmud Torah Trust (known in later years as the London Talmud Torah Council) was founded in London in 1905; whilebodies of the same type came into being in Leeds (1879) andLiverpool (1893) and in Manchester and Glasgow. The Redmans Road Talmud Torah in Stepney (1901) first introduced
instruction in Hebrew on the Zionist pattern (“Ivrit be-Ivrit”),
the same system being adopted by the Liverpool Hebrew
Higher Grade School of Jacob Samuel *Fox. However, theoverwhelming proportion of Jewish children attended state
primary and secondary schools and acquired their meager
knowledge of Hebrew and Judaism in “withdrawal classes”
or in the religious schools administered by the various synagogue groups. Although an amalgamated Union of Hebrew
and Religious Classes was founded in London (1907), there
was little concerted effort to train teachers, standardize textbooks, or inspect classes in the Provinces. Those Jewish parents sufficiently interested could request the withdrawal of
their children from Scripture (“Divinity”) lessons and theirexemption from attendance on Saturday mornings and Jewish festivals, wherever non-Jewish head teachers were agreeable. Only a small minority of youngsters enjoyed the benefitof a more intensive course of instruction.
After World War I, a fresh attempt was made to reorganize Jewish education through the “Jewish War Memorial”
project, which led to the establishment of the Central Committee for Jewish Education (1920). This worked with limited success for the next two decades. More strenuous efforts
were made by Zionist educators such as Jacob Koppel *Goldbloom in London’s East End and Izak *Goller in Liverpool, as
well as by the more strictly Orthodox Jews of London, led by
Rabbi Victor (Avigdor) *Schoenfeld. In 1929, the latter established the Jewish Secondary Schools Movement, which was
reinforced by Orthodox teachers and scholars from Central
Europe who sought refuge in Britain during the 1930s. Other
immigrants helped to fortify and improve the religion classes
and standards of the Reform and Liberal movements. In thesphere of rabbinic training, Jews’ College – the British Empire’s only seminary from 1855 – continued to prepare ministers and a few rabbis under the direction of Adolf *Buechler;
while the more recent yeshivot (talmudical colleges) foundedby immigrants from Lithuania and Poland endeavored to
produce “learned laymen” capable of influencing the religious direction of the community and of raising its Jewish
educational sights. By 1939, there were flourishing yeshivot
in London (Etz Chaim – Tree of Life College, 1903; Law ofTruth Talmudical College, 1938, etc.), Manchester (1911), andGateshead (1927), and smaller yeshivot in Liverpool (1915),
Leeds, and Glasgow.
At the outbreak of World War II, the Jewish educational
picture in Great Britain showed signs of improvement. Apartfrom the two old-established Sephardi schools and the London and provincial “free schools” of the 19t century, there
were some 3,000 pupils at the Jews’ Free School, over 2,000
at the 19 institutes run by the Talmud Torah Trust, and nearly
5,000 boys and girls enrolled in the 57 classes of the Unionof Hebrew and Religious Classes, with many more at talmud
torahs and religion classes in the Provinces. In 1939, the Central Committee for Jewish Education merged with the Joint
Emergency Committee for Jewish Religious Education in
Great Britain and, led by educators such as Nathan *Morris,grappled with the urgent problem of maintaining a Jewish educational program for children and young people uprooted
from their homes by wartime evacuation. A series of regularpublications and correspondence courses was devised for theteaching of Hebrew, Bible, Mishnah, Jewish history, and religious subjects; and supplementary aid was provided by the*Habonim, *Bnei Akiva, and *Torah va-Avodah Zionist youth
movements, all of which published material of an educational
nature during the war years. The Education Act of 1944 firstgave formal sanction to the withdrawal of Jewish children
from state or state-aided voluntary (i.e., denominational)
schools for the purpose of worship or religious instruction inaccordance with parents’ wishes.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

205

EDUCATION, JEWISH
Early Postwar Developments
A Communal Conference on the Reconstruction of Jewish Education in Great Britain was held in London in 1945, as a resultof which two major coordinating bodies came into being: theLondon Board of Jewish Religious Education and the Central
Council of Jewish Religious Education, which had the hardertask of organizing schools and classes in Jewish communities
throughout the British Isles. In London and the Provinces, theold “ḥ eder” and talmud torah institutions gradually gave way
to the Jewish day school system, and increasing emphasis waslaid on combating ignorance, apathy, and assimilation. In thisbattle much inspiration was obtained from the emergence of
the State of Israel, which has enlivened the Jewish calendar
and added a new zest to the learning and teaching of Judaism
and Jewish history as well as the Hebrew language.
During the late 1940s and the 1950s many new Jewish
day schools were founded in London and the major cities,
this movement gaining added impetus and encouragement
after the Ministry of Education granted recognition to several such schools in 1951. Most of them provide primary education (ages 5–11) in general subjects and Jewish studies, butthere are also some secondary and grammar schools which
receive state aid. Progress was at first slow after the devastation of the war years and in 1953 less than 19,000 Jewish children in the Greater London area (with a total Jewish population of 285,000) received regular religious instruction, as
compared with slightly more than that number in 1924, when
there were only 175,000 Jews in the British capital. By 1954,
there were ten Jewish schools in Britain receiving state aid
and 13 others operating on a private basis. One important development was the revival of the old Jews’ Free School as the
JFS Comprehensive School in Camden Town, North London(1958). The postwar years also saw the growth of the Jewish
Secondary Schools Movement and of two other Orthodox networks: the right-wing Yesodey Hatorah schools (1943) and the
Lubavitch Foundation (1959). A few schools were also sponsored by the British Mizrachi Federation in conjunction with
the Jewish Agency Torah Department (North-West London,
Dublin) and many more in London and the Provinces by the
British Zionist Federation. Schools of the Zionist type run in
conjunction with the London Board or local Jewish education
authorities were founded in the London suburbs of Clapton(1956), Willesden (1945, 1947), Hampstead Garden Suburb,
Golders Green (1959), Edgware (1956), and Ilford (1970), andolder schools refounded in Bayswater and Stepney. The same
trend was maintained in the Provinces with Jewish primaryschools in Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Southend, Sunderland, and in Dublin and Glasgow.
The rate of educational progress may be gauged from thefact that, while only a little more than 4,000 Jewish children
attended day schools in 1953, nearly 9,000 were enrolled inschools of this type by 1963. In 1961, it was estimated that 13
(approximately 8,000 children) out of the total Jewish school
population attended 18 kindergartens, 23 primary, and 9 secondary schools under various Jewish auspices in Great Britain(of which 16 were state-aided); while 22,000 Jewish youngsters
were enrolled in “withdrawal classes,” “ḥ adarim” and talmud
torah and synagogue schools throughout the country. Nevertheless, only a little over half of the Jewish population of school
age received regular Jewish education. Attendance in the day
schools compared with the national average, whereas boys
enrolled in synagogue and similar classes tended to abandon
their Jewish studies after the critical age of 13, when they hadreached their bar mitzvah. The same was true of girls once
they reached their early teens. By 1970 there were 50 Jewish
day schools in Great Britain (a little over half of them in the
London area), with about 10,000 pupils in all, including 4,000
in the Provinces.

206

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Secondary and Higher Education
During the 1950s and 1960s there was a gradual, but significant, increase in the number of Jewish youngsters in fulltime attendance at Jewish secondary and grammar schools.
In the Provinces, the two principal mixed grammar schools
were both in Lancashire – the Liverpool King David School(part of a local network with a total enrollment of 700, not
all of whom were, however, Jewish children) and the Manchester King David High School, which also had associatedinfants’ and junior schools. The Glasgow Hebrew College
taught youngsters over the age of 13. There were also a number of voluntary schools in Manchester, where about half theProvincial day schools were concentrated, including the Manchester Jewish Grammar School (Boys) and the Manchester
Jewish High School for Girls. The most novel experiment in
Jewish education of the postwar years was Carmel College at
Wallingford, near Oxford, founded by Rabbi Kopul Rosen in1948. This was a highly successful Jewish “public school” combining a high level of secular and traditional Jewish studies.
It appealed to parents frustrated by the public school “quota”
system operating against Jewish boys, but also attracted students from abroad. Whittingehame College in Sussex, run
on a Zionist pattern, was, unlike Carmel College, based ona secular program, which may account for the lack of public
support which led to its closure in the late 1960s.
The Jewish institutions of higher learning were headed by
Jews’ College which, under the direction of Isidore *Epstein,
was reorganized from 1958 as a seminary for the training of
rabbis, ministers, and cantors, with an associated teachers’ institute. The Judith Lady Montefiore College (1869) in Ramsgate was reestablished in 1952 as the result of an agreement
between the London Sephardim and the Jewish Agency Torah
Department to train teachers and cantors mainly recruitedfrom North Africa. In 1960 the college was transferred to London. Leo Baeck College (1956), a Reform foundation, was later
reorganized in conjunction with the Liberal and Progressive
movement to train non-Orthodox rabbis and teachers. By
1967, there were a dozen yeshivot in Great Britain with a total
enrollment of some 400 full-time students – about four times
as many as those attending the two London seminaries. Fourof the yeshivot (Etz Chaim, Law of Truth, Horomo, and Chaye

EDUCATION, JEWISH
Olam) were in the Greater London area; and there were threemajor yeshivot in Gateshead, Manchester, and Sunderland,
each of which had an associated kolel (institute for higher rabbinic studies). Gateshead, an island of strict Orthodoxy, had ayeshivah population of 160 in 1962 and also housed two Jewish
schools. There were smaller yeshivot in Ilford, Leeds, Liverpool, and Glasgow. Advanced Hebrew studies were also pursued by degree students at the universities of London, Leeds,
Manchester, and Oxford, and at Dublin and Glasgow.
Jewish education was promoted in Great Britain by various communal and other bodies, including the National Unionof Hebrew Teachers (1945), which fought a long campaign toraise the status and remuneration of the Jewish teacher; theB’nai B’rith Hillel Foundation (1953); the Inter-University
Jewish Federation (1919); the Central Council’s Jewish YouthStudy Groups (1946); and Ḥ ovevey Torah (1951), a voluntaryorganization of young adults conducting a weekly programof advanced Torah study in London. Other important educational bodies included the Society for Jewish Study (1946),
whose members ranged from the Orthodox to the Liberal; theJewish Book Council (1949), which organized an annual Book
Week of lectures and exhibitions in London; and the Instituteof Jewish Studies (1953), established in Manchester by R. Alexander *Altmann and later transferred to University College,
London. One notably successful educational scheme was the
Hebrew Seminar movement initiated by Levi Gertner, director of the Jewish Agency Education Department, which drew
hundreds of participants to its weekend and vacation courses
in the countryside and abroad.

the general child population in Britain, the number enrolled
in Jewish day schools reached some 13,000 at the end of the
1970s, representing over 20 of the estimated Jewish childpopulation. New Jewish day schools continued to be founded
and there were positive developments in Jewish adult education in various aspects involving synagogues of different religious affiliation, the Lubavitch movement, and courses foryounger Jewish leaders. Enrollment continued to rise throughthe 1980s and 1990s reaching 30 in 1992 and 51 in 1999. The
United Synagogue Agency for Jewish Education operated 14
primary and nursery schools and five secondary schools in
the early 2000s and had trained over 150 teachers since 1997.
The Leo Baeck College Center for Jewish Education offered
an M.A. program in Jewish education from 2002.
Bibliography: Z. Scharfstein, in: The Jewish People, 2 (1948),
178–88; V.D. Lipman (ed.), Three Centuries of Anglo-Jewish History(1961), 53–54, 85–89, 179–80; I. Fishman and H. Levy, in: J. Gould and
S. Esh (eds.), Jewish Life in Modern Britain (1964), 67–85; S. Stein, in:
Remember the Days. Essays … Cecil Roth (1966), 145–79; L. Gertner
and B. Steinberg, in: Jewish Education, 38:1 (1968), 34–45; A. Eisenberg(ed.), World Census on Jewish Education (1968), 95–97; I. Mehlman,
Ha-Ḥ innukh ha-Yehudi ba-Golah (1969), 46–55. Websites: www.
brijnet.org; www.lbc.ac.uk.

australia

Subsequent Developments
While estimates of the Jewish child population (and of thosereceiving part-time Jewish education) fell with the decline of

In 1968 there were 40 school units of which 12 were day
schools with an enrollment of 3,580 and 28 supplementary
schools with a total registration of 3,335.The programs of allday schools included secular subjects as prescribed by Stateauthorities. In most of these schools 12 hours per week wereallocated for Jewish study of traditional subjects, including
modern Hebrew. These schools served children from grades
1 to 6 (ages 5–13 primary) and grades 7 to 12 (ages 14–17 secondary). The percentages of pupils on the secondary level weresatisfactory (about 690 out of the total 3,580).
In the supplementary schools or part-time schools, basedon a six-year program, the children attended four days a week
as well as once-a-week classes. The educational program of the
supplementary schools conducted by synagogues varied withthe type of sponsorship. The Orthodox placed more stress on
traditional subjects (prayers, Bible, customs, and Hebrew),
the classes conducted by the Zionist Council emphasized thestudy of Hebrew, the liberal synagogue-schools, especially inthe one-day-a-week classes, employed the vernacular in allteaching, and the Yiddish schools taught almost exclusively
Yiddish language and literature and some Hebrew for bar
mitzvah purposes. In addition to children receiving an education in the Jewish schools, there were in 1968 about 3,700
pupils in the religious instruction classes of the government
schools. Since the education departments in all states of Australia permit denominational teachers to conduct weekly lessons, the Jews made full use of this opportunity. Thus a total of
approximately 10,600 children received a Jewish education: alittle more than a third having had a maximum program, andabout two-thirds a minimal education. Most schools lacked

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

207

Hebrew Teaching
The cost of maintaining the fabric of Jewish education in
Great Britain is borne by the most committed, and derives
from communal taxation, voluntary donations, Zionist grants,
kashrut supervision fees, and synagogue seat rentals. Additional sums are obtained from fees paid by a minority ofparents, and a proportion of the budget is also paid by thestate.
In order to improve the general standard of Hebrew
teaching, salaries were increased (this was not necessary instate-recognized schools) and a number of teachers’ training
colleges established. These included the Teachers’ Instituteattached to Jews’ College, whose students sat for degree anddiploma examinations; an evening institute run by the London Board; the Lady Judith Montefiore College; the Salford
Training College in Manchester; and two women’s colleges
administered by the Beth Jacob movement in London andGateshead. In most, if not all, of these the minimum training
period was three years; and in 1960 there were close to 250
men and women enrolled. There were active Jewish education
boards in Glasgow, Leeds, Manchester, and Sheffield, and acommunal education officer in Birmingham.

EDUCATION, JEWISH
adequate text materials and instructional aids. Most textbooks
were imported from England, the U.S.A., and Israel.
The teacher situation was very grave in the 1960s. There
was a shortage of competent, qualified teachers. In 1968 the
day schools employed Israeli teachers; they constituted 35 ofthe instructional staff. Of the teachers of general subjects in
the Jewish day schools more than 50 were non-Jewish.
The schools in each state were affiliated with its State
Board of Jewish Education, a community representative bodyheaded by competent educational leadership. In addition,
there was in the 1960s an Orthodox United Education Boardand a Board for the Schools of the Liberal Congregations.
Hebrew classes were also conducted under Zionist auspices.
All schools received regular supervisory services by educators engaged by the central educational agencies. In 1968 theJewish education budget for all Australia was 1,700,000 Australian dollars.

planning Jewish studies programs, a notable advance on thesituation a decade before. Lecturers in Modern Jewish History were appointed at Melbourne and Monash universities
in, respectively, 1988 and 1992. An Australian Association for
Jewish Studies was established in 1987 and held annual conferences since then; hundreds of scholarly papers, representing
all facets of Jewish studies, were presented. Several Orthodox
kolelim also existed.
Bibliography: U.Z. Engelman, Jewish Education in the Diaspora (1962), index; A. Eisenberg (ed.), World Census of Jewish Education (1968); P.Y. Medding, From Assimilation to Group Survival(1968), index.

canadaSeveral full-time Jewish day schools were founded in thesubsequent decades, bringing the total up to 18 in the early
1990s: nine in Melbourne, six in Sydney, and one each in Perth,Adelaide, and Brisbane. These represented the various streams
in Australian Jewish life, with three schools in Melbourne, forinstance, representing strict Orthodoxy, and the other schools
associated with the Mizrachi movement, mainstream Orthodoxy, and with the Progressive movements, with secular Yiddish culture, and with secular Zionism. Enrollments continued to climb at these schools through the 1980s and into the1990s. In Melbourne, they rose from 4,840 at all schools in1982 to 5,492 in 1989, and about 6,000 in 1992. In Sydney, therise was even more spectacular, from 1,594 in 1982 to 3,041 in
1988. During the severe recession of the early 1990s, doubts
were widely expressed about the continued viability of several Jewish schools, all of which were fee-paying although
they each received some state government assistance. Nevertheless, though their rate of growth fell off, absolute numbers continued to increase, with especially strong growth in
the Strictly Orthodox schools, and enrollments at Jewish day
schools in Australia probably represented a higher percentageof the local Jewish community than in any other significant
Diaspora community, with over 50 percent of Jewish schoolage children attending one or another school. Indeed, Australia’s Jewish-day-school system has been termed “the jewel inthe crown” of Australian Jewish life, with Melbourne’s Mount
Scopus College, with 2,700 students, long claiming to be thelargest Jewish day school in the world. Growth, though slight,
continued into the 2000s despite the fact that tuition had become prohibitive for many Jewish families, who were increasingly sending their children to state schools.
Advances were made in this period in tertiary Jewish
education, long an area of neglect, especially in comparison with the well-developed day school movement. By 1992,
the University of Sydney and three universities in Victoria –Melbourne, Monash, and Deakin – were offering or actively

Jewish education in Canada began as formal schooling, using models that were familiar to the early immigrants arriving from Europe. These modes of instruction were slowly
adapted to public school models that were developing at thesame time in late 19t-century and early 20t-century Canada.
What began, then, as ḥ adarim in private homes soon became
classrooms in a synagogue, and then, later on, modern schoolbuildings. Early schooling was supplemental to the public system, in the afternoons and on Sundays, but day schools eventually became the dominant system. In the large communities
of present-day Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary,and Vancouver day school students outnumber supplementary
school students, a phenomenon which distinguishes Canadian
communities from those in the United States.
This distinguishing characteristic is due, in part, to thefact that early in the history of Canadian public schooling,
religion separated different school systems. This remains thecase in certain provinces. As a result, Jewish day schools aregovernment-assisted in some provinces, the great exception
being Ontario, with the largest Jewish population. Many attempts have been made to right this injustice in the Ontario
system where Catholic schools receive full funding, and fora brief period a tax credit did exist in the early years of the
21st century.
There are a number of modes of Jewish education currently operating in Canada. These include full day schools andsupplementary congregational or independent schools; Jewish pre-schools linked to day schools, JCC’s, or associated tocongregational or independent supplementary schools; educational programs organized by denominational, community-,
or Zionist-based youth groups; educational programs at denominational, community, Zionist, or private summer camps;
adult educational programs offered by congregations andcommunity organizations as well as Jewish teacher training
programs and Jewish studies courses and programs available
through different Canadian universities. With the exceptionof a few secular schools, youth groups, and camps, almost all
Jewish education in Canada is religious education and is divided by denominations: Ḥ asidic, Ḥ aredi, Modern Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, and Ḥ avura
communities. Of course, university-based Jewish studies are

208

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Judah Pilch]

EDUCATION, JEWISH
conducted in the secular settings of Canada’s largest academic
institutions.
Day schools across Canada offer the typical full day ofstudies with varying proportions of general studies vis-à-vis
Jewish studies, based on the ideology of the school. A typical
Ultra-Orthodox school might have a morning and early afternoon of intensive holy studies followed by a late afternoon period of general studies. Another denomination will emphasize
high-quality general studies for two-thirds of the day and a
Jewish studies curriculum for the remaining third. Most day
schools teach both textual and modern Israeli Hebrew, whilesome teach Yiddish for varied ideological reasons. Jewish curricular content and emphases are determined by the ideologyof each particular school.
Pedagogical methodology is also case-specific to eachschool. The approaches range from rote recitation of texts toMontessori, multiple intelligence instruction, and arts-based
techniques.
Supplementary schools are even more varied in theircontent and form. They range from volunteer-taught Sunday
or Sabbath schools to three-day-a-week institutions with fulltime directors and professional teachers. There are schools
linked to synagogues and temples, community schools, Orthodox kiruv schools for non-Orthodox children, and forprofit commercial establishments. In Canada, supplementary
schools account for the minority of children in Jewish schooling, but have demonstrated great potential for outreach to peripheral and marginal Jewish families.
Youth groups and summer camps are divided by religious denominations or Zionist movements, with some community-wide groupings. BBYO, Beitar, Bnei Akiva, HabonimDror, Hashomer Hatzair, NFTY, NCSY, Tzofim, USY, and Young
Judea all have chapters and groups in various communities
across Canada. Zionist camps, community camps, denominational camps, and private camps are active near most of thelarger communities.
Teacher education has a unique character in Canada
due to two university-based programs at McGill University
in Montreal and at York University in Toronto, respectively.
The McGill program was established in 1973, with York opening its version soon after in 1977. These are Jewish teacher
training programs based on an undergraduate degree and ateaching diploma, using faculties of general education andJewish studies programs in both institutions. York University
has an agreement with western Canadian communities totrain teachers for the schools of the western provinces. Other
teacher training takes place either in pre-service seminaries
of Ultra-Orthodox systems or in in-service professional development offered by central agencies such as Toronto’s Boardof Jewish Education or Montreal’s Bronfman Jewish Education Centre.
Aside from teacher training, which is professionally oriented, there are multiple modes of adult education sponsoredby a variety of synagogues, temples, service organizations, andcommunity federations. They range from kolelim in the Or-

thodox community, sporadic lectures in a JCC, home study
groups, on-line courses, synagogue shiurim, Daf Yomi classes,
to the kolel in Toronto’s liberal community.
It should be noted that although several provinces provide partial funding for day schools, all other Jewish educational activities are funded by users, voluntary organizations,and federated communities. In two such federated communities, Montreal and Toronto, there are central agencies for Jewish education, which provide a variety of services to Jewish
schools, youth groups, camps, and Israel experiences such as
the March of the Living and Birthright for Israel. In Toronto,
where there is no provincial aid to day schools, the UJA Federation’s Board of Jewish Education grants millions of dollars
annually to subsidize day school tuition for parents in need.
Over 200,000,000 Canadian dollars are spent annually on all
aspects of Jewish education across Canada.
Data from the 2001 Canadian census, coupled with statistics provided by Jewish schools across the country, provide
us with a snapshot of the status of Jewish education in Canada.
Of the 61,000 school-age children (those between theages of 6 and 17) in Canada, 87 lived in the six largest Jewish communities, communities with more than 7,000 Jews.
A review of enrollment in day elementary, day high school,and supplementary schools demonstrates the following: In
2001, of the 53,300 children aged 6–17 in the six largest Jewish communities, 25,446 children or 48 were receiving someform of Jewish education. In 2001, of the 34,215 Jewish students aged 6–13 in these communities, 13,767 or 40 attended
day elementary schools; by comparison, in 1970, 30 of Jewish students aged 6–13 in all Jewish communities with morethan 25 families attended day elementary schools. In 2001, of
the 19,085 Jewish students aged 14–17 in the six largest Jewish communities, 4,889 or 26 attended day high schools;
by comparison, in 1970, only 10–14 of Jewish students aged
14–17 attended day high schools, so there clearly has been amarked increase in high school attendance. In 2001, of the
53,300 children aged 6–17 who might have enrolled in supplementary schools, 6,790 or 13 were in attendance.
An examination of the figures for individual communities reveals that enrollment statistics vary widely:

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

209

TorontoMontreal
Vancouver
Winnipeg
OttawaCalgary

Total Jewish
population(2001
Census)Student
population
ages 6–17(2001 Census)

Total
enrollment
in Jewish
education

Total %
enrolled in
Jewisheducation

179,100
92,975
22,59014,775
13,1307,950

30,365
13,585
3,140
2,240
2,650
1,320

14,569
7,733
993
875
913
363

48
57
32
39
34
28

In Calgary, Ottawa, and Vancouver, approximately 30 of thechildren aged 6–13 were enrolled in Jewish schools, with 5–7

EDUCATION, JEWISHof the students continuing through high school and 6–14 attending supplementary school programs.
Winnipeg’s Jewish elementary day schools also service
close to 30 of children ages 6–13. However, the situationin Winnipeg is somewhat different. In addition to those students enrolled in Jewish schools, a significant number wereenrolled in Hebrew bilingual programs at two public schools,
where they study Hebrew language, culture, holidays, etc.
In total, then, some 48 of students ages 6–13 were enrolled
in Jewish programs. Another difference: in Winnipeg, 20
of students ages 14–17 were enrolled in Jewish high schools.
A very small percent attended supplementary school programs.
Montreal and Toronto, with the largest Jewish populations, attracted a larger percentage of the students than thesmaller communities. Montreal had the highest percentage ofenrollment, with 55 attending elementary schools and 46
attending high schools. Supplementary schools in Montreal
attracted some 5 of students ages 6–17. Toronto had 36 of
6–13-year-olds in elementary day school and 21 of 14–17year-olds in high schools. Toronto had the highest percent
of students in supplementary school settings – 17 of 6–17year-olds. (School population data provided by Federations
and schools.)
Bibliography: B.G. Sack, History of the Jews in Canada(1965); United Jewish Welfare Fund of Toronto, Study on Jewish Education (1975); J. Kutnick, “Jewish Education in Canada,” in: H.S. Himmelfarb and S. DellaPergola (eds.), Jewish Education Worldwide CrossCultural Perspectives (1989); H.M. Waller, “Canada,” in: American
Jewish Year Book, 103 (2003); Statistics Canada, 2001 Census, special
order tabulations for UIA Federations Canada (2003).
[Joyce Levine and Seymour Epstein (2nd ed.)]south africa
The outstanding feature of South Africa Jewish educationis the predominance of all-day schools over supplementary
classes. This is a development that followed World War II.
Whereas in 1948 there were only seven pupils in a pioneering
day school, in 1968 there were 17 schools with an enrollment
in elementary and high school departments of a total of 5,632
pupils. The early post-World War II supplementary schools
consisted of several types: one hour daily, five days a week inthe morning prior to classes, on public school premises, forsecondary school pupils; one hour each day, or two hours
twice a week in the afternoon, meeting mostly in Orthodox
congregational buildings. These classes had a total enrollment
in 1968 of 4,275 pupils. In Johannesburg and its environs theafternoon Hebrew schools, or talmud torahs, were organized
in a regional body called the United Hebrew Schools. Apartfrom these Orthodox part-time classes, the Reform congregations under the aegis of the South African Union of Progressive Judaism also maintained such Hebrew schools with a
total enrollment of about 1,300 pupils. Finally, 3,406 children
studied in 1968 in 53 Jewish nursery schools established andmaintained by various women’s groups. In 1967 Johannesburg

210

had an Orthodox Yeshiva College and a Folkshule where instruction was given in Yiddish.
All these schools, except the Reform, were administeredby two separate bodies, the South African Board of Jewish Education based in Johannesburg, and the Cape Board of Jewish
Education in Cape Town. This division of labor was due to the
distance between the two cities. The South African Board provided various services to scattered small settlements of Jews inrural areas, such as visiting teachers, correspondence courses,
syllabi, and supervisory visits.
The South African Jewish community provided especiallylavish support for its ever expanding system of day schools.
All these schools were accommodated in magnificent, modern structures, usually surrounded by spacious sports fields.
Expenditures were covered by tuition fees, fundraising campaigns, grants by Jewish communal organizations, and by private bequests, trust funds, and endowments. To accommodate
pupils from outlying country districts, hostels, or dormitories,
were provided. In 1968 more than 100 pupils were housed insuch hostels of the King David schools in Johannesburg. The
hostel of the Herzlia school in Cape Town was also quickly
filled with over 50 out-of-town boarders. Sustained living in arichly Jewish atmosphere, especially on the Sabbath, provided
a lasting influence on the character of students in these hostels. A further salutary effect upon the development of student Jewish consciousness was afforded by an ulpan scheme
whereby groups of secondary school pupils from day schools
spent annually over three months in Israel, learning Hebrew
and touring the country.
Crowning the Jewish educational system was the Rabbi
Judah Leib Zlotnik Seminary in Johannesburg for the trainingof Hebrew teachers. From the year of its foundation in 1944
to 1968 it produced more than 100 graduates. These teachers
served not only the day schools but also the widespread country communities. Every graduate was sent for a year’s further
study in Jerusalem. The seminary did not meet the demand forteachers. A number of students, mainly women, took courses
in Hebrew at the universities of Witwatersrand and Cape
Town. Bursaries (stipends) were provided for by the community for those who studied for teaching. The severe shortageof Hebrew teachers was partly filled by arrivals from Israel.
In addition to the formal schooling the community provided
informal cultural activities, as well as sports and recreational
facilities for both youth and adults.
[Isaac Levitats]

In 2003, over 80 of school-going Jewish children in Johannesburg, Cape Town, and Port Elizabeth (whose Theodor
Herzl school by then had a mainly non-Jewish enrollment)
were attending one of the Jewish day schools. The total pupil enrollment in the day schools was about 8,000, substantially more than the 1970 figure of nearly 6,000 even though
the overall Jewish community declined by more than a third.
Those still in government schools had their Jewish educational
requirements catered to by the United Hebrew Schools (unENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

EDUCATION, JEWISH
der the SABJE) in Johannesburg and the Religious Instruction Department of the SAJBD in Cape Town. Jewish pupils
in Pretoria and Durban received Jewish education through aspecial department at the Crawford College branches. This
arrangement came about following the takeover of the Carmel College Jewish day schools in those cities by Crawford
during the 1990s.
The mainstream schools in Johannesburg were the three
King David schools, located in Linksfield, Victory Park, andSandton. The first two provided Jewish education from preschool to matriculation level while the third went up to primary school level. King David’s counterparts in Cape Town
were the Herzlia schools.
The ideological basis of the King David, Herzlia, andTheodor Herzl schools was officially described as “broadly
national traditional,” a formula intended to indicate both thereligious and the Zionist character of the education. Pupils
received a full education following a state syllabus and a Jewish studies program, including religion, history, literature, andHebrew language. However, many demanded more intensive
religious instruction and greater religious observance. Thus
Johannesburg’s Yeshiva College developed into a full-time day
school from nursery school up to matriculation and steadily
grew from an initial few dozen pupils to well over 800 by theturn of the century. In 1995, the school received the Jerusalem
Prize for Jewish Education in the Diaspora. Yeshiva College
could be regarded as centrist Orthodox in its approach. Moreright-wing Orthodox schools that subsequently were established included Torah Academy and Cape Town’s Hebrew
Academy (both under Chabad’s auspices), Yeshivas Toras
Emes, Shaarei Torah, Bais Yaakov, Hirsch Lyons, and Yeshiva
Maharsha.
The Progressive movement also maintained a networkof supplementary Hebrew and religious classes at its temples.
These schools are affiliated with the Union for Progressive
Jewish Education.
At the tertiary level, university students were able to takeJewish studies through the Semitics Department of the University of South Africa (UNISA); the Department of Hebrew
and Jewish Studies of Natal University; and the Department
of Hebrew and Jewish Studies (including the Isaac and Jessie
Kaplan Centre for Jewish Studies and Research) at the University of Cape Town. Programs of adult education continued to
be provided by the South African Board of Jewish Education,
the South African Zionist Federation, and the various affiliates, including most particularly the Union of Jewish Women,
the Women’s Zionist Council, and the South African Zionist
Youth Council.

Jewish education was sponsored and supervised by the Central Board of Education, an affiliate of the Va’ad ha-Kehillot.

This Board represented a consolidation in 1956–57 of two formerly independent educational boards, one for Buenos Aires,the other for the provinces. It included the Agudah-oriented
Heikhal ha-Torah school with 500 students in 1970. Only the
Yieuf (Peoples Democrats, Communist) schools with some
2,000 students remained out of this national Jewish school
network. In the past the Argentine Jewish educational system
consisted of supplementary schools. The first day school was
opened in Buenos Aires in 1948; it took a long time for theseschools to spread. Supplementary education was facilitated by
the fact that the public schools meet on a four-hour two-shiftbasis. This enabled Jewish children to attend either morning or afternoon Jewish classes. The predominant elementin the program was national rather than religious. Yiddish
was given preference over Hebrew, although both languages
were taught. Each of the many ideological groupings had its
own program of instruction. In the 1960s these curricula began to coalesce and to gravitate toward more traditional andbroadly national common elements. There were many inherent weaknesses in the system. As late as 1965 it was pointed outthat only 17 of the Jewish school age population was enrolled
in Jewish schools. Of those who did attend the first grade in
Buenos Aires in 1960 only 4.2 stayed until the sixth grade.
Small schools predominated; most buildings were inadequate.
European-trained teachers were gradually replaced by native-born, most of them female and inadequately prepared
for teaching. Since schools were often initiated and administered teaching by lay individuals, supervision left much to be
desired. The general apathy of parents and the assimilatory
factors in the community resulted in cultural deprivation of
the children.
In the late 1960s there was a turn for the better. Many
school buildings were modern, airy, and roomy. The well-organized community supplied a considerable proportion of
the school budgets for operational and capital expendituresand strove toward a general upgrading of curriculum and supervision. There were four types of schools: purely Hebraic,
Yiddish–Hebrew, Hebrew–Yiddish, and religious. Israel wasa most important element of the course of study.
In addition to in-service training courses for teachers
there were a number of teachers’ seminaries. The oldest among
them was the Midrashah, or Seminario Docente para Escuelas
Israelitas, established in 1940. In the course of the first 25 years
it enrolled some 3,000 students; 900 teachers were graduated.
Close to 70 of the teachers in Buenos Aires and neighboring schools were graduates of Midrashah, recognized for thehigher Jewish learning it offered, and the requirement wasthat high school teachers must be graduates of that school.
In 1966 it had 350 students enrolled. The Moisesville Teachers Seminary trained many of the teachers for the interior of
the country. In 1949 it graduated its first class of ten primaryand kindergarten teachers. In 1966 it had 120 resident and 85
local students. Ninety-nine percent of the teachers were native-born. Many spent a year in Israel. In 1964–69, 281 Buenos Aires graduates of teacher training schools enjoyed such

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

211[David Saks (2nd ed.)]Bibliography: B. Steinberg, in: Jewish Education, 39 (1969),
14–22; A. Eisenberg (ed.), World Census on Jewish Education (1968).

argentina

EDUCATION, JEWISH
an experience. Special courses were offered also for administrative personnel.
In addition to opportunities for formal schooling Argentina offered many informal programs. Thousands of students attended summer day and sleep-away camps. Evening
courses for adults were offered at the spacious community
center named Hebraica in Buenos Aires. Sports activities were
popular among the recreational facilities which provided ameans of identification with the Jewish group. Widely ramified
communal and Zionist efforts further enhanced such identification. These positive factors were outweighed by the large
sectors of the unaffiliated, the unschooled, and those bent on
the road to assimilation.
[Isaac Levitats]

The institution of a longer school day in Argentina’s public educational system in the late 1960s worked a revolution in
Jewish education. With no time left for complementary education Jewish schools were transformed into day schools offeringboth a general and a Jewish curriculum. To keep their students
the general curriculum was upgraded, often at the expense of
Jewish studies, but the strategy succeeded. A survey carriedout in 1997 found that nearly half of all Jewish children aged
13–17 and two-thirds of children aged 6–12 attended Jewish
day schools. A total of 19,248 students attended classes in 56
kindergartens, 52 elementary schools, and 29 high schools.
By 2002, however, the numbers had dropped to just
14,700 students in 40 elementary schools and 22 high schools.
The difference was the natural result of low birthrate, assimilation, and emigration. The high tuition rates in these private
schools were also a deterrent under Argentina’s grim economic
conditions, even though local Jewish institutions, the Jewish
Agency, and Israel’s Ministry of Education, together with the
Joint Distribution Committee and World Jewish Congress,
established financial aid programs.
To reach Jewish youngsters not in day schools, the community, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency, established a
supplementary program called Lomdim for secondary level(with about 1,200 students in 2004) with classes two or threedays (6–9 hours) a week. A second supplementary program,for elementary-school children, called Chalomot, with 4–12
hours a week had approximately 600 children. Chabad developed a similar strategy, offering children attending publicschool an enriched after-school program in computers, English, and other subjects, together with Jewish studies.
There were also no teacher training institutions in Argentina after Michlelet Shazar was closed in the late 1990s.
The only institutions of higher Jewish studies were Orthodox
yeshivot and the Seminario Rabínico Latinoamericano ofConservative orientation, in which there was also a section
for non-rabbinic studies.

brazilOn the assumption that the children of elementary and secondary school age constitutes 20 percent of the Jewish population in most countries, there should have been a Jewish
school enrollment in Brazil of 28,000. Actually only a little
more than 10,000 pupils attended the Jewish schools of Brazil
in the late 1960s. The number of schools supervised by the central office for education consisted of kindergartens, elementary and secondary schools, a yeshivah, a college, a seminar,
and a teacher training institute. Altogether 10,409 students
attended these 33 schools.
The Jewish educational system combined both Jewish
and general studies in the same school. The Jewish program
included the study of both Hebrew and Yiddish. In schools
where Jewish studies were taught two or three hours a day,there was still the possibility of teaching both languages;
many of the schools, however, allowed only 40–50 minutes
a day for Jewish studies, making the study of two languages
in those schools to all intents and purposes impossible. The
20 Jewish day schools in the country had small enrollments,
and thus had difficulties in grading the children adequately,in providing an adequate staff, and in financing. Among the
Jewish teachers in Brazil there still were a number of teachers
who came from abroad equipped with pedagogic skill, Jewish knowledge, experience, and deep commitment to Jewish
education. But the number of those teachers was graduallydiminishing. To meet in some manner the pressing need forclassroom teachers, the community organized seminars forteachers in Rio and Sao Paulo, which in reality were secondary schools, applicants entering upon completion of the primary school. The Sao Paulo seminar, founded in 1950, had
an enrollment of 84 students in 1968. A considerable numberof the teachers were Israelis. In addition to maintaining theteacher training school, the Council of Education and Culture
conducted periodically, especially during the summer, in-service teacher training programs for kindergarten and gradeteachers. During the winter, the Council also conducted special courses for teachers in Bible, Jewish history, Hebrew literature, and educational psychology. In the early 21st century
the Sao Paulo community had four Orthodox and four traditional schools, with 3,000 students at the Educacio Hebraico
Brasileiro Renscenca. There were several Jewish schools in Riode Janeiro, including the 500-student Bar-Ilan School, which
also had a kosher dining room and a synagogue.
uruguay

Bibliography: I. Janasowicz (ed.), Pinkas fun der Kehillain Buenos Aires 1963–68 (1969); U.Z. Engelman, Jewish Education in
the Diaspora (1962), 64–71; Z. Sohar, Ha-Ḥ innukh ba-Tefuẓ ot (1953),
155–67.

The enrollment in Montevideo’s 11 Jewish schools (sevenof them day schools) was about 3,000 in 1968. Most of theschools offered elementary Jewish education, beginning withkindergarten. With the exception of the Sholem Aleichem
school, Hebrew had replaced Yiddish in all schools. Manyof the teachers and principals were Israelis or had studied in
Israel. All the schools were affiliated with the Board of Education of the Montevideo kehillah, which acts as a central coordinating supervisory community agency for Jewish educa-

212

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Efraim Zadoff (2nd ed.)]EDUCATION, JEWISH
tion. In the early 21st century there were four Jewish schools
in all of Uruguay, with studies both in Spanish and Hebrew. A
comprehensive school was the largest, going from pre-school
through high school. The Chabad Center also ran a comprehensive school. About a third of the country’s Jewish children
attended these schools.
Bibliography: U.Z. Engelman, Jewish Education in the Diaspora (1962), index; A. Eisenberg (ed.), World Census on Jewish Education (1968); A. Spolinsky, in: Bi-Tefuẓ ot ha-Golah (1964), 45–55.
[Judah Pilch]

mexicoAfter World War I large numbers of Jews from Eastern Europe and their families came to Mexico with the intentionof staying temporarily while waiting for visas to the U.S.A.
American immigration laws did not relax and they lost hopeand decided then to make Mexico their permanent home.
The married couples began to worry about the education of
their children. Fortunately for Jewish education in Mexico
there were among the immigrants a few young men with agood Jewish background who could not adapt themselves tothe hard and humiliating occupation of peddling and consequently took upon themselves the organization of a schoolfor Jewish children. The desire of the parents was to open a
day school authorized by the Mexican Board of Education inaccordance with the programs of the Mexican government
schools, but with a substantial part of the schedule to be devoted to Jewish studies. Thus in 1924 an all-day Jewish schoolwith 24 students was established in Mexico City.
By 1969, 45 years later, it had developed to nine all-day
schools with a population of approximately 5,000 boys andgirls between the ages of 3–18 in spacious modern buildings
with up-to-date equipment, libraries, laboratories, workshops,
and assembly halls. It has been claimed that as many as 90
of Jewish children in Mexico attended these Jewish schools,
and still did at the outset of the 21st century in a country where
the intermarriage rate is just 10 percent. In Mexico City there
were at least a dozen Jewish schools in 2005. The schools inexistence in 1969 were (1) Colegio Israelita de Mexico – fromkindergarten to college with about 1,500 students; (2) Colegio
Yavne – from kindergarten to college with about 700 students;(3) Colegio Tarbut – from kindergarten to college with about
1,000 students; (4) I.L. Peretz school – from kindergarten tohigh school with about 400 students; (5) Colegio Tarbut Sephardi – from kindergarten to college with about 800 students;(6) Colegio Monte Sinai – from kindergarten to college with
about 700 students; (7) Yeshivah de Mexico – from kindergarten to high school with about 100 students; (8) Colegio Israelita de Monterrey – from kindergarten to high school with
about 80 students; (9) Colegio Israelita de Guadalajara – fromkindergarten to sixth grade elementary school with about
50 students; (10) The Yiddish-Hebrew Teachers Seminary in
Mexico City – with about 70 students.
In all the schools the Jewish subjects were compulsory.
The majority of them did not admit students in the higher
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6grades without a proper preparation in Yiddish or Hebrew
or both. Some schools were more lenient and special groups
for Jewish studies were formed to prepare the newcomers fortheir respective classes.
In Colegio Israelita de Mexico, Colegio Yavne, I.L. Peretz
school, and in the Yeshivah de Mexico, Yiddish and Hebrew
were compulsory. In all the other schools only Hebrew wastaught. Three hours daily were devoted to the Jewish subjects
up to high school and two hours in high school and college.
In the schools where both languages were taken the time wasdivided equally between Yiddish and Hebrew.
All the schools were authorized by and incorporated with
the Board of Education of Mexico. The colleges were under
the jurisdiction of the autonomous University of Mexico. In
the colleges, after successful completion of the curriculum,
the students were granted the degrees of B.A. or B.S. which
entitled them to be admitted to the professional schools at theuniversity without any additional examinations.
The Jewish subjects were Yiddish language and literature,
Hebrew language and literature, Jewish history, Bible, and geography of Israel. The State of Israel occupied a very prominent place in the curriculum. In the higher grades study about
Israel was included and in the lower grades starting from kindergarten the teachers made use of all available material todevelop in the children a sense of national identity and common fate with the people and State of Israel.
Mexican Jewry has continued to be a tight-knit mostly
Orthodox community into the 21st century, enfolding its
young in a comprehensive educational system that ensures astrong Jewish identity.
[Bezalel Shachar]north africa
Modern Jewish education in North Africa started with the
opening of the first Alliance Israélite Universelle (AIU) School
in *Tetuán in 1862. This French-Jewish organization throughits schools and through its educators inspired with missionary
zeal saved a significant number of Jewish children in North
Africa and Asia from misery and prepared the new generation for modern professions and techniques.
The first schools were opened for boys, often against the
opposition of the rabbis. Slowly the population was won overand schools were opened for girls in the larger cities. In 1878
the first school was opened in *Tunis. *Algeria, being a Frenchdépartement and its Jews having been declared French citizens,had government schools for the French population, including
Jews, and did not require AIU schools.
Once the advantages of a modern education were understood, the parents clamored for more AIU schools. By 1914,
when the French Protectorate was established, there were 14
schools in *Morocco with an enrollment of 5,500 pupils.
In 1928 an agreement was reached with the Protectorate authorities which assigned primary education for Jewish
children to the AIU. The Protectorate agreed to subsidize theschools and to provide buildings. This enabled the AIU to de-213eduyyotvelop further the network of its schools in North Africa. In
1939 there were 45 schools with an enrollment of 15,800.
The basis of programs was the teaching of the French language as a channel for Western and particularly French culture. This education enabled the Jews to leave the mellahs, toenter commerce and certain professions, and to become theintermediaries between the Protectorate authorities and theArab population. Hebrew education was given by local rabbisin the age-old tradition and with the ancient methods which
had neither influence nor any relevance to the emerging new
generation of AIU students.
French influence in Algeria brought about speedy assimilation, to the extent that the AIU intervened to set up talmud
torahs and to ensure some Jewish education.
Jewish communities in North Africa assumed new importance after the loss of the six million Jews in the Holocaust.
American Jews, through the Joint Distribution Committee, became interested in Muslim countries. The AIU, with the helpof the Protectorate authorities, developed a large network of
new schools. By 1960 there were about 30,000 Jewish pupils
in AIU schools. Two new agencies started working in North
Africa after World War II. *Oẓ ar ha-Torah, an Orthodox organization for Jewish education in Muslim countries, opened
schools for boys, girls, yeshivot, and teacher training colleges.
The Lubavitch Ḥ asidim opened yeshivot for boys and Battei
Rivkah for girls.
The creation of the Jewish state, the independence of*Tunisia in 1955, Morocco in 1956, and Algeria in 1962 completely changed the Jewish map. On the one hand greater stress
was laid on Hebrew and Jewish subjects. The AIU opened theEcole Normale Hébraïque in Casablanca to train Hebrew
teachers for its schools. On the other hand there was the risein Muslim countries of anti-Jewish sentiment as a result of
the wars in Israel. The independence of these countries andpolitical events in the Middle East reduced through emigration the number of Jews in Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco toabout 50,000 by 1969. By the mid-1990s only Morocco had asubstantial Jewish population of around 5,500, with only the
AIU, Oẓ ar ha-Torah, Lubavitch, and ORT schools still in operation.

The revolution of *Reza Shah in 1925 and his reforms
weakened the influence of Muslim priests and introduced stateschools for the entire population including Jews. AIU schools
were opened in the larger cities. By 1939 there were 17 schools
with an enrollment of 6,000. The schools provided a basic Iranian education with French as first foreign language. Hebrew
was taught by local teachers and was generally on a low level.
The flow of refugees through Iran during World War II drew
the attention of American Jewry to Iran. The Joint Distribution
Committee (JDC) opened an office in Teheran and Oẓ ar haTorah (OH) sent a representative. New schools were opened in
Teheran, *Shiraz, and provincial cities, where no AIU schools
existed. OH assumed responsibility for Jewish education in
all AIU and OH schools. Teachers were trained in Iran and in
Israel, and Israeli teachers were brought to Iran. Hebrew textbooks, suitable for Muslim countries, were printed. A first attempt was made to produce a Jewish history book in Persian
for school children.
In 1969 there were 11,000 pupils in AIU, OH, and communal schools. On the basis of statistics available, it can beassumed that half the Jewish school population was in Jewish
day schools and the other half in government and Christianschools. The AIU and OH developed secondary schools in thelarger cities. There was emphasis on Hebrew language andJewish religion. The level of Jewish education progressed in
the 1960s and 1970s with the increasing wealth of the Jews ina period of general economic prosperity and was effective incontaining assimilation trends in a community which had not
known profound Jewish scholarship for many generations.
In 1977/78 there were in Teheran 11 OH, 7 AIU, and 6
community schools, including an ORT vocational school anda school belonging to the Iraqi Jews in the city. This picture
drastically changed with the mass exodus of the Jews after theIslamic revolution in Iran. By the end of the 20t century there
were reportedly three Jewish schools in Teheran, one in Shiraz, and one in Isfahan.
[Stanley Abramovitch]*Iran, unlike Jewish communities in other Muslim countries,
did not preserve through the centuries a high standard of Jewish learning. The arrival of the Alliance Israélite Universelle(AIU) in 1898 was, therefore, very important for the preservation of the Jewish community. AIU schools opened the doorsof the “mahaléh,” the Jewish quarter in *Teheran, for the Jews.
In many towns the schools served as a safeguard against theinroads of Christian and Bahai missionaries. The French language provided wider commercial possibilities for Jews in adeveloping country.

EDUYYOT (Heb. ‫“ ; ֵע ֻד ּיוֹ ת‬Testimonies”), tractate of theMishnah in the order Nezikin. Eduyyot is different from allother tractates in the Mishnah, in that it does not focus on aparticular subject matter but rather contains a number of relatively small collections of halakhot dealing with various topics, and organized around the names of the particular sages
who transmitted them. These halakhot often “bear witness” tothe disputes and controversies of earlier authorities and frequently involve an attempt by contemporaries or by later sages
to decide or to resolve these disputes and controversies. This
general tendency of the tractate as a whole, together with therepeated use in the later chapters of the phrase “rabbi so-andso testified” (‫ ֵה ִעיד‬, he’id), probably explains the tractate’s title.
The tractate is also referred to in the Talmud (Ber. 27a; Kid.
54b; Bek. 26a) by the name Beḥ irata, i.e., the “select” or “chosen” halakhot. This name seems to reflect an assumption thatthe traditions included in Eduyyot, having been reviewed and214

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: A. Chouraqui, Between East and West (1968),
204–215.
[Stanley Abramovitch]iraneerdmans, bernardus dirks
adjudicated by the sages, possess some special authority, as the
Talmud itself explicitly states (Ber. 27a; Kid. 54b; Bek. 26a):“The halakhah of R. Judah (or Meir) is accepted as normative
since his view was included in Beḥ irata (i.e., in Eduyyot).”Ḥ . Albeck argued that Eduyyot differs from the rest of
the Mishnah because it represents an earlier stage – in fact theearliest stage – in the redaction of the Mishnah. In his opinion later redactors of the Mishnah then took most of its halakhot and included them in the various tractates and orders
arranged according to subject matter, each in its own proper
place. Epstein, however, argued vigorously against this view
(Tanna’im, 428), and it is fair to say that no consensus had
been reached concerning the date and purpose of the redaction of Eduyyot (Stemberger, 131). According to one tradition(Ber. 28a), these testimonies were pronounced on the day
when *Eleazar b. Azariah was elected president of the Sanhedrin, but Epstein effectively refuted this view.

When his son, as a last favor, asked that he commend him tohis colleagues, he refused, saying, “Your own deeds will bring
you near or your own deeds will remove you far.”
The rest of the tractate (chapters 6–8) gives a great varietyof halakhot in which the word ‫“( עיד‬testified”) is consistently
used and concludes with an aggadah to the effect that at theend of time Elijah the Prophet, in accordance with Malachi
3:23f., will settle the controversies between the sages and makepeace in the world. There is no Gemara either in the Babylonian or the Jerusalem Talmud, since the various mishnayot areincluded in the other tractates, where they are duly discussed.
There is, however, a Tosefta.

The Content of Eduyyot
The first chapter puts on record three items of controversy between Shammai and Hillel, and further items of controversy
between their respective schools. There are instances where
the school of Shammai disapproved of the view of Shammai,
and instances where the school of Hillel eventually accepted
the view of the rival school. Reasons are given why opinions
which were finally rejected are nevertheless recorded in the
Mishnah.
The second chapter opens with a testimony of *Ḥ anina,
Segan Ha-Kohanim, on four items of halakhah followed bymnemotechnical triads of sayings. R. Ishmael propounded
three laws before the sages. They in their turn discussed another three laws before him. Again a halakhic pronouncement of Ishmael concerning three things is mentioned, withwhich R. Akiva disagreed. Then come three laws discussed
before R. Akiva, and the chapter ends with two sets of fiveaggadic sayings by R. Akiva, and a concluding one by R.
Johanan b. Nuri.
The third chapter records ten items of controversy between *Dosa b. Harkinas and the sages as well as other controversies between single scholars (Joshua, Zadok, Rabban
Gamaliel, and Eleazar b. Azariah) and the majority of thesages. The fourth chapter lists items of law in which the Houseof Shammai was, contrary to custom, more lenient than theHouse of Hillel.
The fifth chapter puts on record further halakhic items
in which, according to several named scholars, the House of
Shammai was more lenient than its rivals. It includes one of
the most beautiful aggadic passages of the Mishnah concerning the moral and intellectual integrity of *Akavyah b. Mahalalel. He gave testimony on four items of halakhah on which the
majority of the sages had a different tradition. The sages urged
him to retract, promising to appoint him av bet din if he did,and threatening him with excommunication if he did not; heremained steadfast. Before his death, however, he told his son
to follow the majority ruling, as halakhic discipline required it.

[Arnost Zvi Ehrman / Stephen G. Wald (2nd ed.)]°EERDMANS, BERNARDUS DIRKS (1865–1948), Dutch
Protestant Bible scholar. He was privatdocent of Semitic languages from 1896 to 1898 and professor of Bible from 1898
in Leiden. His Alttestamentliche Studien (4 vols., 1908–12), a
collection of writings on the composition of Genesis, Exodus,
Leviticus, and the early history of Israel, are uniform in theircomplete rejection of the starting points of modern Pentateuchal criticism. Unlike the advocates of the Documentary
Hypothesis, Eerdmans posits a fragmentary-supplementary
hypothesis that views J, E, and P as redactors and supplement-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6215

Bibliography: P. Blackman (ed. and tr.), Mishnayot, 4 (1954),
385ff., Eng. tr. and notes; Danby, Mishnah (Eng., 1933), 422–37; H. Albeck, Mavo la-Mishnah (1959), 82–84; idem, Shishah Sidrei Mishnah,
4 (1959), 275ff.; Epstein, Tanna’im, 424–44, includes bibliography.
Add. Bibliography: G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud
and Midrash (1996), 122, 131.

EDWARDS, PAUL (1923–2004), U.S. philosopher and editor of the eight-volume Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967), thefirst comprehensive work of its kind in English since 1901.
Edwards was born in Vienna, took his doctorate at Columbia
University, and taught at New York University and Brooklyn
College. In later years, he taught at the New School for Social
Research in New York City.
A leading exponent of Bertrand Russell’s philosophy andan atheist, Edwards was an aggressive opponent of religious
philosophy and theological argumentation. He wrote The
Logic of Moral Discourse (1955), in which he held that ethicalpredicates such as “good,” “right,” and “should” generally have
two major functions: to describe something as having a certain
property or properties and to express the speaker’s pro or con
attitude. Hence, he postulated, ethical predicates have, for themost part, descriptive as well as emotive meaning.
He also wrote Heidegger on Death: A Critical Evaluation(with Eugene Freeman, 1979), Equiano’s Travels (1989), Reincarnation: A Critical Examination (1996), and Heidegger’s
Confusions (2004).
Among the many books Edwards edited are A Modern
Introduction to Philosophy: Readings from Classical and Contemporary Sources (1967); and Immortality (1997).
[Richard H. Popkin / Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]efraters, rather than composers. According to Eerdmans, material found particularly in Genesis belongs to various stagesof religious development of which the earliest is polytheistic
and the latest monotheistic, the earlier material referring to
God by the plural form Elohim and the later as Yahweh. He
argued for the cultural historicity of the patriarchs and forthe advanced state of ritual in the Mosaic period. He maintained that most of the legal codes of Leviticus were Mosaic,
thus rejecting the commonly accepted J. *Wellhausen–K.H.
*Graf hypothesis. He was one of the earliest scholars who advanced an Exilic date for sections of the book of Daniel. He
wrote Der Ursprung der Ceremonien des Hosein Festes (1894);
The Religion of Israel (1947), a new treatment of his earlier De
godsdienst van Israeel (2 vols., 1930); The Covenant at Mt. Sinai(1939); Studies in Job (1939); and The Hebrew Book of Psalms(in: Oudtestamentische Studieen, 1947).
Bibliography: H.F. Hahn, The Old Testament in Modern
Research (1956), 23–26, 97–98; Eissfeldt, in: ZDMG, 85 (1931), 172ff.
Add. Bibliography: S. Devries, in: DBI, 1, 318.
[Zev Garber]

EFRAT (Heb. ‫)אפרת‬, urban community with municipal council status, located in the *Gush Etzyon area south of Jerusalem. Its area is 1.5 sq. mi. (4 sq. km.). Efrat was establishedin 1983 after planning by an Israeli group and an Americangroup led by Rabbi Shlomo *Riskin of New York, who settled
in Efrat and became the town’s rabbi. When the first families
arrived the Shevut Yisrael Yeshivah, one of the hesder yeshivot, was functioning on the site. Efrat was unique among theWest Bank settlements in that settlers moved immediately
into permanent housing. Neighborhoods are named after
the seven species for which the Land of Israel was famousin biblical times (Deut. 8:8). In 2002 the population of Efrat
was 6,810, mainly religious people. Many of its inhabitants
are Anglo-Saxons.
Website: www.efrata.muni.il.
[Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]EFRAT, YAACOV (1912–1977), agricultural researcher. Born
in Poland, Efrat immigrated to Israel in 1936. He specialized
in field agriculture, particularly in the various breeds of wheat
used in Israel. He developed special systems for winter agriculture. Efrat received the Israel Prize in 1977 for services toagriculture.
EFRON, ILYA (1847–1915), Russian publisher. Efron was bornin Vilna. In 1880 he founded a printing press in Peterburg andin 1890 he and the well-known German encyclopedia publisher F. Brockhaus founded the Brockhaus-Efron publishinghouse in St. Petersburg. It became one of the leading publishing houses in Russia, responsible for a number of historicaland literary reference works, including an 86-volume Russianencyclopedia, the Library of Famous Writers, and the multivolume Library for Self-Education and Library of Natural Sciences. It also published, in cooperation with the Society for

216

Jewish-Scientific Publications, the Russian-Jewish encyclopedia Yevreyskaya Entsiklopediya in 16 volumes (1907–13). In
the field of Jewish history it published, among other works,
Renan’s “History of the Jewish People” with commentaries by
S. Dubnow and others, and two works on the Inquisition. After 1917 it transferred its activities to Berlin, operating there
until the 1930s.
[Shmuel Spector (2nd ed.)]EFROS, ISRAEL ISAAC (1891–1981), Hebrew educator,
poet, and scholar. Born in Ostrog, the Ukraine, he went to
the United States in 1905. He served for a time as rabbi and in1918 founded the Baltimore Hebrew College and the Teachers
Training School. He was professor of Hebrew at Johns Hopkins University (1917–28), rabbi of Temple Beth El in Buffalo(1929–34), professor of Semitics at the University of Buffalo(1935–41) and Hunter College, N.Y.C. (1941–55), where hefounded the Hebrew Division; in 1945 he was appointed professor of Jewish philosophy and modern Hebrew literature atDropsie College, Philadelphia. Efros served as president of
the *Histadrut Ivrit of America (1938–39). He settled in Israelin 1955 and served as rector of Tel Aviv University. In 1960 hewas elected honorary president of the university.
His works on Jewish philosophy include The Problem
of Space in Jewish Medieval Philosophy (1917), PhilosophicalTerms in the Moreh Nebukim (1924), Judah Halevi as Poet andThinker (1941), Ha-Pilosofyah ha-Yehudit ha-Attikah (1959),
Ancient Jewish Philosophy: A Study in Metaphysics and Ethics(1964), Studies in Medieval Jewish Philosophy (1974), and studies on Saadiah Gaon and Abraham B. Ḥ iyya. Among his volumes of poetry are Shirim (1932); Vigvamim Shotekim (1932),
a poem about the American Indians with echoes of American
epic poetry; Zahav (“Gold,” 1942) about the California Gold
Rush of 1849; Anaḥ nu ha-Dor (1945). A four-volume collection of his poetry was published in 1966. His spiritual world
is rooted both in tradition and in critical philosophy; thus
tension is felt in his poetry between the antipodes of feelingand cerebration. Efros’ diction is both poetic and precise. A
pessimistic vision dominates his post-World War II works.
Efros translated Shelley’s poetry and Shakespeare’s Hamlet
and other works into Hebrew, and some of Bialik’s poetry
into English. He also collaborated with Judah Even-Shmuel(Kaufman) and Benjamin N. Silkiner in compiling an English-Hebrew dictionary (1929). For translations of his poetry,see Goell, Bibliography, p. 21.
Bibliography: A. Epstein, Soferim Ivrim ba-Amerikah, 1(1953), 66–91; J. Kabakoff, in: Jewish Book Annual, 28 (1970), 105–109;
Kressel, Leksikon, 1 (1965), 135–6; Waxman, Literature, 4 (19602),
1065–67, 1115, 1188; J. Kabakoff, in: JBA, 28 (1970/71).

EGALITATEA (“Equality”), Romanian-language periodical(1890–1916, 1919–40), edited, directed, and published in Bucharest by Moses Schwarzfeld with Elias *Schwarzfeld (fromhis exile in France) as chief editor in the first years. It was thelongest-running Jewish periodical in Romania, at first calling
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6eger, akiva ben moses guens
itself a “weekly journal.” The editor stated his aim in a letter
sent to potential subscribers before the publication of the firstnumber, explaining that it was an Israelite journal intending
to inspire Romanian Jews with strength, courage, conviction,and moral force, and to give them guidance in their individual
trials. The journal described Jewish life and the struggle foremancipation in Romania, condemned discrimination andantisemitism, and also published literary material. Although
an independent journal, as its owner and manager involved
himself in the Zionist movement it became the official publication of the Jewish National Fund of Romania (1907) and also
published Zionist propaganda. In the fall of 1916, when Romania entered World War I and Bucharest was occupied by theGerman army, the journal ceased publication. It reappeared in
1919, also as a weekly, but with only four pages, and included
popular historical articles promoting Jewish identity and theZionist idea. In July 1931, when Moses Schwarzfeld was ill andin financial difficulties, he began to publish Egalitatea every
two weeks, in double numbers, up until July 3, 1940, when its
publication was banned by the government. Many articles in
Egalitatea were written by Moses Schwarzfeld himself, sometimes signed with pen names. Among the contributors wereElias Schwarzfeld, Wilhelm Schwarzfeld, I.H. Fior, M. Braunştein-Mibashan, Carol Drimer, J.I. Niemirower, Leon Feraru,
Adolphe Ștern, A.L. Zissu, E. San-Cerbu, and others.

EGER (Eiger), AKIVA (“The Younger”) BEN MOSESGUENS (1761–1837), German rabbi. Born in Eisenstadt, Eger
went to Breslau at an early age to study under his uncle, Benjamin Wolf Eger, and Ḥ ayyim Jonah Teomim-Fraenkel. In
1780, he went to live with his father-in-law in Lissa, where forabout ten years he engaged in study, free from financial stress.
Impoverished as a result of the losses suffered in the fire of1791, he accepted a position as rabbi in Maerkisch-Friedland,
where he established a yeshivah. As his reputation grew, his
decisions were sought in many matters. The thought of reaping material benefit from the Torah was repugnant to him,
and on several occasions he thought of leaving the rabbinate
and devoting himself to teaching. In 1807 he led a deputationof Jewish leaders who negotiated with the French authorities
on Jewish rights in the newly established duchy of Warsaw.
In 1814 he was prevailed upon to accept the position of rabbi
in Posen, which was offered to him over the objections of the*maskilim and the followers of the Reform movement, who,
fearing his great influence, sought the intervention of thesecular authorities, on the grounds that he had no commandof the German language and was opposed to all innovations.
They were eventually obliged to accept Eger’s appointment,
but they attempted to minimize his influence by the insertionof certain restrictive clauses in his letter of appointment. Eger,as unofficial chief rabbi of the Posen district, labored on behalf of his own and other Jewish communities. He establisheda large yeshivah, whose students included Ẓ evi Hirsch *Kalischer, Jacob *Levy (author of the dictionaries of the Talmud),and Julius *Fuerst. He waged a constant struggle against theReform movement. The maskilim opposed him and drew attention to what they considered bizarre and unreal questions
discussed in his responsa. Eger was not blind, however, tothe spiritual and educational needs of his time. He made certain concessions to meet official demands for a more modern
curriculum in Jewish schools, and he encouraged Solomon
Plessner’s pioneer efforts to propagate traditional Judaism
using German instead of Yiddish, which was until then themedium of instruction. He received a royal message of thanksfrom Frederick William III for his services during the cholera
epidemic of 1831, during which he framed a number of helpful
takkanot and cared for many of the sick. A number of welfare
institutions established by him were in existence until WorldWar II. He was the father-in-law of Moses *Sofer and the ancestor of many prominent scholars, scientists, and writers. His
son Solomon *Eger was elected rabbi of Posen on his father’s
death. Many popular legends surrounded Akiva’s person. His
exemplary humanity and beneficence earned him universal
admiration, even among his adversaries. A story typifying his
sensitivity to others tells of a Jew who asked Akiva before Passover if he could use milk for the Seder rituals. When asked
why, the Jew answered that he did not have enough money to
buy wine. Akiva promptly gave him 20 rubles for purchasing
wine. When rebuked by his wife for giving too much, Akiva
answered that he deduced from the question that the Jew also
did not have enough money to buy meat for the holiday. His
modesty was proverbial, and he was sternly opposed to thetitles of honor common in rabbinical circles. Of his works,
the following were published in his lifetime: Ḥ illuka de-Rabbanan (1822); Haggahot to the Mishnah (1825–30); Gilyon haShas, notes to the Prague edition of the Babylonian Talmud(1830–34), and later to the Vilna edition; responsa, together
with decisions, etc. (1834). After his death there appeared re-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6217

Bibliography: S. Podoleanu, Istoria presei evreiești din
România (1938), 108–17; I. Bar-Avi, Familia Schwarzfeld (1969), 105–11;
H. Kuller, Presa evreiasca bucureșteana (1996), 51–58; M. Mircu,
Povestea presei evreiești (2003), 69–80; E. Aczel, Periodicele evreiești
din România 1857–1900 (2005).
[Lucian-Zeev Herscovici (2nd ed.)]EGER (Ger. Erlau), city in N. Hungary. Although Eger ismentioned in 1660 as a Jewish community it was only in 1841
that Jews obtained the right of residence there. A community
organization was set up in 1843. By 1858 there were 861 Jews
living in the city and an additional 680 in the district. Its firstrabbi was Joseph Zevi Weiss. After his death the Orthodox
members established a community – separate from the existing status quo community – whose first rabbi was Simon
Schreiber, son of Abraham Samuel Benjamin *Sofer. Many
Jews in Eger engaged in the wine trade. There were 2,559 Jews
living in Eger in 1920, and 1,787 in 1941. They were deported
to *Auschwitz by the Nazis on June 8, 1944. By 1946, only 215
Jews remained in Eger.
Bibliography: E. László, in: Hungarian-Jewish Studies, 2(1969), 137–82.

eger, akiva ben simḤ ah bunimsponsa, part 2 (1839); Ḥ iddushei R. Akiva Eger (1858); Tosafot(1841–48 in the Altona edition of the Mishnah); Haggahot,
glosses to the Shulḥ an Arukh (1859); responsa (1889); Kitvei R. Akiva Eger (letters; 1929). In addition many of his letters and responsa were printed in talmudic journals and innumerous other works. Much of his work has remained inmanuscript and some has been lost (e.g., his glosses to thePalestinian Talmud).
Bibliography: L. Wreschner, R. Akiba Eger (Ger., 1906);
idem, in: JJLG, 2 (1904), 27–84; 3 (1905), 1–78; S. Blum, Gedolei Yisrael (1938); A. Ovadyah (Gottesdiener), Ketavim Nivḥ arim, 2 (1944),
77–115; idem, in: Sinai, 1 (1937), 511–50; Posner, in: Koveẓ … Unna
(1940), 147–57; S. Sofer, Iggerot Soferim (1928, pref. 1929), 1–95 (1stpagination); Leiman, in: L. Jung (ed.), Jewish Leaders (1953), 99–113.
Add. Bibliography: J.S. Sinasohn, Gaon of Posen: A Portrait ofRabbi Akiva Guens-Eger (1990).
[Akiva Posner]

EGER, AKIVA BEN SIMḤ AH BUNIM (c. 1720–1758),
rabbi and author, known as R. Akiva Eger the Elder. A nativeof Halberstadt, he was a pupil of Ẓ evi Hirsch *Bialeh (Ḥ arif)of Halberstadt and Jacob ha-Kohen Poppers of Frankfurt.
Around 1747, he served as rabbi of Zuelz (Upper Silesia). He
conducted a yeshivah in Halberstadt even during the lifetime of his teacher Bialeh, and in 1756, became head of theyeshivah of Pressburg. Eger, who was among the foremost
talmudic scholars of his generation, carried on halakhic correspondence with Jonathan *Eybeschuetz, Meir *Eisenstadt,
and other prominent rabbis. His novellae on the Talmud,
Mishnah de-Rabbi Akiva, to which are appended a numberof his responsa, were published posthumously (Fuerth, 1781).
Eger had two sons, Judah Loeb, who served as rabbi in Halberstadt, and Wolf, rabbi of Leipnick.
Bibliography: B.H. Auerbach, Geschichte der israelitischen
Gemeinde Halberstadt (1866), 33, 71; I. Weiss, Avnei Beit ha-Yoẓ er(1900), pt. 2, 35b–37b; L. Wreschner, in: JJLG, 2 (1904), 32f.; P. Frankl,
in: Nachlat Z’wi, 7 (1937), 320; S. Weingarten, in: Arim ve-Immahot
be-Yisrael, 7 (1960), 38.
[Jacob Haberman]

EGER, JUDAH LEIB OF LUBLIN (1816–1888), ḥ asidicẓ addik, son of Solomon *Eger, grandson of Akiva *Eger theYounger. Born in Warsaw, Judah studied in Posen under his
grandfather, whom he regarded as an example of moral virtues. He also studied at the yeshivah of Isaac Meir Alter (later
the founder of the ḥ asidic Gur dynasty) in Warsaw, throughwhose influence Judah became a Ḥ asid. After his marriage
Judah settled in Lublin, and visited Menahem Mendel of*Kotsk (Kock), continuing as his disciple despite opposition
from his family. When Menahem Mendel secluded himself
from society, Judah became a disciple of Mordecai Joseph
Leiner of Izbica. After his father’s death in 1852 Judah declined
the position of rabbi of Posen. Following the death of the Izbica ẓ addik in 1854 Judah led his own ḥ asidic congregationin Lublin. It was not until after the death of Menahem Mendel of Kotsk in 1859, however, that Judah assumed the role of218ẓ addik and propounded his own teachings. Judah Leib’s moral
integrity and conduct won him esteem even from people who
opposed Ḥ asidism. He spent a long time over prayer, devoting himself to it with concentration and fervor, accompanied
by weeping and loud cries. His manner of prayer, which wascontrary to the tradition of his preceptors, aroused severe
criticism. Judah’s teachings on the portions of the law and thefestivals were arranged by his son Abraham in Torat Emet (3vols., 1889–90) and Imrei Emet (2 vols., 1902–3). Judah corresponded on halakhic questions with his relatives Abraham
Samuel Benjamin *Sofer in Pressburg and Simeon *Sofer in
Cracow. Abraham succeeded Judah as leader of his disciples
from 1882 to 1914. He was the author of a work on Ḥ asidism,
Shevet mi-Yehudah (1922–38). Judah Leib’s grandsons Solomon and Ezriel Meir continued to lead their congregation
until they perished in the Holocaust.
Bibliography: A.I. Bromberg, Mi-Gedolei ha-Ḥ asidut, 13(1958), 91–158.

EGER, SAMUEL (Perez Sanwel) BEN JUDAH LOEB
(1769–1842), German talmudic scholar and author. Eger, thegrandson of Akiva *Eger the Elder, was born in Halberstadt.
After studying at his father’s yeshivah, in 1809 he became rabbiof Brunswick where he served until his death. He had one of
the most acute minds of the talmudic scholars of the time,engaging in halakhic correspondence with his cousin, Akiva*Eger (the Younger) of Posen, and with Moses *Sofer, who
was related to him by marriage. A staunch opponent of theReform movement, he took a firm stand against the innovations of the Kassel Consistory. Although in principle he was
opposed to changes in the liturgy, he stated that he would not
oppose those changes which were not contrary to the Shulḥ an
Arukh. His insistence on the retention of Hebrew in prayer
was motivated by his belief that it was a necessary link uniting
all Jews throughout the world. His published works include
Ateret Paz and Rimmon Pareẓ , novellae on the tractates Beẓ ah
and Ketubbot (both Altona, 1823); and homiletic discourses
delivered on Sabbath Devarim (1837) and Sabbath Mishpatim(1829). The bulk of his work, talmudic novellae and responsa,
comprising an extensive correspondence with the rabbis ofEastern and Western Europe, remains in manuscript.
Bibliography: Herzfeld, in: AZDJ, 6 (1842), 412, 460f.,
762–64; B.H. Auerbach, Geschichte der israelitischen Gemeinde Halberstadt (1866), 103, 216–22; L. Wreschner, in: JJLG, 2 (1904), 33.
[Jacob Haberman]

EGER, SIMḤ AH BUNIM BEN MOSES (1770–1829), Hungarian talmudist, younger brother of Akiva *Eger the Younger.
Eger was also known by the family names of Guens andSchlesinger. After studying under his brother Akiva and thencontinuing his studies in Krotoszyn, he was appointed rabbiof Rogasen and in 1810 of Mattersdorf, where he remained
until his death. Some of his novellae are printed in his brother’s Ḥ iddushei Rabbi Akiva Eger (1858) which also includes
their halakhic correspondence. Eger was also in corresponENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

eggs
dence with his relative Moses *Sofer, with Mordecai Michael
Jaffe, author of Beit Menaḥ em, and with Israel Moses b. Aryeh
Loeb, author of Rishmei She’elah. His novellae were later published as an appendix to his brother’s responsa (2nd part; 1938).
His sons were JOSEPH GINZ of Vienna, founder of the wellknown publishing firm of Schlesinger; SAMUEL GENZ, rabbi
of Abrany (Hungary), who published many of his novellae inthe talmudic periodical Tel Talpiyyot (ed. D. Karzburg); andMOSES, rabbi and preacher in Hamburg. His daughter married Zalman Ulman, rabbi of Makow.
Bibliography: Wreschner, in: JJLG, 2 (1904), 34; Moses,
ibid., 18 (1927), 313f.; P.Z. Schwartz, Shem ha-Gedolim me-Ereẓ Hagar, 1(1913), 20b no. 1; 2 (1914), 39b no. 63 (Samuel Ginz); I. Kunstadt, Lu’aḥEreẓ he-Ḥ adash (1915), introd.; B. Wachstein, Die Inschriften des alten
Judenfriedhofes in Wien, 2 (1917), 168; S. Sofer, Iggerot Soferim (1929),
2nd pagination, 42–44, 55; J.J. (L.) Greenwald (Grunwald), Maẓ ẓ evat
Kodesh (1952), 140–2.
[Itzhak Alfassi]

EGER, SOLOMON BEN AKIVA (1786–1852), rabbi and rosh
yeshivah. Born in Lissa, he was the son of R. Akiva *Eger theYounger, under whom he studied. Eger became a merchantin Warsaw, but after losing his fortune in the Polish rebellion
in 1831, he accepted the rabbinate of Kalisz. In 1839 he wasappointed to succeed his father in Posen. Active in communal affairs, Eger sought to direct the Jews from commerce tofarming, and in 1844 appealed to Frederick William IV, kingof Prussia, to assist Jews in founding an agricultural village
in the province of Posen. The request was granted, and Eger
took active steps to implement the plan. In 1846 he founded
an organization for agricultural settlement with the consent
and formal support of 21 local communities, with promises of
support. The project was, however, brought to an end by the
disturbances of 1848. Eger was also active in soliciting contributions for Ereẓ Israel and in assuring their fair disbursement.
He also took a prominent part in the campaign for emancipation of the Jews in his country. A strong advocate of traditional
Judaism in its strictest interpretation and an outspoken opponent of the Reform movement, he sided with G. *Tiktin of
Breslau in his controversy with A. *Geiger and was influential
in restoring Tiktin to his position. Many of his responsa are
included among those of his father, particularly those which
he published together with his older brother, Abraham. His
own published works include Gilyon Maharsha, notes on the
Talmud and on Alfasi’s Code appended to the Vilna Talmud(1859); Gilyon Rasha, notes on Yoreh De’ah (Koenigsberg, 1859)
and republished with additions in the Vilna Talmud. His letters were published in Iggerot Soferim (1929), pp. 62–86.

to avoid duplication by abolishing parallel routes, and to increase efficiency. Egged was founded in 1933 and establishedbranches all over the country. With the large increase in public transport that followed the establishment of the State ofIsrael, two other cooperatives, Shaḥ ar, which operated in the
Haifa area, and Drom Yehuda, which operated in Tel Aviv andthe south, merged with Egged, the merger being completed
in 1951. The Jerusalem transport cooperative, Ha-Mekasher,
joined in 1967.
Egged is one of the largest public transport cooperatives
in the world. In 1968, the company operated 2,200 buses,
which traveled about 620,000 mi. (1,000,000 km.) daily on
1,100 routes. At that time, Egged members numbered about
4,400, and there were also 2,200 hired workers. In 2004, Egged
employed 6,309 workers, 2,452 of whom were Egged members.
It owned 3,332 buses, traveling on 1,308 routes, and served
about a million people a day.
Egged owns four subsidiary companies: Egged Transport offers personalized transport services, including VIPlimousines, company transport, a messenger service, and soon. Egged Tours is an inland tourist company operating 300
tourist buses. Derech Egged offers air and recreation services.
Egged Investments develops new sources of employment for
Egged. The cooperative is governed by a general assembly,
composed of all members, which biennially elects a councilof 80, an executive of 20 from the members of the council,
and a secretariat with five members elected by the executive,
which runs the cooperative.
Website: www.egged.co.il[Leon Aryeh Szeskin]

EGGS. One of the few references to the egg in the Bible, andthe only injunction connected with it, is the command to driveaway the dam before taking the eggs from the nest (Deut.
22:6). The only other references to birds’ eggs are in Isaiah
10:14 and the hatching of the egg of the ostrich through theheat of the sun (Job 39:14). Viper’s eggs are mentioned in Isaiah 59:5. In contrast, the egg figures prominently in rabbinicalliterature, both in halakhah and aggadah.

EGGED (Heb. “bundle”), Israel public transport cooperative. In the 1930s small groups of drivers, each numbering
between 50 and 100, constituted themselves into cooperatives

Halakhah
The egg belongs to two spheres of halakhah: as permitted foodand as a standard measure of volume (the tractate of the Talmud called Beẓ ah (“egg”) deals with the laws of the festivals
and is so called merely because of the first word of its first
Mishnah, which deals with the question of the permissibilityof eating an egg laid on the festival).
(1) Although it is nowhere clearly stated in the Bible thateggs are permitted for food (the Talmud sees a reference to it
in Deut. 22:6; see Ḥ ul. 140a), on the principle that “that which
emerges from a clean animal is clean and that from an unclean animal unclean” (Bek. 1:2) it is established that the eggsof clean birds are permitted for food, and those of unclean
birds, forbidden (Ḥ ul. 122a). With the formation of the hardshell of the egg, however, even before the egg has been laid,
it is regarded as independent and no longer part of its dam,

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6219

Bibliography: Bloch, in: Jeschurun, ed. by B. Koenigsberger,
1 (1901), 5–8, 75–79, 104–8; Wreschner, in: JJIG, 2 (1904), 47–48; L.
Lewin, Geschichte der Juden in Lissa (1904), 245–8.
[Akiva Posner]egidio da viterbo
with the result that the prohibition of eating a part of a living
animal does not apply to it, nor the law prohibiting the eatingof meat with milk (Beẓ ah 6b). Nevertheless fully formed eggs
in a bird which is *terefah or *nevelah are forbidden (Maim.,
Yad, Maakhalot Asurot, 3:19). The Talmud (Ḥ ul. 64a) gives thesigns of the eggs of permitted and forbidden birds. The former have one end oblate and the other pointed and the whitesurrounds the yoke, while if both ends are oblate or pointed
and the yellow surrounds the white it is the egg of a forbidden bird. The egg is regarded as beginning to form the embryo
when a bloodspot appears on the yoke, from which time it isforbidden as food, but the custom has been generally adopted
of forbidding eggs if the bloodspot appears even on the albumen (see *Blood).
(2) The bulk of an egg is one of the most common of all
the measures of volume in the halakhah. It constitutes theusual quantity of volume to establish liability, e.g., for ritualuncleanness, for the size of the *etrog, for the amount of breadfrom which *ḥ allah must be separated, and many others. It
is also the standard whereby all other measurements are calculated, a log being equal to six eggs, a kab to 24, and a se’ah
to 144 (see Er. 83a and *Weights and Measures). It is evident
however that these relative measurements do not accord with
the normal size of an egg. It is accepted that the “egg” is thatof the chicken (Yoma 80a) and recourse has had to be madeto the theory that the egg thus referred to is a “desert egg”
which was much larger than the present day one, and to beon the safe side the standard adopted in the halakhah for theegg of the Talmud is two present-day eggs (Ḥ atam Sofer, Oḥ ,Tesp. no. 127).
Aggadah
The egg is regarded both as having laxative qualities and ofbringing about sexual stimulation. The egg, being “roundand having no mouth” (opening), is regarded as a symbol ofmourning which “is like a wheel which continually revolves
in the world, and one must not open one’s mouth in complaint” (BB 16b; YD 378:9 of Gen R. 63:14). It is therefore given
to mourners at the meal given to them on the return fromthe burial (se’udat havra’ah) and is eaten at the meal before
undertaking the fast of the Ninth of *Av. On the seder nightof Passover there has developed the custom of eating an egg
dipped in salt water before beginning the festive meal. Thereis no authority for this custom in the sources; various explanations have been put forward, and Moses Isserles connects
it with its mourning aspect. According to him it is in commemoration of the destruction of the Temple with which thepaschal sacrifice was discontinued, and it happens that thefirst day of Passover always falls on the same day of the week
as the Ninth of Av of each year (Oḥ 476:2). A roasted egg, inmemory of the festival offering (ḥ agigah), forms part of the
Passover plate at the seder.
Bibliography: Krauss, Tal Arch, 1 (1910), 124–6; Eisenstein,
Yisrael, 3 (1951), 37–40; ET, 3 (1951), 131–45.
[Louis Isaac Rabinowitz]

220°EGIDIO DA VITERBO (c. 1465–1532), Italian ecclesiastical statesman and humanist. He entered the Augustinian order in 1488. The papal Curia utilized his diplomatic talents
and in 1517 Leo X made him a cardinal; he was also bishop of
Viterbo. For many years he maintained Elijah *Levita in his
entourage in Rome, Levita instructing the cardinal in rabbinics and Jewish mysticism and himself obtaining instruction
in Greek. He was also among *Reuchlin’s correspondents (Illustrium … epistolae … ad … Reuchlin, Hagenau, 1519, 97–98)
and entertained the false messiah David *Reuveni. Egidio’s interests in Jewish (particularly kabbalistic) studies were very
considerable. In addition to projecting a plan for translatingDavid Kimḥ i’s dictionary he translated (or sponsored translations of) extracts of the Zohar and various esoteric tracts(Ginnat Egoz, Razi’el, etc.; also portions of Menahem Recanati’s commentary), and composed a treatise on the Ten *Sefirot (all preserved in manuscript: Paris Mss. 527, 596–8, 3363,
3367, Angelica Ms. 3).
Bibliography: Vogelstein-Rieger, 2 (1896), passim; G. Signorelli, Il Cardinale Egidio da Viterbo … (1929); G.E. Weil, Elie Lévita …
(1963), 203–11 and passim; C. Astruc and J. Monfrin, in: Bibliothèqued’humanisme et renaissance, 23 (1961), 551–4; A. Palmieri, in: Dictionnaire Theologique Catholique, 6 (1920), 1365–71; F. Secret, Le Zôhar
chez les Kabbalistes chrétiens de la Renaissance (1958), index.
[Raphael Loewe]

ʿEGLAH ʿARUFAH (Heb. ‫) ֶעגְ לָ ה ֲערו ָּפה‬, an expiatory ceremonial for an untraceable murder prescribed in Deuteronomy 21:1–9, in which the elders of the settlement nearest thecorpse bring an unworked heifer to an uncultivated area in awatered wadi, break the heifer’s neck, wash their hands over it,
and profess their innocence to the bloodshed. This ceremonialof the ʿeglah ʿarufah, “the broken-necked heifer,” is unique tothe Bible, but it is elucidated by prior Hittite and subsequent
rabbinic law codes. The ʿeglah ʿarufah is not a sacrifice. It is
not slaughtered ritually on an altar, but is killed like a nonsacrificial animal (Ex. 13:13) away from the altar; it need not
be unblemished like a sacrifice (Sot. 9:5), but it must never
have been subjected to the yoke, a stipulation attested only inrituals never incorporated into the sacrificial system (Num.
19:2; see *Red Heifer; cf. I Sam. 6:7). Above all, its death does
not make expiation for the life of the murderer (nor does any
sacrifice; see *Atonement, *Sacrifices), for if the murderer issubsequently discovered, he is still put to death (Sot. 9:7; see
Ket. 37b).
The key to this rite is its underlying postulate thatthe blood of the innocent does not “remain on his head”(e.g., Josh. 2:19; see *Bloodguilt), but pollutes the earth onwhich it is shed (Num. 35:33). The earth, having received theblood involuntarily, withholds its strength (Gen. 4:11–12),bringing drought and famine upon its inhabitants (II Sam.
21:1, LXX; cf. also II Sam. 1:21; Ezek. 22:24). This belief is
not peculiar to Israel, but is part of its heritage from the cultures along the Mediterranean littoral (e.g., Ugarit: Aqhat
1:42–46; Asia Minor (Hittites), Proclamation of Telepinus,
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

eglon20). That the blood of the slain must come into contact
with the ground is confirmed by the rabbinic dictum that if
the murder was perpetrated by some other means, e.g., hanging, the heifer ceremonial is not required (Sot. 9:2; TJ, Sot. 9:2,
23c). In rabbinic law, just as in the Hittite Code, paragraph
6 (earlier version, cf. Pritchard, Texts, 189), the corpse is interred on the spot where it was found (BK 81b), and the original owner loses his rights to a set area circumscribing thecorpse.
According to biblical law, “the land shall have no expiation for blood that is shed except by the blood of him who
shed it” (Num. 35:33b). However, what if the murderer is unknown: will the land be permanently blighted? The ʿeglahʿarufah is the cultic prophylactic to avert this contingency. Its
purpose is to transfer the land polluted by the corpse to an uncultivated plot, removed from the settled area. Thus it closely
resembles the rites of the *azazel goat and of the purificationof the healed *leper, whereby sin and impurity, respectively,
are exorcised from the afflicted and banished to the wilderness. Here, however, the fact that land and not man needs tobe expiated necessitates the use of another method, not banishment, but transference. Through the killing of the heifer,
the murder is, in effect, reenacted; the blood of the heifer(ha-dam ha-zeh, “this blood,” Deut. 21:7) becomes identified
with the blood of the slain, and the pollution is transferredfrom the area of the corpse to the area of the heifer. This riteof reenactment and transference explains why the ceremonial must take place at a perennial stream: the blood must notcome into contact with the earth again and trigger the fatal
polluted soil-drought syndrome, and it is thus drained off tosome distant sea. Also explained is the need for the elders of
the nearest settlement to wash their hands and recite a confessional over the broken-necked heifer: since the blood of
the heifer represents the blood of the slain, they must purify
themselves and declare their innocence of either committing
or witnessing the crime (Deut. 21:6–7). Finally, the rabbinic
law that the land surrounding the heifer is forever forbidden
to be cultivated further underscores that the purpose of theritual is the transference of land impurity from the human tothe animal corpse.
According to this interpretation the Torah has incorporated an ancient rite, whereby land pollution due to an
untraceable murder is transferred from a desirable area to an
undesirable one. At the same time, it should not be overlooked
how an act of pure sympathetic magic was transformed by
the Torah to conform to its basic spiritual and ethical outlook. First, the ritual was placed in the hands of the priests,
those “chosen by the Lord to serve Him” (21:5), and removed
from the authority of the lay-elders, who might be addicted
to its pagan origins. Then, the declaration was given an
appendix (21:8–9), whereby the automatic, magical expiation presumed by the ritual was abolished, and the expiation
and, indeed, all forgiveness of sin attributed solely to theLord.

In the Talmud
No less than nine mishnayot (Sotah 9:1–9) and six folios of theBabylonian Talmud (Sotah 44b–47b) are devoted to the lawsof the ʿeglah ʿarufah, despite the fact that the rite was abolished at the beginning of the first century (see below). Unless otherwise stated, the details that follow are derived fromthose passages. According to the rabbis, this act of expiationand disavowal by the elders was not for the murder itself, of
which no one could possibly accuse them, but for failure tocreate conditions which would make such a crime impossible.
“He [the victim, or possibly the murderer?] did not appeal
to us for help and we dismissed him without providing him
with food; we did not allow him to depart without an escort.”
The measurement of the distance between the corpse and thenearest town was performed by three or five elders from theGreat Sanhedrin of Jerusalem. When they had finished theirtask and had decided to which city the murder was to be ascribed, they returned to Jerusalem, and the rite of breaking
the heifer’s neck (from behind with a hatchet) was performedin the presence of all the elders of that city. The rite was performed only when it was presumed that the undetected murderer was a Jew, and it was therefore not performed in a city
near the border or where the majority of the inhabitants were
gentiles. Nor did the rite apply to Jerusalem. It was limited toa murder executed with a lethal weapon and therefore did
not apply in the case of hanging or strangulation. The heifer
had to be less than two years old. The ceremony took place byday, and the carcass was buried in situ. The rite of the ʿeglahʿarufah was discontinued “when murderers increased in number.” Its discontinuation is connected with *Eleazar b. Dinai,
also called Tehinah b. Parishah, a notorious murderer who isprobably identical with the Zealot leader of the same name(c. 35–60 C.E.) mentioned by Josephus (Ant. 20:121 and 161;
Wars, 2:235–6, 253).
[Louis Isaac Rabinowitz]

Bibliography: H.J. Elhorst, in: ZAW, 39 (1921), 58–67; R.
Patai, in JQR, 30 (1939), 59–69; S.H. Hooke, in: VT, 2 (1952), 2–17; A.
Rofé, in: Tarbiz, 31 (1961/62), 119–43.

[Jacob Milgrom]

EGLON (Heb. ‫) ֶעגְ לוֹ ן‬, Canaanite royal city. According to the
Bible, Debir, king of Eglon, joined the confederation of Amorite kings, led by *Adoni-Zedek of Jerusalem, against *Gibeon.
They were defeated by Joshua at Aijalon and slain near the
cave of Makkedah, where they had sought refuge (Josh. 10).
Eglon was subsequently captured, sacked, and destroyed (ibid.
10:34–35). The king of Eglon is again mentioned in the list ofconquered cities (ibid. 12:12). The city was allotted to the tribeof Judah in the Lachish district (ibid. 15:39). It does not appear
in later sources; Eusebius mentions an Agla, present-day Khirbat ʿAjlān, 12 mi. (19 km.) west of Bet Guvrin (Eleutheropolis) (Onom. 48:19). Scholars are divided as to the location of
Eglon; the identification generally accepted is that of Tell alḤ asī proposed by Albright. This tell is situated 7 mi. (11 km.)southwest of Lachish, at the edge of the foothills that extend
into the Coastal Plain. Elliger has suggested the more west-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6221

eglonerly Tell Beit Mirsim, and recent studies have shown that thisidentification is no less probable (cf. *Debir).
Bibliography: Albright, in BASOR, 17 (1925), 7ff.; Elliger,
in: PJB, 30 (1934), 67f.
[Michael Avi-Yonah]

EGLON (Heb. ‫ ; ֶעגְ לוֹ ן‬lit. “calf ”), king of Moab in the periodof the Judges, apparently in the first half of the 12t century
B.C.E. The Bible relates that Eglon assembled the *Ammonites
and the *Amalekites and with them attacked Israel, subduing
the land for 18 years (Judg. 3:12–14). It is likely that Eglon had
previously conquered the plain north of the Arnon, a region
disputed by Israel and Moab. Eglon and his allies crossed
the Jordan, captured the city of Jericho, and from there penetrated to the center of the country and subdued the tribes ofBenjamin and Ephraim. It is natural, therefore, that a Benjaminite, the “judge” *Ehud, son of Gera, assassinated Eglon
by a ruse and freed Israel from Moabite rule. The events related in Judges 3 appear historically plausible although somescholars have argued that the mention of Eglon’s gross obesity (vs. 17, 22) and the chapter’s apparent scatological references (vss. 21–25) are indications that the story is fictional
political satire.
[Bustanay Oded]

In the Aggadah
Eglon is identified as the grandson of Balak (Yal. 665). Because of the respect he showed to God through rising fromhis throne when Ehud told him that he had a message fromthe Lord, he was rewarded: Ruth was his granddaughter (Naz.
24b) and her descendant David “sat on the throne of the Lord”(Ruth R. 2:9).
Bibliography: E.G. Kraeling, in: JBL, 54 (1935), 205–10; K.
Galling, in: ZDPV, 75 (1959), 1–13; A.H. van Zyl, The Moabites (1960);
Y. Kaufmann, Sefer Shofetim (1962), 104–11; W. Richter, Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Richterbuch (1963), 1ff.; A. Malamat,
in: B. Mazar (ed.), Ha-Historyah shel Am Yisrael, ha-Avot ve-ha-Shofetim (1967), 229–30. Add. Bibliography: B. Halpern, The Bible’s
First Historians (1980), 39–75; idem, in: ABD, 2, 414; M. Brettler, in:
HUCA, 62 (1991), 285–304; Y. Amit, Judges (1999), 71–79.

EGOZI, Turkish family, members of which served as rabbisof Constantinople in the 16t and 17t centuries. MENAHEM
BEN MOSES EGOZI (second half of 16t century) was a rabbi,
preacher, and poet. His sermons, Gal shel Egozim, were published in the printing press of Gracia *Nasi in Belvedere between 1593 and 1599. Ginnat Egoz, a manuscript collection of
his letters and poems, some showing considerable talent andof historical importance, is in the British Museum (Or. 11.111).
A responsum by him is included in the responsa of Elijah b.
Ḥ ayyim (no. 38). ḥ AYYIM, a contemporary of the former, wasa member of the bet din of Elijah b. Ḥ ayyim in Constantinople,
their signatures appearing together in a document of 1601. A
manuscript of his book on the laws of divorce is in the Jerusalem National Library (no. 119, 8°). DAVID (d. c. 1644) was
rabbi of the indigenous Turkish community of Constantino-222

ple. He was appointed to be in charge of the congregational
property and was in halakhic correspondence with Ḥ ayyim
and Moses *Benveniste. NISSIM BEN ḥ AYYIM, rabbi anddayyan, was involved in the Shabbatean controversy which
engaged the Constantinople rabbis in 1666.
Bibliography: Rosanes, Togarmah, 3 (1938), 33; Scholem,
Shabbetai Ẓ evi, 2 (1957), 416–7; A. Yaari, Ha-Defus ha-Ivri be-Kushta(1967), 140–1, no. 228, 147.

EGYENLÖSÉG, a political weekly newspaper, its title meaning “Equality,” which was published in the Hungarian languagein Budapest from 1881. The official mouthpiece of the Neolog (non-Orthodox) sector of Hungarian Jewry, it circulated
among Hungarian Jewry as a whole. Its founder was Moritz
Bogdányi, who published daily editions during the proceedings of the *Tiszaeszlár blood libel trial of 1882–83. Miksa*Szabolcsi headed the editorial staff from 1884, later becoming its owner, and after the Tiszaeszlár trial took up the struggle anew for religious equality of the Jews of Hungary. Someof the best-known Hungarian Jewish writers were among its
contributors, such as Adolf *Agai, Hugo *Ignotus, József *Kiss,
Tamás *Kóbor, Emil *Makai, and Péter Ujvári. The declared
policy of the paper was assimilationist, aiming at moderate religious reform but complete integration in the life of the state.
With the appearance of organized Zionism, the paper took
up an anti-Zionist stand. After the death of Miksa Szabolcsi
in 1915, his son Lajos Szabolcsi edited the paper and took abold stand against the “numerus clausus” and the excesses of
the “White Terror” after the revolution of 1918–19. The paper
was banned in 1938.
Bibliography: Magyar Zsidó Lexikon (1929), 213–4.
[Baruch Yaron]

EGYPT, country in N.E. Africa, centering along the banks of
the River Nile from the Mediterranean coast southward beyond the first cataract at Aswan. The ancient Egyptians named
their land “Kemi,” the “Black Land,” while the neighboring
Asiatic peoples used the Semitic word “Miṣ r” which is still
the country’s name in both Hebrew (Heb. ‫ ; ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם‬Miẓ rayim)
and Arabic. Geographically Egypt consists of two areas, Lower
Egypt, the northern part of the land, which contains the
Delta, and Upper Egypt, the south, which comprises the narrow strip of cultivable land on both sides of the river as far
south as Aswan.
Ancient Egypt
Ancient Egyptian history can be divided into seven periods
that correspond to the major dynastic ages of Pharaonic history:
1. Predynastic – (prehistory)
2. Early Dynastic Period (Archaic) – Dyn. 1–3, 2920–2575
3. Old Kingdom – Dyn. 4–8 (Pyramid Age), 2575–2134
4. First Intermediate Period – Dyn. 9–10, 2134–2040
5. Middle Kingdom – Dyn. 11–12 (“Classical” Period),
2040–1640
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6egypt
6. Second Intermediate Period – Dyn. 13–17 (including theHyksos Period), 1640–1532
7. New Kingdom – Dyn. 18–20 (Empire Period), 1550–1070
PREDYNASTIC – EARLY DYNASTIC PERIOD. The Predynastic history of Egypt refers to the period before the unificationof Upper and Lower Egypt. It is the unification of the two
kingdoms that heralds the national consciousness of Egypt;
therefore, her history as a nation cannot start before the Early
Dynastic Period. Egyptian tradition traced its historical beginnings to the time when King Menes of Upper Egypt (as recorded by Manetho, and transmitted with slight variations by
Herodotus, Josephus, and Diodorus Siculus) conquered Lower
Egypt and unified the two lands. By this action, he became theruler of both Upper and Lower Egypt, thereby establishing theFirst Dynasty. Menes’ unification came to symbolize the nation and its conception of itself. The earliest representation of
the unification of Egypt is the Narmer Palette (+/–3150 B.C.E.,
now in the Cairo Museum). The legendary Pharaoh Narmer
has been identified with Menes, and the Narmer Palette apparently represents the Pharaoh of Upper Egypt conquering
Lower Egypt and subduing the enemy. The obverse of thepalette shows the ruler wearing the White Crown of Upper
Egypt, while the reverse has him wearing the Red Crown ofLower Egypt. Throughout dynastic history the unification
represented the potency of the land, a potency recalled in avariety of ways, from the titles of the kings, through the representations in the artistic canon.
The most important legacy of the Early Dynastic Period
is the foundation of what we view as the civilization of ancient
Egypt. The national economy, political ideology, and religious
philosophy all developed in this period, and the administrative seat of Egyptian government moved north to Memphis.
Much of the contact between Egypt and the Levant during the
Early Dynastic Period was in the area of trade. Grain, timber
for construction, precious and semi-precious materials, including lapis lazuli copper and turquoise, were imported to
Egypt from Southwest Asia.

named Weni inscribed his autobiography on a wall in his
tomb-chapel. He reports that at the behest of the Pharaoh he
led five expeditions into the Southern Levant to defend against
the “Sand-dwellers” (Lichtheim 18ff.). At least two stone vessels bearing Old Kingdom royal names have been discoveredat Tel Mardikhi, *Ebla, in central Syria. There is no certainty
as to how the vessels got to Ebla (one, bearing Pepy I’s name,is thought to have come through Byblos, and the other with
Kephren’s name may have come directly from Egypt), but
their existence attests to far reaching diplomatic connections
between Egypt and the Levant.
THE FIRST INTERMEDIATE PERIOD. In Egyptian chronology, the term “Intermediate” refers to the periods when
there was no strong centralized government unifying the Two
Lands. During the first Intermediate Period there was dynastic
rule both in the North (at Herakleopolis), and in the South (atThebes). The attempts to reunify the land fostered sporadic
internal conflicts and civil wars.

THE OLD KINGDOM. The Old Kingdom is also known as
the Pyramid Age. During this period Egypt’s power revolved
around her resources, human and natural, and the Pharaoh’s
ability to utilize them. One of the results of the successful
harnessing of resources was monumental architecture; thefirst complexes built from fully dressed stones are from thisperiod. These large structures seem to represent the physical manifestation of the Pharaoh’s godhead and authority.
The strong centralized government of the god-king that had
developed earlier underwent decentralization during the 5t
dynasty and resulted in a new class of officials: The vizier nolonger had to be a prince, and the nomarchs began to residein the nome that they administered rather than in the royalresidence or capital.
Foreign relations during the Old Kingdom were generally peaceful, and foreign expeditions were related either todefense or, more frequently, to trade. A 6t dynasty official

THE MIDDLE KINGDOM. The detailed origins of the Middle
Kingdom are unknown, but in a political sense the Middle
Kingdom may be said to begin when the ruler of Upper Egypt
becomes the sole Pharaoh and the two lands are again united.
During the 11t Dynasty the seat of rule remained at Thebes
in the South, but the first Pharaoh of the 12t Dynasty moved
the capital North to a new capital called Itjtawy, “Grasper of
the Two Lands”; the capital remained there for more than 300
years. The 12t Dynasty is the “Classical Period” in the art andthe literature of Ancient Egypt.
The literature and the art of this period were used topromote the royal and elite values and interests. Many ofthe literary texts of this period have a propagandistic flavor and were circulated to the literati though the temples
and schools. The monumental royal inscriptions on temples
and other buildings were also used to address the public, toinspire loyalty, and to tell the people of the grandeur of theirrulers.
For the most part Egypt’s foreign relations remain peaceful during this period as witnessed by the famous tomb painting in the tomb of Khnumhotep II at Beni Hasan. Part ofthis painting depicts 37 Asiatics (men, women, and children)
bringing eye-paint to Khnumhotep. But there is evidence ofinternational strife during the Middle Kingdom in the Execration Texts. The Execration Texts were a class of formulasthat functioned as destructive magic; they were designed tocounteract negative influences, and they are attested from the
Old Kingdom through the New Kingdom. The performanceof execration rituals centered on objects inscribed to identify the target of the magical act; they were then destroyed orsymbolically neutralized. These texts include figures made of
unbaked clay and crudely formed into the shape of a boundprisoner. There are three lots of execration texts that deal with
Western Asia containing standard formulae with the names ofAsiatic chieftains and their related toponyms (place names),
after which follows a comprehensive statement of curse along

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6223

egyptthe lines of “all Asiatics of Gns, and their mighty runners …
who may rebel … etc.”
THE SECOND INTERMEDIATE PERIOD AND THE PERIOD OF
THE HYKSOS. The Second Intermediate Period began toward
the end of the 13t Dynasty when the centralized government
began once again to falter, leading to the rise of local rulers
in the eastern Nile Delta. The period reached its culmination
when the *Hyksos invaded from Western Asia and usurped
the throne. Originally these Near Easterners were referred to
as “Shepherd kings” or “captive shepherds” by the scholarly
community. These titles are based on an incorrect folk-etymology attested to as early as Josephus. The term Hyksos is the
Greek rendering of the Egyptian appellation for these foreigners. But the Egyptian that underlies the Greek is best translated
as “rulers of the foreign countries.” In Egypt it became the official designation of the first three kings of the 15t Dynasty. The
capital of the Hyksos was at Avaris, modern Tel ed-Dabʿa in the
Delta, on the eastern most of the Delta branches. The population there seems to have been composed of Asiatics, especiallythose who spoke Amorite, a West Semitic dialect.
Much of the Hyksos’s power resulted from good trade relations with Cyprus, Nubia, and the Levant, and it was during
this period that the horse, and wool-bearing sheep were introduced into Egypt. The archaeological record indicates that theHyksos were not the first Near Easterners to live in the Nile
Delta, but it was under the Hyksos that Egypt became more
involved with the eastern Mediterranean (Bietak).
The reign of the Hyksos ended when the Theban ruler
Ahmose finally expelled them and reunited the Two Lands. After this expulsion the capital shifted south again to Thebes.
THE NEW KINGDOM. The New Kingdom is the period of
Egyptian expansion and imperialism. In the earlier periods
Egypt’s contact with, and control over, foreign areas was limited to her desire for trade and resources; during the New
Kingdom Egypt’s foreign policy became more aggressive. The
Hurrian kingdom of Mitanni became a threat to Egypt, andthe New Kingdom rulers responded to Mitanni’s rising powerin the area. The 18t Dynasty ruler Thutmose I led a campaign
into northern Syria. Later, Thutmose III led 14 campaigns into
Western Asia (one of which included a seven-month siege at
Megiddo), and eventually subdued the Levantine coast, increasing Egyptian hegemony into the interior of Syro-Palestine. Under Thutmose III the rulers of the conquered Asiaticcity-states became vassals to Egypt who had to send tributeand swear an oath of loyalty to the Pharaoh. True peace was
not realized until the reign of Thutmose IV, who married oneof the Mitannian princesses (Murnane 2001).
The Egyptian Empire reached its height during the reignof another 18t Dynasty Pharaoh, Amenhotep III. By this timethe empire was firmly established, so that Egypt was able
to keep her troops in just a few areas and to send garrisons
only to regions that threatened revolt. But this relative easeof imperialism was short lived, and the Empire began to falter under the reign of Amenhotep IV whose internal policies

224

caused him to be labeled the “heretic king.” Amenhotep IV
devoted much of his energy to religious reform. Traditionally, the established cults of Egypt’s gods were under the careof the Pharaoh. Amenhotep IV neglected the traditional godsof Egypt and showed strict devotion to a new conception of
the sun god the “Aten” (solar orb); he eventually withdrew his
patronage from the capital at Thebes (which was the “city ofAmun”), he changed his name to reflect his religious preferences to Akhenaten (*Akhenaton; “effective on behalf of theorb”), and established a new capital city named Akhetaten(“horizon of the orb”). Akhenaten weakened the power of theroyal family to such an extent that that even when the traditional cult was re-established in the land, the last kings of the
18t Dynasty (including Tutankhamun) had no real power.
The entire balance of power in the Near East changed during this period when the Mitannians lost control of most of
their vassals to the Hittites and Egypt lost control of her vassal Kadesh to these same Hittites. The resulting hostilities between Egypt and Hatti only increased when a Hittite prince
died on his way to Egypt with the intent to marry Tutankhamun’s widow. Egypt’s borders continued to recede south forthe next three generations.
The Ramesside kings of the 19t and 20t Dynasties attempted to regain Egypt’s past glory. These attempts met withvarying levels of success. Ramesses II successfully defended
Egypt against the invasions of the Sea Peoples, but his “victory” against the Hittites at Kadesh is not the unqualified “victory” portrayed on his temple walls. In addition, the balanceof power achieved by Egypt in the south, and the Hittites in
the north changed as Assyria emerged as a major force inWestern Asia. Ramesses III was the strongest ruler of the 20tDynasty, and he too defended Egypt against the Sea Peoples,and defeated two Libyan invasions. But the end of his reign ismarked by a series of strikes by craftsmen who were working
on the royal tombs at Thebes. These strikes were the beginning of the economic difficulties that helped bring about theend of the 20t Dynasty and Egypt’s Empire period.
The New Kingdom saw Egypt rise to become an international superpower ruling territories from Nubia to Asia. But
by the end of this period Egypt was a nation overwhelmed byinternal troubles, which had lost control of all of her foreign
territories; never again would Egypt regain her splendor.
For the biblical depiction of events in this period, see*History; *Exodus; *Pentateuch.
[Sharon Keller (2nd ed.)]After the shortlived 21st Dynasty, the 22nd Dynasty, of
Libyan origin, came to power in Egypt. Sheshonk I (the biblical *Shishak) gave refuge to the Israelite pretender *Jeroboam
and, after the latter had returned to Israel, invaded first Judah,
thoroughly ravaging and looting the country, and then Israel,treating it in like manner. Returning with vast plunder, andleaving a weakened Palestine behind him, Sheshonk retired to
Egypt. Henceforth the Libyan rulers of Egypt, having shown
their power, left West Asia alone.
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6egyptBy the end of the eighth century B.C.E. the EgyptianizedNubian rulers of *Cush had displaced the Libyans in controlof Egypt, while the Assyrians under *Tiglath-Pileser III madetheir presence felt in Syria and Palestine. During the last revoltof Israel against Assyria (724–721 B.C.E.) Hosea wrote to So,
the king of Egypt, for support against the Assyrians. This otherwise unknown king has been plausibly identified recently as
Tefnakht, the ruler of Sais (So), a vassal of the Nubians. However, Egyptian support was to no avail; Tefnakht was repulsedand Samaria fell. Nevertheless Egypt still appeared to be powerful, and in the following decades *Hezekiah, king of Judah,
again relied on Egypt. Although the biblical account names*Tirhakah (Taharka), king of Cush (Nubia; II Kings 19:35) as
Jerusalem’s ally, there are chronological problems involved,
since the decisive battle of this campaign, that of Elteke, took
place in 701, and Taharka’s rule began only in 689.
*Sennacherib’s successors subjugated Egypt, expelled
the Cushites, and installed puppets who managed to regain
Egyptian independence under the twenty-sixth Dynasty. The
founder of this dynasty, Psammetichus I (c. 664–610 B.C.E.)
strengthened Egypt by the widespread employment of foreigners – Greek and Jewish mercenary troops and Phoenician
sailors and merchants. During his reign or that of Psammetichus II (c. 595–89 B.C.E.) the famous colony of Jewish mercenary soldiers was established at *Elephantine to protect thesouthern frontier of Egypt. After the fall of the Assyrian capitalof Nineveh in 612 B.C.E. to the Neo-Babylonians and Medes,
the king of Egypt, Neco II, “went up against the Babylonians,”
but found his way barred by *Josiah, king of Judah, whom hedefeated and killed at Megiddo in 609. Four years later, theBabylonians decisively defeated him at the battle of Carchemish. The subsequent Babylonian invasion of Egypt, precededby the siege and sack of Ashkelon, was, however, beaten back,although Palestine remained under Babylonian control.
In 589 *Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem, whose
king, *Zedekiah, had rebelled at the instigation of the pharaoh Apries (*Hophra). The latter invaded Syria in an attempt
to relieve Jerusalem, but again Egyptian support proved ineffectual, and in 587 Jerusalem fell. Most of the city’s population was deported to Babylon; some, however, took refuge in
Egypt, including the prophet *Jeremiah.
Egyptian Literature in the Bible
Egypt has a long and full literary history and tradition, and assuch, there is ample evidence of both literary and nonliterary
genre of texts. These texts serve many functions and come ina variety of forms each with its own established conventions
and styles. The technical aspects of Egyptian literary forms
are not generally paralleled in biblical literature, yet it is wellrecognized that there is a commonalty in content between
some biblical narrative motifs and those found in various
Ancient Egyptian texts. Direct links in the prose literature
are difficult to establish, but there is a scholarly consensus
that relates the two bodies of literature. Wisdom texts fall in

their own category; the consensus maintains that the biblical wisdom tradition is dependent, at least in part, upon the
Egyptian. Questions of borrowing and/or primary derivation
notwithstanding, there is no doubt that the Egyptian material
antedates the biblical.
Egypt plays an important part in the narrative setting of
the Torah. From the time that Joseph is sold into servitude
through the Exodus and the crossing of the Sea of Reeds, thecentral location of the story is Egypt. It is in these stories, theones set in Egypt, that the majority of narrative parallels areto be found. The most frequently cited example is the biblical tale of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife (Gen 39) and the New
Kingdom Tale of Two Brothers. The Egyptian tale is the first
known example in ancient literature of the Temptress motif.
The details and purposes of each of the stories differ greatly,
but there is no serious doubt that the structure of the motif
is essentially the same. In such stories an older woman (or awoman of higher social status) develops an ill-advised passion for a younger man (or one of a lesser social status). This
“temptress” makes her desires known to the young man (Gen39:7) who refuses her advances on moral grounds (verses 8–9);
thus spurned, the “temptress” accuses the young man of violating her, and the “wronged” husband then seeks retribution. The standard versions of this tale eventually vindicate
the youth and punish the mendacious wife. In the biblicalaccount Joseph is punished for his supposed actions by being imprisoned (verses 19–20). Eventually he is pardoned by
Pharaoh and released from prison because, after interpreting
Pharaoh’s dreams, Joseph is rewarded and made viceroy of
Egypt (41:14–45). The biblical version deviates from the pattern in two significant ways: First, the narrator never tells usthat Joseph is ever publicly declared innocent. (He is pardoned
not exonerated). Second, the fate of the temptress is not revealed. Potiphar’s wife disappears from the story right after
she accuses Joseph (Gen 39:18–19), because she is no longer
important to the progress of the narrative.
Although the Tale of Two Brothers is the most frequently
cited example of biblical and Egyptian narrative parallels, it isby no means the only one. Some literary tales present us with apicture of Syria-Palestine that is reminiscent of the descriptionof the area in the Patriarchal Narratives of Genesis and also
show some parallel values. The prime example is the Middle
Kingdom Tale of Sinuhe, which depicts the environment of theLevant in detail and shows it much the same as described in
the Torah narratives. Both the Hebrew and Egyptian sources
describe pastoral nomadic clans who travel among the settled
urban population centers. Sinuhe was an attendant to Princess
Nefru, daughter of Amenemhet I and wife of Sesostris I. After
Amenemhet I dies, Sinuhe overhears plans for a palace coup.
Fearing that he will be caught up in the civil-war that will inevitably follow, he flees Egypt and wanders through the Nile
Delta and throughout Canaan. Sinhue becomes very successful in Canaan, but always longs to return to his native land.
Ultimately, he is reunited with Sesostris I and urged to returnto Egypt. As with most Egyptian tales, this one ends happily

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

225[Alan Richard Schulman]egyptwhen Sinhue returns to Egypt and is welcomed back into theroyal household, His wish that he be allowed to returned to
Egypt so he may die and be buried there is fulfilled. Sinuhe’s
flight from political danger may be compared to Moses’ flightfrom Egypt to avoid Pharaoh’s wrath (Ex. 2:15). Sinuhe’s subsequent wanderings though the Egyptian Delta and into Canaan
along with his new found prosperity in a foreign land may becompared with the accounts of Abraham’s peregrinations. Another frequently cited parallel is that Sinuhe very much wants
to be buried in his native Egypt, just as Jacob desires that his
body be returned from Egypt to Canaan (Gen. 47:29–30). Similarly, Joseph adjures the children of Israel to carry his bones
out from Egypt when they leave (Gen 50:25, Ex. 13:19).
Narrative parallels are not limited to the Torah. One of
Sinuhe’s exploits has been compared to David’s slaying of Goliath. “He came toward me while I waited, having placed myself
near him. Every heart burned for me; the women jabbered. All
hearts ached for me thinking: ‘Is there another champion who
could fight him?’ He [raised] his battle-axe and shield, while
his armful of missiles fell toward me. When I had made his
weapons attack me, I let his arrows pass me by without effect,
one following the other. Then, when he charged me, I shot
him, my arrow sticking in his neck. He screamed; he fell on
his nose; I slew him with his axe. I raised my war cry over hisback, while every Asiatic shouted. I gave praise to Mont, while
his people mourned him” (Lichtheim in COS) Both Sinuhe andDavid are underdog warriors who surprisingly vanquish theenemy champion with his own weapon (I Sam 17:51).
Scholarly consensus recognizes that the biblical Wisdom tradition, and much of the poetic and instructional literature related to that tradition, has very close associations
with Egyptian Wisdom Literature. Within the Bible there isa conception of Egypt as a source of great wisdom (I Kings
4:30, “Solomon’s wisdom was greater than the wisdom of all
the Kedemites and than all the wisdom of the Egyptians”), but
this “wisdom” is not that of the Wisdom Literature. Egyptian
Wisdom Literature deals with “truth,” “justice,” and especially“order,” the “cosmic order” as ordained by the gods. BiblicalWisdom focuses primarily upon Wisdom personified and the“fear of God” associated with it. So the larger conceptions that
inform the genre are not identical, but the Egyptian material
most certainly has influenced the biblical.
Psalm 104 is frequently viewed in light of “The Great
Hymn to the Aten.” Both texts venerate the solar aspects ofthe deity and use similar language in so doing. Song of Songs
is widely recognized as having significant parallels to Egyptian love poetry (Fox) There are parallels of phraseology: In
the Song of Songs “sister” is used as a term of intimacy between the two lovers (4:9, 10–12, “…my sister, my bride…”;
also 5:1, 2), and in the Egyptian Love Songs both “sister” and“brother” are used as terms of love and intimacy. In both literatures there is an alternation between the speech of the girland that of the boy, but with a difference; In the Bible thelovers engage in dialogues, whereas in the Love Songs from
Egypt the lovers are given alternating soliloquies. Anothercommon feature is found in the so-called “Praise Song,” where
the physical beauty of the beloved body is described limb bylimb. (4:1–7; 5:10–16; 7:2–10a).
Even more striking parallels are to be found in instructional literature; these connections were first recognized in theearly 20t century, and are regularly noted in modern commentaries. The prime example is the “Instruction of Amenemope.” Proverbs 22:17–24:22 and Jeremiah 17:5–8 are boththought to be inspired by “Amenemope.” Of particular interest
is Proverbs 22:20 and the difficulty surrounding the Hebrew
word traditionally written both shlshwm (ketiv) and shlyshym(qere) and vocalized to mean either “officers” or “the day before yesterday.” Neither makes any sense in the context of the
pericope. Accordingly, many scholars vocalize this word as
sheloshim, “thirty” (“Have I not written for you thirty sayingsof counsel and wisdom”) especially since there are 30 chaptersin the “Instruction of Amenemope” and that text ends “Lookto these thirty chapters, They inform, they educate ….”
The points of contact between biblical and Egyptian literature go beyond content, and include linguistic borrowings
as well. There are close to six dozen agreed upon Egyptianloan words in the Bible, not including personal names andtoponyms (place names); some of these words are Hebraized,
whereas others are used in forms that are close to their Egyptian form. Understandably, there is a remarkable clusteringof these loan words in the biblical accounts relating to Egypt.
We have come to expect Egyptian words used to describe
the natural environment of Egypt, so the biblical words for“reeds” (Ex. 13:18, 15:4, 22, 23:31; passim), “Nile” (Gen. 41:1–3;
passim), “papyrus” (Ex. 2:3; Isa. 18:2, 35:7; Job 8:11), and “marsh
grass” (Gen. 41:2, 18; Job 8:11) all are Egyptian loans. The samegoes for specifically Egyptian offices like the hartumim typically translated as “magicians” (Gen. 41:8, 24; Ex. 7:11, 22, 8:3,
14–15, 9:11; Dan. 1:20, 2:2, 10, 27, 4:4, 6, 5:11). Pharaoh is a royal
title (literally “big house” / “palace”) used in the Bible bothas a royal title with a specific royal name following (Pharaoh
RN – II Kings 23:29, 33–35; Jer. 46:2), or alone as a virtual royalname or specific appellative (this usage is consistent in the
Torah text). Attempts have been made to date biblical passages according to the usage of the word “Pharaoh,” but sucharguments are speculative at best, and ignore the literary aspects of the text.

226

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Sharon Keller (2nd ed.)]The Hellenistic Period
THE PTOLEMAIC PERIOD. Egyptian Jewry traced its history
back to the time of Jeremiah (Letter of Aristeas, 35), but it was
not until the conquest of *Alexander the Great in 332 B.C.E.
that the second great wave of Jewish emigration to Egypt began. Alexander’s successors in Egypt, the Ptolemid dynasty,
attracted many Jews early in their reign to settle in Egypt as
tradesmen, farmers, mercenaries, and government officials.
During their reign Egyptian Jewry enjoyed both tolerance andprosperity. They became significant in culture and literature,and by the first century C.E., accounted for an eighth of the
population of Egypt. The majority of the Jews of Egypt lived,egypt. & % * 5 & 3 3 " / & " /  4 & ".

$BOPQVT"MFYBOESJB#VTJSJT)FSNPQPMJT1BSWB-FPOUPQPMJT

%

&

*

5

&

3

3

"

%BQIOBF#VCBTUJT"UISJCJT)FMJPQPMJT.FNQIJT)FMXBO4PDOPQBFJ/FTVT,BSBOJT
1IJMBEFMQIJB"STJOPF'BJZVN
5FCUVOJT1UPMFNBJT)FSBDMFPQPMJT.BHOB0YZSIZODIVT

"

/

4

"MFYBOESJB

1FMVTJVN

&

~
"CXBO
~
~
'BSBTLVS

3PTFUUB)FSNPQPMJT/~%BNBOIVS~'VXB~%BNJSB+BXKBS~
6TINVN~
5BOOBIBM.BIBMMB~BM,VCSB 4BNBOOVE
~ ~
#VTJS
%BNTJT~
5BUBZ 4VOCBU.JOZBU"TIOB~ BM#BOB~.JOZBU.JOZBU;JGUB(IBZGB(IBNS
4IVCSB~~.BMJK
4BISBKU~
4BOJU#BOIB~#JMCBZTBM"TBM
4VCL
4IBUUBOBXG


&

"

%BNJFUUB~
5JOOJT~
2BMZVCBM.BUBSJZZB$BJSP)FSNPQPMJT
.BHOB

/
JM
F
3
*LINJN

1UPMFNBJT$PQUPT~
2VT
2JGU
5IFCFT"QPMMPOPQPMJT
.BHOB

"TXBO
&MFQIBOUJOFHellenistic period
Medieval period

Map 1. Main Jewish communities in Egypt during the Hellenistic period andduring the Middle Ages; the enlarged section of the Delta region (right) gives
medieval communities only.

as the Greeks, in *Alexandria, but there were also very manyin the ehora, the provincial districts outside Alexandria.
*Ptolemy I Soter (323–283) took a large number of Jewish
prisoners of war in Palestine and forcibly settled them as mercenaries in Egypt to hold down the native Egyptians (ibid., 36).
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

On Ptolemy I’s retreat from Palestine many Jews fled with him
to Egypt, where they found a haven of tolerance. *Ptolemy II
Philadelphus (283–44) emancipated the Jews taken captive by
his father and settled them on the land as cleruchs or in “JewCamps” as Jewish military units. He was remembered by theJews of Egypt as having instigated the translation of the Septuagint (see Letter of *Aristeas; *Bible: Greek translation). Since*Manetho’s antisemitic work was written in his reign there
must have been a fair number of Jews already in Egypt.
*Ptolemy III Euergetes (246–221) was said to have beenfavorably disposed toward the Jews and to have respected theirreligion. Two facts confirm this. One is the number of Jews
who settled in the nome of Arsinoe (*Faiyum) in his reign,and the other is the synagogue inscription dedicated to him,declaring that he granted the rights of asylum to the synagogues (Frey, Corpus 2 pp. 374–6). There is also a synagogue
inscription from Schedia, which was also probably dedicatedto him (Reinach in REJ, 14 (1902), 161–4).
*Ptolemy IV Philopator (221–203) attempted to institutea massacre of the Jews of Alexandria in 217 B.C.E., but waslater reconciled with them (III Macc. 5–6). During the reignof *Ptolemy VI Philometor (181–145) a marked change took
place. Ptolemy VI won Jewish favor by opening up the wholeof Egypt to the Jews, on whom he relied, as well as by receiving Jewish exiles from Palestine such as *Onias IV, to whom
he granted land to build a temple at Leontopolis (c. 161 B.C.E.;
Jos., Wars 1:33). The Jewish philosopher *Aristobulus of Paneas was said to have advised him on Jewish affairs, and heappointed two Jews, Onias and Dositheos, to high military
posts (Jos., Apion, 2:49). During the struggles of Cleopatra *III
(116–101) with her son *Ptolemy IX Lathyros (116–80) the Jews
of Egypt sided with the Queen, thus earning her esteem but
alienating the Greek population from them (Ant. 13:287). She
appointed two Jewish brothers, *Ananias and Helkias, as commanders of her army.
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTS. Most of the Jews
who settled in the chora were either farmers or artisans. The

227

egyptPtolemies did not generally trust the native Egyptians and encouraged the Jews to enter three professions:(a) the army, where, as other nationalities in Egypt, they
were allowed to lease plots of land from the king (called cleruchies), and were granted tax reductions;(b) the police force, in which Jews reached high ranks (cf.
the Jewish district chief of police in Frey, Corpus, 2, p. 370);and(c) tax collecting (a government executive job) and sometimes in the chora, tax farming (a government administrative
post; see Tcherikover, Corpus nos. 107, 109, 110).
Others were managers in the royal banks or administrators (ibid., nos. 99–103, from middle of second century B.C.E.).
In Alexandria there was a greater diversity of occupations andsome Jews prospered in trade and commerce.
Early in the third century B.C.E. synagogues were
founded in Egypt. They are known to have existed at Alexandria, Schedia (third century B.C.E.), Alexandrou Nesou (third
century B.C.E.), Crocodilopolis-Arsinoe (three: third century B.C.E., second century B.C.E., and second century C.E.),
Xenephyris (second century B.C.E.), Athribis (two: third or
second century B.C.E.), and Nitriae (second century B.C.E.).
They were usually called προσευχή or εὐχεῖον (from the Greek
euche = prayer), and tablets were often erected dedicating thesynagogue to the king and the royal family.
At first the Jewish immigrants spoke only Aramaic, anddocuments from the third century and the first half of thesecond century B.C.E. show a widespread knowledge of Aramaic and Hebrew (cf. Frey, Corpus 2, pp. 356, 365). But fromthe second century on there was a rapid Hellenization. Documents were written in Greek, the Pentateuch was read in the
synagogue with the Septuagint translation, and even such awriter as *Philo probably knew no or little Hebrew. At firstthe Egyptian Jews transliterated their names into Greek, or
adopted Greek names that sounded like Hebrew ones (e.g.,
Alcimus for Eliakim, or Jason for Joshua), but later they often
adopted Greek equivalents of Hebrew names (e.g., Dositheos
for Jonathan, Theodoras for Jehonathan). Gradually Egyptian Jewry adopted any Greek name (even those of foreigngods), and among the *Zeno Letters only 25 of the names
are Hebrew.
In the chora the Hellenization was not so strong,but there the Jews were influenced by the native Egyptians.
Documents testify to Egyptian names among the Jews, andsometimes to an ignorance of Greek (presumably these Jews
spoke Egyptian). However, the chora Jews were more observant of the Sabbath and dietary laws than those of Alexandria.
The relations between Greek and Jew was on the whole
good under the Ptolemies. The Jews often sought to explain
Judaism to the Greeks (cf. Aristobulus of Paneas, Philo, andothers). They tried to enter the Greek gymnasium which was asign of the cultured Greek. Cases of actual apostasy were rare;that of Dositheos, son of Drimylos, who renounced Judaism
to enter court, was exceptional (III Macc. 1:3).

CONSTITUTION. It used to be thought that the Jews were
given equal rights with the Greeks by Alexander the Great, andthat they called themselves Macedonians (Wars, 2:487–88).
This has been disproved by papyri where it appears that only
Jews or Jewish military units, who were incorporated into
Macedonian units, were termed “Macedonians” (compare
Tcherikover, Corpus nos. 142 line 3 with no. 143). Since thepopulation registered its name and racial origin, each nationality in Egypt formed a separate group through the Ptolemid period. The Jews, unlike the Greeks, were not granted apoliteia (rights of free citizenship), but received a politeuma(a constitution by which they had the right to observe theirancestral laws). Individual Jews were granted citizenship occasionally by the polis or the king, or by managing to registerin a gymnasium. These, however, were exceptions. From thepapyri of Faiyum and Oxyrhynchus it seems that the majorityof Jews did not use the right of recourse to Jewish courts, butattended Greek ones even in cases of marriage or divorce. The
head of the Jewish community in Alexandria was the *ethnarch, while in the chora elders held sway.
Toward the end of the Ptolemid period Jewish-Greek
relations steadily worsened. The Greeks, supported by the
Egyptians, were struggling to strengthen the power of thepolis, while the Jews supported the Ptolemids, first Cleopatra III (see above), and then *Ptolemy XIII and *Gabinius in
55 B.C.E. Papyri of 58 B.C.E. recorded some unrest in Egyptof an antisemitic nature (e.g., Tcherikover, Corpus no. 141).
Josephus records that *Julius Caesar was aided by Jewish cleruchs in Egypt when *Antipater brought reinforcements from
Palestine. In return for this Caesar is said to have reaffirmed
the citizenship of the Alexandrian Jews in 47 B.C.E. (Ant.,
14:131, 188–96).

228

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Roman Period
EARLY ROMAN EMPIRE. The new administration under*Augustus at first was grateful to the Jews for their support(cf. the stele of their rights set up in Alexandria; Jos., Ant.
14:188), but generally it relied on the Greeks of Alexandria
for help, which fact caused a great rift between the Jews andthe rest of the population early in their rule. Augustus disbanded the Ptolemaic army and abolished the tax-collection
system about 30 B.C.E. Both of these acts caused great economic hardships for the Jews. Few of them joined or werepermitted to join the Roman army in Egypt (an exception being a centurion of 116 C.E., in Tcherikover, Corpus no. 229).
Jewish tax collectors were mostly replaced by Greek government officials. The cursus honorum was closed to Jews unless they renounced their religion, which most refused to do(an exception being *Tiberius Julius Alexander, prefect of
Egypt). Jewish civil rights (politeuma) were endangered byAugustus’ revision of the constitution of Egypt. Three classes
were created:(a) the upper class of Romans, priests, Greek citizens of
Alexandria, Naucratis, and Ptolemais, and those who had registered in the gymnasium;egypt(b) Egyptians, the lowest class, who paid a burdensome
poll tax; and(c) the middle class metropolitae (i.e., half-Greeks who
lived in the chora), who paid the poll tax at a reduced rate.
Augustus placed the Jew in the lowest class, forced to pay
the tax. This was a blow to Jewish pride, for besides those few
individual Jewish families who had received the distinction of
Greek citizenship, the vast majority of Jews could no longer
register in the gymnasia and had to pay the poll tax.
From that time began a long struggle by the Alexandrian
Jews to confirm their rights. The works of writers such as Josephus (Contra Apionem) and Philo (Vita Moysis 1:34) containa defense of Alexandrian Jews’ rights. The Greeks in turn approached Augustus suggesting that they would keep all nonGreeks out of the gymnasia, if he, in turn, would abolish theprivileges of the Jews. Augustus refused and confirmed theJewish ancestral rights, to the intense anger of the Greeks.
Augustus abolished the post of ethnarch of Alexandria in
10–12 C.E., replacing it by a gerusia of elders.
The Greeks of Alexandria seized their opportunity withthe rise of the pro-Hellenic emperor, Caius *Caligula in 37
C.E. The following year they stormed the synagogues, polluted them, and set up statues of the emperor within. The
prefect, Valerius *Flaccus, was embarrassed and dared not remove the images of Caesar. The Jews were shut up in a ghetto
and their houses plundered. Philo, who wrote In Flaccum
and De Legatione on the affair, headed a Jewish delegation
to Caligula to complain, but was dismissed with derision.
On the assassination of Caligula in 41 C.E. the Jews of
Alexandria took vengeance by instigating a massacre of the
Greeks.
The new emperor, *Claudius, issued an edict in favorof the Jews in 41 C.E., abolishing the restrictions imposed at
the time of the pogrom of 38 C.E., but he banned the Jews
from entering the gymnasia, and refused them Greek citizenship. Much antisemitic material was written at this period in Egypt, e.g., *Apion’s works, and the Acts of the *Alexandrian Martyrs.
Consequently the Jews closed their ranks and became
more self-conscious of their Jewish heritage. Such works were
written as III *Maccabees and the Wisdom of *Solomon. The
Jews also tended to live closer together, though no ghettos
were imposed.
In 66 C.E. the Alexandrians, in debating about a delegation to be sent to Nero, presumably to complain about theJews, discovered several Jewish spies among themselves. Three
were caught and burnt alive. The Jews rose in revolt and tried
to burn the Greeks in their amphitheater, and Tiberius Julius Alexander, the prefect, crushed them mercilessly, killing
more than were slain in the pogrom of 38 C.E. After the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 C.E. Onias’ Temple at*Leontopolis was destroyed and the *fiscus judaicus imposed.
However, the Egyptian Jews had to pay more than other Jews,
because the Egyptian calendar provided that they pay in thefirst year of the fiscus (71 C.E.), two years in arrears instead of

one year, as other Jews. It is estimated that they paid that year
27 million Egyptian drachmae in taxes.
In 115 the great revolt of the Jews of Egypt, Cyrene, andCyprus occurred (see *Trajan). The revolt was immediately
crushed in Alexandria, by Marcus Rutilius Lupus, but it continued in the chora with the help of the Jews of *Cyrene (incenters as Thebes, Faiyum, and Athribis). Marcius Turbo wassent by the emperor to deal with the situation, and crushed
the revolt in 117. Much of Alexandria was destroyed and therevolt resulted in the virtual annihilation of Egyptian Jewry.
From that time on Jews almost vanish from the chora. In Alexandria the great synagogue was destroyed, large tracts ofJewish-owned land in Heracleapolis and Oxyrhynchus wereconfiscated, and Jewish courts were suspended. The causes of
the revolt suggested are the antisemitism of the local Greeks,
and the “messianic” movement centered around *Lucuas ofCyrene. The revolt spelled the end of Jewish life in Egypt fora long time. From 117 to 300 only a few Jewish names occur
among the peasants in the chora.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6229

From the End of the Second Temple Period to the
Muslim Conquest
The defeat suffered by the Jews, both in Ereẓ Israel under Bar
Kokhba and in the quelling of the rebellion in Egypt during
the years 116–117 C.E. almost crushed the Jewish communities
in Egypt, especially in Alexandria. The evidence from the papyri of the presence of a large, cohesive community in Egypt,
found rather abundantly before 70 C.E, diminishes, until after
the year 200 C.E. it becomes almost negligible. The territory of
Egypt was still a marked battleground for imperial ambitions
and rebellions during this later period of the Roman Empire.
The revolt of the Βουκολοι (herdsmen) and its aftermath, finally settled by the emperor Septimus Severus (194 C.E.), left
the country with its agriculture almost ruined and burdenedwith heavy taxes. During the latter half of the third century
Egypt was again racked with internal dispute. Finally, Diocletian brought a period of relative peace to the land, reorganizing the territory into three, and later four, provinces. The later
history of Egypt under the Byzantine emperors is closely tied
up with the growth and predominance there of hitherto persecuted Christianity.
Centered as it was in Alexandria, Christianity in Egypt
inherited some of the classical antisemitism of the city. Clement of Alexandria mentions (Stromata, 3:63; 2:45.5) the factthat there existed in the primitive church there two “Gospels,”
an “Egyptian Gospel” and a “Hebrew Gospel” – evidence ofthe dichotomy in the early church between gentile and Jewish Christianity, the latter being characterized in Egypt by a
Gnostic tendency. By 150 C.E., however, both Orthodox and
Gnostic Christianity found themselves allied with regard to
the Jews. Basilides, an Alexandrian Gnostic at the end of thesecond century, tried to stress in Gnostic terms that Christianity is to be completely dissociated from its Jewish ancestry. An early work called the Epistle of Barnabas (c. 135 C.E.)
argued for the abrogation by God of the Old Covenant (OldegyptTestament) and the preference for an allegorical and “spiritual” interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures, a tendency later
adopted by Clement of Alexandria and the exegetical schoolof the Alexandrian, *Origen (d. 253 C.E.). Another early work,
found only in citations, the Kerygma Petrou, accused the Jewsof angel and star worship.
Some of the knowledge of the Jews in these times is derived from Christian sources. The martyrologies of the time,
as a matter of style, brought in the Jews as the accusers. Generally though, as Baron reports (Social2, 2 (1952), 188), the early
Christians got along with their Jewish neighbors. Indeed, toward 300 C.E., Jewish names begin to appear more frequently
in the papyri, giving witness to a renewal of activity. There areeven some Hebrew fragments found at Oxyrhynchus which
speak of rashei (“heads”), benei (“members”), and ziknei (“elders”) of the keneset (“the community”; Cowley, Journal of
Egyptian Archaeology, 2 (1915), 209ff.). An interesting featureof the Greek papyri of this period is the appearance of thename “Sambathion” among both Jews and non-Jews, giving
testimony to the great respect given the Sabbath among theEgyptians (for a fuller discussion cf. Tcherikover, Corpus, 3(1964), 43–56). It is true that the Jews did support the Ariansin their disputes with orthodox Christianity, and patristic literature placed the Jews together with the heretics and pagans
as the hated enemies of the church. This attitude later became
codified into law by the Codices of the emperors Theodosius
and Justinian. A pogrom and expulsion of the Jews from Alexandria by the patriarch Cyril occurred in 415 C.E. Whether
or not this expulsion was fully carried out is still a moot point,since later Christian literature points to the fact that Jews werestill living there (M. Chaine, in Mélanges de la Faculté orientale de l’Université Saint-Joseph, Beyrouth, 6 (1913), 493ff.). The
Persian conquest seemed to be especially helpful to the Jews
in Egypt, since they were able to receive those Jews persecutedin Syria by the emperor Heraclius. The Arab conquest in 632
saw the beginning of a new regime.

Jews settled in the principal Egyptian cities and establishedcommunities with their own synagogue and bet din. They also
maintained a close relationship with the academies in theircountry of origin. Students traveled there to study, and religious and judicial queries were addressed to the heads of theBabylonian academies. The Palestinian and Syrian Jews who
settled in Egypt acted in the same manner. They established
Palestinian communities and synagogues, and they recognized
the heads of the Palestinian academies, to whom they gave
their material support, as their spiritual leaders. The activities of Saadiah Gaon prove the presence of large numbers of*Karaites in Egypt at the time. It seems that during the ninth
and tenth centuries, there was still a variety of sects in Egypt.
The work Kitāb al-Anwār wa-al-Marāqib (“The Book of Lights
and Watch Towers”) by al-*Kirkisānī, in 936 (L. Nemoy (ed.),
1 (1939), 12), mentions a sect which observed Sunday as a dayof rest instead of Saturday. Members of this sect lived on thebank of the Nile, some 20 miles from Fostat (Bacher, in: JQR,
7 (1894/95) 704).

Arab Period
There is little information available concerning the conditionof the Jews from the Arab conquest in 640 until the end of thetenth century. In Fostat, founded by the conqueror of Egypt,ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ , a relatively large community was established,
while the Jewish population probably also grew in other Egyptian cities. Ahmad ibn Ṭ ūlūn (ninth century), the first independent ruler of Egypt under the Muslims, seems to have favored the Jews. The historian al-Masʿūdī relates that he had a
Jewish physician. Documents found in the Cairo *Genizah of
Fostat give evidence of the commercial ties between the Jews
of Egypt and those of *Kairouan (Tunisia) during the second half of the tenth century. The Jews of Egypt also renewed
their relations with the major academies of Babylonia. It issignificant for the high standard of Jewish learning in Egypt
itself that *Saadiah Gaon (born in Faiyum in 882) acquired
his widespread culture there. At that time many Babylonian

THE *FATIMIDS. A change in the condition of the Jews
occurred with the conquest of the country by the Fatimids
in 969. After the conquest by this dynasty of Shiʿites which
was in rivalry with the *Abbasīd caliphs, Egypt became thecenter of a vast and powerful kingdom, which, at the endof the tenth century, included almost all of North Africa,*Syria, and *Palestine. The union of all these countries broughta period of prosperity in industry and commerce from which
the Jews also benefited. Of even greater importance was thecharacteristically tolerant attitude adopted by the Fatimids
toward non-Muslim communities. They did not insist on
the observance of the decrees of discrimination, such as thewearing of a distinctive sign on the garments; they permitted
the construction and repair of non-Muslim houses of prayer,
and they even accorded financial support to the academies
in Palestine. In the court of al-Muʿizz (d. 975) and his son
al-ʿAzīz (975–996), a Jew converted to Islam, Yaʿqūb *Ibn Killis, occupied an important position and was finally appointed
vizier. He was the first to hold this post under the reignof the Fatimids in Egypt. There were also Jewish physiciansin the service of al-Muʿizz. The third Fatimid caliph, al-Ḥ ākim(996–1020), founder of the *Druze sect and a controversial
personality, departed from the policy of tolerance toward
non-Muslims, which was characteristic of his dynasty, during the second half of his reign. At first, he ordered that theChristians and Jews mark their clothes with the ghiyār (“distinctive sign”; see Jewish *Badge); later, he issued orders for thedestruction of their houses of prayer. He also prohibited
Christians and Jews from riding horses and purchasing slaves
and maidservants. Many Christians and Jews converted to Islam in order to escape these degrading decrees, while others
emigrated to different countries, such as Yemen and *Byzantium. However, after some time, al-Ḥ ākim revoked his decrees and authorized the converts to return to their former
religion.

230

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Evasio de Marcellis]

egyptIn 1036 the grandson of al-Ḥ ākim, al-Mustanṣ ir, ascended to the throne. A Jewish merchant, who had previously sold al-Mustanṣ ir’s mother to the caliph al-Ẓ āhir, thenwielded much influence in the court. This merchant Abu
Saʿd (in Hebrew, Abraham b. Yashar) was also named “alTustari” after his city of origin in Persia. He and his brother,
Abu Naṣ r Ḥ esed, endeavored to protect their coreligionists
by all available means. According to one opinion, Abu Saʿdand his brother were Rabbanites, while according to anotherthey were *Karaites. In 1047 Abu Saʿd was killed, as was his
brother, Abu Naṣ r, some time later. The economic stratification of Egyptian Jewry during the Fatimid period was very diversified. According to the lists of taxpayers and of charitable
donators (such as the one published by E. Strauss in Zion, 7(1941/42), 142ff.), the majority were engaged in various trades
and a minority in commerce. At that time, the transit tradeof products from India and the Far East became an important source of income in Egypt and the Jews played an activerole in this commerce. The Fatimid government encouragedthese commercial ties with India and protected the seaways
and overland routes. The friendly attitude of the Fatimids was
also expressed by the granting of a large degree of autonomy
to the merchants.
At the beginning of their rule, the office of *nagid wasestablished. The first nagid seems to have been a physician in
the service of the caliph al-Muʿizz. In later generations, theoffice of nagid was also filled by men employed in the court,
especially as court physicians. The Fatimid dynasty began toweaken at the end of the 11t century, but the condition of theJews did not worsen. A Jewish family which during several
generations produced scholars and physicians held high positions at the royal court at that time. Judah b. Saadiah wasprobably court physician and from 1065 acted as nagid. He
was followed by his younger brother *Mevorakh, who wasalso court physician and nagid from 1079–1110. During his
period of office *David b. Daniel b. Azariah, a scion of a family of Babylonian exilarchs, arrived in Egypt. David made aneffort to secure the leadership of the Jewish population andsucceeded in deposing Mevorakh for a short while. Moses, theelder son of Mevorakh, was nagid from 1110–1140. At that period a Christian favorite of the regent al-Afḍ al endeavored toremove the Jews from government service (see Neubauer, in
JQR, 9 (1896/97), 29–30). Fragments from the *Genizah mention another enemy who plotted against the Jews until Yakhin
b. Nethanel, who was influential in the royal court, succeededin saving them. On the other hand, *Abu al-Munajjā, one of
the Jewish courtiers, was responsible for the administration of
the “Eastern” province. In the middle of the 12t century *Samuel b. Hananiah was court physician. He was a distinguishedscholar and also acted as nagid from 1142 to 1159. His poems
in honor of his guest, *Judah Halevi, are well known.
During this period the Jews of Egypt prospered in every sphere. *Benjamin of Tudela, who was in Egypt in c. 1171,
gives much information concerning the prevailing conditionsin the communities he visited. On the basis of his informa-tion and other relevant data, the number of Jews in Egypt atthat time has been estimated at between 12,000 and 20,000(see Neustadt-Ayalon in Zion, 2 (1937), 221; Ashtor, in JQR, 50(1959/60), 60 and JJS, 18 (1967), 9–42; 19 (1968), 1–22). Afterthe death of Samuel b. Hananiah, there was a crisis within the
Jewish community of Egypt. An ambitious individual named*Zuta, who succeeded in being appointed nagid for a shortwhile during the lifetime of Samuel b. Hananiah, exploited
his connections to secure the office for a second time, after
Samuel’s death, and later a third time. As a result of Zuta’s activities, the prestige attached to the office of nagid declined
and for a long time there was no new appointment. At thattime the heads of the Fostat academy became the leading authorities of Egyptian Jewry; an academy had existed in Fostat
from at least the end of the tenth century. During the reign ofal-Ḥ ākim the academy in the Egyptian capital was headed by*Shemariah b. Elhanan, who had studied in Babylonia in his
youth. He was succeeded by his son, *Elhanan b. Shemariah.
During the first half of the 12t century, *Maẓ li’aḥ b. Solomon
Ha-Kohen, a member of the family of the Palestinian academy heads, arrived in Egypt. He founded an academy in Fostat, whose leaders were referred to as geonim. They appointed
dayyanim and gave authority to their activities. The authorityof these geonim was recognized even outside Egypt, especiallyin South Arabia and *Aden. In the early 1150s Abu Saʿīd Joshuab. Dosa headed the academy in Fostat.
With the end of the Fatimid dynasty, orthodox Islam
again became the official religion in Egypt. Saladin (Salāḥ
al-Dīn) and his successors made their religiosity conspicuous and, among other actions, Saladin renewed the discriminatory decrees against the non-Muslim communities. However, both he and his successors were by no means fanaticaland they did not persecute non-Muslims. His successors, the*Ayyubids, who reigned in Egypt until 1250, followed the same
policy. Communal life was well organized and cultural activities were maintained. During this period a number of scholars
from Christian countries settled in Egypt and took an active
part in the communal life. They included *Anatoli b. Joseph
and Joseph b. Gershon from France, who became dayyanim
in Alexandria. Moses *Maimonides spent most of his life in
Cairo, where he played a leading role in the life of the community. His son, *Abraham b. Moses, acted officially as nagid
after the death of his father in 1205 until his own death in 1237.
He had an independent mind and was also a halakhic authority, as can be seen from the numerous legal questions whichwere addressed to him.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

231

THE MAMLUKS. In the middle of the 13t century the *Mamluks came to power in Egypt. The entire political regime waschanged and a decisive change in the condition of the Jews
also took place. These rulers were the leaders of the foreign
Turkish soldiery of which the army was exclusively composed,
and they tried to enhance their position and to curry favorwith the Muslim native population by emphasizing their piety
and by introducing a series of measures directed against theegyptnon-Muslim communities. The first Mamluks declared total
war against the Crusaders. They found it necessary to encourage religious fervor in order to succeed in their efforts. Thus,
the Mamluk rule was accompanied by a series of decrees andpersecutions against the Christians and Jews, which continued until the Mamluks were deposed by the Ottomans. The
ancient discriminatory laws were brought back into prominence and new ones were also instituted. These activities
were primarily directed against the Copts, the most powerful
non-Muslim community in the Mamluk kingdom, but evenso the Jews suffered considerably. On the other hand, Jewish
communal organization in Egypt was not abolished and its
autonomy was mostly maintained. The decrees against nonMuslims were introduced during the first generation of theMamluk rule. In 1290 Sultan Qalāwūn issued an order which
prohibited the employment of Jews and Christians in government and ministerial departments. This order was reissued
during the reign of his son and successor, al-Malik al-Ashraf
Khalīl (1290–1293).
In 1301 there was a large-scale persecution. The Christians were compelled to cover their turbans with a blue cloth,
the Jews with a yellow one, and the Samaritans with a red one.
The authorities renewed the prohibition of riding horses andalso forbade the building of houses higher than those of the
Muslims. On this occasion the Jewish and Christian houses ofprayer in *Cairo were closed down. In 1354 there was an evengraver persecution. The cause for it was again attributed by
Arab historians to the haughtiness of the Christian officials.
There were attacks on non-Muslims in the streets of Cairo andthe government instituted a severe control over the habits ofMuslim converts. At that time the economic situation of theJews took a turn for the worse; under the Mamluks the system
of monopolies was consolidated. Private industry was generally ruined and the commerce of spices, the most importantpart of Egypt’s external trade, was taken over by the monopolized “Kārimī” merchant company in which only a few members were Jews. During this period the Jewish population was
led by negidim of Maimonides’ family. Maimonides’ grandson,
R. *David b. Abraham, was nagid from 1238 to 1300. In various
documents the negidim are referred to as heads of academies
but the exact nature of the academy is in question. During thesecond half of the 13t century, the literary activities of Egyptian Jewry continued to flourish, as in the Fatimid and Ayyubid periods. *Tanḥ um ha-Yerushalmi, the well-known Bible
commentator, and his son *Joseph, a competent Hebrew poet,
lived in Egypt at this time.
At the end of the 14t century, a second dynasty of theMamluks, the Cherkess, came to power. The Mamluk rule thenincreased in violence and the anti-Jewish and anti-Christiandecrees grew in frequency. The oppression and extortions of
the sultans were severer than in former times. There often wereinternal conflicts within this Mamluk faction, and as a result
the soldiers, unrestrained, rioted in the streets and attacked
the citizens. In order to appease the embittered people, thesultans issued a multitude of decrees against the non-Mus-lims. While the first sultan of the Cherkess Mamluks, Barqūq(1382–1399), as well as his son and successor Faraj (1399–1412),
acted leniently toward the non-Muslims, the third sultan, alMuʾayyad Sheikh, oppressed the non-Muslims by various
means. The discriminatory decrees were renewed, and there
were searches for wine in the non-Muslim quarters. During
the reign of the Cherkess Mamluks the autonomous organization of the communities in Egypt remained unharmed andas previously, they were led as before by the negidim. The lastof Maimonides’ descendants to act as nagid was R. *David b.
Joshua. For reasons that are not known R. David was compelled to leave Egypt in the 1370s. He was replaced by a man
named *Amram. At the end of the Mamluk period, Egyptian
Jewry was led by the negidim R. Nathan *Sholal and his relative R. Isaac *Sholal, who emigrated to Palestine after the conquest of Egypt by the Ottomans.
The travelers Meshullam of Volterra, who arrived in
Egypt in 1481, and R. Obadiah of *Bertinoro, who came there
seven years later, provided information about the size of thecommunities in the descriptions of their travels. The numbers
which are found in their writings emphasize the decrease in
the Jewish population, which was concomitant with the general depopulation and was partly a result of the oppression
under Mamluk rule. According to Meshullam there were 650
families, as well as 150 Karaite and 50 Samaritan families, inCairo, 50 families in Alexandria, 50 in Bilbeis, and 20 in alKhānqā. Obadiah mentions 500 families in Cairo, besides 150
Karaite and 50 Samaritan families, 25 families in Alexandria,
and 30 in Bilbeis. From this it can be deduced that there wasprobably a total of 5,000 persons in all the communities visited by the two travelers. By then the immigration of Spanish Jewry to the oriental countries had begun. Even before
the expulsion, groups of forced converts arrived in Egypt.
Immediately after the expulsion, the Jews who had not converted arrived and the Jewish population in Egypt increased.
In those centers where an important number of newcomers
settled separate communities were established. The arrival of
the Spanish immigrants had a beneficial effect on the cultural
life of Egyptian Jewry. Their numbers included scholars ofrenown who engaged in educational activities and who wereappointed as dayyanim. Among the scholars who arrived in
Egypt during the first generation after the Spanish expulsion
were R. *Samuel ibn Sid, who was a member of the bet din of
the nagid in 1509, R. Jacob *Berab, who is mentioned in a document of 1513 as a dayyan of this same bet din, and R. Samuelha-Levi *Ḥ akim, who was a prominent halakhic authority andacted as dayyan at the beginning of the 16t century in Cairo.
The negidim welcomed the Spanish refugees.

232

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

THE OTTOMAN TURKS. When Egypt was conquered by the
Ottomans in 1517, there was a decisive turn in the history of thecountry and the Jews living there. A wide choice of commercial possibilities was offered to the Jewish merchants, as wellas an introduction to a variety of other trades. At the heightof their power, the Ottomans were very tolerant and the Jews

egyptheld key positions in the financial administration and in thecollection of taxes and customs duties. Almost all the Turkish
commissioners and governors who were sent to Egypt turned
over the responsibility of the financial administration to Jewish agents, who were known as ṣ arrāf-bashi (“chief treasurer”).
It is evident that the agents greatly profited by holding these
positions. After two generations of prosperity, the politicaland economic decline of the *Ottoman empire manifested
itself and affected the rank and file of the Jewish population
who sank into poverty and ignorance. Thus, Ottoman rulecaused a distinct polarization in the status of Egyptian Jewry.
The corruption of the governors, who were often replaced andwhose ambition was to enrich themselves or to rebel against
the sultan in Constantinople, and their acts of violence, extortion, and cruelty brought suffering on the Jews. One of the first
Turkish governors, Ahmad Pasha, who was appointed in 1523,
extorted a large contribution from Abraham *Castro, directorof the mint. He then ordered him to mint coins carrying his
name, as if he were an independent ruler. When the Jewish official fled to Constantinople, Ahmad imposed an enormous
contribution on the Jews, who were fearful of his vengeanceif they did not provide the sum by the appointed time. However, on the day of payment, Ahmad Pasha was killed by soldiers loyal to the sultan and the anniversary was thereafter celebrated as *Purim Miẓ̣ rayim (“Purim of Egypt,” i.e., Cairo).
In 1545 the governor Dāʾud Pasha ordered the closureof the central synagogue of Cairo. All the efforts to obtain its
reopening were in vain; the synagogue remained closed until
1584. After the conquest of Egypt by the Turks, Jews of Constantinople were sent to Egypt to act as negidim. The first ofthem was R. Tājir, who was followed by R. *Jacob b. Ḥ ayyim
Talmid. When this nagid came to Egypt, a dispute broke out
between him and R. Bezalel Ashkenazi, who was then theleading rabbi in Egypt. As a result of this dispute, the office ofnagid came to an end in about 1560. From then onward theJewish finance minister in the service of the governor wasrecognized as the leader of the Jewish community in Egypt.
He was referred to by the Turkish title of chelebi (çelebi =“gentleman”). Many of these Jewish ministers were executedby despotic governors. Masiah Pasha, who was appointed in
1575, chose Solomon *Alashkar, a well-known philanthropist
whose efforts were directed toward the amelioration of Jewish education among the Jews of Egypt, as chelebi. His activities continued for many years, until Karīm Hussein Pasha executed him in 1603.
The standard of Jewish learning improved with the arrival of the expelled Spanish Jews. During the first generationof the Turkish rule, the leading rabbi in Egypt was R. *Davidb. Solomon ibn Abi Zimra. He instituted several regulationsin the Jewish communal life, and, among others, he abolishedthe system of dating documents according to the Seleucid
era, which was still in practice in Egypt. In the 1520s the renowned halakhic authority R. Moses b. Isaac *Alashkar also
lived in Egypt, where he acted as dayyan. However, he emigrated to Palestine and died in Jerusalem in 1542. Later Davidb. Solomon Abi Zimra also emigrated to Palestine and Bezalel
Ashkenazi became the spiritual leader of Egypt’s Jewish communities. During the second half of the 16t century, R. Jacob*Castro was the most prominent Egyptian rabbi. These rabbis
acted as dayyanim, gave responsa, and educated distinguishedpupils. R. Isaac *Luria, the famous kabbalist, was one of Bezalel Ashkenazi’s pupils.
The Jews of Cairo and Alexandria were at that time divided into three communities – the Mustaʿrabim (Arabicspeaking i.e., indigenous Jews), the Spanish (immigrants),
and the Mograbim (settlers of North African, Maghreb origin). There were occasional disputes between the communities and the rabbis and communal leaders exerted themselves
to restore peace.
During the 17t and 18t centuries, the Ottoman government became harsher and the upper class of wealthy Jews, whowere employed by the governors and ministers, suffered especially. About 1610 the position of chelebi was filled by Abba
Iscandari, a physician and philanthropist. In 1620 with the arrival of a new governor, the Albanian (“Arnaut”) Husain, theMuslim enemies of the chelebi, jealous of his wealth, slanderedhim before the governor and he was executed. Jacob Tivoli replaced him as chelebi until he was executed by Khalīl Pasha.
In 1650, when Silihdar Ahmad Pasha was appointed governorof Egypt, he brought with him Ḥ ayyim Perez, a Jew, whom heappointed chelebi. In the same year natural catastrophes and aplague occurred in Egypt; the sultan summoned the commissioner and the chelebi to Constantinople and had them both
executed. A year later another governor, Muhammad Ghāzī
Pasha, was sent to Egypt. He appointed Jacob Bibas as chelebi,
but after a time became jealous of his wealth, killed him withhis own hands and buried him in the garden of his palace. In
1661 the governor Ibrāhīm Pasha appointed the exceedingly
wealthy Raphael b. Joseph Hin as his chelebi. The latter actively supported *Shabbetai Ẓ evi, the pseudo-messiah, who
had visited Cairo twice. In 1669 Karākūsh Ali Pasha was appointed governor of Egypt, became jealous of Raphael Hin’s
wealth, accused him of various crimes, and had him publicly
executed. The title of chelebi was then abolished and the Jewish agent of the Egyptian governor, who stood at the headof his community, was henceforth known as bazīrkān (fromPersian bāzargān “merchant”). In 1734–35, a serious popularriot killed many of Cairo’s Jewish community which, as a result, became much less effective in Egypt’s administration andeconomy. The severity of Ottoman rule and the economic decline lowered the cultural level of Egyptian Jewry. During thisperiod the community ceased to be led by renowned rabbis, asin the 16t century, even though some of them were excellent
talmudic scholars such as Abraham Iscandari, Samuel *Vital,
the son of R. Ḥ ayyim *Vital, *Mordecai ha-Levi, and his son
Abraham during the 17t century, and Solomon Algazi during the 18t century. Nevertheless, the Shabbatean movement
brought some activity to the stagnant community. In 1703 theShabbatean propagandist Abraham Michael *Cardoso settled
in Egypt, where he became physician to the Turkish governor

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6233

egyptKarā Ahmad Pasha. At times scholars and authors came to
Egypt from other countries and acted as dayyanim and rabbis
for a number of years. Such was the case of David *Conforte,author of Kore ha-Dorot who came in 1671.
The transition from an Ottoman province to a virtuallyindependent unity was accompanied by a difficult struggle
during which Jews also suffered considerably. In 1768 when
Turkey became embroiled in war with Russia, Ali Bey, the governor of Cairo, proclaimed himself the independent governorof Egypt. He also made an effort to impose his authority on
Palestine, Syria, and the Arabian Peninsula. In order to provide for the tremendous expenses of his wars, he levied a heavy
contribution on the Jews, which they were compelled to pay
within a short period (see Ben-Ze’ev in Zion (1939), 237–49).
The reforms of *Muhammad (Mehmet) Ali (1805–1848) andlater the opening of the Suez Canal (1863) brought a new prosperity to commerce and the other branches of the Egyptian
economy. As a result of the changes in all spheres of life, theJewish population grew. Jews from European countries settled
in Egypt and schools where education was dispensed alongmodern lines were introduced. Alexandria again became acommercial center and its Jewish community expanded until
it was equal to that of Cairo. The census of 1897 showed that
there were 25,200 Jews in the country. Of these, 8,819 (including approximately 1,000 Karaites) lived in Cairo, 9,831
in Alexandria, 2,883 in *Tanta, 400 in Port Said, and 508 in
al-*Manṣ ūra. There were also small communities in otherprovincial towns, numbering a total of 4,600 Jews. The immigrants from European countries founded their own communities, even though they recognized the authority of the
rabbis of the existing ones. Thus, in the middle of the 19t century there were communities of Italian and Eastern European
Jews in Alexandria, while in Cairo the immigrants from Italy
and Turkey united in one community. The relations between
Muslims and Jews were normal and there were only rare casesof disturbances resulting from religious hate. In 1844 there wasa blood libel against the Jews of Cairo and this was repeatedin 1881 and in 1901–1902. In 1840, after the blood libel of *Damascus, Moses *Montefiore and Adolphe *Crémieux came to
Egypt and established Jewish schools in cooperation with R.
Moses *Algazi. In Alexandria, rabbis who distinguished themselves by their western education were appointed, and social
activities were encouraged in the community. The numericalincrease, the improvement of cultural standards, and the development of social activities continued throughout the firsthalf of the 20t century.
After World War I Sephardi Jews from *Salonika andother Ottoman towns, as well as Jews from other countries,
settled in Egypt. According to the census of 1917 there were59,581 Jews in Egypt, of which 29,207 lived in Cairo, and in1937 their numbers reached 63,550, of which 34,103 lived ingreater Cairo and 24,829 in Greater Alexandria. With the improvements in the economic and intellectual standards, theJews took an active part in public life. Some financiers wereappointed as members of Parliament and ministers. Joseph*Cattaui was a member of parliament in 1915 and minister offinances and communications in 1923 (the year Egypt became
officially independent), and Aslan Cattaui was a member of
the Senate during the 1930s. Some, such as Yaʿqūb (James)*Ṣ anūʿ, had even been associated with the Egyptian nationalist movement. On the other hand, Zionist organizations werecreated at the end of the 19t century in the larger towns suchas Cairo, Alexandria, Manṣ ūra, *Suez, *Damanhūr, and alMaḥ alla al-Kubrā. As a result of the expulsion of large numbers of Palestinian Jews to Egypt during World War I, theattachment of Egyptian Jewry to the Palestinian populationand to the national movement strengthened. The reinforcement of Jewish consciousness found expression in the publication of Jewish newspapers in various languages. In 1880, a
Jewish weekly in Arabic, al-Ḥ aqīqa (“The Truth”), began toappear in Alexandria. In 1903, a weekly in Ladino, Miẓ rayim,
was founded in Cairo. From 1908 to 1941 a French weekly,
L’Aurore, appeared in Cairo, and in 1919 another weekly, Israël,was founded in Cairo. This newspaper was amalgamated in1939 with the Alexandria weekly La Tribune Juive, which was
first published in 1936. It appeared until 1948, as did the Arabic weekly al-Shams (“The Sun”), founded in 1934.

234

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Eliyahu Ashtor]

Contemporary Period
According to the Egyptian census of 1947, 65,600 Jews lived
in Egypt, 64 of them in Cairo, 32 in Alexandria, and therest in other towns. Egyptian Jewry was thus among the mosturban of the Jewish communities of Asia and Africa. In 1947
most Egyptian Jews (59) were merchants, and the rest were
employed in industry (18), administration, and public services (11). The economic situation of Egyptian Jewry was
relatively good; there were several multi-millionaires, a phenomenon unusual in other Jewish communities of the Middle East.
Most Egyptian Jews received some form of education,and there were fewer illiterates among them than in any other
Oriental community in Egypt then. This was due to the factthat Jews were concentrated in the two great cities with all
kinds of educational facilities. There were no restrictions on
accepting Jews in government or foreign schools. In November 1945 riots, organized by the “Young Egypt” group led byAḥ mad Ḥ usayn, ended in attacks on the Cairo Jewish quarter. A synagogue, a Jewish quarter hospital, and an old-age
home were burned down and many Jews injured or killed.
This was the first disturbance of its kind in the history of independent Egypt.
The year 1947 was the beginning of the end of the Egyptian Jewish community, for in that year the Companies’ Law
was instituted, which required that not less than 75 of employees of companies in Egypt must be Egyptian citizens. The
law affected Jews most of all, since only about 20 of themwere Egyptian citizens. The rest, although in many cases bornin Egypt and living there for generations, were aliens or stateless persons. After the State of Israel was established, perse-egyptcution of Jews began became more severe. On May 15, 1948,
emergency law was declared, and a royal decree forbade Egyptian citizens to leave the country without a special permit.
This was applied to Jews. Hundreds of Jews were arrested andmany had their property confiscated. In June through August
1948, bombs were planted in Jewish neighborhoods and Jewish
businesses looted. About 250 Jews were killed or wounded by
the bombs. In 1949, when the consular law courts which tried
foreign citizens were abolished, many Jews were affected. The
condition of the Jews gradually worsened until, in July 1949,
the new government headed by Ḥ usayn Sirrī Pasha began torelease detainees and return some of the frozen Jewish assets
which had been confiscated, also allowing some Jews to leave
Egypt, In January 1950, when the Wafd government underNuqrāshī Pasha was overthrown, all Jewish detainees werereleased and the rest of their property restored to them. The
condition of the Jews slightly improved, although they wereforced to donate large sums of money to the soldiers’ fund,and leaders of the community were coerced into publishing adeclaration against the State of Israel. During the anti-British
riots on Black Saturday (January 26, 1952), many foreign citizens were injured, and the loss of Jewish property on that day
was estimated at EL9,000,000 ($25,000,000). About 25,000
Jews left Egypt between 1948 and 1950, some 14,000 of themsettling in Israel. When persecution lessened, Jewish emigration decreased.
After the deposition of King Farouk in July 1952, the new
government headed by General Muhammad Naguib was favorably inclined toward Jews, but when Naguib was overthrown and *Nasser seized power in February 1954 there wasa change for the worse. Nasser immediately arrested many
Jews who were tried on various charges, mainly for Zionist
and communist activities. In 1954 about 100 Jews were arrested, but most attention was attracted by the trial of the 13
charged with being members of an Israel intelligence network.
Two of those charged died, and Moses Leo *Marzuk, a Karaite
surgeon and Samuel Bekhor Azar, a teacher, were sentenced

to death, while the rest were condemned to various terms ofimprisonment (see. *Cairo Trial).
Arrests of Jews continued. They were also forced to
donate money to arm the military forces, Chief Rabbi Haim
*Nahoum explaining that it was a national duty. In addition, strict supervision of Jewish enterprises was introduced;
some were confiscated and others forcibly sold to the government.
Immediately after the Sinai Campaign (November 1956),
hundreds of Jews were arrested. About 3,000 were interned
without charge in four detention camps. At the same time,
the government served notice on thousands of Jews to leave
the country within a few days, and they were not allowed tosell their property, nor to take any capital with them. The deportees were made to sign statements agreeing not to returnto Egypt and transferring their property to the administrationof the government. The International Red Cross helped about
8,000 stateless Jews to leave the country, taking most of themto Italy and Greece in chartered boats. Most of the Jews ofPort Said (about 100) were smuggled to Israel by Israel agents.
The system of deportation continued into 1957. Other Jews left
voluntarily, after their livelihoods had been taken from them,
until only 8,561 were registered in the 1957 census. Most ofthem lived in Cairo (65.3) and Alexandria (32.2). The Jewish exodus continued until there were about 3,000 in 1967 ofwhom only about 50 were Ashkenazim, since most membersof this community had left or been deported.
With the outbreak of the Six-Day War in June 1967 thefew remaining Jewish officials holding public posts were discharged and hundreds of Jews were arrested. They were beaten,
tortured, and abused. Some were released following intervention by foreign states, especially Spain, and were permitted toleave the country. Among the detainees were the chief rabbi of
Egypt, R. Ḥ ayyim Duwayk, and the rabbi of Alexandria, whowere held for seven months. Several dozen Jews were heldin detention until July 1970. Less than 1,000 Jews still lived
in Egypt in 1970, when they were given permission to leave
Egypt but without their possessions. Subsequently, only somefour hundred Jews (1971) remained in Egypt. Thirty-five thousand Egyptian Jews live in Israel and there are about 15,000 in
Brazil, 10,000 in France, 9,000 in the United States, 9,000 in
Argentina, and 4,000 in Great Britain.
Egypt was the only Arab country in which the Zionist
shekel was clandestinely distributed for the Zionist Congressof 1951 after the establishment of the State of Israel. There wasa well-developed Zionist underground movement in Egypt,
and some of its members were arrested. After the mass exodus from Egypt, most of the synagogues, social welfare organizations and Jewish schools were closed; the Jewish newspaper, La Menora (published in French and edited by Jacques
Maleh from February 1950 to May 1953), was closed down after Maleh had been deported. The Jewish representatives in
the Senate and the House of Representatives (Aslan *Cattaui
and his brother René) lost their seats. The Cairo and Alexandrian communities had official committees, but there was no

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6235

M

R R A N E A N
I T E
E D

S E A

Port Said
Alexandria¯
Damanhural-Mahalla
al-Kubrā.

al-Mansura.¯

Tantā. .
¯ Ghamr
Mit
Ismailiyya
Zifta¯¯
Zaqaziq
Banhā

Cairo

Suez

Map 2. Main Jewish communities in Egypt at the end of the 19th century.

egypt, brook ofnationwide organization, the chief rabbi of Cairo simply being recognized as the chief rabbi of Egypt.
The peace negotiations between Israel and Egypt broughtsome information and a certain renewed activity with regard
to the small Jewish community remaining in Cairo. The total
number of Jews in Egypt was approximately 400, and it wasan aging community.
There was only one synagogue in Cairo, the 70-year-old
Shaarei Ha-Shamayim synagogue, normally attended by ahandful of old men and women. There was no rabbi, the last
having left in 1972. In December 1977 over 120 persons, Israeli
citizens and Jewish journalists who had come to cover thepeace talks in Cairo, attended the services. The members of
the Israeli delegation were unable to attend, but they attended
the services the following Friday night. There was also a synagogue in Alexandria, the Eliyahu Ha-Navi synagogue. With
only 150 Jews remaining in the city they succeeded with difficulty in holding services on Sabbaths and Festivals only.
In May 1977, at the request of Lord Segal of Wytham,
11 scrolls of the Torah from the Great Synagogue of Alexandria – of the 50 in the synagogue – were sent to Great Britain
through the good offices of President Anwar *Sadat.
Jewish rights were restored in 1979 after the Camp David
Peace Accords. Only then was the community allowed to establish ties with Israel and World Jewry. However, these ties
remained weak, despite Israeli tourism to Egypt, because thecommunity is almost extinct.
Egypt was one of the Arab countries that invaded Israel
upon its establishment in May 1948. After the defeat of theEgyptian forces, an Armistice Agreement was signed between
the two states at Rhodes on Feb. 24, 1949; however, Egypt still
regarded itself as at war with Israel, and there was no improvement in the relations after the Egyptian officers’ 1952 revolution and the accession to power first of Muhammad Naguib
and, later, of Gamal Abdel *Nasser. Egypt participated in the
Arab economic *boycott of Israel, did not permit passage of
Israel shipping and cargoes to and from Israel through theSuez Canal, and obstructed the passage of Israel shippingand cargoes to and from Israel through the Straits of *Tiran.
It occupied the *Gaza Strip after the 1948 war and encouraged
an increase in armed infiltration and sabotage against Israel
beginning in 1955, which led to the Sinai Campaign (October–November 1956). After the Sinai Campaign and the stationing of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) in the
Gaza Strip and Sharm el-Sheikh, there was an almost complete cessation of fedayeen activity on the Gaza Strip-Sinai
border and no interference with shipping to the port of Eilat
until the withdrawal of the UNEF at Egyptian demand in May
1967, which was one of the factors that precipitated the SixDay War (June 1967). Throughout the period that followed
the Israel War of Independence, Egypt was the leading force
in Arab opposition to Israel and the threat to its existence. It
attacked Israel again in October 1973 (“the Yom Kippur War”)
and, although defeated, President Anwar Sādāt felt the war’s
results were honorable enough for Egypt to initiate a peace

process. The Camp David Peace Accords of November 1978
normalized relations between Israel and Egypt.
For subsequent political developments, see *Israel, State
of: Historical Survey; *Arab World.
Bibliography: Ancient Egypt: A.H. Gardiner, Egypt of
the Pharaohs (1961); J.A. Wilson, The Burden of Egypt (1951 = The
Culture of Ancient Egypt, 1958); J. Wilson (tr.), in: Pritchard, Texts,
passim. add. bibliography: M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian
Literature, vol. 1 (1973); J. Baines and J. Malek, Atlas of Ancient Egypt(1980); D.B. Redford, “Egypt and Western Asia in the Old Kingdom,” in: jarce, 23 (1986), 125–143; N. Grimal, A History of Ancient
Egypt (1992); K. Kitchen, “Egypt, History of (Chronology),” in: abd,
vol. 2 (1992), 321–31; D.B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times (1992); D. Franke, “The Middle Kingdom in Egypt,” in:J.M. Sasson (ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, vol. 2 (1995),
735–38; W.J. Murnane, in: ibid., 691ff; J. Assman, The Mind of Egypt:
History and Meaning in the Time of the Pharaohs, trans. Andrew Jenkins (1996); M. Bietak, “Hyksos,” in: D.B. Redford (ed.), The Oxford
Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, vol. 2 (2001), 136–43; W.J. Murnane,“New Kingdom: An Overview,” in: ibid., 519–25. HELLENISTIC PERIOD: Frey, Corpus 2, 356–445; Tcherikover, Corpus; idem, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (1961), index S.V. Egypt: E.R. Bevan, The
Legacy of Israel (1953), 29–67; idem, House of Ptolemy (1969); M. Radin, The Jews Among the Greeks and Romans (1915), index S.V. Egypt;Baron, Social2, index S.V. Egypt, Alexandria; J. Lindsay, Daily Life in
Roman Egypt (1968). FROM END OF SECOND TEMPLE TO MuSLiM
CONQUEST: Baron, Social2, 2 (1952), index; Graetz, Gesch 3 (1905–65),
index, S.V. Alexandrien, 4 (1908), index, S.V. Alexandrien. JEWS IN
EGYPT FROM ARAB AND OTTOMAN CONQUEST: Mann, Egypt;Mann, Texts; idem, in: HUCA, 3 (1926), 257–308; Rosanes, Togarmah; Zimmels, in: Bericht des juedisch-theologischen Seminars, Breslau (1932), 1–60; Neustadt, in: Zion, 2 (1937), 216–55; S. Assaf, ibid.,
121–4; idem, Be-Oholei Ya’akov (1943), 81–98; Noury Farhi, La Communauté juive d’Alexandrie (1946); Ashtor, Toledot; idem, in: HUCA,
27 (1956), 305–26; idem, in: Zion, 30 (1965), 61–78, 128–157; idem, in:
JJS, 18 (1967), 9–42; 19 (1968), 1–22; S.D. Goitein, in: JQR, 53 (1962/63),
93–119; idem, Studies in Islamic History and Institutions (1966), 255–95,
329–60; idem, A Mediterranean Society, 1–6 (1967–1993), passim;
Lewis, in: Eretz Israel, 7 (1964), 70–75 (Eng. pt.); idem, in: Bulletin of
the School of Oriental and African Studies, 30 (1967), 177–81; Abrahamson, Merkazim, passim; J.M. Landau, Ha-Yehudim be-Miẓ rayim(1967, Eng., Jews in Nineteenth Century Egypt, 1969); S. Shamir (ed.),The Jews of Egypt: a Mediterranean Society in Modern Times, (1987); N.
Robinson, in: J. Fried (ed.), Jews in the Modern World, 1 (1962), 50–90;
J.M. Landau, “Abū Naḍ ḍ āra an Egyptian Jewish Nationalist,” in: JJS,
3 (1952), 30–44; 5 (1954), 179–180; idem, “Ritual Murder Accusations
in Nineteenth-Century Egypt,” in: A. Dundes (ed.), The Blood Libel
Legend, 197–232; idem (ed.), Ha-Yehudim be-Miẓ rayim ha-ʿOthmanit
1517–1914 (1988); CONTEMPORARY PERIOD: D. Peretz, Egyptian Jewry
Today (1956). add. bibliography: J. Hassoun, Juifs du Nil (1981);
idem, Juifs d’Egypte; images et textes (1984); G. Kraemer, Minderheit,
Millet Nation? Die Jueden in Aegypten, 1914–1952 (1982) T. Mayer,
Egypt and the Palestine Question, 1936–1945 (1983); M.M. Laskier,
The Jews of Egypt, 1920–1970 (1992); V.D. Sanua, A Guide to Egyptian
Jewry in the Mid-Twentieth Century (2005).

236

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Hayyim J. Cohen / Jacob M. Landau (2nd ed.)]

EGYPT, BROOK OF (Heb. ‫נַ ַחל ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם‬, Naḥ al Miẓ rayim),
the natural border of the land of Canaan and the Kingdom of*Judah on the south and the southwest according to the Bible(Num. 34:5; Josh. 15:4; cf. II Chron. 7:8; Isa. 27:12; Ezek. 47:19;

ehrenburg, ilya grigoryevich
48:28). It is also described as the southern border of Solomon’s
kingdom: “from the entrance of *Hamath unto the Brookof Egypt” (I Kings 8:65) and the eastern extremity of Egypt(II Kings 24:7). Assyrian inscriptions of *Sargon and *Esarhaddon also refer to it as the Muṣ ur or Muṣ ri River. Its identification with Wadi el-Arish is found in the Septuagint (Isa.
27:12), which translates it “Rhinokoroura,” the Greek name of
the city near its mouth.
The river, about 150 mi. (240 km.) long, drains about
12,500 sq. mi. (32,500 sq. km.) in the northern part of the*Sinai Peninsula. It absorbs part of the heavy flood waters inundating it, and the area near its mouth is rich in wells.
Bibliography: Abel, Geog, 1 (1933), 301; Pritchard, Texts,
286, 290, 292; Aharoni, Land, index. Add. Bibliography: S. Ahituv, Joshua (1995), 243.
[Moshe Kochavi]

EḤ AD MI YODE’A (Heb. ‫“ ; ֶא ָחד ִמי יוֹ ֵד ַע‬Who Knows One?”),song incorporated in the Ashkenazi rite among the concluding
songs of the Passover *Haggadah, whose aim was “to keep thechildren awake” until the end of the seder (cf. Pes. 108b–109a).
The song consists of 13 stanzas, made up of questions (Whoknows One?.. Two?.. Three?.. etc.) and their corresponding answers. The reply to each succeeding question also repeats theprevious answers. The last verse reads: Who knows thirteen?
I know thirteen. Thirteen are the attributes of God; twelve thetribes of Israel; eleven the stars (in Joseph’s dream); ten theCommandments; nine the months of pregnancy; eight thedays of circumcision; seven the days of the week; six the booksof the Mishnah; five the books of the Torah; four the matriarchs (Sarah, Rebekah, Leah, and Rachel); three the patriarchs(Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob); two the tables of the Covenant;
One is our God in heaven and on earth. (Some Haggadot havesubstituted other answers for the eighth and ninth questions of
the traditional form. They read: nine are the Jewish holidays ofthe year, eight the Ḥ anukkah lights.) In some places the songis chanted responsively: one person, usually the leader of theseder, asks the questions, and the whole company answers,
each person responding as quickly as possible in an effort tofinish the answer first. Eḥ ad Mi Yode’a is first found in Haggadot of the 16t century and only in those of the Ashkenazi
ritual. Many scholars believed that it originated in Germanyin the 15t century. Perles showed its similarity to a popular
German pastoral song, “Guter Freund Ich Frage Dich” (oneof the “Hobelbanklied” German folk songs), the first stanza of
which ends with the same words as the Passover song. In fact,
the identical words of this line of the pastorale are given as
the German translation of the first answer of Eḥ ad Mi Yode’a
in many early Haggadot. The Christian theme of the original
was changed to one of Jewish content. Zunz discovered thatthe Hebrew song was used in Avignon as a festive table songchanted on other holidays as well, and Geiger noted other
German counterparts. Since then it has been found among
the liturgical music of Jews from Ceylon and Cochin, where
it forms part of their Sabbath songs for the entertainment of
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

bride and groom. Some scholars have even traced it to Greek
or English church songs and Scottish nursery songs.
Bibliography: D. Goldschmidt, Haggadah shel Pesaḥ , Mekoroteha ve-Toledoteha (1960), 98; C. Zibrt, Ohlas obradnich pisni …
(1928).

EHRENBERG, VICTOR LEOPOLD (1891–1976), German
historian. Born in Altona, Ehrenberg was professor of ancienthistory at the German University in Prague (1929–39). The
Nazi regime forced his immigration to Great Britain (1939),
where he was visiting lecturer at several universities, andfrom 1949 to 1957 lecturer and reader in ancient history at the
University of London. He was joint founder of the London
Classical Society and joint founder and editor of the journal
Historia. The bulk of Ehrenberg’s work was in ancient Greek
history. These include Neugruender des Staates (1925); Alexander und Aegypten (1926); and Alexander and the Greeks(1938). The People of Aristophanes (1943, 19512) is a sociological account of life in ancient Athens, based upon the surviving
works of old Attic comedy; Sophocles and Pericles (1954) deals
with the spiritual trends of the fifth century B.C.E.; From Solon to Socrates (1968) describes Greek civilization of the sixthand fifth centuries B.C.E. Many of his numerous articles weregathered in Aspects of the Ancient World (1946) and Polis undImperium (1965).
Bibliography: H. Schaefer, in: Historia, 10 (1961), 387–408(includes list of works); Ancient Society and Institutions, Studies Presented to Victor Ehrenberg on his 75t Birthday (1966). Add. Bibliography: P.R. Franke, “Victor Ehrenberg – Ein deutsches Gelehrtenschicksal,” in: R. Schneider (ed.), Juden in Deutschland (1994),
309ff.
[Irwin L. Merker]

EHRENBURG, ILYA GRIGORYEVICH (1891–1967), Soviet
Russian writer and journalist. Born to an assimilated middleclass Jewish family in Kiev and, with no ties to Jewish religion
or culture, Ehrenburg is typical of many Jewish left-wing intellectuals of this century, whom Hitler and Stalin would notallow to forget their origins. A feeling of outrage at antisemitism recurs in Ehrenburg’s books and journalistic output
throughout his career and was a major factor in his youthful
revolt against Czarist and, at the end of his life, against Stalinist injustice. Forced to flee Russia because of participation in
revolutionary activities, he lived abroad, mainly in Paris, between 1908 and 1917. Ehrenburg returned to Russia after the
February Revolution, criticizing sharply in his essays the October Revolution and its leaders, Lenin, Kamenev, Zinoviev, andothers. He left again in 1921 and lived mainly in Berlin, where
he witnessed the rise of the Nazis to power. Understandingthat Nazi ideology was a danger to the world, he proposed to
Stalin in September 1934 to turn the International Organization of Revolutionary Writers into a movement against Fascism and in support of the Soviet Union. His proposal was
accepted. He did not permanently settle in the U.S.S.R. until
shortly before the Nazi attack on the U.S.S.R. in the summerof 1941. On the eve of the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement, the237

ehrenburg, ilya grigoryevich
publication of his poems and essays was stopped, but renewedon the eve of the German attack on the Soviet Union. From1948 he was active in the pro-Soviet World Peace Movement,
serving as its vice chairman.
Of the nearly 30 volumes of Ehrenburg’s literary andjournalistic output, including collections of poems, the mostsuccessful was his first novel, Neobychaynye pokhozhdeniya
Khulio Khurenito (1922; The Extraordinary Adventures of Julio Jurenito, 1958), an all-out sardonic attack on different aspects of modern civilization, including its persecutions “ofthe tribe of Judah.” A series of rather undistinguished novels
dealing with different subjects followed in rapid succession.
These include Zhizn i gibel Nikolaya Kurbova (1923; “The Lifeand Death of Nikolai Kurbov”), the story of the undoing of a
Soviet secret policeman; Lyubov Zhanny Ney (1923; “The Loveof Jeanne Ney”), an account of a love affair involving a RussianCommunist and a “bourgeois” French woman; Rvach (1925;“The Grabber”), a typical tale of a Soviet revolutionary corrupted by peacetime prosperity; and Zagovor ravnykh (1928;“The Conspiracy of Equals”), which tells the story of Babeuf,
one of the heroes of the French Revolution.
Closest in spirit to Julio Jurenito is Ehrenburg’s “Jewish”
novel, Burnaya zhizn Lazika Roytshvantsa (1927; The Stormy
Life of Lazik Roitschwantz, 1960) a biting lampoon of injustice, hypocrisy, and pretense both under capitalism and in
the new Soviet republic. Its hero, a pathetic Jewish tailor, is adirect descendant of the ne’er-do-wells and Luftmenschen of*Shalom Aleichem. Try as he may, Lazik Roitschwantz cannot
understand why both the Reds and the Whites consider harmless folk like himself dangerous enemies of the State. Though
outwardly a rogue, all Lazik Roitschwantz really desires is
to earn a livelihood and to be left alone by the authorities.
Though liberated by the revolution from the yoke of official
Czarist antisemitism, he is now suspect to the Soviet bureaucrats as a petty bourgeois individualist artisan. Escaping toWestern Europe, he finds himself mistaken for a Communist
agent and is packed off to jail as a Jewish Bolshevik. When he
finally makes his way to Palestine, fate decrees that he die ofstarvation in the land of his ancestors.
There are no grounds to doubt Ehrenburg’s assurancesthat the main reason he opposed reprinting the novel in the
post-Stalin nine-volume set of his works brought out in the
1960s was his feeling that the old caricature of the “little Jew”
should not be revived only a few years after millions of reallife “little Jews” were murdered in Nazi crematoria. Ehrenburg’s loyalty to the Soviet regime did not waver during Stalin’s bloodiest terror as well as during the Nazi-Soviet pact,
and for years he was a most vocal apologist for some of themost abhorrent features of the Soviet regime. His activities
in the latter capacity frequently smacked of cynical opportunism, just as his later championing of freedom might havebeen dictated by a desire to expiate his guilt as a verbal accomplice in Stalin’s crimes. There is, however, one aspect ofEhrenburg’s activity in which the writer’s sincerity is beyond
all questioning, namely his opposition to Nazism. His novel

Padeniye Parizha (1941; “The Fall of Paris”), written during theperiod of Nazi-Soviet friendship, was published in its entirety
only after Hitler’s armies had invaded Russia. Ehrenburg had
become the leading Soviet journalist on the strength of his reports in Izvestia on the Spanish Civil War and, during WorldWar II, his impassioned diatribes against the German invaders were distributed to millions of Soviet soldiers. A memberof the Jewish *Anti-Fascist Committee, he stressed his Jewish
identity during the war. On the assignment of the Committee
he prepared together with Vasily Grossman the “Red Book”
on the heroism of Jewish fighters and the “Black Book” on the
Holocaust of Soviet Jewry. The first book was banned outrightby the authorities. The second was even typeset, but during
the liquidation of the committee in 1948 it was halted by the
KGB. Parts of the book were then published in Yiddish (1944)
and Romanian (1946), and it was fully published in Russianin 1980 in Jerusalem by Yad Vashem.
Ehrenburg’s usefulness as the Soviet Union’s foremost
anti-German ideologist came to an end with the defeat of Nazism, but he was soon to achieve eminence in the propaganda
onslaught on the West, which is also much in evidence in his
two novels of that period, Burya (1947; The Storm, 1949) andDevyaty val (1952; The Ninth Wave, 1958). In the fall of 1948
he played a significant part in the Soviet Union’s swing awayfrom outright support for the State of Israel. In an article in
Pravda he opposed Jewish nationalism and warned Soviet Jews
against cultivating any special attachment to Israel more thanany other capitalist land.
A controversy that is not likely to be solved for years tocome relates to Ehrenburg’s role during the sinister antisemitic
purges which claimed the lives of scores of Ehrenburg’s friends
and colleagues, such as the actor Solomon *Mikhoels, the poets Itzik *Fefer and Peretz *Markish, the novelist David *Bergelson and others. Not only did Ehrenburg escape their tragicfate, but in 1952, the year when the others were executed, Ehrenburg was awarded the Stalin Prize. However, he detachedhimself from the official line over the “*Doctor’s Plot.”
Almost immediately after Stalin’s death in March of 1953
Ehrenburg became a spokesman for those Soviet intellectuals
who demanded liberal reforms. His novelette Ottepel (1954–56;“The Thaw”) was a major event in the struggle for a more humane Soviet society: it was an indictment of many aspects ofStalinism, including crudely propagandistic art and the antisemitic campaigns. Yet in retrospect Ehrenburg’s crowningachievement may well prove to be his memoirs Lyudi, gody,
zhizn (1961; People and Life 1891–1921, 1962; Memoirs: 1921–41,
1964), which were serialized in the monthly Novy Mir between
1960 and 1965. In spite of all the evasions and distortions, thesepresented a relatively truthful picture of Russia’s and Western
Europe’s artistic and literary intelligentsia during the 1920s and1930s and included several loving portraits of Yiddish cultural
figures. Ehrenburg’s memoirs constitute, in fact, the closest
Soviet approximation to date of cultural history.
On the occasion of his 70t birthday celebrations, Ehrenburg stated: “Even though my passport declares me to be a Jew,

238

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6ehrenfest, paul
I am a Russian writer,” implying that Soviet Jews were allowed
entry into Russian culture, but not into the Russian people.
Toward the end of his life Ehrenburg frequently clashedwith Soviet official spokesmen, stubbornly championing thecause of a greater degree of artistic and personal freedom and,
whenever the opportunity presented itself, heaping scorn on
Soviet antisemites. Thousands took part in his funeral, many ofthem young Jews who saw him as a liberal and a fellow Jew.
A major biographical study of this Soviet Jewish writer inEnglish appeared in 1984: Ilya Ehrenburg: Writing, Politics andthe Art of Survival by Anatol Goldberg, with an introduction,
postscript, and additional material by Erik de Mauny.
Bibliography: M. Friedberg, in: G.W. Simmonds (ed.),Soviet Leaders (1967), 272–81; M. Slonim, Soviet Russian Literature(1964), 208–17; T. Trifonova, Ilya Ehrenburg (Russ., 1952); V. Alexandrova, A History of Soviet Literature (1964), 127–42.
[Maurice Friedberg / Shmuel Spector (2nd ed.)]EHRENFELD, family of Hungarian rabbis. The founder was
DAVID ẓ EVI EHRENFELD (d. 1861), a son-in-law of Moses*Sofer. He wrote no books of his own, but some of his writings are included in the books of his son Samuel. Ehrenfeld
had five sons, four of whom served in the rabbinate of Hungary. Samuel *Ehrenfeld served as rabbi of several communities. SIMEON (b. 1860) was rabbi of Szinna (Snina) and Nagymihaly (Michalovce), both of which places became partof Czechoslovakia after World War I. He laid the foundationof the central bureau of Orthodox rabbis in Czechoslovakia.
SAUL (1835–1905), who was born in Pressburg, succeeded
Samuel at Szikszo and served there until his death. ISAIAH(1850–1902) was rabbi in Berzavicze, Sarospatak, and Nagysurany and wrote Shevet Sofer (1903, 19382) on the Pentateuch.
He fought vigorously against every form of religious innovation. Abraham Glazner was his son-in-law.
Bibliography: A. Stern, Meliẓ ei Esh: Tishri and Marḥ eshvan(1933), 153a no. 435 (on David Ẓ evi), Av and Elul (1932), 7a no. 6 (onSamuel), 111a no. 284 (on Saul), Sivan (1931), 149a no. 197 (on Isaiah); P.Z. Schwartz, Shem ha-Gedolim me-Ereẓ Hagar, 1 (1914), 266
no. 54 (on David Ẓ evi), 52b no. 260 (on Isaiah); 2 (1914), 40a no. 71(on Samuel), 366 no. 1 (on Saul); (A.S.) B. Sofer-Schreiber, Ketov Zot
Zikkaron (1957), 262–7.
[Naphtali Ben-Menahem]

EHRENFELD, NATHAN (1843–1912), chief rabbi of Prague.
He was a pupil of Azriel *Hildesheimer both at the yeshivah
in Eisenstadt and at his seminary in Berlin. In 1890 he was appointed chief rabbi of Prague. While strictly Orthodox himself, he managed to keep the peace between the divergent factions in the Prague community. He gave particular attention
to religious instruction and founded a college for teachers of
religion. He acted as trustee for the charitable foundations inAustro-Hungary of the Orthodox Karl Wilhelm Rothschild.
His son-in-law, Heinrich (Ḥ ayyim) *Brody, succeeded him
in office.

EHRENFELD, SAMUEL BEN DAVID Ẓ EVI (1835–1883),
Hungarian rabbi known from his works as the “Hatan Sofer,”(“son-in-law of Sofer” to indicate his connection by marriage
with the famous Moses *Sofer, and in assonance with the title of Sofer’s responsa Ḥ atam Sofer. Actually it was his father
who was the son-in-law of Moses Sofer). Ehrenfeld was bornin Pressburg. He studied under his father and in the yeshivah
of Pressburg under Abraham *Sofer, his maternal uncle. At
first he engaged in business, but when this failed he accepted
the rabbinate of Betlen (now Beclean, Romania) in 1866. In
1868 he became rabbi in Szikszo, because of the opportunities
which a larger yeshivah there afforded him. In 1877 he moved
to Mattersdorf where his grandfather and other members of
his family had served before him. He was able to devote himself completely to the interests of the community and thelarge yeshivah there. He died at Kierling, where he had goneto recuperate after a long illness. As a teacher he was able toimpart his own approach to Talmud and halakhah, based on
the clear understanding of the talmudic text and its relevanceto the ultimate halakhah.
His clarity and complete mastery of all branches of halakhah is evident in his published works: Ateret Baḥ urim, Ḥ atan
Sofer (only one part, 1874), on various topics from Ḥ oshen
Mishpat, and Ḥ atan Sofer on the Shulḥ an Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥ ayyim(one part, 1878; 2 vols., 19632), both having long aggadic introductions. He printed the biography of his grandfather aswell as other historical matter. Ḥ atan Sofer was edited with an
introduction by his son, Simḥ ah Bunim Ehrenfeld (1912), andcontains a biography of his father. Misped Mar (1874) was his
next work. A Passover Haggadah (1884) with his own commentary and that of his grandfather was edited by Rabbi Joseph Baumgarten (later rosh bet din of Vienna).
Ehrenfeld was succeeded in Mattersdorf in 1884 by hisson SIMḥ AH BUNIM (1856–1926) who had from 1876 been
rabbi in Sarvar. He is the author of Ma’aneh Simḥ ah, part ofwhich is printed in the introduction to his father’s Ḥ atan Sofer.
He was succeeded by his son SAMUEL, who served that community until 1938/39, when he immigrated to New York andthere reestablished the Mattersdorf yeshivah (1939). In 1958 hefounded Kiryat Mattersdorf, a religious suburb in Jerusalem.
He re-edited all the above-mentioned works with copious
notes and added much new material.
Bibliography: Samuel b. David Ẓ evi Ehrenfeld, She’elot uTeshuvot Ḥ atan Sofer (1912), introd.; P.Z. Schwartz, Shem ha-Gedolim
me-Ereẓ Hagar, 2 (1914), 40a no. 71 (on Samuel I); 47 no. 179/1 (onSimḥ ah Bunim); J.J. (L.) Greenwald (Grunwald), Maẓ ẓ evat Kodesh(1952), 127, 149–50; S.N. Gottlieb, Oholei Shem (1912), 251 (on Simḥ ahBunim); A. Stern, Meliẓ ei Esh al Ḥ odshei Av-Marḥ eshvan, 2 (19622)
7 no. 6; (A.S.) B. Sofer-Schreiber, Ketov Zot Zikkaron (1957), 262–5,
269f. (Samuel I), 273–80 (Samuel II); S. Sofer (Schreiber; ed.), Iggerot
Soferim (1968), introd. and pt. 4, 99–103, 106–8 (Samuel I).
[Abraham Schischa]

Bibliography: Der Israelit (Feb. 29, 1912), 7–8; AZDJ, 76(March 1, 1912), 3.

EHRENFEST, PAUL (1880–1933), Austrian physicist. Bornin Vienna, Ehrenfest studied under Ludwig Boltzmann, the

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6239

ehrenkranz, benjamin zeeb
Austrian physicist, and later went to Goettingen. He and his
wife, Tatiana Afanashewa, carried out a critical investigationof kinetic theory, and collaborated in an extensive article on
statistical mechanics which is still one of the classics on that
subject. From 1912 until his death Ehrenfest was professor ofphysics at Leiden. His work in that period included papers on
the adiabatic hypothesis and invariants (a term he coined),
propagation of wave pockets, and ferromagnetic Curie points.
Ehrenfest was a masterful teacher, infecting his students withhis own enthusiasm for physics. He was a merciless critic
of unclear and superficial expositions and in his own workstressed clarity and fundamentals. Ehrenfest became a symbol of a period in physics characterized by two great advances,the quantum theory and the theory of relativity, where fundamental enquiry was the rule.
Bibliography: H.A. Kramers, in: Nature, 132 (Oct. 28, 1933),
667; G.E. Uhlenbeck et al., in: Science, 78 (Oct. 27, 1933), 377–8.
[Gerald E. Tauber]

EHRENKRANZ, BENJAMIN WOLF ZEEB (1819–1883),
popular Yiddish and Hebrew poet known as Velvl Zbarzher.
Born in Zbarazh, Galicia (now Ukraine), Ehrenkranz had
a traditional Jewish education. He composed and sang folksongs, and as a singing bard traveled to various European cities, spending his last years in Galata, a district in Istanbul. He
performed his songs in Yiddish, shifting to Hebrew when appearing before a maskilic audience. His songs spread quickly,
gradually changing until their original versions were forgotten. The major themes of his poetry were nature and people,
poverty and wealth, and the fight of light against darkness, i.e.,
as he viewed it: maskilim against ḥ asidim. Much of his work,
only a fraction of which he published, is comprised of satires
and parodies. His collected poetry, Makkel No’am (Hebrew
and Yiddish), appeared in 1865–78 in four parts. He also wrote
Makkel Ḥ ovelim (1869), in Hebrew and Yiddish, as well as Siftei
Yeshenah (1874). B. Wachstein published three of Ehrenkranz’long Yiddish poems (YIVO-Bleter, 1938), and a selection of his
letters in 1928. Although most of his improvised songs were
never published, some were issued by L. Morgenstern, theWarsaw publisher, but were not attributed to the poet.
Bibliography: S. Niger, in: Tsukunft, 1 (1925); Tiger, in:Yidish, 3–4 (Vienna, 1928), 1–6; D.I. Silberbusch, Mi-Pinkas Zikhronotai (1936), 81–9; Rejzen, Leksikon, 2 (1927), 832–40; LNYL, 3 (1960),
580–3, S.V. Zbarzher, Velvl; L. Wiener, History of Yiddish Literature(1899); S. Liptzin, Eliakum Zunser (1950), 74.

the chief rabbi of Sofia, Ehrenpreis labored to ameliorate thecondition of minorities in the Balkans, and in 1913 went on a
mission to several European capitals on behalf of King Ferdinand I of Bulgaria. His contributions to the early Hebrew
periodicals Ha-Maggid which first appeared in 1884 and in
Ha-Shilo’aḥ among others make him one of the pioneers ofmodern Hebrew literature. At the request of Theodor *Herzl
he translated the invitation to the First Zionist Congress into
Hebrew, personally setting the type. There, and at later Zionist
congresses, Ehrenpreis acted as a consultant on cultural matters. Like *Berdyczewski he criticized *Aḥ ad Ha-Am’s viewthat Hebrew literature confine itself to Jewish themes anddemanded that it fulfill all the spiritual needs of Jews living
within the boundaries of European culture (Ha-Shilo’aḥ , no.
1, 1896/97). However, in his article Ha-Sifrut ha-Illemet (“TheSilent Literature”) in Ha-Shilo’aḥ , 17 (1908), he expressed theview that the Hebrew literature of his generation was not capable of creating “the redeeming synthesis between Judaismand Europeanism.” From then on he abandoned almost totally his interest in Hebrew literature and the Zionist movement (for which he was severely criticized by the Zionists),
and devoted himself to his rabbinic and public work, writingin Swedish and other languages. He published many translations of modern Hebrew literature into Swedish; and his own
essays “De som byggt Israel” (“The Builders of Israel,” 3 vols.,
1929–43); “Landet mellam öster och vaster” (“The Country
Between East and West,” the journey of a Jew to Spain, 1927);Österlandets Själ (1926; The Soul of the East, 1928), impressionsof a journey to the Middle East; and his autobiography, Mittliv mellam öster och väster (“My Life Between East and West,”
1946). His books were translated into several European languages and his autobiography (1953) into Hebrew. He founded
the Jewish-Swedish journal Judisk Tidskrift (1928), and editeda Jewish encyclopedia in Swedish. Although first a political
Zionist, he became an advocate of spiritual nationalism, believing that dispersal and assimilation were the true way of life
for the Jewish people, enabling them to fulfill their spiritual
mission among the nations.
Bibliography: Judisk Tidskrift, 17 (1944), no. 1, on Ehrenpreis’ 70t birthday with bibl. (special suppl.); M.J. Berdyczewski, Ma’amarim (1960), 223–5; J. Klausner, Yoẓ erei Tekufah (1956),
126–32; Gelber, in: Zion, 3 (1953), 45–51; Waxman, Literature, 1 (19602),
155–6.
[Gedalyah Elkoshi and Hugo Mauritz Valentin]

EHRENPREIS, MARCUS (Mordecai; 1869–1951), rabbi andauthor. Ehrenpreis, who was born in Lemberg where his father was a Hebrew printer, combined a traditional East European Jewish upbringing with a Western education, attending the *hochschule fuer die Wissenschaft des Judentums in
Berlin as well as German universities. He officiated as rabbi
in Djakovo, Croatia, from 1896 to 1900, and later became
chief rabbi of Sofia, Bulgaria, and from 1914 of Stockholm. As

EHRENREICH, BERNARD COLONIUS (1876–1955), U.S.
Reform rabbi. Ehrenreich was born in Hungary and immigrated to the United States as a young child in 1879. He attended New York University, where in 1898 he was one of
the founders of the Zeta Beta Tau American Jewish Fraternal Organization as a forum for exchanging ideas and promoting Zionism. Ehrenreich earned his B.A. degree from
NYU in 1900, the same year he was ordained at the Conservative movement’s Jewish Theological Seminary. He became
rabbi of Congregation Beth Israel in Atlantic City, New Jer-

240

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Mordechay Zerkawod]ehrenstein, albert
sey (1901–2) and served as recording secretary of the Federated Zionists of America. In 1903, he assumed the pulpit ofCongregation Adath Jeshurun of Philadelphia, where he wasone of the nucleus of founders of the Alumni Association of
the Jewish Theological Seminary (the forerunner of the Rabbinical Assembly). In 1906, after affiliating with the Reformmovement’s Central Conference of American Rabbis, he became rabbi of Kahl Montgomery in Montgomery, Alabama,
where he was also active in the Jewish Welfare Board, theMontgomery Chamber of Commerce, the Graduate Menorah
Society, and the American Jewish Congress. During WorldWar I, he served as a welfare worker in the military base atCamp Sheridan, Alabama.
Devoted to the education, character building, and leadership development of young people, Ehrenreich purchased
a summer camp in Minocqua, Wisconsin, in 1915, named itCamp Kawaga, and directed it as a Jewish boys’ camp – albeit
heavily influenced by Native American culture – from 1916 to1951. His philosophy was that he could teach boys the Great
Outdoors (GOD), as well as skills to turn them into men. Overthe years, Kawaga attracted (and continues to attract) thousands of campers, winning the approval and endorsement of
rabbis and educators from states throughout the Midwest,
the South, and the Southwest. Ehrenreich’s voluminous correspondence shows that many men stayed in close touch with“Doc E.” into adulthood and attributed their lifelong allegianceto Judaism and Jewish values to his influence. Ehrenreich also
became a civic leader in the town of Minocqua, where heeventually chose to reside for most of the year. During WorldWar II, although in his late sixties, Ehrenreich traveled as far
afield as Columbia, South Carolina, and Stockton, California,
to volunteer as a replacement for congregational rabbis who
were away serving as military chaplains.
Bibliography: Guide to the Papers of Bernard C. Ehrenreich, American Jewish Historical Society (http://www.cjh.org/
academic/findingaids/ajhs/nhprc/Ehrenreichf.html); Journal of the
66t Annual Convention of the Central Conference of American Rabbis (1955).

of Seder Rav Amram Ga’on with his own commentary and edited a monthly journal, Oẓ ar ha-Ḥ ayyim, from 1924–38. Heand his family were killed by the Nazis in Lublin in 1942.
Bibliography: Ehrenreich, in: Oẓ ar ha-Ḥ ayyim, 2 (1926),
47; 5 (1929), 260; Wininger, Biog, 6 (c. 1930), 555; S.K. Mirsky (ed.),Ishim u-Demuyyot… (1959), 432–7; EẒ D, 1 (1958), 194–7.
[Naphtali Ben-Menahem]

EHRENSTAMM, family of pioneering textile manufacturers
in the Hapsburg Empire in the 18t–19t centuries. Solomon
Jacob, a son of Phinehas *Illovy, was first known by the family name of Kolin. He settled in *Prostejov (Prossnitz) in 1752
as a textile importer, but twice went bankrupt because of theunfavorable government policy on imports. In 1787 he adopted
the family name of Ehrenstamm. His son Feith (d. 1827), whofrom 1786 had acquired wealth as an army contractor, took
over the firm in 1790. In 1801 he founded a textile factory withmodern imported machines, initially employing 3,000 workers, for supplying the army and export. He later added dyeing
departments. In 1812 he accepted a contract for supplying thequota of textiles for army uniforms imposed on Moravia, andin 1820, in partnership with Simon von *Laemel, for supplying the entire Hapsburg army. He took up residence next to
his factory, becoming the first Jew at this time to live outside
the Jewish quarter of a Moravian town. After his death, theprivileges he had received were transferred to his four sons.
They became known for their extravagance, and gave a lavish reception in honor of Archduke Franz Karl. The firm built
additional factories, but in 1833 went bankrupt. The factories
were liquidated, the bankruptcy proceedings continuing until 1856. One of the brothers committed suicide, and anotherimmigrated to Hungary in 1852.
Bibliography: Hellig, in: BLBI, 3 (1960), 101–22; R. Kestenberg-Gladstein, Neuere Geschichte der Juden in den boehmischen
Laendern (1969), 103–15.

EHRENREICH, Ḥ AYYIM JUDAH BEN KALONYMUS(1887–1942), Hungarian rabbi. Ehrenreich served as rabbi ofHolesov, Moravia; Deva, Transylvania; and Humenne, Slovakia. In this last community, to which he was appointed in 1930,
he devoted himself to a study of talmudic literature. Ehrenreich planned a scientific edition of the Babylonian Talmud
together with a new commentary of his own, and a similar
one of the Jerusalem Talmud, but nothing was published. Immersed in this scholarly activity, he hardly engaged in communal activity, but in 1920 published an important pamphlet
Yisrael bein ha-Amim (“Israel Among the Nations”) dealing
with Jewish survival. His works include Saadiah Gaon’s Shelosh Esreh Middot (1922); Sefer ha-Pardes (1924); parts of Sefer
Abudarham (1927); Abraham Klausner’s Minhagim (1929); andGivat ha-Moreh (1936), sermons. From 1920 he published parts

EHRENSTEIN, ALBERT (1886–1950), German poet and author. Born in Vienna of Hungarian parents, Ehrenstein lived
until 1932 mostly in Vienna and Berlin as a freelance writer.
Studying history and geography in Vienna, he published his
first poems in Karl Kraus’ Die Fackel (e.g., “Wanderers Lied”).
The publication of the novel Tubutsch (with drawings by Oskar
Kokoschka, 1911) made Ehrenstein an important exponent of
the expressionist movement. His texts were guided by a new
diaspora politics and aesthetics, understanding modernity as
the overcoming of the bourgeois concept of nation and art.
Ehrenstein’s work is populated by exterritorial figures who suffer from homelessness and at the same time stand for a modern, aesthetic cosmopolitanism which transcends the 19t century concept of nationalism. This constant subject is found in
Ehrenstein’s novels (Der Selbstmord eines Katers, 1912; Nicht
da nicht dort, 1916; Bericht aus einem Tollhaus, 1919; Zaubermerchen, 1919; Die Nacht wird, 1921; Briefe an Gott, 1922; Ritter des Todes, 1926) as well as in his poetry (Die weisse Zeit,
1914; Die Gedichte, 1920; Wien, 1921; Herbst, 1923; Mein Lied,

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

241[Bezalel Gordon (2nd ed.)]ehrentreu, heinrich1931). In his essays, collected in Menschen und Affen (1926),
Ehrenstein legitimized this programmatic extraterritoriality
as a new “ahasverism” with social-revolutionary aspects, criticizing both assimilation and Zionism as throwbacks to oldEuropean nationalism (cf. Zionismus, Vom deutschen Adel
juedischer Nation, Nationaljudentum). He spent World War I
in exile in Switzerland, vehemently criticizing the war (cf. Der
Mensch schreit, 1916; Die rote Zeit, 1917; Den ermordeten Bruedern, 1919). After the war he turned to rewriting old Greek andChinese works (cf. Lukian, 1918; Longos, 1924; Schi-King, 1922;
Pe-Lo-Thien, 1923; China klagt, 1924; Raeuber und Soldaten,
1927; Das gelbe Lied, 1933). With the three cultural spaces ofHellas, Zion, and China, Ehrenstein constructed an antiqueworld as a medium for contemporary criticism. In 1929, Ehrenstein together with Kokoschka visited Palestine, describing his impressions in a series of articles. In 1932, Ehrenstein
moved to Switzerland. Even though the Swiss authorities prohibited him from writing, Ehrenstein praised Switzerland as aliberal and pancultural community within barbarian Europe(Tessin, 1938; Switzerland, 1942). In 1941 he settled in New York,
where he died in poverty. After selected editions by Karl Otten
and M.Y. Ben-Gavriel, the work and letters of Ehrenstein were
published in a complete edition (ed. H. Mittelmann). Ehrenstein’s manuscripts are at the Hebrew University.
Bibliography: A. Beigel, Erlebnis und Flucht im Werk Ehrensteins (1966); J. Drews, Die Lyrik Ehrensteins (1969); A. Beigel,
Erlebnis und Flucht im Werk Albert Ehrensteins (1972); K.-M. Gauss,
Wann endet die Nacht (1986); U. Laugwitz, Albert Ehrenstein (1987);
A.A. Wallas, Albert Ehrenstein (1994); A. Kilcher, “Jenseits von Zionismus und Assimilation,” in: Kirche und Israel, 18 (2003).
[Andreas Kilcher (2nd ed.)]EHRENTREU, HEINRICH (1854–1927), Orthodox German
rabbi and author. Ehrentreu was born in Alt-Ofen (Obuda),
Hungary. Considered a brilliant talmudist in the yeshivah of
Pressburg, he later pursued Semitic studies at the University
of Heidelberg (from 1877) and was a tutor in Mainz. Ehrentreu became preacher at the Ohel Jakob synagogue in Munichwhere he supervised and greatly developed the religious institutions of the Jewish community over a period of 42 years.
He was a member of the German chapter of the RabbinicalCouncil of Agudat Israel. In 1897 Ehrentreu edited the last volume of R.N. *Rabbinovicz’s Dikdukei Soferim, 16 (1897). He
also published Heker Halakhah (“Halakhic Research,” 1904),
and Minḥ at Pittin, halakhic essays published in 1927/28. Together with Rabbi Jacob Schor of Kuty, he wrote Ẓ idkat haẒ addik (1910), a defense of Z.H. *Auerbach’s edition of Sefer
ha-Eshkol, which had been attacked as a forgery by S. *Albeck.
His responsa and numerous articles were published in Jewish scholarly journals. Ehrentreu’s son, ERNST (JONAH) EHRENTREU (1896–?), succeeded him. Escaping from Germany
to England, Ernst Ehrentreu became rabbi of a small congregation (Adath Yeshurun) in London. He published Untersuchungen ueber die Massora (1925), and Jewish Thought in theModern World (1947).

242

Bibliography: S. Levi, in: L. Jung (ed.), Men of the Spirit(1964), 375–87.
[Jacob Hirsch Haberman]

EHRLICH, ABEL (1919–2004), composer and teacher. Born
in Crantz, Germany, Ehrlich went to Zagreb to study with
Vaclav Huml at the academy of music (1934–38). In 1939
he settled in Palestine and studied composition at the Jerusalem Academy of Music with Solomon *Rosowsky. He taught
theory and composition in various music institutions suchas the Oranim Teachers College and at the Rubin Academyof Music in Tel Aviv. His works before 1953 were influenced
by Arab music. In the late 1950s he began to use serial procedures, after attending the courses of Stockhausen and Pousseur at Darmstadt in 1959. He was awarded the Lieberson
Prize three times (1969, 1971, 1980), won the Israel Composers and Authors Association Prize in 1974, 1980, and 1994,
the Israel Prime Minister’s Award in 1990, the Acum Prize
for life achievement in 1994, and the Israel Prize for music in
1997. Ehrlich was one of the most prolific Israeli composers –he wrote more than 3,500 pieces and as a result appearedin the Guinness Book of Records as the world’s most prolific contemporary composer. Among his early compositions
are Bashrav for violin solo (1953) and Symphonic Bashrav fororchestra (1958), in which he explored the fusion of Near
Eastern and Western musical elements. His later works include I Will Sing in Praise for chamber orchestra (1977); Will
It Work? suite for guitar (1985); Enkhah Yode’a for youth choirand violin solo (1986); Our Modest Friend Avraham for chamber ensemble (1992); The Jubille, chamber opera in 16 scenes(1995); Another Exercise: Four Dreams: May 1997, for four tenors and chamber ensemble (1997); and many pieces for solo
instruments.
Bibliography: Grove online; A. Wolman and Y. Shaked,
Abel Ehrlich (1995).
[Israela Stein (2nd ed.)]EHRLICH, ARNOLD BOGUMIL (1848–1919), biblical exegete. Ehrlich was born in Wlodawa in Russian Poland. As ayouth he studied in a ḥ eder and then a yeshivah, married at
an early age, and had two daughters. Despairing of his narrow
Jewish world, Ehrlich, still quite young, divorced his wife, and,in 1865, went to Germany. There he worked as a librarian in the
Semitics department of the Berlin Royal Library. In Leipzig,
under the influence of Christian missionaries and temptedby the greater opportunities available to Christians, Ehrlich
converted to Christianity. He worked with Franz *Delitzsch(1813–99) in the missionary Institutum Judaicum, helping totranslate the New Testament into Hebrew (1877) for the purpose of a Christian mission to the Jews. At the age of 30, Ehrlich migrated to the U.S., married again, and raised a family
under difficult economic conditions, working at various jobs
including social work, portraiture, and Hebrew teaching. According to Richard J.H. *Gottheil, when Ehrlich reached New
York in 1876 he called on Rabbi R. Gustav Gottheil of Temple
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6ehrlich, georg
Emanu-El (Richard’s father), confessed that he had been converted to Christianity at the age of 23 while working for Delitzsch, and expressed a desire to be reaccepted formally into
the Jewish faith. He accordingly appeared before a bet din on
March 7, 1876, and was readmitted to the Jewish community
after making the necessary declarations in both German andEnglish (which are quoted by Richard in his biography of his
father). The proceedings were duly recorded. Ehrlich, whoweighed three hundred pounds, never obtained a real academic post. On the one hand, Jews with academic influencesuspected his Christian connections, while on the other hand
Christians probably saw him as too much of an East European Jew. In 1884 he published a chrestomathy containing
selections from the Talmud and the Midrashim, “for youths
and students.” His main work, however, was devoted to biblical exegesis. From 1899 to 1901 his Hebrew commentary on
the Bible Mikra ki-Feshuto was published in Berlin in three
volumes (of the four he planned; repr. 1969). He subscribed
the title page with the pseudonym “Shabbetai b. Yom Tov ibn
Boded.” In the introduction he explained that he had written
the commentary in Hebrew so that the Hebrew reader would
study his words and comments. His book, however, received
only scant attention. The Jewish press on the whole reacted
to the book with exceptionally sharp criticism (also becauseof his skeptical attitude to tradition and his attacks on the
medieval commentators), and the Christian scholars, who
had great difficulty with Modern Hebrew, almost completely
disregarded the commentary. The publication of his Germancommentary on the Book of Psalms (1905), which included a
new translation, was a turning point in his life. It served as an
introduction to his German commentary on the Bible, whichlike his Hebrew one consists of notes on the Bible, Randglossen zur hebraeischen Bibel (7 vols., 1908–14). Ehrlich included part of the material from his Hebrew commentary, but
in an expanded form, as well as new interpretations arrived
at since its publication; many of his earlier opinions arechanged here. Although Ehrlich does not mention the Documentary Hypothesis, he employs evidence from language,
religious concepts, and institutions to assign relative “late”
and “early” dates to specific passages. Historical assessments
such as the denial of Egyptian enslavement and of the Exodus
are buried in comments to individual verses. He concentrates
on textual criticism and reconstructions, and his very numerous emendations (especially in his German commentary)
are at times conjectural (such as haplography or dittography,
letters having a similar appearance in the ancient or in thesquare script, the use of abbreviations, glosses, etc.), and in
most cases are not based on ancient translations. His comments, which are distinguished by their originality, at times
have the quality of homiletics and are derived from Ehrlich’s
innovating spirit; yet through his sound linguistic instinct
and fine linguistic differentiations he succeeded in illuminating and explaining, with great acumen and profundity, manyverses and linguistic usages. Ehrlich’s exegetical work is an
important contribution to modern biblical exegesis. Ehrlich’s
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

work was highly influential on the Jewish translation produced by the Jewish Publication Society in 1917 and its successor of 1962–82.
Bibliography: S. Bernfeld, in: Ha-Shilo’aḥ , 5 (1899), 547–52;
B.Z. Halpern, in; Miklat, 2 (1920), 417–26; T. Friedlaender, in: The Nation, 110 (1920), 41; M. Haran (Diman), in: Bitzaron, 22 (1950), 190,
193–196; J. Bloch, in: JBA, 12 (1953–5), 23; A.B. Ehrlich, Mikra ki-Feshuto, 1 (19692), introd. by H.M. Orlinsky; R.J.H. Gottheil, The Lifeof Gustav Gottheil: Memoir of a Priest in Israel (1936), 75–77; R.M.
Stern, in: AJA, 23 (1971), 73–85; G. Kressel, in: Hadoar (Sept. 17, 1971),
665–6. Add. Bibliography: S.D. Sperling, Students of the Covenant (1992), 45–47; E. Greenstein, in: DBI, 1, 323–24.
[Raphael Weiss / S. David Sperling (2nd ed.)]EHRLICH, EUGEN (1862–1922), jurist. Born in Czernowitz,
Ehrlich was associate professor of Roman Law in the university there from 1899 to 1914. In this capacity he made an important contribution to the study of the sociology of law, histhesis being that the law of society was the only “living law”
and that the norms of a legal system must conform with thelaws of society. Ehrlich was removed from all teaching posts
in 1919 following antisemitic attacks by the student body inthe nationalist press. His main works were translated into
English and had a profound influence on American legal andsociological thought in the 20t century. These include Grundlegung der Soziologie des Rechts (1913, Fundamental Principlesof the Sociology of Law, 1936). Although Ehrlich renounced
Judaism in his youth he became interested in Jewish affairs
in his later years and his treatise Die Aufgabe der Sozialpolitik
im oesterreichischen Osten (1916) discusses the question of theJews and the peasants.
Bibliography: H. Sinzheimer, Juedische Klassiker der deutschen Rechtswissenschaft (1938), 231–55.
[Guido (Gad) Tedeschi]

EHRLICH, GEORG (1897–1966), graphic artist and sculptor. Born in Vienna, he studied at the Arts and Crafts Schoolin Vienna under Oscar Strnad and Franz Cizek from 1912 to1915. During World War I he served in the Austrian Army until 1918. In 1919 at his first exhibition Ehrlich became known
for lithographs revealing the influence of Oskar Kokoschka.
After he had been exhibited along with other modern artists
such as Barlach, Beckmann, and Kokoschka in Munich, Paul
Cassirer approached him with a commission for an album
of lithographs entitled “Biblical Portfolio.” The lithographsof this album reflect a deeply conscious Jewish identification
and an intensely Jewish upbringing. At the same time, Ehrlich
also painted watercolors of landscapes. He took up sculpture
in 1926, in the graceful, elongated style of Lehmbruck, who
remained a lasting influence. He cast numerous small-scale
sculptures and busts in bronze, his favorite material. Ehrlich
was already a prominent artist when in 1937 he was forced by
the Nazis to leave Austria. He settled in England where hesoon became established. His heads of the composer Benjamin Britten (1950) and the singer Peter Pears are among the243ehrlich, jacobfinest works of this period. His work appears in leading museums in Britain, the U.S., and Israel.

EHRLICH, LUDWIK (1889–1968), Polish international lawyer. Born in Tarnopol, Ukraine, Ehrlich became professor ofinternational law at the University of Lwow in 1924 and professor at the University of Cracow in 1945. He was recognized
as an authority on international law and in 1928 and 1962 lectured at the Hague Academy. Ehrlich’s writings include textbooks on general international law, and the law of treaties
and sovereignty.

1878 in Berlin University as an assistant, becoming an associate professor in 1890. In 1896 he became director of the RoyalInstitute for Serum Research in Steglitz (Berlin) and three
years later director of the Institute of Experimental Therapy
in Frankfurt on the Main, which was subsequently amalgamated with the Georg Speier Institute for Chemotherapeutic
Research. In 1904 Ehrlich was appointed honorary professor
at the University of Goettingen and in 1914 became a professor at Frankfurt University. He was awarded the Nobel Prize
for Medicine in 1908. Ehrlich began his scientific work in thefields of hematology and histology. From methods of staining
dead blood cells he progressed to staining living cells, and discovered methods of staining living nerve fibers. His research
work on the staining of microorganisms led to the methodof staining TB bacilli and he discovered the diazo reaction
in urine for the recognition of aromatic compounds, which
serves to diagnose typhoid fever.
From 1890 onward Ehrlich concentrated mainly on problems of immunization. He proved the specificity of immunity
to toxins, and established the basic concepts of applied immunology: active and passive immunization. He laid the foundation for standardization of therapeutic sera by employing
as standard serum a stable antitoxic serum capable of longterm preservation. On the basis of this method he developed,
in 1897, the evaluation of the antitoxic sera and its theoreticalbasis, one of the vital practical achievements in the historyof immunology.
Recognizing the particular specific affinity of dyes, active
organic compounds, and toxins to certain cells, Ehrlich started
to search for chemical compounds which would specificallyattack the microorganisms causing disease without damaging the body cells. He first treated syphilis with the poisonousorganic arsenic compound atoxyl and in 1909, after years ofinvestigation, he discovered, together with his Japanese assistant Hatta, the compound “606,” Salvarsan, which can inactivate the treponema causing syphilis, as well as other treponemas causing various tropical diseases. This was the greatest
achievement in the fight against syphilis since its appearancein Europe four centuries earlier and marked the beginning ofmodern systematic chemotherapy.
Developments in theoretical and applied medical biology since Ehrlich’s day have thrown new light on certain of
his concepts and some of his theoretical assumptions havebeen modified. But his basic concepts and methods remain
firm and still serve as fundamentals for research in the fieldsof hematology, immunology, and chemotherapy.
Ehrlich was interested in Jewish affairs all his life. He wasan active member of Le-Ma’an Zion, and was also associatedwith and supported the Nordau Institute, one of the nuclei ofthe Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

EHRLICH, PAUL (1854–1915), German chemist, pioneer ofmodern histology, immunology, and chemotherapy; Nobel
Prize winner. Ehrlich was born in Strehlen near Breslau. He
studied at German universities and began his scientific work in

Bibliography: A. Lazarus, Meister der Heilkunde, Paul
Ehrlich (1922); M. Marquard, Paul Ehrlich als Mensch und Arbeiter(1924); W. Bulloch, The History of Bacteriology (1938); F. Himmelweit (ed.), The Collected Papers of Paul Ehrlich (1956–57); S. Munther,Paul Ehrlich, Founder of Chemotherapy (1966); C.E. Dolman (ed.),244

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Add. Bibliography: G. Kreuter (ed.), Georg Ehrlich – graphische Arbeiten (2002); A. Hoerschelmann (ed.), Georg Ehrlich.
1897–1966 (1997); R. Oberbeck (ed.), Georg Ehrlich (1897–1966). Von
der Zeichnung zur Bronze – gestaltgewordene Suche nach Versöhnung(2004); E. Tietze-Conrad, Georg Ehrlich (1956).
[Charles Samuel Spencer / Sonja Beyer (2nd ed.)]EHRLICH, JACOB (1877–1938), Austrian Zionist leader.
Born in Bistrica, Moravia, Ehrlich studied at Vienna University and joined the Jewish student association “J.A.V. Ivria.”
Encouraged by Theodor *Herzl, he toured Moravia and Bohemia to propagate Zionism. In 1908 he settled in Vienna,
where he became a lawyer, and in 1912 he was one of the first
Zionists to be elected as a member of the Board of the Jewish
Community (Israelitische Kultusgemeinde). As a high officerof the Austro-Hungarian army during World War I he saved anumber of Russian Jews from false accusations, among themthe son of Abraham Menachem Mendel *Ussishkin. From
1919 to 1923 Ehrlich was a member of the Vienna city council.
In the 1920s, and also during the Zionist Congress of 1925, he
was president of the Zionist Federation in Austria. He helped
to obtain a Zionist majority at the Israelitische Kultusgemeinde in December 1932, and in February 1936 became its vicepresident. In 1934, after the defeat of the Austrian Socialists
in the civil war and the establishment of the Austrian corporate state, he became the representative of the Jewish community (councilor of the city of Vienna) in the “Buergerschaft,”which replaced the city council, and an outspoken defenderof Jewish rights. After the annexation of Austria by Nazi Germany (March 1938) Ehrlich was arrested, beaten daily by the
Gestapo, and deported with the first transport to the Dachau
concentration camp. He was murdered on May 17, 1938, thefirst prominent Austrian Jewish victim of the Nazis. His bodywas sent to Vienna, but the Nazis forbade all speeches andobituaries. His widow, Irma, and his son, Paul, immigrated
to the United States via England.
The society of Jews from Austria in England and a B’nai
B’rith Lodge in Tel Aviv bear his name.
[Josef Fraenkel / Evelyn Adunka (2nd ed.)]eichenbaum, boris mikhailovich

Paul Ehrlich and William Bulloch: A Correspondence and Friendship(1896–1914); Clio Medica, 3 (1968), 65–84.
[Aryeh Leo Olitzki]

EHRLICH, SIMḤ A (1915–1983), Israeli politician, leaderof the Liberal Party, and first non-Labor minister of finance,
member of the Seventh to Tenth Knessets. Ehrlich was born in
Poland. He studied at the Hebrew Gymnasium in Lublin and
was active in the General Zionist youth movement prior to his
immigration to Israel in 1938. In Israel he worked at first as an
agricultural laborer in Nes Ẓ iyyonah. Ehrlich studied optics
and in 1961 established a firm for the manufacture of lenses
and applied optical instruments. He joined the General Zionist
Party and was elected to the Tel Aviv Municipal Council in
1955, serving as deputy mayor in 1962–65. In 1965 he ran in
the municipal elections at the head of the *Gaḥ al list. In 1969
he ran for the Seventh Knesset on the Gaḥ al list.
In 1970, Ehrlich was appointed chairman of the Liberal
Party Executive, and after the founding of the *Likud in 1973
he became a member of its Executive. In June 1977 he was appointed by Menaḥ em *Begin as minister of finance, in which
position he introduced a policy of economic liberalization,
first of all in the field of foreign currency. However, his policy
resulted in a serious deterioration in Israel’s balance of trade
and a rapid rise in the rate of inflation. As a result he wasforced to resign in October 1979, remaining in the government as deputy prime minister. In Begin’s second government
formed after the elections to the Tenth Knesset, Ehrlich served
as minister of agriculture and deputy prime minister.
Add. Bibliography: Y. Ben Porat, Siḥ ot (1981).
[Fern Lee Seckbach / Susan Hattis Rolef (2nd ed.)]

EHUD (Heb. ‫) ֵאהוּד‬, son of Gera the Benjaminite, referred
to as “a left-handed man” (Judg. 3:15). Ehud delivered Israel
from *Eglon, the king of Moab, to whom they had been subject for 18 years. According to I Chronicles 8:3, Gera was theson of Bela, Benjamin’s firstborn. If this is the same person, it
would imply that Ehud belonged to one of the chief families of
the tribe. Apparently, this family lived in the region of Geba,
which may have been associated with the ancient Gibeonites.
Possibly, this was the reason that some of its members were
driven to the western slopes of the mountain (Manahath; see
I Chron. 8:6). In early Israel’s pre-monarchic period, some of
the adjoining kingdoms, notably Moab, attempted to extend
their dominion over the Jordan Valley and the hill country
on the western bank of the river. They encountered resistanceonly in Mt. Ephraim, the territory of the Rachel tribes, who did
not suffer foreign rule until the Philistine hegemony.
Ehud headed a tribute-bearing delegation to *Eglon, kingof Moab (Judg. 3:15ff.). Being left-handed, he wore a sword under his garments on his right thigh, where guards were not in
the habit of looking for a suspicious bulge, and no one noticed
it. Under the pretext of having a “secret word” for the king,he succeeded in gaining a private audience with him. Whenhe said “I bring you a word of God, your Majesty” the heavyENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

fleshed monarch rose to hear it; Ehud drew his sword, thrust
its entire length into the belly of the corpulent king, and fled.
Returning to his country, he sounded the ram’s horn for thearmies to gather, captured the fords of the Jordan, and defeated all the Moabite garrisons on the western bank of theriver. This ended the Moabite rule over Israel for several generations. Ehud is not actually called a judge, although he isusually numbered among the “judges.”
Bibliography: Bright, Hist, 157; Kittel, Gesch, 1 (1922), 27;
Albright, Stone, 216; M. Noth, Geschichte Israels (1956), 144–5; Y.
Kaufmann, Sefer Shofetim (1962), 104–6; Kraeling, in: JBL, 54 (1935),
205–10; Yeivin, in. Zion Me’assef, 4 (1930), 8; idem, in: Ma’arakhot,
26–27 (1945), 65–66. Add. Bibliography: Y. Amit, Judges (1999),
71–79; See also the bibliography under *Eglon.

EIBESCHUETZ, SIMON AARON (1786–1856), Danish
philanthropist. He bequeathed the major part of his property,
which amounted to about 700,000 Danish thalers, to various
municipal institutions in Copenhagen, but especially to Jewish institutions. Among other bequests, he donated an annual
grant to the University Library of Copenhagen in order to purchase ancient Hebrew works and books dealing with Oriental
culture. The condition that two Jewish students be admitted
annually without payment was attached to his bequests to the
Polytechnic and the Academy of Arts of Copenhagen.
Bibliography: AZDJ, 21 (1857), 104; Dansk Biografisk Leksikon, S.V.

EICHELBAUM, SAMUEL (1894–1967), Argentine playwright and short-story writer. Born in a Jewish agriculturalcolony in Domíguez, Entre Ríos, he lived most of his life in
Buenos Aires. Though in his psychological plays Eichelbaum
deals mostly with the Argentinian middle class and is not especially concerned with Jewish life, Jewish themes and characters (both urban and rural) appear in his plays El Judío Aarón(1942), Nadie la conoció nunca (1926), and Divorcio nupcial(1941); and in some of his short stories such as “La buena cosecha,” “El señor Lubovitzky depositario” (1925), and “Lo quela luna vio.” He is considered one of the principal architects ofArgentinian drama. Two of Eichelbaum’s plays were awarded
the municipal prize of Buenos Aires: Tormenta de Dios (1930)
and Señorita (1937); but his best-known plays, also adapted forthe screen, are Un guapo del 900 (1940) and Un tal Servando
Gómez (1942), which deal with the suburban cultural environment of Buenos Aires.
Bibliography: D.W. Foster, Cultural Diversity in Latin
American Literature (1994); N. Glickman and G. Waldman, Argentine Jewish Theatre: An Anthology (1996); D.B. Lockhart, Jewish Writers of Latin America. A Dictionary (1997); L. Senkman, La identidad
judía en la literatura argentina (1983).
[Florinda Goldberg (2nd ed.)]EICHENBAUM, BORIS MIKHAILOVICH (1886–1959),
Russian literary scholar. Eichenbaum was born in Krasnoye(Smolensk district) to a Jewish father and a Russian mother,245

eichenbaum, jacob
both physicians. His father, who became a Pravoslav Christian, was the son of Jacob *Eichenbaum (Gelber), a wellknown Hebrew poet and scholar. After finishing the First
Voronezh Gymnasium, Boris Eichenbaum entered the Military-Medical Academy of St. Petersburg in 1905. In 1907, hepublished his first essay on Russian literature (“Pushkin andthe Rebellion of 1825,” Vestnik znaniya, 1 and 2), and during
the following year he was admitted to the Philological Faculty of St. Petersburg University, where he studied Slavic andRomano-Germanic philology, graduating in 1912 and joining
the faculty of the university in 1918. From 1912, Eichenbaum
regularly published scholarly and critical essays in Russkaya
Mysl, Apollon, and other literary journals, as well as some poetry (in Gumilev’s Giperborey). In 1919, Eichenbaum joined
the Society for the Study of Poetic Language (OPOYAZ) andsoon became one of the foremost exponents of the so-called“Formal Method” in literary scholarship, an early structural
trend that laid the foundation of modern scientific poetics.
Between 1922 and 1931, Eichenbaum published nine books,
which are generally considered classics and have almost all
been reprinted in the West: Melodika stikha (“Melodics ofVerse,” 1922); Molodoy Tolstoy (“Young Tolstoy,” 1922; reprinted1968); Anna Akhmatova (1923); Lermontov (1924; reprinted1967); Skvoz literaturu (“Through Literature,” Collected Essays,
1924; reprinted 1962); Literatura, Teoriya. Kritika. Polemika(1927; reprinted 1969); Lev Tolstoy (vol. 1, 1928; vol. 2, 1931; 1–2
reprinted 1968); Moy vremennik (“My Chronicle,” 1929) (thelatter collection includes an essay on Jacob Eichenbaum andhis long poem “Ha-Krav”).
In the late 1920s Eichenbaum attempted a synthesis of
the purely intrinsic and the sociological approach to literature. However, this attempt, as well as Eichenbaum’s earlier
books, evoked official criticism, which found some support
in retrograde academic and literary circles. Forced to abandon
theoretical research, Eichenbaum devoted himself to textual
work, preparing exemplary critical editions of such classic
Russian authors as L. Tolstoy, Lermontov, Gogol, and Leskov. In 1933, he published a novel, Marshrut v bessmertiye (“ARoute to Immortality”), about the lexicographer N. Makarov.
In his diary he mentioned that his spiritual-genetic ties to his
Jewish grandfather had an affect on him. When in 1924 his
grandfather’s Hebrew poem “The Battle” appeared in Russian
anonymously, he wrote an essay speaking among other things
about the forgotten author.
In 1947, in the course of the official campaign against
the great Russian comparative philologist Aleksandr Veselovsky, Eichenbaum and his colleagues *Zhirmunsky and Tomashevsky “were taken to task for perpetuating Veselovsky’s‘bourgeois cosmopolitanism,’ i.e., drawing parallels between
Russian and Western literature” (V. Erlich). In September 1949,
an officially inspired article about Eichenbaum’s “reactionary
militant idealism,” abundantly interspersed with antisemitic
allusions, appeared in the magazine Zvezda, virtually silencing Eichenbaum for five years. He did not resume his scholarly activity until 1954.

246

The third volume of his great monograph on Tolstoy
appeared posthumously in 1960. Following the revival of
the study of poetic language in the U.S.S.R., two volumes ofEichenbaum’s selected writings appeared in 1969 in Leningrad, O poezii (“On Poetry”) and O proze (“On Prose”). The
following works of Eichenbaum have been translated into
English: “Theory of the Formal Method,” in: Russian Formalist
Criticism, transl. and ed. by L.T. Lemon and M.J. Reis (1965);“On Tolstoy’s Crises,” in: Tolstoy (20t Century Views series;1967); “O. Henry and the Theory of the Short Story,” transl.
with notes and postscript, by I.R. Titunik, in: Michigan Slavic
Contributions (1968); Young Tolstoy (1972).
Bibliography: V. Erlich, Russian Formalism (1965); R. Jakobson, in: International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics,
6 (1963), 159–67; ibid., 7 (1963), 151–87 (a complete bibliography ofEichenbaum’s writings).
[Omri Ronen (2nd ed.)]EICHENBAUM (Gelber), JACOB (1796–1861), Haskalahpoet, educator, and mathematician. Born in Krystianopol,
Galicia, he was married at the age of 11, but divorced when
his father-in-law suspected him of secular leanings. He
married again in 1815 and settled in Zamosc where he developed his interest in mathematics and translated Euclid
from German into Hebrew (unpublished). Here he adopted
the name Eichenbaum in order to obtain a resident’s permit. Later he served as a private tutor, traveling from place
to place, and finally settling in Odessa where he establisheda private Jewish school in 1835. He was appointed directorof the Kishinev Jewish school in 1844 by the Russian government and in 1850 inspector of the newly established Zhitomir
Rabbinical Seminary. Eichenbaum contributed poetry to
Hebrew journals of the period. Kol Zimrah (1836), his collection of poems (and some translations), was one of thefirst books of poetry published in the Haskalah period. He
also wrote Ha-Kerav (“The Battle,” 1839), a book in verse
describing the game of chess, and Hokhmat ha-Shi’urim (anadaptation of a French arithmetic book, 1857). His grandson Boris *Eichenbaum was a well-known Russian literaryscholar.
Bibliography: Zinberg, Toledot, 6 (1960), 229–30; A. Zederbaum, in: Ha-Meliẓ , 2 (1961/62), nos. 49, 50; 3 (1862/63), nos. 1, 3,
6; Kressel, Leksikon, S.V.
[Getzel Kressel]

EICHHORN, DAVID MAX (1906–1986), U.S. Reform rabbi,
chaplain, and author. Eichhorn was born in Columbia, Pennsylvania, and received his B.A. from the University of Cincinnati in 1928. He was ordained at Hebrew Union College in 1931
and earned a D.D. degree from the same institution in 1938.
In 1956, he was awarded an honorary D.H.L. from HUC-JIR.
He served as rabbi of Sinai Temple in Springfield, Massachusetts (1932–34), and Mt. Sinai Temple in Texarkana, Arkansas(1935–38), before becoming the first rabbi of Temple Israel in
Tallahassee, Florida, in 1939. He also became the first state
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Eichmann, Adolf Otto
director of Florida Hillel Foundations (1939–42). In 1942, heenlisted as a chaplain in the U.S. Army and was the first Jewish chaplain to enter Dachau, conducting the first religious
service inside the liberated concentration camp on April 30,
1945. The service was captured on film and is commonly seen
in liberation films. He was made supervisor of displaced persons for the Austrian Zone of the U.S. occupation, working
with survivors of several concentration camps. For his service
in combat zones, he was awarded the Bronze Star and eventually promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel. After the war,
the demobilized Eichhorn remained in the U.S. Army Reserve
and was appointed director of field operations for the Committee on Army and Navy Religious Activities, as well as director of religious activities at the *National Jewish Welfare
Board – a position he retained until he retired in 1968. He wasalso president of the Association of Jewish Chaplains of theArmed Forces (1953–55).
During his retirement, Eichhorn served as rabbi of Temple
Israel in Merritt Island, Florida, and chaplain of the Kennedy
Space Center and Patrick Air Force Base. In 1973, he founded
the Jewish Community Center of Brevard County. In the fieldof scholarship, Eichhorn was renowned as an expert in the history of conversion to Judaism as well as Christian attempts toconvert Jews in the United States. He wrote Conversion to Judaism: A History and Analysis (1965), Evangelizing the American
Jew (1978), and Jewish Intermarriage: Fact and Fiction (1974).
He was chairman of the Central Conference of American Rabbis’ Committee on the Unaffiliated (1950–58), and a liberal who
favored rabbinic participation in the wedding ceremonies of
mixed marriages. He also wrote Cain, Son of the Serpent (1957);
Joys of Jewish Folklore (ed., 1981; reprinted as Jewish Folklore in
America, 1996); and Musings of the Old Professor: The Meaning of Koheles (1973). His posthumously published letters homefrom World War II provide a vivid depiction of Jewish life: The
GI’s Rabbi: The World War II Letters of David Max Eichhorn by
Greg Palmer and Mark S. Zaid (2004).
Bibliography: K.M. Olitzky, L.J. Sussman, and M.H. Stern,
Reform Judaism in America: A Biographical Dictionary and Sourcebook (1993); Contemporary Authors Online, Gale, 2005.
[Bezalel Gordon (2nd ed.)]°EICHHORN, JOHANN GOTTFRIED (1752–1827), German historian and biblical scholar. Eichhorn was professorof Oriental languages at Jena (1775–87) and of philosophy at
Goettingen (1788–1827), where he succeeded his teacher, J.D.
*Michaelis. He was one of the pioneers in the modern study of
the Bible. He shares the credit with G. *Herder for freeing biblical studies from the shackles of church dogma and making
biblical literature accessible to a wider public. Some of his work
attempts to explain biblical myth naturalistically. In his Einleitung in das Alte Testament (3 vols., 1780–83; a partial translation: Introduction to the Study of the Old Testament, 1888),
which ran into four editions (the 4t edition including 5 vols.,
1820–24) and several reprints, he summed up the results ofresearch in the field of biblical literature up to his day and enENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

deavored to give a just appreciation of the poetic and religious
elements in the Hebrew Bible. This was the first introduction
to the Bible to be written, and through its vivid style and wide
scholarship made a deep impression upon the scholarly world.
Eichhorn’s Einleitung exerted great influence on the biblicalstudies of Moses *Mendelssohn and his fellow commentators,
especially *Ben-Ze’ev. Eichhorn also wrote an introduction to
the Apocrypha (Einleitung in die apokryphischen Schriften desAlten Testament, 1795) as well as translations of Job and theprophetical books of the Bible (Die hebraeischen Propheten, 3vols., 1816–19). He edited Repertorium fuer biblische und morgenlaendische Litteratur (18 vols., 1777–86) and Allgemeine Bibliothek der biblisehen Literatur (10 vols., 1787–1801).
Bibliography: T.K. Cheyne, Founders of Old Testament
Criticism (1893), 21–26; H.J. Kraus, Geschichte der historisch-kritischen
Erforschung des Alten Testaments (1956), 120–40; ADB, 5 (1877), 731–7.
Add. Bibliography: J. Rogerson, in: DBI, 324.
[Moshe Zevi (Moses Hirsch) Segal]

EICHLER, MENAHEM MAX (1870–1927), U.S. Conservative rabbi. Eichler was born in Hungary and immigrated to theUnited States in 1892. In 1899, he earned a B.A. degree fromthe City College of New York and was ordained at the Jewish Theological Seminary. Eichler became rabbi of Congregation Beth Israel (1899–1905) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
where in 1901 graduates of the *Jewish Theological Seminary
met in his home to discuss the impending financial collapseof the Seminary. Their plan of action led to the formation of
the Alumni Association of the Jewish Theological Seminary,
which quickly evolved into the *Rabbinical Assembly. Eichler
was elected the second president of the Rabbinical Assembly(1904–7) and served on the financial committee that planned
the Seminary’s million dollar campaign. From 1905 to 1916, he
was rabbi of Congregation Ohabei Shalom in Boston, where
he also attended law school at Boston University. After receiving his LL.B. degree in 1914 and being admitted to the Bar in
1916, Eichler began the practice of law and devoted much of
his time to Jewish communal causes. He founded the Central
Jewish Organization of Boston – which he also served as president – and was director of the Federated Jewish Charities of
Boston, as well as the Zionist Bureau of New England. Eichler
returned to the rabbinate in 1920, moving to Temple Beth El
in Buffalo, New York, where he remained until his death. He
wrote two books: What Makes Life Worth Living (1904) andJewish Home Prayers (1913).
Bibliography: P.S. Nadell, Conservative Judaism in America:
A Biographical Dictionary and Sourcebook (1988).
[Bezalel Gordon (2nd ed.)]°EICHMANN, ADOLF OTTO (1906–1962), SS officer andhead of the Jewish Department of the Gestapo. He became
one of the people most identified with “the Final Solutionof the Jewish Problem” during his trial, which took place inJerusalem in 1961, and a synonym in all discussions dealing
with human evil.

247

Eichmann, Adolf Otto
Eichmann was born in Solingen, Germany, to Adolf Karl,an accountant, and Maria, a housewife, both of whom were
devout Protestants. When Eichmann was seven years old, thefamily moved to the city of Linz, Austria, a mostly Catholic
city. In 1916, Eichmann’s mother died and, shortly thereafter,
his father remarried.
Eichmann’s childhood was a usual bourgeois one, very
different from the commonly accepted image of what isthought to be the childhood of Nazi war criminals, as if they
had usually experienced traumas in childhood and were on
the fringes of society. No social rejections can be found in
his childhood nor any outstanding expressions of hatred of
Jews.
Eichmann’s achievements as a student were low, and atage 19, he became a traveling salesman for the Vacuum Oil
Company in Upper Austria. In 1933, he was promoted to the
Salzburg area, but in the same year was fired because of staff
downsizing in the company. His joining the ranks of the Nazi
Party of Austria was the result of several factors. The generalcontext was that Eichmann had grown up in an Austria where
there was a long history of anti-Jewish movements and public discourse full of Jewish stereotypes. Eichmann was surrounded by an atmosphere and environment within which
Jews were thought, as a matter of course, to be despised, foreign, and suspect as to their loyalty, as well as different in theirreligion and culture. Jews and non-Jews belonged to different
societies. That is, there was a background of antisemitism,
but not outright and aggressive. As to the street, there was adesire to eradicate the shame of Versailles and that, too, wasthought to have been caused by the Jews. The strengtheningof the National Socialist Party in Austria during the 1932 local elections gave it, besides strength, an increasing size andpublic respectability. To all this was added personal background. It was Ernst Kaltenbrunner, who later became thecommander of the Head Office of the Security of the Reich,an acquaintance of the Eichmann family, who suggested toEichmann that he join the ranks of the party and the SS. On
April 1, 1932, Eichmann became a member of the Nazi Party.
His number was 899895. Seven months later, he also swore allegiance to the SS, which at the time, numbered about 2,000
members in all of Austria.
The strengthening of the Nazi Party in Austria after 1933
resulted in its persecution by the government, and this, in addition to the fact that Eichmann was unemployed, caused him
to immigrate to Germany in August 1933. Once in Germany,
he received military training in one of the SS camps. In 1934,
Eichmann served as a colonel in the Austrian unit of the SS
in the concentration camp at Dachau. At the end of the year,
he volunteered for the SD, the Secret Service, and was transferred to Berlin. This was extremely important because in a
few years the SD became the driving force of the implementation of Jewish policies in Nazi Germany and an influence on
the determiners of that policy.
Initially, Eichmann’s main job in the SD was in Intelligence. At the beginning, he dealt with the Freemasons; later

he gradually became an expert in the subjects of Judaism, Jews,
Jewish organizations, Zionism, Herzl, and Jewish immigration. In appreciation of his efforts and achievements in thefield of Jewish policy, he was promoted to Untersturmfuhrer(second lieutenant) in January 1938.
Now he had real standing and prestige. In the same year,
he was requested by *Heydrich to prepare a memorandum
about the international effort to encourage Jewish emigration from Europe. This was the beginning of a great advancement in Eichmann’s career. This matter dealt with the future of
the Jews in Austria, which had been annexed to the German
Reich in March 1938. The SD made Eichmann responsible for
the Jewish Emigration Office and, for the first time, he hadreal power. He had enactment authority in the security force
and dictatorial authority over the helpless Jews. The summitof his achievements was the establishment of the Main Office of Jewish Emigration. The success of this office hinged
on four factors: the ambitions of the SD and the despair of
the Jews, together with the great effort of Eichmann to implement the emigration according to the SD doctrine, alongwith Eichmann’s burning desire to achieve promotion. Moreover, in Vienna, Eichmann added a new twist to emigrationby having the Jews themselves finance it and enlisting theircooperation, an action which was a precedent for the formation of the Judenrat.
Despite Eichmann’s contentions that his efforts to encourage Jewish emigration were in the spirit of Zionism, thereality was that forced emigration was the realization of Nazi
policy and that by forced, brutally implemented emigration
the Nazis also got hold of Jewish possessions. Eichmannbragged that within a year of the annexation of Austria, about
100,000 Jews had emigrated from Austria legally and a few
thousand Jews to Palestine illegally, and in total by November
1941, 128,000 Jews had left Austria. Eichmann’s achievement
was quickly rewarded by his promotion to Obersturmfuhrer(first lieutenant). Eichmann’s activities in Vienna became themodel for policy that was enacted in Germany beginning inJanuary 1939, when the Main Office of Emigration within
the Reich was established. Heydrich was appointed commander and Heinrich Mueller was appointed his second incommand.
A few weeks later, Czechoslovakia was conquered andEichmann was asked to come to Prague to establish an additional emigration center. At this point, Eichmann had formed
a staff from the Austrian Nazis, which included Frantz Novak,
Anton Burger, Karl Rohm, and Alois Brunner as well as the
Gunther brothers. Fritz Gunther was to be his deputy. Theodor
Dannecker and Dieter Wisliceny were also among the group.
These were to be at the heart of activities in the years to come.
To Bohemia and Moravia, which became a German Protectorate, Eichmann took Brunner and Hans Gunther.
All of Eichmann’s activities seemed to be quite efficientuntil September 1939, when Germany invaded Poland andWorld War II began. At this point, Eichmann’s commandchanged radically.

248

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Eichmann, Adolf Otto
With the outbreak of war, *Himmler established theMain Office for the Security of the Reich (RSHA) commanded
by Heydrich. Eichmann was appointed to chair the Jewish Department with Heinrich Mueller at the head. Consequently,
Eichmann was serving under Heydrich.
During October 1939, Eichmann and his men were responsible for the expulsion of thousands of Jews from Germany, Austria, and the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia to aremote place in Poland called Nisko. Most of them perished;
only about 300 of them survived. These deportations andthose that came immediately afterwards became the basis forthe development of methods of mass expulsions during theentire period of Nazi rule on the entire continent. It was Eichmann who at that time translated the German Foreign Office’splan to deport the Jews to the tropical island of Madagascar
into a viable plan. The plan was never put into action.
In February 1940, the RSHA began a series of reorganizations. Eichmann’s unit was renamed IVB4, the name bywhich it would become known forever: the “Department ofJewish Matters and Deportation.” It was formally listed under
the authority of the Gestapo. It was a victory for the SD in the
struggle for control of anti-Jewish policy. Eichmann was now
formally a Gestapo officer.
Now Eichmann worked furiously. As head of the Department of Emigration in Vienna, Prague, and Berlin, he had toevacuate hundreds of thousands of people to Poland to makeroom for ethnic Germans who had been evacuated from theBaltic countries. The deportation was carried out from theareas of Stettin and Posen, causing great chaos in the General Government and strong protests from Governor Hans
*Frank. This crisis crossed wires historically with the preparations for the invasion of the U.S.S.R. It seems that at thispoint, the expert in emigration became the expert in massmurder and genocide.
The month of September 1941 marks the beginning ofEichmann’s activities on a mass scale. In mid-September, *Hitler ordered Himmler to carry out a deportation of Jews from
Germany, Austria, and the Protectorate. In October, Himmler
officially prohibited Jewish emigration from the continentand in the same month Eichmann organized the deportationof 20,000 Jews from the Reich along with 5,000 Roma (gypsies) to the Lodz ghetto. In the same month, Eichmann wasagain promoted. This time, he was promoted to Obersturmbannfuhrer (lieutenant colonel), his highest rank. In October, Eichmann held a meeting of representatives of different
institutions that were connected to the Jewish issue where heinformed them of the deportation of German Jews. Likewise,
they were required to report their activities in that matter.
When all was ready, the trains from Germany and Austria
began to move towards Poland, White Russia, and the Baltic
area. Eichmann personally commanded all arrangements andtraveled to Minsk, Lvov, Lublin, and Lodz, to check the progress of the preparations to receive the deportees.
At the beginning of 1942, Eichmann visited Auschwitz
and Treblinka. Even so, most of his activities until then had

involved deportations and their organization, and not the
genocide of European Jews. His involvement in the latter
phase began with the convening of the *Wannsee Conference
on January 20, 1942.
At the Wannsee Conference, the coordination of all theGerman bodies connected with the implementation of the Final Solution was discussed. Eichmann had convened the conference, written Heydrich’s speech, and written the protocol.
At the end of the day, it was Eichmann, Muller, and Heydrich
who joined together after all of their aims had been discussed.
Eichmann had now turned from an emigration expert to oneof the most important people in the implementation of the
new policies against the Jews.
After Wannsee, Eichmann became the director of thelargest murder project in history.
Eichmann now directed transportation from all parts ofEurope to the extermination camps in Poland, and oversaw
the number of deportees. He coordinated the train departureschedules with railroad authorities in different countries. In
cooperation with the German Foreign Office, he organized
the seizure of the huge quantity of possessions that the deported Jews left behind.
In defining Eichmann’s role in this time period, it canbe said that it was not Eichmann who determined the policy, yet he was an important link as an operative interpreterof the policy.
Although Eichmann was well aware of what was happening in the death camps, most of his activities were not in Poland
and Eastern Europe. He was not involved in the activities of the
Einsatzgruppen. His greatest impact was mostly in activities inCentral and Western Europe. In all of those countries, except
for Denmark, Norway, and Finland, representatives of his department spread out and were responsible for the deportations.
In occupied France, Holland, Belgium, Greece, Slovakia, and
the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia, as well as in the Reich,
the orders were given by Hitler, Himmler, and Heydrich andcarried out by the joint action of local collaborators and Eichmann’s department. Yet Eichmann was informed and knew allalong of the growing severity of the policy. Again and again, it
can be seen how he intervened to reduce the number of Jews
who received temporary exemptions from deportation orders. In Holland, for example, Eichmann fought to cancel the
exemptions that were given to the country’s Jewish diamond
workers, who were very important for its economy.
Eichmann was a key figure in two places: in the Theresienstadt ghetto and in Hungary. The history of the Theresienstadt ghetto/camp in Bohemia is closely connected with thename of Eichmann. It begins with the order of Heydrich in
October 1941 to evacuate 86,000 Jews from the Protectorate.
The fear of chaos as with Nisko produced the decision to isolate them in the area of the Protectorate itself. Between January and June 1942, more than 50,000 Czech Jews were sent tothe camp. In addition, Jews from Vienna and Jews of German
nationality were later added. For most of them, the camp wasa way station to Auschwitz.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6249

Eichmann, Adolf Otto
It was Eichmann who realized the potential of Theresienstadt as a means of deceiving the world about the fateof the Jews. He made it into a “model camp,” where the Red
Cross Committee was allowed to visit in order to counter thereports of Nazi atrocities. The day after the Red Cross Committee’s visit, one of the largest deportations was dispatchedto Auschwitz.
In Hungary, which was conquered by the Germans on
March 19, 1944, it was Eichmann himself who managed the deportations. Using the great experience he had acquired, Eichmann succeeded in sending off 437,402 Jews between May 15
and July 9, mostly to Auschwitz. More than 70 of them weremurdered shortly after arriving at the camp. This “success” wasmade possible partly by the help the Nazis received from the
Hungarians. Yet, at the beginning of July, the leader of Hungary, Miklos Horthy, ordered the cessation of this collaboration under international pressure. Eichmann was among those
who fought most furiously to continue the deportations but
was unable to continue for several months. He renewed his
activities when the Hungarian Arrow Cross Fascists gained
control of Hungary in October 1944. With his return, execution by gas in Auschwitz was stopped and he ordered marchesof Jews to Germany through Austria to help with the German
war industry. Around 76,000 Jews took part in these marches,
which were called “death marches.” In Hungary, Eichmann
met with various attempts to save the Jews. In Budapest, Raul
*Wallenberg, the Swedish diplomat, was active together withother representatives of neutral countries, against Eichmann’s
activities. Eichmann also played an important part in the famous “blood-for-trucks negotiations.” In these, Joel *Brandtof Budapest was sent to Istanbul with the offer to exchange
Jews for trucks and other goods that would be given to theGermans. The plan was apparently an instance of German duplicity, as was the involvement with Eichmann’s approval of
Wisliceny, a member of his department, in the “Europe Plan”
in 1943, in which Jews would be exchanged for dollars. Eichmann worked to ruin two other plans in Bulgaria and Romania but had to allow the release of some of the Sephardi Jews
from Greece and some Jews from the Land of Israel who had
been seized in Europe in exchange for Germans who had been
seized in the Land of Israel.
At the end of the war, Eichmann was captured, but managed to escape. Like thousands of escaping Nazis, in 1950,
Eichmann used the “Rat Path” which led from Germany toArgentina through Italy. He lived with his family in Buenos
Aires as Ricardo Klement and became a father to a third son.
In 1960, he was abducted by the Israeli Mossad and brought toIsrael. There his trial took place, in which he was found guilty
and condemned to death.
The Eichmann Trial
On May 23, 1960, the prime minister of Israel informed theKnesset, the Israeli public, and the world, in a short announcement of 62 words that Adolf Eichmann, who had been designated one of the most important Nazis, was in Israel andwould stand trial for his part in the “Final Solution of theJewish Problem.”
The Eichmann Trial was one of the biggest media trialsof the 20t century and it made the name of Adolf Eichmanna synonym for the essence of human evil and its sources.
It took Israel almost a year to prepare for the trial, whichbegan on April 19, 1961. The interrogation was carried out by aspecial unit of the Israeli Police Force (Department 06). Eichmann was charged with “Crimes against the Jewish People,”“Crimes against Humanity,” “War Crimes,” and “Membership in an Enemy Organization” (SD, SS, and Gestapo). Allof these were listed in Israel’s Nazi and Nazi Collaborators
Punishment Law (1950), on the basis of which Eichmann was
brought to trial.
The trial ended in August 1961. On December 15, 1961,
the verdict and sentence were read. Eichmann was convicted
and sentenced to death. Eichmann appealed to the Supreme
Court. A panel of five Supreme Court justices rejected his
appeal and confirmed the verdict and sentence. Eichmann
was executed by hanging on June 1, 1962, almost two years after he was brought to Israel. It was the only death sentence
ever carried out by the State of Israel. Eichmann’s body wascremated and his ashes were scattered outside the territorial
waters of Israel.
Eichmann’s trial revealed to the Jews and the world what
had happened to the Jews during World War II. Ben-Gurion
called the trial “The Nuremburg of the Jews” because during
the Nuremburg trials in Germany the Holocaust had beensidelined, while this time it was at the heart of the matter. In
this, Ben-Gurion also wished to emphasize that in 1961, unlike
during the course of Jewish history in the Diaspora, the Jews
had a sovereign state, and as a result they could call to accountthose who had injured them. Thus it was asserted that the Stateof Israel represented all the Jewish people in the world.
The prosecutor at the trial was the attorney general,
Gideon *Hausner, who headed a prosecution team that numbered five people. The defense attorney was Robert Servatiusof Germany, who had represented a number of German defendants in the Nuremburg trials. His co-consul was Dieter
Wechtenbruch, an attorney from Munich. The panel of judges
consisted of judges at two levels. The president of the court
was a member of the Supreme Court, Moshe *Landau, andalongside him sat two judges from district courts, Benjamin
Halevy and Yitzhak Raveh. The trial took place in front of an
audience in a hall in Jerusalem, while Eichmann sat in a bulletproof glass enclosure. The beginning of the trial focused on
the motions of the defense attorney, who mainly challenged
the right of the court to try Eichmann. The defense attorney’s
main objection was that the judges, being Jews, could notjudge Eichmann impartially. If that was not enough, Eichmann had been abducted from Argentina and brought toIsrael illegally, in violation of international law. Finally, thedefense attorney held that the law under which Eichmann was
charged was retroactive and extraterritorial, in that it related
to crimes committed before the State of Israel had existed and250

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Eichmann, Adolf Otto
were committed outside the territory of Israel, on Europeansoil. The judges rejected all of these arguments. They rejected
the first on the grounds that a judge is bound to restrain his
feelings while on the bench, and if he did not he would noteven be able to sit in judgment of a felony. The issue of retroactivity did not involve a binding principle. Usually it is citedin cases where a law was not law at the time of the crime.
But in the case of the current trial, laws had been passed allover the world that did not constitute new judicial norms but
make it possible to bring to trial criminals who knew very
well at the time of their crimes that their actions were illegal.
In the matter of the abduction, the court held that it was not
the court’s business to deal with how the defendant had beenbrought to court but with the legality of the accusation andvenue. Finally, in the matter of extraterritoriality, the court
held that it was not relevant, for two reasons. First, the intention to murder was also to exterminate the Jews of the Landof Israel, and second, that there is an existential connection
between the Land of Israel and the will to ensure that people
who commit crimes against the Jewish people will be brought
to trial and punished for their crimes.
With the rejection of the objections, the trial began. Eichmann’s answer to each of the accusations was: “In the spirit of
the indictment – not guilty.”
The documentary evidence that was brought before thecourt included 1,600 documents, many of them with Eichmann’s signature, and 110 witnesses, mostly Holocaust survivors. The trial told the story of the Holocaust as the storyof European Jewry but excluded the story of the fate of theJews of Libya and Tunisia in North Africa. The prosecution
described the fate of the Jews of Europe in a wide geographic
context while describing the chronological stages of the fateof the Jews in each country. The prosecution put on record thestories of the camps in Europe and the activities of the Einsatzgruppen, while emphasizing that in each stage one could
see the fingerprints of Eichmann.
The defense attorney did not question the authenticityof the Holocaust, but the central role that the defendant had
in it. The defense was not able to bring witnesses to speak forEichmann since SS and other Nazi personnel were not offeredimmunity if they came to Israel and were therefore subject toprosecution. As a result a group of jurists was sent to Germany
to gather testimonies from SS men who were willing to testify. Clearly this was a deviation from the commonly accepted
practice in criminal trials.
The court rejected the claims of the defense that Eichmann was mainly obediently fulfilling the orders of his commanders, and claimed that Eichmann had acted in a criminal manner on his own initiative. The outstanding example
was the murder of hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews,
where the defendant had become relentless in his implementation of the “Final Solution.” The court did not accept the claimsof the prosecution especially with regard to Eichmann’s partin the Einzatzgruppen murders and the murders in the camps.
The main accusation against Eichmann concerned his part inwhat had occurred in Central Europe and in the west of thecontinent. The judges in their verdict did not rely on the testimony of witnesses when they came to convict Eichmann. The
witnesses’ testimony about their individual experiences had
a powerful and enduring impact on Israel and the world, in
contrast to their apparent lack of effect on the judges.
The Eichmann Trial left a lasting effect on the discourse
and memory of the Holocaust as well as on Holocaust survivors, who at the time made up more than a quarter of the
population of Israel.
Israel’s public discourse shifted from an attitude thatjudged European Jews harshly and maintained that they hadgone like “sheep to the slaughter,” to deeper understandingof the desperate situation of the Jews at the time of the Nazi
occupation and a more complex and varied insight into theessence of heroism. No longer was the latter understood only
as armed combat but also as spiritual resistance. The Holocaust discourse underwent personalization. Israelis stopped
speaking about “the six million” and began to speak about
individuals with names and faces. Holocaust research, which
until then had relied on German documents, began to focus
on documents and materials that came from the victims. The
Jerusalem school of Holocaust study began to flower. As a result, alternative interpretations of the behavior of the Jews,
their leadership, and their choices in the Holocaust period
were made. The status of Holocaust survivors in Israeli society underwent a dramatic change. For the first time, they werealso seen as part of the Holocaust history, no less than thesix million who were murdered. The Israelis, who perceived
themselves as writing a new chapter in Jewish history, began
to search for ways to rejoin the mainstream of Jewish history.
The Holocaust survivors became the living bridge between theruins of the Diaspora, its history and spiritual treasures, andthe modern Israelis. It was the survivors who, in 1963, initiatedthe youth trips to Poland in search of the past.
Jews of the Diaspora also followed the trial with batedbreath to discover the story of the Holocaust as it was revealed.
The trial’s impact, however, transcended the borders of
the State of Israel and the Jewish people. In Germany, the trials of Nazi criminals were sped up and, in 1963, the Auschwitz
trials were held there.
The Western intellectual debate profited profoundly fromthe trial which introduced two ongoing controversies.
It was Yehiel Dinur (*K. Zetnick), the survivor of Auschwitz and well-known writer, who described in his testimony
what he called “Planet Auschwitz.” By this he excluded Auschwitz from ordinary human experience. This phrase significantly increased the danger of mystification of the Shoah. An
important variation of this theme can be found in the debate
about the uniqueness of the Shoah as opposed to its universalistic aspects.
In the wake of the New Yorker articles that later became
the book Eichmann in Jerusalem by Hannah *Arendt, an intellectual and moral dialogue began about the essence of evil as

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6251eichthal, gustave D’
expressed in Arendt’s theory of “the banality of evil.” In this she
had meant to say that Eichmann did not differ from millions
of people around the world. What was crucial, she claimed,is the essence of the Nazi evil, which does not lie in its sadistic manifestations but rather in its ability to undermine basic
morality of humanity.
The controversy over “the banality of evil” became oneof the cornerstones in the discussion of evil and the sovereignty of people in making their choices. In this connection,
one must mention the title of *Righteous Among the Nations
bestowed by Yad Vashem on gentiles who saved Jews during
the Holocaust, a designation stemming from the need to illuminate the choice to do good.
Almost five decades after the trial, it can be said that for
Diaspora Jews as well as for Israelis, the trial brought about adramatic shift in the perception of national identity. Today it
can be said that the heart of Jewish national identity is rooted
in the Holocaust. Ironically, though, the result is the marginalization of the Jewish State in this identity.
Bibliography: Z. Aharoni Zvi, Operation Eichmann: The
Truth about the Pursuit, Capture and Trial (1997); H. Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (1963); D. Cesarani, Eichmann, His Life and Crimes (2004); G. Hausner, The Jerusalem Trial, 2 vols. (1980); H. Yablonka, The State of Israel vs. Adolf
Eichmann (2004).
[Hanna Yablonka (2nd ed.)]EICHTHAL, GUSTAVE D’ (1804–1886), French publicist,
Saint-Simonian, and Hellenist. He was the son of a family ofJewish bankers originally named Seligmann. His parents adopted Catholicism, and Eichthal himself was baptized in childhood. In 1822 Eichthal met Auguste Comte who introduced
him to the doctrines of Saint-Simon. Subsequently, Eichthal
became active in favor of civil rights for Jews and Negroes. In
1837 Eichthal went to Austria but was unsuccessful in enlisting official support for Jewish emancipation. He visited Algeria in 1838 and prepared a project for organizing the Jewish community there. After visiting Greece in 1832, Eichthal
advocated the use of Greek as a universal language. Despite
his Saint-Simonian and cosmopolitan outlook, Eichthal dieda fervent Catholic. His works include Les trois grands peuples
mediterraneens et le Christianisme (1864); Melanges de critiquebiblique (1886); and La langue grecque (1887).

reward for his services as an army supplier during the Napoleonic Wars, he was made Freiherr (Baron) von Eichthal, thechanged name and status being accompanied by a change ofreligion. All five sons of the first Freiherr Elias von Eichthal
became bankers: ARNOLD (1772–1838) in Augsburg; DAVID(1775–1850) – who was also a factory owner in Karlsruhe;
LOUIS ARON (ADOLPH) (1780–1850) in Paris, where he cooperated with the *Péreire brothers and the *Rothschilds inearly French railroad development; BERNHARD (1784–1839),
who was a financial councilor; and SIMON (LEONHARD)(1787–1854), who was court banker in Munich. Simon initiated the first Bavarian banking legislation in 1834, was a main
shareholder in and first president of the Bavarian Mortgage
and Exchange Bank, and pioneered Bavaria’s railroad development. Simon’s son CARL (1813–1880) was one of the foundersof the Bayrische Vereinsbank. He was also a member of the“Zollparlament,” composed of South-German delegates andthe North-German Reichstag. A street in Munich is named
after the family to mark their achievements in many community affairs.
Bibliography: H. Theiss, Die Bedeutung der Hoffaktorenfamilie Seligmann-Eichthal (1966); F. Steffan, Bayerische Vereinsbank(1969); H. Schnee, Die Hoffinanz und der moderne Staat, 4 (1963),
213–41; L. Huemmert, Die finanziellen Beziehungen juedischer Bankiers und Heereslieferanten zum bayerischen Staat (1927).
[Joachim O. Ronall]

EIDLITZ, LEOPOLD (1823–1908), U.S. architect. Eidlitz wasprobably the first Jewish architect to practice in the UnitedStates. Born in Prague, he immigrated to America in 1843, andwent into partnership with the German architect Otto Blesch.
He was a versatile designer, known for his banks, his work on
the Capitol at Albany, New York, and churches, including theChrist Church Cathedral in St. Louis (1867). The synagogue
Shaaray Tefila in New York was erected by Blesch and Eidlitz
in 1847. It was built in the Romanesque style, and represented
a break with the classical style of synagogue design previously
current in America. In 1868 Eidlitz built Temple Emanu-El, on
Fifth Avenue, New York. The basic plan was Gothic, as weresome of the decorative details such as the rose window, but
the Moorish element was given particular prominence. Eidlitz
wrote The Nature and Function of Art (1881).

Bibliography: Loeb, in: REJ, 15 (1887), 153–5; Weill, ibid.,
31 (1895), 261–73.

Bibliography: Roth, Art, 726–8; R. Wischnitzer, Synagogue
Architecture in the United States (1955), 43–44, 74–76.

EICHTHALSELIGMANN, family of German Court Jews
and bankers. The family was descended from ARON SELIGMANN (d. 1744), a trader and banker of Leimen, near Heidelberg. His sons ARON and ELIAS served as Court Jews in
the Palatinate and in Wuerttemberg; both died in the 1770s.
Four sons of Elias – ARON ELIAS, MAYER, LIEBMANN, andLEMLE – followed their father’s vocation in the Palatinate, Bavaria, Baden, and Saxonia. The eldest, Aron Elias (1747–1824),
became successively court factor, court agent, court councilor,and court banker to the royal house of Bavaria. In 1814, as a

EIDLITZ, (Abraham Moses) ZERAH BEN MEIR (fl.
c. 1720), rabbi and preacher in Prague. An orphan, he was
educated in the home of Jonathan *Eybeschuetz and was oneof his outstanding pupils. He was a member of the bet dinpresided over by Ezekiel *Landau, and headed a yeshivah forover 30 years. At first wealthy, he supported numerous scholars. Later becoming impoverished, however, he would not accept support; it is related that a sum he had received from thehead of the community was found sealed up after his deathwith instructions to return it. Fourteen of his sermons were252

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Eilberg, amy
printed under the title Or la-Yesharim (1785, reprinted 1942).
His novellae on Beẓ ah were published in Jerusalem in 1960,
and further manuscripts exist. Eidlitz appreciated the value of
secular sciences, considering them necessary for both scholars and layman but inferior to the Torah. He therefore wrote
a textbook on mathematics, in Hebrew and Yiddish on facing
pages, entitled Melekhet Maḥ ashevet, of which only the firstpart appeared (Prague, 1785; the Hebrew section was reprinted
in Zolkiew (Zholkva), 1837 and 1845, and an abridged Yiddish
version in Warsaw, 1837). Some of his responsa were printed
in works by his contemporaries. Jacob *Emden listed Eidlitz
among those suspected of *Shabbateanism.

sionist movements. After his visit to Israel in 1997 he createda ballet My Jerusalem, based on Mozart’s requiem. One of his
most impressive works dedicated to the perverse Russian history is Russian Hamlet based on the sad life of Tzar Pavel I, theson of the great Yekaterina, set to the music of Beethoven and
Mahler. Many of his productions were televised. Boris Eifman
was a philosopher and a very sensitive person, concerned with
contemporary problems. Among his numerous awards are thePeople’s Artist Award (1995), National Prize of Russia (1995),
Theater Prize (1996 and 1997), Golden Mask Prize (1996 and1999), the prestigious prize of Peace and Consent (1998), andthe chevalier of Arts in France (1999).

Bibliography: Zinberg, Sifrut, 4 (1958), 173, 201; Klemperer,
in: HJ, 13 (1951), 65f.; Ḥ iddushei R. Zeraḥ Eidlitz al Massekhet-Beẓ ah(1960), 1–2, 7–20; I. Ta-Shema, in: Ha-Sefer, 9 (1961/62), 47; Literaturblatt des Orients, 9 (1848), 140, 524–7; Bers, in: YIVO-Bleter, 19 (January–June 1942), 69–79 (on Melekhet Maḥ ashevet).

[Yossi Tavor (2nd ed.)]EIFMAN, BORIS (1946– ), Russian choreographer. He wasborn in Rubtzovsk, Siberia, where his parents were exiled before WW II and returned to Kishivev in the 1950s. At an earlyage Eifman showed a keen interest in ballet and dreamed of
becoming a choreographer. He went to Leningrad where he
was admitted to the ballet faculty of the conservatory. An autodidact, without taking any professional theater directing
courses nor performing as a dancer, he became one of theworld’s prominent choreographers of his time. His first step asa choreographer was made in 1970 with his ballet Gayane, tothe music of Kachaturian, performed in the Musorgsky Theater in Leningrad; this was a great achievement for a beginning choreographer. In 1997, he founded the theater of modern choreography named after him: the Boris Eifman Ballet
Theater, which was extraordinary for Russia at that time. His
theater’s unusual repertoire included over 40 productions
comprising tragedy, comedy, biblical story, fairy tales, andphilosophical and psychological works. His theater became alaboratory where he experimented with different approaches
and elaborated his own unique style, which combined modern art achievements and features of the classical school tradition. In Eifman’s theater, the corps de ballet holds a placeof pride and plays a role comparable to soloists. Turning to
Russian literature he created in 1980 the ballet The Idiot basedon Dostoyevsky’s novel and set to the music of Tchaikovsky’s
6t symphony. This performance played a very significant
role in the cultural life of Russia. Another significant event
was his ballet Tchaikovsky where Eifman used movement topenetrate the inner world of the musical genius. In 1990, hecreated Don Quixote, based on the original music of Mincus,
and its original interpretations. The performance resulted ina political manifest, his creativity turned against totalitarianrule. In 1995 he returned to Dostoyevsky and created the ballet The Karamozovs, full of lust. A peak of his creativity is theballet Giselle, based on the magical life the Russian dancer
Olga Spessivtseva. Here, Eifman achieved the supreme blendof dance styles from classical to character dancing to expresENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

EIG, ALEXANDER (1895–1938), botanist. Born in Minsk,
Belorussia, Eig was taken to Palestine at the age of 14. During
World War I he volunteered for the Jewish Legion, and after
the war devoted himself to the study of botany, specializingin the vegetation of Palestine. He worked for some years asa traveling librarian, and on his travels acquired a rich andvaried collection of plants and grasses which he classified.
From 1926 to 1929, at the invitation of Otto Warburg, Eig
headed the department of botany of the Agricultural Experimental Station, which was transferred in 1929 to the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem. Eig began investigating the geobotany of Palestine, and in 1931 published the first table of phytogeographic regions and the first phytogeographical mapof the country. During the same period he also compiled,with the help of his colleagues, the first Hebrew catalog of theflora of Palestine. From 1931 to 1933, he traveled in Syria, Turkey, and Iraq doing further research. In addition to his scientific work at the Hebrew University, he continued to interest
himself in general botanical research and published descriptions of many new species of plants. In 1937 he was appointed
lecturer in botany at the Hebrew University and devoted muchof his time to the development of its botany department. Hiscollection of plants served as a basis for the department’s herbarium. His important works include A Contribution to the
Knowledge of the Flora of Palestine (1926), The Vegetation ofPalestine (1927), Les elements et les groupes phytogeographiques
dans la flore palestinienne (2 vols., 1931–32), and The Vegetation of the Light Soils Belt of the Coastal Plain of Palestine(1939).
Bibliography: M. Zohary, in: Palestine Journal of Botany,
Jerusalem Series, 1 (1938), 114–24, includes list of his publications.

EILAT, port and resort town at the southern extremity of
Israel on the Red Sea coast. Eilat is the modern spelling forthe biblical *Elath, under which heading the town and its history are described.
EILBERG, AMY (1954– ), first woman to be ordained as aConservative rabbi and admitted into the Rabbinical Assembly, the international association of Conservative/Masorti
rabbis. Eilberg was the daughter of a prominent Philadelphia

253eilonfamily. Her father Joshua Eilberg served in Congress from 1967
to 1979. A product of the Conservative movement, she began
her journey towards the rabbinate in the mid-late 1960s in theinstitutions of informal and youth education of the Conservative movement, United Synagogue Youth and Ramah Camps,
where she discovered her passion for Jewish religious practiceand her innate talent for Jewish leadership.
Eilberg’s college and graduate school years coincidedwith the height of the Jewish feminist movement. She entered
Brandeis University in fall 1972, the same year the Reformmovement ordained its first female rabbi, Sally *Priesand. At
Brandeis, Eilberg enjoyed the mentorship of long-time Hillel
rabbi Al Axelrad, who encouraged several pioneering women
to become rabbis. As a freshman undergraduate, Eilberg wasa student leader in a successful effort to make services at thecampus Jewish chapel egalitarian. During her undergraduateyears, Eilberg decided to pursue a path to the Conservative rabbinate, even though the Jewish Theological Seminary was, atthat time, a decade away from its decision to ordain women.
In 1976, Eilberg entered the Seminary as an MA student
in Talmud. After completing the masters program, she continued her academic work as a doctoral student in Talmud,
studying primarily at Neveh Schechter (the name by which theConservative movement’s seminary in Israel was then known)
and also at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York. As
a Talmud student, Eilberg was taught and mentored by suchluminaries as Shamma *Friedman, David *Weiss-Halivni, Seymour *Siegel, and Gordon Tucker as well as the Seminary’s
then chancellor Gerson *Cohen.
While Eilberg and other women hoping to enter the rabbinical school pursued graduate studies, the battles surrounding women’s ordination grew more intense. Chancellor Gerson Cohen established a “Commission on the Ordination of
Women,” charged to take testimony from communities aroundthe country and which encouraged Seminary faculty to write
position papers on the matter. A faculty vote that was to beheld on December 19, 1979, was tabled in the face of a sharply
divided group. Disappointed supporters established a popularand effective grassroots organization called GROW (Group for
the Rabbinic Ordination of Women) that held public rallies,
gathered support, and utilized the press to draw attention totheir concerns.
Despite these setbacks, Eilberg remained committed topursuing the rabbinate. In 1982, she entered the Masters of Social Work program of Smith College in order to train in the
pastoral aspects of rabbinic work. In October 1983, following
heated debate at both the Jewish Theological Seminary andin the Rabbinical Assembly, a vote was taken by the Seminary
faculty to admit women to the Rabbinical School beginningwith the incoming class of the fall 1984. Nineteen women, including Amy Eilberg, were admitted to the Rabbinical School.
Since Eilberg had already completed most of the Rabbinical
School curriculum, she was able to graduate in the same academic year, becoming the first female Conservative rabbi on
May 14, 1985.

Subsequent to her ordination, Eilberg was drawn to pastoral work and served as a Jewish hospital chaplain. She also
served as assistant rabbi at Har Zion Temple near Philadelphia.
While in the Philadelphia area, she headed the Yad L’Chaim
Jewish Hospice Program of the Philadelphia Board of Rabbis. These experiences in pastoral care came to serve as thebasis for Eilberg’s groundbreaking work in the nascent Jewish Healing movement. In 1991, Eilberg, together with Rabbi
Nancy Flam (Reform), co-founded the Bay Area Jewish Healing Center. At the height of the AIDS crisis in San Francisco,
the Jewish Healing Center offered spiritual care to Jews livingwith illness, death, and loss, as well as support to health professionals and Bikkur Holim volunteers, and conducted educational programming to inform the Jewish community about
Jewish teachings on the challenges of illness and loss. Since
the founding of the Healing Center in 1991, and the creationof the National Center for Jewish Healing in 1995, dozens ofJewish communities have launched their own Jewish healing
programs and countless synagogues have embraced healing
as a primary focus of communal concern.
Eilberg remained at the Jewish Healing Center through1996, when, once again in the forefront of Jewish religious innovation, she was drawn to the practice of “Spiritual Direction,” a counseling practice dedicated to supporting individuals in recognizing the ways in which God is present in theireveryday life experience. Eilberg was also the co-founder of
Yedidya, the Center for Jewish Spiritual Direction, and continued to write and lecture widely.

254

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Julie Schonfeld (2nd ed.)]

EILON (Heb. ‫) ֵאילוֹ ן‬, kibbutz in northern Israel, near the
Lebanese border, affiliated with Kibbutz Arẓ i Ha-Shomer
ha-Ẓ a’ir. It was founded in 1938 as a “tower and stockade”
outpost by pioneers from Poland and joined by Israel-born
youth. All its fields necessitated heavy reclamation work toclear the rocky ground. Fruit orchards and livestock wereprominent farm branches. It also operated a metal and otherfactories. In 2002 the population of Eilon was 635. The name
Eilon refers to the local vegetation of oak and pistachio trees(“allon, elah”).
[Efraim Orni]

EILOT (Heb. ‫) ֵאילוֹ ת‬, southernmost kibbutz in Israel, 2½ mi.
(4 km.) north of Eilat, affiliated with Ha-Kibbutz ha-Me’uḥ ad,
founded in 1963 by pioneers, the majority of whom wereIsraeli-born. From 1955, the members of the kibbutz maintained a camp on the Eilat shore, where its members tried
fishing in the Red Sea, worked in various trades, and participated in laying the foundations of the new town of Eilat. The
kibbutz planted date-palm orchards on the southernmost
playa of the Aravah Valley and raises out-of-season vegetables, melons, and flowers. In 2002 its population was 286. The
kibbutz continued to grow vegetables and date palms, as wellas mangoes, cattle, and grapes. It had a packing house for agriculture products, a transformer factory, and a guesthouse.

Ein Fashkhah
About half its members worked outside the kibbutz. In 1994
the peace agreement between Israel and Jordan was signed in
the kibbutz fields.
[Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]EILSHEMIUS, LOUIS M. (1864–1941), U.S. painter and watercolorist. Born in Arlington, New Jersey, to wealthy and cultured parents, Eilshemius studied at the Art Students League(1884–86) and at the Académie Julian in Paris (1886–87) inaddition to taking private lessons from the landscape painterRobert L. Minor (1884–86). Influenced by painters of the
Barbizon School, Eilshemius’ late 19t-century landscapes
are mostly traditional representations. Delaware Water Gap
Village (c. 1886, Metropolitan Museum of Art) shows a panoramic landscape in soft focus with limited yet rich earthy
hues. Recognition came early when Eilshemius had paintings accepted at the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts andthe National Academy of Design while in his early twenties.
This initial success was followed by years of critical neglect
and often derision.
Around 1910, Eilshemius’ art changed drastically when hebegan making unsophisticated, frankly naïve images that obviously rejected his training. From this period until his death,
Eilshemius most frequently painted landscapes inhabited bynude, anatomically distorted female figures, and sometimes
mysterious subjects derived from his imagination. In Three
Bathers (1918, Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden),
three simplified nudes pose awkwardly in a stream against ashallow, nondescript background. From then, critics began tocall his work primitive, a designation Eilshemius disdained as
it indicated a lack of training rather than the artist’s goal torender “a silent poem” on canvas. Marcel Duchamp discovered Eilshemius at the first annual exhibition of the Societyof Independent Artists in 1917. Thereafter, Duchamp helped
promote the artist; he facilitated a 1920 one-man show of Eilshemius’ work at the Société Anonyme, then one of the mostprogressive venues in the United States, followed by a second exhibition in 1924. While some members of the avantgarde praised Eilshemius, most critics negatively reviewed hiswork. Frustrated with lack of recognition, in 1921 Eilshemius
stopped painting.
Nonetheless, several shows ensued, and interest andpraise of Eilshemius’ idiosyncratic paintings increased substantially. In 1939 three leading art dealers in New York City
held solo exhibitions of Eilshemius’ work, and a nearly 300page biography of the artist was published. Indeed, from 1932
until his death, over 25 one-man shows were organized in
New York. Hit by a car in 1932, Eilshemius was permanently
paralyzed. He spent the remainder of his days writing lettersto newspapers criticizing the art establishment.

EINAEUGLER, KAROL (Ḥ ayyim; 1885–1952), lawyer andsocialist leader, born in Lemberg. Member of a poor family, hebecame a socialist while still in secondary school. In 1905 heserved as secretary of the founding committee of the *Jewish
Social Democratic Party (ZPS; the Bund of Galicia), later becoming one of its major leaders. In independent Poland, Einaeugler won a reputation as a lawyer; he served as a memberof the community council of Lvov and representative of theBund for eastern Galicia. Between 1939 and 1948 he was interned at intervals in Soviet prisons, and returned to Poland
seriously ill. He subsequently immigrated to the United States,
where he maintained contact with Bundist groups there. Einaeugler wrote “Der Ershter Yidisher May Oyfruf in Galitsie”(“The First Jewish May Day Proclamation in Galicia,” in: Historishe Shriftn, Yivo, 1939).
Bibliography: LNYL, 1 (1956), 71–72; J.S. Hertz (ed.), Doyres Bundistn, 2 (1956), 187–90; idem (ed.), Di Geshikhte fun Bund,
3 (1966), index. Add. Bibliography: A. Reiss, Bereshit Tenu’at
ha-Po’alim be-Galicia (1973), 210–11; J. Kisman, in: Doyres Bundistn,
vol. 2 (1956), 187.
[Moshe Mishkinsky]

EINBECK (Heb. ‫ איימביק‬,‫)איינבכא‬, town in Lower Saxony(formerly in Hanover), Germany. Several Jews were burned
there at the stake about the year 1298. A Jewish street andsynagogue in Einbeck are first mentioned in 1355. An “old”
Jewish cemetery is referred to in 1454. The Jews were expelledfrom Einbeck around 1579 at the instance of a pastor, Johann
Velius. They made several attempts to return, and are again
mentioned in Einbeck in 1667. They were granted letters ofprotection in 1673 and 1678, and although these were opposedby the local inhabitants the duke refused to withdraw them.
In 1718 the elector of Hanover, George I of England, restrictedfurther Jewish settlement in Einbeck and few Jews were authorized to reside there in the 18t century. The number of Jewish
families increased from nine in 1806–13 to 16 in 1816, and 139
persons in 1880 (2.04 of the total population). A new synagogue was dedicated in 1896. It was destroyed by the Nazis in
1938. Around 60 Jews remained in Einbeck in 1933. About half
emigrated and most of the others were deported to the east.
In 1968 there were two Jewish residents.
Bibliography: W. Feise, Zur Geschichte der Juden in Einbeck(1901); Germ Jud, 2 (1968), 194–7; Salfeld, Martyrol, 163–4; MGADJ, 2(1910), 78, 88, 91; FJW, 138. Add. Bibliography: F. Bertram, Verloren, aber nicht vergessen. Juedisches Leben in Einbeck (1998).

Bibliography: W. Schack, And He Sat among the Ashes(1939); P.J. Karlstrom, Louis Michel Eilshemius (1978); idem, LouisM. Eilshemius: Selections from the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture
Garden (1978).
[Samantha Baskind (2nd ed.)]EIN FASHKHAH (ʿEin Feshkha, Enot Ẓ ukkim), brackish springs on the western shore of the Dead Sea, just over 2
miles (3 km.) south of Kh. *Qumran. The surrounding swamp,
covering 1 km. in the 1950s, was crossed by both natural andartificial channels. The Ein Fashkhah springs fed a basin of
180–240 sq. yds. (150–200 sq. m.), up to 4 ft. (120 cm.) deep,
with a maximum temperature of 27 degrees Celsius. The oasis has in recent times supported tall reeds, tamarisks, andoleanders. Today a wild nature reserve, this oasis is in dangerof withering away with the recession of the Dead Sea and the

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6255

einfeld, sydney
fresh water aquifers along its perimeter, a condition that has
also inhibited seasonal sweetwater springs (e.g., Ein et-Tannur/Tanourih, Ein Ghazal) furnishing what was a relatively
fertile area between Ein Fashkhah and the Wadi Qumran.
The water of Ein Fashkhah, drunk by Bedouin, animals, andEuropean visitors of the 19t–20t centuries, as well as being
the former home of five species of small fish, in 2001 was tested
as having a fairly high salinity of 4.5 to 23 mS/cm.
The region of Ein Fashkhah was visited by Felicien deSaulcy in 1851, who identified ancient ruins. These were excavated in 1956 and 1958 by Roland de *Vaux, following his
excavations at Kh. Qumran, and again in 2001 by Yitzhar
Hirschfeld.
It is now clear that the first structure at Ein Fashkhah
was an Iron Age II fort, located south of the springs, associated with a string of forts (at Qumran, Kh. Abu Tabak, Kh.
es-Samrah, and Kh. el-Maqari) which guarded the road fromthe Dead Sea to Jerusalem via the pass at the Wadi Qumran. Alarge isolated building (60 × 64 m.) dating to the Iron Age wasdiscovered by de Vaux, close to the spring of Ein Ghazal.
North of the pool of Ein Fashkhah, a structure (18 × 24 m.)
was constructed in the first century B.C.E. De Vaux believed
there were traces from the period 100–31 B.C.E., but the entire building is now reassigned to the Herodian period (byboth Magness and Hirschfeld), after 37 B.C.E. This structure
comprised a courtyard with a rectangular building on threesides. The exterior walls are 1 m. thick. Later, two ground floor
rooms were built in the west. These had an upper story, including a balcony. North of this structure was an installation most
likely used as a date-wine press (so Netzer), though alternative proposals have identified it as being associated with tanning (de Vaux), fish farming (Zeuner), opobalsam processing(Hirschfeld), or indigo manufacture (Bélis). Water was fed toa reservoir next to this installation from a now extinct springnorth of the site. In between the date-wine press and the reservoir channel was a paved area, as also to the southeast. Southof the building was an animal pen (34 × 34 m.) with a stablerunning along the northern side.
A long wall running north from the settlement of Ein
Fashkhah towards Qumran (identified east of the isolated
Iron Age building by de Vaux) would suggest an estate enclosure, most likely for date-palm cultivation (cf. Pliny, Natural
History 5:17, 4 (73)). The wall may have been begun as earlyas the Iron Age, though its appearance adjoining the Herodian settlement of Ein Fashkhah indicates it is contemporary
here. The continuation of the wall into the area of the Qumran settlement appears to indicate a linked estate. Ein Fashkhah may have been occupied by the *Dead Sea sect, usually
identified as *Essene, who could have employed the springpool as a natural mikveh. The pottery forms of Ein Fashkhah
are virtually identical to forms found at Qumran during thesame period of occupation, but large cylindrical jars have notbeen discovered here.
The Herodian complex at Ein Fashkhah was partly destroyed by fire after the Romans took control of this regionin 68 C.E., though occupation continued after this on thenorth side of the main building. A coin of Domitian from
Antioch (81–96 C.E.; locus 16) and a coin hoard of 17 coinsof Agrippa II, dating from 78–95 C.E., were found, giving theterminus post quem for the abandonment of the settlement as
95 C.E. A single coin indicates that Bar Kokhba rebels may
have camped here in 132–5 C.E.
In the Byzantine period there was occupation in thenortheast corner of the stable (locus 20), probably for just one
anchorite. This may be evidenced in the Pratum Spirituale ofJohn Moschus (158), which testifies to a vegetable garden forthe monastery of Marda (Kh. Mird), 5.5 miles (9 km.) away.

256

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: M. Bélis, “The Workshops at ʿEin Fashkhah:
A New Hypothesis,” in: J.-B. Humbert, J. Zangenburg, and K. Galor(eds.), The Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Archaeological Interpretations
and Debates (2005); F.M. Cross, “El-Buqeiʿa,” in: NAEHL, 1, 267–29;
Y. Hirschfeld, “Excavations at ʿEin Fashkhah, 2001: Final Report,” in:
IEJ, 54 (2004), 35–54; idem, Qumran in Context: Reassessing the Archaeological Evidence (2004); H. Hötzl, W. Ali, and M. Rother, “ʿEin
Fashkhah Springs as a Potential for Fresh Water Extraction, Dead
Sea Area,” in: Le premier colloque national de hydrogéologie et environment (Fes, Morocco), 62 (abstract); J. Magness, The Archaeologyof Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (2002); E. Netzer, “Did Any Perfume Industry Exist at ʿEin Fashkhah?” in: IEJ, 55 (2005), 97–100; H.
Steinitz, “The Fishes of Ein Fashkhah, Palestine,” in: Nature (167/4248;
March 31, 1951), 531–32; E. Mazor and M. Molcho, “Geochemical Studies on the Feshcha Springs, Dead Sea Basin,” in: Journal of Hydrology,
15 (1972), 37–47; R. de Vaux, Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls(The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy, 1959 (1973)); idem,“Fouilles de Khirbet Qumrân,” in: Ribbentrop, 63 (1956), 532–77; F.E.
Zeuner, “Notes on Qumran,” in: PEQ, 92 (1960), 27–36; “Fouilles deFashkhah,” in: Ribbentrop, 66 (1959), 225–55.
[Joan E. Taylor (2nd ed.)]

EINFELD, SYDNEY (1909–1995), Australian politician andcommunal leader. Born in Sydney, the son of a minister atSydney’s Great Synagogue, Syd Einfeld became one of theleading Jewish politicians and communal leaders in modern
Australia. He served as a Labour member in Australia’s federal
House of Representatives in 1961–63 and as a member of the
New South Wales parliament in 1965–81. From 1975 to 1983
he was deputy leader of the state’s branch of the Australian
Labour Party, and was subsequently a popular minister for
consumer affairs when Labour held office. Einfeld was probably the most important communal leader from New South
Wales of his time, and served as president of the Executive
Council of Australian Jewry, the community’s national body,in 1952–54, 1956–58, 1960–62, and 1964–66. Einfeld was alsopresident of the Australian Jewish Welfare Society, the main
immigrants’ aid body, and is regarded as very influential inliberalizing Australian policy towards Jewish refugees.
Bibliography: W.D. Rubinstein, Australia II, index.
[William D. Rubinstein (2nd ed.)]EIN GEV (Heb. ‫) ֵעין ֵ ּגב‬, kibbutz on the east shore of Lake Kinneret in Israel, situated on the narrow lowland strip between
the lake and the rim of the Golan Plateau below Mt. *Susita.

ein hod
It was founded in 1937 as a “*tower and stockade” settlement
by a group of pioneers from Germany, Austria, and the Baltic countries who had previously worked at *Kinneret. The
kibbutz, which came under frequent attack during the Arabriots before World War II, was particularly vulnerable in its
initial years when it was accessible only by boat from Tiberias. In the *War of Independence (1948), Ein Gev was again
isolated and suffered a severe Syrian air and artillery attack,which it repulsed. After the armistice it remained exposed to
the Syrian positions on the Golan rim and on land north of it,which the Syrians held until the *Six-Day War of 1967. Earlyin its history the kibbutz developed fishing in Lake Kinneretas well as tourism. The kibbutz operates a holiday resort, fish
restaurant, and sailing boats. The Ein Gev Music Festival isheld annually during Passover, and a 2,500-seat concert hall
was erected. Farming is intensive, including bananas, dairy,
and ostrich breeding. Near the kibbutz is the archaeologicalsite of Susita. In 2002 the population of Ein Gev was 521. The
name (“Waterhole Spring”) is Hebraized from the Arabic designation of the site, “Nuqayb.”
Websites: www.eingev.org.il; www.eingev.co.il/main.
html.
[Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]EIN HAEMEK (Heb. ‫“ ; ֵעין ָה ֵע ֶמק‬Spring of the Valley”), ruralcommunity in northern Israel, in the Manasseh Hills of Samaria. Ein ha-Emek began as a moshav affiliated with Tenu’at
ha-Moshavim. It was founded in 1944 by Jewish farmers from
Kurdistan who had been stonemasons in Jerusalem before settling the moshav. Its hill-type farming included in 1969 mainly
deciduous fruit orchards and vineyards. Farming was phasedout and over the years the settlers took up other occupations.
In the 1980s the moshav became an ordinary rural communityand began to undergo expansion, its population increasingfrom 312 in 1969 to 440 in the mid-1990s and 616 in 2002.
Website: www.megido.org.il/arad/news/megidon/ein_haemek60.htm.
[Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]EIN HAḤ ORESH (Heb. ‫“ ; ֵעין ַהחוֹ ֵר ׁש‬Plowman’s Spring”),
kibbutz in central Israel, in the Ḥ efer Plain, affiliated with
Kibbutz Arẓ i ha-Shomer ha-Ẓ a’ir. It was founded on April
10, 1932, by pioneers from Eastern Europe who reclaimed
the land. In 1968 it had 570 inhabitants; in 2002, 715. Ein haḤ oresh engages in intensive farming, in citrus and avocado
plantations, field crops, and milch cattle. It also ran a factoryfor industrial packaging materials. A culture center put on avariety of performances.
[Efraim Orni]

EIN HAMIFRAẒ (Heb. ‫“ ; ֵעין ַה ּ ִמ ְפ ַרץ‬Spring in the Bay”),
kibbutz in Israel, south of Acre, affiliated with Kibbutz Arẓ iha-Shomer ha-Ẓ a’ir. It was founded in 1938 by pioneers from
Eastern Europe. In addition to defending themselves against
Arab attacks from Acre during the riots that lasted until 1939,
the settlers had to drain the salt swamps near the mouth of
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

the Na’aman River. Its economy was based on intensive farming (field crops, dairy cattle, fishery, and orchards) and two
industrial enterprises (plastic products and cardboard packing material). The kibbutz was also a partner in the nearby
power station. In 1968 the kibbutz had 580 inhabitants. In the
mid-1990s the population increased to 760, but then dropped
to 674 in 2002.
[Efraim Orni]

EIN HANAZIV (Heb. ‫) ֵעין ַה ָ ּנצִ יב‬, kibbutz in Israel, in the BethShean Valley, affiliated with Ha-Kibbutz ha-Dati, founded in1946 by pioneers from Germany. Its economy was based on intensive farming and included dates, fishery, poultry, and dairy
cattle. The kibbutz also operated a polyethylene foam factory
and architectural firm. In 1969, it had 347 inhabitants; in 2002,
537. It is named after R. Naphtali Ẓ evi Judah *Berlin, head of
the Volozhin yeshivah and one of the first Ḥ ovevei Zion.
Website: www.hanatziv.org.il.

[Efraim Orni]

EIN HASHELOSHAH (Heb. ‫לשה‬ָ ׁ ‫) ֵעין ַה ּׁ ְש‬, kibbutz in southern Israel, in the northwestern Negev, on the border of the*Gaza Strip, affiliated with Ha-No’ar ha-Ẓ iyyoni. Ein ha-Sheloshah was founded in 1949 by former members of *Loḥ ameiḤ erut Israel and originally called Neveh Ya’ir, after the underground name of their commander Avraham *Stern. They weresucceeded one year later by a group of settlers from Argentina, Uruguay, and Morocco. Farm branches included citrus
orchards and irrigated field crops. In 2002 the population of
Ein ha-Sheloshah was 340. The settlement’s name (“Spring of
the Three”) commemorates three South American members of
the pioneer group who fell in Israel’s War of Independence.
[Efraim Orni]

EIN HASHOFET (Heb. ‫) ֵעין ַה ּׁשוֹ ֵפט‬, kibbutz in Israel, in
the Manasseh Hills, affiliated with Kibbutz Arẓ i ha-Shomer
ha-Za’ir. Ein ha-Shofet was founded in 1937 by the first immigrants of Ha-Shomer ha-Ẓ a’ir from the United States andby a group from Poland. A “tower and stockade” settlement,
the kibbutz was set up at a site that until then had been theheadquarters for Arab bands attacking Jewish villages. It became part of the “settlement bridge” connecting the Sharon
and the Jezreel Valley, the two principal Jewish regions at thetime. Its economy was based on intensive farming (avocado
plantations, field crops, and cattle) as well as factories manufacturing screws, electrical appliances, and automotive products. In 1968 Ein ha-Shofet had 590 inhabitants; in 2002, 715.
The nearby Manasseh Forest is the largest in the country. The
name Ein ha-Shofet (“The Judge’s Spring”) commemorates theAmerican Zionist leader, Justice Louis *Brandeis.
[Efraim Orni]

EIN HOD (Heb. ‫) ֵעין הוֹ ד‬, artists’ village in northern Israel, on
Mt. Carmel E. of Athlit, founded on the initiative of the painterMarcel *Janco, in 1953, on the picturesque site of an abandoned

257

einhorn, david
Arab village. Artists inhabit the village either permanently orseasonally. Ein Hod has workshops for ceramics, lithography,
weaving, and mosaics; art galleries; and an open-air amphitheater. Courses and seminars are held in painting, sculpture,lithography, and weaving. Antiquities of the Roman and Byzantine periods have been found, and there are crusader structures. During Napoleon’s campaign (1799), the village served
as a vacation site for French soldiers. In the mid-1990s Ein
Hod’s population was 291; by 2002 it had increased to 437. The
village’s name, which means literally “Spring of Splendor,” wasadapted from the name of the abandoned Arab village ʿAyn
al-Ḥ awḍ (“The Garden Spring”).
Website: www.ein-hod.Israel.net.
[Efraim Orni /Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

EINHORN, DAVID (1809–1879), Reform rabbi and theologian. Einhorn was born in Dispeck, Bavaria, and received his
rabbinical training at Furth, near his birthplace. He studied
philosophy at Erlangen, Wurzburg, and Munich. His thinking was influenced by the ideas of F.W. Schelling. In 1838 he
was elected rabbi of the community at Wellhausen near Uffenheim, but the Bavarian government would not confirm his appointment on account of his liberal views. Four years later hebecame Landesrabbiner of Birkenfeld in the Grand Duchy of
Oldenberg. At the Frankfurt Rabbinical Conference of 1845,
he took a decided view in favor of introducing the vernacular
into the service and of eliminating prayers for the restorationof sacrifices and a Jewish state. Three years earlier, in coming
to the defense of the position taken up by Abraham *Geiger
in his controversy with Solomon Titkin, he had rejected the
divine authority of the Talmud and upheld the right to diverge
from ceremonial laws.
In 1847 Einhorn succeeded Samuel *Holdheim as chief
rabbi of Mecklenburg-Schwerin. There he was involved incontroversy with Franz *Delitzsch, the Christian Hebraist,for having pronounced a blessing in the synagogue over an
uncircumcised child. Einhorn’s radical religious standpointjeopardized his position. In January 1852 he became rabbi of
the Reform congregation of Budapest, but after two months
the government closed the temple. While living in Budapest,
Einhorn began his work Das Prinzip des Mosaismus, but completed only one volume (1854).
Denied any opportunity in Europe, Einhorn became
rabbi of the Har Sinai Congregation of Baltimore (1855). Hisarrival in the United States coincided with the Cleveland
Rabbinical Conference, which, under the leadership of Isaac
Mayer *Wise, adopted a platform designed to permit a broadly
based union among the various tendencies in American Judaism. Einhorn regarded this platform as treachery to the causeof Reform and denounced it violently. This marked the beginning of a bitter feud between Einhorn, the uncompromising
Reformer, and I.M. Wise, who was ready to moderate his Reform in the interests of unity. Einhorn expounded his ideas inhis monthly magazine Sinai (Ger., 7 vols., 1856–62) and gavethem expression in his prayer book Olat Tamid (1856), which258

was no mere shortening of the traditional liturgy, but a newwork written mainly in German.
Einhorn’s sojourn in Baltimore was cut short in 1861,
when his unsparing denunciation of slavery placed him indanger from the mob. He became rabbi of Congregation Kenesseth Israel, Philadelphia, and in 1866 moved to New Yorkas rabbi of Congregation Adath Israel, which was later known
as Temple Beth El. His was the dominant personality at thePhiladelphia Rabbinical Conference which met in 1869 andadopted a thoroughgoing Reform platform.
Einhorn’s farewell sermon, delivered after a quarter ofa century in America, contained a plea for the cultivation ofGerman as the vehicle for the ideas of Reform Judaism. If thedogmatic Reform upon which he insisted dominated neither
the Union of American Hebrew Congregations nor Hebrew
Union College at their inception, his spirit came to influencethem later. Kaufman *Kohler, his son-in-law and disciple, formulated the Pittsburgh Platform of 1885, which was the basisof American Reform for a generation, and later became president of Hebrew Union College; Einhorn’s Olat Tamid served
as the model for the Union Prayer Book.
A letter which Einhorn wrote in 1844 summed up histheological system: “In all its stages, Judaism shows its capacity for continuous development both as to its form andits spirit, insofar as the latter became ever clearer and purer
in the human consciousness; and no Israelite who knows his
religion will deny it the power of perfectibility. Its essence,
which is truth uniting all men, was from the beginning intended to overcome the exclusiveness attached to the form,
which is national; but insofar as the latter served as an armorof protection and as the priestly garb of Israel among the nations, it cannot with impunity be cast off until the former in
its entire inner force and its all-encompassing extent will havepenetrated the whole human family, and Israel (Mosaism) will
have fulfilled its priestly mission at the arrival of the Messianicera.” Little has been published concerning the personality ofDavid Einhorn or analyzing his thought.
Bibliography: K. Kohler (ed.), David Einhorn, Memorial
Volume (1911) (contains a selection of his sermons); idem, in: CCARY,
19 (1909), 215–70.
[Sefton D. Temkin]

EINHORN, DAVID (1886–1973), Yiddish poet and publicist.
Born in Korelichi (Belorussia), his earliest poems were in Hebrew, but under the influence of socialist ideas he turned to
Yiddish and made his debut in Bundist publications. His first
volumes of verse, Shtile Gezangen (“Quiet Chants,” 1909) andMayne Lider (“My Poems,” 1912), acclaimed by leading critics,
expressed the tension between the declining traditional orderand the heralded new society. In 1910 Einhorn helped organize the Boris Kletskin press, and was also the secretary of S.Y.
*Abramovitsh. In 1912, after six months in prison for suspected
revolutionary activities, Einhorn left Russia, moving to Parisand then in 1913 to Berne, Switzerland. There he studied at theuniversity, wrote for Di Yidishe Velt and the children’s periodiENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

ein ke-elohenu
cal Grininke Beymelekh, and edited Di Fraye Shtime (1916–17).
In 1917 his book, Tsu a Yidishe Tokhter (a present to his wife),
appeared. He lived briefly in Warsaw, where he wrote for the
Bundist Lebns-Fragn. In 1920 he moved to Berlin, and later,
warning of the coming destruction of Europe, to Paris. He wasamong the first contributors to the Algemayne Entsiklopedye.
In 1940 Einhorn immigrated to the U.S. and became a regularcorrespondent for the New York Forverts, publishing a weekly
column (1956) “Tsvishn Tsvey Veltn” (“Between Two Worlds”),
memoirs of the Yiddish literary world. Einhorn was active asa translator and editor, proclaimed a classical, coherent, andgrammatically principled style (his poetry was criticized, especially by H. *Leivick, for its stylistic simplicity), and preferred
traditional Jewish motifs, his work becoming progressively
more national in character. He was quite popular among Hebrew authors such as *Agnon and *Brenner.
Bibliography: Rejzen, Leksikon, 1 (1928), 81–86; LNYL, 1(1956), 73–6. Add. Bibliography: Sh. Kuperman, in: Khulyot,
8 (2004), 177–88.
[Ruth Wisse / Shifra Kuperman (2nd ed.)]

EINHORN, IGNAZ (Eduard Horn; 1825–1875), Reform
rabbi and leader in Hungary, economist, and politician. Einhorn, who was born in Nove Mesto, organized the Society for
the Reform of Judaism in Pest in 1847. Later, as rabbi of thesociety’s first Reform temple, he introduced several radical
changes (such as observing the Sabbath on Sunday). A year
later he helped to found the Society for the Propagation of
Hungarian Language and Culture, and edited the first JewishHungarian Yearbook. In 1848 he published his Zur Judenfragein Ungarn, and established the weekly Der Ungarische Israelit.
During the Hungarian national uprising in that year he volunteered for the national army as chaplain. After the revolt was
suppressed, he fled to Leipzig, Germany, changing his nameto Eduard Horn. On the publication of his treatise on Ludwig
Kossuth (1851), the Hungarian government requested his extradition. He took refuge in Brussels, where he studied philosophy and economics, and later (1856) moved to Paris. He published several important works on economics and was madean honorary member of scientific societies in France and Belgium. In 1867 he received the Grand Prix of the French Academy for his L’economie politique avant les physiocrates. After theAustro-Hungarian compromise in 1867 Einhorn returned tohis native country. He was elected to parliament and in 1869
was appointed deputy undersecretary of commerce, the first
Jew to occupy such a high post there. During his government
service he was associated with drafting the laws granting theJews equal rights. In the conflict between Orthodox and Reform Judaism he then supported the former. By government
decree, a memorial tablet was affixed to the house where he
was born; a street in Budapest was named after him.

EINHORN, MAX (1862–1953), U.S. internist and gastroenterologist. Born in Grodno, Russia, he immigrated to the
U.S. where he became professor of medicine at the College ofPhysicians and Surgeons at Columbia University from 1896
to 1940. He was visiting physician at New York’s Lenox Hill
Hospital and consulting physician to several other hospitals.
His major work was on gastric, digestive, and intestinal disorders.
EINHORN, MOSES (1896–1966), U.S. physician and editor. Born in Volkovysk, Russia, he was brought to Ereẓ Israelin 1908. In 1916 he was forced to emigrate by the Turkish authorities and after short sojourns in Egypt and the Balkans, hewent to the U.S. Einhorn made several contributions to gastroenterology and headed the gastroenterological departmentof the Bronx Hospital in New York City. He is best known forhis promotion of the use of Hebrew medical terminology. In
1926, together with Asher Goldstein, he founded the Hebrew
medical journal Harofe ha-Ivri which appeared twice a year in
New York until 1965. This journal was dedicated to the studyof Hebrew medicine and Hebrew medical terminology. Einhorn contributed to the founding of various medical libraries
in Israel, and in 1964 established a special fund in his namefor the granting of prizes in Hebrew medical literature by the
Tel Aviv municipality.
Bibliography: Goldstein and Muntner, in: Korot, 3 (May
1966), 635–7.
[Eisig Silberschlag]

EIN IRON (Heb. ‫) ֵעין ִעירוֹ ן‬, moshav in central Israel, in thenortheastern Sharon, affiliated with Tenu’at ha-Moshavim. It
was founded in 1934 by settlers from Russia and Poland, whowere later joined by a few families from Germany. The principal farm branches were citrus orchards and milch cattle.
In 1969, its population was 197, increasing to 255 in the mid1990s, and 384 in 2002.
[Efraim Orni]

Bibliography: J.J. (L.) Greenwald (Grunwald), Korot haTorah ve-ha-Emunah be-Ungarya (1921), 65–66; idem, Li-Felagot Yisrael be-Ungarya (1929).
[Aharon Fuerst]

EIN KEELOHENU (Heb. ‫“ ; ֵאין ֵּכאל ֵֹהינ ּו‬There is none like
our God”), hymn recited at the end of the Additional Service
on Sabbaths and holidays in the Ashkenazi ritual and in theSephardi ritual on weekdays after the Morning Service. Thishymn is already mentioned in the prayer books of *Amram
Gaon (ninth century), *Maimonides (12t century), and *Rashi(13t century), where, however, the order of its stanzas differsfrom their present sequence. Now the initial letters of the first
three verses form the word “Amen” and the other two verses
start with “Barukh” and “Attah,” forming the phrase “AmenBarukh Attah” (“Amen, Blessed be Thou”). It is possible thatoriginally there was a final verse starting with Adonai. Rashi
states that Ein ke-Elohenu is recited, in the Ashkenazi ritual, on
Sabbaths and holidays only, because on those days the Amidahconsists of seven benedictions instead of the 19 on weekdays
and through this hymn additional praises are recited, making up for those missing (cf. Maḥ zor Vitry, no. 134; Zedekiah

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6259

ein kerem
b. Abraham ha-Rofe, Shibbolei ha-Leket (1966), 131f.). In the
Genizah fragments, where the stanzas are in a different orderfrom the present text, the hymn is followed immediately by aquotation from Psalms 90:1, which suggests that it may havebeen recited at the termination of the Sabbath.
Bibliography: Davidson, Oẓ ar, 1 (1929), 142; Eisenstein,
Dinim, 14f.; Abrahams, Companion, clxvi–clxvii; Sendrey, Music,
2306. 2587–92.
[Meir Ydit]

EIN KEREM (Heb. ‫) ֵעין ֶּכ ֶרם‬, village on the western edge ofJerusalem, identified with biblical *Beth-Cherem; since 1949
part of the Jerusalem municipality. Early Christian tradition
dating back to the sixth century identifies Ein Kerem as thebirthplace of *John the Baptist in the house of Zacharias (domum Zachariae, Luke 1:40) and with the location of the visit
paid to Elizabeth, John’s mother, by her relative (συγγενίς)Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:39–80). Theodosius (c. 530 C.E.)
referred to the “dwelling place of Saint Elizabeth” about 5 miles
from Jerusalem, and Procopius of Caesarea (550–58 C.E.)
speaks of a well situated at the “Monastery of Holy Zacharias[father of John the Baptist].” In the seventh century, Epiphanius referred to Ein Kerem (garbled to “Carmel”) as the family home of the forerunner (i.e., John the Baptist). References
to “Encharim” also exist in the Georgian Lectionary (eighth
century), in the Commemoratorium de Casis Dei (c. 808 C.E.),and in a work by Eutychius (tenth century). There are two
churches associated with John the Baptist at Ein Kerem today: the Church of the Nativity of John on the northern hill
and the Church of the Visitation on the southern hill. Outside
the village is the Monastery of John in the Wilderness (Einel-Habis). Numerous medieval and later travelers refer to Ein
Kerem and its churches. The Franciscans established their firstchurch in 1621, and after 1674 the Franciscan presence in thevillage became permanent.
The Franciscans remained the only Christians in Ein
Kerem until the middle of the 19th century. In 1860 the Sisters of Our Lady of Zion settled in the village, followed by
the nuns of the Russian Orthodox Church (1871), the White
Fathers (1882), the Greek Orthodox Church (1894), and theRosary Sisters (1911). A mosque (maqam ’umair) and minaret was built over the spring which gave the village its name.
During the Israel War of Independence (1948) the inhabitantsof the village – until then all Moslem Arabs – fled and were
replaced by new immigrants mostly from Oriental countries.
In 1949 Raḥ el Yannait *Ben-Zvi brought the training school(after 1952 the Ein Kerem Agricultural School), of which she
was director, from Talpiyyot in Jerusalem to Ein Kerem. In the
1950s and 1960s many Israeli artists (such as Yitzhak Greenfield) and academics settled in the village. Many of its residents offer guest accommodations to vacationers attracted by
the rural setting.

D. Harel, and B. Binnun, Ein-Kerem: Voyage to the Enchanted Village (2004).
[Walter Zanger / Shimon Gibson (2nd ed.)]EIN SHEMER (Heb. ‫) ֵעין ׁ ֶש ֶמר‬, kibbutz in central Israel, near
the entrance to the Iron Valley. Affiliated with Kibbutz Arẓ iha-Shomer ha-Ẓ a’ir, the site served as a camp for the *HaShomer association before World War I. After 1918 a laborers’ camp was opened there, which was taken over by a groupof *Ha-Shomer ha-Ẓ a’ir members in 1924. The permanent
settlement was established in 1927. The kibbutz has intensive
farming, with field crops, avocado plantations, poultry, anddairy cattle, and maintained several manufacturing enterprises (food, plastics, and rubber). The kibbutz operates the
Old Courtyard on its premises, a theme museum showing lifein the traditional kibbutz. In 1968 Ein Shemer had 545 inhabitants, increasing to 605 in the mid-1990s and 758 in 2002. The
name refers to Ha-Shomer and to Ha-Shomer ha-Ẓ a’ir as wellas to the nearby Samaria (Shomron) Hill.
Website: www.courtyard.co.il.
[Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]Add. Bibliography: P.F. Cangioli, Il Santuario e Il Convento
di S. Giovanni in ‘Ain-Karem (1947); M.T. Petrozzi, Ain Karim (1971);
S. Gibson, The Cave of John the Baptist (2004), 26–43; M. Amirav,

EINSOF (Heb. ‫“ ; ֵאין סוֹ ף‬The Infinite,” lit. that which is boundless), name given in Kabbalah to God transcendent, in His
pure essence: God in Himself, apart from His relationship tothe created world. Since every name which was given to God
referred to one of the characteristics or attributes by which
He revealed Himself to His creatures, or which they ascribedto Him, there is no name or epithet for God from the pointof view of His own being. Consequently, when the kabbalists
wanted to be precise in their language they abstained from using names like Elohim, the Tetragrammaton, “the Holy One,
blessed be He,” and others. These names are all found either in
the Written or the Oral Law. The Torah, however, refers only
to God’s manifestations and not to God’s own being which
is above and beyond His relationship to the created world.
Therefore, neither in the Bible, nor in rabbinic tradition was
there a term which could fulfill the need of the kabbalists intheir speculations on the nature of God. “Know that Ein-Sof
is not alluded to either in the Pentateuch, the Prophets, or the
Hagiographa, nor in the writings of the rabbis. But the mystics
had a vague tradition about it” (Sefer Ma’arekhet ha-Elohut).
The term Ein-Sof is found in kabbalistic literature after 1200.
However, it was apparently not coined as a technical termsince this was not the style in which, in the medieval period,
negative terms were coined. Most probably its source is to befound in those phrases stressing God’s sublimity which is infinite (ad le-ein sof ), or which emphasize the characteristics ofthe (Divine) thought, comprehension of which “has no end”
(ad le-ein sof ). The use of this epithet in early kabbalistic literature proved without doubt that the term grew out of thiskind of expression. It originated, apparently, in the circle of*Isaac the Blind, and his disciples. In the view of some kabbalists, the name Ein-Sof was likewise applicable to the first
product of emanation, the Sefirah Keter, because of its com-

260

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

einstein, albert
pletely concealed nature, and this double use of the word gave
rise in kabbalistic literature to considerable confusion. Thereis no doubt that from the beginning the intention was to use
the name in order to distinguish the absolute from the Sefirot which emanated from Him. The choice of this particularname may be explained by the emphasis placed on the infinity of God in the books of *Saadiah Gaon which had a great
influence on the circle of the Provençal kabbalists. The term
also shows that the anthropomorphic language in which the
kabbalists spoke of the living God of faith and revelation does
not represent the totality of their theosophical theological approach. At first there was no definite article used in conjunction with Ein-Sof, and it was treated as a proper name, but after 1300 there were kabbalists who spoke of “the Ein-Sof . ”
At first, the term was used only rarely (even in the principal
part of the *Zohar its occurrence is very rare), but from about
1300 its use became habitual, and later Kabbalah even speaksof several “kinds of Ein-Sof, ” e.g., the enveloping Ein-Sof, theenveloped Ein-Sof, the upper Ein-Sof.

EINSTEIN, ALBERT (1879–1955), physicist, discoverer of
the theory of relativity, and Nobel Prize winner. Born in theGerman town of Ulm, son of the proprietor of a small electrochemical business, Einstein spent his early youth in Munich.
He detested the military discipline of the German schools andjoined his parents, leaving school after they moved to Italy. Hisinterest in mathematics and physics started at an early age,and he avidly read books on mathematics. Unable to obtainan instructorship at the Zurich Polytechnic Institute, fromwhich he graduated at the age of 21, he took a post at the patent office in Berne, having become in the meantime a Swiss
citizen. This position left him ample time to carry on his own
research. In 1905 he published three brilliant scientific papers,
one dealing with the “Brownian motion,” the second one withthe “photoelectric effect,” and the third on the “Special theoryof relativity.” It was the last one which was to bring his namebefore the public. He demonstrated that motion is relative andthat physical laws must be the same for all observers moving
relative to each other, as well as his famous E = mc2 equation

showing that mass is equivalent to energy. Ironically, however,when he received the Nobel Prize for physics in 1921 it was forhis explanation of the photoelectric effect. Immediately after
the publication of that paper Einstein was offered a professorship at the University of Zurich which he at first refused,having become fond of his job at the patent office. In 1910 hejoined the German University in Prague, where he held theposition of professor ordinarius in physics, the highest academic rank. Despite his absorption in his scholarly pursuits
he could not fail to notice the political strife and quarrels between the rival feelings of nationalism, and felt great sympathy for the Czechs and their aspirations. In 1912 Einstein returned to Switzerland, where he taught at the Polytechnic, thesame place to which he had come as a poor student in 1896.
His friend and colleague, Max Planck, succeeded in obtaining
for him a professorship at the Prussian Academy of Science inBerlin, a research institute where Einstein could devote all histime to research. In 1916, amid a world in the throes of WorldWar I, Einstein made another fundamental contribution toscience contained in Die Grundlagen der allgemeinen Relativitaetstheorie (Relativity, the Special and the General Theory,a Popular Exposition, 1920). In this theory he generalized theprinciple of relativity to all motion, uniform or not. The presence of large masses produces a gravitational field, which will
result in a “warping” of the underlying (four-dimensional)
space. That field will act on objects, such as planets or lightrays, which will be deflected from their paths. His predictionof the deflection of starlight by the gravitational field of the sun
was borne out by the expedition at the time of a solar eclipse
in 1919. When the results of the solar eclipse observations became known to the general public, Einstein’s name became ahousehold word. He was offered, but refused, great sums ofmoney for articles, pictures, and advertisements as his fame
mounted. During the early years after World War I he worked
for the League of Nations Intellectual Cooperation Organization and became a familiar figure on public platforms speaking on social problems as well as his Theory of Relativity. He
became more and more disappointed by the misuse of sciencesin the hands of man. “In the hands of our generation these
hard-won achievements are like a razor wielded by a child of
three. The possession of marvelous means of production has
brought care and hunger instead of freedom.” In 1932, Einstein
accepted an invitation to spend the winter term at the California Institute of Technology. By January 1933, Hitler had cometo power. Einstein promptly resigned from his position at theRoyal Prussian Academy of Sciences and never returned toGermany. Many positions were offered him but he finally accepted a professorship at the Institute for Advanced Studies in
Princeton, N.J., and later became an American citizen. During World War II secret news reached the U.S. physicists that
the German uranium project was progressing. Einstein, whenapproached by his friend *Szilard, signed a letter to President
Roosevelt pointing out the feasibility of atomic energy. It wasthat letter which sparked the Manhattan Project and future
developments of atomic energy. However, Einstein was op-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6261[Gershom Scholem]

Another possible source for the kabbalistic theory of
Ein-Sof is the term aperantos, which occurs in a Gnostic sourceof late antiquity in a book in which interpretations of biblicalverses and themes are found. According to some kabbalists,
most eminently R. *David ben Judah he-Ḥ asid, within EinSof there are ten supernal Sefirot, called Ẓ aḥ ẓ aḥ ot, which aredescribed by resorting to many classical anthropomorphic
terms. This view of the Ein-Sof reverberated in Safedian Kabbalah.
[Moshe Idel (2nd ed.)]Bibliography: G. Scholem, Ursprung und Anfaenge der
Kabbala (1962), 233–8. Add. Bibliography: M. Idel, “The Imageof Man above the Sefirot,” in: Daat, 4 (1980), 41–55 (Heb.); idem, “AlTorat ha-Elohut be-Reshit ha-Kabbalah,” in: Shefah Tal: Studies in Jewish Thought and Culture Presented to Berakhah Sack (2004), 131–48.

einstein, alfred
posed to the use of the atomic bomb, as were many other scientists, and wrote another letter which, however, arrived only
after Roosevelt’s death. In spite of his dislike for engaging inpublic affairs Einstein became chairman of the Emergency
Committee of Atomic Scientists and urged the outlawing of
the atomic and hydrogen bombs. During the McCarthy period Einstein advised scientists to refuse to testify before theCongressional Committee on Un-American Affairs. Despite
his advanced age he continued to work on the “Unified Field
Theory” which attempted as a first step to unify gravitationand electromagnetism into one theory. It is impossible to assess whether he would have succeeded in this momentous
task, since he died before its completion.
Einstein was not only one of the greatest scientists of alltime but also a generous person who took time and effort tohelp others and spoke out openly for his beliefs and principles. He never forgot that he had been a refugee himself andlent a helping hand to the many who asked for his intervention. The man who refused to write popular articles for his
own benefit devoted hours to raising money for refugees andother worthwhile causes. Einstein was a Jew not only by birth
but also by belief and action. He took an active part in Jewish affairs, wrote extensively, and attended many functions
in order to raise money for Jewish causes. He was first introduced to Zionism during his stay in Prague, where Jewish intellectuals gathered in each other’s homes talking about their
dream of a Jewish Homeland. He and *Weizmann had becomeacquainted, and, despite different outlooks – Weizmann regarded Einstein as an unpractical idealist and Einstein in turnthought Weizmann was too much of a “Realpolitiker” – remained allies and friends. In 1921 Weizmann asked Einstein
to join him on a fundraising tour of America to buy land in
Palestine and seek aid for the Hebrew University. Einsteinreadily agreed, since his interest in the University had been
growing. The tour was highly successful. He visited Palestine
and was greatly impressed by what he saw. Einstein appeared
before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on Palestine in 1946 and entered a strong plea for a Jewish Homeland.
When the State of Israel was established he hailed the event as
the fulfillment of an ancient dream, providing conditions inwhich the spiritual and cultural life of a Hebrew society could
find free expression. After Weizmann’s death he was asked
by Ben-Gurion to stand as a candidate for the presidency of
the State of Israel, which he declined “being deeply touchedby the offer but not suited for the position.” When he went
to the hospital for the illness which proved to be his last hetook with him the notes he had made for the television address he was to give on Israel’s seventh Independence Day.
The notes were expanded into an article which is included in
Einstein on Peace (ed. by O. Nathan and H. Norden, 1960).
Among his works are About Zionism (ed. and tr. by L. Simon,
1930), speeches and letters; Mein Weltbild (1934; The WorldAs I See It, 1934); Evolution of Physics (with L. Infeld, 1938);
Out of My Later Years (1950); and The Meaning of Relativity(1921, 19566).

EINSTEIN, ALFRED (1880–1952), musicologist. A cousinof the physicist Albert *Einstein, he was born in Munich.
Einstein was a music critic in Munich and Berlin, and became editor of the Zeitschrift fuer Musikwissenschaft in 1918.
In 1933 he left Germany for Italy, reached the U.S. in 1939, andwas professor at Smith College, Northampton, Mass. Einstein
combined the qualities of a music critic with those of a precise
scholar and bibliographer.
In 1919 Hugo Riemann charged him with the preparation of the ninth edition of his Musiklexicon. Einstein subsequently edited also the 10t and 11t editions of this basic
reference work. Of more popular character was his Das neue
Musiklexicon, translated and edited by him from A. Eaglefield
Hull’s Dictionary of Modern Music and Musicians (1924).
His Mozart studies culminated in his version of Koechel’scatalogue of Mozart’s works (3rd ed., 1937). He also enlarged
and revised E. Vogel’s Bibliothek der gedruckten weltlichen
Vocal-musik Italiens (1962). A prolific writer, Einstein compiled semi-popular books, such as his Geschichte der Musik(19304; Short History of Music, 19544), Music in the Romantic
Era (1947), and biographies of Schuetz (1928), Gluck (1936),
Mozart (1946), and Schubert (1951). He produced scholarly
studies on Renaissance music and edited compositions by Renaissance, Baroque, and classical composers. Also outstanding are his three volumes on The Italian Madrigal (1949), andthe first four volumes of Mozart’s Collected Works preparedby him.

262

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

The Albert Einstein Archives at the Jewish National andUniversity Library of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem(www.albert-einstein.org) house Einstein’s personal papers.
Through 1998, eight volumes of a projected 30 volumes of
Einstein’s Collected Papers were published by Princeton University Press.
Bibliography: A. Moszkowski, Einstein, the Searcher: His
Work Explained from Dialogues (1921); M. Born, Einstein’s Theory ofRelativity (1924, 19622); P. Frank, Einstein, his Life and Times (1947);
L. Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein (1948, 19502); E.E. Levinger,
Albert Einstein (Eng., 1949); P.A. Schlipp (ed.), Albert Einstein, Philosopher-Scientist (1949, 19512), includes autobiographical notes andbibliography of Einstein’s writings; L. Infeld, Albert Einstein: His Workand Its Influence on Our World (1950); A. Vallentin (pseud.), The
Drama of Albert Einstein (1954); K. Seelig, Albert Einstein: A Documentary Biography (1956); N. Boni, A Bibliographical Checklist andIndex to the Published Writings of Albert Einstein (1960); P. Michelmore, Einstein, Portrait of the Man (1962); H. Cuny, Albert Einstein,
the Man and his Theories (1963); C. Lanczos, Albert Einstein and theCosmic World (1965); H. Schmidt, in: Judaism, 8 (1959), 234–41; H.
Parzen, in; JSOS, 32 (1970), 187–213; R.W. Clark, Einstein, The Life andTimes (1971); B. Hoffmann (with H. Dukas), Albert Einstein, Creatorand Rebel (1973); A. Moszkowski, Conversations with Einstein (1970).
Add. Bibliography: A. Pais, Subtle is the Lord. The Science andthe Life of Albert Einstein (1982); J. Stachel, Einstein’s Miraculous Year:
Five Papers That Changed the Face of Physics (1998); P.D. Smith, Einstein (2003); E.B. Blair, Einstein Defiant: Genius versus Genius in the
Quantum Revolution (2004).
[Gerald E. Tauber]

Einstein, Carl
Bibliography: Haggin, in: Music Review, 24 (1963), 269–78;
Hertzmann, in: Musical Quarterly, 27 (1941), 263–79, incl. bibl.; Grove’sDict.; Sendrey, Music, indexes; Riemann-Gurlitt; MGG; Baker, Biog
Dict.
[Judith Cohen]more vulnerable side to Einstein’s character. Around this time
he also stopped performing live. In the later 1980s and early
1990s Einstein produced several albums of children’s songs,
along with Levi and Rechter, and two video tapes called Kemo
Gedolim (“Like Grownups”) and Kemo Gedolim 2. In 1992,
Einstein reunited with Zvi Shissel, who had produced Shablul, on a movie called Kevallim (“Cables”), a parody on cable
television which had just become popular in Israel at the time.
Kevallim also included some memorable musical collaborations, including a duet with singer Yehudit Ravitz, and comedy
routines with well-known comic Moni Moshonov.
In 2001, Einstein renewed his professional relationshipwith Hanokh, recording a new version of Aggadat Desheh,
written by the late Meir Ariel who grew up on the same kibbutz as Hanokh. Einstein and Hanokh also recorded a new album. In 2005 Einstein received a Lifetime Achievement Award
from the Israeli artists’ association, ACUM, in recognition of
his songwriting and comedy sketch-writing contributions.
He had maintained his position as the “prince” of Israeli popmusic for four decades.

EINSTEIN, ARIK (1939– ), Israeli pop-rock singer, actor.
Einstein’s initial performances were as a member of an army
entertainment troupe, which he joined after his actor father
encouraged him to go for an audition. Following his releasefrom the army, in 1959, he acted and sang in a satirical theatrical show called Sambation. Einstein’s debut four-song EP
record was released the following year, and over the next four
years he sang with several pop-folk bands, such as Green Onion and Ha-Ẓ e’irim (“The Young Ones”).
During this time he also furthered his acting career withparts in such acclaimed theater productions as Little Tel Aviv
and Irma La Douce. Einstein’s film career began with a role
alongside his father in Nini. In 1964 he appeared in Ephraim*Kishon’s Sallah Shabati, which took a bemused look at thedifficulties faced by Jewish immigrants from Arab countries
during the heyday of the Zionist movement in Israel. By 1972
he was an established star and played a lead role in the highly
risqué Uri *Zohar film Meẓ iẓ im (“Peeping Toms”).
Einstein’s musical career took a significant leap in the
mid-1960s when he joined singers Yehoram *Gaon (who waslater replaced by Israel Gurion) and Benny Amdursky to form
the Yarkon Bridge Trio. Over the next two years the band was
the most successful act on the Israeli pop scene. In 1965 and1966 Einstein placed first in the annual Israeli Song Festivalwith Ayelet ha-Ḥ en and Leil Stav, respectively, and became ahousehold name.
In 1969 Einstein revealed a rawer side to his artistic temperament when he recorded the first Israeli rock record in Hebrew, Puzi. It was shortly after this that Einstein joined forces
with singer-guitarist Shalom *Hanokh and, together withother young artists such as Uri Zohar, American-born singer
Josie Katz, and singer-songwriter Shmulik Krauss, produced
a film called Shablul (“Snail”), which documented the making of the milestone rock record of the same name, with someloosely structured comedy sketches bridging the intervals in
the music. Einstein also appeared in the comic skit series Lul,which was screened on Israeli television in July and September 1970, and was released as a full-length movie in 1988. In
1971 Einstein recorded an album of children’s songs together
with American-born guitarist Rob Huxley.
In 1973 Einstein changed musical direction, breaking
away from the largely high energy rock material of the previous four years to produce a record of folk-oriented, more
traditional songs called Ereẓ Yisrael ha-Tovah ve-ha-Yeshanah(“Good Old Israel”). Over the next decade Einstein put out
more nostalgia-tinted records, collaborating with songwritermusicians such as Shem-Tov Levi, Yitzhak Klepter, Yoni Rechter, and Miki Gabrielov.
In 1982 he was involved in a serious road accident andhis next album, Shavir (“Fragile”), released in 1983, revealed a

EINSTEIN, CARL (1885–1940), German writer, art theoretician. Einstein drew philosophical inspiration from Nietzsche’s apotheosis of aesthetics as well as from the reviewsof causality of Schopenhauer and Mach. Intellectually challenged by the lectures of Georg Simmel during his studies at
Berlin’s Friedrich-Wilhelm-University, he composed his firstnovel, Bebuquin oder die Dilettanten des Wunders (1906–12),
as a kaleidoscope of a world in which everything “exists onlyin its destruction.” With its reflections on God and its somewhat preachy tone, Einstein’s novel may also be regarded as afirst step on the syncretistic-religious path he would follow inthe years to come. Emphasizing a world of myth it also relates
to the art of the primitive. The result was Negerplastik (1915),
which was internationally acclaimed for its incorporation of aformerly ethnological field of study into the “world history ofart” and constituted his theoretical contribution to Cubism.
His radical socialism brought Einstein into close contact
with the “Malik” circle that grew up around George Grosz,
Walter *Mehring, and John Heartfield. The product of theseencounters was Berlin Dadaism, which Einstein abandoned
only a year later. In 1922 he was prosecuted for the “blasphemous” representation of Jesus in his drama Die schlimme
Botschaft. His most ambitious work, Die Kunst des 20. Jahrhunderts (1925), a vast compendium, proved him not only
a profound connoisseur of contemporary art but also a serious theoretician and made his name widely known throughout Europe.
In 1927, Einstein settled in Paris, where he coedited thejournal Documents – Doctrines, Archéologie, Beaux Arts, Ethnographie and came into contact with French surrealism. He
called for a takeover of modernity by the “romantic generation,” a term he used to characterize the messianic categoriesof the artistic revolutions of the 1920s. The failure of modernity

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

263[Barry Davis (2nd ed.)]einstein, lewis
in its capitulation to Fascism is the subject of Die Fabrikation
der Fiktionen, written between 1930 and 1934.
During the Spanish Civil War, Einstein joined an anarchist militia in Aragon, fleeing after Franco’s victory in 1939.
Back in Paris, he was arrested by order of the French government (applying to all Germans living in France) and deported
to a camp in Gurs. Released in June 1940, he attempted to escape the impending German invasion across the Pyrenees. He
committed suicide near the Spanish border.
Bibliography: S. Penkert, Carl Einstein (1969); H. Oehm,
Die Kunsttheorie Carl Einsteins (1976); K.H. Kiefer, Diskurswandel im
Werk Carl Einsteins (1994); L. Meffre, Carl Einstein 1885–940 (2002);
K.H. Kiefer (ed.), Die visuelle Wende der Moderne (2003).
[Philipp Theisohn (2nd ed.)]

EINSTEIN, LEWIS (1877–1967), U.S. diplomat and author.
Einstein was born to a wealthy New York City merchant family. He entered the U.S. diplomatic service in 1903. His postings included Paris, London, the delegation to the AlgecirasConference, Peking (Beijing), Constantinople during WorldWar I, and Prague throughout the 1920s. Einstein’s score ofbooks and nearly 100 published articles, reviews, notes, andcomments embraced the diverse worlds of Renaissance art,
modern biography, Tudor manners, Civil War diplomacy
and, always, contemporary geopolitics, preserving the often
fragile link between diplomacy and letters. One of the mostprophetic of his articles, “The United States and the AngloGerman Rivalry” (National Review, 60 (1913)), also explained
Einstein’s realistic approach to international affairs. His memoir A Diplomat Looks Back (1968) provides insight into Einstein’s deftness as a diplomat as well as an appreciation of his
refined and skeptical world view. Another prominent work is
Holmes-Einstein Letters: Correspondence of Mr. Justice Holmes
and Lewis Einstein, 1903–1935 (1964).
[James F. Watts, Jr.]EIN VERED (Heb. ‫“ ; ֵעין וֶ ֶרד‬Rose Spring”), moshav in central Israel, in the southern Sharon. Affiliated with Tenu’at haMoshavim, it was founded on May 1, 1930 by settlers from
Eastern Europe. Ein Vered was enlarged to absorb new immigrants after 1948. Farming was intensive, with citrus groves,
field crops, beehives, and flowers as the principal branches. In
1969, there were 510 inhabitants; in the mid-1990s, 650; andin 2002, 965, as the moshav expanded.
[Efraim Orni]

EIN YAHAV (Heb. ‫) ֵעין יַ ַהב‬, moshav in southern Israel, in thecentral Arabah Valley, affiliated with Tenu’at ha-Moshavim. It
was founded in 1950 as an observation post for experiments indesert farming and later became a *Naḥ al outpost. In 1967 Ein
Yahav was transferred to a permanent site nearer the Jordanianborder to become a moshav. In spite of its being exposed to attacks by Arab infiltrators because of its isolation, the moshav
developed benefiting from a fairly abundant spring and hot
climate. Its special farm branches included date palm groves,

264

out-of-season vegetables, and flowers for export. Anotherspecialty was turkey breeding. In 2002 the population of Ein
Yahav was 457. Ein Yahav is the Hebraized version of the former Arab name “Ayn al-Wayba.”[Efraim Orni]

EIN ZEITIM (Heb. ‫יתים‬ִ ֵ‫) ֵעין ז‬, place in northern Israel, northof Safed. Jews resided in Ein Zeitim (in Arabic ʿAyn Zaytūn)from the 11t century C.E. In the 16t and early 17t centuries, 40 families of Moriscos (Arabic-speaking Jews) lived
there and it was the site of a yeshivah, headed by R. Moses b.
Makhir. After the 1837 earthquake in Safed, many Safed Jews
fled to Ein Zeitim. A modern settlement was founded in 1891
by a Zionist group from Minsk, Russia, which planted olive
groves and fruit orchards there. It was abandoned, however,before World War I. After 1918 Ein Zeitim was resettled but
was again abandoned and destroyed in the 1929 Arab riots. A
few families subsequently returned but were forced to leave
again in the 1936 riots. A further attempt was made on January 17, 1946, when members of Ha-Kibbutz ha-Me’uḥ ad settled there, but it dispersed after the establishment of the Stateof Israel. A training farm was set up in its stead, but lacked
adequate farming land and dissolved. In the 1950s a forest
was planted in the Ein Zeitim area, forming part of the large*Biriyyah forest. The Ein Zeitim section has a large variety oftrees, such as pine, cypress, eucalyptus, acacia, etc., as well asrecreational facilities.
[Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]EINZIG, PAUL (1897–1973), British economist. Born in
Brasov, Romania, Einzig was educated in Budapest and afterWorld War I settled in London where he was the first economic reporter on East European conditions. He became
foreign editor of the Financial News and later political correspondent for that paper and the Financial Times. His main
field was monetary policy and foreign exchange operations.
Einzig’s criticism of official policy, which drew considerable
public attention, brought him into frequent conflict with cabinet ministers and central bankers. He advocated closer parliamentary scrutiny of public spending. Einzig wrote more than
50 books, including Monetary Reform in Theory and Practice(1936), Primitive Money in its Ethnological, Historical and Economic Aspects (1949), How Money is Managed (1954), Historyof Foreign Exchange (1962), Foreign Exchange Crises (1967),
The Case Against Floating Exchange Rates (1970), and Destinyof the Dollar (1972). In 1960 he published an autobiography,
In the Centre of Things.
Add. Bibliography: ODNB online.
[Joachim O. Ronall]

EIN Ẓ URIM (Heb. ‫“ ; ֵעין צו ִּרים‬Rock Spring”), kibbutz in S.
Israel, 9.3 mi. (15 km.) N.E. of Ashkelon, affiliated with HaKibbutz ha-Dati, originally founded in 1946 in the Hebron
Hills by members of the religious youth movement Bnei
Akiva. With other *Eẓ yon Bloc settlements, it fought and fell
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

eisenberg, aharon eliyahu
during the War of Independence (1948), and its survivors weretaken to Jordan as prisoners of war.
On July 6, 1949, upon their release, they established their
kibbutz at its new site as part of the Shafir region of religious
settlements. Besides intensive farming, which included field
crops, citrus groves, fruit orchards, dairy cattle, and turkeys,
the kibbutz operated the Tadmor air-conditioning plant, acatering service and holiday guest house, and the Bottle Tree
company, which specialized in the development and production of gifts incorporating citrus fruit and blossoms in specially designed bottles. Two religious institutions operate in
the kibbutz: a yeshivah and the Jacob Herzog Center for Jewish Studies. In 1969 the population of Ein Ẓ urim was 330, increasing to 527 in 2002. A new settlement (Rosh Ẓ urim) wasestablished on the original site in August 1969 by *Naḥ al Youthaffiliated with Bnei Akiva.
Website: www.ein-tzurim.org.il.
[Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]ica (1997) and The Jew Within: Self, Family, and Community in
America (with coauthor Steven M. Cohen, 2000). In The Jew
Within Eisen and Cohen explore the new emphasis on personal Jewish identity characteristic of the Jew in the late 20tand early 21st century, an identity so different than the Holocaust-centered, Israel-centered portrayal of Jewish identity
only 15 years earlier.
In 1999 Eisen received the Koret Prize for outstanding
contributions to the Jewish community. He is a fellow of theAmerican Academy for Jewish Research and also serves on
its executive committee. His recent work includes the studyof the increased involvement of women in modern American Judaism. In 2006 he was named chancellor of the Jewish
Theological Seminary.
[Dorothy Bauhoff (2nd ed.)]EISENBAUM, ANTONI (1791–1852), author and educator,
one of the first advocates of *assimilation in Poland. In 1823
he submitted a memorandum to Czar *Alexander I, conceived
from the standpoint of an assimilationist, urging measures
to improve the condition of the Jews. At the end of that year
he began the publication of *Der Beobachter an der Weichsel,
subsidized by the government. Eisenbaum wrote articles forother Warsaw papers, urging emancipation for the Jews. In
1826 he was appointed supervisor, and in 1835 director, of the
rabbinical seminary in Warsaw. The seminary aroused vehement opposition among traditionally minded Jews. Eisenbaum also acted as censor of Hebrew books in Poland (see*Censorship).

EISEN, ARNOLD (1951– ), U.S. professor of religious studies
and author of works on Judaism in modern America. Raisedin Philadelphia, Eisen received his undergraduate degree fromthe University of Pennsylvania; he earned a degree in the sociology of religion from Oxford University and a doctorate
from the Hebrew University. He taught at Tel Aviv University
and Columbia University, then was recruited by Stanford University in 1986 to help plan a program of Jewish studies. He
was subsequently the Daniel E. Koshland Professor in Jewish
Culture and Religion at Stanford.
Eisen is well known as an expert in modern Judaism.
A trained sociologist, he considers the relationship betweensocial and cultural contexts and religious ideas, and in particular examines the contemporary American Jewish experience. His work The Chosen People in America: A Study in Jewish Religious Ideology (1983) suggested that the conception of
the Jews as God’s chosen people faced a unique challenge in
America, where Jews became integrated into the larger society
to a greater extent than in Europe. Called a complex work, it
nevertheless received critical praise.
Galut: Modern Jewish Reflection on Homelessness andHomecoming (1986), one of Eisen’s best-known works, received
the National Jewish Book Award in 1987. The work examines
the concepts of exile and return, and presents the Jewish problem of living apart from and within a society of others. Eisen
discusses three major aspects of Jewish life: religion (Judaism),
ethnicity (Jewishness), and nationality (“Israeliness”). Galut
has been considered an original contribution to the field of
religious studies.
Eisen again won the National Jewish Book Award in 1998,
for Rethinking Modern Judaism: Ritual, Commandment, Community. Here Eisen examines the transformation and evolution of modern Jewish religious belief and practice, considering the effects of secularization and modernity on Judaism,
even among the Orthodox. Eisen’s other works include Taking
Hold of Torah: Jewish Commitment and Community in Amer-

EISENBERG, AHARON ELIYAHU (1863–1931), pioneerof Jewish settlement in Ereẓ Israel. Eisenberg, born in Pinsk,
Russia, settled in Ereẓ Israel in 1886. He worked as a laborer
in *Rishon le-Zion, later settling in Wadi Hanin (now Nes
Ẓ iyyonah), where he became one of the outstanding vineyard
cultivators in the country. Eisenberg was one of those who acquired the land of *Reḥ ovot from its previous owners (1890).
He was entrusted with the task of cultivating the lands ofmembers of the Menuḥ ah ve-Naḥ alah Association (the groupof Warsaw Zionists who established Reḥ ovot) living abroad.
He joined the *Benei Moshe association in 1893. In 1904 heestablished Agudat Neta’im, an association for planting andcultivating vineyards and orange groves on behalf of foreign
investors. Eisenberg was instrumental in establishing small
holdings for Jewish workers. He also helped settle Yemenite
immigrants in Reḥ ovot. In 1920 he was chosen a delegate to
the first Asefat ha-Nivḥ arim and to the Palestine Advisory
Council established by Sir Herbert *Samuel in the same year.
Eisenberg was a leading member of the Va’ad Leummi andparticipated in various delegations to Paris and London.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6265

Bibliography: Linberg, in: Perezhitoye, 4 (1913), 119–48; J.
Shatzky, Geshikhte fun Yidn in Varshe, 3 vols. (1947–53), index; S. Lastik, Z dziejów Os´wiecenia Żydowskiego (1961), 176–8; R. Mahler, HaḤ asidut ve-ha-Haskalah (1961), 263; EG, Varsha, 1 (1961), 240–6.
[Nathan Michael Gelber]eisenberg, shoul
Bibliography: A. Yaari, Goodly Heritage (1958), 191–8, 217; E.
Ha-Dani (ed.), A.E. Eisenberg (Heb., 1947); M. Smilansky, Mishpaḥ at
ha-Adamah, 1 (1953), 116–27.
[Yehuda Slutsky]

EISENBERG, SHOUL (1921–1997), industrialist and philanthropist. Born in Munich, Eisenberg fled from Germany in1938 and eventually settled in Japan. At the end of the war helaid the foundations of his worldwide industrial empire. In Japan, his companies became principal suppliers of raw materials for the country’s steel industries and partners in a numberof shipping enterprises. In South Korea, Eisenberg Companies
developed many of its major industries. Eisenberg was theleader of the Tokyo Jewish community and he built its synagogue. He also made many gifts for projects in Israel where
he and his family settled in the 1960s. An active participant in
the economic conference called by the Israeli government in
1968, he established two large exporting companies. In 1980 hegained control of the Israel Corporation, one of Israel’s large
investment companies, which after his death was sold to theOfer brothers in 1999. In 1978 he began to operate in China,
with projects worth around $1 billion.
[Morton Mayer Berman / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]EISENDRATH, MAURICE NATHAN (1902–1973), U.S.
rabbi and leader of Reform Judaism. Eisendrath was born inChicago, Illinois, and received rabbinic ordination from Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati. After serving in pulpits at theVirginia Street Temple in Charleston, West Virginia (1926–29)
and at Holy Blossom Toronto (1929–43), he established a towering reputation in Toronto, where he was involved in a weekly
radio program at a time when radio was the dominant mediaof its age. Forum on the Air gave him prominence in Canada
well beyond his own community. He used his forum to advance the ideas of prophetic Judaism, to push for anti-poverty
assistance, to advocate civil rights and social justice, and tocondemn the growing menace of Nazism.
In 1943, Eisendrath came to the Union of American Hebrew Congregations first as the interim director while Nelson
Gleuck was away and later as the director and finally as itspresident, a position he held for almost three decades. During
his administration the Reform movement grew in membership and changed its direction perceptibly. So too did Eisendrath. A committed pacifist at the beginning of his career,
Eisendrath was forced to change his mind by Nazism, which
could only be combated by force. He took Reform Judaism
from an anti-Zionist movement, with some Zionist rabbis,
into a more pro-Israel position, first declaring neutrality but
not opposition to Israeli statehood in 1946 and later strongly
supporting the new State.
He presided over the transfer of the movement’s headquarters from Cincinnati to New York, and thus its integration into Jewish organizational life in the United States. He
pushed for a shift in the balance of power from the South andMidwest to the East, and its ideological change from classi-

266

cal Reform to a new rapprochement with tradition. He waselected president of the World Union for Progressive Judaismin July 1972. Eisendrath was particularly active in interfaithactivities and in social action, speaking out frequently during
the 1960s for civil rights and later against the Vietnam War.
With the big presence of Reform Judaism in the South, bothmoves took courage and spurred opposition. In protest, New
York’s Temple Emanu-El seceded from the Union for a time.
Despite the opposition of two major congregations, New York’s
Emanu-El and Washington Hebrew Congregation, he established the Kivie Kaplan Religious Action Center in Washington to represent Reform Judaism in Congress and the WhiteHouse, fortifying the connection between Liberal Judaism
and American Liberalism. He also established the House of
Living Judaism, headquarters of the Union. As a young rabbi,
he was one of the founders of the Canadian Conference ofChristians and Jews. Eisendrath was the author of Spinoza(1932), Never Failing Stream (1939), and Can Faith Survive?
The Thoughts and Afterthoughts of an American Rabbi (1964),
both the latter collections of essays on contemporary religious
issues. He died at the biennial convention of the UAHC, on theeve of retirement.
Bibliography: Current Biography (1950), 134f.; M.Meyer,
Response to Modernity: A History of Reform Movement in Judaism(1988); New York Times, November 10, 1973. Add. Bibliography:
K.M. Olitzky, L.J. Sussman, and M.H. Stern (eds.), Reform Judaism inAmerica: A Biographical Dictionary and Sourcebook (1993).
[Jack Reimer / Michael Berenbaum (2nd ed.)]°EISENHOWER, DWIGHT DAVID (1890–1969), U.S. soldier, supreme commander of the Allies’ European Theater ofOperations during World War II, and 34t president of theUnited States. During World War II, he commanded the U.S.
troops in the United Kingdom, and then the Allied forces
landing in North Africa. There he pressured the French authorities to annul the anti-Jewish laws of the Vichy regime.
As supreme commander of the Allied Expeditionary Forces,
Eisenhower led the Normandy invasion in 1944. After the German surrender one of his first acts was to void all Nazi racial
and antisemitic legislation.
Eisenhower’s armies liberated tens of thousands of Jews
in concentration camps. Upon the discovery of the remnant
who refused to return to their native lands, and after pressure
from President Harry Truman, he created the unprecedented
position of adviser to the commanding general on Jewish affairs to speed the handling of the Jewish survivors. Chaplain Judah Naidich first filled the post and was succeeded bya series of civilians beginning with Judge Simon H. *Rifkind.
Separate *displaced persons camps were created for Jews toimprove their physical, cultural, and spiritual conditions.
Eisenhower also ordered the admission into these camps oftens of thousands of Jews fleeing from Poland and Eastern Europe after the war (see *Beriḥ ah). In October 1945 Eisenhower
received David Ben-Gurion and acceded to his request forplanes to bring Hebrew teachers and agricultural instructors
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Eisenman, Peter
from Palestine to the camps, thus facilitating the later immigration of the displaced persons to Palestine.
During Eisenhower’s presidential terms of office (1953–61), hundreds of millions of dollars in grants-in-aid were extended to Israel. An atomic energy agreement with Israel provided for training Israeli scientists and making heavy water
available. Military equipment sent to Israel included training
aircraft, signal supplies, and spare parts and ammunition.
Relations between Eisenhower’s administration and Israel
reached their lowest ebb during and after the *Sinai Campaign
of October 1956, when the U.S. took the lead in the UN in demanding the withdrawal of Israeli forces, even threatening
sanctions. Upon Israel’s withdrawal, Eisenhower affirmed that
Israel would have no cause to regret its decision, and pledged
support for Israel’s national existence and internal development. American policy, he stated, viewed the Gulf of Akaba
and the Suez Canal as international waterways.

EISENMAN, PETER (1932– ), U.S. architect. Eisenman wasborn in Newark, New Jersey, and studied at Cornell (B.A. 1955)
and Columbia universities (M.A.), receiving a second M.A.
and Ph.D. from Cambridge University in England. He taught
at Cambridge, Princeton, Yale, Harvard, Ohio State, and the
Cooper Union in New York, where he was founder and director of the New York Institute for Architecture and Urban
Studies (1967).
Unique among modern architects, until 1980 most of
Eisenman’s work was in theoretical writing and teaching.
During this period in his career, he was the leader of a groupknown as the “New York Five,” which included John Hejduk,Michael Graves, Charles Gwathmey, and Richard *Meier.
Eisenman Architects was established in 1980.
Eisenman’s thought is often associated with that of postmodern philosophers Noam *Chomsky and Jacques *Derrida
as well as Friedrich Nietzsche. Eisenman co-authored Choral

Works with Derrida. His architecture is sometimes viewed asa text that emphasizes concepts such as fragmentation, and in
the case of the Berlin Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe(Denkmal), opened in 2005, irreparable loss. His work thus
avoids the use of traditional compositional elements familiar
to architects as well as pure aesthetics. Eisenman has noted:“You cannot have an architecture that doesn’t relate to culturalissues, whether they be philosophic, artistic, musical, filmic,
psychological. I think that there is no question that architecture moves culture in the same way that other disciplines do,but it is also affected by and affects other disciplines.”
Eisenman experimented with ten house designs between
1960 and 1980, each one being numbered in sequence. Eisenman, with associates Richard Trott and Laurie Olin, designed
the Wexner Center for the Arts (1983–89) at Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio. The building serves as an earlyexample of Eisenman’s concept of deconstruction in architecture. The structure contains a white spine that links pre-existing buildings with new construction and was designed ona series of grids that attempts to link symbolically the city ofColumbus with the university campus. Among his other designs, which mirror the principles of deconstruction but withadded computer engineering in the 1990s, can be found theEmory University Center for the Arts (1991); the Arnoff Center for Design and Art at the University of Cincinnati (1996),
which mirrors the Wexner Center with a spine bringing together pre-existing structures; the Staten Island Institute ofArts and Sciences, with its use of vast curved “fluid fractals”;
Cardinal Stadium in Phoenix, Arizona, which features a retractable roof, retractable side, and the field that has the capacity to move in and out of the structure in order to grownatural grass. The City of Culture of Galicia is a monumental
project in the Spanish city of Santiago de Compostela. The
810,000 square feet project also includes a history museum,a library, a landscaped forest, and a theater for ballet, opera,
and symphonies. From an aerial perspective, the City of Culture appears as a series of structures highly integrated into the
Galician landscape.
The architect’s most controversial project was the Berlin
Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe, finished in 2005.
The project, from its inception in 1988, featured two competitions and a long and often bitter debate in German society
about the need for such a monument.
While Christine Jackob-Marks’ design was selected fromthe 1,200 submissions of the first competition of May 1994, it
was vetoed by German Chancellor Helmut Kohl. In 1997, 25
artists were asked to send in revised proposals. Among thefour finalists was a joint project by Peter Eisenman and sculptor Richard Serra. The original conception of the team was tocreate a “field of memory,” and it envisioned 4,000 concretepylons of varying sizes, laid out like a field of wheat and progressively sinking below ground level. Serra later removed
himself from the project and after an intense debate the parliament finally decided on June 15, 1999 on the revised Eisenman
plan. The design reduced the number of pylons to 2,700.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6267

Bibliography: H. Finer, Dulles over Suez (1964); J. Nadich,Eisenhower and the Jews (1953).
[Judah Nadich]

EISENMAN, CHARLES (1864?–1923), U.S. philanthropist.
Eisenman was born in New York City. Moving to Cleveland,Ohio, he co-founded the K and E (later Kaynee) Company,
manufacturing boys’ clothing, in 1888. Eisenman retired ascompany president in 1906 and devoted himself entirely tophilanthropic work. He was the founder and first presidentof the Cleveland Federation of Jewish Charities from 1904
until his death; he was active in the Cleveland Community
Fund Council, the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Relief Committee, and other organizations. During World War I he was chairman of the Council of National
Defense Committee on Purchases and Supplies, for which
he received the Distinguished Service Medal. He advocatedsocially concerned business in a series of essays, Everybody’s
Business (1916).
[Edward L. Greenstein]eisenmann, louis
Bibliography: A.E. Benjamin, C. Davidson, P. Eisenman,and L. Fernandez-Galiano, Der Denkmalstreit – das Denkmal?: Die
Debatte um das “Denkmal für die ermordeten Juden Europas:” eine
Dokumentation (1999).
[Stephen C. Feinstein (2nd ed.)]EISENMANN, LOUIS (1869–1937), French historian. Eisenmann, born in Haguenau, Alsace, moved with his family toFrance after the German annexation in 1871. In 1905 he becamea professor of history at the University of Dijon, and in 1931
professor of Central European history at the Sorbonne. Eisenmann’s special field of interest, in which he made important
contributions, was Slavonic cultural history. Besides teaching,writing, and editing in this field, he served as general secretaryof the Institute for Slavic Studies at the University of Paris. He
was also an active director of the Center for the Study of Foreign Policy. Eisenmann’s major writings deal with the AustroHungarian Empire. He wrote Le compromis austro-hongrois de1867 (1904), La Hongrie contemporaine (1921), La Tchécoslovaquie (1921), and Un grand européen, Edouard Benes (1934). He
contributed sections to Paul Milyukov’s classic work on Russian history, Histoire de la Russie (1932–33). Eisenmann playeda prominent role as editor of two French historical journals,
Le monde slave and La revue historique.
[William Korey]°EISENMENGER, JOHANN ANDREAS (1654–1704), author of a work which had a formative influence on modern
antisemitic polemics. Eisenmenger, born in Mannheim, studied Hebrew while at Heidelberg University. During a visit to
Amsterdam in 1680–81 he was shocked when three Christians
adopted Judaism, and also by the criticism of Christianity expressed by David *Lida, rabbi of the Ashkenazi community in
Amsterdam. Eisenmenger therefore set out to examine Jewish writings to find material that would deter Christians fromturning to Judaism. For 19 years he studied talmudic and midrashic literature with Jews, pretending that he wished to become a proselyte. In 1686 he was appointed lecturer at Heidelberg University, and, in conjunction with Johann *Leusden,
published in 1694, at Frankfurt, an unvocalized edition of the
Bible to which David *Gruenhut wrote an introduction describing Eisenmenger as a man of great learning. However, in1699 the Frankfurt Jews learned that Eisenmenger was about
to publish a work denouncing Judaism, titled Entdecktes Judenthum (“Judaism Unmasked”). As it was in German and
not in Latin, they feared that it would inflame popular feelings against the Jews (especially as anti-Jewish riots occurredin Franconia, and in particular in *Bamberg in 1699). The
Frankfurt Jews turned to Samson *Wertheimer in Vienna,and he and Samuel *Oppenheimer persuaded the emperor toforbid the publication of the book, which had been printed
in 2,500 copies. A Protestant professor from Giessen, a Jesuitfrom Mainz, and six rabbis from Frankfurt were asked to study
Eisenmenger’s book and comment on it. In the meantime, theking of Prussia asked the emperor to allow the publicationof the book and the elector of the Palatinate also intervened

268

in Eisenmenger’s favor. However the pleas of the Jews for its
suppression were supported by the archbishop of Mainz, since
Eisenmenger had also offended Catholic susceptibilities, aswell as by the elector of Hanover. Eisenmenger, who had invested all his money in the printing, died suddenly in 1704.
His heirs again induced the king of Prussia to intervene withthe emperor to allow the book to be issued, but without success. The king of Prussia, therefore, permitted them to publish a second edition of 3,000 copies in Berlin in 1711. On thetitle page the place of publication is given as Koenigsberg, acity outside the emperor’s jurisdiction. The city council ofFrankfurt, the elector of the Palatinate, and the king of Prussia, meanwhile, made continual efforts to obtain permission
for publication of the first edition; this was granted only in
1741. Eisenmenger’s heirs claimed damages from the Jews ofFrankfurt; their claim was finally quashed in 1773. In this bookof two volumes, with over 2,000 pages, Eisenmenger had assembled passages to suit his argument from 182 books written in Hebrew, 13 in Yiddish, and eight written by apostates
who had converted to Christianity. They were mostly extracts
from talmudic literature, beginning with the Mishnah andconcluding with commentaries, codes, and notes of the rishonim and aḥ aronim. He cited them in the original language,
providing a translation alongside. The translations are erroneous in places and often intentionally distorted. Eisenmenger’s
charges against the Jews include the *blood libel and poisoningof wells. Possibly Eisenmenger did believe in what he wrote,
although his negotiations with the Jews, and the fact that he
was prepared not to publish his book against a certain price,
cast some doubt on this assumption. An English edition was
published in 1732–33. Among a number of other German andAustrian antisemites, A. *Rohling quoted Eisenmenger, often
inaccurately, in his venomous Talmudjude (1871), as Franz*Delitzsh decisively proved. Entdecktes Judenthum was republished in 1893.
Bibliography: Graetz-Rabbinovitz, 8 (1899), 320–6; D.
Kahana, Rosh Petanim (1883); Dubnow, Weltgesch, 7 (1928), 321–3;
G. Wolf, in: MGWJ, 18 (1869), 378–84; M. Wiener, in: MWJ, 6 (1879),
48–63; L. Loewenstein, ibid., 18 (1891), 209–40; S. Stern, Der Preussische Staat und die Juden, 2 (1962); Akten, nos. 178, 179, 181, 183, 185,
186, 216; H.L. Ehrlich, in: K. Thieme (ed.), Judenfeindschaft (1963),
209ff.
[Zvi Avneri]

EISENSTADT (Ger. also: Weniger Maertersdorf; Hung.
Kismarton; Heb. ‫א״ש; עיר ברזל‬ׁ ), capital of *Burgenland, E.
Austria. Its community was the leading one of the “Seven
Communities” of Burgenland, and from the end of the 17t
century to the middle of the 19t century one of the most important communities in Europe. Jews are mentioned in thecity records in 1373, and the bishop of Eisenstadt was permitted to settle Jews there in 1388. Others came to the city after
the expulsions from Austria (1421), Styria (1496), and Sopron(1526). By 1569 the community numbered 81 persons, living ineight small houses. A Jewish quarter and community institutions are mentioned for the years 1547 to 1571. Each Jew had to
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

eisenstadt, abraham seldinwork eight days villenage services and pay ten florins in taxes
yearly. The Jews were expelled from Eisenstadt in 1572 but returned soon afterward. In 1626 the community came under
the protection of the aristocratic Hungarian Esterhazy family.
The Jews had to leave Eisenstadt at the time of the expulsion
from Austria in 1670 but were shortly afterward permitted toreturn. In 1675 Jews who had immigrated there from Mikulov (Nikolsburg), Moravia, were granted a letter of protection.
The renewed version of 1690 served as model for the charters
granted to all “Seven Communities” in the region. In returnfor yearly taxes and gifts on all possible occasions, the community was granted broad autonomy. Prince Esterhazy built
near his farming estate a “Jewish street” of 20 houses, which
formed a political community (see *Politische Gemeinden) as
Eisenstadt-Unterberg (Hung. Alsókismartonhegy). Its leaders
included the Judenrichter, before whom, from 1732, a mace
was carried as symbol of his function. In 1900, only 38 of the
451 inhabitants on its territory were not Jewish. In 1704 and
1707, during the Kurucz revolts, Eisenstadt was destroyed, its
inhabitants taking refuge in Wiener Neustadt. The community was restored with the help of Samson *Wertheimer, who
also served as its rabbi. He built a house there containing a bet
midrash (maintained by Wertheimer’s endowment until the1840s). Meir *Eisenstadt (Maharam Esh) was rabbi from 1717
until his death in 1744, and through him the local yeshivah became celebrated. This was the most prosperous period for thecommunity because some of the wealthy Jewish families living
in Vienna without residence rights paid heavily for a fictitious
right of domicile in Eisenstadt. Some 35 Jewish house owners
are on record in 1725. In 1735 the community numbered 113
families (24 living in Vienna), totaling 600 persons. The Jewish quarter was destroyed by a conflagration in 1795. A newsynagogue was built in 1832. In 1836 the community numbered
191 families (908 persons) of whom 61 were part house owners and 12 owned their own houses. Azriel *Hildesheimer was
rabbi of Eisenstadt between 1851 and 1869, and his yeshivah, atwhich secular studies were also taught, attracted pupils fromall over Europe. After the Revolution of 1848 when Jews wereable to move freely, many left Eisenstadt.
In its days of fame as a center of Jewish learning the
Eisenstadt community used to be referred to as “Little Jerusalem.” It had many customs peculiar to itself. The entrances
to the Jewish street were closed on Saturdays and holidays bychains. Above the entrance to the synagogue a silver ball washung containing cord for ẓ iẓ it, free of charge, supplied by adonation (keren ẓ iẓ it). Those who were called to the Torah as
an obligation, such as a bridegroom on the Sabbath before his
wedding, paid a special due. The shammash served the rabbi
a cup of wine after the sermon. On the eve of Simḥ at Torah
it was the women’s task to adorn the Torah scrolls before the*hakkafot. At the beginning of the cherry season the first childto show the rabbi a worm in a cherry was rewarded, and the
shammash would then proclaim in the street that henceforward it was forbidden to eat cherries without first examining them.

At the end of the 19t century, the *Wolf family, who concentrated the wine export in their hands, were prominent inlocal and communal affairs. Sandor Wolf founded a private
museum in 1902 and published books on Jewish and general
local history. After World War I, Eisenstadt remained the only
Jewish community in Europe to have the status of a politicalcommunity (until 1938). The Jews there suffered economicallybecause of the disruption of their former commercial ties.
The Jews were expelled from Eisenstadt immediately after the Anschluss in 1938; most of them moved to Vienna.
Some were among the refugees thrust onto the land strip in
the Danube (see *Burgenland). On Nov. 10, 1938, the synagogue equipment and part of the houses in the Jewish street
were destroyed by a mob. The synagogue building was demolished. (The trade-union headquarters was built on the site in1952; it contains a plaque commemorating the synagogue.)
Many of the tombstones in the Jewish cemetery were used tobuild anti-tank traps in 1945.
One hundred and nine Jews from Eisenstadt perished in
the Holocaust. Five survivors returned after the war. The community was not reorganized. The Jewish collection of the Wolf
museum was incorporated into the Burgenlaendisches Landesmuseum; in 1972 a Jewish museum was opened, the first of
its kind in Austria. Some 23,500 documentary items are preserved in the Juedisches Zentralarchiv der ehemaligen Judengemeinden des Burgenlandes. Rabbi Akiva *Eger the Younger
was a native of Eisenstadt; a plaque on the house where he
was born was destroyed by the Nazis. Moritz *Benedikt, theprofessor of neuropathology in Vienna and liberal politician,was also born in Eisenstadt.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6269

Bibliography: A. Fuerst, Sitten und Gebraeuche in derEisenstaedter Judengasse (Minhag Asch) (1908); idem, in: Egyenlöség, 40 (Jan. 8, 1921), 6–7; O. Aull, Eisenstadt (1931); H. Gold (ed.),Gedenkbuch der untergegangenen Judengemeinden des Burgenlandes(1970), 37–50, 51–55; N. Gergely, in Új Élet, 24 (Oct. 15, 1969), 3, 17–36;
MHJ, 1 (1903)–12 (1969), index locorum S.V. Kismarton; H. Weiss, in:Zikhronotai (1895), 29–41; R. Patai, in: Arim ve-Immahot be-Yisrael,
1 (1946/47), 41–79, incl. bibl.; B. Wachstein, Die Grabinschriften desalten Judenfriedhofs in Eisenstadt (1922); idem, Urkunden und Akten
zur Geschichte der Juden in Eisenstadt… (1926); S. Wolf, Die Kunst im
Eisenstaedter Ghetto (1912); I. Schwarz, in: Menorah, 4 (1926), 705–8;
M. Eliav (ed.), Iggerot Rabbi Azriel Hildesheimer (Heb. and Ger., 1965),
passim. Add. Bibliography: J. Reiss, Weil man uns die Heimatliebe ausgeblaeut hat (2001).

EISENSTADT, ABRAHAM SELDIN (1920– ), U.S. historian. Eisenstadt was born in New York City. He taught at
Brooklyn College, where he was appointed professor of history. In 1998, he was one of 412 leading historians who signed
an open letter deploring the proposal to impeach President
Bill Clinton, on the grounds that “if successful, it will havethe most serious implications for our constitutional order.”Eisenstadt wrote Charles McLean Andrews: A Study in American Historical Writing (1956), and he edited American History:
Recent Interpretations (2 vols., 1962) and The Craft of American
History (2 vols., 1966), Before Watergate: Problems of Corrup-eisenstadt, abraham Ẓ evi hirsch ben jacobtion in American Society (1979), and Reconsidering Tocqueville’s
Democracy in America (1988) as well as numerous volumes inDavidson, Harlan’s American History Series.
[Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]EISENSTADT, ABRAHAM Ẓ EVI HIRSCH BEN JACOB(1813–1868), halakhic authority. Eisenstadt, who was bornin Bialystok, was appointed rabbi of Berestovitsa, district ofGrodno, in 1836, and of Utina (Uttian), district of Kovno, in
1856. Eisenstadt took upon himself the task of collecting anddigesting the enormous amount of halakhic material scatteredthroughout the responsa literature, and relating it to the relevant laws in Caro’s Shulḥ an Arukh, publishing his digest in
Pitḥ ei Teshuvah. At the end of his introduction to Even ha-Ezer
he enumerates 180 volumes of responsa and other works that
he used. In the introduction he explains that the purpose of
his book is to supply a missing link in the chain of posek literature, namely, the decisions to be found in responsa. In addition to establishing the halakhah he also gives the reasonsand the essence of the arguments in the different responsa.
This enabled rabbis to give decisions on matters and problems
which had arisen as a result of changed conditions since Caro’s
code had appeared. Eisenstadt regarded the literature dealing
with Even ha-Ezer as of supreme importance, as he believedthat it was impossible to come to a practical decision on anyof the laws discussed in it by relying upon the original text.
As a result, his work on this section of the Shulḥ an Arukh isvery detailed. Since the Sha’arei Teshuvah (Dubnow, 1820), begun by Ḥ ayyim Mordecai Margolioth of Dubnow and completed by his brother Ephraim Zalman *Margolioth, alreadymet this need with regard to the Oraḥ Ḥ ayyim, Eisenstadt
confined himself to the other three sections of the Shulḥ an
Arukh. His own novellae on the Shulḥ an Arukh are highly
regarded by halakhists.
Pitḥ ei Teshuvah on Yoreh De’ah and Even ha-Ezer was
published during Eisenstadt’s lifetime (1836 and 1861) and onḤ oshen Mishpat (1875) after his death. He also published Seder
Gittin va-Ḥ aliẓ ah by Michael b. Joseph of Cracow accompanied by his own commentary and glosses, also entitled Pitḥ eiTeshuvah (1863), in which he gave the sources of the book in
the Shulḥ an Arukh and among the rishonim and aḥ aronim.
Many of his responsa appear in the works of contemporary
rabbis. Eisenstadt died in Koenigsberg where he had gone for
medical treatment. His son BENJAMIN (1846–1920) was appointed to succeed him in Utina after his death, and servedin this post for 52 years. He was the author of Masot Binyamin (1921), talmudic novellae. Benjamin’s son ABRAHAM ẓ EVI(1871–1939) succeeded his father in Utina and served there for19 years. He was one of the early Zionists. Leon *Rabinovich,
editor of Ha-Meliẓ , was also a grandson of Abraham Ẓ evi
Hirsch Eisenstadt.

EISENSTADT, BENZION (1873–1951), U.S. Hebraist, rabbi,
and scholar. Eisenstadt was born in Kletsk, Belorussia. He
studied at Nishvitz with Rabbi Yosepoh Grodzinski. In his
youth he was attracted to modern Hebrew literature andwhile in his teens corresponded with Jewish scholars, suchas Slonimski and Buber. While still in Russia he publishedẒ ioni (Warsaw, 1895; Parts 2–4, Vilna, 1899–1902), a biographical dictionary of contemporary rabbis and scholars, and Rabbanei Minsk va-Ḥ akhameha, on the rabbis and scholars of
Minsk (Vilna, 1899), as well as Ve-Zot li-Yehudah (1901), annotations on Noda bi-Yehudah, the responsa of Ezekiel Landau.
In 1903 he immigrated to the U.S. where he served asa pulpit rabbi and continued writing biographical works on
well-known rabbis, scholars, and communal leaders. They include Ḥ akhmei Yisrael be-Amerikah (with photographs, 1903),
Dorot ha-Aḥ aronim (2 vols., 1913, 1917), Anshei ha-Shem BeArẓ ot ha-Brit (1933) on American rabbis and, posthumously,
Benei Ḥ iyyon (1952). He was an ardent Zionist, active in Mizrachi and in charity for the then Palestine.
Add. Bibliography: M.D. Sherman, Orthodox Judaism inAmerica: A Biographical Dictionary and Sourcebook (1996), 56–58.

Bibliography: S.M. Chones, Toledot ha-Posekim (1910), 502;
H. Tchernowitz, Toledot ha-Posekim, 3 (1947), 313, 325–30; Yahadut
Lita, 1 (1959), 256f.; 3 (1967), 26.
[Shmuel Ashkenazi]

EISENSTADT, ISAIAH (Isay; pseudonym: Yudin, Vitali;
1867–1937), pioneer of the Jewish socialist labor movement in
Russia; born in Vilna. He became a member of Populist Narodnaya Volya (“People’s Will”) circles in the 1880s and was
imprisoned for revolutionary activities. He returned to Vilna
and in 1889 joined the Social Democrats. A Marxist theoretician, Eisenstadt also proved an extremely able organizer
among the Jewish workers in Vilna and in Odessa. In 1896 he
was exiled to Siberia, remaining in prison there until 1901. After his release, Eisenstadt became one of the main leaders of
the *Bund, his activities being suspended by frequent arrests;
during the controversy within the party (1908–10) between
those preferring the use of legal action and the “anti-legalists,”
Eisenstadt supported the latter. In the central committee of theRussian Social Democratic Workers’ Party he endeavored toeffect a compromise between the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks.
After the Revolution of February 1917 Eisenstadt was active
in Petrograd (Leningrad). He was elected vice chairman of
the central committee of the Bund, and after its split with theCommunists, became associated with the leadership of the Social Democratic Bund. He was subsequently imprisoned, andat the beginning of 1922 received permission to leave Soviet
Russia. He reached Berlin, and continued his political activity
among the Menshevik émigrés there and in Paris, gradually
inclining to the leftist faction. His first wife LYUBA EISENSTADT-LEVINSON (1866–1903), also born in Vilna, became aSocial Democrat while a student in Geneva. She was arrested
at the Russian border and imprisoned for three years. From1890 she was active as one of the leading propagandists forthe party among the Jewish workers in Vilna and Bialystok.
She was imprisoned with her husband in Siberia from 1896
to 1901. She died on a visit to New York.

270

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

eisenstadt, samuel noah
Bibliography: G. Aronson, in: J.S. Hertz (ed.), Doyres
Bundistn, 1 (1956), 137–54; LNYL, 4 (1961), 249–52; Sotsialisticheskiy
Vestnik, 17:14, 15 (1937), 1–4.
[Moshe Mishkinsky]

EISENSTADT, MEIR (“MaHaRaM ESH” – Morenu Ha-Rav
Meir Esh [short for Eisenstadt]; c. 1670–1744), Polish rabbinical authority. After serving as rabbi in Szydlowiec in Poland,
he settled in Worms, where Samson *Wertheimer appointed
him head of the yeshivah. On the occupation of Worms by the
French in 1701, he went to Prossnitz, Moravia, and there he
was appointed rabbi. Among his disciples was Jonathan *Eybeschuetz, whom he brought up after the death of the latter’sfather. In 1714, with Wertheimer’s support, Meir was appointed
rabbi of *Eisenstadt and its “seven communities,” which bythen had recovered from the expulsion of 1670 and from thehavoc wrought by the Kurucz uprising (1704). Students fromfar and near flocked to the yeshivah which he had established.
He fashioned the character of the community, which became
distinguished for its piety, so that men of wealth and influencein nearby Vienna sought “right of residence” in Eisenstadt. In
1723 Meir was obliged to leave the community for a short time
because of “informers and calumniators.” Upon his return heinstituted a special prayer to be recited every Monday andThursday, against “those who bring harm to Israel by their
tongues and tear down the foundations of the community.”
Meir issued a ban against card playing (except on Hanukkah
and Purim). His works include Panim Me’irot, responsa andnovellae on the Talmud (Amsterdam, 1715). His responsa, containing questions addressed to him by Akiva *Eger, *Moses
Harif of Pressburg, and even rabbis of Italy and Turkey, testify
to his wide authority. Other works are Kotnot Or, a homileticcommentary on the Pentateuch and the Five Scrolls, publishedtogether with Or Ḥ adash, the commentary of his grandson
Eliezer Kallire, under the general title of Me’orei Esh (1766),
and Or ha-Ganuz (1766), novellae on Ketubbot and on therules concerning yein nesekh in the Yoreh De’ah.

sis appeared (2 vols. 1959–62). He died in New York, and wasburied in Jerusalem.
Bibliography: (A.S.) B. Sofer-Schreiber, Ketov Zot Zikkaron (1957), 258; N. Ben-Menahem, Be-Sha’arei Sefer (1967), 11; BethYaakov, 7 (1966), 7, 38.
[Naphtali Ben-Menahem]

EISENSTADT, MOSES ELEAZAR (1869–1943), rabbi, educator, and author in Russia and France. Born in Nesvizh, Belorussia, he studied at the yeshivah of *Volozhin, and from 1889
at the university and Hochschule fuer die Wissenschaft des Judentums in Berlin. He wrote his doctoral thesis on “Bible Criticism in Talmudic Literature” in 1898. From 1899 to 1910 Eisenstadt officiated as *Kazyonny Ravvin (government-appointed
rabbi) of Rostov, and from 1911 to 1923 held the same positionin St. Petersburg. He subsequently immigrated to France, andin 1926 was appointed rabbi of the Ohel Ya’akov community of
the Russian Jews in Paris. He also lectured in modern Hebrew
literature at the rabbinical seminary. When the Nazis occupied
Paris, he left for New York, and in 1942 was appointed rabbiof the Merkaz Beit Yisrael community of Russian Jews there.
From an early age, he published articles, reviews, and stories
in the Jewish press in Hebrew, Yiddish, Russian, and German.
His books include Be-Shuvi el Ereẓ Moladeti (“On My Return
to My Fatherland,” 1893), and Me-Ḥ ayyei Benei Lita (“Fromthe Lives of the Inhabitants of Lithuania,” 1893). In 1918, he
was a member of the editorial board of the Jewish historicaljournal He-Avar, published in Petrograd.
Bibliography: LNYL, 1 (1956), 66–67; Kressel, Leksikon, 1(1965), 84.

EISENSTADT, MENAHEM Ẓ EVI (d. 1966), Polish rabbi.
Born in Warsaw, Eisenstadt studied in Brisk, Lithuania, under R. Ḥ ayyim Soloveitchik and his son, R. Isaac Ze’ev. For awhile he served as a member of the Cracow City Council. At
the beginning of World War II, Eisenstadt moved to Vilna,
where he directed the exiled Yeshivat Ḥ akhmei Lublin. In 1941
he immigrated to Ereẓ Israel and lived in Tel Aviv. In 1947 hemoved to the United States. In New York, he began the publication of an edition of Nahmanides’ biblical commentary,
based on early manuscripts and early editions. His work was
not completed, however, and only the commentary to Gene-

EISENSTADT, SAMUEL NOAH (1923– ), Israel sociologist. Born in Warsaw, and educated at the Hebrew Universityof Jerusalem and at the London School of Economics, Eisenstadt joined the faculty of the Hebrew University in 1948 andbecame chairman of the department of sociology in 1951.
Eisenstadt’s contributions have been chiefly in the fields ofpolitical and historical sociology, with special attention to
the analysis of social structure and of bureaucracy. In 1973
Eisenstadt was awarded the Israel Prize for social sciences.
His book The Political Systems of Empires (1963) analyzed thesocial structures of the major empires throughout world history; this work has been hailed as the most significant contribution to political sociology after that of Max Weber. Among
his other works in this field are Political Sociology (1955), The
Absorption of Immigrants (1954), and From Generation toGeneration: Age Groups and Social Structure (1956). The latter are comparative studies based chiefly on materials referring to problems arising from mass immigration, and the integration of the many different cultures which are found in
Israel. Eisenstadt brought the analysis of developmental andgeneral social problems into the framework of sociologicalanalysis and comparative institutional study through his Essays on Comparative Institutions (1965) and his Comparative
Social Problems (1964). He also published “Bureaucracy, Bu-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6271

Bibliography: I.T. Eisenstadt and S. Wiener, Da’at Kedoshim, 1 (1898), 190f.; Pollák, in: Sefer ha-Yovel… M.A. Bloch(1905), 47–58 (Heb. sect.); P.Z. Schwartz, Shem ha-Gedolim meEreẓ Hagar, 2 (1914), 153f., no. 14; 3 (1915), s.v. Panim Me’irot; B. Wachstein, Grabinschriften des alten Judenfriedhofes in Eisenstadt (1922),
47–93.
[Aharon Fuerst]eisenstadter, meir ben judah leibreaucratization and Debureaucratization” in Administrative
Science Quarterly, 4 (1959), 302–20, and Israeli Society (1967).
Other books include Tradition, Change, and Modernity (1983),
Transformation of Israeli Society (1986), and European Civilization in a Comparative Perspective (1987).
[Werner J. Cahnman and Pearl J. Lieff]

EISENSTADTER, MEIR BEN JUDAH LEIB (d. 1852),
rabbi, author, and liturgical poet (paytan). Eisenstadter wasborn in Schossberg (Sastin), but in his youth moved to Eisenstadt, from which he took his name. He was also known as“Maharam Esh” (Hebrew acronym for Morenu ha-Rav MeirEisenshtadt – “our teacher, the rabbi Eisenstadter”). He studied under Moses *Sofer and married the daughter of David
Deutsch, the rabbi of Nove Mesto in Slovakia, where Eisenstadter was appointed head of the yeshivah. After serving as
rabbi in Baja, Balassagyarmat (1815–35), he was appointed
rabbi of Ungvar in 1835 and was regarded, together with Moses*Schick, as the leading rabbi of Hungary. In Ungvar, too, heheaded a large yeshivah and many of the future rabbis of Hungary were his pupils. He took an active part in the communal
life of Hungarian Jewry and exercised a profound influenceon the course it was to take. He vehemently opposed the progressives who desired to introduce religious changes and reforms. He was the author of Imrei Esh, responsa in two parts(1852–64); Imrei Yosher, sermons (Ungvar, 1864); Imrei Binah,
novellae on a number of tractates (1866), and, with the same
title, his novellae and those of his son on the laws of *shehitah,
appended to A.Z. Schorr’s Simlah Ḥ adashah (1927); Imrei Esh,in two parts, expositions of the Pentateuch with the novellaeof his father-in-law and his son (1901); and Zikhron Yehudah,containing his testament and novellae (1900). The greatest
rabbis of Hungary and Galicia including Solomon *Kluger ofBrod, Ḥ ayyim *Halberstam of Neu-Sandec (Nowy Sacz), andSimon *Sofer of Cracow addressed problems to him. His son
Menahem succeeded him as rabbi in Ungvar.
Bibliography: M. Eisenstadt, Zikhron Yehudah (1900);
P.Z. Schwartz, Shem ha-Gedolim me-Ereẓ Hagar, 2 (1914), 1b, no. 15;
A. Stern, Meliẓ ei Esh al Ḥ odshei Kislev-Tevet (19622), 112b, no. 436;
H.Y. Braun, Toledot Gedolei Yisrael Anshei Shem (1943), 1–12; J. Spiegel, in: Arim ve-Immahot be-Yisrael, 4 (1950), 9–12; S. Reinhasz, in:Enẓ iklopedyah shel Galuyyot, 7 (1959), 403–10.
[Itzhak Alfassi]

EISENSTAEDT, ALFRED (1898–1995), photographer. Born
in Dirschau, West Prussia (now Tczew, Poland), Eisenstaedt
was the pre-eminent photojournalist of his time, whose pioneering images for Life magazine helped define American
photojournalism. Over a career that lasted more than 50 years,
Eisenstaedt became famous as the quintessential Life photographer, producing more than 2,500 picture stories and 90 covers
for the magazine. His most famous photograph, of an exuberant American sailor kissing a nurse in a dance-like dip in Times
Square on V-J Day, August 14, 1945, summed up the euphoria
many Americans felt as the war came to a close. It is the most272

widely reproduced of the magazine’s millions of photographs.
Another of his best-known images shows Joseph Goebbels, theNazi propaganda minister, in 1933, glaring at the camera. “Hereare the eyes of hate,” the photographer later wrote.
When Alfred was eight, his father, a merchant, moved thefamily to Berlin, and they remained there until Hitler came to
power. At 17, Alfred was drafted into the German army andserved on the Flanders front, where he was wounded in bothlegs. Sent home, he recuperated for a year before he could
walk unaided. He used the time to visit museums and study
light and composition. Although he became a belt and button salesman, he saved his money and bought photographic
equipment. In 1927, while vacationing with his parents inCzechoslovakia, he took a photograph of a woman playing
tennis. He was on a hillside 50 yards away, and the photo captured the long shadow the woman cast on the court. He soldit to Der Welt Spiegel for about $12.
By the age of 31, he became a full-time photographer,working for Pacific and Atlantic Photos, which became the
Associated Press. At the time he began working with the innovative Leica 35 mm. camera, which had been invented four
years earlier. His assignments included portraits of statesmen
and famous artists. By 1933 he was sent to Italy to shoot thefirst meeting of Hitler and Mussolini. Two years after Hitler took power, Eisenstaedt immigrated to the United States,
where he was soon hired with three other photographers, including Margaret *Bourke-White, to be the original photographers for the new Life magazine. The first issue carried five
pages of Eisenstaedt’s pictures. He became known for his ability to bring back visually striking pictures from almost any
assignment. Among the many celebrities he photographed
were Churchill, John F. Kennedy, Chaplin, Marilyn Monroe,
George Bernard Shaw, and a smoldering Marlene Dietrich in
top hat and tails. His mastery of the Leica allowed him to capture his subjects in unguarded moments, creating a sense of
intimacy. In a 1947 picture, for example, the physicist J. Robert *Oppenheimer puffs on a cigarette as he stands in front ofa blackboard covered with mathematical formulas.
Eisenstaedt became an American citizen in 1942 andtraveled overseas to document the effects of the war. He received many awards and honors, including the Presidential
Medal of Arts and the Master of Photography Award, givenby the International Center of Photography. He continued towork until shortly before his death. In 1993 he photographed
President Clinton, his wife, and their daughter on Martha’s
Vineyard, Mass.
He was the subject of many exhibitions and was the author of many books, including Witness to Our Time (1966),
The Eye of Eisenstaedt (1969), Eisenstaedt’s Guide to Photography (1978), and Eisenstaedt: Germany (1981). At age 81 hereturned to Germany for the first time for an exhibition of
pictures he had taken there in the 1920s and 1930s. Things inGermany seemed different, he said, from when he left. “You
couldn’t call it prettier, but maybe more relaxed.”[Stewart Kampel (2nd ed.)]

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

eisenstein, judith kaplan
EISENSTEIN, FERDINAND GOTTHOLD (1823–1852),
German mathematician. Eisenstein was brought up in poverty
and succeeded in studying at a university despite considerable
family opposition. In 1847 he became a lecturer at Berlin University. He made important contributions to algebra and to elliptic functions and their applications to number theory.
EISENSTEIN, IRA (1906–2001), U.S. rabbi and leader of the*Reconstructionist movement. Born in New York City, Eisenstein grew up in Harlem along with his friend Milton *Steinberg. Eisenstein was a grandson of Judah David *Eisenstein,a traditional scholar who compiled the anthology Oẓ er Dinim
u-Minhagim. He was ordained at the Jewish Theological Seminary in 1931. He later served as president of the *Rabbinical
Assembly from 1952 to 1954. As a son-in-law and leading disciple of Kaplan, the founder of Reconstructionist Judaism,
Eisenstein was associate rabbi from 1931 to 1954 of Kaplan’sSociety for the Advancement of Judaism in New York City,
the first Reconstructionist synagogue. Eisenstein was the associate chairman and later the editor of The Reconstructionist
from 1935 to 1982, which in the 1930s and 1940s was the premier intellectual journal of the American Jewish community
and which he was instrumental in creating. In 1954, the invitation was extended for Eisenstein to become the rabbi ofAnshe Emet congregation in Chicago. The relationship with
Anshe Emet did not endure, and in 1959 he returned to New
York to become the president of the Jewish Reconstructionist
Foundation, which he had founded. The foundation continued to publish the magazine, coordinated annual conventionsof Reconstructionists, expanded the Reconstructionist Press,
and began to issue a series of pamphlets on Reconstructionist ideas. One of these, titled “The Havurah Idea,” was the firstpublished program for what would in the 1960s and 1970s become a new and vital form of Jewish community.
While Mordecai *Kaplan, who was deeply rooted in the
Jewish Theological Seminary, was reluctant to see Reconstructionism become a separate denomination, Eisenstein
advocated for the creation of institutions that could embody
Reconstructionist ideas. He founded the Fellowship of Reconstructionist Congregations and Havurot in 1955. Following
Kaplan’s retirement from JTS in 1963, Eisenstein rallied Reconstructionist lay leaders in support of establishing a seminary for the training of Reconstructionist rabbis, and in 1968
he became the founding president of the *Reconstructionist
Rabbinical College (RRC) in Philadelphia, from which he retired in 1981.
In fulfillment of Kaplan’s concept that American Jews
“lived in two civilizations” Eisenstein’s vision of rabbinic
training mandated that RRC students simultaneously pursue
a Ph.D. in religious studies at nearby Temple University where
they would interact with faculty and students of many different religious traditions.
Eisenstein was coeditor of the controversial New Haggadah (1941), which eliminated the ten plagues as “unedifying”
and celebrated Moses, rather than God, as the one who had
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6“liberated Israel.” With Kaplan, Steinberg, and Eugene Kohn,
Eisenstein helped edit the original Reconstructionist prayerbooks for Sabbath (1945), High Holidays (1948), and Festivals(1958). This liturgy applied Kaplan’s key ideas such as eliminating the idea of Jews as the chosen people and the mention of
miracles and the hope for a personal Messiah, although only
Kaplan was “excommunicated” by a small sect of Orthodox
rabbis upon the publication of the Sabbath Prayerbook.
Recognizing that Kaplan’s major books were often seen
as overly long and complex for the average reader, Eisensteinhelped to popularize Kaplan’s work in Creative Judaism (1936)
and What We Mean by Religion (1938). He also wrote Judaism
under Freedom (1956) and Reconstructing Judaism (1986) andco-edited Mordecai M. Kaplan: An Evaluation (1952). With
his wife, the musicologist Judith Kaplan Eisenstein, he co-authored a number of cantatas based on Jewish themes.
[Jack Reimer / Richard Hirsch (2nd ed)]EISENSTEIN, JUDAH DAVID (1854–1956), U.S. encyclopedist, anthologist, and author. Eisenstein was born in Mezhirech, Poland, and in 1872 immigrated to the United States,
where he became a successful coat manufacturer. He wasa founder of the first Hebrew society in the United States,
Shoḥ arei Sefat Ever (1880), and one of its first Hebrew writers.
Although he also undertook translations, e.g., in 1891 publishing the text of the American constitution in Hebrew and Yiddish, his fame rests on his anthologies, for which he earned
the epithet “master of treasuries” (as all his anthologies bore
the title Oẓ ar, “Treasury”). He published a Jewish encyclopedia in ten volumes with the assistance of experts from various countries, Oẓ ar Yisrael (1907–13). His other anthologies
include Oẓ ar Midrashim (2 vols., 1915); Oẓ ar Dinim u-Minhagim (1917, “Laws and Customs”); Oẓ ar Derushim Nivḥ arim
(1918, “Selected Homilies”); Oẓ ar Derashot (1919, “Sermons”);
Oẓ ar Perushim ve-Ẓ iyyurim al Haggadah shel Pesaḥ (1920),
on the Haggadah; Oẓ ar Massa’ot (1926), anthology of Jewish
travel literature; Oẓ ar Ma’amrei Tanakh (1925), a biblical concordance; Oẓ ar Ma’amrei Hazal (1922), rabbinic aphorisms;
Oẓ ar Vikkuḥ im (1928), disputations; Oẓ ar Musar u-Middot(1941), on ethics and morals.
Eisenstein was the author of Ma’amrei Bikkoret (1897), a
criticism of Rodkinson’s translation of the Talmud; History of
the First Russian American Jewish Congregation (1901); Development of the Jewish Casuistic Literature in America (1904);
and other works. Eisenstein’s Commentary on the Torah, edited
by B.D. Perlow and I. Eisenstein, was published posthumously(1960). His autobiography and memoirs, Oẓ ar Zikhronotai(1929), includes a bibliography of his articles.
Bibliography: AJYB, 6 (1904/05), 85; Hadoar, 36:27 (May 25,1956); L.P. Gartner, in: AJHSQ, 52 (1962–63), 234–43; R.L. Samuels, in:
AJA, 12 (1960), 123–42.
[Abraham Meir Habermann]

EISENSTEIN, JUDITH KAPLAN (1909–1996), U.S. musicologist, educator, composer, and author. Born in New York273

eisenstein, sergei mikhailovichCity, Eisenstein was the eldest of the four daughters of Rabbi
Mordecai Menachem *Kaplan, the philosopher and founderof Reconstructionist Judaism, and Lena (Rubin) Kaplan. In
1922, at the age of 12, she celebrated one of the earliest known
bat mitzvah ceremonies in the U.S. at the Society for the Advancement of Judaism, where her father was the presiding
rabbi. Judith Kaplan Eisenstein had a second bat mitzvah at
the age of 82 where she was honored by a number of Jewish
and feminist leaders.
Kaplan continued her Jewish education at the Jewish
Theological Seminary Teachers Institute and her secular education at Columbia University Teachers College, from which
she received her B.S. in 1928 and her M.A. in 1932 in musiceducation. Following a brief first marriage that ended in divorce, Kaplan married Rabbi Ira *Eisenstein, her father’s assistant at the Society for the Advancement of Judaism, in 1934.
This marriage endured for over 60 years; the couple had threechildren. From 1929 to 1954 Judith Eisenstein taught musiceducation and the history of Jewish music at the Jewish Theological Seminary’s Teachers Institute (now the Albert A. List
College of Jewish Studies). While at the Teachers Institute she
began her publishing career with a Jewish songbook for children, Gateway to Jewish Song (1937). She wrote several more
books on Jewish music and on Jewish musical history foryoung readers; these include Festival Songs (1943) and Songsof Childhood (1955) with Frieda Prensky. In the years between
1942 and 1974, Eisenstein composed two song cycles and fivecantatas on Jewish themes, written in collaboration with her
husband. The most frequently performed of these is “What
Is Torah?” (1942).
Eisenstein began doctoral studies at the School of Sacred Music of Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in New York in 1959. Her dissertation was entitled,“The Liturgical Chant of Provencal and West Sephardic Jews
in Comparison to the Song of the Troubadours and the Cantigas.” After receiving her Ph.D., she taught at HUC-JIR from1966 to 1979. In 1978, when her husband became presidentof the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College, the Eisensteins
moved to Philadelphia. Eisenstein taught at the RRC from 1978
to 1981. Her book, Heritage of Music: The Music of the Jewish
People, was published in 1972 and reprinted in 1990. In 1987,
she wrote and broadcast a series of 13 radio lectures on thehistory of Jewish music.

in this capacity during the Russian civil war. In 1920, however, Eisenstein took up stage work, joining first the Proletkult
Theater in Moscow and then the avant-garde company of V.
Meyerhold. He was a disciple of Meyerhold in stage direction.
After deciding that the theater was not close enough to themasses, he turned his attention to the cinema. His first film
was The Strike (1924), followed in 1925 by Battleship Potemkin, which had an immediate impact on contemporary film
making. It demonstrated a new approach, the dramatic handling of crowd scenes, and the use of nonprofessional actors
for greater realism. Eisenstein further developed his methods
in October (1926), a film about the Russian Revolution, and
The General Line (1929), which extolled Soviet agriculture. He
was invited to Hollywood in 1931, but his scenarios proved
unacceptable there. With the assistance of the novelist Upton
Sinclair he spent 14 months in Mexico making a film on the
Mexican revolution but he was recalled to the U.S.S.R. before
its completion. Parts were edited in Hollywood as ThunderOver Mexico (1933), evoking much criticism as being untrue
to Eisenstein’s principles. Another section of the film was issued in 1940 as Time in the Sun. In the 1930s he encountereddifficulties with the authorities, who saw film as an important
propaganda tool. They criticized his esthetic approach, and he
was unable complete some of his works. In Russia, after these
difficulties, he won the Order of Lenin for Alexander Nevsky(1938). Of his Ivan the Terrible trilogy, part 1 was shown in
1946, part 2 was suppressed until 1958, and part 3 was not shot.
He expounded his theories in lectures and in two books, The
Film Sense (1942) and Film Form (1949). Though he never affirmed his Jewish ancestry, he agreed to appear together withother known Jewish cultural activists in antifascist meetings
on August 24, 1941, and in 1942. Eisenstadt’s memoirs, called
Beyond the Stars and written in 1946, appeared as volume 4of his selected works in 1997 (published by the British Film
Institute). A previous version had appeared in 1983 as Immoral Memories.
Bibliography: M. Seton, Sergei Eisenstein (Eng., 1952).
Add. Bibliography: O. Bulgakowa, Sergei Eisenstein, a Biography(2002); A. Nesbit, Sergei Eisenstein and the Shape of Thinking (2003);
R. Bergen, Sergei Eisenstein: A Life in Conflict (1999).

EISENSTEIN, SERGEI MIKHAILOVICH (1898–1948),
Russian film director, son of a Jewish father who converted
to Christianity and a non-Jewish mother. Eisenstein’s work,
revolutionary both in technique and in subject matter, was amajor contribution to the modern art of the cinema. He wasoriginally trained as a civil engineer, and served the Red Army

EISLER, EDMUND MENAHEM (1850–1942), writer who
envisioned a Zionist utopia. Born in Tyrnau, Slovakia, Eisler
was active for many years in Jewish literature and journalism.
He contributed Hebrew poetry to the literary annual Kokhevei
Yiẓ ḥ ak (1877) but later wrote only in German. In 1882 he wrote
a vision of a Zionist utopia in the form of a novel entitled Ein
Zukunftsbild, which he published anonymously in 1885. The
book relates the exodus of Jews from Europe and the establishment of a Jewish state under the rule of a king (the one
who had conceived the idea of the exodus and the state waschosen as a monarch). It includes a detailed description of theconstitution, how Hebrew functions as the official languageof the country, and the division of the country into tribes according to the biblical account. There is even a description of

274

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: I. Eisenstein, Reconstructing Judaism: An
Autobiography (1986); P.B. Eisenstein, “Eisenstein, Judith Kaplan,”in: P.E. Hyman and D.D. Moore (eds.), Jewish Women in America, 1(1997), 370–71.
[Carole Kessner (2nd ed.)]eisler, rudolf
the war that the young country must wage against those who
threaten to destroy it, and its total victory followed by peace.
Eisler prophesied a Europe without Jews after anti-Jewish legislation and terrible persecution and predicted the path of theGerman “hob-nailed boot.” The novel fell into obscurity until
it was rediscovered by Perez Sandler who identified its author
and reprinted it in a Hebrew translation (by Y. Tolkes) in ananthology of Zionist utopias, Ḥ ezyonei Medinah (“Visions of aState,” 1954), with a monograph on this utopia and its author.
The work predates *Herzl’s novel Altneuland by 17 years, anda copy of it was found in Herzl’s personal library.
[Getzel Kressel]

EISLER, GERHART (1897–1968), East German Communist.
Born in Leipzig, he was the son of Rudolf *Eisler and became
a convinced Communist after serving with the Austrian army
in World War I. In 1930 he served as political secretary in the
Far East bureau of the Communist Trade Union Internationalin Shanghai. Eisler went to Spain in 1936 and later to France,
where he was interned in 1940. On his release he left for theUnited States where he became a leading Communist agitator.
In 1949 he was sentenced to a year’s imprisonment for contempt of Congress when he refused to be sworn as a witness
before the House of Representatives’ Un-American Activities
Committee. While free on bail pending an appeal, he escaped
to England on a Polish liner, after paying 25 cents to tour it
as a visitor. On arrival in England he was arrested on the application of the United States Embassy, and a political storm
arose when it was suggested that there was collusion between
the British and American secret services. Eventually Eisler was
released and flew to Prague, where he engaged in Communist
propaganda activities for four years. Later he was minister of
information in East Germany (until 1952) and became chairman of the East German radio authority. He died while on a
mission to the Soviet Union.
Bibliography: The Times (London, April 21, 1968). Add.
Bibliography: C. Epstein, The Last Revolutionaries – German
Communists in their Centuries (2003).

EISLER, HANNS (1898–1962), German composer; son of
Rudolf *Eisler. Eisler, born in Leipzig, was a pupil of Arnold*Schoenberg and Anton von Webern in Vienna. His early
compositions were in an advanced idiom, but Eisler soon
adapted to the demands of “socialist realism.” He went toBerlin in 1924 and wrote the music for some of Bertolt Brecht’s plays, including Die Rundkoepfe und die Spitzkoepfe andthe incidental music for Galileo. In 1937 he immigrated to theUnited States where he lectured at the New School for Social Research, New York, and then went to Hollywood. He
was musical assistant to Charlie Chaplin (1942–47) and also
composed scores for other filmmakers. He left in 1948 under “voluntary deportation” because of his political past. Settling in East Berlin, he became one of the ideological leadersof musical activity in East Germany. He taught at the Akademie der Kuenste and received a state prize for his composiENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6tions in 1950. He composed the national anthem of the German Democratic Republic (to a text by Johannes Becher).
He wrote an opera, Johannes Faustus (1953), which was criticized for its mysticism. His works include symphonies (e.g.,
Deutsche Symphonie, 1937), chamber music, cantatas, a Suite
for Orchestra with Capriccio based on Jewish folksongs, operas, oratorios, and songs.
Bibliography: Baker’s Biog Dict; Grove’s Dict; MGG; Komponisten und Musikwissenschaftler der Deutschen Demokratischen
Republik (19592), 47–50.
[Dora Leah Sowden]

EISLER, MÁTYÁS (1865–1931), Hungarian rabbi and scholar.
Eisler was born in Paty, county of Pest, and was ordained at
the rabbinical seminary of Budapest in 1891. He taught Hebrew at the Israelitische Lehrbildungsanstalt in 1890 and later at
the University of Kolozsvar. He was chief rabbi of Kolozsvar
from 1891 until his death. His scholarly interests included
the history of the Jews of Transylvania and Hebrew linguistics, and among his works were Az erdelyi zsidok mult abol...
(“From the Past of the Jews of Transylvania,” 1901) and Agyökbeli hangok interdialektikus valtozasai az aram nyelvekben(“Interdialectal Changes of Root Sounds in the Aramaic Languages,” 1889).
Bibliography: Magyar Zsidó Lexikon (1929), s.v.
[Alexander Scheiber]

EISLER, MORITZ (1823–1902), educator and historian ofJewish philosophy. Eisler was born in Prossnitz, Moravia. In
1853 he became a teacher of religion at the Piarist high school
and director of the communal school at Nikolsburg. In 1862
he founded an organization for the support of disabled Jewish teachers, their widows and orphans (which later became
the “Maehrisch-Schlesischer Israelitischer Lehrerverein”)
and served as its president until 1898. His Vorlesungen ueber
die juedische Philosophie des Mittelalters (“Lectures On Jewish Philosophy in the Middle Ages,” 3 vols., 1870–83) became
one of the first attempts to present, in popular fashion, themain systems of medieval Jewish philosophy. In addition, hepublished a number of essays on specific questions in the history of Jewish philosophy, including essays on *Spinoza, *Ibn
Daud, and Ibn *Ẓ addik.
Bibliography: H. Heller, Maehren’s Maenner der Gegenwart,
1 (1889), 3, 28; Kuerschners Deutscher Literatur-Kalender (1902); Ch.
D. Lippe, Bibliographisches Lexicon, 1 (1881), 92; 2 (1887), 52.

EISLER, RUDOLF (1873–1926), Austrian philosopher known
for encyclopedic writings, especially his dictionaries of philosophy and biographies of philosophers. His works, which contributed greatly to the dissemination of philosophical ideas,
include Geschichte des Monismus (1910), Kritische Einfuehrungin die Philosophie (1905), Woerterbuch der philosophischen
Begriffe und Ausdruecke (1899), and his Philosophen-Lexikon(1912). He was the editor of the Wissenschaftliche Volksbibliothek. His Kant-Lexikon was published in 1930. Eisler was the275eismann, moses
father of Gerhart *Eisler, the Communist leader, and Hanns*Eisler, the composer.
Bibliography: Oesterreichisches Biographisches Lexikon
1815–1950, 1 (1957), 238–39. Add. Bibliography: NDB, 4 (1959),
421f.
[Samuel Hugo Bergman]

EISMANN, MOSES (1847–1893), Hebrew journalist. Bornin Tivrov, he began his literary activity in 1870 with an article
in Ha-Meliẓ , concerning government-appointed rabbis. In BiFero’a Pera’ot be-Yisrael (1882), he argued that there was only
one solution to the “Jewish Question” – the Jewish settlementof Palestine, which in the course of time would become thehome of all the scattered Jews. This was also the subject of his
pamphlet Inyanei ha-Yehudim: She’elat ha-Yeẓ i’ah (“Concerning Jewish Affairs: the Emigration Question,” Jerusalem, 1887).
In 1890 he participated in the founding convention of Ḥ ovevei
Zion in Odessa. He wrote Yiddish articles in Der Veker, editedby *Lilienblum, as well as in other publications. He also wrote
articles in Russian under a pseudonym.
His brother, DAVID EISMANN (1869–1922), wrote stories
in Russian, published in seven volumes in 1911, dealing mainlywith the Jewish intelligentsia, exposed to the cultural environment of Russian society.
Bibliography: Z. Scharfstein, in: Moznayim, 43 (1964/65),
184–7; Waxman, Literature, 4 (19602), 403–4.
[Baruch Shohetman]

EISNER, KURT (1867–1919), German socialist leader, who
was founder and first prime minister of the Bavarian Republic. Born in Berlin, Eisner became a journalist. He was a contributor to the Frankfurter Zeitung from 1891 to 1893, and from1893 to 1897 to the Hessische Landeszeitung. In 1897 he was imprisoned for nine months for lese majesty. In 1898 he joined
the social-democratic journal Vorwaerts as political editor.
In 1905 he had to leave because of disagreements with the orthodox left (Kautsky, Luxemburg, Mehring). Two years later,
he became editor of the Fraenkische Tagespost (Nuernberg),
and from 1910 he reported on the Bavarian Landtag as official correspondent for the Muenchner Post. A gifted writer, he
had an intellectual and moral approach to political problems.
At the beginning of World War I, Eisner favored the grantingof war credits to the German government. However, he objected to the imperial policy of conquest and became a bitter
opponent of the government’s war policies. He was arrested
and imprisoned in January 1918 for participating as one of theleaders in the Munich metal workers’ peace strike but was released in October, in order to stand as Independent SocialDemocratic candidate for the Reichstag. On November 7, 1918,
Eisner headed the revolutionary uprising in Munich and next
day became prime minister of the new republic of Bavaria. To
affix the blame for the war on the German government, he revealed the contents of Bavarian government reports and as aresult his enemies falsely accused him of taking huge bribes
from the Allies to start the revolution. In the Bavarian elec-

276

tions that followed the uprising, Eisner’s Independent Socialist Party received only a small number of votes. On February
21, 1919, on his way to the Landtag (parliament), to announce
the resignation of his government, he was shot dead by theyoung Count Arco-Valley. Eisner’s Gesammelte Schriften appeared in 1919 in two volumes.
Bibliography: A. Mitchell, Revolution in Bavaria 1918–1919:
The Eisner Regime and the Soviet Republic (1965), incl. bibl.; F. Fechenbach, Der Revolutionaer Kurt Eisner (1929); F. Schade, Kurt Eisner
und die bayerische Sozial-Demokratie (1961), incl. bibl.; F. Wiesemann,
in: K. Bosl (ed.), Bayern im Umbruch (1969), 387–426; F. Eisner, Kurt
Eisner (Ger., 1979); A.E. Gurganus, Kurt Eisner (1984); B. Grau, Kurt
Eisner 1867–1919 (Ger., 2001).
[Bernhard Grau (2nd ed.)]EISNER, MARK (1886–1953), U.S. lawyer and public official.
Eisner was born in New York City. After serving in the New
York State Assembly (1913–15), Eisner was appointed delegate
to the state’s Constitutional Convention (1915). An authority
on taxation law, Eisner was collector of internal revenue for
the New York district from 1915 to 1919, and lectured on his
specialty at New York University and New York Law School.
He formed a law partnership in 1924. When the New York
City Board of Higher Education was established in 1926, Eisner was appointed a member by Mayor James J. Walker, later
serving as chairman (1932–38). Eisner was active in other civic,
professional, and communal organizations, including service
as president of the *American Association for Jewish Education (1939–47). He wrote Lay View of Some of the Problems ofHigher Education (1936), and was an editor of How Government Regulates Business (1939).
Bibliography: New York Times (March 30, 1953), 21.
[Morton Rosenstock]

EISNER, MICHAEL DAMMANN (1942– ), U.S. businessexecutive. Born in Mount Kisco, N.Y., to Lester, a lawyer andadministrator for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, and Margaret (née Dammann), co-founder ofthe American Safety Razor Company, Eisner grew up in thefamily’s apartment on Fifth Avenue in New York City andgraduated from Denison University in 1964. Following summer jobs as a page and a first job as a Federal Communications
Commission logging clerk at NBC, Eisner landed a job in the
CBS programming department. Unhappy, Eisner sent his resume out to hundreds of companies. ABC head Barry Diller
convinced the board to bring Eisner on as assistant to the national programming director, a position he held from 1966
to 1968. From there Eisner rose to senior vice president forprime-time production and development, creating such programs as Happy Days, Barney Miller, and Starsky and Hutch.
When Diller took over as chair of Paramount Pictures in 1976,
he offered Eisner the position of studio president. Under Eisner, the studio released such hits as Raiders of the Lost Ark,
Grease, Ordinary People, Terms of Endearment, Flashdance,
Trading Places, Beverly Hills Cop, and Airplane. Eisner left
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6eisner, will
Paramount to become chair and CEO of Walt Disney Company in September 1984. At the time, Disney had not had a hit
film since 1969 and its profits had fallen dramatically. Eisnerreinvigorated the studio on several fronts, luring new executives, making popular films for adults like Down and Out inBeverly Hills (1985), re-releasing classic Disney films, creating
new animated films such as Beauty and the Beast (1991) and
The Lion King (1994) – and launching Broadway versions of
the films – as well as computer animated films in partnershipwith Pixar such as Toy Story (1995) and Finding Nemo (2003).
He also expanded the company in TV and cable (launching theDisney Channel and acquiring ABC and the Family Channel),
expanded the existing Disneyland and Disneyworld resorts
and established Disneyland theme parks in Europe outside
Paris, France, and in Japan, and acquired Harvey and Bob
Weinstein’s specialty films division Miramax Films. Although
in a 20-year period Eisner increased the value of the company
2000, his management style and inability to groom a successor led to major conflicts. Former president of production
Jeffrey Katzenberg left to found Dreamworks and won a $250
million suit against Disney. Eisner hired former Creative Artist Agency founder Michael Ovitz and then a year later fired
him, paying him a severance that exceeded $100 million andspurred several stockholder lawsuits. The relationships with
Pixar and Miramax soured. In 2003, Walt Disney’s nephew
Roy Disney asked Eisner to resign as head of the company.
Following a vote to remove Eisner from the board, the Disney
CEO announced he would retire at the end of his contract on
September 30, 2006. However, subsequently, he announced hewould step down on September 30, 2005, and would be succeeded by Robert Iger. Eisner’s tenure at Disney has been thesubject of several books, including Eisner’s own 1998 account,
Work in Progress, and Disney Wars by James Stewart (2005).

tion of the German Jewish writers from Prague. Czech-German-Jewish symbiosis is also the theme of his book of essays
Milenky (“Lovers,” 1930) and of Franz Kafka and Prague (1950).
However, the bulk of his literary studies, mainly in the fields
of comparative literature, psychology of languages, and themutual influence of national cultures, remains dispersed ina great number of Central European publications. Although
prevented by a hearing defect from becoming a musician, henevertheless kept in constant touch with musical life and not
only translated foreign operas into Czech and libretti of Czech
operas (by Dvořák, Martinů, Jeremiáš) into German, but also
wrote several studies on the history of music, including one
on Jewish music and musical instruments. Shielded by his
non-Jewish wife, who was distantly related to Richard Wagner, Eisner escaped deportation during the Nazi occupation
and was able to work in the Jewish Museum in Prague. Someof his last essays were published in Vĕstník, the monthly of theJewish community of Prague. His best known work is Chrám
i tvrz (“The Cathedral and the Fortress,” 1946), an expositionon the Czech language and its riches.
Add. Bibliography: A. Mikulášek et al., Literatura s hvězdouDavidovou, vol. 1 (1998); Lexikon české literatury, 1 (1985).
[Avigdor Dagan]

EISNER, PAVEL (Paul; 1889–1958), bilingual Czech-German writer, translator, and literary critic. His literary work
made him a bridge-builder between Czech and German cultural circles in Czechoslovakia. Born in Prague, Eisner studied Slavic philology at the German University there and soon
became known as the editor of a series of anthologies, mainlyof Czech and Slovak folk literature (Tschechische Anthologie,
Slovakische Anthologie, Volkslieder der Slaven, Volksmaerchen
der Slaven). As editor of the literary supplement of the government-owned paper Prager Presse, he became one of the few
interpreters – most of whom were Jews – of Czech literature
to the German reading public. One of the most prolific writersof his time, he translated hundreds of poems and short stories
by practically every modern Czech author of importance. On
the other hand, he was also a tireless translator from German
into Czech, acquainting the Czech reader with authors ranging from J.W. Goethe to Thomas Mann and from Heinrich*Heine to Franz *Kafka. He was the first, in his book Nĕmecká
literatura na půdĕ Československé republiky (“German Literature on Czechoslovak Soil,” 1933), to analyze the contribu-

EISNER, WILL (William Erwin; 1917–2005), U.S. comicbook artist and author. Born in Brooklyn, N.Y., the son of
Jewish immigrants, Eisner published his first drawings in hishigh school newspaper. He published his first comic in 1936
in Wow, What a Magazine!, where he met Jerry Iger. Together
they created a comic book outfit, Eisner & Iger, that employedamong other artists Bob *Kane, creator of Batman and othersuperheroes. (Eisner turned down a comic called Superman
by Jerry *Siegel and Joe *Shuster.)
In 1940 Eisner created the Spirit, a hero without superpowers. Fans called the strip the “Citizen Kane” of comics for
its innovation, its seriousness, and its influences. A website
devoted to the Spirit described the hero as a man “with nogimmicks or powers” other than “his freedom from society”
and noted that Eisner called the Spirit a “middle-class crime
fighter.” At the height of its popularity, the Spirit appeared in
20 newspapers, reaching 5 million readers every Sunday. In
1942, when Eisner was drafted into the army, he started drawing comics for the military. In late 1945 he went back to the
Spirit, and with the help of other artists, including Jules *Feiffer, he revived and deepened it. The Spirit expired in 1952.
For the next 25 years, Eisner spent much of his time running
the American Visual Corporation, a producer of education,
army, and government comic books. Military manuals used
to be dry and virtually unreadable but Eisner used words
and pictures together to show soldiers how to do everythingfrom cleaning their tanks to putting their lives back together
after the war.
The Kitchen Sink Press reprinted all of the postwar Spirit
comics from 1978 to 1998. Meanwhile, in the 1970s, Eisner was
reborn as a comic artist. In 1978 he wrote and drew A Contract

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6277[Adam Wills (2nd ed.)]eiss, alexander vonwith God, a comic book story about Frimme Hersh, a Jewish
immigrant who becomes a slumlord in the Bronx when hediscovers that God has forsaken him. With that book, Eisner
became famous for his moody rain, which came to be called“Eisner spritz.” His work over the years was also noted for
wordless, emotional close-ups on characters’ faces. Eisner iscredited with coining the phrase “graphic novel” in 1978. Eisner’s seriousness influenced the work of Art *Spiegelman, author of Maus. Eisner wrote two books on comic art, Comic andSequential Art in 1985 and Graphic Storytelling in 1996.
In 2004, Eisner took on Charles Dickens in Fagin theJew, challenging most characterizations in Oliver Twist thatstereotyped Jews. In Eisner’s version of events, Fagin, who isin prison awaiting the hangman, confronts Dickens and demands a recasting of his characters without the prejudice inthe novel. “A Jew is not Fagin,” he tells the author, “any morethan a Gentile is Sikes!” another character in the story. Eisner’s
Last Day in Vietnam, a collection of the military battle stories
he wrote in Korea and Vietnam, was issued in 2005. His lastwork, The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Eldersof Zion, provided a graphic history of one of the most notorious works in the pantheon of antisemitism.
[Stewart Kampel (2nd ed.)]

EISS, ALEXANDER VON (1832–1921), Austro-Hungariansoldier. Born in Piesling, Moravia, Eiss joined the army in 1848
and took part in Austria’s wars against Italy (1849), France and
Italy (1859), and Prussia and Italy (1866). He was one of thefirst Jewish officers to receive many decorations for heroism.
Eiss was proud of his Jewish identity and fought more than
30 duels over insults to his people. In 1866 he was awarded
the Order of the Iron Crown, which conferred hereditaryknighthood upon him. After the conquest of Bosnia, Eiss wasawarded the Order of Maria Theresa, after having rejected it
years earlier when it entailed his conversion to Christianity. In
1896, after becoming a major-general, he retired from the army
and became almost blind. He sometimes appeared in his general’s uniform at Zionist meetings in Vienna. His proud Jewish
stance brought him to the attention of Herzl, who made him
responsible for administering the central organ of the Zionist
Organization, Die *Welt. Later, he also headed the Vienna office of the *Jewish National Fund. Also his three sons became
officers in the army; two of them fell in World War I.
Bibliography: N. Agmon (Bistritzky) (ed.), Megillat haAdamah, 2 (1951), 56; H. Gold (ed.), Die Juden und Judengemeinden
Maehrens (1929), 468. Add. Bibliography: E.A. Schmiedl, Judenin der k. (u.) k. Armee 1788–1918 (1989); I. Deák, A Social and Political
History of the Habsburg Officer Corps 1848–1918 (1990).
[Mordechai Kaplan]°EISSFELDT, OTTO (1887–1973), German Lutheran Bible
scholar. From 1913 to 1921 he was privatdocent in Berlin, andfrom 1921, professor in Halle (Saale). In his two principal
fields, literary criticism and the history of religion, he was decisively influenced by his teachers Smend, with whom he stud-278

ied at Goettingen, and Baudissin, who taught him in Berlin.
(At Goettingen he studied with Wellhausen as well.) Following Smend, Eissfeldt postulated instead of Wellhausen’s oldest Hexateuch source, J, two originally independent sources,
J1 and J2, or L (Lay source) and J, and also the continuationof the Hexateuch sources beyond Joshua (Hexateuch-Synopse, 1922; Die Quellen des Richterbuches, “The Sources of theBook of Judges,” 1925; Die aeltesten Traditionen Israels, 1950;
Die Genesis der Genesis, 1958). His comprehensive Einleitungin das Alte Testament (1934, 19643; Eng. trans., The Old Testament, An Introduction, 1965) strives to preserve the heritageof Gunkel, being concerned with the smallest preliterary units
and their “Situation in Life” (Sitz im Leben). Eissfeldt’s inaugural lecture “Jahwe and Baal” given in Berlin (1914) prefigured the development of his work in the history of religion,
which, to begin with, followed in the footsteps of Baudissin(the publication of his Kyrios, 1929); he concerned himself withnumerous problems and figures in the Canaanite-Phoenician
religion (Der Gott Bethel, 1930; Der Gott Thabor, 1934; Molk
als Opferbegriff im Punischen und Hebraeischen (“Molek as a
Sacrificial Term in Hebrew and Punic”), 1935; Der Gott Karmel,
1953), and after the discoveries at Ras Shamra the specific studyof their Ugaritic manifestations (Ras Schamra und Sanchun
aton, 1939; El im ugaritischen Pantheon, 1951). His chief aim
was to arrive at a better understanding of the religion of theIsraelites (Ba’alsamen und Jahwe, 1939; Jahwe Zebaoth, 1950;
El and Yahwe, 1956; Adonis und Adona, 1970). He edited the
Handbuch zum Alten Testament and, together with A. Alt, thethird edition of R. Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica. Many of his shorter
articles were collected in Kleine Schriften (5 vols., 1962ff.).
Add. Bibliography: G. Wallis, DB, 1, 327.
[Rudolf Smend]

EISSLER, KURT R. (1908–1999), psychoanalyst. Born in
Vienna, Eissler worked at the Vienna Psychoanalytic Instituteunder August Eichhorn and applied his training to juvenile
delinquents. When the Nazis took over Austria, he left Vienna
and settled in the United States. On the basis of his Viennese
experience he edited and contributed to the book Searchlights
on Delinquency (1949). Eissler was the first analyst who in 1943
broke away from tradition and treated schizophrenics. He
wrote Limitations to Psychotherapy of Schizophrenics (1943).
His action at that time was considered a bold step and he attempted in his book Objective Criteria of Recovery from Neuropsychiatric Disorders (1947) to introduce research methods
into this area of psychotherapy. Later he began research into
the psychodynamics of dying. His wide scholarship was evident in works like Goethe, a Psychoanalytic Study (1963), Leonardo da Vinci: Psychoanalytic Notes on the Enigma (1961), andFreud and the Seduction Theory: A Brief Love Affair (2001). His
wife, Ruth Eissler, also trained at the Vienna Psychoanalytic
Institute, was known for her work with children.
Bibliography: A. Grinstein, Index of Psychoanalytic Writings, 1 (1956), 435–7; 6 (1964), 3135–36.
[Miriam Gay]

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

eitingon, max
EITAN, RAPHAEL (“Raful”; 1929–2004), Israeli soldier, 11th
chief of staff of the IDF. Eitan was born in Israel and began his
military career as an officer in the *Palmaḥ and was woundedin the battle for Jerusalem during the War of Independence.
In the 1956 Sinai Campaign he was one of the first to
parachute into the Mitla Pass, and took a prominent part in the
campaign in Sinai during the Six-Day War. He commanded
the Israeli commando force which raided Beirut airport in1968 and was later appointed chief infantry and paratroop officer. During the Yom Kippur War his unit played a key rolein stemming the Syrian attack and advanced to within 25
miles of Damascus.
In 1978 he was appointed chief of staff in succession to
Lt.-General Mordecai (“Motta”) *Gur, taking up his appointment in April. During his service as chief of staff he initiatedthe “Raful Youth” project, a special program for youth fromunderprivileged backgrounds. In his position as chief of staff
he commanded the Israeli forces in the 1982 Lebanon War.
In 1983 he was criticized by the *Kahan Commission – established to investigate the causes of the killing by Phalangist
forces of Palestinians in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatilla in west Beirut – for failure to try to prevent the massacre, but was not dismissed since his term as chief of staff wasby then nearly over.
In 1983 Eitan formed the Tzomet political party, which
united with the ultra-right-wing Teḥ iyah party before the elections for the Eleventh Knesset in 1984. He was elected to the
Eleventh on the joint slate and to the Twelfth Knesset in 1988
with Tzomet running independently, having split with Teḥ iyah.
Tzomet contested the 1992 elections on a hawkish, anti-religious platform and won eight seats, making it the fourth largest
party in the Knesset; it remained in the opposition rather thanjoin Yitzhak Rabin’s Labor-led coalition. He was elected again
to the Knesset in the 1996 elections, running on the combined*Likud-Gesher-Tzomet ticket, and was appointed minister ofagriculture and environment and deputy prime minister in the*Netanyahu government. His influence on government policy
was minimal, and as a result he lost public support. In 1998
he announced his candidacy for prime minister, but withdrew
later on. In the 1999 elections, Tzomet failed to win any seats
and as a consequence Eitan retired from political and publiclife. He drowned in November 2004 when he was swept off a
breakwater in Ashdod port on a stormy day.

specialized in psychiatry. Eitinger wrote his doctoral thesis on“Psykiatriske undersøkelser blant flyktninger i Norge” (“Psychiatric Examination among Refugees in Norway,” 1958). In
1954 Eitinger was awarded the King’s Gold Medal for his studyof the influence of military life on young Norwegian men’s
mental health. He is regarded as one of the founders of victimology, the study of the effects of aggression upon the victim.
After spending a year in Israel (1961–62) examining survivorsof concentration camps, he published Concentration CampSurvivors in Norway and Israel (1964). This work, together
with “Mortality and Morbidity after Excessive Stress” (1973),
were his greatest achievements. He described a “concentration camp syndrome” comprising anxiety and depression in
the survivors. He ascribed this to physical trauma. Eitinger,
professor of psychiatry at Oslo University, was president of
the Norwegian Psychiatric Association from 1963 to 1967. In
1966 he became head of the University Psychiatric Clinic. As
professor emeritus, Leo Eitinger continued his research andwriting uninterruptedly. He was awarded the World VeteransFederation’s Prize in 1995 for his unrelenting work for war veterans. He was also appointed Commander of the Royal Norwegian St. Olav Order, an award given to him by the king of
Norway for his great contribution to medical science. He andhis wife, Lisl Eitinger, devoted their lives to the promotion ofhuman rights and the fight against injustice and racism. In thisspirit they established the University of Oslo’s Human Rights
Award, the Lisl and Leo Eitinger Prize.
Bibliography: L. Weisaeth, Echoes of the Holocaust, 5 (July
1997).
[Inger-Lise Grusd / Lynn Claire Feinberg (2nd ed.)]EITINGER, LEO S. (1912–1996), psychiatrist and pioneer researcher in psychotraumatology. Born in Lomnice, Czechoslovakia, and graduating from medical school in 1937, Eitinger
fled from the Nazis in 1939 and came to Norway as a refugeewith a Nansen passport. He was given permission to work as
a resident in psychiatry in Norway until the Nazi occupationof Norway in 1940. In 1942 he was deported to Auschwitz together with the Norwegian Jews and was one of the very few
to survive. After the war he returned to Norway, where he

EITINGON, MAX (1881–1943), psychoanalyst. Born in Mohilev, Russia, Eitingon was raised in Leipzig, Germany, where
his parents settled. He studied philosophy, first in Heidelberg and then in Marburg, where he was a pupil of Hermann*Cohen. However, he subsequently moved to the study of
medicine, and qualified as a physician at Zurich in 1909. Therehe joined the group of psychiatrists headed by Bleuler andJung, who tried to give Sigmund *Freud’s theories a broader
basis by applying them to psychiatric diseases. While still a
medical student in 1907, Eitingon went to Vienna, where (asFreud himself disclosed) he was the first foreign visitor to
study psychoanalysis at its source. Later he settled in Berlin.
During World War I he served in the Austrian medical corps,
and his encounter with war neuroses induced him to establish clinics for psychoanalytical treatment. In 1919 he was appointed a member of the so-called “Committee” – a small inner circle at the heart of the psychoanalytical movement. In
1920, together with Karl *Abraham and E. Simmel, he founded
the Berlin Psychoanalytic Polyclinic to provide treatment for
the underprivileged and to establish a program for the teaching of psychoanalysis. This Polyclinic was in 1924 registered as
the Berlin Institute for Psychoanalysis, and became the modelon which later institutes were based. Eitingon was electedpresident of the International Psychoanalytical Association

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6279[Fern Lee Seckbach / Rohan Saxena and Susan Hattis Rolef(2nd ed.)]Eizenberg, Julieat the Innsbruck congress in 1927. He chaired three later congresses and resigned only in 1932. After the rise of the Nazis,
Eitingon immigrated to Jerusalem. In 1933 he founded thePalestine Psychoanalytical Society and a year later he established the Psychoanalytical Institute (subsequently named in
his memory), of which he remained the head until his death.
His move to Palestine was a natural consequence of his lifelong interest in and devotion to Zionism. He placed the Psychoanalytical Institute, as well as his own experience, at thedisposal of Youth Aliyah.

EIZENSTAT, STUART (1943– ), U.S. government adviser
and special envoy and mediator for Holocaust property claims.
Eizenstat was born in Chicago, Illinois, grew up in Atlanta,
graduated with honors in political science from the Univer-sity of North Carolina (1964), and received a law degree from
Harvard Law School (1967). After law school, he worked in
the Johnson White House as a staff aide and, in 1968, as theresearch director for Hubert Humphrey’s presidential campaign. In 1969, he clerked for Justice Newell Edenfield of the
U.S. District Court of Georgia, and in 1970, he joined the Atlanta law firm Powell, Goldstein, Frazier, and Murphy. He
continued his interest in politics in 1976, joining the Jimmy
Carter presidential campaign as policy and issues director, andsubsequently served as domestic policy advisor in the Carter
White House. At that time, he was an anomaly in public life,
a high-ranking practicing Jew whose children attended Jewish
school. President Carter honored Eizenstat’s religious Jewish
commitment by attending a Passover seder in his home. Since
then, religiously committed American Jews have been quite
comfortable in government service, comfortable as Americans
and as observant Jews.
As domestic policy advisor, Eizenstat’s Jewish commitment and knowledge of the Holocaust influenced two majordecisions. He was instrumental in recommending the establishment of the President’s Commission on the Holocaust,
which led to the establishment of the United States Holocaust
Memorial Museum, and in providing shelter in the UnitedStates for Iranian Jews, Bahais, and Christians who were fleeing Ayatollah Khomeini’s regime in Iran in 1979. Eizenstat
succeeded in establishing a special visitor’s visa, which would
expire only when the Shah of Iran was returned to power. This
served as a measure to protect some 50,000 Iranian Jews, almost all of whom are American citizens today.
With the defeat of President Carter, Eizenstat resumed
private legal practice in 1980 and also served as an adjunctlecturer at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard
University and a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution.
In 1993, he returned to public service, holding several highprofile positions in the Clinton Administration. He first wasnamed U.S. ambassador to the European Union. While serving as ambassador, he was asked to assume the role of the State
Department’s special envoy for property claims in Central andEastern Europe. In 1996, Eizenstat was named under secretaryfor international trade at the U.S. Department of Commerceand continued his role as special envoy for property claims.
Eizenstat was asked to investigate U.S. and Allied efforts to recover billions of dollars of gold stolen by the Nazis from thecentral banks of the conquered countries and from Holocaust
victims. Eleven U.S. government agencies participated; the report documented the complicity of the Swiss National Bankin converting looted gold into hard currency for the Nazis,
the centrality of Switzerland to the Nazi economic effort, theinadequacies of U.S. postwar policies, and the inadequacy of
reparations from the Allied nations to victims.
After moving to the State Department in 1997 as undersecretary for economic, business, and agricultural affairs, Eizenstat became more immersed in the reparations issues, asCongressional hearings (led by Sen. *D’Amato, R-NY) continued and U.S. class action lawsuits against three major Swiss

280

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: M. Wulff (ed.), Max Eitingon: In Memoriam (1950); E. Jones, The Life and Work of S. Freud, 2 (1955) and 3(1957), indices; E. Gumbel, in: Israel Annals of Psychiatry…, 3 (1965),
89; S.L. Pomer, in: F. Alexander et al. (eds.), Psychoanalytic Pioneers(1966), 51–63.
[Heinrich Zwi Winnik]

EIZENBERG, JULIE (1964– ), U.S. architect; president andfounder of the architectural firm Koning Eizenberg Architects, Inc., a California corporation established in 1981 andbased in Santa Monica. The vice president is Hendrick Koning. This husband-and-wife team is known in the U.S. andAustralia for its imaginative, site-specific, and people-oriented
approach. Both principals hold degrees in architecture fromthe University of Melbourne, Australia, and the University ofCalifornia, Los Angeles. The firm has a reputation for its creative thinking. The postmodern approach to design results inbuildings with clear, clean, straight lines applied to a variety ofcommercial, retail, hotel, and residential premises. The firmis also known for designing affordable housing, schools, andcommunity buildings. Its long list of honors includes awards
for such buildings as the Simone Hotel, the first new singleroom occupancy to be built in Los Angeles in 30 years. This
hotel, built in the “skid row” neighborhood, won the National
AIA Honor Award in 1994 for providing subtle changes in theusual plans for low-cost housing. They planned especially forthe safety, comfort, and dignity of the occupants. Good lighting in the rooms, kitchen, and lounges provided a cheerfulatmosphere. The firm also won the national competition in2001 for the design of two new schools for the Chicago Public Schools and for the Pittsburgh Children’s Museum expansion in 2000. Julie Eizenberg has lectured widely in the UnitedStates and Australia. She was the William Henry Bishop Visiting Professor at Yale University in 2004. Later projects in Los
Angeles include the downtown LA Standard, 5t Street Family
Housing, P.S. 1 Elementary School expansion, RAD Clothing,
the Avalon Hotel, and the 25t Street Studio.
Bibliography: W.J. Mitchel, A. Betsky, and J. Eizenberg,
Koning Eizenberg Buildings (1996).
[Betty R. Rubenstein (2nd ed.)]ekronbanks seized the world’s attention. The United States government stepped up its involvement: Eizenstat was now deputy
secretary of the U.S. Treasury and became the lead U.S. mediator not just in the class action lawsuits against the Swiss banks
but in negotiations between Jewish organizations, such as theWorld Jewish Congress and the World Jewish Restitution Organization, and the governments and companies of Germany,
Austria, and France. In his book, Imperfect Justice: Looted Assets, Slave Labor, and the Unfinished Business of World War II,
Eizenstat recounts his efforts, which led to the disclosure ofmore than 20,000 dormant accounts in Swiss banks; $8 billion in class action settlements against private Swiss, German,
Austrian, and French companies and their governments; thenegotiation with 40 countries of the Washington Principles
on Art regarding the return of looted works of art; and – mostimportantly – the emergence of truth about the large-scale
theft of property and the financial methods the Nazis used tosustain their war effort.
EKRON (Heb. ‫) ֶע ְקרוֹ ן‬, one of the capital cities of the Philistine Pentapolis. According to the Bible, Joshua allotted it to
the tribe of Dan on its northeastern border with Judah (Josh.
15:11, 45–46; 19:43), and Judges 1:18 relates that it was captured by the tribe of Judah. In Joshua 13:3, however, and all latersources, Ekron appears as one of the five cities of the Philistine confederation. After the Ark of the Covenant, which
was captured at Eben-Ezer, had brought misfortune to thePhilistine cities that received it, the people of Ekron refused
to admit it and proposed returning it to Israelite territory(I Sam. 5:1ff.; 6:16–17). Cities in the region of Ekron and Gathwere restored to Israel by Samuel (I Sam. 7:14). In the storyof David and Goliath, the Israelites pursued the Philistines to“the gates of Ekron” (I Sam. 17:52). In the ninth century messengers of King Ahaziah of Israel consulted “Baal Zebub, thegod of Ekron,” receiving a stern rebuke from Elijah (II Kings
1:2–16). Amos (1:6–8) reprimanded Ekron and its sister cities
for their slave trade and threatened it with destruction as did
Jeremiah (25:20) and Zephaniah (2:4) in King Josiah’s time(640–609 B.C.E.). Zephaniah threatened Ekron with being“rooted up” (‫) ֵּת ָע ֵקר‬, a play on words.
The siege of ‘amqar(r)una (Ekron), which took place in
712 B.C.E., was depicted on a wall relief in the palace of Sargon II at Khorsabad. Sennacherib captured Ekron in 701 B.C.E.
during his suppression of the rebellion led by King Hezekiah
of Judah. According to Sennacherib’s Royal Annals, Padi, kingof Ekron, who was loyal to Assyria, was deposed by a part ofthe populace who handed him over to Hezekiah for imprisonment. Despite the help Ekron received from the Egyptians,
Sennacherib took the city, executed the rebels, and forced Hezekiah to release Padi, whom he restored as ruler of the city.
Padi also received territory taken from Judah. His successor, Ikausu, however, was not so fortunate and, together with
Manasseh of Judah, paid heavy tribute to both Esarhaddon(particularly materials for the palace at Nineveh) and Ashur-banipal during their campaigns against Syria, Egypt, andCush, in the first half of the seventh century B.C.E.
In 147 B.C.E. Alexander Balas granted the city and its
district to Jonathan the Hasmonean as a reward for his loyalty (I Macc. 10:89; Jos., Antiq., 13:102). Eusebius describes it
as “a very large Jewish village called Akkaron” (Onom. 29:9).
Jerome situates it to the east of Azotus and Iamnia, mentioning also that some equated Accaron with Straton’s Tower at
Caesarea; similarly in the Talmud R. *Abbahu mistakenly identifies Ekron with Caesarea (Meg. 6a). It is also mentioned inconnection with a march by Baldwin I during the Crusades(c. 1200).
The biblical city of Ekron is now identified with Tel
Miqne (Khirbat al-Muqannaʾ), a large fortified mound (75acres), situated 22 mi. southwest of Jerusalem on the frontier zone that once separated Philistia from Judah. J. Naveh
was the first to identify Muqanna’ with Ekron, correcting
W.F. Albright who had suggested that it should be identified
as biblical Eltekeh. Naveh’s identification has been borne out
by subsequent excavations at the site (14 seasons) that were
undertaken between 1981 and 1996 by T. Dothan and S. Gitin
on behalf of the W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and the Hebrew University. Apart from ceramic finds
from the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages, the earliest remains of a settlement at the site date from the Middle Bronze
Age (MB II), including monumental platforms – the base of afortifications rampart, and intramural burials. The Late Bronze
Age settlement was apparently unfortified and restricted tothe ten acres of the northeast acropolis/upper city, while thelower city was abandoned. Finds attest to links with Cyprus,
the Aegean, and Anatolia, on the one hand, and Egypt, on theother. The final LB stratum was destroyed by fire.
Ekron saw a process of re-urbanization during the Iron
Age I with the founding of the first Sea Peoples/Philistine
city in the second quarter of the 12t century B.C.E. This fortified urban center, encompassing upper and lower cities, wascharacterized by a new material culture with Aegean affinities, including megaron-type buildings and local versions ofMycenaean (IIIC:1) wares. The Iron Age I city was destroyedin the first quarter of the tenth century B.C.E., either by the
Egyptians (at the time of Pharaoh Siamun) or by the Israelites. The Iron Age IIA–B city (tenth–eighth centuries B.C.E.)
was limited to the northeast acropolis/upper city. Following
the Assyrian conquest in 701 B.C.E., when Ekron became an
Assyrian vassal city-state, the city once again expanded encompassing the lower and upper cities and a new area of 25
acres to the north of the site. During the Iron Age II period,
when the Aegean affinities of the Philistine material culture
had ceased to exist, the Philistines themselves did not disappear but underwent a process of acculturation. Nevertheless,throughout this period the Philistines were able to maintaintheir ethnic identity. Excavations have shown that in the seventh century B.C.E. Ekron achieved its zenith of economic
growth, with the largest industrial center for the mass production of olive oil yet known from antiquity. Seventh century

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6281[Lisa Lubick-Daniel (2nd ed.)]elad
Ekron also produced a unique temple with a royal dedicatory
inscription dating from the second quarter of the seventh century B.C.E. This inscription refers to two kings of Ekron who
are also attested in the Neo-Assyrian annals, namely Padi andhis son Ikausu, the builder of the temple, and identifies thesite as Ekron. The city was substantially destroyed by fire at
the time of the campaign of the Neo-Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar (604 B.C.E.). Although it was partially resettled in thesixth century B.C.E., the mound was largely abandoned with
only very few remains surviving from later periods.

(ibid. 9–10). The murder of Elah was apparently connectedwith the army’s dissatisfaction over his indifference to the renewed campaign against the Philistines near Gibbethon. This
campaign was undertaken as a continuation of the efforts of*Nadab son of Jeroboam to ensure the security of the southwestern border of the kingdom (ibid. 16; cf. 15:27).
Bibliography: Bright, Hist,\viv]

ELAH (Heb. ‫ ; ֵאלָ ה‬9t century B.C.E.), king of Israel in the period coinciding with the reign of King Asa of Judah; son of*Baasha. According to 1 Kings 16:8, Elah reigned two years(c. 883–882 B.C.E.); however, in effect it was only a few months(a short time before and a short time after the official New
Year’s day). Elah was murdered, while in a state of intoxication,
by *Zimri, the captain of half his chariot force, in the houseof Arza, who was Elah’s steward, in the capital city Tirzah

EL AL (Heb. “Skyward”), the State of Israel’s national airline;
founded in November 1948. Its original mission was to facilitate the transportation of Jewish immigrants. Using surplus
World War II aircraft – DC-4 Skymasters and C-46 Curtiss
Commandos – and manned by volunteers from various partsof the world, it played a decisive role in rescuing Jewish communities in the Middle East. By 1949, however, El Al was flying
scheduled routes between Israel and Rome and Paris. In thefollowing year, it obtained the more modern Constellations,and with four of these planes routes were extended to include
Athens, Vienna, Zurich, London, Nairobi, Johannesburg, andNew York. Shortly afterward, Istanbul, Brussels, Amsterdam,
Teheran, Frankfurt, Munich, and Copenhagen were added.
By 1996, it served 50 intercontinental destinations including
Cairo, Beijing, and New Delhi as well as nine cities in the U.S.
In December 1957, El Al was the world’s second air carrier to
employ turboprops (four Bristol Britannias) for transcontinental service, and in January 1961 it procured three Boeing
707–420 intercontinental jet airliners. In June 1961 it inaugurated the first nonstop service between New York and Tel
Aviv – then one of the world’s longest nonstop scheduled commercial flights. El Al rapidly expanded its fleet to keep pacewith the increasing development of tourism. By the mid-1960s
it had two Boeing 720 B intermediate range jets, three standard
intercontinental 707s, and two powerful 707–320 Bs; it leased
additional jet planes as required. In February 1969 an eighthplane was added and later in the year the airline acquired its
first 320 C mixed cargo-passenger plane. Development plansincluded the acquisition of Boeing 747 Jumbo jets and two
Boeing supersonic airliners. In 2004 the company had 28 Boeing aircraft: five 747–200s, four 747–400s, three 737–700/800s,
six 767s, six 757s, and four 777–200s.
The majority shareholder in El Al is the Israeli government. Nearly all training is carried out at the company’s headquarters at Lydda (Lod) Airport. All food served aboard its
aircraft is kasher. The airliner does not fly on Saturdays, theJewish Sabbath. However, its subsidiary, Sundor, a charterairline company, works seven days a week. Sundor was established in 1977 for low-cost flights. In 2003 El Al employed
more than 3,000 workers and had 77 offices all over the world.
It flew to 40 direct destinations, and to many others by shareagreements with several other aircraft companies. It carriedover 1.3 million people a year and its annual turnover was
about $1.2 billion. Sundor carried 250,000 passengers during
the years 2001–4 in two 757–200 aircraft.
After the Six-Day War, El Al became a target for one of
the Arab terrorist organizations, the People’s Front for the Lib-

282

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: T. Dothan, “Tel Miqne-Ekron: An Iron Age
I Philistine Settlement in Canaan,” in: N.A. Silberman and D. Small(eds.), The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting
the Present (1997), 96–106; S. Gitin, T. Dothan, and J. Naveh, “A Royal
Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron,” in: IEJ, 47 (1997), 1–16; S. Gitin,“The Neo-Assyrian Empire and its Western Periphery: The Levant,With Focus on Philistine Ekron,” in: S. Parpola and R.M.Whiting(eds.), Assyria 1995 (1997), 77–103; T. Dothan, “Initial Philistine Settlement: From Migration to Coexistence,” in: S. Gitin, A. Mazar and E.
Stern (eds.), Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early
Tenth Centuries BCE (1998); J. Naveh, “Achish-Ikausu in the Light of
the Ekron Dedication,” in: BASOR, 310 (1998), 35–37; S. Gitin and M.
Cogan, “A New Type of Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron,” in: IEJ,
49 (1999), 193–202; T. Dothan, “Reflections on the Initial Phase of Philistine Settlement: Type Site – Tel Miqne-Ekron,” in: E.D. Oren (ed.),The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Re-Assessment (2000), 145–58;
S. Gitin, “The Philistines: Neighbors of the Canaanites, Phoeniciansand Israelites,” in: D.R. Clark and V.H. Matthews (eds.), 100 Years ofAmerican Archaeology in the Middle East (2000); S. Gitin, “The FourHorned Altar and Sacred Space: An Archaeological Perspective,” in B.
Gittlen (ed.), Sacred Time, Sacred Space: Archaeology and the Religionof Israel (2002), 95–123; T. Dothan, “Bronze and Iron Objects with Cultic Connotations from Philistine Temple Building 350 at Ekron,” in:
IEJ, 52 (2002), 1–27; S. Gitin, “Neo-Assyrian and Egyptian Hegemony
over Ekron in the Seventh Century BCE: A Response to Lawrence E.
Stager,” in: Eretz-Israel, 27 (2003), 55*–61*; P. James, “The Date of the
Ekron Temple Inscription: A Note,” in: IEJ, 55 (2005), 90–93.
[S. Gitin (2nd ed.)]ELAD (Heb. ‫) ֶאלְ ַעד‬, urban community with municipal council
status. It is located in the center of Israel, 2.5 mi. (4 km.) southof *Rosh ha-Ayin and occupying an area of about 1 sq. mi.
(2.7 sq. km.). The town was geared to a religious population,
mainly ultra-Orthodox Jews. The first settlers arrived in 1998.
In 2002 its population was 15,100, about half 15 and under inage. Earnings in the town were about half the national average. An educational complex and industrial area were planned
for the town’s center.
[Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]elam
eration of Palestine. A Boeing 707 was hijacked to Algeria in
July 1968 but was later returned to Israel. In December 1968,
an El Al plane was attacked on the ground at Athens airportand one passenger killed, and an attack on another at Zurich
in February 1969 resulted in the death of one of the crew. A
hijacking attempt in 1970 was foiled by the crew. A Constellation, straying off course, was shot down over Bulgaria in
1955 (all passengers were killed and Bulgaria later paid compensation).
El Al played a crucial role during the 1991 Persian Gulf
conflict, acting as Israel’s sole airlink with the world when allother airlines had ceased flying to Israel. It also played a vitalrole in the 1990s in bringing Russian and Ethiopian immigrants to Israel. In the last two decades of the 20t century,
the company faced serious economic problems. The government began privatization in 2003, issuing stock to the public. In 2004 the company showed a profit due to its increased
share in both passenger and cargo flights.

History
Elam was closely connected with Mesopotamia, serving as asource of its raw materials, wood, stone, and metals and as theroute for precious metals and stones like lapis lazuli, the bluestone prized by the Mesopotamians, which were brought fromas far away as Afghanistan. The Elamites also raided the valleysof the Diyala and the Tigris, and, according to the SumerianKing List, the Awan dynasty, the most ancient royal dynasty
in Elam, ruled Sumer for a time. There is a poorly understoodtreaty between the Akkadian ruler Naram-Sin and an Elamite
ruler from around 2200 B.C.E. In the 21st century B.C.E., thekings of the third dynasty of Ur in Mesopotamia annexed
Elam, and Susa became a seat of Sumerian governors.
At the beginning of the 19t century B.C.E., an independent Elamite royal dynasty reigned in Anshan in the uplands
and Susa on the plain. Elam exerted a widespread influence,and trading expeditions carried raw materials from Elam as far
as Hazor in Canaan. In the middle of the 18t century B.C.E.,
Elam was consolidated under the rule of Kutir-Nahhunte I,
whose reign coincided with the later years of *Hammurapi ofBabylon and with the reign of Hammurapi’s son, Samsu-iluna.

From about this time on, and throughout the whole period,
Babylonian influence is evidenced by the use of Akkadian as
the written language of economic and cultural life.
During this period three rulers held power in Elam at
one and the same time: the highest ruler, called in Sumerian
the “Grand Regent” (Sumerian sukkal-mah), and two others,
who were his sons, one ruling the highlands and the other theSusiana plain. The manner in which authority was divided
among the three is not clear. But the rulers of Elam were members of one family, and succession to the throne was matrilineal. The old idea that one of the rulers was a nephew should
be discarded. One of the son’s mothers was the regent’s sister, indicating a way of keeping power within the family thatto moderns looks incestuous but must not have been seen as
incestuous to Elamites.
Almost nothing is known about the history of Elamduring the 17t-15t centuries B.C.E., but it appears to havesuffered greatly from the migrations of the peoples who descended upon the Babylonian plain from the Zagros mountains. Elam rose to prominence again at the beginning of the
13t century B.C.E. The most famous king of that period was
Untash-napirisha, who reigned during the first half of the
13t century and built his capital, Dur-Untash, the modern
Tchoga Zambil (“Basket Hill”), 25 mi. (40 km.) southeast of
Susa. Here was found the best preserved ziggurat, or temple
tower, in all of the ancient Near East, still 82 ft. (25 m.) tall.
The Elamite language and pantheon became more populararound Susa in the period. Untash-Napirisha honored boththe lowland god Inshushinak and the highland god Napirisha
in his temple complex.
The consolidation and rise of Elam in the 12t century
B.C.E. coincided with the decline of Babylon during the rule ofthe last kings of the Kassite dynasty. The Elamites made several raids into Babylonia, plundered Sippar and its temples,and brought as booty to Susa royal monuments including thestele of the Code of Hammurapi now in the Louvre Museum.
In 1159 B.C.E. the Elamites seized the city of Babylon itself andcaptured the statue of Marduk, its god, and snuffed out thelong-lived Kassite dynasty. Elam’s military ascendancy ended,however, with the renewal of Babylonian power during thereign of Nebuchadnezzar I (1125–1104 B.C.E.), who defeatedthe Elamites, captured Susa, and brought the statue of Marduk back to Babylon.
The decline of Elam was rapid and there are no further
records of its history until the eighth century B.C.E. During
this, the last period of Elam’s history as an independent state,
the Elamites joined forces with the Chaldean tribes in theirwars against Sargon and Sennacherib, kings of Assyria, until
their final defeat by Assurbanipal (669–627 B.C.E.), who devastated Elam. In a series of bloody battles (647–646 B.C.E.),
the Assyrians razed most of the cities of Elam, especially Susa,
deliberately desecrating its holy places, and destroying thetemple of Inshushinak.
There were attempts at the beginning of the Neo-Babylonian period to rebuild Elam, but they were never totally suc-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6283

Bibliography: Israel Economist, 24 (Jan. 1968), 11–19; El Al
Public Relations Department, Twenty Years History of El Al (1969).
Website: www.elal.co.il.
[Arnold Sherman / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]ELAM (Heb. ‫עילם‬, ‘eylam; Elamite halhatamti; Akk. Elamtu),
region on the edge of the southwestern part of the Iranianplateau, modern Khuzistan, including the river valley aroundSusa and the highlands beyond. In Elamite Elam may mean“the lord-country,” but in Mesopotamian languages it wasunderstood as “The Heights.” The word Elam probably derives from the Elamite, relying on a popular etymology in
Akkadian relating it to elû, “high.” In classical sources it isreferred to as Susiana, from Susa (Heb. ‫ ׁשו ׁ ָּשן‬, Shūshan), thecapital of Elam.

el-amarna
cessful. After the fall of the Assyrian Empire (612–610 B.C.E.),
Elam was incorporated into the greater kingdom of Media;
and after the defeat of Astyages, king of Media, by Cyrus, thePersian king, it became an integral part of his empire. Cyrus
even called himself “King of Anshan,” thus adopting the ancient title of the Elamite rulers (see *Cyrus). In the administrative division of the Persian Empire, Elam became the satrapy of Uja, Huja, or Huvja (whence Huz, in Middle Persian,and modern Khuzistan). Susa was rebuilt with magnificent
palaces, and became a capital city of the Persian monarchs,
second only to Persepolis. The Elamite language continued as
the second language after Persian and equal with Akkadian in
the royal inscriptions of the kings of Persia. The name Elamwas still used in I Maccabees 6:1 (Elymais, ΕλνμαῒϚ, attacked
by Antiochus IV Epiphanes) and by Greek and Roman writers (Elamitai, Ὲλαμῖται, Acts 2:9).
Language
The Elamite language does not fall into any linguistic groupknown today. It can be divided into three strata: (1) Old
Elamite (last quarter of the third millennium B.C.E.); (2) Middle Elamite (13t–7t cent. B.C.E.), the major stratum; and(3) Achaemenid Elamite (6t–4t cent. B.C.E.), known mainly
from the bilingual and trilingual inscriptions of the Persiankings and archival texts from Persepolis.
Achaemenid Elamite was deciphered in the second halfof the 19t century, and since the beginning of the 20t century
great progress has been made in the understanding of Middle
Elamite. Nevertheless, knowledge of the language remains
imperfect; and particularly in the scantily documented older
strata much is still obscure.

“Peoples of the North” who would destroy Babylon (Isa. 21:2;
Jer. 25:25). The only prophecy that may be related directly toa specific event in the history of Elam is Jeremiah 49:34–39,
perhaps about Nebuchadnezzar’s encounter with Elam in his
ninth year (596/5 B.C.E.). According to Ezra 4:9–10, Elamites
were deported to Northern Israel in the aftermath of the Assyrian king Assurbanipal’s victory in the 640s, and thus constituted part of the peoples Jews later regarded as Samaritan non-Jews. In Isaiah 11:11 Elam is seen as a place of exile,
in Ezekiel 32:24 as a typical foreign nation, and in Dan 8:2
as a site of a vision. Elam also appears as a personal nameamong returnees from exile, but also as a clan of Benjaminin I Chronicles 8:24.
Bibliography: W. Hinz, The Lost World of Elam (1973); M.
Stolper and E. Carter, Elam. Surveys of Political History and Archaeology (1984); R. Zadok, The Elamite Onomasticon (1984); L. De Meyer,
H. Gasche (eds.), Mésopotamie et Elam (1991); F. Vallat, in: ABD II,
424–29; G. Gragg, “Elamite,” in: J. Sasson (ed.), CANE 4, 2162–67; F.
Vallat, “ELAM: haltamti/Elamtu,” in: N.A.B.U. (1996), 89; R. Henrickson, “Elamites,” in: E. Meyers (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East 2 (1997), 228–34.
[Hayim Tadmor / Daniel C. Snell (2nd ed.)]

ELAMARNA, modern name of the site of Akhetaton, thecapital city of Egypt, founded by Amenophis-Amenḥ otep
IV (*Akhenaton), the “heretical” pharaoh of the 18t Dynasty(14t cent. B.C.E.). On this site was discovered the El-Amarnaarchive.

In the Bible
Elam, located at the edge of the eastern border of the biblical world, is mentioned only a few times in the Bible. In the“Table of Nations” Elam is listed with the sons of Shem (Gen.
10:22; I Chron. 1:17), since from a geographic point of view it
was apparently considered part of the Mesopotamian world.
The odd narrative of Genesis 14 mentions *Chedorlaomer,
king of Elam – sometimes identified with Kutir-Nahhunte(around 1750 B.C.E. or the later one around 1200) – as head ofan alliance with two other kings, those of Shinar and Goiim,
meaning probably Babylonia and the Hittites.
In the “Prophecies Against the Nations” in Isaiah and Jeremiah, Elam is mentioned, together with Media, as one of the

El-Amarna Letters
The El-Amarna Letters comprise a collection of cuneiform
tablets named after al-ʿAmārna, a plain on the east bank of
the Nile about 190 mi. (304 km.) S. of Cairo, in the territoryof the Beni-ʿAmrān, or ʿAmārna, tribe. (Though often referred
to as Tell ʾAmārna, or Tell el-ʿAmārna, the location is not atell, or mound.) Amarna was the site of the Egyptian capital,
Akhetaton, for about 15 years around the middle of the 14t
century B.C.E.; here, in 1887, through the chance discovery
of a peasant, a part of the diplomatic correspondence in theroyal archives was unearthed. The clandestine explorationsof the natives which followed, and the later scientific excavations (1889–92, 1912–14, 1921–22, 1926–36), yielded about 355
letters – some might be better classified as lists (of gifts) – besides more than 20 other cuneiform documents (scribal exercises, vocabularies, mythological and epical texts). The entire
Amarna (cuneiform) corpus numbers 379 tablets. Though incomplete and lacking nos. 359–379, the standard edition, withtransliteration of the cuneiform and a German translation,
remains that of the Norwegian scholar J.A. Knudtzon, Die elAmarna Tafeln (1915 = EA; for nos. 359–379 and other translations, see bibl.). An authoritative annotated French translation
by W. Moran appeared in 1987 followed by a revised English
version by the same author in 1992.
With only three exceptions (EA 24, Hur 32, Hittite), theletters are all written in Akkadian, the lingua franca of the ancient Near East in the second millennium B.C.E. In general,

284

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Scripts
The most ancient Elamite script is pictographic “protoElamite,” employed at the beginning of the third millennium B.C.E., which has not yet been deciphered. A linear script
which developed from it in the second half of the third millennium B.C.E. is still being worked out. During the reign of thekings of *Akkad (24t–23rd cent. B.C.E.), the ancient scripts ofElam were superseded by the Mesopotamian cuneiform writing, which, adapted to the needs of the Elamite language, wasfrom then on the only one in which it was written.

el-amarna
the language belongs to the “peripheral Akkadian” found at
Nuzi, Alalakh, Ugarit, etc. Eloquent and moving as it may beat times, it lacks all elegance; it is awkward, often barbarous,
betraying the scribes’ ignorance not only of Akkadian but of
their own native speech. This is especially true of the lettersfrom Phoenicia and Palestine, and for this reason they are oneof the most important sources for the early Canaanite language (and therefore for the background of biblical Hebrew).
From the glosses to Akkadian words, the non-Akkadianmorphemes, the non-Akkadian use of morphemes common
to the two languages, and the syntax in these letters, it is possible to reconstruct much of the Canaanite grammar in thisperiod.
The Amarna letters are also an invaluable historicalsource. Together with contemporary Ugaritic and Hittite
documents and other Egyptian records, they make the two
decades or so which they cover the best known in the early
history of Syria and Palestine. They span, in absolute dates,around 1385/1375–1355 B.C.E.: about the last decade of the reignof Amenophis III, the 17-year reign of Amenophis IV, andthe three or four years before Tutankhaten (Tutankhamun),to whom EA 9 is addressed, abandoned the capital. (The difference of a decade in estimating the period is due to the still
very mooted question of the co-regency of Amenophis IV
with his father and predecessor; according as one accepts ordenies a co-regency, the chronology of the Amarna lettersmust be lowered or raised.) Some (at least nine) of the letters,
which are probably copies of the originals, have a pharaoh as
author; the rest were written outside Egypt, and, with few exceptions, are addressed to the pharaoh or, less commonly, toa high Egyptian official at court. The correspondents are thekings of major states (Babylonia, Assyria, Mitanni in northern Mesopotamia, Hatti and Arzawa in Anatolia, Cyprus)̆and Egyptian vassals in Syria and Palestine. The letters (41)
to and from the larger powers are in striking contrast withthe vassals’ correspondence, and hardly hint at the politicalsituation which motivates so many of them. According to thecustom of independent nations at peace, their majesties exchange messages of mutual friendship, which are carried bytheir emissaries and accompanied by gifts; often their principal concern is the discussion and working out of marriages,
a conventional bond of international amity. Were it not for
the vassals’ letters and other contemporary sources it would
be impossible to measure the real significance of the efforts of
Tushratta of Mitanni to reestablish diplomatic relations with
Amenophis III (EA 17) and to maintain them with his successor (EA 26); of his passing reference to a victory over the Hittites (EA 17); of the presence of Assyrians at the Egyptian court(EA 15–16), with its implications of rising Assyrian power (cf.
EA 9:31–35) and Mitannian weakness; of the murder of Babylonian merchants in Palestine (EA 8); of the reported requestof the Canaanites for Babylonian support in a rebellion against
Egypt (EA 9), etc. The general impression these letters give is
one of legendary Egyptian wealth in an era of relative peace
and political stability.

This impression is dispelled by the remaining Amarna letters. The vassals from Tyre across to Damascus and northward
were caught, directly or indirectly, in the struggle of the Mitannians to defend their control of northern Syria and even theirown independence, and of the Egyptians to maintain their rulein the rest of Syria, against their common enemy, the resurgent
Hittites under Suppiluliuma. Though their letters to the pharaoh are all filled with protests of unswerving loyalty, it is evident from the accusations against their fellow vassals that manyof them were exploiting the situation to secure and expand
their own power while toadying to both sides and avoiding for
as long as possible an irrevocable commitment to one or theother. Most prominent in this group of letters, and most successful in this game of intrigue, sedition, and popular and palace revolts, were Abdi-ashirta and his sons, particularly Aziru,
who made of Amurru an important minor state in central Syria
east of the Orontes. The almost 70 letters of Rib-Adda of Byblos
are a long, increasingly nervous denunciation of their advancesalong the coast and of Egyptian inaction. The latter is probably
to be attributed, in part at least, to the tendency of the vassals’
accusations to cancel each other out; but it is also likely thatthe court felt Egyptian interests would be safeguarded best bya strong Amurru as a buffer against the Hittite thrust. Events
proved Rib-Adda right: like so many of his neighbors (Ugarit,
Kadesh, etc.), Aziru became a Hittite vassal.
In Palestine the situation reflected by the vassals’ letters, if less dire in its consequences for Egyptian rule, was notless chaotic. The letters reflect the same rivalries of the local
rulers, the same charges against one another of perfidy, andthe same signs of deep popular unrest. These petty kings areconstantly at war with one another, plundering and seizing
villages, at times forming small coalitions against a common
enemy, which soon break up, regroup, and exchange the rolesof enemies and allies. In central Palestine, in the struggles involving Gezer, Megiddo, Taanach, Acre, Jerusalem, Lachish,and (perhaps) Hebron, the main instigators were the rulers ofShechem, Labʾayu and his sons, who in a movement comparable to that in contemporary Amurru, attempted to expand
their city-state into a territorial state, with one important objective being the possession of the fertile Plain of Esdraelon.
The local Egyptian administration, when not corrupt and supporting treason, was apparently really concerned only with thepayment of tribute and with a few other Egyptian interests likethe provisions for troops moving northward, and this policy
seems to have had the court’s approval.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6285

Bibliography: EXCAVATIONS: Wm. F. Petrie, Tell el-Amarna (1894); L. Borchardt, in: Mitteilungen der deutschen orientalischen
Gesellschaft, 46 (1911), 1–32; 50 (1912), 1–40; 52 (1913), 1–55; 55 (1914),
3–39; 57 (1917), 1–32; T.E. Peet and C.L. Wooley, The City of Akhenaten,
1 (1923); D.D.S. Pendelbury et al., The City of Akhenaten, 1 (1923); B.
Porter and L.B. Moss, Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian
Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings… (1934), 192–239; H. Kees,
Ancient Egypt (1961), 288ff. PRIMARY PUBLICATIONS AND COLLECTIONS: H. Winckler and F.M. Abel, Der Thontafelfund von el Amarna,
1–3 (1889–90); C. Bezold and E.A.W. Budge (eds.), The Tell el-Amarna
Tablets in the British Museum (1892); O. Schroeder, Die Tontafeln vonel-arish
El-Amarna (1915); idem, in: OLZ, 20 (1917), 105–6; F. Thureau-Dangen, in: Revue d’assyriologie, 19 (1922), 91–108; P. Dhorme, in: RB, 33(1924), 5–32; G. Dossen, in: Revue d’assyriologie, 31 (1934), 125–36;
S.A.B. Mercer, The Tell el-Amarna Tablets, 1–2 (1939); C.H. Gordon,
in: Orientalia, 16 (1947), 1–21; A.P. Millard, in: PEQ (1965), 140–3; A.F.
Rainey, El Amarna Tablets (1970), 359–79; R. Borger, Handbuch derKeilschriftliteratur (1967), 237–40; W. Reidel, Untersuchungen zu den
Tell el-Amarna Briefen, 1–2 (1920); F. Bilabel, Geschichte Vorderasiens
und Aegyptien vom 16–11 Jahrhunderten… (1927); Maisler, Untersuchungen, 43–46; idem, in: JPOS, 9 (1929), 80–87; W.F. Albright, in: JEA,
23 (1937), 190–203; idem, in: BASOR, 87 (1942), 32–38; 89 (1943), 7–17;
104 (1946), 25–26; idem, in: JNES, 5 (1946), 5–25; idem, in: Pritchard,
Texts, 483–90; idem, in: CAH2, 2 (1966), ch. 20 (incl. bibl.); W. vonSoden, in: Orientalia, 21 (1952), 426–34; Y. Aharoni, in: IEJ, 3 (1953),
153–61; Aharoni, Land, 87, 157–64; idem, in: VT, 19 (1969), 137–45; Alt,
Kl Schr, 3, 158–75; E.F. Campbell, in: BA, 23 (1960), 2–22; idem, in:
G.E. Wright (ed.), Shechem (1965), 191–207; D.O. Edzard, in: Journalof Economic and Social History of the Orient, 3 (1960), 38–55; M.L. Verani, Storia di Ugarit (1962), 18–30; idem, in: Revista degli studio Orientalo, 40 (1965), 267–77; idem, in: Revue d’assyriologie, 61 (1967), 1–18;
Ph. H.J. Houwink Ten Cate, in: BOR, 20 (1963), 270–76; M.C. Astour,
in: For Max Weinreich (1964), 7–17; H. Klengel, in: MIO, 10 (1964),
57–83; P. Artzi, in: Revue d’assyriologie, 58 (1964), 159–66; idem, in:
JNES, 27 (1968), 63–71; idem, in: Bar-Ilan Decennary Volume, 2 (1969);
idem, in: Proceedings of the 27t International Congress of Orientalists(1969); A. Goetze, in: CAH2, 2 (1965), ch. 17; H. Klengel, Geschichte
Syriens, 1–2 (1965–68); A.F. Rainey, Christian News from Israel, 2(1966), 30–38; 3 (1966), 23–24; idem, in: IEJ, 18 (1968), 1–14. LINGUISTIC STUDIES: F.-M. Th. Boehl, Die Sprache der Amarnabriefe (1909);
E. Ebeling, Das Verbum der El-Amarna Briefe (1910); E. Dhorme, in:RB, 10 (1913), 369–93; 11 (1914), 37–59, 344ff.; O. Schroeder, in: OLZ,
18 (1915), 105–6; S. Smith and C.J. Godel, in: JEA, 11 (1925), 230–40;
J. Friedrich, Kleinasiatische Sprachdenkmaeler (1932), 8–32; W.F. Albright, in: BASOR, 86 (1942), 28–31; idem and W.L. Moran, in: JCS, 4(1950), 163ff.; B. Landsberger, ibid., 8 (1954), 55–61; W.L. Moran, in:Orientalia, 29 (1960), 1–19; idem, in: G.E. Wright (ed.), The Bible andthe Ancient Near East (1961), 54–72; idem, in: Eretz Israel, 9 (1969),
94–99; R. Youngblood, in: BASOR, 168 (1962), 24–27; E. Salonen, Die
Gruss-und Hoeflichkeitsformeln in babylonisch-assyrischen Briefen(1967), 61–70; P. Artzi, in: Bar-Ilan, 1 (1963), 27–57; idem, in: JNES,
28 (1969), 261ff. CHRONOLOGY: A. Kitchen, Suppiluliuma and theAmarna Pharaohs (1962); E.F. Campbell, Jr., The Chronology of theAmarna Letters (1963); D.B. Redford, History and Chronology of theEighteenth Dynasty of Egypt (1967). STUDIES ON THE HISTORICAL,POLITICAL, GEOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND: B. Maisler, Toledot Ereẓ
Yisrael (1938), 125–52; H. Reviv, in: BIES, 27 (1963), 270–5; P. Artzi, in:Eretz Israel, 9 (1969), 22–28; Z. Kalai and H. Tadmor, ibid., 138–47.
Add. Bibliography: W. Moran, Les Lettres d’El Amarna (1987);
idem, The Amarna Letters (1992) (reviewed by A. Rainey, in: Biblica,
70 (1989), 568–72); idem, Amarna Studies (2003); R. Hess, Amarna
Personal Names (1993); A. Rainey, Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets(1995). See also the bibliography under *Akhenaton.

hidden beneath a thin cover of coarse, porous sand allowing
seepage of rainwater to the subsoil; an average yearly rainfallof more than 100 mm. (4 in.) which exceeds that of the restof Sinai; an enrichment of its water supply by undergroundseepage and by seasonal surface flow in Wadi al-ʿArīsh; landcommunications leading to the east and west along the ancient
Via Maris (sea road) and to the south, southwest, and southeast along the course of the wadi; and anchoring facilities on
the beach near the wadi mouth. From the first century, it was
known as a trade center by the name Rhinokoroura. Josephus
mentions the town as part of Judea (Ant. 13:395) and Titus prepared his march on Palestine there (Wars 4:662). Until 1895 ElArish served as the border town between Egypt and Palestine.
Rabbi Judah *al-Ḥ arizi passed through El-Arish in 1218 but
does not mention any Jews who might have been there.
El-Arish ProjectIn the early 20t century, El-Arish and its region were sparsely
settled. At that time, Davis *Trietsch proposed the El-Arishproject for northern Sinai as one of several alternatives for
Jewish settlement in the Middle East. On the basis of *Herzl’s
meeting in 1902 with Joseph *Chamberlain, the area, including
the Pelusian Plain, was designated to become an autonomous
Jewish settlement sponsored by the British government. Lord
Cromer, then the British consul-general in Egypt, requested
that a commission of experts explore the region on the prospects of settlement and its findings were positive. Nevertheless,the Egyptian government, on Cromer’s insistence, rejected thereport, declaring itself unable to allocate water from the Nilefor the settlement’s irrigation needs. Cromer’s refusal came inspite of Herzl’s efforts to rescue the scheme by reducing the
project’s scope to the El-Arish vicinity and renouncing appropriation of Nile waters for development.

ELARISH (Ar. ‫اﻟﻌﺮﻳﺶ‬, al-ʿArīsh), town on the Mediterranean
coast of the Sinai Peninsula, near where Wadi al-ʿArīsh (thebiblical Naḥ al Miẓ rayim: see Brook of *Egypt) reaches the sea.
It was Sinai’s principal center through most historic periods
due to a number of geographical assets: loess soil present inpatches along Wadi al-ʿArīsh and, on other stretches, loess

From 1948
During the Israel War of Independence (1948), an Israeli army
unit under Operation Ayin temporarily took up positions justsouth of El-Arish (December 1948). In the *Sinai Campaign,
El-Arish fell to Israeli forces on Oct. 31, 1956, and was evacuated by them, according to the UN’s request, in February 1957.
In the *Six-Day War it was taken by an Israeli column on June6, 1967, and remained under Israeli administration. Under theterms of Israel’s peace agreement with Egypt, El-Arish was returned to Egypt.
After World War I, the town expanded gradually, numbering 7,000 inhabitants in 1932 and, according to Egyptiansources, 22,000 in 1956 and 45,000 in 1967. In the census conducted by Israel in August 1967, El-Arish had a population of
29,973. The date-palm groves near the seashore continue toconstitute an important economic branch. Sea fishing andtrapping of quails are additional sources of income. Since
the 1950s, plantations of rhicinus bushes have gained groundin the area between El-Arish and Rafiaḥ (Rafaḥ ) and rhicinus oil is produced in a factory in the town. Under Egyptian
rule, administrative services to the Sinai Peninsula and especially services to the Egyptian army became important in El-

286

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[William L. Moran]elathArish’s economy, although more recently tourism, based on
new hotels and general development, seems to be its main
source of income.
Bibliography: T. Herzl, Complete Diaries, ed. by R. Patai, 5(1960), index; Rabinowicz, in: JSOS, 13:1 (1951), 25–46; Press, Ereẓ , 4(1955), 757–8; M. Medzini, Ha-Mediniyyut ha-Ẓ iyyonit me-Reshitahve-ad Moto shel Herzl (1934), 224–43, 320–32; J. Braslavsky, Hayadata
et ha-Areẓ , 2 (1947), 7–12, 22–31. Add. Bibliography: A. Bein, in:
Shivat Ẓ iyyon, 1 (1950), 179–220; Y. Friedman, Germania, Turkiya veha-Ẓ iyyonut (1995).
[Oskar K. Rabinowicz / Efraim Orni]

ELASA (Eleasah, Alasa), a town north of Jerusalem nearBeth-Horon. Judah *Maccabee encamped there before hislast battle against *Bacchides, whose army was at *Beeroth,and was killed nearby in the fighting (I Macc. 9:5–18). Somescholars read Ḥ adasha (Adasa) instead of Elasa. The town wasapparently named after Eleasah, a descendant of Benjamin(I Chron. 2:39–40; 8:37; 9:43). It is identified with Khirbat alIshshī, southwest of al-Bīra.

in the Byzantine defense system in the south of the country.
The Jewish population in the neighborhood of Aila was augmented by Jewish tribes expelled from Arabia by Muhammad
during whose time the Muslims gained control of the town,
which was called in Arabic *Akaba. A Jewish community continued to exist there until the middle of the tenth century andpossibly until the Crusader period. In 1116 Baldwin I, king of
Jerusalem, captured the port; the fleet of Reynaud de Chatillon
sailed from there to harass Arab maritime trade in the Red Sea.
Saladin, who brought the Crusaders’ rule to an end in 1170,
erected a fortress at Akaba. By the 14t century the town wasalmost completely deserted and only under Turkish rule wasan attempt made to develop it. The ancient site of Elath withremains from the Nabatean, Roman, Byzantine, and medieval
periods has been located north of Akaba.
[Michael Avi-Yonah]

ELATH (in modern Israel, Eilat; Heb. ‫ ֵאילוֹ ת‬,‫ ֵאיל ֹת‬,‫) ֵאילַ ת‬,
ancient harbor town in Transjordan at the northern end of
the Red Sea near *Ezion-Geber. Elath is first mentioned in
the account of the Israelites’ wanderings in the desert during the Exodus (Deut. 2:8). Solomon built a “navy of ships”
at Ezion-Geber beside Elath; from there it sailed to Ophirmanned by his servants and those of Hiram, king of Tyre
(I Kings 9:26; I Chron. 8:17). Later Uzziah (Azariah), king of
Judah (785–733 B.C.E.), rebuilt Elath restoring it as the portof Judah on the Red Sea (II Kings 14:22) but after his reign Judahite control of the Negev ceased. In the Hellenistic period
it served for a time as a Ptolemaic port called Berenice (Jos.,
Ant., 8:163) and it is later mentioned as a Nabatean port (renamed Aila) from which an important commercial highway
led to Gaza (Strabo, Geography, 16:2, 30; Pliny, Naturalis Historia, 5:12). Aila continued to be a major commercial and military port in Roman and Byzantine times. In the third century
the Tenth Legion, together with its headquarters, was transferred there from Jerusalem and it was thereafter a key point

Modern Eilat
Modern Eilat is 3 mi. (5 km.) west of *Akaba along the coast.
The site, a wasteland bearing the Arabic name Umm Rashrash,
was included in the future Jewish state in the UN partition planof 1947. In fact, it was occupied by Israel forces on March 13,
1949, in the bloodless “Operation Uvdah” (“Established Fact”),
which was the last military move in the *War of Independence.
A first step in establishing a civilian settlement was made in
December 1949 when members of Ha-Kibbutz ha-Me’uḥ ad set
up a temporary camp on the Eilat shore. They transferred theirsettlement in 1962 about 2 mi. (3 km.) further north, where
it became kibbutz Eilot. The first water pipeline was laid in
1952 to Eilat to take water from the *Be’er Orah and *Yotvatahwells which, however, are strongly saline (1,500 mg. chlorine
content per liter and with a strong magnesium content). In
the ensuing years, the first dwellings were built. By December
1952 Eilat received local council status. As long as the Straitsof Tiran were closed to Israel-bound shipping, Eilat’s growth
was extremely slow (275 inhabitants in 1953, 520 in 1956). A
few services to excursionists, experimental coastal fishing,and mineral exploration provided the inhabitants’ principal
occupations. The turning point came with the opening of
the straits in the *Sinai Campaign (1956). Two months later,
Eilat’s population increased to 926 inhabitants. In view of its
outstanding importance for Israel’s development, Eilat wasgiven city status in March 1959, although it had only 3,500
inhabitants, still far from the 20,000 population mark which
in Israel normally warrants the accordance of this status. In
1963, the population rose to 7,000, and by 1968 reached 12,100,80 veteran Israelis or Israel-born and the rest immigrants
who were less than five years in the country. In the mid-1990s,
Eilat’s population reached 33,300 and by the end of 2002 it
was already 42,100, spread over an area of 30 sq. mi. (80 sq.
km.). Eilat’s town planning, taking the local topography into
account, endeavored to direct most of the city’s living quarters to the hills rising at a short distance from the beach, toaltitudes of 100–400 m. above sea level, where the climate isslightly cooler than on the shore. The many narrow gorges

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6287

Bibliography: F.M. Abel, in: RB, 33 (1924), 383f.; idem, Les
Livres des Maccabées (1949), 160; Avi-Yonah, Geog, 100.
[Michael Avi-Yonah]

ELASAH (Heb. ‫“ ; ֶאלְ ָעשָׂ ה‬God has made”), son of *Shaphan,and one of Zedekiah’s emissaries to Nebuchadnezzar, whobrought the letter written by Jeremiah to the elders in exile(Jer. 29:3). Elasah was a member of one of the most influential
pro-Babylonian families in the last years of the Kingdom of
Judah. Shaphan, his father, was the scribe of Josiah (II Kings
22:3ff.; et al.). His brother *Ahikam was one of the men sent
by King Josiah to the prophetess Huldah (II Kings 22:12, 14;
II Chron. 34:20). His other brother *Jaazaniah is mentionedin Ezekiel 8:11 among the elders of Jerusalem.
Bibliography: Yeivin, in: Tarbiz, 12 (1940/41), 257–8.

elath, eliahu
cutting through the hilly area make planning and communications difficult.
The renewed blockade of the Tiran Straits in May 1967 by
Egypt threatened Eilat’s existence and future as Israel’s gateway
to East Africa, South and East Asia, and Australia. That move
led to the *Six-Day War, in which the Egyptian plan (according to documents found in Sinai) to cut off the city from theinterior of Israel by pushing through to Jordanian territory in
the Aravah Valley was foiled by Israel’s victory, which subsequently accelerated Eilat’s progress. From time to time in the
period following June 1967, Arab saboteurs made attempts to
attack Eilat despite the Jordanian government’s fear that Israel’s countermeasures against Jordan’s only port, Akaba, would
constitute an incomparably heavier blow for Jordan.
Great efforts were directed to creating the city’s infrastructure. In 1957 the Eilat–Mizpeh Ramon–Beersheba roadwas built, and opened to traffic in January 1958. In 1967, theEilat–Sedom highway was put into use. In 1969, construction
began on the road leading from Eilat southward to Sharmel-Sheikh. With the sea bottom sloping steeply from the Eilat shore, port building there is relatively easy. From 1957 theoriginal anchorage was repeatedly enlarged to cope with themounting sea cargo traffic, and an oil port was installed in
the southwest of the city. A new port was built at an investment of IL 20,000,000 (about $ 5,700,000) and opened in
1964; in 1968, it employed 500 laborers and handled approximately 1,000,000 tons of import and export goods. Mineralexports (potash, phosphates, copper) through Eilat amounted
to 110,000 tons in 1966/67. Because of Eilat’s distance from Israel’s central sectors, air communications are vital. The Elathairfield, situated just east of the city, was enlarged, and in 1969
10–12 daily flights (operated by Arkia Company) connected
Eilat with Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. The city’s water shortage was
gradually reduced by seawater desalination. An experimental
plant employing the freezing method, developed by Alexander*Zarchin, was closed down after a few years of operation. In
1965, a thermal distillation plant was opened, which simultaneously supplied electricity to the town; its daily capacity was
4,000 m3 (over a million gallons) of practically salt-free water
which, when blended with brackish spring water, made thelatter potable. In 1970 another plant was opened with a capacity of 2,000 m3 (c. half a million gallons) a day.
Air conditioning is an absolute necessity in the Eilat climate and the local “desert cooler,” which is relatively inexpensive to operate, reduces the temperature, and increases
air humidity, was gradually introduced in all buildings in thecity. The first 16 in. oil pipeline connecting Eilat with Haifa
was laid in 1958/59. Work on the large 42 in. pipeline from Eilat to Ashkelon began in 1968 and was finished in 1970. A decisive factor in Eilat’s economic life were the *Timna CopperWorks, which in 1968 employed 1,000 workers, nearly all residing in Eilat. However, in 1975 they were closed due to economic difficulties. Local industry, mostly small and mediumsize enterprises, included branches connected with the local
building trade, several jewelry workshops (for processing themalachite “Eilat stone”), diamond-polishing plants, fish processing, metal products, and gypsum. Tourism and recreation
always constituted one of the major branches in Eilat’s economy. In 1968, Eilat had a marine museum and a modern art
museum, municipal libraries, a concert and lecture hall, andan amphitheater. In 1970 the city’s hotels had 2,000 beds; atthe turn of the 20t century around 11,000 in five hotels, withconsiderable income derived from tourist services. Tourism
was the main reason for the great Eilat shoreline project, providing for a number of artificial lagoons and land tongues. To
encourage tourism further, the city received a VAT exemption
in 1985. One of the city’s tourist attractions is the coral reef in
the Gulf of Elath where the diversified marine species of the
Red Sea can be observed. Every year Eilat hosts two major cultural events: a jazz festival and a classical music festival withinternational participation.

288

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Izhak Noam / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]Bibliography: Y. Ben-Zvi, She’ar Yashuv (1937), 97–119; N.
Glueck, The Other Side of the Jordan (1940), 86–113; idem, in: AASOR,
15 (1934–35), 46ff.; A. Konikoff, Transjordan (1946), 80–82; The Israel
Exploration Society, Elath (Heb., 1963); Z. Vilnay, Guide to Israel(19663); Aharoni, Land, index; Avi-Yonah, Geog, index; Press, Ereẓ ,1 (19512), 16–17. MODERN: Fenton and Steinitz, in: Ariel, 20 (1967),
61–72. Website: www.eilat.muni.il.

ELATH (Epstein), ELIAHU (1903–1990), Israeli diplomat
and Arabist. Born in Snovsk, Russia, Elath was active in theZionist movement in Russia before settling in Palestine in
1924. He worked as a laborer in a number of settlements fora few years, meanwhile making a special study of the Bedouin. From 1934 to 1945 he was director of the Middle Eastsection in the Jewish Agency’s Political Department. As headof the Agency’s Political Office in Washington, D.C., during
1945–48, Elath received the U.S. government recognition of
the State of Israel in May 1948. With the de facto recognitionof Israel he was appointed special representative of the Provisional Council of the Government of Israel, and from 1949
Israeli ambassador to Washington. From 1950 to 1959 he wasambassador in London. He served as president of the Hebrew
University (1962–68) and chairman of the board of governorsof the Afro-Asian Institute (1959–62). His books include HaBedu’im (1933); Ukhlosei Ever ha-Yarden ve-Ḥ ayyeihem (1936);
Ḥ aj Amin al-Ḥ usseini (Heb., 1968); San Francisco Diary (Heb.,
1971); Shivat Ẓ iyyon ve-Arav (“The Return to Zion and theArabs,” 1974) which deals with the contacts made between
the Zionist and Arab leaders and the attempts to arrive atan understanding with them before the establishment of theState; The Struggle for Statehood: Washington 1945–1948 (Heb.,
3 vols., 1979–82).
91.

Bibliography: D. Lazar, Rashim be-Yisrael, 1 (1953), 185–
[Benjamin Jaffe]

ELAZAR, DANIEL J. (1934–1999), political scientist. Elazar
was born in Minneapolis and received his M.A. and Ph.D.
from the University of Chicago. He was appointed professor

Elazar, Ya’akov
of political science at Temple University in Philadelphia, where
he founded and directed the Center for the Study of Federalism. A leading authority on the subject, he was a founding
president of the International Association for Federal Studies.
Elazar divided his time between the U.S. and Israel, where he
was professor of intergovernmental relations at Bar-Ilan University. And, as founder and president of the Jerusalem Center
for Public Affairs, he headed the major independent Jewish
think tank concerned with seeking solutions to the pivotal
problems facing Israel and world Jewry.
In 1986 he was appointed by President Reagan to be amember of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations and was reappointed in 1991 by President
Bush. He was secretary of the American Political Science Association and served as consultant to many federal, state, andlocal agencies, including the U.S. Departments of Education,
Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development, the National Governors’ Association, the Education
Commission of the States, and the Pennsylvania Science andTechnology Commission, as well as to the governments of
Israel, Canada, Cyprus, Italy, South Africa, and Spain.
Elazar was recognized as an expert on Jewish community
organization worldwide, on the Jewish political tradition, andon Israel’s government and politics. He was a consultant to
the Israeli government, the Jewish Agency, the World Zionist
Organization, the City of Jerusalem, and to most major Jewish organizations in the U.S. and Canada, Europe, South Africa, and Australia. Taking a leadership role in numerous local and national Jewish organizations, he was chairman of
the Israel Political Science Association, a member of various
consultative bodies of the Israeli government, active in theWorld Sephardi Federation, president of the American Sephardi Federation, and served on the International Councilof Yad Vashem.
Elazar wrote or edited more than 60 books and manyother publications, including Community and Polity: The
Organizational Dynamics of American Jewry (1976), an indepth study of the American Jewish community and its institutions; People and Polity, The Organizational Dynamics ofWorld Jewry (1989), a study of the communities and institutions of World Jewry; Israel: Building a New Society (1986);
A Double Bond: The Constitutional Documents of American
Jewry (1992); Israel at the Polls, 1992 (1994); The Conservative
Movement in Judaism: Dilemmas and Opportunities (with
R.M. Geffen, 2000); and Israel at the Polls, 1999 (2001). Someof his books have sought a solution to the Israel-Palestinian
problem based on federal principles. He was the founder andeditor of Publius, the journal of Federalism, and the editor of
the Jewish Political Studies Review. Together with his brother,
David H. Elazar, he published A Classification System for Libraries of Judaica.

1940, joining kibbutz Sha’ar ha-Amakim. In 1946 he became amember of the *Palmaḥ and during the War of Independence
carried out reconnaissance in Syria. In 1948 he was appointed
company commander of the Harel Brigade and led the forces
which broke through to the Old City of Jerusalem via the Zion
Gate in May of that year.
He studied economics and Middle Eastern studies at the
Hebrew University of Jerusalem. After the Sinai Campaign, in
which he commanded the infantry brigade which fought inGaza, he was transferred to the Armored Corps, and in 1961
succeeded General Ḥ aim Bar-Lev as its commander, being
promoted to the rank of major-general in 1962. In November
1964 Elazar was appointed O.C. Northern Command and was
responsible for the capture of the Golan Heights in the SixDay War. In 1969 he was appointed chief of the General Staff
Branch, and in November 1971, chief of staff and promoted to
the rank of lieutenant-general.
Following the publication of the interim report of theAgranat Commission on the *Yom Kippur War, which was
published early in 1974 and recommended that his term of office be terminated, Elazar submitted his resignation. Many
felt he had been made a scapegoat for Israel’s failures in thewar. He was subsequently appointed head of the Zim Shipping Company.
A biography of Elazar, Dado, by Hanoch *Bartov, appeared in 1978.

ELAZAR, DAVID (“Dado”; 1925–1976), Israeli soldier. Elazar was born in Sarajevo, Yugoslavia, and came to Israel in

ELAZAR, YA’AKOV (1912–2002), last of a generation ofSephardi historians and personalities who lived through thecourse of the 20t century in the Ottoman, British, and Israeli
periods and were active in the Sephardi life of Jerusalem. He
was the last authority on active Sephardi life in Jerusalem, his
death at the age of 90 symbolizing the end of an era.
A descendant of the Salonikan Elazar rabbinic family
which moved to Jerusalem in 1878 and the Abulafia family ofTiberias on his mother’s side, he lived and breathed the Sephardi life of Jerusalem. He was one of the younger membersof the He-Ḥ alutz ha-Mizrachi movement. From 1931 to 1936,
he taught Hebrew in the revived Sephardi Jewish communityof Hebron. He was elected to Va’ad ha-Kehillah in Jerusalem(1937), and the Asefat ha-Nivḥ arim of the yishuv (1944). On“Black Saturday” (June 29, 1946), after 700 leaders of the Jewish yishuv were arrested, he gathered some 3,000 people inJerusalem within hours for prayer and public protest against
the British authorities.
He spoke the Jerusalemite Judeo-Spanish dialect, was anactive researcher and authority on the Sephardim of the Old
City of Jerusalem and the Sephardi courtyards, and was activein the Sephardi community of Jerusalem. His books include
Diyyur ve-Klitah be-Yishuv ha-Yashan 1842–1919, Ḥ aẓ erot
Bi-Yrushalayim ha-Atikah, and Yamei Avra: Ha-Shevitah haAravit April–Oktober 1936. He wrote about the Ereẓ Israel Sephardi chief rabbis, the Rishonei le-Ẓ iyyon, and advocated thatthe younger generation know and follow their teachings. He
received semikhah for sheḥ itah from Chief Rabbi Jacob *Meir

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6289[Yitzhak Kerem / Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]elazari-volcani, yiẒ Ḥ ak
and published a bibliography of him in 1997, feeling that hisformer teacher was already forgotten.
As a Jerusalem Street Names Committee member, he
proposed names of past Sephardi figures for streets. He received the distinction Yakir Yerushalayim and is buried in thesection of prominent Jerusalemites in the Har Menuḥ ot cemetery in Jerusalem. He was the uncle of the American Sephardi
leader and political scientist Daniel *Elazar and a cousin of
Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff David *Elazar.

bandry at the agricultural faculty of the Hebrew University in1960 and head of the Husbandry Department of the Nationaland University Institute of Agriculture at Reḥ ovot.

[Yitzchak Kerem (2nd ed.)]ELBAZ, North African family noted for its rabbis. The Elbaz
family originally lived in Azzaouia, *Morocco, from which it
was expelled in 1668 by King Moulai Rashid along with 1,300
other families. They then settled in Fez and in Sefrou. Members of the family included MOSES BEN MAIMON *ALBAZ OFTARRODANT, author of Heikhal Kodesh, a kabbalistic commentary to the prayer book (Amsterdam, 1653), SAMUELBEN ISAAC, author of Toledot Adam, a brief history up to theburning of the books in Italy (Venice, 1585), JACOB, author ofToledot Ya’akov, sermons (Venice, 1609), and SAMUEL BEN
ISAAC (1698–1749), talmudist and codifier, who was head of
the bet din of Fez. He was a friend of Ḥ ayyim b. Moses Attar, who would make no legal decision without his consent.
Samuel is the author of Va-Yomer Shemu’el, talmudic novellae (Casablanca, 1929); his other works are still in manuscript.
Many of his decisions were published in Jacob Ibn Ẓ ur’s Mishpat u-Ẓ edakah be-Ya’akov (Alexandria, pt. 1, 1894; pt. 2, 1903).
Some of his piyyutim are in manuscript at the Ben-Zvi Institute in Jerusalem (no. 2072). JUDAH (1770–1847) was a codifier who headed the bet din of Sefrou. Many of his decisions
were published in Avnei Shayish (2 pts., Jerusalem, 1930–34),
and in his son’s Ḥ ayyei Amram. He was one of the major
fundraisers for the kolelim in Ereẓ Israel. His son AMRAM(1799–1857), codifier, judge, and poet, wrote Ḥ ayyei Amram(Meknes, 1949). Another son, SAMUEL (1790–1844), left behind a manuscript work on Rashi, Ḥ anokh la-Na’ar. RAPHAEL
MOSES ((1823–1896), Samuel’s son, was a talmudic scholar,
kabbalist, poet, and scientist. He wrote many works, including
Halakhah le-Moshe, responsa (Jerusalem, 1901); Shir Ḥ adash,poems (Jerusalem, 1935); and Eden mi-Kedem (Fez, 1940). Stillin manuscript are many of his writings, including Kisse haMelakhim, a history of ancient kings and of the Jews.

ELAZARIVOLCANI (Wilkansky), YIẒ Ḥ AK (1880–1955),
agronomist and one of the planners of agricultural settlementin Ereẓ Israel, brother of Meir Wilkansky. Born at Eisiskes,
near Vilna, Elazari-Volcani studied at European universities
and in 1908 immigrated to Ereẓ Israel, where he managed thefarm settlements of Ben Shemen and Ḥ uldah (1909–18). He
was an active member of the Ha-Po’el ha-Ẓ a’ir party, which herepresented at Zionist Congresses and in Zionist institutions.
In 1921, he set up the experimental agricultural station of theZionist Executive (today the Agricultural Research Station)and ran it until his retirement in 1951. He was one of the founders of the Institute for Agricultural Studies of the Hebrew University at Reḥ ovot, which later became the university’s facultyof agriculture. In 1938, he was appointed professor of agricultural economics, and held various public and scientific postsconnected with agriculture.
Volcani was also a prolific writer and polemicist. His firstwritings were published in David *Frischmann’s journal HaDor and he later contributed to J.H. *Brenner’s Ha-Me’orer.
Under the name of “E. Ẓ iyyoni,” he was also one of the main
contributors to Ha-Po’el ha-Ẓ air from its foundation. He was
the first to give a positive evaluation of Baron de Rothschild’s
settlement scheme, and contended that it laid healthy foundations for the continuation of Jewish settlement in Ereẓ Israel.
He also wrote literary studies and plays (under the pseudonym
I. Avuyah). He published several books on agricultural subjects, settlement, etc. His collected articles on agriculture andother topics were published in ten volumes.
His brother, MEIR WILKANSKY (Elazari-Volcani) (1882–
1949), Hebrew author, was born in Eisiskes, and immigrated
to Ereẓ Israel in 1904. He first worked as an agricultural laborer; between 1908 and 1918, he was secretary of the *Palestine Office and, from 1918 until his retirement in 1942, headof the Palestine Land Development Company. Wilkansky was
one of the first writers to depict the life of the pioneers of theSecond Aliyah in Hebrew fiction. His stories include “Be’er
Ḥ afarnu,” “Baḥ ar,” and “Yom Avodati ha-Rishon.” His books
include Sippurim me-Ḥ ayyei ha-Areẓ (1918), Ba-Ḥ eder (1934),
Bi-Ymei ha-Aliyyah (1935), Mi-Gal el Gal (1943), and Senuniyyot (1963). He translated two of Goethe’s works, Die Leiden
des jungen Werthers and Dichtung und Wahrheit (Yefet series,
1911–12), and published two statistical pamphlets on Jewish
settlement in Palestine (1918–19). Meir's son, RAANAN VOLCANI (1910–2002), became associate professor of animal hus-

290

Bibliography: Hebrew University, Ha-Fakultah le-Ḥ akla’ut(1958), 16–40, 261–7; A. Granott, Ishim be-Yisrael (1956), 225–38; I.
Cohen, Demut el Demut (1949), 234–45; J. Fischmann, Be-Terem Aviv
(1959), 332–56; M. Smilansky, Mishpaḥ at ha-Adamah, 4 (1953), 282–7;
Y. Keshet, Maskiyyot (1953), 109–21.
[Getzel Kressel]

Bibliography: S. Bass, Siftei Yeshenim (Amsterdam, 1680),
400, nos. 20, 28; H. Ben-Attar, Peri To’ar (Lemberg [?], 1810), introduction; J.M. Toledano, Ner ha-Ma’arav (1911), 74, 107, 138, 142, 208;
idem, Oẓ ar Genazim (1960), 88; J. Ben-Naim, Malkhei Rabbanan(1931), 44, 102, 107, 120–1; A. Elbaz, Ḥ ayyei Amram (1949), introduction.
[David Obadia]

ELBERG, YEHUDA (1912–2003), Yiddish journalist andnovelist. Born in Zgierz, Poland, Elberg came from a rabbinical family and was ordained as a rabbi. He was a distant cousinof the literary *Singer family. He began publishing stories andjournalistic articles in Yiddish and Hebrew newspapers in
1932. His wartime activity involved smuggling people through
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

elcan, marcus
safe houses, and he himself avoided identification and deportation; he also took part in the Warsaw ghetto uprising. Afterthe war he wrote as a correspondent for Israeli and American
newspapers, and for the European Yiddish press.
Immigrating to New York via Paris, he began a lifelong
friendship with Chaim *Grade. In 1948 he arrived in New
York and became active in Zionist causes. Shortly after thedeath of his first wife in 1955 he moved to Montreal, where heremained until his death.
Although he wrote belles lettres from the beginningof his career and published a book of short stories, Unter
Kuperne Himlen (“Under Copper Skies”), in 1951, his greatest literary works came later in life. The novel Afn Shpits fun
a Mast (Ship of the Hunted) appeared in 1974, followed inquick succession by five more novels and two collections ofshort stories between 1976 and 1987. His masterwork was
the 1983 Kalman Kalikes Imperye (The Empire of Kalman the
Cripple). In the 1990s he turned his attention to translating
his work, publishing both Ship of the Hunted and The Empire of Kalman the Cripple in 1997. His short story “837” wasmade into a play and is frequently anthologized. These threeworks constitute his most important contributions to Yiddish
literature. They have appeared in Spanish, Hebrew, French,and German as well as English. During the 1980s he won the
Manger Prize and Israel’s Prime Minister’s Award for literature.
Bibliography: B.E. Galli, “Yehuda Elberg’s Wounded Words
Unfolding: Uttering the Holocaust’s Unutterability,” in: Literature and
Theology, 15:4 (2001), 396f; LNYL, 6, 587f; C.L. Fuks, 100 Yor Yidishe un
Hebreishe Literatur in Kanade (1980), 191f; Forward (Oct. 31, 2003).
[Faith Jones (2nd ed.)]

ELBLAG (Ger. Elbing), a city near Gdansk (Danzig), Poland,
from 1772 to 1945 in Germany. Jews were reported to havebeen burned there during the *Black Death. There were no
Jews living in Elblag after the first partition of Poland in 1772,
but in 1783 Moses Simon was permitted to settle in the cityand provide for visiting Jewish merchants, obtaining a trade
license in 1800. There were 33 Jewish families in 1812 and 42
in 1816, all of whom had been granted the right of settlement
despite opposition from the local merchants. The community
opened a cemetery in 1811, an elementary school in 1823, anda synagogue and mikveh in 1824. A rabbi was engaged from1879. In 1932 the community numbered 460 and maintained
three charitable and five welfare organizations, and a school
attended by 60 children. The synagogue was burned down by
the Nazis on Nov. 10, 1938, and most of the homes and shopsof the Jews there were looted. Part of the communal archives(1811–1936) are in the Central Archives for the History of theJewish People in Jerusalem. There has not been an organized
Jewish community in Elblag since World War II.
Bibliography: Neufeld, in: Zeitschrift fuer die Geschichte
der Juden, 2 (1965), 1–14; 5 (1968), 127–49; 7 (1970), 131f.; Neufeld, in:
AWJD (March 25, 1966); Germ Jud, 2 (1968), 200.

ELBOGEN, ISMAR (1874–1943), scholar, teacher, and public
figure. Elbogen was born in Schildberg, Posen province, andstudied at the Breslau Rabbinical Seminary. Israel *Lewy, thefamous Talmud critic, was the teacher who most influenced
him. In 1899 he began teaching Jewish history and biblical exegesis at the Collegio Rabbinico Italiano in Florence. While in
Italy he perfected his knowledge in Italian Jewish history andliterature. In 1903 he joined the faculty of the Hochschule fuer
die Wissenschaft des Judentums in Berlin, teaching many subjects and for many years was involved unofficially in directing
the institution. He was involved in the organizational life ofGerman Jews, heading important committees and commissions. In 1938, in the wake of Nazi persecution, Elbogen immigrated to New York. He was appointed research professor
simultaneously at four institutions: Jewish Theological Seminary, Hebrew Union College, Jewish Institute of Religion, andDropsie College.
His scholarly interests were chiefly in Jewish history andthe history of Jewish liturgy. His major work, Derjuedische
Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtliehen Entwicklung (19133), is
a comprehensive and important work on Jewish liturgy; it
traces the history of the prayers said in the synagogue. His
other works are devoted to Jewish history and are written in
a popular style. His Century of Jewish Life (1944) was planned
as a sequel to *Graetz’s history. Elbogen devoted his attention also to the history of *Wissenschaft des Judentums andset forth a program for Jewish scholarship that, in addition
to describing the Jewish past, would be a guide for the Jewish
present and future. He was one of the editors for the periodical Devir (1923–24); Germania Judaica (2 vols., 1917–34); thejubilee edition of Moses Mendelssohn’s collected works, ofwhich only six volumes appeared (1929–32); Zeitschrift fuer dieGeschichte der Juden in Deutschland (vols. 1–7, 1929–38); Juedisches Lexikon (4 vols. in 5, 1927–30); Encyclopaedia Judaica(vols. 1–9, 1928–34); Eshkol (2 vols., 1929–32); and Universal
Jewish Encyclopedia (10 vols., 1939–43). He was an active participant in the Liberal movement in the German Jewish community. He took part in writing the Liberal prayer book forGerman Jews, Tefillot le-Kol ha-Shanah: Gebetbuch fuer dasganze Jahr bearbeitet im Auftrage des Liberalen Kultus (1932),
which in the main reflects his spirit. He restored to the liturgy those prayers that had been removed by the reformers
in their desire to eradicate the concept of Jewish peoplehoodfrom the Jewish religion. He also wrote Geschichte der Judenin Deutschland (1935).
Bibliography: R. Elbogen, in: HJ, 8 (1946), 69–94, a bibliography of I. Elbogen’s writings; A. Marx, in: I. Elbogen, Century
of Jewish Life (1944), xi–xx; M. Wiener, in: HJ, 6 (1944), 95–98; S.W.
Baron, in: JSS, 6 (1944), 91–92; E. Rosenthal, in: YLBI, 8 (1963), 3–28;
J.H. Kaplan, in: CCARY, 25 (1915), 403–13, a review of Elbogen’s major
work. Add. Bibliography: M.A. Meyer, The Life and Thought of
the Jewish Historian Ismar Elbogen (2004).

[Ze’ev Wilhem Falk]

ELCAN, MARCUS (c. 1757–1808), early settler of Richmond,
Virginia. Elcan probably was born in Germany. He arrived

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6291

elchein Richmond by 1782, when his name appeared as witness toa deed, although he was listed as a member of Philadelphia’s
Mikveh Israel in the same year. A founder of Beth Shalome
Congregation, Elcan was a successful merchant and highly respected citizen; his will provided an endowment of $1,000 to
the Richmond Charity School. A man of cultural attainments,
he willed his considerable library of almost 200 volumes toJoseph Marx, a friend and one of his executors. Elcan’s widow,
Phila (c. 1760–1820), is buried in the cemetery of Touro Synagogue, Newport, Rhode Island.

ELDAD (Scheib), ISRAEL (1910–1996), Israeli undergroundleader, educator, geographer, writer, and translator from
German; also known by his underground name and nom deplume Sambatyon. Eldad was born in Podvolochisk, in Eastern Galicia. In 1914 his family moved to Vilna, and finally settled in Lvov. He completed his studies at the rabbinical seminary in Vienna and studied for a doctorate in philosophy andhistory at the University of Vienna, writing his thesis on Schopenhauer. He returned to Poland to teach Jewish studies at
the Jewish Teachers Seminary in Vilna. He was active in *Be-

tar, and wrote literary and political articles for various Polish-Jewish publications in Yiddish. In 1938 he participatedwith Avraham *Stern in the World Conference of Betar. Backin Vilna he and his wife lived with Menaḥ em *Begin’s family.
In 1941 Eldad and his wife were allowed to leave Sovietoccupied Vilna and travel to Turkey, from which they thenmade their way to Palestine. In Palestine he taught Bible in Tel
Aviv. He soon joined the leadership of the *Leḥ i underground,
becoming its ideologue, and editor of its underground publications, the monthly He-Ḥ azit, and the weekly Ha-Ma’as. After Avraham *Stern was murdered by the British he became
one of its triumvirate of leaders. In 1944 he was wounded in
the back while trying to escape arrest by the British and washeld in a prison hospital in Jerusalem, and later in the Latrun
detention camp. In 1946 he managed to escape with the helpof Leḥ i members and continued his underground activities
until the establishment of the State of Israel.
After the establishment of the State a breach occurred
between the supporters of Nathan *Yellin-Mor, who soughtto establish a neo-socialist party, and Eldad’s supporters, whotook a right-wing, nationalist line and focused on extra-parliamentary activities. The political group that Eldad founded
was called Ḥ azit ha-Moledet, but after Count *Bernadotte
was assassinated in September 1948, the Israeli government
declared the group to be illegal. Several of its members weredetained while Eldad himself managed to escape detention.
Eldad then started to publish a periodical called Sulam, which
continued to appear until 1964. In Sulam he advocated Revisionist maximalism, according to which the goal of Zionism
is a kingdom of Israel (Malkhut Yisrael), from the Nile andthe Euphrates.
In the 1950s Eldad was frequently accused of incitement
to violence and underground activities, but no concrete evidence was ever found. Upon orders from David *Ben-Gurion
as minister of defense Eldad was fired from his post as a highschool teacher and was prohibited from teaching in the public school system. Even though the Supreme Court decided
in his favor he could not find work as a teacher. Subsequently
he established a students association called the Nationalist
Cells and earned a living as a translator. Later on he became
a lecturer in humanities at the Haifa Technion and Beersheba(now Ben-Gurion) University.
After the Six-Day War Eldad became a leading figure of
the radical right and was one of the founders of the Greater
Israel Movement. In the elections to the Seventh Knesset in1969 he ran at the head of a list called Le-Ereẓ Yisrael but failed
to win a seat. In 1979 he was one of the founders of the Teḥ iyya
party with Geula *Cohen but did not run for the Knesset.
Eldad published articles regularly in Haaretz and Yedioth Aharonoth.
His son, Arie Eldad, was elected to the Sixteenth Knesset, on the National Union list. Among his books are Ma’aser
Rishon (19753), memoirs of the underground, and Hegyonot
Mikra (19842) on the Bible.

292

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: Rosenbloom, Biog Dict, 34.
[Saul Viener]

ELCHE, city on the east coast of Spain, near Alicante; important in the late Roman period. Greek inscriptions discovered in 1905 on a mosaic floor in Elche dating to some time
between the third and fifth centuries are believed to refer to asynagogue. They seem to indicate that the community in Elche
was organized along the same lines as other Jewish communities in Mediterranean countries. Nothing is known about
the Jews in Elche under Muslim rule. After the capture of thecity by James I of Aragon in 1263, Astruc *Bonsenyor of Barcelona served as interpreter. Alfonso X of Castile granted land
to Don Isaac ibn Wakar, the physician of Don Juan Manuel, in
the neighborhood of Elche. A Jewish scribe was in charge ofthe office registers and taxes of the Muslim community therein 1308. In a document from 1314 dealing with a case between
Muslims of Elche and a local Christian, a scribe had to translate Catalan passages into Arabic. Abraham al-Behbehi, theJewish scribe, wrote the text in Judeo-Arabic, that is, in Arabic written in Hebrew characters. Apart from its linguistic interest, the document has great historical significance. It sheds
light on the role Jews, experts in Arabic, played in a multicultural and multilingual society. Abraham b. Baḥ ye farmed thetaxes in Elche from 1381 to 1384. Nothing is known of the later
fate of the community.
Bibliography: Baer, Spain, index; Cantera-Millás, Inscripciones, 406–10; Vernet, in: Sefarad, 12 (1952), 126, 140, 142; Frey,
Corpus, 1 (1936), nos. 662–4; F. Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas Españolas
(1955), 212–6. Add. Bibliography: D. Romano, in: Separad, 29(1969), 313–18; J. Hinojosa Montalvo, in: Homenaje al Profesor Juan
Torres Fontes, vol. I, (1987), 791–800; M. Guardia, in: M. Mentre (ed.),
L’art juif au Moyen Age, (1988), 105–12.
[Haim Beinart / Yom Tov Assis (2nd ed.)]eldad ha-dani
Add. Bibliography: A. Amichal-Yavin, Sambatyon: Ideologiyah be-Mivḥ an Tamid (Biografiyah shel Dr. Yisrael Eldad)(1995).
[Benjamin Jaffe / Susan Hattis Rolef (2nd ed.)]

ELDAD AND MEDAD (Heb. ‫ ֵמ ָידד‬,‫) ֶאלְ דָּ ד‬, two of the elders(see *Elder) chosen by Moses to assist him in governing thepeople following their protests about the inadequacy of theirdiet in the wilderness (Num. 11:26–27). Both names are basedon the root ydd, “to love, be in love.” Thus, Eldad, “Belovedof-El” and Medad, “Beloved.” In response to Moses’ complaint
about the unbearable burden of administration placed upon
his shoulders (verse 14), God commanded him to select 70
men known to him “as elders and officers of the people,” thatis, from the traditional leadership, who would share the burden with him (verses 16–17). To enable them to perform theirfunction, God endowed them with part of the spirit that had
rested on Moses, whereupon they made ecstatic utterances.
Eldad and Medad, who did not go out with the others to theTent of Meeting, but remained in the camp, nevertheless also
spoke in a state of *ecstasy. When this was made known toMoses and Joshua, the latter suggested that they be restrained,
but Moses answered him, “… Would that all the Lord’s people
were prophets” (verses 26–29). Eldad and Medad are not otherwise identified or mentioned in the Bible.
In the Aggadah
The enigmatic appearance of the otherwise unknown Eldadand Medad as authors of an unrecorded prophecy (Num.
11:26ff.) provided a fertile field for aggadic interpretations. It
appears that at least some of these are thinly disguised references to the conspiracy of R. Meir and R. Nathan against R.
Simeon b. Gamaliel (Hor. 13b), an event which gave rise to
many “biblical” aggadot (cf. A. Buechler, Studies in Jewish History (1956), 160–78). Thus, according to R. Simeon b. Yoḥ ai,
Eldad and Medad, though chosen to be among the elders of
Israel, considered themselves unworthy of such high dignity.
Thereupon God said, “Because you have humbled yourselves,
I will add to your greatness yet more greatness” (Sanh. 17a).
Hence, unlike other prophets, they never ceased to prophesy,
and they were granted additional advantages (Num. R. 15:19;
Tanḥ . B., Num. 29). The moral of the story seems to be that R.
Meir and R. Nathan should have humbled themselves insteadof plotting against the patriarch. All the sources report that
Eldad and Medad prophesied, “Moses shall die, and Joshua
shall bring Israel into the (promised) land.” This prediction by
the two prophets that the leader of Israel was to be replaced
evidently alludes to the plan of the two rabbis to replace thepatriarch. Other conjectures were that Eldad and Medad predicted the (imminent) arrival of the quails (cf. Num. 11:31)
or else prophesied concerning Gog and Magog (Sanh. 17a;cf. Ezek. 38, 39). The latter suggestion was put forward by R.
Naḥ man who generally displayed a keen interest in messianic
speculations (cf. Sanh. 96b–97a, 98b).
Joshua’s objection to prophesying by Eldad and Medad(Num. 11:28) was attributed either to the fact that it was unauENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6thorized – a serious offense in rabbinic times – or to the nature of the prediction (Sanh. 17a). The restraint proposed by
Joshua (‫ ְּכלָ ֵאם‬, kela’em) was interpreted by some as implying theimposition of public office which would cause them to “cease(or “perish”) of themselves” (ibid.), an unmistakable allusion
to the ruinous burdens of the *Boule office in the amoraic age.
Earlier interpretations were even harsher: “Destroy them fromthe world,” or, according to R. Judah ha-Nasi (who many years
after the plot against his father bore a grudge against R. Meirand R. Nathan (cf. Hor. 13b–14a)), “Chain them in bonds andfetters” (Sif. Num. 96).
While some late Midrashim make Eldad and Medad sonsof Amram and half-brothers of Moses and Aaron, Targum
Jonathan, Numbers 11:26, assigns their parentage to Jochebed
and Elizaphan son of Parnach (Num. 34:25), whom she is supposed to have married during her temporary divorce from
Amram. This strange Midrash may have been designed tocounter in advance the charge against Moses’ marriage alliancewith a Cushite woman (Num. 12:1) – who is in some sources
identified with Zipporah (Targ. Jon., Num. 12:1; Sif. Num. 99
et al.) – whom he had married before the giving of the Torah.
At that time, Jochebed, too, could have been divorced, remarried, and returned again to her first husband, Deuteronomy
24:4 notwithstanding. (It is noteworthy that the numericalvalue of the letters ‫( ּ ַפ ְרנָ ְך‬Parnach) is identical with that of ‫ַע ְמ ָרם‬(Amram); and ‫יצ ָפן‬ָ ִ‫( ֱאל‬Eliẓ aphan; “God has hidden”) is reminiscent of Jochebed’s hiding (‫וַ ִּת ְצ ּ ְפנֵ ה ּו‬, va-tiẓ penehu) of Moses,
Ex. 2:2.) Other Midrashim (Num. R. 15:19; Tanḥ . B., Num. 29)
identify Eldad and Medad with Elidad son of Chislon and Kemuel son of Shiphtan (cf. Num. 34:21,24), due no doubt to thesimilarity or assonance of the names.
Bibliography: B. Maisler, in: EM, 1 (1950), S.V.; C.H. Gordon, Ugaritic Manual (1955), glossary, no. 796; Ginzberg, Legends, 3(1911), 251–3; 4 (1913), 158; 6 (1928), 88–90. Add. Bibliography:
B. Levine, Numbers 1–20 (AB; 1993), 315–16.
[Moses Aberbach]

ELDAD HADANI (late ninth century), traveler. His origins
and personality remain a mystery. He professed to belong to
the tribe of Dan, whence his name ha-Dani. Eldad claimed
that the Danites together with the tribes of Naphtali, Gad, andAsher, while leading a nomadic existence, formed an independent kingdom under the rule of their king Addiel (or Uzziel).
Their kingdom was in Havilah, the land of gold (cf. Gen. 2:11)
near Ethiopia. The tribes, of whom the descendants of Samson
and Delilah were outstanding for their valor, were constantly
at war with their neighbors. Eldad also mentions the “sonsof Moses,” who lived nearby but were cut off from the worldby the *Sambatyon, an impassable river of rolling stones andsand which stops only on the Sabbath when it is surroundedby fire or covered by a cloud. It is possible to see and speakwith these “sons of Moses” but not to cross the river. Eldad
relates how he and a companion of the tribe of Asher set out
on a journey but were shipwrecked and fell into the hands ofcannibals; his companion was eaten but he escaped a simi-293

eldar, Reuven
lar fate owing to an attack by other natives, fire worshipers,
from whom he was eventually ransomed by a Jew of the tribeof Issachar. He further gives a colorful description of the Ten
Tribes, their whereabouts and independent existence. Eldad’s
accounts are probably embroidered legends, based on Jewish
rulers and kingdoms known to have existed: the Arabian kingJoseph Dhu Nuwas (sixth century) of Ḥ imyar who along withhis subjects converted to Judaism; the Falashas (*Beta Israel)in Ethiopia, who were possibly independent in the early Middle Ages; and the *Khazar state, whose rulers along with manyof their subjects converted to Judaism. His aim was probably
to raise the spirits of the Jews by giving them news of tribesof Israel who lived in freedom and by creating an attractive
Jewish utopia. The report of the existence of such Jewish kingdoms undoubtedly encouraged and comforted Eldad’s hearers, by contradicting the Christian contention that Jewish independence had ceased after the destruction of the Second
Temple. For the Jews his stories obviously had far-reachingmessianic implications.
According to the 12t-century Karaite Judah *Hadassi
Eldad made two journeys, the first to Egypt, and the second
to Africa. *Ẓ emaḥ b. Ḥ ayyim, gaon of Sura, writes that Eldad
spoke to R. Isaac b. Mar and R. Simḥ ah in Babylonia. It seems
therefore that Eldad was in the east before arriving in Kairouan (North Africa) about 880. In Africa Eldad conversedwith Judah *Ibn Quraysh. In 883 he sent a letter to the Jews of
Spain and it appears from *Ḥ isdai ibn Shaprut’s letter to the
Khazar king that he also visited Spain.
The Jews of Kairouan consulted Ẓ emaḥ Gaon about Eldad, especially concerning four halakhot of his on the laws
concerning sheḥ itah and terefah. The source of these laws is
not known. While in parts there is some resemblance to Karaite laws, which caused certain scholars (Pinsker, Graetz) toconclude that he was a Karaite, most of the halakhot resemble
the traditional talmudic law, both Babylonian and Jerusalem,
although some Islamic influence seems discernible. The language shows traces of Arab usage. It is therefore probable thatthey reached Eldad from a country influenced by both the
Arabic language and the Jerusalem Talmud.
Meir b. Baruch of Rothenburg and Abraham Ibn Ezra regarded Eldad as an impostor but his halakhot, even if mostly
not accepted, were quoted by many of the outstanding scholars of the Middle Ages (Rashi, Asher b. Jehiel, the tosafists, etal.). Neither was he rejected by Ẓ emaḥ Gaon, who stated thatthe possibility of different traditions existed. Eldad’s accounts
have been preserved in several versions. They first appearedin print in Mantua in 1480. Changes were made in several
later editions in accordance with the manuscripts. Besides
this there are also extant the halakhot sent from Kairouan toẒ emaḥ Gaon (Constantinople, 1516).

Utopia (1932); Kupfer and Strelcyn, in: Rocznik Orientalistyczny, 19(1954), 125–41 (Fr.); Ashtor, Korot, 1 (1966), 94–102; Hirschberg, Afrikah, 1 (1965), index; E.N. Adler, Jewish Travelers (1930), 1–21.
[Azriel Shochat]

ELDAR (Lederer), REUVEN (1926– ), professor of medicine. Eldar was born in Osijek, Croatia, but raised in Novi
Sad (Serbia), where he was active in the Zionist Ha-Shomer
ha-Ẓ a’ir youth movement and the Maccabi Sports Club. Eldar immigrated to Israel in 1948. He studied in Jerusalem andthen specialized in clinical neurology in London and New
York. As a physician he was appointed chief medical officerof the Israel Defense Forces with the rank of brigadier general, serving for eight years. After his military career ended,
he became director of Rambam Hospital in Haifa, followed
by a WHO (World Health Organization) Mission to the Philippines. On his return in 1981, he joined the Faculty of Health
Sciences at Ben-Gurion University in Beersheba. From 1986
until his retirement in 1992, Eldar was in charge of the Löwenstein Rehabilitation Center, Raanana. After his retirement heacted as a consultant to WHO on services for disabled persons
and for the elderly, and completed another mission abroad,in war-torn Yugoslavia, advising on the rehabilitation of thewounded. Eldar served on the editorial board of several medical journals and published over 100 papers as well as the book
Quality of Medical Care (in Croatian) in 2003.
[Zvi Loker (2nd ed.)]ELDER (Heb. ‫זָ ֵקן‬, zaken). In Israel, as among all other ancientpeoples, the elder is not only a person of advanced age, but alsoa man of distinct social grade (cf. šībum in Akkadian, senatorin Latin, geron in Greek, and sheikh in Arabic). The elders werethe consulting body of the city, the nation, or the king respectively, and as such were considered “the wise” (cf. Ezek. 7:26
with Jer. 18:18). As a social institution, various types of elders
are named: elders of a people (Israel, Judah, Moab, and Midian, Num. 22:4, 7; Egypt, Gen. 50:7); elders of an area (Gilead,
Judg. 11:5–11); elders of a tribe (Deut. 31:28); elders of the Diaspora (Jer. 29:1); elders of the priests (II Kings 19:2; Jer. 19:1);
elders of the city (passim); and elders of the house (i.e., palace,
Gen. 50:7; II Sam. 12:17). The most prominent are the elders of
the people or the country and the elders of the city.

Bibliography: A. Epstein, Eldad ha-Dani, Sippurav veHilkhotav (1891), introd.; idem, Kitvei …, ed. by A.M. Habermann, 1(1950); Lazar, in: Ha-Shilo’aḥ , 9 (1902), 46ff.; 10 (1903), 42ff,; GraetzRabbinowitz, 3 (19292), 267–73; M. Schloessinger, Ritual of Eldad Hadani (1908); Neubauer, in: JQR, 1 (1888/89), 95–114; M. Higger, Jewish

The Elders of the City
These elders represented their fellow citizens in local matters. Their functions are best exemplified by the pertinent
laws of Deuteronomy. The city elders are involved in five laws:(1) blood redemption (19:12); (2) expiation of murder by an
unknown culprit (21:3, 6); (3) the rebellious son (21:19); (4)defamation of a virgin (22:15); and (5) levirate (25:9). All thesecases deal with protection of the family and local patriarchal
interests. In the first, the elders tend to the appeasement of
the murdered person’s family by delivering the slayer into its
hands; in the second, they see to it that their town atones fora homicide committed within its borders. In the next two in-

294

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6elderstances, the elders protect the family against a rebellious sonand defend the family against defamation. In the last instance,
the elders are concerned with preventing the extinction of afamily in their town. No professional judgment is necessary insuch cases: the elders preside over a case, whose consequences
are clear beforehand. The same applies to Ruth 4:2ff., where
the elders only confirm the act of levirate. In contrast, “thejudges” in the laws of Deuteronomy have functions that are
altogether different from those of the elders. The judges act inconnection with disputes (19:17–18; 25:1–3) and controversies
in the local courts (17:8ff.) that cannot be solved by the local
patriarchal representatives, but need a higher and more objective judicial authority. Furthermore, disputes and controversies involve thorough investigation (cf. 19:18), which can bemade only by qualified and professional people. These judges
are nominated (cf. Deut. 16:19) in contradistinction to the elders, whose dignity is as a rule hereditary. In only one case in
Deuteronomy do the elders act together with the judges: thecase of the unknown murderer (21:1ff.). The elders of the town
nearest the spot where the corpse was found have to performthe expiation rites on behalf of their town. In order to establish which town is nearest, the distances must be measured(see *Eglah Arufah). This has to be implemented by the judges
and the elders of the country (21:2), i.e., by a higher authority.
This case is important for an understanding of the composition of the courts in ancient Israel, especially since it has its
antecedents in the judicial procedures of the other peoples in
the ancient Near East. Among ancient Near Eastern peoples,a representative of the state joined the local authority (i.e., theelders) in order to settle disputes. In Mesopotamia the elders(šībūtum) cooperated with the mayor (rabiānum or hazānum),̆and in the Hittite state the commander of the garrison actedwith the elders in settling disputes. In purely provincial matters, such as the returning of stray cattle, the elders themselves
acted without resorting to government officials (Hittite Laws,
para. 71). Only when investigation was involved was the casebrought before a tribunal, which consisted of both state officials and elders. In ancient Israel, as in the Hittite state, thejudges were associated or even identical with officers and military commanders (Ex. 18:21; Deut. 1:15). That the officer andthe elder had much in common is evident from Isaiah 3:14,
Ezra 10:8, et al. In I Kings 21:11, they act together (for the interchange of “noble” with “officer,” cf. Jer. 39:6 with 52:10; Jer.
27:20 with II Kings 24:14).

the elders of the country were chosen, but it is possible thatthey were recruited from the city elders. One might argue thatthe monarchy had deprived the elders of their power and authority, but this was not the case. Even as powerful a king as
Ahab had to consult “the elders of the land” before proclaiming war (I Kings 20:7). It is needless to dwell here on the important role that the elders of Israel and Judah played at thetime of David (II Sam. 3:17; 5:3; 17:4, 15). The elders cooperated with Elisha against the king (II Kings 6:32), and the eldersof the land interfered in the trial of Jeremiah (Jer. 26:17). The“people of the land” or the “people of Judah,” who took action when the dynasty was at stake, seem to be identical withthe elders of Judah.
The emergence of the elders has been explained in thePentateuch etiologically. According to Exodus 18, it was Jethro
who advised Moses to establish a judicial-social organ in order to help him judge the people. (In the desert setting of thenarrative there was no distinction between the elders of thetown and the elders of the congregation.) In Numbers 11, following Moses’ complaint that he cannot manage the peopleby himself, the Lord draws from some of the spirit of Moses
and instills it in the 70 elders who are to assist him. In Deuteronomy 1:9ff., finally, Moses himself proposes that he pickmen from the tribes in order to create the judicial body. These
three traditions present different outlooks on the quality of theelder-judge in ancient Israel. In Exodus 18, the attributes of
the chosen men are fear of God, trustworthiness, and honesty.
In Numbers 11, it is the spirit of God, i.e., divine inspiration(cf. the judge in the period of the Judges, Judg. 3:10; 6:34; etal.), which makes a man a member of the elders’ council. In
Deuteronomy 1, intellectual capacity (wisdom, understanding, and knowledge) makes a man fit to judge. The description in Deuteronomy is apparently the latest, since it reflects
the aristocratic approach, which places wisdom at the top of
the ladder of values (cf. e.g., Prov. 8:15–16; et al).

The Elders of the People or Country
In the city-state, as it existed in Canaan, the elders of the citywere identical with the elders of the state. In Israel, both before and during the monarchic period, the elders of the town
and those of the people, country, and congregation operated
separately. Matters that concerned the entire confederation or
the nation were brought to the elders of the people, and after
the division of the kingdom to the elders of Israel and Judah
respectively, whereas the elders of the town dealt only withthe local provincial problems (see above). It is not known how

The Functions of the Elders of the People
The functions of the elders of the people were (1) to represent
the people in the sacral covenant and in the proclamation of
the law (Ex. 19:7; 24:1, 9; Deut. 27:1; 29:9; 31:9; Josh. 8:33; 24:1;
cf. II Kings 23:1); (2) to appoint a leader or a king (I Sam. 8:4;
Judg. 11:5–11); (3) to proclaim war (Josh. 8:10; II Sam. 17:4–15;
cf. I Kings 20:7); (4) to conduct political negotiations andmake agreements (Ex. 3:16, 18; 4:29; Num. 16:25; II Sam. 3:17;
5:3); (5) to perform sacred ceremonies (Ex. 12:21; 18:12; Lev. 9:1;
I Sam. 4:3; I Kings 8:1, 3; I Chron. 16:25); and (6) to act in timesof national crisis (Ex. 17:5–6; Josh. 7:6; I Sam. 4:3; I Chron.
21:16). The elders held their meetings near the city gate (Deut.
21:19; 22:15; 25:7; Ruth 4:1ff.; Lam. 5:14), and more precisely inthe square located next to the gate (Job 29:7). In the desert
the assemblies were held “at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” (see *Congregation). The place of the assembly had also
been called “the threshing floor” (I Kings 22:10), because of
its smooth, stamped surface and its circular shape (cf. Sanh.
4:3). In texts from Ugarit, Danel the pious judge is presented

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6295

elder, will
as sitting “before the gate, in the place of the mighty on thethreshing floor” (Aqht A, V, lines 5ff., Pritchard, Texts, 151).
Participation in the assembly of the elders was considered agreat honor (Prov. 31:23; Job 29:7ff.), and appears as such alsoin Greek literature (Iliad, 1:490; 4:225; et al.).
[Moshe Weinfeld]

In the Talmud
During the mishnaic period the name zaken (“elder”) was reserved for scholars, and particularly members of the Sanhedrin or bet din. The title was regarded as equivalent to a sage,
and was unconnected with age, as was emphasized by regarding the word as a notarikon: “The zaken is none other than asage, and the word means zeh she-kanah ḥ okhmah (“one who
has acquired wisdom”; Kid. 32b). Thus one reads of the elders
of Bet Shammai and the elders of Bet Hillel (Ber. 11a), of the“elders of the bet din” who supervised the high priest before
the Day of Atonement (Yoma 1:3 and 5), and of “Rabban Gamaliel and the elders who were traveling by ship” (Shab. 16:8;
Ma’as Sh. 5:9; cf. also *Zaken Mamre). The word zaken hardly
occurs with regard to local government (the “elders of thecity” of. Sot. 9:5 and 6 is a reference to Deut. 21:3), although
in the Book of Judith, the elders of the city or of the people
appear as the main authority of the beleaguered city. It seems
that the institution of “the seven good men of the city” whowere responsible for its affairs was confined to Babylon. The
Mishnah (Meg. 3:1) states that if the people of a town sell a
synagogue or other sacred object, the purchaser may not use
it for purposes of lesser sanctity. Where the Babylonian Talmud (Meg. 26a, 27a) makes the reservation that this does not
apply in cases where the “seven good men of the city” stipulated at the time of the sale that the synagogue or the sacredobject could so be used, the parallel passage in the Jerusalem
Talmud merely mentions the stipulation but has no reference
to the seven communal leaders. Nevertheless Josephus (Ant.
4:214–4) refers to the seven men who ruled the city in Ereẓ
Israel, and the Syriac Baruch mentions “the seven elders of
the people” (II Bar. 44:1).

“elder” and attempted to turn it into a horror image. Exploiting the feelings of revulsion against the notion of scheming
old men and recalling the use of the term in the Jewish hierarchy and tradition, it conjured up a new Jewish bogey in the
shape of the *Elders of Zion (“Sages de Sion”). The Nazis in
their calculated policy of fragmentation and foisting a spurious leadership on the Jews turned to the use of the name
Judenaelteste (“elders of the Jews”) for some of the functionaries in this leadership.
[Haim Hillel Ben-Sasson]

Bibliography: J.L. McKenzie, in: Analecta Biblica, 10 (1959),
388–400; H. Klengel, in: Orientalia, 29 (1960), 357–75; de Vaux, Anc
Isr, 68–70; Evans, in: JRH, 2 (1962), 1–12; H. Klengel, Zeitschrift fuer
Assyriologie, 23 (1965), 223ff.; H. Tadmor, in: Journal of World History, 11 (1968), 3–23; H. Reviv, in: Journal of the Economic and Social
History of the Orient, 12 (1969), 283–97; Baron, Community, index.
Add. Bibliography: T. Wills, Elders of the City (2001); A. Rof,“The Organization of the Judiciary in Deuteronomy,” in: M. Daviau
et al. (eds.), World of the Arameans (2002), 92–112.

Middle Ages and Modern Period
In the Middle Ages and early modern times the term “elder”
or “elders” appears both as a titular synonym for scholar andsage as well as a frequent description for the unpaid lay members in the leadership on the boards of communities within
the framework of the *Councils of the Lands. It can also be
regarded as an honorific description for members of the ruling aristocracy of wealth and learning in the communities ofthe period. The designation disappears almost entirely fromthe middle of the 18t century for both communal leaders aswell as scholars (except for the fossilized expression zaken veyoshev bi-yshivah used as a title in ultra-conservative circles).
Its disuse was the natural corollary of a diminished reverence
for age and the rise of a mentality that refused to equate it withwisdom and leadership qualities. It is not accidental that antisemitic vilification in modern times fastened on the term

ELDER, WILL (1921– ), U.S. cartoonist. Elder, who was bornin the Bronx, N.Y., attended the High School of Music and Art,
where he began a lifelong friendship with a classmate and future collaborator, Harvey *Kurtzman, in stinging and hilarious
cartoon art. Elder’s penchant for zany humor flowered earlywith legendary stunts: when he failed to show up for class, he
was discovered by a nervous teacher hanging by his neck inthe school coat closet, his face chalked white. Another time
he dressed joints of beef in clothing and spread them acrosstrain tracks, moaning, “Poor Schlomie! He fell on the tracks,”
horrifying passers-by.
Elder began his comic book career in 1946, writing anddrawing a feature called Rufus Debree in Toy Town Comics.
After several cartooning positions, Elder in 1952 joined Kurtzman, creator of Mad magazine, which gave him a chance todisplay his zany style of humor. Elder penciled and inked his
own stories from the first issue on. He was credited with being
the main creator of the early, zany Mad “chicken fat” style. His
art was most notable for having numerous visual jokes hidden in the nooks, crannies, and backgrounds of the stories hedrew. Elder became such a sensation at Mad that issue number 22 featured a book-length biography of him. Elder andKurtzman left Mad in 1956 and worked together on a numberof projects, including some short-lived satirical magazines. In
one of them, Help!, Elder and Kurtzman created an innocent
Candide-like character, Goodman Beaver. Inspired by a lusty
spoof of the comic-book character Archie, Elder and Kurtzman turned the innocent Goodman Beaver, a man, into a sexy
woman and named her Little Annie Fanny. Playboy magazine
published the four-to-seven-page stories, written by Kurtzman and painted by Elder, from 1962 to 1988. The strip took
comic art to new heights with sophisticated and savage satire
and carefully painted stories.
Over the years, Elder’s genres included crime, science
fiction, horror, fantasy, war, and sex. In 2003, Fantagraphics
published Will Elder: The Mad Playboy of Art, a definitive ca-

296

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Louis Isaac Rabinowitz]

elealehreer retrospective. It contained more than 100 pages of comics and other art work.
[Stewart Kampel (2nd ed.)]ELDERS OF ZION, PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED,
antisemitic forgery aimed at showing the existence of international Jewish aspirations bent on world power. The specter of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy aiming at reducing the
gentiles to slavery or exterminating them loomed up in theChristian imagination during the Middle Ages, growing outof legends about well-poisoning and plague-spreading. Somesuch stories claimed that a secret rabbinical conference had
been held to work out a detailed plan for ritual genocide of theChristians. From the time of the Renaissance, at first in Spain,these legends turned on a political plot rather than a religious
one; similar notions circulated in France and Germany, after
Napoleon’s convocation of the Great Sanhedrin (see French*Sanhedrin) in 1807. They did not gain widespread popularcredence, nor at first did the versions launched during the second half of the century by French Catholic authors like *Barruel and Bailly, who associated *Freemasons and Jews in ananti-Christian plot. In its latest version, the legend of the “Elders of Zion” was concocted in Paris in the last decade of the
19t century by an unknown author working for the Russian
secret police (Okhrana); in all probability, it was intended toinfluence the policy of Czar *Nicholas II toward the interestsof the secret police. For his purposes, the anonymous forger
adapted an old French political pamphlet by Maurice Joly attributing ambitions of world domination to Napoleon III,
Dialogue aux Enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu, ou lapolitique au xixe siècle (1864), which does not contain theslightest allusion to Jews or to Judaism. This “dialogue” wastransformed into the “protocols” of an alleged conference ofthe leaders of world Jewry, who stated in summing up that,
under the cloak of modern democracy, they already controlled
the policies of numerous European states and were therefore
very close to their objective. However the calculations of theRussian police misfired on that occasion: Nicholas II, impressionable and antisemitic though he was, detected the fraud,writing “One does not defend a worthy cause by vile means”
in the margin of the manuscript submitted to him. The first
Russian public edition of the Protocols, which appeared in
1905, did not attract much attention and was taken seriously
in a few mystic and sectarian circles only.
The worldwide success of the Protocols dates from 1919 to
1921; after the widespread slaughter in World War I, the Russian Revolution in 1917, and the risings in Germany, many people felt impelled to discover a “hidden cause” for such tragic
and momentous events. The text was widely circulated during the Russian civil war by propagandists seeking to incite
the masses against the “Jewish Revolution,” and undoubtedly
contributed to the extensive pogroms perpetrated in southern
Russia between 1918 and 1920. After the defeat of the White
armies, Russian émigrés publicized the Protocols in the West.
Translations followed, but most reputable European newspaENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6pers, such as the Times of London, questioned their authenticity. In 1921 the English journalist Philip Graves pointed out
the close similarity between the text of the Protocols and Joly’s
pamphlet; from then on, balanced and responsible circles refused to take them seriously. This was no bar to an enormous
circulation of the text, which was translated into all the mainworld languages. In the United States it was even sponsored(until 1927) by the influential and popular Henry Ford I.
However, well before the Nazi rise to power, the Protocols
found the largest number of adherents in Germany. The theoryof the occult power of the Jews’ sworn enemies of GermanChristian culture, perfectly suited those reactionary propagandists who attributed Germany’s defeat to “a stab in the back.”
Right from the start the Nazi Party propagated this theme. The
Weltdienst organization of Erfurt was specially formed to diffuse it and to strengthen ties with antisemites in other countries. In Berne in 1934 the Jewish community of Switzerland
brought the distributors of the Protocols to trial, establishingin court that the work was a forgery, but this did nothing todiminish the zeal of its propagators. During World War II, theProtocols of the Learned Elders of Zion became an implicit justification for the genocide of the Jews; and Nazi propaganda
relied on them until the last days of the Third Reich. Althoughfrom 1945 no more than bibliographical curiosity in the majority of civilized countries, the Protocols were reissued in numerous Arab states and President Nasser of Egypt publicly
vouched for their authenticity, as did the Jordanian delegate
to the United Nations in 1980. The Arab states continued todisseminate the Protocols in places as diverse as Sweden andthe United States, joined in the latter by black Muslim groups
and the Ku Klux Klan. A Spanish edition, published in 1963,
was probably an attempt to prevent the revision of the Catholic
Church’s traditional attitude toward the Jews at the Ecumenical Council Vatican II. The Protocols were also circulated inJapan, Latin America, and the Soviet Union.
Research by Colin Holmes, a lecturer in economic history of Sheffield University, has revealed the source which enabled Philip Graves to expose the Protocols as a forgery. They
were given to Graves by a Russian émigré, Michael Raslovleff,
who fled to Constantinople after the Russian Revolution of
1917. Raslovleff, a self-confessed antisemite, gave the information to Graves because he was unwilling to “give a weapon of
any kind to the Jews, whose friend I have never been.”
Bibliography: N. Cohn, Warrant for Genocide … (1967), abibliographical note dealing with numerous early works can be foundin this work; L. Poliakov, Histoire de l’antisémitisme, 3 vols. (1956–68),
passim; Y. Harkabi, Arab Attitudes to Israel (1971); “Patterns of Prejudice,” Institute of Jewish Affairs (London, 1977).
[Leon Poliakov]

ELEALEH (Heb. ‫ ֶאלְ ָעלֵ ה‬,‫) ֶאלְ ָעלֵ א‬, biblical town in Transjordan,
northeast of Heshbon. Elealeh is always mentioned together
with Heshbon. It was settled by the tribe of Reuben and later
reverted to Moab (Num. 32:3, 37; Isa. 15:4; 16:9; Jer. 48:34). Eusebius refers to it in the fourth century C.E. as a large village297eleazar(Onom. 84:10). The site is occupied at present by the Arab village al-ʿĀl, 2,986 ft. (910 m.) above sea level, halfway between
Amman (Rabbath) and Madaba (Medba) in a region rich invineyards. Remains of walls from the Early Bronze (pre-patriarchal) Age have been uncovered there as well as Moabiteand Hellenistic potsherds. The ruins of a settlement from theArab period are visible on the surface.
Bibliography: Horowitz, in: EI, 48f.; Press, Ereẓ , 1 (19512),
22; Glueck, in: AASOR, 14 (1934), 6; P. Thomsen, Loca Sancta (1907),
59. Add. Bibliography: B. Levine, Numbers 21–36 (AB; 2000),
484.
[Michael Avi-Yonah]

ELEAZAR (Heb. ‫“ ; ֶאלְ ָעזָ ר‬God/El-has-aided”), high priest after *Aaron. Eleazar was Aaron’s third son (Ex. 6:23); his older
brothers Nadab and *Abihu perished after offering strange fire
before the Lord (Lev. 10:1–7; Num. 3:4). During his father’s
lifetime Eleazar served as the “head chieftain of the Levites”(Num. 3:32) and performed some of the functions of the highpriest (ibid. 19:4). After Aaron’s death, Eleazar was appointed
high priest in his father’s place (ibid. 20:28; Deut. 10:6). Together with Moses, he concluded the census of the people on
the plains of Moab by the bank of the Jordan (Num. 26:1–3)
and, together with Joshua, supervised the division of the land
(Num. 34:17; Josh. 14:1 and elsewhere). In the text describing
the appointment of Joshua as Moses’ successor, it is stated that
Eleazar was to stand before Joshua when the latter inquired“by the judgment of the Urim” (Num. 27:18–22). Eleazar’s
burial place was on the hill of his son *Phinehas in Mount
Ephraim (Josh. 24:33). The priestly family of *Zadok traced
its descent from Eleazar, who was regarded as the ancestor of
16 of the 24 priestly houses (I Chron. 24:4–18).
Bibliography: H. Gressmann, Moses und seine Zeit (1913),
213ff.; L. Waterman, in: AJSLL, 58 (1941), 50ff.; de Vaux, Anc Isr, index; EM, 1 (1950), 369f.

ELEAZAR (2nd cent. B.C.E.), martyr during the religious
persecution instigated by Antiochus Epiphanes (167 B.C.E.).
“Eleazar, one of the foremost scribes, well advanced in years,”
was compelled to eat swine’s flesh, but chose “death with glory
rather than life with pollution, and of his own free will was
tortured” after refusing to so much as pretend to partake of theforbidden meat. The principal source of this story is II Maccabees 16:18–31, while IV Maccabees 5–6 offers an elaborated
version of the original. Eleazar’s martyrdom was subsequently
extolled by the church fathers (Origen, Προτρεπτικὸς εὶςμαρτύριον, xxii–xxvii).

the family lived in Saragossa. The founder of this branch wasapparently ALAçAR, treasurer of Ramon Berenguer of Aragon, who in 1135 granted him and his descendants a releasefrom taxes. In 1212 ABULFATH ABENALAZAR, son of Alazrach,
was transferred by King Pedro, together with his family, to theprotection of the Knights of the Order of St. John. They were
granted special protection, right of appeal to the king’s court ofjustice, and exemption from the discriminatory Jewish *oath.
This privilege was confirmed by James I in 1235 to Abulfath’s
grandson, ALAçAR B. ALAZRACH, who served as alfaquim(“physician-interpreter”) in Saragossa. The family’s omission
to pay their share of the communal taxes and failure to participate in communal affairs alienated them from the Jewish
community. However, in 1413 the community succeeded in obtaining an order from King Ferdinand I by which the Eleazar
family was compelled to share the expenses of sending a delegation to the papal court. Their release in 1425 from the tax
on meat and wine finally caused their excommunication by
the Jewish community.
Other members of this family include the physician
MOSSE ABEN ELEAZAR (active c. 1390), as a result of whose
services to the Franciscans in Saragossa the Jews were permitted in 1385 to carry their dead to the cemetery on the roadwhich passed by their church. Other physicians of the family
include EZDRA ELEAZAR, in attendance on the royal courtin 1387, and TODROS ALAZAR (second half of the 15t century). The wealthy DON MAIR ALAZAR (first half of the 15tcentury) established a Jewish hospital. One of the gates to theJewish quarter of Saragossa situated near his house was named
after him. Maestre MOSSE ALAZAR was in the service of thecourt of Aragon in 1384. The richest Jewish moneylender inSaragossa at the time of the Expulsion of 1492 was SOLOMONELEAZAR: an inventory of pledges in his possession has beenpreserved. A secondary branch of the family lived in Valencia.
JUDAH ELEAZAR (d. 1377) was the most forceful communal
leader in the city and among the signatories of the regulationsof the communities of Aragon issued in 1354. He gave considerable financial help to the king in the war against Castile,and in 1370 lent 110,000 solidos for equipping the ships whichconveyed Pope Urban V from Rome to Avignon. Several lessinfluential members of the Eleazar family lived in Calatayud
and Huesca.

Bibliography: Maas, in: MGWJ, 44 (1900), 145–56; Schuerer,Hist, 28.
[Isaiah Gafni]

Bibliography: Baer, Urkunden, 1 (1929), index; Baer, Spain,
index; Neuman, Spain, index; M. Serrano y Sanz, Orìgenes de la Dominación Española en América (1918), 12–13, 451–2; Cabezudo Astrain,
in: Sefarad, 14 (1954), 377–9; 20 (1960), 412–3, 415–6; Lopez de Meneses, ibid., 14 (1954), 109, 112, 114; Piles Ros, ibid., 10 (1950), 370, 377,
378, 381, 384; A.M. Hershman, Rabbi lsaac Ben Sheshet Perfet and His
Times (1943), 22, 159, 169.

ELEAZAR (Alatzar, Abenalazar), prominent Jewish family
in the kingdom of Aragon in the Middle Ages. They were considered francos (“free”) for the special services which they had
rendered to the kings of Aragon during the Christian Reconquest and as such exempted from taxes. The main branch of

ELEAZAR BEN ANANIAS, Zealot leader in Jerusalem during the Jewish war with Rome 66–70 C.E. Eleazar evidently
already held the office of Captain of the Temple (segan ha-Kohanim – στρατηγόος) during the procuratorship of *Albinus,
62–64 C.E., and continued to hold that position until the de-

298

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

eleazar ben azariah
struction of the Temple. Son of the high priest *Ananias anda member of the priestly circles who joined the revolt, he persuaded the priests to discontinue the practice of accepting offerings on behalf of aliens. Cessation of the sacrifice offered
up for the emperor was tantamount to challenging Roman
rule, and – according to Josephus – this action signaled therevolt against Rome. The Talmud attributes the action to Zechariah b. Avkulus (Git. 56a).
The discontinuation of sacrifices for the health of the emperor led to a struggle in Jerusalem between the Zealots andthose favoring conciliation. Eleazar and his partisans gained
possession of the Temple mount and the lower city while thepeace party and troops of King *Agrippa II occupied the upper
city. With the help of the extremist *Sicarii faction, however,Eleazar and his men succeeded in capturing this section too.
The extremist elements then gained the upper hand, and attacked not only the Romans, but also their opponents among
their compatriots. They set fire to the palaces of Agrippa,*Berenice, and the high priest Ananias, as well as to the public archives where loan bonds were deposited. Ananias andhis brother Hezekiah (see *Ananias b. Nedebeus) were put todeath. When *Menahem b. Judah the Galilean, a central figure among the extremists, attempted to seize the commandfor himself, he was foiled by Eleazar. After *Cestius Gallus
was defeated, Eleazar was appointed general of Idumea by
the war party in Jerusalem, together with *Jesus b. Zapphas.
The appointment was evidently prompted by a desire to remove him from a key position in the command, and no moreis known of him.
Bibliography: Derenbourg, Hist, 472–4; Schuerer, Gesch,
1 (19014), 584, 602, 607; Klausner, Bayit Sheni, 5 (19512), 145–9; M.
Stern, in: Ha-Ishiyyut ve-Dorah (1963), 73; Jos., Ant., 20:208; Jos.,
Wars, 2:17, 409, 425, 566.
[Lea Roth]ELEAZAR BEN ARAKH (second half of the first century
C.E.), tanna. He was one of the most outstanding disciples of
R. *Johanan b. Zakkai, who described him as “an overflowing
spring,” i.e., an inexhaustible source of innovative interpretation and insight into the meaning of the Torah. According to
one tradition, he was considered to “outweigh all the sagesof Israel” (Avot 2:8). Relatively few traditions are preservedin his name in the tannaitic sources. To his teacher’s question, “Which is the good way to which a man should cleave?”
Eleazar answered, “A good heart,” a reply which, in R. Johanan’s opinion, embodied all those given by his other pupils(Avot. 2:9). In addition he is associated with two other aggadic
statements: the one “Be eager to study the Torah, and knowwhat you should answer to an unbeliever …” (Avot 2:14); andthe other that God humbled Himself by speaking to Mosesfrom the burning bush and not from some high mountainor elevated place (Mekh. Sby, to 3:5; cf. Mid. Ḥ ag. to Ex. 3:2).
Only two of his halakhic statements are cited in tannaitic
sources (Tosef. Ter. 5:15; TJ, Yev. 2:1, 3c, and parallel passages;
Sifra 2:8; Ḥ ul. 106a). According to two early traditions (Mech.
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6of Rabbi Shimon, 158–159; Tos. Ḥ ag. 2:1), Eleazar engaged, together with his teacher, in mystical speculation concerning theDivine Chariot (see *Merkabah Mysticism). While this story
may have an historical foundation, the literary figure of R.
Eleazar – the “overflowing spring” – may also have been usedhere by later story tellers to exemplify Ḥ ag. 2:1, which permits
mystical speculation only in the case of “a sage who understands by himself.” According to the Mech. of Rabbi Shimon,
R. Eleazar expounded the secrets of the Chariot “on the basisof his own understanding” until “a fire surrounded him” – asign of divine confirmation of his experience. The story as related by the Tosefta is a far more sober affair, involving a formof “scholastic” mysticism, which takes place wholly on theearthly plane, and which was strictly supervised by Rabban
Johanan. The Babylonian Talmud (following the lead of theJerusalem Talmud) combines and elaborates these two traditions, relating that while they were traveling together, Eleazar
asked R. Johanan to teach him the secrets of the Chariot, towhich the latter replied: “Have I not taught you that such
speculations may not be conveyed to an individual, unless heis a scholar who is able to think and speculate for himself?”
Having obtained R. Johanan’s permission, Eleazar began toexpound the subject, whereupon fire immediately descended
from heaven and enveloped all the trees in the field, whichbroke forth in song. R. Johanan then kissed his pupil and said:“Blessed be the Lord, God of Israel, who has granted our father
Abraham a descendant capable of understanding, inquiring
into, and expounding the Divine Chariot” (Ḥ ag. 14b). Later
traditions tell a story of his having followed his wife’s advice
to go to Emmaus instead of accompanying R. Johanan from
Jerusalem to Jabneh. As a result of his isolation he is reputed
to have forgotten his learning in Emmaus, “a place of bathhouses and luxury” (Shab. 147b; ARN 14:30; ARN2 29, 3; Eccl.
R. 7:7). It is likely, however, that these traditions, rather thanreflecting the historical truth of Rabbi Eleazar’s own life, reflect an attempt to explain the paucity of traditions preservedin his name despite the lavish praise bestowed upon him byhis teacher as recorded in Avot.
Bibliography: Geiger, in: JZWL, 9 (1871), 45–49; Bacher,Tann, 1 (19032), 69–72; Frankel, Mishnah, 95f.; Alon, Toledot, 1(19582), 63. Add. Bibliography: A. Goshen-Gottstein, The Sinner and the Amnesiac (2000); S. Wald, in: JSIJ (2006).
[Shmuel Safrai / Stephen G. Wald (2nd ed.)]ELEAZAR BEN AZARIAH (first–second century C.E.),
one of the sages of Jabneh. He was one of the most prominent
tannaim and is quoted dozens of times in the Mishnah, theTosefta, and the tannaitic Midrashim, his statements touchingon all areas of halakhah and aggadah. A priest, it is said that hecould trace his ancestry back ten generations to Ezra (TJ, Yev.
1:6, 3a–6). Like many prominent tannaim, events mentioned
briefly or in passing in the earlier sources were expanded andelaborated in the later talmudic literature. For example, Ben
Azzai mentions in three places (Zev. 1:3; Yad. 3:5; 4:2) “the daythat they seated R. Eleazar ben Azariah in the yeshivah.” The299

eleazar ben damma
Mishnah itself associates a series of important discussions anddecisions with “that day” (Yad. 4:1–4). “That day” afterwards
became the focus for a number of other important events
mentioned or hinted at in tannaitic literature. For example, onthat day the tractate Eduyyot was supposed to have been formulated (see however Epstein, Tanna’im, 422–4). “That day”
was associated with the stories surrounding the removal of*Rabban Gamaliel II from office. It is told that when Rabban
Gamaliel was deposed as nasi because of his autocratic behavior toward Joshua b. Hananiah, Eleazar was chosen to succeed
him. The selection was prompted not only by his aristocratic
lineage, but also by his great wealth, the nasi being required
to bear a considerable proportion of the expenses of his office (TJ, Ber. 4:1, 7d; ibid. 27–28a). When appointed nasi hewas, according to a tradition preserved in both Talmuds, only
about 18 years old, but a miracle was wrought for him and hishair turned gray (Ber. 28a). This legend probably originatedin Eleazar’s remark (Ber. 1:5), “I am about (like one who is) 70
years old,” which has been interpreted to mean that he merely
had the appearance of an old man (Ber. 28a). From elsewherein the Jerusalem Talmud (Ber. 1:9, 3d), it would seem that hemade this statement in his old age. It is told that on “the day”
he was appointed nasi, the college was thrown open to all who
wished to study, without restriction, contrary to the previous
ruling of Rabban Gamaliel that “No disciple whose true character does not correspond to his outer bearing may enter the
bet ha-midrash. On that day hundreds of benches were added
to the bet ha-midrash, and there was no halakhah about which
there was any doubt that was not elucidated” (see Ber. 28a).
After a reconciliation between the sages and Rabban Gamalieland his reinstatement as nasi, it was decided that they sharethe discourses on alternate Sabbaths with Eleazar’s known as“the Sabbath of Eleazar b. Azariah” (Ber. ibid.).
In another example, tannaitic literature tells of Eleazar
ben Azariah’s journey, together with Rabban Gamaliel andother sages, to Rome (Sif. Deut. 20:3; cf. Ma’as. Sh. 5:9; Er. 4:1).
In the later literature we hear many more details of their staythere, of their meetings with the members of the Jewish community, with the authorities, and with the emperor, and withprominent Romans who had been attracted to Judaism, of
their return voyage, and of Eleazar’s pilgrimage, together with
the nasi and the elders, to Jerusalem (Mak. 24a-b; et al.).
R. Eleazar was both a halakhist and an aggadist. A statement reported in the name of Judah ha-Nasi (or in that of his
contemporary Issi b. Judah) praises him as being “a basket of
spices” and “a spice-dealer’s basket,” i.e., carefully endeared byfragrant allusions to his vast, finely ordered learning, whichenabled him to answer with equal facility questions on Bible,
Mishnah, midrashic halakhah, or aggadah (ARN1 18:66; Git.
67a). Eleazar is the author of the observation that a Sanhedrin
which executes a person once in 70 years is to be branded amurderous tribunal (Mak. 1:10). His exegetical practice is similar to that of the school of R. *Ishmael in keeping with theview that “the words of the Bible are to be construed literally”(Kid. 17b) and that no special significance is to be attached to

ELEAZAR BEN DAMMA (early second century C.E.), tanna.
Eleazar is mentioned in two places in the early tannaitic
sources, both in connection with R. *Ishmael. In Tosefta
Shevuot 3:4 Ben Damma asked R. Ishmael a question concerning a halakhah, who in responding called him “My son!”In Tosef. Ḥ ul. 2:22–23 it is told that “R. Eleazar Ben Damma
was bitten by a snake and Jacob of Kefar Sama came to heal
him in the name of Jesus b. Pandira. Ishmael said to him, ‘itis forbidden, Ben Damma.’ He rejoined ‘I will cite a verse toprove that he may heal me,’ but he did not manage to prove
it before he died. Whereupon Ishmael said: ‘Happy art thou,
Ben Damma, that thou hast departed from this world inpeace and hast not transgressed the words of the sages’” (cf.
TJ, Av. Zar. 2:2, 40d). A later Midrash (Koh. R. 1) retells thestory from the Tosefta, but refers to Ben Damma as R. Ishmael’s nephew, a detail lacking in the earlier tradition. He issimilarly described as R. Ishmael’s nephew in the Babylonian
Talmud Ber. 56b, where he asked his “uncle” to interpret his
dream for him. This elaboration of earlier stories, including

300

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

the duplication of verbs in the infinitive construct since “theBible speaks in the language of human beings” (BM 31b). He
is thus at variance with the school of R. *Akiva, which felt thatsuch duplications of the verb required an halakhic interpretation. At times Eleazar explicitly controverts the exegeticalprinciples of Akiva (Sifra 7:12 et al.).
He was famous for his aggadic comments. After hearing
one of R. Eleazar’s aggadic interpretations of scripture, Joshua
said, “The generation in which Eleazar b. Azariah lives is notforsaken” (Tosef., Sot. 7:12). In his aggadic interpretations hemakes frequent use of two exegetical principles: the juxtaposition of biblical texts semukhin and the argument a fortiori(kal va-ḥ omer). On the significance of the Day of Atonement
he declared: “The Day of Atonement can bring forgivenessfor transgressions between man and the Almighty, but notfor transgressions between one man and another until theone has obtained the other’s pardon” (Yoma 8:9). And again,“Where there is no Torah, there is no right conduct” (Avot
3:17). He also said: “A man should not say, ‘I have no desire
to eat pig’s flesh’ … but rather, ‘I would like to do so, but how
can I, seeing that God has prohibited it?’” (Sifra 11:22). Eleazar’s wealth was proverbial, and it was said that “whoever sees
Eleazar b. Azariah in a dream can expect riches” (Ber. 57b).
He survived Rabban Gamaliel and was apparently alive at
the time of the Jewish revolt under Trajan (115–117), although
not at the outbreak of the Bar Kokhba revolt (131). When R.
Eleazar b. Azariah died, it was stated “the crowns of wisdom
have departed” (Sot. 49b).
Bibliography: J. Bruell, Mevo ha-Mishnah, 1 (1876), 88–91;
Derenbourg, in: MGWJ, 37 (1893), 395–8; Bacher, Tann, 1 (19032),
212–32; Weiss, Dor, 2 (19044), 85–91; Graetz, Gesch, 4 (19084), 35ff.;
Frankel, Mishnah, 96–99; Hyman, Toledot, 186–91; L. Ginzberg, Perushim ve-Ḥ iddushim ba-Yerushalmi, 3 (1941), 168–220; Alon, Toledot,
1 (19582), 368 (index); 2 (19612), 273 (index); S. Lieberman, Tosefta kiFeshutah, 5 (1962), 1162.
[Shmuel Safrai]eleazar ben Ḥ arsom
the filling in of the family ties between earlier talmudic figures, is characteristic of the later talmudic tradition, especiallythe Babylonian Talmud. The Babylonian Talmud also tells of
his inclination toward Greek culture, as reflected in the following passage: “Ben Damma, son of Ishmael’s sister, once
asked Ishmael, ‘May such as I who have studied the whole of
the Torah study Greek wisdom?’ Ishmael thereupon read tohim the verse, ‘This book of the law shall not depart from thy
mouth, but thou shalt meditate therein day and night’ (Josh.
1:8) and added, ‘Go then and find a time that is neither day
nor night’” (Men. 99b). His name is cited in Heikhalot Rabbati,
4, as one of those arrested by the Romans, but it appears thatthe reference is to Judah b. Damma, one of the *Ten Martyrs
enumerated in the Elleh Ezkerah published by Jellinek (Beitha-Midrash, 2 (19673), 64).
Bibliography: Hyman, Toledot, 161.
[Jehonatan Etz-Chaim]

ELEAZAR BEN DINAI (c. second half of the first century
C.E.), Zealot leader. Josephus relates that for 20 years he ravaged Judea until, by ruse, he was captured by the procurator
Felix (53–60) and sent to Rome. He is first mentioned in the
period of the procurator Fadus (44–46) in connection withthe conflict in the Philadelphia (Rabbath Ammon) area ofTransjordan between the Jews and their neighbors, some ofwhom were killed. Subsequently Eleazar was arrested together
with the other Jewish leaders and was banished. In the quarrel between the Jews and Samaritans arising from the murder of a Galilean pilgrim during the procuratorship of Cumanus Ventidius (48–52), the Jews called upon Eleazar, who hadtaken refuge in the mountains for some years, to assist themin taking vengeance. In the Mishnah, Eleazar is mentioned
as a murderer in whose time the incidence of open murder
greatly increased, leading to the discontinuation of the *Eglah
Arufah ceremony for an unsolved murder (see Deut. 21:1–9;
Sot. 9:9), and he is mentioned elsewhere as one of those whosought to hasten the advent of the Messiah but failed (Song R.
2:7). Some are of the opinion that at first his deeds were wellintentioned but in the course of time he accustomed himself
to acts of violence. It is almost certain that he was executed
after being brought to Rome.

great poets of the Spanish era, and it is possible perhaps thatsome of the poems of his time, signed “Eleazar ha-Kohen,”should be ascribed to him.
Bibliography: A. Scheiber, in: Sinai, 35 (1954), 183–6; idem,
in: Sefer Ḥ ayyim Schirman (1970), 393–4; Ḥ . Schirmann, ShirimḤ adashim min ha-Genizah (1965), 106–16.
[Abraham David]

ELEAZAR BEN HANANIAH BEN HEZEKIAH (lived
shortly before the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E.), tanna.
His full name was Eleazar b. Hananiah b. Hezekiah b. Garon.
He is quoted in Sifre Deut. 294, and Mech. Baḥ odesh 7, his
position in this latter source appearing elsewhere in the nameof Shammai. In *Megillat Ta’anit it is stated (p. 351) that “thegroup of Eleazar (Eliezer) b. Hananiah b. Hezekiah b. Garonwrote Megillat Ta’anit.” In the Talmud (Shab. 13b), however, thecompilation of Megillat Ta’anit is ascribed to “Hananiah b. Hezekiah and his companions” (see: Noam, 29–31). Graetz, who
adopted the reading of Eleazar b. Hananiah in Shabbat, identified him with the Eleazar b. Hananiah mentioned by Josephus
as a leader of the Zealots in the rebellion against Rome, but hisview has not found wide acceptance (Noam, 335–36).
Bibliography: Hyman, Toledot, 176. Add. Bibliography: V. Noam, Megillat Ta’anit (2003).
[Stephen G. Wald (2nd ed.)]ELEAZAR BEN Ḥ ALFON HAKOHEN (12t–13t century), Hebrew poet. Eleazar lived apparently in an Oriental country. About 15 poems from his divan survived in the
Cairo *Genizah, where his name usually appears as “Eleazar”
or “Eleazar ha-Kohen,” but in one, as “Eleazar ben Ḥ alfon
ha-Kohen.” One of the poems is a panegyric to *Maimonides
composed apparently during the latter’s lifetime. Eleazar, who
seems to have been among the best of the Oriental Hebrew
paytanim, adopted the Sephardi style of piyyut in its fullest
detail. Many of his piyyutim were attributed by copyists to the

ELEAZAR BEN Ḥ ARSOM, in the aggadah described as apriest and a scholar. No mention is made of him in the extant
tannaitic sources. In one place in the Jerusalem Talmud (Ta’an.
4:8, 69a; cf. Lam. R. 2:2) it is stated that “there were 10,000 cities on the king’s mountain; Eleazar b. Ḥ arsom owned 1,000 ofthem, and corresponding to them he owned 1,000 ships on
the sea, and all were destroyed.” It would seem from the context that they were destroyed during the Bar Kokhba revolt.
In another place (Yoma 3:6, 40d) the Jerusalem Talmud relates
that “his mother made him a tunic worth 20,000 minas andhis brother priests would not allow him to wear it because [itwas transparent and] he looked as though he were naked.” In
the Babylonian Talmud (Yoma 35b) these two traditions about
his wealth are joined together, and integrated with an image ofEleazar b. Ḥ arsom as a wandering scholar, who took a sack offlour upon his shoulder and went from city to city and fromprovince to province to study Torah. The moral of the story
is stated explicitly at the end: “Eleazar b. Ḥ arsom condemns
the rich” who will not be able to justify their neglect of learning on the plea that the cares of their wealth prevented themfrom devoting themselves to study. In Kid. 49b he has turned
into the very epitome of the wealthy man: “[If one betroths awoman] on the condition that he is wealthy, it is not necessary that he be as wealthy as Eleazar b. Ḥ arsom.” His status
as a priest is elaborated further in Yoma 9a, where – according to one alternative tradition – he is accorded the rank ofHigh Priest during the time of the Second Temple. In the listof martyrs given in Lamentations Rabbah (2:2) it says “…there
are some who exclude Tarfon and include Eleazar b. Ḥ arsom,”

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6301

Bibliography: Jos., Ant., 20:2–4, 121, 161; Jos., Wars, 2:235,
253; Klausner, Bayit Sheni, 5 (1963), 15–17.
[Lea Roth]eleazar ben jacob ha-bavli
but his name is not included in the other lists (Mid. Ps. to 9;
Piyyutei Yannai, ed. by M. Zulay (1938), 374). It is obvious that
all these different traditions cannot refer to the same historical figure, nor is it likely that a high priest would be identified as a scholar with the title “rabbi.” Rather, each tradition
must be seen as reflecting the narrative and moralistic concerns of each storyteller and each editor as determined by the
specific context.
Bibliography: Hyman, Toledot, 176–7; Klausner, Bayit
Sheni, 5 (1951), 21.
[Stephen G. Wald (2nd ed.)]ELEAZAR BEN JACOB HABAVLI (c. 1195–1250), Hebrew
poet of Baghdad. Eleazar seems to have been a sort of housepoet for the well-to-do Jewish families of Iraq. He represents
himself as a disciple of Moses ben Sheshet al-Andalusi, who
introduced him to the techniques of Andalusian poetry. He
was probably the first young Oriental poet met by Judah *AlḤ arizi in his travels to the East, although he did not get a very
positive evaluation. Some of Eleazar’s poems were extant invarious manuscript collections and in Oriental maḥ zorim andattracted the attention of 19t-century scholars (L. Dukes, A.
Neubauer, E.N. Adler, S. Poznanski). It was only with the discovery of one of the manuscripts of his dīwān, which comprised 281 poems, by Elkan N. *Adler in Aleppo in 1898 (Jewish
Theological Seminary, New York, Ms. ENA 881), and its publication by H. *Brody (1935) that he emerged as one of the great
poets of the eastern Diaspora. Thanks to other manuscripts
from the Firkovitch collection of St. Petersburg and from otherlibraries, Y. Yahalom has been able to reproduce the possible
original structure of Eleazar’s dīwān, which contained morethan 400 poems. Many of them are given over to praises andthe familiar events of the notable Jews of the Iraqi community:
births, circumcisions, weddings, and deaths of the families ofhis benefactors. Others are epigrams on secular subjects or
short poems of didactic nature. He also wrote some Arabic
poems, with his own Hebrew translation, and even verses witha mixture of both languages. While the dīwān contains mainly
secular poetry, subsequent discoveries have brought to lightabout 50 of his religious poems. Nineteen such poems were
published by S. *Bernstein; by a comparison of style and thehelp of acrostics, D. Jarden identified some more religious poems. They have the characteristics of the classical piyyut andsome of the Andalusian innovations.
In addition to its importance to poetry, the dīwān is ahistorical source of utmost significance for the history of Iraqi
Jews during the 13t century. It provides a glimpse into thewealthy and highly educated leading Jewish families in Baghdad, Basra, Mosul, Wasit, Hilla, and other places in Iraq. The
dīwān is replete with the names (more than 400) of not only
the contemporary geonim but also of eminent Jewish personalities, among them physicians, scholars, astronomers, administrators, keepers of the mint, and other state dignitaries
in the service of the Abbasid caliphate in its declining years.
The high-sounding titles of the Jewish notabilities indicate

302

the social level and the great role played by them both in thecommunity and in state and society. With the help of Arabchronicles, particularly of Ibn al-Fuwati, these personalities
can be identified in their historical perspective.
Eleazar ha-Bavli also interested himself in the theory of
Hebrew poetry and composed a book for teaching this theory to his Jewish audience. Substantial remnants of this work,
written in Judeo-Arabic, have survived (published and translated into Hebrew by Yahalom, 2001). He studied 13 kinds ofmeter, the rhyme, the mistakes and deficiencies of the poets, and the figures of speech, following Arabic models. His
method of studying Hebrew poetry was very different fromthat of his predecessor Moses *Ibn Ezra in his Shirat Yisrael.
The situation in which Eleazar wrote was quite dissimilar, andhis main goal was probably to encourage the Jews of the East
to compose Hebrew poetry in consonance with Arabic poetics, reproducing the opinions of similar Arabic books and offering many examples taken from his own secular and liturgical poetic production.
Bibliography: E.N. Adler, in: JQR, 11 (1898/99), 682–7; idem,
in: Livre d’hommage… S. Poznanski (1927), 22–24 (Eng.); Mann, Texts,
1 (1931), 263–305; H. Brody, Divan Koveẓ Shirei Rabbi Eleazar ben
Ya’akov ha-Bavli (1935); S.H. Kook, in: KS, 13 (1936/37), 12–13 (also in
his Iyyunim u-Meḥ karim, 2 (1963), 194–7); W.J. Fischel, in: Tarbiz, 8(1936/37), 233–6; idem, Jews in the Economic and Political Life of Mediaeval Islam (19692), 127–34; S. Bernstein, in: Sinai, 18 (1946), 8–34;
N.H. Torczyner (Tur-Sinai), in: Leshonenu, 11 (1941), 269–83 (also in
his Ha-Lashon ve-ha-Sefer, 3 (1955), 366–80); D. Jarden, in: Tarbiz,
26 (1956/57), 317–27; idem, in: HUCA, 33 (1962), 1–26; idem, Sefunei Shirah (1967), 54–96; A. Ben-Jacob, Yehudei Bavel (1965), 32–43;
Abramson, in: Perakim, 1 (1968), 9–28. Add. Bibliography: D.
Yarden (ed.), Shirim Ḥ adashim le-Rabbi Eleazar ben Ya’akov ha-Bavli(1984); Y. Yahalom, Perakim be-Torat ha-Shir le-Eleazar ben Ya‘akov
ha-Bavli: Makor Arvi-Yehudi ve-Targum Ivri (2001); idem, in: Hispania Judaica Bulletin, 4 (2004), 5–21; W. van Bekkum, in: Ben Ever
la-Arav, 2 (2001), xxiii–xl.
[Walter Joseph Fischel / Angel Sáenz-Badillos (2nd ed.)]ELEAZAR BEN JAIR (first cent. C.E.), chief of the Sicarii who captured the fortress of *Masada at the beginning of
the Roman war (Jos., Wars, 2:447; 7:275ff.). Eleazar was commander of the besieged fortress from 66 until its fall in 73. According to Josephus he was a descendant of *Judah the Galilean, to whom the founding of the “fourth philosophy” (see*Sicarii) is attributed, though some identify him with Judahb. Hezekiah who, after Herod’s death, raised the standard ofrevolt in Galilee and captured Sepphoris. Apparently Eleazar
already had a connection with Masada in the time of *Menahem b. Judah, when he captured it and used the arms that
he obtained there for the siege of Jerusalem. Josephus designates Eleazar, “head of the Sicarii … a valiant man,” and ascribes to him a speech made to the defenders of Masada after
the breach of its walls, first before a handful of fighters andafterward before all the besieged. This speech was possibly reconstructed from what Josephus heard from the woman belonging to Eleazar’s family who escaped at Masada by hiding
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

eleazar ben judah of worms
herself in the cistern there; although it has also been pointed
out that the ascription of heroic speeches to the heroes of history was a literary device that characterized ancient historiography. These passages are the only sources where Eleazaris mentioned explicitly, and since Josephus is the only source
for the final battle of Masada and the last days of the fighters,
it should be treated with caution.
The image of Eleazar which emerges is not only multifaceted but contradictory. His colorful character made it difficult for Josephus to give a uniform or complete picture.
He never fails to stress that Eleazar was one of the Sicarii,of whom he continually gives an unfavorable opinion. Yet,at the same time, when he comes to describe in detail thestand of Masada and its fall, he does not refrain from praising Eleazar. Doubts have been cast upon the reliability of Josephus’ story of Masada. It has been argued (Ladouceur, but
see comments by Rajak) that Eleazar’s speech was written toact as a balance to Josephus’ own opinions about self-inflicted
death (Wars, 3:362–382). Nevertheless, the archaeological excavations at Masada – directed by Y. Yadin – even if they havenot produced factual epigraphic testimony of what happened
there, do not contradict the narrative. The many traces of fire
throughout the whole area of the fortress are a small part of themute testimony to the end of Masada. But the most remarkable part of the excavation was the discovery of 11 small sherds
upon which names and appellations were marked (among
them: “Ben ha-Naḥ tom,” “ha-Amki,” “Yo’av,” “Ben Ya’ir,” etc.).
These 11 ostraka have been tenuously connected by Yadin withthe statement by Josephus (Wars, 7:395f.): “then, having chosen by lot ten of their number to despatch the rest … these,
having unswervingly slaughtered all, ordained the same ruleof the lot for one another, that he on whom it fell should slay
first the nine and then himself last of all.” The sherd bearing
the name “Ben Ya’ir” strengthens the picture, unique of its
kind, of Eleazar ben Jair.

quote him are R. Simeon b. Gamaliel (Or. 1:4) and R. Simeon
b. Yoḥ ai (Tosef., Zav. 1:5). The Talmud (Shab. 32b) ascribes to
R. Eleazar ben Judah (without the additional designation “ofBartota”) a statement warning about the penalties for neglecting to separate ḥ allah.
The importance which Eleazar accorded to charity is reflected in his maxim quoted in Avot (3:7). “Render unto Him
what is His, for thou and what thou hast are His, as David has
said (I Chron. 29:14), ‘For all things come of Thee, and of Thineown have we given to Thee.’ ” In keeping with this maxim, theBabylonian Talmud describes him as excessively generous,
which was a source of embarrassment even to the collectorsof charity. The Talmud relates (Ta’an. 24a) that on one occasion, when he was on his way to purchase a trousseau for his
daughter, the collectors tried to avoid him, knowing that hewould give them more than he could afford. Eleazar, however,ran after them and, discovering that they were collecting to
make possible the marriage of two orphans, he gave them all
he had, leaving himself only one zuz. With this, he bought asmall quantity of grain which he deposited in the granary.
Miraculously, it multiplied to fill the granary to the bursting
point; but when told of this by his daughter, Eleazar insisted
that this, too, be consecrated to charity.
Bibliography: Bacher, Tann; Hyman, Toledot, 177.
[Jehonatan Etz-Chaim]

ELEAZAR BEN JUDAH OF BARTOTA (first half of thesecond century C.E.), tanna. His cognomen is derived froma place Bartota, whose exact locality is unknown. It appears
that Eleazar studied under R. *Joshua for, on the authority of the latter’s teachings, he challenges those of R. Akiva(Tosef., Bek. 7:6; cf. Tev. Yom 3:4–5). Among the sages who

ELEAZAR BEN JUDAH OF WORMS (c. 1165–c. 1230),
scholar in the fields of halakhah, theology, and exegesis inmedieval Germany. Eleazar was the last major scholar of theḤ asidei Ashkenaz movement (see *Ḥ asidei Ashkenaz). Bornin Mainz, he traveled and studied in many of the centers oflearning in Germany and northern France. He spent most of
his life in Worms. Eleazar was a member of the *Kalonymus
family, one of the most important German-Jewish families ofthat period. His father *Judah b. Kalonymus, one of the leading scholars of his generation, taught his son both halakhah
and esoteric theology. *Judah b. Samuel, he-Ḥ asid (“the Pious”), the leading figure in the Ḥ asidei Ashkenaz movement,
to whom Eleazar was related, was, however, his main teacher
in the latter field and R. Moses ha-Kohen and R. Eliezer ofMetz were his most prominent teachers in halakhah. Eleazar
witnessed and suffered personally from the new outburst of
persecution of the Jews by the Crusaders at the end of the
12t and the beginning of the 13t century. On a number ofoccasions in his commentary on the prayers, one of his major works, he noted the events that befell Worms, especiallyduring the persecutions that followed the fall of Jerusalem to
Saladin. In one of these persecutions, Eleazar’s wife, daughter,and son were murdered, and he was severely injured. Eleazar’s
wife was very active in the religious and cultural life of her
community. It is reported that she led the women in prayer
and even gave public lectures to the women on the Sabbath.
This tragedy was described by him in detail both in a story andin a poem. His personal loss and the catastrophic situation in
the Jewish communities in Germany explain his pessimistic

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

303

Bibliography: Klausner, Bayit Sheni, 5 (19512), 148, 287–9; S.
Zeitlin, in: JQR, 55 (1964/65), 299–317; 57 (1966/67), 251–70; Y. Yadin,
Masada (1968). Add. Bibliography: D.J. Ladouceur, “Masada: A
Consideration of the Literary Evidence,” in: Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies, 21 (1980), 246–47; S.J.D. Cohen, “Masada: Literary Tradition, Archaeological Remains and the Credibility of Josephus,” in:
JJS, 33 (1982), 385–405; T. Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and his Society (1983), 220; M. Stern, Studies in Jewish History: The Second Temple
Period (1991), 313–43; D. Flusser, “The Dead of Masada in the Eyesof their Contemporaries,” in: I. Gaphni et al. (eds.), Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple, Mishna and Talmud Period (1993), 116–46;
T. Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity. Part I. Palestine
330 B.C.E.–200 C.E. (2002), 65.
[Abraham Lebanon]eleazar ben judah of worms
outlook concerning the prospects of German Jewry. He feltthat the German Jewry of his time was but a small remnant
after the disasters of 1096 and the following years, and that
this remnant was continually diminishing. He expressed thisfeeling in his introduction to the Sefer ha-Hokhmah (“Book of
Wisdom”), which was written in 1217 after the death of Judahthe Pious. He explained in this introduction that he felt compelled to put his knowledge into writing, since oral tradition
was about to die out because of the deteriorating situation inGermany.
His works may be divided into five categories: halakhah,liturgical poetry (piyyutim), theology, ethics, and exegesis.
Eleazar’s halakhic book Sefer ha-Roke’aḥ (Fano, 1505; reissued
several times) followed the tradition of halakhic works of thetosafists of northern France and Germany. The book was intended to educate the common reader in the details of halakhic law. Therefore, the author did not discuss at length exegetical studies of the talmudic passages, but rather explained
the law and its talmudic basis. Unlike other halakhic works
written by the tosafists, Eleazar also includes recommended
minhagim in his work, material which is not strictly halakhic.
He drew extensively on the writings of his German predecessors and quoted more than 40 scholars.
Eleazar wrote many piyyutim. However, a reliable recordof them has not yet been compiled. Many of his piyyutim were
attributed to other writers (also named Eleazar), and some attributed to him were probably written by other writers. His
poems, written in the then-current Ashkenazi tradition, express devotion to, and worship of, God. At the same time, theyprotest to God because of Israel’s sufferings, and express hopefor Israel’s redemption and revenge on her tormentors.
His major theological work was Sodei Razayya (“Secretsof Secrets”). Four parts of this work were printed, althoughmost of what is extant is found only in manuscripts. The firstpart, a study of the creation (Sod Ma’aseh Bereshit), describes
how the earth, stars, elements, etc., were created. Eleazar wrote
this part of his work as an exegesis based on the 22 letters ofthe Hebrew alphabet. This was in accordance with his belief(derived from Sefer *Yezirah) that the alphabet, the word ofGod, was the source of existence. Eleazar included in this part
ancient material from the Heikhalot and *Merkabah literatureespecially the Baraita de-Ma’aseh Bereshit and Shi’ur Komah.
More than half of this part, the introduction and the letters
Alef to Nun, was included in the Sefer *Razi’el (Amsterdam,
1701). The second part of the work, Sod ha-Merkavah (“Secret of the Divine Chariot”), deals with the secrets of the angels, the Holy Throne, the Chariot, the Divine Voice which
speaks to the prophets, the Divine Glory revealed to them,and the ways of revelation and prophecy in general. Eleazar
made use here of the teachings of *Saadiah Gaon, but also included long quotations from Heikhalot literature. Most of thispart was printed by I. Kamelhar as Sodei Razayya (1936). The
third and largest part Sefer ha-Shem (“The Book of the HolyName”) contains very little theological discussion; most of itis devoted to a systematic exegesis of the names of God, using

all the exegetical and homiletical methods which were used by
the Ḥ asidim. Eleazar defined three layers in God’s manifestation: (a) the Shekhinah or Kavod, which has shape and form
so it may be seen by prophets, (b) the Borei, which has a faintshape, hears prayers, and performs miracles and wonders, (c)El Elyon, which has no shape or form. The fourth part is a treatise on psychology, Ḥ okhmat ha-Nefesh (Lemberg, 1876). The
main problem analyzed is the various ways by which a connection is established between the soul and the divine world.
Parts of this work discuss other problems, e.g., the meaningof dreams, the fate of the soul after death, etc. The fifth andlast part of the work is a commentary on Sefer Yeẓ irah (Przemysl, 1883) and contains detailed instructions for the creationof a *golem. Eleazar wrote one other important theologicalwork, Sefer ha-Ḥ okhmah, in which he described the various
fields of theological study, as well as the methods used in thisstudy. A major part of this work is concerned with exegesisof Holy Names.
Eleazar’s main contribution to Ḥ asidei Ashkenaz ethicalliterature is contained in the first two chapters of Roke’aḥ . In
the first he discusses the central values of this Ḥ asidism (loveand fear of God, prayer, humility, etc.). In the second, he describes in detail the ways of repentance. A discussion of thevalue of ḥ asidic ethics is also found in Eleazar’s introduction
to Sodei Razayya.
Eleazar wrote many exegetical works, some of whichhave yet to be printed, and probably quite a few are now lost.
His short commentary on the Torah, another on the Passover
Haggadah, and a few short commentaries on various piyyutim(e.g., Ha-Adderet ve-ha-Emunah and Ha-Oḥ ez ba-Yad) are extant. Eleazar’s biblical commentaries have recently been published with annotations (Bene-Berak, 1985, 1988, and 2001;
Los Angeles, 2004). *Abraham b. Azriel, his pupil who wrote
the Arugat ha-Bosem, used his teacher’s exegetical works extensively. Eleazar’s major work in this field, extant in several
manuscripts (Vienna 108, Oxford 1204), is the commentaryon the prayers. In this work, he comments on every part of
the usual and special prayers. He uses three methods in his
commentary: explanation of the content; theological interpretation; and research for its hidden harmony with other partsof sacred literature by use of gematriot. This important work
was edited and published by Hershler (2 vols., Jerusalem 1992).
Dozens of other short treatises by him or attributed to him
are scattered through manuscript libraries, and no exhaustive
bibliographical study has yet been made which could describe
the vast variety of his work. It seems that not one of Eleazar’s
pupils was able to continue his work, especially in the fieldof esoteric theology. His best-known disciples, Abraham b.
Azriel and *Isaac of Vienna, dedicated their literary efforts
to other fields.
In common with other Ḥ asidei Ashkenaz, Eleazar became a legendary hero. According to a 13t-century story,
Eleazar used a cloud to travel from place to place, especiallywhen going to far-away circumcision ceremonies. As a pietist,
his writings reflect a shift in emphasis away from the social-

304

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

eleazar ben partareligious programs of Judah b. Samuel he-Ḥ asid to a more
personalized, individual pietism. He was regarded as one of
the early sages of secret lore, and in later centuries many ideas
and works were attributed to him.
Bibliography: I. Kamelhar, Rabbeinu Eleazar mi-Germaiza(1930); Urbach, Tosafot, 321–41; idem (ed.), Arugat ha-Bosem, 4(1963), 100–16; V. Aptowitzer, Mavo le-Sefer Ravyah (1938), 316–18;
Scholem, Mysticism, 80–118; idem, Ursprung und Anfaenge der Kabbala (1962), passim; idem, On the Kabbalah and its Symbolism (1965),
171–93; idem, Von der mystischen Gestalt der Gottheit (1962), 259–65;
A. Altmann, in: JJS, 11 (1960), 101–13; J. Dan, in: Zion, 29 (1964),
168–81; idem, in: KS, 41 (1965/66), 533–44. Add. Bibliography:
J. Dan, Jewish Mysticism, vol. 2 (1999); A. Kurt, in: Jewish Studies ina New Europe (1994), 462–71; E. Wolfson, in: JQR, 84:1 (1993), 43–77;
L. Jacobs, Jewish Mystical Testimonies (1977); D. Abrams, in: Daat, 34(1934), 61–81; idem, in: Jewish Studies Quarterly, 5 (1998) 329–45; I.
Marcus, Piety and Society: The Jewish Pietists of Medieval Germany(1981); idem, in: History of Jewish Spirituality (1986), 356–66; A. Farber-Ginat and D. Abrams, Perushei ha-Merkavah le-Rabbi Eleazar
mi-Worms u-le-Rabbi Ya’akov ben Ya’akov ha-Kohen (2004).
[Joseph Dan]ELEAZAR BEN MATTATHIAS (2nd century B.C.E.), Hasmonean; the fourth of *Mattathias’ sons (I Macc. 2:2–5). He
was nicknamed Auran (Αυραν; ibid. 2:5) which in the original
source may have been written with a ḥ – i.e., Ḥ auran (as in
Syriac) – or with an ayin – i.e., Auran. Some see his nickname
as derived from ḥ or (“a hole”), with reference to his piercing the body of an elephant (see below), overlooking the factthat the name was accorded him during his lifetime. Othersuggestions are equally unsatisfactory. Little is known of hisrole in the war of the Hasmoneans. In II Maccabees 8:23 it isstated that Judah appointed Eleazar to command part of thearmy, but the reading there should perhaps be Ezra insteadof Eleazar. During the Syrian attack in the battle of Bet Zekharyah in 163 B.C.E., Eleazar broke through the Syrian ranks
to reach an elephant on which he thought the king was riding.
Thrusting his spear into its belly, he killed the beast, which fell
on him and crushed him to death (I Macc. 6:43–46).

discussed their weight and concluded that the weight of eachstone was 40 se’ah (Tosef., Sot. 8:6). Among his statementsare (Tosef., Shevu. 3:4): “No man has the misfortune to hear[a curse] unless he has sinned … he who sees transgressors,
deserved to see them; who sees pious persons, has merited tosee them,” and “If my father asks me for a drink of water andat the same time there is a precept to perform, I must neglect
the honor due to my father and perform the precept. For the
duty of observing the precept lies both upon my father andmyself ” (Kid. 32a).
141.

Bibliography: Hyman, Toledot, s.v.; Frankel, Mishnah,[Yitzhak Dov Gilat]

ELEAZAR BEN MOSES HADARSHAN OF WUERZBURG (mid-13t century), one of the later writers of the*Hasidei Ashkenaz from the school of *Judah b. Samuel heḤ asid and *Eleazar of Worms. His father Moses was Judah’s
brother-in-law. None of his writings has been published. Twoof his works, however, are found in manuscripts: a commentary on Sefer *Yeẓ irah, cited by Abraham *Abulafia, the 13tcentury kabbalist, and parts of his commentary on the Torah,which uses mainly the system of gematria and is known as
Sefer ha-Gematriyyot. Probably portions of his other works
are scattered in 13t-century Ashkenazi exegetical literature,and many quotations are found in the writings of later scholars, e.g., his son Moses b. Eleazar.
Bibliography: M. Szulwas: in: Alummah, 1 (1936), 152–3;
Kitvei A. Epstein, 1 (1950), 213–44; J. Freimann, Sefer Ḥ asidim (19242),
3 (introd.); Urbach, Tosafot, 445; G. Scholem, Reshit ha-Kabbalah(1948), 204–5.
[Joseph Dan]ELEAZAR BEN MATYA (first half of the second century
C.E.), tanna. Eleazar was one of the most important of thestudents of Jabneh (TJ, Shek. 5:1, 48a), and was apparently apupil of *Tarfon (Tosef., Ber. 4:16). *Ben Azzai, *Ben Zoma,
Ḥ anina b. Ḥ akhinai, and Simeon ha-Teimani were his fellow
students. He is mentioned as one of the four scholars of theSanhedrin of Jabneh who “understood 70 languages” (TJ, Shek.
5:1, 48a). In general his halakhic and aggadic statements are
based upon the interpretation of scriptural verses. This system
was recognized by the amoraim, and Rav remarked about oneof his halakhic interpretations given in the Mishnah: “Eleazar
could have produced a pearl but he has produced a potsherd”(Yev. 94a). It is related of him that, together with Abba Ḥ alafta
and Ḥ anina b. Ḥ akhinai, he stood upon the 12 stones takenfrom the Jordan and erected in Gilgal by Joshua (Josh. 4). They

ELEAZAR BEN PARTA (c. early 2nd century C.E.), tanna.
He is mentioned only once in the Mishnah (Git. 3:4), and fourtimes in the Tosefta. In one of his homilies, he warns against
evil speech by pointing out that if the spies (Num. 12) who
spoke evil only of trees and stones (ibid. 13:32) “died by theplague before the Lord” (ibid. 14:37), how much greater must
be the punishment of the one who speaks evil of his neighbor(Tosef., Ar. 2:11; Ar. 15a).
In the Babylonian Talmud he is described as one of thesages arrested by the Romans for the capital offense of contravening Hadrian’s decree forbidding the public teaching of
Torah and observance of the commandments. While in prison,he tried to comfort Hananiah b. Teradyon, a fellow prisoner,by pointing out that while the latter only faced one charge,
he himself faced five and was therefore certainly doomed.
Hananiah, however, replied that for this very reason Eleazar
was more worthy of Divine salvation. Hananiah’s tragic deathand Eleazar’s miraculous deliverance proved the truth of thesewords (Av. Zar. 17b).
In a late Midrash (Num. R. 23:1), Eleazar shows his ability to deduce practical lessons from scriptural texts. In reply
to the query of some prominent coreligionists of Sepphoris

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6305[Uriel Rappaport]

eleazar ben pedat
as to the legality of flight from their Roman persecutors on
the Sabbath, Eleazar, not wishing to commit himself by giving
them a direct answer, said: “Why do you ask me? Go and ask
Jacob, Moses, and David,” and referred them to biblical verses
which mention distinguished leaders who had fled.
Bibliography: Hyman, Toledot, 200f.; Bacher, Tann.
[Jehonatan Etz-Chaim]

ELEAZAR (in TJ usually Lazar) BEN PEDAT (d. 279), third
century amora. He is the amora Eleazar mentioned without apatronymic. Scion of a priestly family (MK 28a), Eleazar wasborn in Babylon (Ber. 2:1, 4b). There he studied under *Samuel (Er. 66a), and more particularly under *Rav (Hul. 111b).
After the latter’s death, he migrated to Ereẓ Israel. It was in
Ereẓ Israel that he referred to the academy of Rav as the “little sanctuary” (Meg. 29a; cf. Ezek. 11:16). He was still unmarried when he went to Ereẓ Israel, and R. Ammi and R. Assi
participated at his wedding in Tiberias (Ber. 16a). He emphasizes his great fortune in having had the privilege to migrate
to Ereẓ Israel and resume semikhah there, as well as being
one of the scholars who was entrusted with the intercalationof the calendar (Kil. 112a). In Ereẓ Israel he studied underḤ anina, the av bet din of Sepphoris (Kil. 9:4, 32c). He quoted
so many halakhic decisions and even more aggadic sayingsin Ḥ anina’s name (Ber. 27b; Meg. 5a; et al.) that the Talmud
remarks, “Everywhere Eleazar relies upon Ḥ anina” (Ter. 8:5,
45c; et al.). In Caesarea, he studied under Hoshaya Rabbah(Ber. 32b), whom he refers to as the “father of the Mishnah”(Kid. 1:3, 60a; et al.). The Jerusalem Talmud also frequently
cites traditions transmitted by Eleazar in the name of *Ḥ iyya
b. Abba (BM 10:4, 12c), and in one instance even states that theopinions of the two scholars cannot be regarded as those of
separate people since “Eleazar is the pupil of Ḥ iyya Rabbah”(Kid. 1:4, 60b). It cannot mean that he was his actual disciple,
since Ḥ iyya had probably died by the time Eleazar migrated
to Ereẓ Israel. The intensity of Eleazar’s study often made him
oblivious to all worldly events (Er. 54b).
Although the Babylonian Talmud describes Eleazar as
Johanan’s “pupil” in Tiberias (BB 135b; Tem. 25b), the Jerusalem sources see the relationship rather as that of a typical“pupil-associate” (TJ, Sanh. 1, 18b; cf. TJ, Ber. 2:4b). Moreover,the phrase “both Johanan and Eleazar say,” is often found in
the Babylonian Talmud itself (Yoma 9b, et al.). Eleazar was,in fact, appointed Johanan’s associate in the leadership of thecouncil after the death of Simeon b. Lakish, Johanan’s previous colleague (BM 84a), but the appointment was not a happy
one, Eleazar being distinguished by his extensive knowledge
in contrast to the profound acumen of Resh Lakish (Sanh.
24a). He was also one of the communal leaders of Ereẓ Israel(Pe’ah 8:7, 21a), and he is sometimes referred to as serving as
dayyan, in which capacity he consulted Johanan on difficult
cases (Sanh. 3:13, 21d; BB 7b). During his last years Johanan
took no active part as head of the council and it appears that
Eleazar took his place (Meg. 1:13, 72b). During this period hebecame widely known as the “master [i.e., legal authority] of306

the land of Israel” (Yoma 9b), and on many occasions sent rulings and decisions to Babylon which were transmitted by the*Neḥ utei (Sanh. 63b). In fact it is stated that the words “theysent from there,” i.e., from Ereẓ Israel to Babylon, refers to
Eleazar (ibid. 17b). Among those to whom he sent his decisions were Mar Ukva the exilarch, and Judah the principal of
the academy of Pumbedita (BK 1:1, 2c).
After the death of Johanan in 279, Eleazar was appointed
head of the council in Tiberias, but he died in the same year
(see Iggeret Sherira Gaon).
Private Life
Eleazar was extremely poor (Ta’an. 25a). He was, nevertheless, loath to accept any gifts from the house of the *nasi. He
excused himself by quoting the verse (Prov. 15:27), “He that
hateth gifts shall live” (Meg. 28a). Moreover, despite his poverty, he sought to support other needy scholars. This he didin an honorable manner, supplying their needs in secret tosave them embarrassment (BM 2:3, 8c). All but one of Eleazar’s children died during his lifetime (Ber. 5b), his survivingson, Pedat, acting as an “amora” (“interpreter”) in the bet hamidrash of Assi (Meg. 4:10, 75c).
Teaching
Eleazar was one of the great exponents of the Oral Law, andthe Mishnah. He quoted numerous statements of both earlyand late tannaim and several beraitot, particularly in *Midrash Halakhah, without indicating their source. It was withregard to one of his interpretations (Sifra 4:1) that Johananonce remarked to Simon B. Lakish, “I saw the son of Pedat
sitting and interpreting the Law, like Moses in the name of
the Almighty” (i.e., he expounded the verse in the mannerof the tannaim, cf. Rashi). He was also a great halakhist who
profoundly influenced the methods of mishnaic exegesis. Although he naturally preferred to follow the text of the Mishnahrather than that of the various beraitot, he nevertheless examined the wording of each mishnah in the light of the earliest
sources (BB 87a). He often employed the technique of dividing the mishnayot, saying, “The author of this section is not
the author of that section” (Shab. 92b; Ker. 24b; et al.). He
would reject a mishnah whose source he could not find, withthe words, “I do not know who taught this” (BM 51a). He thus
considerably corrected and explained the Mishnah. He is theauthor of the rule that whenever Judah ha-Nasi transmits acase, first as subject to a difference of opinion and then in an
undisputed form, the halakhah is in accordance with the second form (Yev. 42b) (see *Conflict of Opinion).
Eleazar was also an exceptionally prolific and profoundaggadist, whose sayings are frequently quoted in the Midrash
and in both Talmuds. Among them may be mentioned, “Inseven places in the Bible, God equates Himself with the lowliest of creatures” (Tanḥ . Va-Yera, 3); “The performance of charity is greater than all sacrifices” (Suk. 49b); “Let us be gratefulto cheats [mendicants who are not in need], for were it not forthem we would sin daily by becoming unused to giving charity to the poor” (Ket. 68a); “Let my sustenance be as bitter as
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

eleazar ben simeon
the olive, providing that it is from Thy hand, rather than as
sweet as honey if I have to depend upon man” (Sanh. 108b);“Even when a sharp sword rests on his neck, man should notabandon hope of mercy” (Ber. 10a); “An unmarried person
is less than a man … as is he who owns no land” (Yev. 63a).
Many of his sayings are devoted to fostering the sanctity andlove of the Land of Israel: e.g., “Whoever resides in Israel lives
without sin” (Ket. 111a); “Those who die outside Israel will not
be resurrected” (ibid.). When told that his associate Ulla had
died during one of his frequent visits to Babylon, he quoted
Amos 7:17 and declared “Thou Ulla, ‘shalt die in an unclean
land’” (ibid.). He also ruled as a matter of halakhah, “Books
which have merited to come to Israel, may not be taken outof the country” (Sanh. 3:10, 21). Although Eleazar’s aggadic
sayings embrace many spheres of Torah, he avoided esotericstudy. He refused to receive instruction in this field from either his teacher Johanan or, many years later, from his friend
Assi, who wished to attract him to the subject (Ḥ ag. 13a). His
teachings were transmitted by numerous contemporaries andlater scholars, particularly Abbahu, Rabbah b. Hana, and Zera
(Shab. 12b, 134b; Suk. 43a; et al.).

talmudic sources, however, do not mention Eleazar among
Akiva’s pupils at any of the gatherings of the sages after theperiod of the persecutions (TJ, Ḥ ag. 3:1, 78d; Song R. 2:5; Ber.
63b). Judah ha-Nasi, who was his pupil (Men. 18a), said that
Eleazar’s bet ha-midrash was so crowded that six pupils used
to sit there in the space of one cubit (Er. 53a). Highly esteemedby the early amoraim, Eleazar was called by Rav “the happiest of the sages” (Ket. 40a), while Johanan said of him that hisheart was as broad as the door of the temple porch (Er. 53a).
The Talmud tells that he lived to an old age, and when asked
by his pupils to what he attributed his longevity, replied: “Ihave never taken a short-cut through a synagogue; I have notstepped over the heads of the holy people (i.e., of other pupils
to get to his place in the bet midrash); and I have not raised
my hands (for the priestly benediction) without first reciting a
blessing” (Meg. 27b). Later Midrashim include Eleazar among
the *Ten Martyrs of the Hadrianic persecutions.

Bibliography: Bacher, Pal Amor, s.v.; Epstein, Mishnah,292–307; Frankel, Mevo, 111b–113a; Halevy, Dorot, 2 (1923), 327–32;
Hyman, Toledot, 192–9; Weiss, Dor, 3 (19044), 76–80.

ELEAZAR BEN SIMEON, Zealot leader during the Roman
war of 66–70 C.E. Eleazar was a member of a distinguishedpriestly family of Jerusalem and a friend of *Zechariah b. Avkilus. He played an important role in the war against *Cestius
Gallus, attacking the retreating Roman army and seizing military equipment, which was later to prove of great value in the
defense of Jerusalem. Eleazar was not appointed a member ofthe governing council formed after the war against Cestius,probably because he was an extremist. The entry of Idumeans
into Jerusalem, and the ensuing slaughter of those who had
opposed the Zealots can be attributed to the machinationsof Eleazar and his associates. Josephus attempted to exonerate Eleazar from responsibility for the massacres, putting theblame on *John of Giscala. Josephus cannot be relied on in
this, since he was probably influenced by his great hostility toJohn. Eleazar engaged in internecine warfare with John of Giscala inside Jerusalem. Eleazar’s men entrenched themselves in
the Temple, which occupied the highest position in the city,
affording them a significant strategic advantage over their enemies. Eleazar was thus able to maintain a defense although
he had only a few men at his disposal. A peace agreement between the warring factions was not reached until Passover of
70 C.E. when the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans had already begun. Coins inscribed “Eleazar the Priest” on one sideand “Year One of the Redemption of Israel” on the obverse areextant. In the opinion of some historians Eleazar b. Simeon is
the subject of the inscription but it is probable that the coinsdate from the rebellion of Bar Kokhba, and that “Eleazar thePriest” refers to the high priest of that time.

[Shmuel Safrai]

ELEAZAR BEN SHAMMUA (c. 150 C.E.), tanna. He is generally referred to simply as “Eleazar,” without his patronymic.
He is quoted frequently in the Mishnah, the Tosefta, and theMidrashei Halakhah, appearing together with R. Meir, R.
Shimon, R, Johanan ha-Sandelar, and other students of R.
Akiva. Many of Eleazar’s mishnayot were incorporated into
the Mishnah by Judah ha-Nasi. It is difficult, however, to determine the precise extent of this incorporation because of therepeated confusion throughout talmudic literature between
Eleazar and Eliezer (b. Hyrcanus). Tannaitic sources recordthat when Eleazar and Johanan ha-Sandelar reached Sidonon their way to Nisibis to study under *Judah b. Bathyra theyrecalled Ereẓ Israel, and with tears streaming from their eyes,
returned home, declaring, “Living in Ereẓ Israel is equivalent
to all the mitzvot of the Torah” (Sif. Deut. 80). He is the authorof the law that the witnesses of its delivery validate a get (billof divorce) or any other document, even if the document itself
is unsigned by witnesses (Git. 9:4). Among his aggadic statements is: “The Bible and the sword came down from heaven,bound together. God said to the Jews: ‘If you keep what is
written in this book, you will be saved from the sword, but
if not, you will ultimately be killed by the sword’” (Sif. Deut.
40). According to the Babylonian Talmud he was a kohen(Sot. 39a) and one of the last pupils of R. *Akiva (Yev. 62b; cf.
Gen. R. 61:3), whose views are cited on several occasions as
the bases for some of Eleazar’s statements (Ket. 40a; Zev. 93a;
et al.). After the Bar Kokhba revolt Eleazar, among others,
was ordained by *Judah b. Bava, who consequently sufferedmartyrdom at the hands of the Romans (Sanh. 14a). OtherENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: J. Bruell, Mevo ha-Mishnah, 1 (1876), 195–7;
Bacher, Tann; Hyman, Toledot, 205–10; Frankel, Mishnah, 182–4;
Epstein, Tanna’im, 158–9.
[Shmuel Safrai]

Bibliography: Jos., Wars, 2:562–5; 4:225; 5:5–10, 99, 250;
Klausner, Bayit Sheni, 5 (19512), 302 (index); Schuerer, Hist, 264ff.;
F.W. Madden, Coins of the Jews (19672), 35ff., 188ff.; A. Schlatter, Zur
Topographie und Geschichte Palaestinas (1893).
[Abraham Schalit]307eleazar ben simeon
ELEAZAR BEN SIMEON, tanna of the end of the second century C.E.; son and pupil of *Simeon b. Yoḥ ai (Suk.
45b). He is mentioned by name very rarely in the Mishnah,though amoraim ascribe several anonymous mishnayot tohim (Bek. 51b, et al.). He is quoted frequently in the beraitot,
as well as approximately 75 times in the Tosefta, especiallythose of Zevaḥ im and Menaḥ ot. His aggadic statements arefew (e.g., Kid. 40b; Yev. 65b; Gen. R. 20:6). Later Palestinian sources state that after his death his contemporaries eulogized him as a biblical scholar, a student of the Mishnah,a preacher, and a poet (Lev. R. 30:1), this last remark causing him to be incorrectly identified with the paytan Eleazar*Kallir (Tos. to Hag. 13a). The Babylonian Talmud incorporates accounts of his youth into stories related to his father.
According to the well known aggadah, he escaped with his father from the Romans by hiding in a cave for 13 years (Shab.
33b; BM 85a). This story, mentioned in the introduction to the*Zohar (1:11a), provided the literary framework for this pseudoepigraphic work of the 13t century, and caused its composition to be ascribed to them. According to the Talmud,
Eleazar later became a noted scholar who engaged in halakhic
controversy with his colleague, Judah ha-Nasi (BM 84b; etal.), as well as in halakhic and aggadic discussions with older
scholars, such as Judah, Yose, and Meir (Sot. 34a; RH 4b; et al.).
In contrast to his father’s unyielding defiance of the Roman
authorities, it is told that he accepted under compulsion aposition in the Roman administration as an official responsible for the apprehension of thieves and robbers – a position
that his grandfather, Yoḥ ai, had at one time held (Pes. 112a).
Among others who reportedly censured him for this activity
was his teacher, Joshua b. Karḥ ah, who reprimanded him byexclaiming: “Vinegar, the son of wine! How long will you continue to hand over the people of our God to be killed?” (BM
83b; et al.). It is related of his son Jose that he grew up without sufficient surveillance and was on the brink of turning toa life of crime. Judah ha-Nasi, however, placed him under thecare of R. Simeon ben Issi, his maternal uncle, who directed
and taught him, and he ultimately became the disciple of
R. Judah ha-Nasi.
Bibliography: Bacher, Tann, 2 (1890), 400–7; Krauss, in:
MGWJ, 38 (1894), 151–6; Weiss, Dor, 2 (19044), 165; Gutmann, in: Zion,
18 (1953), 1–5; Alon, Meḥ karim, 2 (1958), 88–91.
[Shmuel Safrai]in the Mishnah which are quoted anonymously may in fact
derive from the Mishnah of Eleazar b. Yose (Kelim 11:3;
cf. Tosef., Kelim; BM 1:2; Nid. 8:1). Tannaitic sources relatethat he gave rulings in Rome in connection with ritual purity(Tosef., Nid. 7:1; Mik. 4:7), and while there he saw the vessels plundered from the Temple at the time of its destruction.
He testified that the veil was spattered with blood from thesacrifices of the Day of Atonement (Tosef., Yoma 3 end).
Talmudic tradition explains that Eleazar journeyed to Rome
together with Simeon b. Yoḥ ai in an attempt to persuade
the emperor to abrogate the edicts against Jewish religious
practices that were reinstituted in the period of the Antonines (Me’il. 17a; see Alon, Toledot, 2 (19612), 61). According
to the aggadah, they were helped by a miracle. A demon
possessed the emperor’s daughter and they succeeded in
exorcising it. The emperor took them into his treasure chamber and invited them to take whatever they desired. Theysaw the text of the edict, and consigned it to flames (ibid.).
We are also told that while in Rome Eleazar had discussions
with *Mattiah b. Heresh, the leading scholar of the capital(Yoma 84b; Me’il. id), and saw the high priest’s gold plate
inscribed with the words “holy to the Lord” (the Tetragrammaton) in one line (Suk. 5a; et al.). According to the aggadah
he also saw the insect that entered the nostrils of Titus andpenetrated to his brain (Gen. R. 10:7, ed. Theodor Albeck,82, note 3), as well as fragments of Solomon’s throne that
had been carried off by Nebuchadnezzar and taken from
one nation to another until it reached the treasure house of
Rome (Esth. R. 1:12). Eleazar also was reported to have visited Alexandria where an old Egyptian showed him hair andbones reputedly of the enslaved children of Israel embedded
in a building from before the exodus from Egypt (Sanh. 111aand Dik. Sof. ibid.). He disputed with Samaritans and Sadducees, proving to them that their copies of the Torah scroll
were forged and their commentaries false (Sot. 33b; Sanh.
90b). In addition to his halakhic powers he was also a gifted
aggadist. He is quoted as saying: “All the charity and kindness practiced by Israel in this world bring abundant peaceand serve as powerful advocates between Israel and its Father
in heaven” (BB 10a).
Bibliography: Hyman, Toledot, 177–80; Epstein, Tanna’im,
178f.; Bacher, Tann. s.v.
[Yitzhak Dov Gilat]

ELEAZAR BEN YOSE I (second half of second century
C.E.), tanna. Eleazar was the second son of *Yose b. Ḥ alaftaof Sepphoris (Shab. 118b; TJ, Yev. 1:1, 2b). He attained distinction as a scholar during the lifetime of his father, who quotes
him and praises his statements (Sif. Deut. 148; cf. Pes. 117a;
Yoma 67a). He cooperated with his father in intercalating theyear (Tosef., Sanh. 2:1). The Talmud counts him among thescholars of the academy of Jabneh (Shab. 33b) and reports that
*Simeon b. Yoḥ ai held him in high esteem (Me’il. 17b). His
halakhot are found in the Tosefta and beraitot but he is not
mentioned in the Mishnah. Nevertheless, many statements

ELEAZAR BEN YOSE II (c. early fourth century), Palestinian amora. He may have been the son of the amora Yose who,
together with Jonah, headed the academy at Tiberias. In any
event Eleazar discussed halakhic problems with Yose, frequently put questions to him (TJ, Ber. 1:8, 3d; TJ, Ta’an. 2:2, 65c
et al.), and expounded before him (TJ, Kil. 8:2, 31c; Ned. 4:9,38d). Eleazar frequently quotes the statements of other amoraim such as Avin, Rav, Tanḥ um b. Hiyya (TJ, Ma’as. 1:3, 49a;
2:1, 49c; Ber. end of ch. 7, 11d; RH 4:8, 59c et al.). His own deeds
and sayings are also reported. For example, he, Abba b. Mari,and Mattaniah permitted a gift (of bread) to be carried to the308

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

eleazar Ḥ isma
government representative (Ursicinus) on the Sabbath (TJ,
Beẓ ah 1:6, 60c). In Genesis Rabbah (32:2), R. Menaḥ emyah
quotes him as saying: “No man loves his fellow craftsmen –but God does – as it is written, ‘For the Lord is righteous, He
loveth righteousness’ [Ps. 11:7].”
Bibliography: Hyman, Toledot, 177f.; Frankel, Mevo, 113b;
Weiss, Dor, 2 (19044), 166.
[Yitzhak Dov Gilat]44b) that he once learned from Eleazar’s action that the shaking of the willow-branch on Tabernacles outside Jerusalem isa custom introduced by the prophets, and that no benediction is to be made over it (see, however, the readings in Dik.
Sof., Suk. 136–7). Eleazar is the author of the statement, “No
restriction may be imposed on the public unless the majorityof the people can endure it” (Hor. 3b). It is difficult to decide
to which Eleazar b. Zadok certain halakhot and statements
are to be ascribed.

ELEAZAR (Eliezer) BEN ZADOK, name of at least two tannaim, both belonging to the same family, in which the names
Zadok and Eleazar frequently recur.
(1) Tanna of the first and beginning of the second century
C.E. His father was the tanna, *Zadok, who, in an attempt toprevent the destruction of the Second Temple afflicted himself
for 40 years. When he became ill, Johanan b. Zakkai obtained
a physician from Vespasian and then accompanied by Eleazar
he was permitted to leave Jerusalem, then under siege, in orderto recover from the effects of his lengthy fast (Git. 56 a–b; Lam.
R. 1:31). Eleazar’s teacher was Johanan b. ha-Ḥ oranit (Tosef.,Suk. 2:3). He was a priest (Bek. 36a; et al.) and transmitted information concerning the structures, procedures, and practice of the Temple (Mei. 3:7; Mid. 3:8; Suk. 49a; et al.). Whileliving in Jerusalem he engaged in commerce and such was hishonesty that he dedicated to communal use three hundred
flasks of wine, which he had collected from the residue in his
measuring containers (Tosef., Beẓ ah 3:8). He was an eyewitness of the suffering endured at the time of the destructionof the Second Temple and saw the daughter of Nakdimon b.
*Guryon, one of the wealthiest men in Jerusalem, picking up
barley from under horses’ hooves in Acre (Tosef., Ket. 5:10),
and Miriam, the daughter of Boethus and wife of the highpriest Joshua b. Gamla, tied by her hair to the tails of horses
and made to run from Jerusalem to Lydda (Lam. R. 1:47; cf.
TJ, Ket. 5, end). After the destruction of the Second Temple
he joined the sages of *Jabneh, and as frequent visitor at thehome of R. Gamaliel, reported the Sabbath and festival customs he witnessed there (Tosef., Beẓ ah 1:24; 2:13, 14; Pes. 37a;
et al.). Eleazar frequently quotes halakhic traditions heard in
his father’s home or from earlier sages, as well as explanationsof halakhic terms and expressions gleaned from the schools
in Jerusalem and Jabneh (Bek. 22a; Nid. 48b). His statements
include, “Do good deeds for the sake of the Creator, for theirown sake, do not make of them a crown with which to glorify yourself, nor a spade to dig with them” (Ned. 62a; cf. Avot
4:5). Some assume the existence of an earlier Eliezer b. Zadok
whose entire life was spent in Jerusalem before the destruction of the Second Temple.
(2) Tanna of the second half of the second century C.E.,
apparently the grandson of Eleazar b. Zadok (I). He transmitted halakhot in the names of R. Meir (Kil. 7:2) and of R.
Simeon b. Gamaliel (Tosef., Kelim; BM 9: end), engaged in halakhic discussions with R. Judah and R. Yose (Kelim 9:26, 2:6),
and was close to Judah ha-Nasi and his household (Tosef., Suk.
2:2). Aibu (the father of Rav, according to Rashi) relates (Suk.

Bibliography: A. Zacuto, Yuḥ asin ha-Shalem, ed. by Filipowski (1857), 26–27; Frankel, Mishnah, 97–99, 178; Hyman, Toledot,
201–5; Bacher, Tann, 1 pt. 1 (Heb., 1903), 36–38; S. Lieberman, Tosefta
ki-Feshutah, 4 (1962), 850.
[Yitzhak Dov Gilat]

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6309

ELEAZAR (Eliezer) HAKAPPAR (late second century
C.E.), Palestinian tanna, sometimes referred to as Eleazar haKappar Beribbi (i.e., the descendant of eminent scholars). It
is occasionally difficult to distinguish between the statementsof Eleazar and those of *Bar Kappara, who was probably hisson, and who was also called Eleazar ha-Kappar Beribbi. It is
improbable, as some scholars believe, that the two were identical, since the son is sometimes specifically referred to as“Eleazar ben Eleazar ha-Kappar Beribbi” (e.g., Tosef., Beẓ ah1:7). The father was apparently a member of *Judah ha-Nasi’s
bet ha-midrash (Tosef., Oho. 18:18), while the son was Judah’s
pupil. Some of the halakhic and aggadic remarks containedin the Mishnah and the beraitot perhaps should be attributed
to the father. Eleazar ha-Kappar (the first) may be the authorof the maxim “Envy, cupidity, and the craving for honor takea man out of the world” (Avot 4:21), and of the aggadic statement: “Great is peace for all the blessings conclude with theword shalom [peace]” (Sif. Num. 42), since it is followed immediately by another tradition brought in the name of hisson. In 1969 a stone, which was apparently the lintel over themain entrance to a bet midrash, was found in the Golan area,
inscribed with the words: “This is the bet midrash of Rabbi
Eliezer ha-Kappar.” It is unclear whether this inscription refers to the father or to the son.
Bibliography: Frankel, Mishnah, 213; Kahana, in: Ha-Asif(1886), 330–3; Hyman, Toledot, 215–7; Bacher, Tann; Hadashot Archeologiyot (April 1969), 1–2. Add. Bibliography: D. Urman, in: IEJ
22 (1972), 16–23; idem, in: Beer-Sheva, 2 (1985) (Hebrew), 7–25.
[Shmuel Safrai]

ELEAZAR Ḥ ISMA (fl. first third of the second century C.E.),
tanna, one of the sages of Jabneh. Some consider Ḥ isma tohave been his father’s name and refer to him as Eleazar b.
Ḥ isma, but it appears rather to have been his byname, meaning “the strong,” said to have been given to him because of
the strength he displayed in overcoming his former ignorance(Lev. R. 23:4; for another interpretation, see Midrash David on
Avot (1944), 75). A pupil of Joshua b. Hananiah and perhaps
also of Akiva, he transmitted halakhot in the name of the former and, together with him, he gave an aggadic interpretation of a biblical passage (Tosef., Zav. 4:4; Mekh., Amalek,eleazar of modi’in
176). Some of his statements are recorded in the Mishnah,baraita, and halakhic Midrashim. For example, on the verse(Deut. 23:25) which permits a laborer, while harvesting grapes,
to eat the fruit, Eleazar commented: “A laborer may not eat
more than his wage” (Sif. Deut. 266; BM 7:5). He objected toexcessive demonstrativeness in prayer, applying to the person
who “blinks with his eyes, gesticulates with his lips, or points
with his fingers while reciting the Shema,” the verse “thou hastnot called upon me, O Jacob” (Isa. 43:22; Yoma 19:6). Thoughproficient in astronomy and mathematics, he did not ascribe
too much importance to them; hence his statement: “(Even)
ordinances concerning bird sacrifices and the purification of
women constitute the essence of the law, whereas astronomy
and geometry are (merely) auxiliaries to knowledge” (Avot
3:18). He remained extremely poor, as was expressed in R.
Joshua’s comment to Rabban Gamaliel: “Marvel at two of yourdisciples in Jabneh, Eleazar b. Ḥ isma and *Johanan b. Nuri
(this is the correct reading: see Sif. Deut. 16), who can calculate
how many drops the ocean contains, but have neither bread toeat nor clothes to wear.” To enable them to earn a livelihood,
Gamaliel wished to appoint them supervisors in the academy
at Jabneh. When, in their modesty, they declined the offer, Gamaliel sent for them a second time, saying: “You imagine that
I offer you rulership? It is servitude that I offer you,” whereupon they accepted the appointment (Hor. 10a–b).
Bibliography: Bacher, Tann, 1 (19032), 368–70; Weiss, Dor,
2 (19044), 110; Hyman, Toledot, 217–8; Frankel, Mishnah, 142; Alon,
Toledot, 1 (19583), 143, 299, 306.
[Yitzhak Dov Gilat]

ELEAZAR OF MODI’IN (ha-Moda’i; end of the first and the
beginning of the second century C.E.), tanna. He came from
Modi’in, the home of the Hasmoneans, and was principally renowned as an aggadist, earning the praise of R. Gamaliel who
said of him: “We still have need of [the aggadic interpretationof] the Modi’ite” (Shab. 55b; BB 10b). Defining the nature of
aggadah, Eleazar said that it captivates men’s hearts (Mekh.,
Va-Yassa, 5). Even the sole halakhah quoted in his name hasan aggadic flavor about it; disputing the view that wherever“Adonai” is mentioned in the Pentateuch in connection with
Abraham it refers to God, except in Genesis 18:3, “Adonai[my Lord], if now I have found favor in Thy sight,” Eleazar iscited as saying: “This too, is sacred”; i.e., it also refers to God(Shevu. 35b). Some of his contemporaries protested against
his exaggerated aggadic interpretations: “O Man of Modi’in,
how long will you rake words together” (Yoma 76a). In Avot
(3:11) he is recorded as declaring: “He who profanes the sacredthings and despises the festivals and puts his fellow-man toshame in public and rejects the covenant of Abraham our father and gives the Torah a meaning contrary to its right one,even though he is learned in the Torah and has good deeds to
his credit, has no share in the world to come.” His reference
to rejecting the covenant of Abraham – that is, to those who
disguised their circumcision in order to hide their Jewish origin – is aimed at the Jews who forsook their people during

310

the Bar Kokhba revolt (Tosef., Shab., 15:9). Most of his aggadic remarks are to be found in the Mekhilta on the portions
dealing with the manna and with Amalek, where he is mentioned more than 40 times.
It is stated (TJ, Ta’an. 4:68d; Lam. R. 2:2) that Eleazar was
the uncle of Bar Kokhba and was in Bethar during the final
stages of its siege. Suspecting Eleazar’s loyalty, Bar Kokhba
struck him a mortal blow. “Immediately thereafter Bethar
was taken and Ben Koziba was killed.” It is thus probablethat “Eleazar the priest,” whose name occurs on coins of Bar
Kokhba with that of “Simeon the prince of Israel” or by itself,
refers to Eleazar of Modi’in. Although it is not stated in thesources that he was a priest, this may be taken for granted,
since most of the scholars who bore this name, that of theson of Aaron the high priest, were kohanim (in contrast to
Eliezer).
Bibliography: Frankel, Mishnah (1923), 135; Bacher, Fann, 1;
Alon, Toledot, 2 (19612), 37; J. Guttmann, in: MGWJ, 42 (1898), 303–5,
337–45; L. Mildenberg, in: HJ, 11 (1949), 77–108.
[Shmuel Safrai]

ELEK (Fischer), ARTUR (1876–1944), Hungarian author andart historian. A contributor to Nyugat and other literary periodicals, Elek translated French and Italian classics and wrote
short stories. His major works were Álarcos menet (“Masked
Procession,” 1913), A reneszánsz festőművészete (“Renaissance
Painting,” 1927), and Ujabb magyar költők lýrai anthológiája(1911), an anthology of modern Hungarian poetry. A convert
to Christianity, he committed suicide during the Nazi occupation.
ELEPHANT. Archaeological finds of ivory objects made fromelephant tusks have been found in Israel dating back to prehistoric and Chalcolithic times. It is assumed that wild elephants
were still present in Syria during the second and first millennia
B.C.E. until they were hunted to extinction. Alternatively, they
may have been imported there from India (Elephas maximus)
for the purposes of royal hunting, but this seems less likely.
Thutmoses III is recorded as having hunted elephants during
his campaign in Syria in the 15t century B.C.E.: “He [Thutmoses III] hunted 120 elephants at their mud hole. Then the
biggest elephant began to fight before his Majesty. I [Amenen-heb] was the one who cut off his hand while he was still
alive, in the presence of his Majesty, while I was standing in
the water between two rocks. Then my Lord rewarded me….”
The lower jaws of elephants have been discovered in mid-second millennium deposits during archaeological excavations
at the site of Atchana-Alalakh in Syria. While the elephantitself is not mentioned in the Bible, its ivory tusks (Shenhabbim) were brought from Ophir for Solomon (I Kings 10:22;
II Chron. 9:21). The word “shenhav” means the tooth (shen)of the elephant (ev in Egyptian, hence the name of the island
Yev (Jab) – *Elephantine). The word shen also signifies ivory,from which Solomon made his throne, overlaying it with

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

elephantine
gold (I Kings 10:18). The Bible also mentions “horns of ivory,”“houses of ivory,” “beds of ivory,” and “ivory palaces” (Ezek.
27:15; Amos 3:15; 6:4; Ps. 45:9). Reference is likewise made to“the ivory house” which Ahab built (I Kings 22:39), the reference being to a house containing ivory vessels and ornaments.
An examination of the ivory vessels, ornaments, and images
uncovered at Megiddo and in Samaria shows that they weremade from the African elephant Loxodonta africana (= Elephas africanus). Elephants were employed by Darius in hisbattle against Alexander the Great. At a later date, elephants
were introduced into Ereẓ Israel being used for military purposes in the Syrian-Greek army (I Macc. 8:6; II Macc. 13:15).
It was under one of these elephants that Eleazar the Hasmonean was crushed to death (I Macc. 6:43–46). A painting ofan elephant appears on the walls of a Sidonian tomb found at
Marissa (Maresha). In mishnaic times, elephants were kept insome rich homes and the baraita deals with tasks carried out
for its master by an elephant (Er. 31b). It is stated that the elephant feeds on branches and is rarely to be seen (TJ, Shab. 18:1,
16c). On seeing an elephant one recites the blessing, “Blessed
is He who makes strange creatures” (Ber. 58b). The elephant’s
period of gestation was said to be three years (Bek. 8a); it is
now known, however, to be 18–22 months only.

Elephantine became known to the modern world at the
beginning of the 20t century with the discovery of the Aramaic documents known as the Elephantine Papyri, which werefirst published by A.E. Cowley in 1923. A second collection,edited by Emil G. Kraeling, was published in 1953.
The Jewish military colony is well known from the Elephantine Papyri. These describe the lives of the mercenaries
who lived in Elephantine in the sixth and fifth centuries B.C.E.
as well as their families and others.
Much of the significance of the papyri lies in their forensic detail, such as those relating to marriage and divorce
or with matters relating to commerce and inheritance. Others shed light on previously unknown or obscure historicaloccasions.

ELEPHANTINE (Aram. ‫יֵ ב‬, yb; Eg. ‘ibw, ‘bw; Gr. ieb), “thecity of ivories,” situated at the eastern bank of the southernend of a small island in the Nile, just north of the First Cataract and opposite the City of Sun (the Syene of Ezek. 29:10 and
opposite modern Aswan). Its name relates to the natural rockformation along the river which, from even a short distance,
looks like a herd of elephants. The Greek name Elephantine(΄Ελεφαντίνη; cf. Jos., Bellum, 4:611; Strabo, 16) was a rendering of the Egyptian name, itself preserved in the Aramaic
name. Elephantine was sacred to the ram-headed god Khnum
who was believed to control the annual inundation of the Nile
from the First Cataract.
During the Old Kingdom, Elephantine was known as“The Door to the South” because it was the southernmost
city of Egypt, and a frontier fortress defending access to Egypt
from Nubia. During the Middle and New Kingdoms it was thecenter of the Egyptian administration of Nubia. Under Persian rule from 525 B.C.E., it was the center of Persian militarycommand in Egypt, and there was a large mercenary camp at
Elephantine which included companies or regiments (degalim,“banners”) of Jewish soldiers (‫)חילא יהודה‬.

History of the Jewish Colony at Elephantine
There are no external sources on the history of the Elephantine community. When the southern frontier was exposed to
Nubian raids, Jewish soldiers were sent to defend it, perhaps as
early as during the Assyrian regime. The Jewish temple at Elephantine may have been built in the second half of the seventh
century or at the beginning of the sixth but was constructed,
in any event, before the Persian conquest of Egypt in the daysof Cambyses’ rule, as mentioned in the letter of the Elephantine Jews themselves (Cowley 1923: 30). It is sometimes said
that there is a connection between the building of the temple
at Elephantine and Isaiah’s prophecy (19:19) concerning the“altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt” and the“pillar at the border thereof.”
It is not thought that the soldiers of the garrison built the
temple. The description contained in the Elephantine Jews’
letter to Bagoas, the governor of Yahud (Cowley 30:9–12),
attests to the great magnificence of the building, and apparently the Jewish mercenaries could not by themselves afford
to erect such a splendid structure. Since there were also Jewish civilians living at Elephantine, the temple was probably not
built until the civilians, together with the soldiers, financed
the building project. Hence the temple was presumably not
built in the early days of the Jewish settlement at Elephantine,
but later when the community was better established and had
achieved some prosperity and local standing.
The papyri indicate that there was a developed trade inproperty, such as homes and land. Other types of commerce
also provided the Elephantine Jews with their livelihoods,
for it was not only a frontier military post but also a center ofcommerce with Nubia, trading especially in ivory. The elite
section of Elephantine society was probably small and its
wealth limited. From the contributions to the temple (Cowley 22) and also from the gifts to Mivtaḥ yah the daughter ofMahseiah (Cowley 15), it can be seen that silver was both uncommon and expensive.
In general, relations between the local Egyptians andthe Jewish mercenaries and civilians were strained, although
there were instances of marriage between Jews and Egyptians, in which case it would seem that the Egyptian partner

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6311

Bibliography: H.B. Tristram, The Natural History of the
Bible (1883), 81–83; F.S. Bodenheimer, Animal Life in Biblical Lands:
From the Stone Age to the Nineteenth Century, vol. 2 (1956), 375–77;
J. Feliks, Animal World of the Bible (1962), 48. Add. Bibliography: F.E. Zeuner, A History of Domesticated Animals (1963), 275–98;
A. Houghton Brodrick, Animals in Archaeology (1972); R.D. Barnett, Ancient Ivories in the Middle East, in: Qedem, 14 (1982); O.
Borowski, Every Living Thing: Daily Use of Animals in Ancient Israel(1998), 193–95.
[Jehuda Feliks / Shimon Gibson (2nd ed.)]elephantine

The Legal Papyri
The legal papyri shed light on the daily life of the Jewish military colony at Elephantine. Interestingly, both a husband anda wife had apparently equal power to unilaterally dissolve
their marriage (Cowley 15; Kraeling 2, 7). Thus, the prospective bride had to consent to the marriage, and the prospective
bridegroom was unable to obtain the father’s consent without the girl’s also: if she refused, her father could not compel
her to marry him. As set out in another papyri (Cowley 15), a
man asked the head of the family for the hand of the woman.
If both agreed, the man recited the formula: “She is my wifeand I am her husband from this day for ever,” and also paid adowry to the bride’s father.
The gifts presented by the bridegroom to the bride
Mivtaḥ yah, the daughter of Mahseiah b. Yedonyah, are also
set out in Cowley 15, with a note of their value, which is explicitly given in case the marriage is dissolved. This could be
effected at the request of either husband or wife by one of themdeclaring in public that he or she “hates” the other. The results
differed depending on who initiated the divorce. According
to Cowley, in the event of Mivtaḥ yah’s rejecting her husband
Asḥ or, she would have to cover the cost of the dissolution of
the marriage contract, that is, seven and a half shekels but,even then, the goods and chattels which she brought into themarriage remained hers after the dissolution of that union.
However if Asḥ or dissolved the marriage, he forfeited the
dowry, but Mivtaḥ yah had to return all that her husband had
given her during their marriage. To protect a wife against her
husband’s capriciousness, a further regulation was laid down
to the effect that if the husband arbitrarily divorced his wifewith the plea that he had another wife or other children, he
had to pay a heavy fine (according to Cowley 15, 20 karsah =200 shekels) and all the conditions of the marriage agreementin whatever concerned the wife were annulled. All these stipulations refer to a marriage between free persons.
Dated 449 B.C.E., Kraeling 2 is the marriage documentof Tamut, the handmaiden of Meshullam b. Zaccur. Married
to Ananiah b. Azariah, she remained a handmaiden even after
her marriage, but another papyrus (Kraeling 5) shows that she
and her daughter Yehoyishma eventually gained their freedom
after Tamut had been married for 18 years, although they both
remained closely aligned to the family.
A woman’s status at Elephantine could also be gauged
from the gifts she received as a wife and a daughter (Kraeling 5, 9; Cowley 8). Inheritance laws were also revealed in the
Elephantine papyri. It is evident that sons inherited, but lessso in the case of daughters (where there were also sons in thefamily). It seems likely that a daughter’s right to inherit existed only when there were no sons. Possibly this was the origin of the institution of the gifts made to daughters – a compensation for their being discriminated against in the matter of inheritance.
In three papyri, Cowley 15 and Kraeling 2 and 7, there are
illuminating comments on the inheritance of a widow and awidower. Cowley 15 states that if Mivtaḥ yah died without maleor female issue, Asḥ or “inherited her goods and chattels”; but
if Asḥ or died without Mivtaḥ yah having borne his children,
male or female, “she had the right to his goods and chattels.”
This difference in wording is explained by scholars as indicating that in such a case the widower’s right to inherit the assets
was established in law, but in the case of the widow it was amatter of some sort of agreement or negotiation.
The Elephantine papyri also give instances of transactions in landed and other property, the site of which was fixedaccording to the adjoining land or houses, a procedure familiar from many papyri of the Ptolemaic period and the days

312

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

had to convert to Judaism. This is inferred by several scholars from the fact that the Egyptian Asḥ or’s sons had Jewish
names (Yedonyah and Mahseiah (Cowley 20)). However, as
Bohak has stated (2002: 185), it is not possible to trace a single
Jewish family over several generations to accurately establish
the constancy of their Judaism in the face of intermarriage
with locals.
In any event, the position of the Jews declined withthe ascension of Egyptian power. While they were soldiers inthe service of the Persian king their position was relatively
secure, but with the expulsion of the Persians from Egypt
at the end of the fifth century B.C.E. and the rise of theEgyptian kingdom, the position of the Elephantine Jews
worsened (cf. the fragmentary document Cowley 37, whichrefers to a dispute between the Elephantine Jews, who were
wronged and “fear robbery because they are few,” and the
Egyptians).
In 410 B.C.E., the temple of the Elephantine Jews wasdestroyed by the priests of the adjoining temple of Khnum(Cowley 1923: 30) after it was looted for gold and silver. The
most common explanation for the act of destruction is that thepriests of Khnum were angered by the sacrifice by the Jews ofanimals sacred to Khnum, particularly the sacrifice of sheep
during Passover (Cowley 1923: 21). Three years after the destruction, the Elephantine Jews applied to the Persian governor of Yehud for permission to rebuild the temple. Permission
was given, but on condition that animal sacrifices would nolonger be made there (Porten 1968: 292). It is not known how
much longer after this the Jewish temple stood, but the account of the community in the papyri ends in 399 B.C.E.
Even after the end of Persian rule in Egypt, it is not certain whether the Jewish colony at Elephantine persisted or not.
Military requirements probably made it necessary to keep anarmy on the frontier even after the expulsion of the Persians,
and it was unlikely that even a new administration would dispense with the Jewish soldiers who, for several generations,had been trained and experienced in guarding the southern
frontier. By the end of the Ptolemaic period, Egypt’s eastern
frontier at Pelusium was run by a Jewish guard, and the Macedonians at the beginning of the Greek period in Egypt probably did not dispense with the services of the Jewish guards
on the southern frontier, although there was a fundamental
change in organization.

elephantineof Roman rule of Egypt. With the help of these documents it
is possible to reconstruct with some degree of certainty thelocation of the Jewish temple at Elephantine (cf. the plan in
Kraeling, p. 81).
The Religion of the Jews in Elephantine
The Elephantine Jews brought with them the religion of theearly prophets shortly before the destruction of the First
Temple. This religion placed the God of Judah, Yahu (a namewhich occurs in several variants in the papyri), at the centerof faith and worship. This is revealed by the fact that those
who ministered in the Elephantine Jews’ temple are referred
to in the papyri as kohanim (“priests”), while the gentile cults
are said to have kemarim (“idolatrous priests”) – exactly asin the Bible.
It is interesting to note that the Elephantine Jews saw
nothing amiss in having their own temple even though a temple to the God of Israel existed in Jerusalem. They appealed tothe high priest Jehohanan to take steps to rebuild their temple,
destroyed by the priests of Khnum, without any thought thathe might regard it as a grave sin. It is evident from the Elephantine Papyri (Cowley 30), that those who wrote the letterto the Persian governor were surprised that the high priest in
Jerusalem had not answered them. However, perhaps the Jews
at Elephantine were unaware of the upheaval in Jerusalem, theousting of the temple hierarchy by the returnees from the Babylonian exile and their establishment of the old/new Temple
and Torah-based cult.
The Elephantine Jews’ temple was originally establishedto serve as a focus of worship for the Jewish military and civilian colony which, remote from the land of Judah, needed somereligious center. If the Temple of Zerubbabel was built more orless according to the plan of the First Temple, the descriptionof the Elephantine temple given in papyrus Cowley 30 showsthat it had an altogether different shape. It was adorned withstone pillars and hewn stone and had a roof of cedar and fivegates with bronze hinges. In the temple were also various articles of furniture as well as bowls of gold and silver.
On the altar, the full range of sacrifices were offered before the destruction of the temple (by the priests of Khnum in
410 B.C.E.) and after the rebuilding of the temple, animal sacrifice was no longer permitted. Whether the order of worship
was like that observed in the Temple at Jerusalem cannot be
ascertained. However, this is improbable, if only for the reason that Yahu was not the only god housed in the Elephantine temple, since a list of the Elephantine Jews’ gifts to theirtemple (Cowley 22), totaling 31 karash and 8 shekels, statesthat 12 karash and 8 shekels were for Yahu (ibid., p. 70:123), 7
karash for Ashambethel (ibid., loc. cit.: 124), and 12 karash for
Anathbethel (ibid., loc cit.: 125).
It seems clear that two goddesses dwelt alongside Yahu,
and may have been worshipped with Him in the Elephantine
temple. The element ‘Asham’ in Ashambethel is to be identified
with the Ashmat of Samaria mentioned in Amos (8:14), while
Bethel as an element in a compound proper noun current in
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Judah in the days of Darius I is mentioned in Zechariah 7:2.
The same applies to Anathbethel: Anath was well known in
Ereẓ Israel, as is indicated by place-names such as Anathothand Beth-Anath.
This situation in Elephantine supports the assumptionthat the Jewish garrison there was an ancient one, with its origins in (if not before) the days of Manasseh. In the fifth century B.C.E., the relationship between the Jews at Elephantine
and Jerusalem was not close, and no remains of the Pentateuch
have been discovered at Elephantine, although the finding of
the “Book of Ahikar” there shows that the community contained lovers of ethical and wisdom literature. It may also explain another, more interesting fact, namely that of the festivals of Israel only the observance of Passover is mentioned at
Elephantine. Passover was observed in Jerusalem in the daysof Hezekiah (II Chron. 30:13–27) and Josiah (II Kings 23:21–23;
II Chron. 35:1–18). During the First Temple period no mention
is made of Tabernacles – the first mention of its observance inJerusalem belongs to the Second Temple period, in the timeof Ezra (cf. Neh. 8:13–18), and its reintroduction in the fifth
century had not yet spread beyond the borders of Judah. As
some papyri are earlier than Ezra and Nehemiah and others
only a few years later, the observance of Tabernacles was therefore unknown to them. The document referring to Passover(Cowley 21) contains King Darius II’s edict of 419 B.C.E. (thefifth year of his reign) to the governor Arsames that the Jewish forces (and perhaps also Jews outside Elephantine) wereto celebrate Passover.
Detailed religious instructions were given on what the
Jews were to do to preserve the sanctity of the festival. The
document is a copy of the original edict which was brought
to the attention of Yedoniyah by Hananiah, apparently a Jew
influential with the authorities. The contents of the documentshow that the rules of eating unleavened bread and of abstaining from leaven were known and properly observed at thattime, in keeping with the commandments of the Torah.
Organization of the Military Colony
With the help of the Elephantine Papyri, an extremely clear
picture can be drawn of the organization of the Jewish militarycolony as it existed at the end of the fifth century B.C.E. The
Elephantine Jews constituted a military unit known as “theJewish force” (‫)חילא יהודה‬. There were also Jews at Elephantine
who were not part of the military establishment. Every Jewish
soldier belonged to a degel (company or regiment), and wasreferred to as “a man of the degel” (ba’al degel, ‫)בעל דגל‬, theJewish civilian as “a man of the town” (ba’al kiryah, ‫;בעל קריה‬Cowley 5:9, 13:10). The names of the degalim are not Jewish
but Persian or Babylonian, and the same applies to the higher
command. At the head of the Jewish force was a commanderof the garrison (‫)יב חילא‬, above whom was the fratarak, corresponding more or less to a general. These were non-Jews.
The Elephantine documents also mention “a hundred”
as a military unit, apparently smaller than a degel. Despite theextensive civilian freedom granted to them, as attested by the313

elfenbein, israel
Elephantine papyri, the Jews there, being soldiers, required thePersian regime’s permission for any change which interferedwith their military duties. As soldiers subject to military discipline, they were tried by the military authorities at Elephantine or at Syene. Nevertheless, they enjoyed a large measureof civilian freedom in everything pertaining to their personal
lives. They led a normal family life, were allowed to transact
business among themselves or with non-Jews, to buy and selllanded property and houses, and to bequeath these to theirchildren. As soldiers, however, they received their rations fromthe king (Cowley 24), being allotted a monthly ration in grain(usually barley) and legumes (Cowley 2; Kraeling 11:3ff.) andpayment in silver (Cowley 2:16, 11:6). At Elephantine there
was a “royal storehouse” (Kraeling 3:9, et al.). Accountants(Cowley 26:4ff.) and scribes (Cowley 2:12, 14) supervised the
disbursement of goods and funds. One administrative document (Cowley 24) shows:
Men:
22
2
30
Ardab (c. 1 quart):
1
1½
2½
The monetary system combined the Persian karash (83.3
grams) with the Egyptian shekel (8.76 grams), a half-shekel
agio being added to make 10 shekels equal 1 karash.
It is nonetheless clear that their wealth derived fromcommerce. The documents show that the Elephantine Jews
attained a certain degree of wealth and some of them, especially the civilians, a measure of opulence. They occupied anintermediate position between a professional soldier livingby his sword and a civilian engaged in a craft, in commerce,or in cultivating the soil. The same situation obtained in theHellenistic period when, for example, the cleruchies wereboth soldiers and farmers. The status of the fifth-century Elephantine Jews can also be compared to that of the Babylonian Jewish military colony sent at the command of Antiochus III to Phrygia and Lydia, where the colonists were settled
on the soil and in the cities and constituted a garrison loyal
to the Seleucids, at the same time cultivating the land allotted to them by the king.
An active civilian life at Elephantine is attested by thevarious civilian officials mentioned in the papyri, such as
judges (Cowley 16:4–5, 9), state scribes (‫ספרי מדינתא‬: Cowley
17:1, 6), and others. It is however probable that these officials
were not Jews but Persians or other non-Jews. At the head of
the Elephantine Jewish community was its most prominent
personality, who represented it both internally and externally.
At the end of the fifth century B.C.E. the leader of the community was Yedonyah b. Gemariah who with his colleagues
sent the famous letter about the temple to Bagoas.

berg, in: Ha-Tekufah, 8 (1920), 339–68; W. Kaiser, Elephantine: The Ancient Town, DAI: 1998; E.G. Kraeling (ed.), Brooklyn Museum Aramaic
Papyri (1953); E.Y. Kutscher, Qedem, 2 (1945), 66–74; E. Meyer, Der
Papyrusfund von Elephantine (1912); B. Porten, Archives from Elephantine: The Life of an Ancient Jewish Military Colony (1968); idem, “Didthe Ark Stop at Elephantine,” in: BAR (May/June 1995); idem (2003),“Elephantine and the Bible,” in: L.H. Schiffman (ed.), Semitic Papyrology in Context (2003), 51–84; S.G. Rosenberg, “The Jewish Temple
at Elephantine,” in: NEA, 67:1 (2004); E. Sachau, Aramaeische Papyrus
und Ostraka aus einerjuedischen Militaer-Kolonie zu Elephantine, 2vols. (1911); A.H. Sayce and A.E. Cowley (eds.), Aramaic Papyri Discovered at Assuan (1906); E.L. Sukenik and E.Y. Kutscher, Qedem, 1(1942), 53–56; C. von Pilgrim “The Town Site of the Island of Elephantine,” in: Egyptian Archaeology, 10:16–18; R. Yaron, Introduction to the
Law of the Aramaic Papyri (1961); idem, Ha-Mishpat shel Mismekhei
Yev (1961); idem, in JSS, 2 (1957), 33–61; 3 (1958), 1–39.
[Abraham Schalit / Lidia Matassa (2nd ed.)]ELFENBEIN, ISRAEL (1890–1964), U.S. rabbi and talmudic
scholar. Elfenbein was born in Buczacz, eastern Galicia. He
immigrated to the U.S. in 1906 and in 1915 was ordained at
the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York. Between 1915
and 1940 Elfenbein was rabbi of congregations in Nashville,
Chicago, and New York. In 1938 he became national executive
director of the Mizrachi Education and Expansion Fund. Elfenbein’s principal interest in scholarly research was medieval
rabbinic literature. He made many contributions to scholarly
periodicals and annuals. His major work was a collection of
the responsa of Rashi, Teshuvot Rashi (3 vols. in one, 1943).
Other works include Maimonides the Man (1946). Some of his
more popular writings were collected in a volume publishedposthumously, American Synagogue as a Leavening Force inJewish Life, edited by A. Burstein (1966).
Bibliography: J.L. Maimon (ed.), Sefer Yovel… Yisra’el Elfenbein (1962), 9–13.

Bibliography: Z. Ben-Ḥ ayyim in: Eretz Israel, 1 (1951), 135–9;
G. Bohak, “Ethnic Continuity in the Jewish Diaspora in Antiquity,” in:John R. Bartlett (ed.), Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman Cities, Routledge (2002); E. Bresciani and M. Kamil, in: Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, ser. 8, vol. 12 (1966), 357–428; U. Cassuto, in Qedem,
1 (1942), 47–52; A.E. Cowley, “Some Egyptian Aramaic Documents,”
in: PSBA (1903), 25: 202–8, 259–63; idem, Aramaic (1923); G.R. Driver,
Aramaic Documents of the Fifth Century BC (1954, 1957); A.S. Hirsch-

ELFMAN, DANNY (1953– ), U.S. composer-musician. Bornin Amarillo, Texas, to teacher Milton and teacher/writer Blossom (née Bernstein) Elfman and raised in Los Angeles, Elfman
played violin in public high school and later played the conga
drums and violin with the avant-garde troupe Grand Magic
Circus in France and Belgium. After spending a year touring
West Africa at 18, Elfman returned to Los Angeles in 1971 following a bout with malaria. His brother, Richard, asked him
to join his multimedia theater ensemble, the Mystic Nights of
the Oingo Boingo, and help score his film The Forbidden Zone
(1980), which starred Elfman as Satan. Elfman taught himself
composition during this time by transcribing the music of jazz
great Duke Ellington. While working on the film, Elfman andother members formed the new wave group Oingo Boingo in
1979. The group released a string of albums with IRS Records –Oingo Boingo (1980), Only a Lad (1981), Nothing to Fear (1982),
and Good for Your Soul (1984). Elfman recorded his first solo
album So-Lo in 1984 for MCA. The group scored a Top 40 hit
with the theme to the movie Weird Science (1985). That same
year, the feature film Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure debuted with

314

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

elhanan ben isaac of dampierre
Elfman’s score, and marked the first collaboration between thecomposer and director Tim Burton. Oingo Boingo followed
Elfman to MCA, releasing Dead Man’s Party (1986), Boi-ngo(1987), Boingo Alive (1988), and Dark at the End of the Tunnel(1990), but failed to break out from its local fan base. Elfman
and Burton’s gothic-themed creations continued with Beetlejuice (1988), Batman (1989), and Edward Scissorhands (1990).
He won a Grammy award for best instrumental compositionin 1989 for “The Batman Theme” for the film Batman, and wasnominated for best score. In 1990, he received two Emmy nominations for his theme for the animated TV series The Simpsons,and in 1991 he received another Grammy nod for his Gershwin-flavored score for the 1990 film Dick Tracy. He released analbum of his film scores, Music for a Darkened Theater, Vol. 1:
Film and Television Music (1990), which was followed by Music for a Darkened Theater, Vol. 2: Film and Television Music(1996). Elfman co-wrote, scored, and sang as Jack Skellington
in Burton’s Nightmare Before Christmas (1993). Oingo Boingo
shortened its name to Boingo and released a self-titled album
in 1994, but called it quits a year later. Elfman, already established as a composer, went on to score such films as Men inBlack (1997), Good Will Hunting (1997), Sleepy Hollow (1999),
Spy Kids (2001), Spider-Man (2002), and Chicago (2002), andthe TV show Desperate Housewives (2004). Elfman’s second
marriage was to actress Bridget Fonda.
[Adam Wills (2nd ed.)]ELHANAN (Heb. ‫“ ; ֶאלְ ָחנָ ן‬God has mercy”), the name of two
biblical characters: (1) the son of Dodo of Beth-Lehem andone of David’s “mighty men,” mentioned after *Asahel in thelist of the 30 warriors (II Sam. 23:24; I Chron. 11:26); (2) theson of Jaare-Oregim of Bethlehem, one of the “servants ofDavid.” According to II Samuel 21:19 Elhanan killed *Goliath, while according to I Chronicles 20:5 (where he is called
the son of Jair) he killed Lahmi, the brother of Goliath. The
former verse contradicts the story of *David and Goliath in
I Samuel 17. Among the various suggestions put forth to resolve this contradiction is B. Mazar’s proposal that Elhanan theson of Jaare (‫ )יערי‬is to be identified with David son of Jesse(‫)ישי‬. Elhanan was David’s true name before he ascended thethrone, while Jaare is a corruption of Jesse (see *David). Somescholars believe that the Hebrew words ʾet Golyat, i.e., “Goliath,” in the source II Samuel, was emended to ʾaḥ i Golyat, i.e.,“the brother of Goliath,” in I Chronicles, in order to cover up
the contradiction between the two accounts.
The aggadah, too, identifies Elhanan with David, andexplains the word oregim in II Samuel 21:19 as “of those who
weave (oreg) the curtains of the Temple” (Targum to thisword).

(1993), 363–69; S. Bar-Efrat, II Samuel (1996), 233–34; G. Knoppers,
I Chronicles 10–29 (2004), 736.

ELHANAN (Paulus Pragensis?; 16t century), apostate andauthor of missionary works, favored by the Hapsburg emperor *Rudolf II. Born in Prague, Elhanan became converted
to Christianity and was baptized in Chelm, Poland, although
his wife and children did not follow suit. He received stipends from the Polish kings Sigismund Augustus and Henryof Valois. He conducted missionary activities among the Jews
in Frankfurt in 1579. In 1580 at the Protestant University ofHelmstaedt, he published his Mysterium Novum, prefaced
by a poem in Hebrew, in which he attempted to prove bykabbalistic methods that Jesus was the messiah. He reached
Catholic Vienna in 1581, and published a missionary treatise
there. Having submitted his works to the emperor, he asked
Rudolf to support him in order to publish his Hebrew translation of the New Testament. Possibly Elhanan is to be identified with the apostate Paulus Pragensis, who published amissionary pamphlet, Symbolum Apostolicum, in ProtestantWittenberg in 1580 and the Jona Quadrilinguis (Helmstedt,
1580) – the Book of Jonah in four languages: Hebrew, Greek,
Latin, and German. Pragensis is said to have died after abjuring Christianity.
Bibliography: Diamant, in: Archiv fuer juedische Familienforschung, 2:1–3 (1913/14), 17–24.

ELHANAN BEN Ḥ USHIEL (first half 11t century), av bet
din in *Kairouan, Tunisia. Elhanan went to Kairouan from
Italy with his father at the end of the tenth century. His nameappears in verses contained in a letter of R. Ḥ ushiel to R. *Shemariah ben Elhanan (publ. by S. Schechter in JQR, 11 (1899),
643–50). Scholars disagree as to whether Elhanan was thebrother of R. *Hananel b. R. Ḥ ushiel, the well-known commentator of the Talmud, whether there were two sages by thename of Ḥ ushiel at the same time in Kairouan, or whether
Hananel and Elhanan are the same person under different
names. Only two of his responsa are extant. In one, the questioner addresses him as: “Our teacher, the great rabbi, the headof the bet din, the head of the schools,” from which it may beconcluded that as well as being the av bet din in Kairouan he
was also the head of one of the yeshivot in that city. He also
appears to have written a commentary to the tractates Bava
Kamma and Bava Meẓ ia.
Bibliography: Poznański, in: Festschrift… A. Harkavy(1908), 186–7 (Heb. pt.); Aptowitzer, in: Jahresbericht der IsraelitschTheologischen Lehranstalt in Wien (1929–1932), 37–39 (1933), 3–50;
Mann, in: JQR, 9 (1918/19), 160; idem, in: Tarbiz, 5 (1933/34), 286ff.;
Assaf, ibid., 9 (1937/38), 22; Abramson, in: Sinai, 60 (1967), 149–59.
[Simha Assaf]

Bibliography: Goldschmid, in: BJPES, 14 (1947–49), 122;
A.M. Honeyman, in: JBL, 67 (1948), 13–25; W. Pákozdy, in: ZAW, 68(1956), 257–9; J. Stamm, in: VT supplement, 7 (1959), 165–83. IN THE
AGGADAH: Ginzberg, Legends, 6 (1946), 260; I. Ḥ asida, Ishei haTanakh (1964), 62. Add. Bibliography: S. Japhet, I & II Chronicles

ELHANAN BEN ISAAC OF DAMPIERRE (d. 1184), tosafist; son of *Isaac b. Samuel the Elder of Dampierre whom hepredeceased. Elhanan was martyred, but the circumstances
are unknown. Although he wrote tosafot to many tractates,

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6315

elhanan ben shemariah
only those to Avodah Zarah up to p. 35a are extant (Husiatyn,
1901). His tosafot to Yoma served as the source of the Tosafot
Yeshanim to that tractate. His father often quotes him, as doother earlier halakhic authorities. Tosafot also cite him frequently. Elhanan also wrote responsa which cannot, however,always be identified as his, since they were usually written together with his father and bear his father’s signature. Comments on the Bible are quoted in his name and he was theauthor of piyyutim.
Bibliography: Urbach, Tosafot, 211–7, 399; idem, in: Sefer
Assaf (1953), 18–32; Davidson, Oẓ ar, 4 (1933), 361 (index).
[Israel Moses Ta-Shma]

ELHANAN BEN SHEMARIAH (d. 1026), head of the academy in Fostat (Old Cairo), Egypt, at the beginning of the 11t
century. Elhanan studied at the Pumbedita academy during
the gaonate of *Sherira with whom he later exchanged responsa as he did with the latter’s son and successor *Hai, and*Samuel b. Hophni, head of the Sura academy. A number ofSherira Gaon’s responsa to Elhanan are extant. Elhanan washonored by the title “the sixth” at the academy in Palestine. After the death of his father he became the head of the academyin Fostat. His academy received a grant from the royal treasury. When Caliph al-Ḥ ākim stopped this support, Elhananturned for assistance to the Jewish communities, including
those outside Egypt. It is believed that Elhanan wrote a talmudic commentary, and commentaries to the tractates Bava
Kamma and Avodah Zarah have been attributed to him. His
literary works, found in the Cairo *Genizah, include a poem
against the *Karaites following *Saadiah Gaon’s approach.
From a fragment of a book of Arabic sermons attributed tohim, it appears he also studied philosophy.
Bibliography: Poznański, in: Festschrift A. Harkavy (1908),
187–8 (Heb. pt.); Mann, Egypt, index; Mann, Texts, index: Assaf, in:Tarbiz, 9 (1937/38), 217–8; idem, Teshuvot ha-Ge’onim (1942), 114–6;
Abramson, Merkazim, 105–55.
[Simha Assaf]

ELHANAN BEN YAKAR (first half of the 13t century),*Ḥ asidei Ashkenaz theologian. Elhanan, who lived in London, seems also to have traveled on the continent. In common with the Ḥ asidei Ashkenaz, his main interest was inesoteric theology and all his known writings belong to thiscategory. His family was related to that of R. *Simeon b. Isaac(“the Great”), which also gave rise to the school of *Judah heḤ asid in Germany. Elhanan received some traditions fromthe tosafists in France, as is proved by his statement that hestudied the Sefer *Yeẓ irah with a pupil of R. *Isaac ha-Zaken,
one of the most prominent tosafists. All his works are based
upon the Sefer Yeẓ irah: two of the major ones are versions ofa detailed exegesis of this work, and the third, Sod ha-Sodot(called in a later source, probably by mistake, Yesod ha-Yesodot), is a theological treatise which uses the Sefer Yeẓ irah
extensively. Elhanan was well acquainted with contemporary
Christian theological works, both in Latin and French, and316

included almost literal quotations from such works in his
writings. In this he is unique, as far as is known, among thetheologians of the Ḥ asidei Ashkenaz movement. His writings
contain, in addition to his own theology, also compilations
and juxtapositions of various ideas taken from other sources
and relating to problems he discussed. One such prominent
source was the baraita attributed to *Joseph b. Uzziel andthe writings of the group of Ḥ asidei Ashkenaz thinkers who
based their doctrines on this pseudepigraphical text. Whole
pages of Elhanan’s writings are found in the commentary on
Sefer Yeẓ irah attributed to *Saadiah Gaon, which was written
by one or several of that group. Elhanan discussed the major
problems of Ḥ asidei Ashkenaz theology in his writings: thecreation, the relationship between the Creator and the Divine
power revealed to the prophets, the “Special Cherub” or “HolyCherub,” etc. His theories frequently contain a stronger element of mystical speculation than those found in the writingsof the continental Ḥ asidei Ashkenaz.
Bibliography: Scholem, Mysticism, 85; C. Roth, The Intellectual Activities of Medieval English Jewry (1949), 62; G. Vajda,
Etudes orientales à la mémoire de P. Hirschler (1950), 21–27; idem,
in: Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Age, 28 (1961),
15–34; idem, in: Koveẓ al Yad, 16 (1966), 147–97; Y. Dan, in: Tarbiz,
35 (1965/66), 361–73.
[Joseph Dan]

ELḤ ANANI (Elchanowicz), ABA (1918– ), Israel architect and town planner. He was born in Warsaw, studied at
the Technion, Haifa, and was in private practice from 1947.
Some of his chief buildings are the Philip Murray House andthe Workers’ Club, Eilat, high schools in Jerusalem and Tel
Aviv, a synagogue in Tel Aviv, the Civic Center in Kfar Shmuel, and the President’s House, Jerusalem. He prepared largecommercial projects for Tel Aviv with Oscar Niemayer, anddesigned Israel Trade Fairs in several countries, including the
U.S. and the U.S.S.R.
ELḤ ANANI, ARYEH (1898–1985), Israeli architect, painter,and designer. Elḥ anani was born in Russia, where he studied
art and architecture in Kiev between 1913 and 1917. He immigrated to Ereẓ Israel in 1922 and began his career by designingtrade fairs, and later pavilions for trade fairs abroad, designing inter alia the symbol of the Levant Fairs, a flying camel,
and the Palmaḥ and IDF logos. In 1934 he sculpted The Hebrew Worker, located in Palmer Square, Tel Aviv. In the 1940s
he undertook the planning of the buildings of the Weizmann
Institute of Science in Reḥ ovot, and from then continued designing institutes of higher learning and other public institutes
such as Bar-Ilan University. Two of his most notable designs
are the Yizkor Tent at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem and the Memorial Square at Yad Weizmann in Reḥ ovot. His designs reflect the spirit of a nation reborn. He was awarded the Israel
Prize in 1973. The Elḥ anani Prize for combining art and architecture is named after him.
Website: www.imj.org.il/artcenter.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

eliakim, marcel
ELI (Heb. ‫[“ ; ֵאלִ י‬YHWH is] exalted”), a priest in the sanctuaryof the Lord at *Shiloh during the period of the Judges (I Sam.
1:9). The father of *Hophni and Phinehas, Eli’s ancestry is notrecorded in the Bible, but his two sons bear Egyptian names,
one of them identical with the name of Aaron’s grandson*Phinehas; in addition it appears from I Samuel 2:27ff. that thehouse of Eli was believed to have been designated by the Lord
for priesthood while Israel was still in Egypt. A later speculation traces Eli to *Ithamar son of Aaron (Jos., Ant., 5:361; cf.
I Chron. 24:3; Yal., Judges 68), and another connects him withthe house of *Eleazar (IV Ezra 1:2–3; cf. Ex. 6:23, 25).
The fact that the *Ark was in Shiloh in Eli’s day provesthat at that time Shiloh was the cultic center of the tribal confederation of which Eli was the head priest. According to thenarrative in the first chapters of I Samuel, *Elkanah made anannual pilgrimage to Shiloh. Here his wife *Hannah madea vow in the presence of Eli and received from him the assurance that her prayer for a son would be answered (I Sam.
1:11ff.). After her son *Samuel was weaned, Hannah brought
him to Eli to serve in the sanctuary in fulfillment of her vow(1:27–28). What follows is a two-fold account of the ascentof Samuel and the downfall of the house of Eli. Hophni andPhinehas proved to be corrupt priests (2:12–17, 29; 3:13); hence
the prophecy to Eli in I Samuel 2:27–36, which appears to beconnected with that to Samuel (3:11–14), concerning the fallof the house of Eli and the emergence of a new priestly house.
From these prophecies it appears that Eli himself had alsosinned (2:29; 3:13). At any rate, his two sons were destined todie on the same day (2:34; 4:11, 17) and Eli, too, met his deathwhen the news reached him of the tragedy at the battle of*Aphek (4:11–18). Following the death of Eli and his sons andthe destruction of Shiloh, *Nob became the religious center.
According to I Samuel 22:20–23, the sole survivor of Saul’sslaughter of the priests at Nob was Abiathar son of Ahimelechson of Ahitub, a descendant of Eli who was deposed by Solomon (I Sam. 14:3; cf. I Kings 2:27). Clearly, the priestly houseof Eli continued in importance for a long time after him.
It should be noted that the prophecies to Eli do not forecast the destruction of Shiloh; nor do they reflect the true status of the house of Eli in later times. In contrast to the promiseof perpetual poverty, Abiathar was able to retire to his estate(I Kings 2:26). This indicates that the prophecies derive substantially from the time of Eli and were not adjusted to makethem conform to later events.

pected Hannah unjustly, he blessed her, “Go in peace” since
one is obliged to appease and bless one he had wrongly suspected (Ber. 31b). The Bible brands both sons of Eli as wicked(I Sam. 2:12), although Phinehas, in fact, did not sin. The Bible
censures him as it does for having failed to protest Hophni’s
behavior (Shab. 55b).
[Elimelech Epstein Halevy]

Bibliography: Kaufmann Y., Toledot, 2 (1960), 150ff., 359ff.,
370–1; S.R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography ofSamuel (19602), 1–50; Ginzberg, Legends, 4 (1913), 61f.; 6 (1928), 217,
220–3, 226–7.

ELIACHAR, MENACHE (1901–?), prominent Jerusalem
businessman and communal worker. Eliachar, a scion of the
distinguished Jerusalem family of that name, was born in the
Old City of Jerusalem, the son of Isaac Eliachar, and on thedeath of his father in 1933 succeeded him as vice president of
the Jerusalem Chamber of Commerce, becoming president
in 1946, holding the position for more than 30 years. Eliachar
played a prominent role in the industrial and commercial development of Jerusalem and represented Israel in the International Chamber of Commerce where he was successful incountering the Arab Boycott.
From an early age he took part in communal activity andwas among the founders of the Binyanei ha-Ummah (Jerusalem Convention Center) and of the Economic Club of Jerusalem. He was instrumental in reclaiming thousands of dunams of land in Jerusalem from Arab owners which he placedat the disposal of the community, among them the land on
which the Hebrew University and the Israel Museum stand.
On the occasion of his 75t birthday the title of Yakir
Yerushalayim was conferred upon him and the school in theGivat Mordechai neighborhood was named in his honor.

In the Aggadah
When Eli accused Hannah of being drunk (I Sam. 1:13) she
countered that his judging her wrongly proved him to bewithout divine inspiration (Ber. 31b). According to one opinion Eli was justified in his strictures, since a man who regards
his neighbor as sinning is obligated to reprove him. But Hannah’s retort was also in place, for one who is unjustly accused
is obliged to inform his accuser of the fact (ibid.), for “a man
must justify himself before his fellowmen just as he must do
so before God” (Mishnat R. Eli’ezer, 129). Because Eli had sus-

ELIAKIM, MARCEL (1921– ), physician and medical educator. Eliakim was born in Plovdiv, Bulgaria. He studied in
an American high school and graduated from a French highschool in Bulgaria in 1943. He then began studies at the University of Sofia Medical School (1944–49). He immigrated to
Israel in 1949 and graduated from the Hebrew University–Hadassah Medical School (first class, 1949–52) with distinction.
He served in the scientific corps of the Israel Defense Forcesfrom 1952 to 1954, where he was assigned to conduct a research
project on Schistosomiasis in Israel.
Eliakim started working in the Department of Medicine of the Hadassah University Hospital under Professor M.
Rachmilewitz in 1954, and became full professor of medicine
in 1969. He then became head of the Department of Medicine(1969–89). After retirement from Hadassah, Eliakim became
head of the Department of Medicine in Bikur Holim Hospitalin Jerusalem (1989–97).
During the period 1960–61 Eliakim received a grant fromthe American army for research in cardiovascular physiology in the Medical School of the University of Pennsylvania.
Upon his return to Israel he founded and was the first direc-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6317

eliakim goetz ben meir
tor of the Institute for Postgraduate Medical Training of the
Hebrew University. He also became chairman of the Board of
Medicine of the Israel Medical Association in 1973. He servedon the committee of higher education of the Ministry of Education (1976–79) and became dean of the Faculty of Medicine (1985–89). Eliakim founded the Israel Association for the
Study of the Liver in 1973.
Eliakim published 221 scientific papers and wrote or edited four books. His research was concentrated in the fieldof Familial Mediterranean Fever, a disease affecting mostly
Jews. Eliakim has educated a generation of physicians, manyof whom have become leaders in medicine in Israel. Eliakim
received many prizes, most important of which was the 75tHadassah Anniversary prize for outstanding service in medicine (1987). He received the Worthy of Jerusalem award (1988)
and the Israel Prize for medicine 2001.
[Rami Eliakim (2nd ed.)]ELIAKIM GOETZ BEN MEIR (c. 1700), rabbi and author;
grandson of R. Judah Loeb *Hanneles. He was rabbi in Swarzedz and Hildesheim. In 1700 he left Germany to travel to Ereẓ
Israel, but on passing through Posen, where his father had
been rabbi, he was persuaded to accept the rabbinate there,
and was active until 1707. Goetz wrote (1) Rappeduni be-Tappuhim, a commentary on the 24 aggadic sayings of Rabba bar
bar Ḥ ana (BB 73–74), published posthumously by his son Samvil, dayyan of Swarzedz (Berlin, 1712); (2) Even ha-Shoham,and Me’irat Einayim, a collection of responsa, the first part
published by his son Meir (Dyhernfurth, 1733).
Bibliography: Michael, Or, no. 465.
[Jacob Haberman]

ELIANO, GIOVANNI BATTISTA (1530–1589), apostate andanti-Jewish propagandist. Grandson on his mother’s side of
Elijah *Levita, whence the surname he adopted, he was formerly known as Solomon Romano. Born in Rome, he traveled
widely with his father in the Near East and was converted to
Roman Catholicism in Venice in 1551. In the following year
he was admitted by Ignatius of Loyola to the newly founded
Society of Jesus and thereafter taught Hebrew and Arabic at
the Collegio Romano. Together with his elder brother Joseph,converted as Vittorio Eliano, he was largely responsible for thecondemnation and burning of the Talmud in Rome in 1553
(see *Talmud, Burning of). Giovanni Battista subsequently
returned to the Levant to spread Roman Catholic propaganda
among the Copts and Maronites.
Bibliography: J.C. Sola, in: Archivum historicum Societatis Iesu, 4 (1935), 291–321; I. Sonne, Mi-Paolo ha-Revi’i ad Pius haḤ amishi (1954), 150–5; Enciclopedia Cattolica, 5 (1950), s. v., includes
bibliography.
[Cecil Roth]school. In 1929, he moved to New York City and became aplant manager at his uncle’s clothing factory. It was the start ofa lifelong career in the garment business, both as a manufacturer of women’s sportswear and as an industry leader. In 1931,
Elias left his uncle’s company to become a partner in Maybro
Sportswear. He opened his own business, Elias Sportswear,
in 1931. By 1946, his Brooklyn plant employed 1,200 workers.
Elias shifted ownership of the company to his son Richard in
1979, after being named president and executive director of
the New York Skirt and Sportswear Association. At its peak,
the Association had almost 300 members and was one of thebiggest garment contractor groups in New York City. Elias
headed the Association until he retired at the age of 86. By
that time, a surge of imports had reduced the membershipto 11, and when Elias was asked about the future of the New
York apparel industry in the face of increasing competition
from abroad, he said he felt like saying Kaddish, the Hebrew
prayer for the dead. In addition to heading the association,
Elias organized the Federation of Apparel Manufacturers andthe Garment Center Economic Security Council. For many
years, he was a management trustee of many union benefit
funds. He was a vice chairman of the board of the Garment
Industry Development Corporation and a board member of
the Council for American Fashion, the Educational Foundation for the Fashion Institute of Technology, and the HighSchool of Fashion Industries, in New York City. Elias was also
a founder of the Sephardic Temple of Cedarhurst, N.Y., andan honorary president of United Sephardim of Brooklyn. He
helped launch the Sephardic Home for the Aged in Brooklyn and received the Home’s first Humanitarian Award, commemorating more than 55 years of service.
Bibliography: New York Times (Sept. 28, 2004); Women’s
Wear Daily (Sept. 29, 2004).
[Mort Sheinman (2nd ed.)]ELIAS, JOSEPH (d. 1927), Jewish community worker in
Iraq. Elias graduated from the law school of Istanbul, became
postmaster in the harbor of Fao (Fa’w), then an official in
the judicial service of Basra and Mosul, and finally an advocate in Basra and Baghdad. From 1921 until his death hewas chairman of the Arabic Literary Society in Baghdad andof the Zionist organization in Iraq. In 1924 he was electedto the Iraqi Parliament as delegate of the Jewish communityof Baghdad, and the following year represented Iraqi Jewryat the opening ceremony of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
[Haim J. Cohen]

ELIAS, ELI (1912–2004), U.S. clothing manufacturer, Sephardi community leader. Elias was born in Rochester, N.Y.,
and studied drafting and machine designs while in high

ELIAS, NEY (1844–1897), British explorer. Ney was born in
Kent, the son of a Jewish merchant who converted to Christianity when he was a child. In 1892 he journeyed from Peking(Beijing) across the Gobi Desert by a hitherto unexploredroute to St. Petersburg – a feat for which he received the gold
medal of the Royal Geographical Society. He then traveled
for the Indian government and in 1885 made an expedition

318

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

eliasberg, mordecai
through Central Asia. Elias defined the boundaries (1889–90)
between what became Thailand and Burma. His books include
A Visit to the Valley of Sheuli (1876) and The Tarikh-i-Rashidi(1895), a history of the Moghuls.
Add. Bibliography: ODNB online; G.R. Morgan, Ney Elias:
Explorer and Envoy Extraordinary in High Asia (1971).

ELIAS, NORBERT (1897–1990), sociologist. Born in Breslau,
Germany (now Wroclaw, Poland), Elias served in the Germanarmy during World War I, and then attended Breslau University. He was an active member of Blau-Weiss, the Zionist
youth organization. After earning his doctorate in philosophy
at Breslau in 1924, he moved to Heidelberg to work under Alfred Weber, and then to Frankfurt as Karl Mannheim’s assistant. Elias fled Nazi Germany in 1933, first to Paris and then,in 1935, to London. His father died in Breslau in 1940, and his
mother perished in Auschwitz around 1941.
In 1939 Elias published his seminal work Ueber den Prozess der Zivilisation (later translated into English as The Civilizing Process, 1978 and 1982). The work, largely ignored at thetime, traced the process of change in standards of behavior –including those regarding acts of violence – through stages ofEuropean history, as manners and habits were transformed,
in Elias’ view, by changing thresholds of repugnance and increasing expectations of self-restraint. Elias linked this process to the formation of states and to the development of aninterconnected society.
Elias received a senior research fellowship at the London
School of Economics in 1939, but he was interred during the
war as an enemy alien. In 1954 he obtained a post at Leicester
University, from which he retired in 1962; he was a professorof sociology at the University of Ghana from 1962 to 1964. It
was only during his retirement that Elias was acclaimed as aleading figure in his field. Ueber den Prozess der Zivilisation
was republished in 1969, receiving international attention. The
work was not, however, received without controversy; someconsidered it an extension of social Darwinism, overly Eurocentric, and suggested that its premise was refuted by theevents of World War II and the Holocaust.
Elias wrote extensively in his later years; these works include The Established and the Outsiders (1965), What Is Sociology? (1978), The Loneliness of the Dying (1985), and The Quest
for Excitement (1986), with Eric Dunning, on the sociology ofsports. In 1971 he became professor emeritus of the University of Frankfurt, and in 1977 the city of Frankfurt named him
the first recipient of the Theodor W. Adorno prize. In addition to other honors, he received the German Grosskreuz desBundesdienstordens in 1986.
Bibliography: R. van Krieken, Norbert Elias: Key Sociologist (1998).
[Dorothy Bauhoff (2nd ed.)]ELIASBERG, MORDECAI (1817–1889), rabbi, one of thefirst *Ḥ ibat Zion (Ḥ ovevei Zion) in Russia. Born in Lithuania, Eliasberg studied under noted rabbis in Lithuania, beENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6came rabbi of Shishmory, Lithuania in 1853, and was rabbi
of *Bauska, Latvia from 1862 until his death. Active from his
youth in Jewish public life in Russia, he explained to Max*Lilienthal, who came to “enlighten” Russian Jewry, that theremoval of legal restrictions on Jews was a prior condition to
the achievement of this aim. Later he believed the basic principles behind Jewish demands should be the improvementof the economic situation of Russian Jewry and the achievement of equal rights. He supported the Haskalah movement,
provided it did not weaken religion, and suggested the establishment of schools for commercial and vocational training. Eliasberg defended the first society for the settlement ofEreẓ Israel, founded in Germany in 1862, against attacks byultra-Orthodox circles, who feared that messianic redemption would be delayed if the land was settled by secular efforts, and in 1879 he published articles supporting Jewish
agricultural settlement in Russia and in Ereẓ Israel. After the
pogroms in southern Russia (1881), Eliasberg was one of thefirst who vigorously supported the newly organized Ḥ ovevei
Zion, orally and in writing, striving particularly to achieve
harmony between the religious and the “free-thinking” circles in the movement. He was elected one of the leaders ofḤ ovevei Zion at the movement’s conference at Druzgenik(1887). During the controversy over the 1889 sabbatical year
in Ereẓ Israel, Eliasberg opposed those ultra-Orthodox rabbis who demanded the cessation of Jewish agricultural workin that year and appealed to Jewish farmers not to heed their
injunctions. He also strongly attacked the ḥ alukkah methods
in Jerusalem and those responsible for it, most of whom opposed the new settlement of Ereẓ Israel.
Of his more than 20 works, only one, Terumat Yad (1875),
was printed in his lifetime. Shevil ha-Zahav, dealing with topical matters and the settlement of Ereẓ Israel, was publishedposthumously (1897) by his son Jonathan, who added a biography of his father. In 1947 a selection of Eliasberg’s writings
was published in Jerusalem.
[Getzel Kressel]

His son JONATHAN (1851–1898) was born in Kovno, Lithuania, and served as rabbi of Pumpian, Mariampol, and from1886 until his death, of Volkovysk, Grodno district. His Torahnovellae and ethical writings were published as a supplement
to his father’s Terumat Yad and his Darkhei Hora’ah was published independently (1884). In common with his father, he
was one of the first rabbis to join the Ḥ ovevei Zion movement.
Eliasberg strove to maintain harmony between the Orthodox
and the progressive groups within the national movement,
calling upon both sides “to be tolerant and patient with conflicting views.” In 1893 he approached *Aḥ ad Ha-Am in connection with his essay “Torah she-ba-Lev,” which had aroused
the anger of the Orthodox. (The author replied to the charges
in his essay “Divrei Shalom.”) His Zionist articles were published in Shivat Ẓ iyyon (ed. by A.J. Slutski, 1900). After the first
Zionist Congress, he joined the Zionist Organization.
[Yehuda Slutsky]319

eliashib
Bibliography: N. Sokolow, Hibbath Zion (Eng., 1935), index;
A.M. Genachowski, Ha-Rav Mordekhai Eliasberg (1937); I. Klausner,
Be-Hitorer Am (1962), index; idem, Mi-Kattoviẓ ad Basel, 2 vols. (1965),
indexes; EZD, 1 (1958), 111–21; M. Einhorn (ed.), Volkovisker YizkorBuch (1949), 71f.; Rabiner, in: Ba-Mishor, 4 (1942/43), nos. 136–7; I.
Nissenbaum, Ha-Dat ve-ha-Teḥ iyyah ha-Le’ummit (1920), 81–91.

ELIASHIB (Heb. ‫“ ; ֶאלְ יָ ׁ ִשיב‬may God restore”), a name attested
in the Arad letters of the late seventh–early sixth century
B.C.E. The Bible shows the popularity of the name in postExilic times, borne by three individuals married to foreign
women (Ezra 10:24, 27, 36), a descendant of the Davidic dynasty (I Chron. 3:24), and of the high priest who was the sonof Joiakim (Neh. 12:10). The best known of these personalities
was the high priest contemporary with Nehemiah. His house
was located along the central portion of the eastern wall of
Jerusalem and is mentioned in the account of the wall’s reconstruction (Neh. 3:20–21). He and his colleagues were responsible for rebuilding the stretch of wall guarding the northwestern approach to the Temple Mount – the Tower of Hananel,
the Tower of the Hundred, and the Sheep Gate (Neh. 3:1). An
Eliashib “the priest” was in charge of the Temple storehouses
and he assigned one of these chambers to Nehemiah’s opponent Tobiah. This priest was somehow “related” to Tobiah(Neh. 13:4ff.), and many scholars identify him with the highpriest; the lesser title, however, makes this unlikely. It is similarly unlikely that Eliashib, the father of Jehohanan, into whose
Temple chamber Ezra retreated (Ezra 10:6), is identical withthe high priest. A grandson of the high priest, however, didmarry a daughter of Sanballat, another of Nehemiah’s opponents (Neh. 13:28). During the second term of his governorship, Nehemiah expelled Tobiah from his Temple chamberand chased the high priest away from his presence.
Bibliography: J.M. Myers, Ezra and Nehemiah (AB; 1965),
113ff., 197ff., 214ff. Add. Bibliography: A. Rainey, in: BAR, 13:2
(1987), 36–39; K. Koch, in: M. Fishbane and E. Tov (eds.), Sha’arei Talmon (1992), 105–10; A. Demsky, in: HUCA, 65 (1994), 1–19; M. Goulder, in: JSOT, 75 (1997), 43–58.
[Bezalel Porten]

ELIASHOV, SOLOMON BEN Ḥ AYYIM (1841–1926), kabbalist. Eliashov, who was born in Zagara, Lithuania, studied
in the yeshivah in Telz, but spent most of his life as a private
citizen in Shavli in Samogitia, Lithuania and never took a rabbinic position. In 1915 he was expelled with the rest of his community to Russia and in 1922 (or 1924) he settled in Jerusalem.
Eliashov was considered one of the greatest kabbalists in Russia at the end of the 19t century. His method was influenced
by the tradition of *Elijah b. Solomon, the Gaon of Vilna, andhis disciples, and he generally opposed those who interpreted
Kabbalah in an idealistic manner, particularly the kabbalistic
commentaries of Moses Ḥ ayyim *Luzzatto and the ChabadḤ asidim. All his works on Kabbalah, which he rewrote inseveral versions, were compiled at the end of the 19t century
under the general title Sefer Leshem Shevo ve-Aḥ lamah (Ex.
28:19). They include the following published works: Sefer Hak-

320

damot u-She’arim (Piotrkow, 1908); Sefer ha-De’ah (an abbreviation for Derushei Olam ha-Tohu) in two volumes (Piotrkow,
1911); Sefer ha-Kelalim, on the principles of egressus and digressus in the process of emanation, two volumes (Jerusalem,
1924–26, but actually completed only in 1930); Sefer Ḥ elkei
ha-Be’urim, a commentary on Ḥ ayyim *Vital’s Eẓ Ḥ ayyim in
two volumes (Jerusalem, 1935–49). His glosses and additions
to Eẓ Ḥ ayyim were also published in the Warsaw 1890 editionof that work. The works of Eliashov contain a highly detailed
systematic description of the Lurianic Kabbalah concerning
the doctrine of aẓ ilut (“emanation”). It was said that Eliashov
accomplished for the works of Isaac *Luria what Moses *Cordovero had done for the *Zohar.
Bibliography: A. Levin, Toledot ha-Ga’on ha-Kadosh,Meḥ abber Sifrei Leshem Shevo ve-Aḥ lamah (1935).
[Gershom Scholem]

ELIAS LE EVESKE (Elijah ben Berechiah ha-Kohen; before
1200–after 1259), archpresbyter of English Jewry (1243–57).
Born in London before 1200, Elias Le Eveske (or l’Eveske, as
he was often known) was a prominent figure in the London
Jewish community by 1230. His period of office coincidedwith the most outrageous of the royal exactions by Henry III.
In 1253 he appeared before Earl Richard of Cornwall and theRoyal Council and made a pathetic appeal for permission for
the Jews to leave the country. He was deposed from office in1257 and two years later became converted to Christianity, together with his two sons. His subsequent life is unknown.
Bibliography: H.P. Stokes, Studies in Anglo-Jewish History(1913), 12–17, 30–33; Rigg-Jenkinson, Exchequer, passim; Roth, England, index; JHSEM, 2 (1935), index. Add. Bibliography: ODNB
online; J. Hillaby, “London: The Thirteenth Century Jewry Revisited,”in: JHSET, 32 (1990–92), 89–158.
[Cecil Roth]ELIASSOF, HERMAN (1849–1918), U.S. Reform rabbi. Eliassof was born in Russia, ordained in Germany, and immigrated to the United States in 1871. After serving for a year as
rabbi of Congregation Rodef Shalom in Ogdensburg, N.Y., hebecame the first rabbi of Temple Beth-El in Chicago, where
he was also editor of The Occident, a local religious weekly, as
well as the regional correspondent for the *American Israelite,
the Anglo-Jewish weekly newspaper published in Cincinnati.
For many years he served as principal of the Sabbath school of
Kehillath Anshe Maarab and was a teacher in the Zion Congregation religious school. In the early 1890s, Eliassof was headof the Society in Aid of Russian Refugees, which assisted themany Jews who came to Chicago in the wake of the enforcement of the Russian *May Laws. Eliassof was the first scholar
to write a history of the Jews of Illinois, which was publishedin a special issue of The Reform Advocate. He also wrote Hebrew poetry and was a frequent contributor on Jewish subjects
to English, German, and Hebrew periodicals.
Bibliography: The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia (1969).
[Bezalel Gordon (2nd ed.)]

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

eliav, binyamin
ELIAV, ARIE LOVA (1921– ), Israeli planner, educator, sociologist, politician, and peace activist, member of the Sixth toNinth and Twelfth Knessets. Eliav was born in Moscow andwas brought by his parents to Palestine in 1924. He studied at
the Herzlia Gymnasium in Tel Aviv and general history andsociology at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He joined theHaganah in 1936 and in the years 1941–45 fought in the British army in the Middle East and Europe. In 1946–48 he wasactive in the organization of “illegal”*immigration to Palestine. After the establishment of the state he joined the IDF andparticipated in the War of Independence, reaching the rankof lieutenant colonel. In 1949–53 he served as assistant to thedirector of the Jewish Agency Settlement Department, andstudied agricultural economics in London in 1953. In 1955–57
Eliav directed the project for the development of the Lachishregion in southern Israel, where many new immigrants weresettled; he participated in the planning and establishment of
the town of Arad. During the Sinai Campaign in 1956 he wasin charge of the project for saving the Jews of Port Said.
In 1958–60, Eliav served as first secretary in the Israeli
Embassy in Moscow. In 1960–64 he headed the aid and rehabilitation mission that Israel sent to Qazvin in northwestern
Iran after it had been severely hit by an earthquake. Eliav was
first elected to the Sixth Knesset in 1965 on the Alignment list.
In 1966–67 he served as deputy minister of industry and tradein charge of industrialization in development areas, and thefollowing two years as deputy minister of immigration absorption under Yigal *Allon. In 1969–71 Eliav served as secretary
general of the *Israel Labor Party. In this period he started toadopt dovish positions regarding the concessions that Israel
might make in return for peace with its neighbors. After resigning the secretary generalship of the Labor Party, he spent
the next year writing an ideological work entitled Ereẓ ha-Ẓ evi(one of the biblical names for the Land of Israel) in which anentire chapter was devoted to a discussion of Israel’s relations
with the Arabs and Palestinians. It appeared in English in 1974
as Land of the Hart.
Following the earthquake that occurred in Managua in
Nicaragua just before Christmas of 1972 Eliav headed an Israeli
aid mission to help construct temporary housing there. In December 1973 he ran in the elections to the Eighth Knesset on
the Alignment list, but in April 1975 left the Alignment andjoined the Civil Rights Movement, forming a parliamentarygroup by the name of Ya’ad. In 1975 he was also one of thefounders of the Israeli Council for Israeli-Palestinian Peace.
In January 1976 he and MK Marsha Freedman left Ya’ad, due
to a dispute about policy toward the PLO and formed the Social Democratic parliamentary faction. In 1976–77 Eliav participated in talks with representatives of the PLO.
Eliav was one of the founders of the radical party Maḥ aneh Sheli, and in 1977 was elected to the Ninth Knesset on its
list. In 1979 he handed his seat over to Uri *Avneri and engaged
in teaching new immigrants and prisoners. In 1982–85 he participated, on behalf of Prime Minister Menaḥ em *Begin, in
contacts with the PLO and other Palestinian organizations in

an attempt to bring about the release of four Israeli prisoners
held by them in return for over 1,000 Palestinian prisoners.
In 1982 Eliav joined the International Center for Peacein the Middle East. In the elections to the Twelfth Knesset in1988 he returned to the Knesset on the Alignment list. In 1993
he unsuccessfully ran against Ezer *Weizman for the Labor
Party nomination for the presidency of Israel.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6321[Susan Hattis Rolef (2nd ed.)]ELIAV (Lubotzky), BINYAMIN (1909–1974), Israeli public
figure and editor. Born in Riga, Latvia, he finished his secondary education in Haifa. Returning to Europe for his higher
studies, he soon became one of the outstanding figures in the
Betar movement, led by Vladimir Jabotinsky, whose personality profoundly influenced him. From 1932 to 1935, he lived in
Paris where he served as general secretary of Betar. In 1935 hereturned to Palestine, where his political activities against thepolicies of the British Mandatory government earned him repeated terms of imprisonment, principally in the Acre Prison.
In between, he edited the movement’s newspapers Hamashkif and Hayarden.
In 1938 he was released from Acre due to ill health, on
condition that he leave the country until the termination ofmartial law, and was in Riga until 1940. After his return hechampioned the cause of conciliation between the Revisionist
movement and the Zionist Organization. A tentative agreement that was to be the basis of the reconciliation was vetoedby Ben-Gurion.
Eliav left Betar and formed his own political party, Tenuat Ha’am, and edited its daily newspaper, Mivrak. This small
party attracted a wide variety of supporters. In June 1947 Eliav
was again arrested, and placed in a detention camp in Latrun
together with other leading figures of the yishuv.
After the establishment of the State of Israel he underwent a certain metamorphosis. He disbanded his party andnever again played an active political role. He worked as ajournalist, editor, and translator (editing the Labor Party’s
afternoon daily Ha-Dor, and translating Isaac Deutscher’sbiography of Stalin). From 1953 he was in the Israel Foreign
Ministry, serving in South America and later as consul-general in New York.
Gradually he devoted himself exclusively to the causeof Soviet Jewry, which in the mid- to late-1950s, was a tabularasa. To Eliav the fate of this last great Jewish community tosurvive in Europe was crucial to the future of the Jewish people. At the same time, he saw it as a universal human problemof minority rights.
For the next 12 years he traveled all over the world andestablished a veritable network of influential connections. He
won the support of outstanding personalities such as Bertrand
Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre, Aya de la Torre of Peru, and Senator Terracini of Italy.
After retiring from the Foreign Ministry, he served for awhile as Prime Minister Eshkol’s adviser on information andas acting chairman of the Broadcasting Corporation. From

eliel, ernest ludwig
1969 Eliav worked on the Encyclopaedia Judaica, of which
he was associate editor with particular responsibility for thesection dealing with Israel, Zionism, and contemporary Jewish history. Sifriat Keter, a series of original monographs in
Hebrew on various aspects of Jewish culture and history, waslaunched by him, and he edited its first volumes.
[Aryeh Eliav (2nd ed.)]ELIEL, ERNEST LUDWIG (1921– ), U.S. organic chemist.
Eliel was born in Germany and received his Ph.D. from the
University of Illinois in 1948. He was at the University of Notre
Dame in 1948–72 (professor from 1960) and W.R. Kenan, Jr.
Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
in 1972–93. He was a member of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S., and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
He wrote Stereochemistry of Carbon Compounds (1962) andwas co-author of Conformational Analysis (1965), Elements of
Stereochemistry (1969), Stereochemistry of Organic Compounds(1994), and Basic Organic Stereochemistry (2001). He publishedover 300 original publications and reviews in stereochemistry, conformational analysis, synthetic methodology, physicalorganic chemistry, and NMR. He received the Priestley Medal(Am. Chem. Soc.) in 1996 and many other awards and waspresident of the American Chemical Society, 1992.
[Bracha Rager (2nd ed.)]

ELIEZER (Heb. ‫יעזֶ ר‬ֶ ִ‫“ ; ֶאל‬God is help”), the steward of *Abraham’s household (Gen. 15:2).
In the Bible
Eliezer’s name appears in the text immediately following theword “Dammesek.” While English “Tokyo Rose” is syntactically unobjectionable, “Damascus Eliezer” is foreign to Hebrew. Ginsberg (in bibliography) suggests accordingly thatdammeseq eliezer is a phantom resulting from scribal corruption. Alternatively, “Dammesek Eliezer” is simply the name ofthe steward, composed of two words. According to the story,
Abraham complained to God that material reward would beof little use to him since, because he had no offspring, his servant Eliezer was to be his heir. God replied with the promiseof a natural heir (Gen. 15:4ff.). This episode is made clear inlight of the Nuzi archives, which frequently mention the filial
adoption of a stranger, sometimes a slave, by a childless couple to tend them in old age and perform their funeral rites in
return for being their heir. Sometimes, complications mightarise where a natural son would be born after the adoption,
as in the case of Eliezer. The Nuzi contracts, however, carefully set out the rights and obligations of both parties in such
eventualities.

ing his master’s wish even to his own disadvantage. He had adaughter whom he hoped Isaac would marry, and the failureof his mission would have made this possible (Gen. R. 59:9).
He is credited with having acquired all the virtues and learning of his master. His name, “Eliezer of Damascus” is interpreted as meaning that he drew from and provided others withhis master’s teachings (Dammesek = doleh u-mashkeh; Yoma
28b). He even resembled Abraham in his physical appearance, and Laban mistook him for his master (Gen. R. 60:7).
Raised in Nimrod’s court, Eliezer was presented to Abraham
after his miraculous deliverance from the fiery furnace (Sefer
ha-Yashar, Noah 42). Eliezer alone went with Abraham torescue Lot, the gematria of his name being 318, the numberof Abraham’s servants given in the Bible as constituting hisarmy (Gen. 14:14; Tanh. B., Gen. 73). Later, Eliezer visited Sodom where he was victim of the injustices practiced in thatcity (Sanh. 109b; see also *Sodom in the Aggadah). Despite
his admirable qualities, Eliezer still remained a member of thecursed Canaanite nation. He is identified as one of the two lads
who accompanied Abraham and Isaac to the *akedah (Lev.
R. 26:7), and who remained at the foot of Mount Moriah because they could not see the vision which was vouchsafed to
Abraham and Isaac (Gen. R. 56:2). Eliezer was wrongly suspected of having defiled Rebekah during their journey from
Haran (Pd RE 16).
As a reward for successfully discharging his mission,
he was emancipated by Abraham and given the kingdom ofBashan, over which he reigned under the name of Og (Pd RE
16). The curse resting upon Eliezer, as upon all descendants of
Canaan, was transformed into a blessing because of his loyal
service to Abraham (Gen. R. 60:7). His greatest recompense
was that God found him worthy of entering Paradise alive, adistinction accorded to very few (DEZ 1).
There are nine other biblical personages of the same
name: (1) Moses’ younger son (Ex. 18:4; I Chron. 23:15, 17;
26:25); (2)–(9) see I Chron. 7:8; 15:24; 27:16; II Chron. 20; 37;
Ezra 8:16; 10:18, 23, 31.
Bibliography: IN THE BIBLE: W.F. Albright, Yahweh and theGods of Canaan (1970), 57–58 and note 30; L. Feigin, in: JBL, 50 (1931),
186–200; E.M. Cassin (ed.), L’Adoption a Nuzi (1938); M.D. Cassuto,
in: EM, 2 (1954), 675–6; O. Eissfeldt, in: JSS, 5 (1960), 48–9; W.F. Albright, in: BASOR, 163 (1961), 47 and n. 54; E.A. Speiser, Genesis (1954),
111–2; N.M. Sarna, Genesis (1989), 382–83. IN THE AGGADAH: Ginzberg, Legends, index; L.I. Rabinowitz, in: JQR, 58 (1967/68), 143–61.
Add. Bibliography: H.L. Ginsberg, in: BASOR, 200 (Albright
Anniversary; 1970), 31–2.

In the Aggadah
Although nowhere so mentioned specifically in the narrative,
Eliezer is identified by the rabbis with the anonymous servant
sent by Abraham to find a wife for Isaac (Gen. 24). He is thus
made the prototype of the loyal and selfless servant, fulfill-

ELIEZER BEN HYRCANUS (end of the first and beginningof the second century C.E.), tanna. He is sometimes called
Eliezer the Great (Sot. 9:15; Tosef., Or., end) and is the Eliezer
mentioned without patronymic. R. Eliezer was one of the pillars of the early talmudic tradition, and through his student R.
Akiva (and Akiva’s circle of disciples) he had a decisive influence on the evolution of halakhah during the tannaitic period
and beyond. In the eyes of later talmudic tradition, the period

322

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6eliezer ben hyrcanusof the tannaim was a heroic age, and even the slightest scrap
of information about the least of the tannaim can develop in
the later aggadah into a tale of epic proportions. In the case of
truly heroic and significant personalities, like R. Eliezer – who
was already the subject of many colorful stories in the tannaitic
literature itself – this process of literary expansion and elaboration is inevitable. R. Eliezer even became the subject of anearly medieval midrashic romance (*Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer),
while the talmudic story of his death was retold in the Zohar(1:98a), providing the literary prototype for the Zoharic masterpiece, the Idra Zuta. R. Eliezer remained the object of admiration and the subject of an ongoing and developing narrative tradition for over 1,000 years. As a result it is not always
easy to distinguish between the earlier and more fundamental
forms of the traditions relating to this historical figure, andthose which reflect a later more romanticized and “fictionalized” form of these traditions. In fact it would be fair to saythat up to and through the 1970s scholars rarely even made any
attempt to distinguish between these different literary and historical levels. Only after Jacob Neusner’s revolutionary studies of the life and legend of Rabban Joḥ anan ben Zakkai did
scholars begin to pay serious attention, not only to the legend,
but also to the history of the legend. Below, we will first bringin outline the “legend” of R. Eliezer, as summarized by one of
the finest scholars of the last generation, and then make a few
brief comments about the “history of the legend.”

his teacher both in his method of study and his behavior. He
never walked four cubits without studying and without tefillin;no one ever found him sitting in silence, but only sitting andlearning; he never said anything that he had not heard from his
teacher (Suk. 28a). During the Roman War Eliezer was closely
attached to his teacher. He and his colleague, *Joshua b. Hananiah, bore Johanan in a coffin outside the walls of Jerusalem
during the siege for his meeting with Vespasian (Git. 56a).
After the destruction of the Temple he was numberedamong the important scholars of the great bet din of *Jabneh(Sanh. 17b). He also played an important part in national affairs. He was a member of a delegation to Rome headed by
the nasi to obtain concessions for the Jews (TJ, Sanh. 7:16, 25d,
et al.); and traveled to Antioch on behalf of the scholars (ibid.,Hor. 3:7, 48a). He married into the family of the nasi; his wife,*Imma Shalom, was the sister of Rabban *Gamaliel. His permanent home was in Lydda, where he established an academy.
Among his outstanding pupils were *Akiva, *Ilai, *Yose b. Dormaskos, Abba Hanan, and *Aquila the proselyte. His bet midrash was well-known, and the verse “Justice, justice shalt thoufollow” (Deut. 16:20) was applied to it: “Follow an eminent bet
din, follow the bet din of Johanan b. Zakkai and the bet din ofEliezer [in Lydda]” (Sif. Deut. 144; cf. Sanh. 32b).

Education
Eliezer’s youth is enveloped in legend. It is said that until theage of 22 (or 28) he worked the estates of his wealthy father,but on deciding to study he left home, making his way to theschool of *Johanan b. Zakkai in Jerusalem. There he studied
diligently in poverty and want until he became one of the outstanding students of the academy. Some time later his father
came to Jerusalem to take a vow to deprive him of his inheritance. When he entered the bet midrash, however, and foundhis son sitting at the head, with all the great scholars of Jerusalem facing him, expounding the Torah and “transcending
what was said to Moses at Sinai, his countenance as luminous
as the light of the sun, and beams emanating from him as therays from Moses,” Hyrcanus changed his mind and instead
wished to bequeath the whole of his fortune to Eliezer, who,
however, refused to accept more than his brothers (ARN1 6,
31; ARN2 13, 32; Pd RE 1; 2, and parallels). According to anothertradition, he was outstanding already in his youth. It was realized that he was destined to achieve great things, and theverse (Prov. 20:11), “Even a child is known by his doings,” wasapplied to him (Gen. R. 1:11, and parallels). Johanan b. Zakkai
had a very high opinion of his pupil and said of him, “If all
the sages of Israel were in one scale of the balance and Eliezer
b. Hyrcanus in the other, he would outweigh them all” (Avot
2:8). He also praised his phenomenal memory, calling him“a cemented cistern that does not lose a drop” and “a pitchedvessel that preserves its wine” (ARN1 14, 58), a reference also
to his intense conservatism. Eliezer followed the example ofHalakhic Method and Relation to his Colleagues
In his halakhic method Eliezer is distinguished by his great
attachment to early traditions and ancient halakhot. This tie
with early halakhah brought him into conflict with the trends
operating in the council of Jabneh to adjust the halakhah inthe light of the changes that took place with the destructionof the Temple, and to crystallize the religious tradition into afixed and uniform system. In his disputes with *Joshua andhis associates, different attitudes to the halakhah found expression. Thus Eliezer endeavored to limit the use of hermeneutical rules as a basis for deriving new halakhot, regarding
the tradition and doctrine which had been handed down as
the foundation and essence of the halakhah (Neg. 9:3; Tosef.,
TY 1:8 and 10; et al.). He regarded the act as the determinantof a person’s obligations and punishments, in contrast to his
associates who regarded intent and purpose as the deciding
factor (Ker. 4:3; Tosef., TY 2:13f.; et al.). Even the tendency tostringency which he reveals in a considerable number of his
halakhot was grounded in the early halakhah, which was basedon the doctrine of *Bet Shammai, as a result of which he wascalled “Shammuti” (“follower of Shammai”; Shab. 130b; TJ,
Beẓ ah 1:4, 60c; et al.). He was very determined and unforebearing (Ta’an. 25b). The drawn-out struggle between him andthe nasi and scholars of the Sanhedrin ended tragically. The
Talmud relates that during a discussion on the ritual purityof the “oven of Akhnai” (an oven made by Akhnai) in the college, Eliezer brought every conceivable argument in favor ofhis view but they were rejected by his colleagues. “He said tothem: ‘If the halakhah agrees with me, let this carob tree proveit,’ whereupon the carob tree was torn a hundred cubits out of
its place… He then said to them: ‘If the halakhah agrees with

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6323

eliezer ben hyrcanusme, let it be proved from heaven,’ whereupon a *bat kol criedout: ‘Why do you dispute with Eliezer, seeing that in all matters the halakhah agrees with him?’ R. Joshua arose and said,‘It [i.e., halakhic decision] is not in heaven’ [Deut. 30:12], we
pay no attention to a bat kol, for it is written in the Torah at
Mount Sinai: One must follow the majority’ [Ex. 23:2]” (BM59b). The aggadah continues that on that day all objects which
Eliezer had declared ritually pure were brought and burned. A
vote was then taken and they excommunicated him.
This severe step affected Eliezer’s status and undermined
his influence in halakhah. He was removed from the council, his associates and pupils held aloof from him, and evenrefrained from quoting his halakhot in the assembly of thescholars (Nid. 7b; Sif. Deut. 188). Of his violent reaction it isreported: “Great was the anger on that day, for everything at
which he cast his eyes was burned. Rabban Gamaliel, too, wastraveling in a ship when a huge wave arose to drown him. ‘It
appears to me,’ he reflected, ‘that this is on account of noneother than Eliezer b. Hyrcanus.’ He arose and said: ‘Lord of
the Universe! Thou knowest full well that I have acted neither for my honor nor for the honor of my father’s house, but
for Thine, so that strife may not multiply in Israel’” (BM 59b).
Rabban Gamaliel excused his action on the grounds that excommunication was designed to establish unity in the sphereof halakhah and to establish the authority of the council as adetermining and decisive institution in a fateful period in thelife of the nation.
Attitudes toward the Jewish and Pagan Worlds
Eliezer’s love for Israel and his country and his hatred of pagans knew no bounds. During the Roman War he was near in
spirit to the *Zealots. He considered weapons to be an adornment, permitting them to be worn on the Sabbath in public(Shab. 6:4). He forbade chapter 16 of Ezekiel to be read as haftarah, and sharply censured anyone who transgressed this,because it included matters that offend the honor and ancestry of the Jews (Meg. 4:10, 25b). His adverse opinion of heathens is expressed in his saying: “All the charity and kindness
done by the heathen is counted to them as sin, because they
only do it to magnify themselves” (BB 10b). This adverse attitude served as the basis for several of his halakhot, such as
his disqualification of sacrifice from heathens (Par. 2:1; Av.
Zar. 23a), and he endeavored as far as possible to lessen social contact between them and Jews (Ḥ ul. 2:7; Git. 45b). This,
too, is the cause of his reservations about accepting proselytes(Yev. 48b; BM 59b).
The Tosefta relates that Eliezer was once arrested by thegovernment for uttering heretical opinions. Though he wasliberated and exempted from punishment, he was greatly distressed that he had been wrongly suspected. Akiva, in an attempt to comfort him, said to him: “Perhaps you heard a heretical opinion and it appealed to you.” Eliezer rememberedthat in Sepphoris he had heard a halakhah from Jacob of Kefar
Sekhania in the name of Jesus b. Pandira, which had appealed
to him, thus transgressing (Prov. 5:8), “Remove thy way from

324

her,” i.e., from heresy. This may be reflected in his statement:“Keep away not only from ugly deeds but from what appearsuch” (Tosef., Ḥ ul. 2:24; Av. Zar. 16b). His bitter experience isreflected in his saying: “Let the honor of thy friend be as dearto thee as thine own; and be not easily provoked to anger; andrepent one day before thy death; and warm thyself before thefire of the wise, but beware of their glowing coals that thou be
not singed, for their bite is the bite of a fox, and their sting is
the sting of a scorpion, and their hiss is the hiss of a serpent,and all their words are like coals of fire” (Avot 2:10).
Attitude toward his Colleagues in his Last Days
When Joshua, Eleazar b. Azariah, and Akiva came to visit him
in his last illness, he expressed his severe indictment of thescholars for their withdrawal from him: “I shall be surprised
if these [the scholars of the generation] die a natural death,”he exclaimed bitterly; and in explanation he said, “Because
they did not come to study under me.” Eliezer then lifted botharms, placed them upon his breast, and said: “Woe for my twoarms, that are like two scrolls of the Law and that are about todepart from the world. For were all the seas ink, and all thereeds quills, and all the people scribes they would not suffice
to write all the Scripture and Mishnah I learned, and all thepractice I was taught at the yeshivah … and my pupils havetaken no more than the paint brush takes from the palette”(ARN1 25, 80f.; Sanh. 68a).
Attitude toward Eliezer after his Death
The attitude of the scholars to Eliezer changed only after his
death. “When his soul departed in purity, Joshua arose andsaid: ‘The vow is annulled! The vow is annulled!’ and he clungto him and kissed him and wept, saying, ‘Rabbi! Rabbi!’”(ibid.; TJ, Shab. 2:6, 5b). “Akiva rent his clothes and tore hishair until blood flowed and he fell to the ground and criedout: ‘Woe is me for thee, Rabbi! Woe is me for thee, Rabbi!
For thou hast left the whole generation orphaned. My father!
My father! the chariots of Israel and the horsemen thereof[II Kings 2:12]. I have many coins to change, but no one toaccept them’”(ibid.). Everyone realized: “With the death ofEliezer, the scroll of the Law was hidden away” (Sot. 49b). His
halakhot were restored to the bet midrash, many being cited in
his name in the Mishnah and beraitot. When scholars wished
to refute his words, Joshua said “You should not seek to refutethe lion after he is dead” (Git. 83a). The halakhah was also decided in accordance with his views in a number of instances(e.g., Nid. 7b). Eliezer left a son Hyrcanus who, according totradition, did not wish to occupy himself with study, whereupon Eliezer consecrated his property to heaven in order tocompel him to occupy himself with Torah. The scholars later
absolved him from his vow (She’iltot, Ex. 40; cf. Shab. 127b).
The Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer, as well as several other minor Midrashim, are ascribed to his authorship.
[Yitzhak Dov Gilat]

Toward a History of the Legend
When approaching the history of the legends surroundinga figure like R. Eliezer, it is virtually impossible to provide a
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6eliezer ben isaac
simple, synthetic overview of his life, like that presented above.
Each tradition has a history of its own, often beginning withsome early traditional element related in tannaitic sources,
and sometimes lacking any early literary foundation whatsoever. For example, in describing R. Eliezer’s early life, it isnatural to begin with the most detailed and colorful versionsof the story – ARN1 6, 31; ARN2 13, 32; Pd RE 1; 2. But all thesesources are post-talmudic, and reflect a highly romanticizedversion of events. Similarly in the case of the story of the “ovenof Akhnai,” it is tempting to begin with the “complete” versionof events – including a full description of R. Eliezer’s excommunication – as laid out in Babylonian Talmud BM 59b, andto set aside the fragments of information found in tannaitic
sources, or the merely “partial” description found in the earlier Jerusalem Talmud. Yet what do the early sources have totell us? Mishnah Kelim 5:10 reports a simple and unexceptional
dispute between R. Eliezer and the Sages, over a certain kind ofoven, called the “oven of Akhnai,” which R. Eliezer consideredpure (i.e., not susceptible to ritual impurity), while the Sages
held that it was impure (i.e., susceptible to ritual impurity). In
Mishnah Eduyyot 7:7, however, this tradition is transmitted ina somewhat different form: “They testified that an oven [of thissort] was impure, since R. Eliezer held that it was pure.” From
this source it sounds as if R. Eliezer’s opinion about this ovenhad been the subject of a special debate, in which his view was
dismissed as invalid. The Tosefta of Eduyyot (2:1) restates themore neutral formulation of Mishnah Kelim, but adds at theend: “and it was called the oven of Akhnai, about which there
were many disputes in Israel.” From this it might seem thatthe dispute over the oven of Akhnai did not end with the attempt of the Sages to suppress R. Eliezer’s position, but rather
resulted in further and more serious disputes and confrontations. The next stage in the development of this tradition isfound in the Jerusalem Talmud (MK 3:1, 81d). After quoting
Mishnah Kelim, it transmits the following description in thename of R. Jeremiah – a fourth generation Palestinian amora:“A great tribulation occurred on that day. Wherever R. Eliezer
looked was stricken. Not only that, but even a single stalk of
wheat was half stricken and remained half healthy, and thewalls of the meeting hall began to weaken. R. Joshua said tothem: ‘If friends are having an altercation what concern is itof yours?’ Then a heavenly voice declared: ‘The halakhah is
according to R. Eliezer, my son.’ R. Joshua replied: ‘It is not inheaven.’ ” R. Jeremiah’s description contains nothing about any
excommunication, and in fact this Palestinian tradition contains little more than a colorful elaboration of what could be
gleaned from the tannaitic sources themselves. On the other
hand, immediately prior to this discussion of Mishnah Kelim,
the Jerusalem Talmud (MK 81c) brings two anonymous traditions beginning with the words “They attempted to excommunicate R. Meir,” and “They attempted to excommunicate R.
Eliezer.” In the first case R. Meir objected, and it would seemthat the excommunication was not put into effect. In the second case also, after R. Akiva went to inform R. Eliezer thathis “friends” had excommunicated him, R. Eliezer objected, as

the Jerusalem Talmud relates: “He took him and went outside,and said ‘Carob, Carob! If the halakhah is as they say, uproot
yourself!’ But it did not uproot itself. ‘If the halakhah is as I
say, uproot yourself!’ and it did uproot itself. ‘If the halakhah
is as they say, return!’ But it did not return. ‘If the halakhah
is as I say, return!’ and it did return.” Here also there is nosign that the proposed excommunication was put into effect.
But when all of these anonymous and attributed Palestinianamoraic traditions are brought in Babylonian Talmud BM 59b
they are presented woven together into a single coherent andcontinuous narrative, appearing as a single tannaitic baraita(whose content was summarized in outline above). Does the
Babylonian Talmud preserve here an early tannaitic tradition, which contains the full and authentic version of historical events as they occurred, or does the Babylonian Talmud’s
version represent, rather, the final stage – to use Neusner’s
phrase – in the “development of a legend”? Each individual
case obviously needed to be analyzed and evaluated in its own
right. Similar questions need to be raised and similar analyses
provided with respect to the halakhic positions ascribed to R.
Eliezer both in tannaitic and amoraic sources. Because of thehighly technical nature of these discussions, however, we willpass over them here.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

325[Stephen G. Wald (2nd ed.)]Bibliography: B.Z. Bokser, Pharisaic Judaism in Transition(1935), biography; Schuerer, Gesch, index; Klausner, Bayit Sheni, index; Bacher, Tann, S.V.; Epstein, Tanna’im, 65–70; Halevy, Dorot, 1,
pt. 5 (1923), 281ff.; H. Oppenheim, in: Beit Talmud, 4 (1885), 311–6,
332–8, 360–6; D. Luria, Kuntres ha-Hakdamot ve-ha-Mavo le-Sefer
Pirkei R. Eliezer ha-Gadol (1884); G. Bader, Jewish Spiritual Heroes,
1 (1940), 212–25; Guttmann, in: Memorial Volume… I. Godziher, 2(1958), 100–10 (English section); Y.D. Gilat, Mishnato shel R. Eliezer
ben Hyrcanus u-Mekomah be-Toledot ha-Halakhah (1968). Add.
Bibliography: Y.D. Gilat, R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, A Scholar
Outcast (1984); J. Neusner, Eliezer b. Hyrcanos: The Traditions andthe Man (1973).

ELIEZER BEN ISAAC (Ashkenazi; 16t century), Czech Hebrew printer. Eliezer was born in Prague. In partnership withothers he printed Hebrew books in Lublin from 1557 to 1573.
For a short while an epidemic forced him to move to Konska
Wola, near Lublin, and some of the products of his press bear
the name of that small town. Among the works printed by him
in Lublin are some tractates of the Talmud, published with theapproval and recommendation of the *Councils of the Lands.
In 1574 he set out for Constantinople, taking his typographic
equipment, and set up press in partnership with David b. Elijah Kashti. They printed a volume of geonic responsa (1575)
and began a Maḥ zor Romania (festival prayer book according to the Romaniot rite), in which Kashti, as a member ofthe old-established pre-Turkish community, was particularlyinterested. The partnership broke up before the maḥ zor was
finished. Then Eliezer alone issued Baruch ibn Ya’ish’s commentary on the Song of Songs under the title Mekor Barukh(1576). The same year Eliezer went to Safed, where he enteredinto partnership with Abraham b. Isaac (Ashkenazi), whoeliezer ben isaac of worms
financed the press. Thus they established the first press inEreẓ Israel. They produced three works in the years 1577–79.
Later Eliezer returned to Constantinople, where he printed,
once more in partnership with Kashti, Samuel Aripol’s Lev
Ḥ akham (1586). In 1587, in Safed again, Eliezer printed three
more books. Eliezer apparently died soon after.
Bibliography: A.M. Habermann, Toledot ha-Defus bi-Ẓ efat
(1962), 7–15; A. Yaari, Ha-Defus ha-Ivri be-Kushta (1967), 30–32; idem,
Ha-Defus ha-Ivri be-Arẓ ot ha-Mizraḥ , 1 (1937), 9–11, 17–20.

ELIEZER BEN ISAAC OF WORMS (also called “Eliezer
ha-Gadol”; 11t century), German talmudic scholar. Eliezer
was a pupil of his relative Simeon ha-Gadol, in *Mainz, andlater of *Gershom Me’or ha-Golah, and *Judah ha-Kohen,author of Sefer ha-Dinim. He was a friend of *Jacob b. Jakar(Rokeaḥ , Ha-Tefillah 21; Joseph Solomon Delmedigo, Maẓ refle-Ḥ okhmah 14:2). After the death of R. Gershom, he andJacob b. Yakar headed the yeshivah of Mainz, which numbered among its pupils Isaac ha-Levi and *Isaac b. Judah, theteacher of Rashi, who mentions Eliezer several times in his
commentaries to the Bible (e.g., Ps. 76:11) and the Talmud(Pes. 76b) calling him “ha-Gadol” or “ha-Ga’on.” A number
of Eliezer’s decisions and instructions have been preservedin works issuing from Rashi’s school, including the Sefer haPardes. Menahem b. Judah di Lonzano attributes to Eliezer
the well-known work, Orḥ ot Ḥ ayyim or Ẓ avva’at R. Eli’ezer
ha-Gadol, which had previously been attributed to *Eliezer b.
Hyrcanus. The suggestion that Eliezer was the father of Tobiah
b. Eliezer, author of the Lekaḥ Tov, is without firm foundation.
The selihah “Elohai Basser” recited in the Yom Kippur Katan
service, which bears Eliezer’s name in acrostic form, has been
attributed to him.
Bibliography: Guedemann, Gesch Erz, 1 (1880), 120–6; A.
Epstein and J. Freimann (eds.), Sefer Ma’aseh ha-Ge’onim (1909), xv;
I. Abrahams, Hebrew Ethical Wills, 1 (1926), 31–49; Germ Jud, 1 (1934),
192, no. 13; V. Aptowitzer, Mavo le-Sefer Ravyah (1938), 310f.

contributions is his interpretation of the phrase: “serve Himwith all your heart and with all your soul” (Deut. 11:13), which
he interpreted as an admonition to priests officiating in the
Temple not to allow extraneous thoughts to enter their minds(Sif. Deut., Ekev. 41).
(2) Tanna of the second century. A pupil of R. *Akiva(Gen. R. 61:3; TJ, Ḥ ag. 3:1, 78d), he was among the sages who
participated in the synod at Usha after the Hadrianic persecutions (Song Rabbah 2:5). Talmudic sources quote halakhot
on which he differed from his colleagues R. *Meir, R. *Judah,
R. *Yose, R. *Simeon b. Yoḥ ai, and R. *Eleazar b. Shammu’a(Neg. 10:4; Tosef., Yev. 10:5; Tosef., BK 5:7). He is reported assaying: “Whoever provides lodging in his home for a scholar
and shares with him his wealth has the merit of one who offers up a daily sacrifice” (Ber. 10b). His kindness is illustrated
in a story which tells that once, when a blind man came to his
town, Eliezer gave him a seat of honor above his own. Whenthe people saw this, they maintained the blind man in honor.
The latter, on learning the reason for his good fortune, offereda prayer on Eliezer’s behalf saying: “You have dealt kindly with
one who is seen but sees not. May He who sees but is unseen
accept your prayers and deal graciously with you” (TJ, Pe’ah
8:9, 21b).
Bibliography: Frankel, Mishnah, 76–78; Hyman, Toledot,
181–4; Halevy, Dorot, 1 (1923), 84–86, 181–5; Bacher, Tann, 1 (19032),
62–67; 2 (1890), 23 n. 3, 39f. n. 5, 76 n. 2, 151 n. 1, 191 n. 4.
[Yitzhak Dov Gilat]

ELIEZER BEN JACOB HALEVI (Horovitz) OF TARNOGROD (d. 1806), rabbi and ḥ asidic author. A descendantof a famous rabbinic family, he was a disciple of Elimelechof Lyzhansk, Jacob Isaac of Lublin, and Israel of Kozienice.
He wrote No’am Megadim (Lemberg, 1807) and Amarot Tehorot (Warsaw, 1838). According to one of his sayings, eventhe greatest saint has to hide his own light to avoid the sinof pride.
[Adin Steinsaltz]

ELIEZER BEN JACOB, name of two tannaim.
(1) Tanna who lived during the period of the destruction of the Second Temple. He was intimately acquainted
with the Temple and describes its structure, arrangements,
and customs (Mid. 1:9; 2:6; Ar. 2:6; etc.). A tradition statesthat he was the author of the Mishnah *Middot on the structure and dimensions of the Temple (Yoma 16a; TJ, Yoma, 2:3,
39d). It is reported that *Ben Azzai found in Jerusalem a genealogical scroll in which it was written that the opinions
quoted in Eliezer’s name are few “but well-sifted” (i.e., irrefutable) and that his statements everywhere represent the accepted halakhah (Yev. 49b). Since there was another tannaof the same name (see below), it is sometimes difficult todistinguish which of the two was the author of certain halakhot. It is, however, undoubtedly this Eliezer who is quoted
in connection with laws dealing with the Temple and in discussions with R. *Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, R. *Ishmael b. Elisha,and R. *Ilai (Kil. 6:2; Kelim 7:3; Pes. 39a). One of his aggadic

ELIEZER BEN JOEL HALEVI OF BONN (Heb. acronym‫ראבי"ה‬, Ravyah; 1140–1225), rabbinic scholar in Germany. His
maternal grandfather was Eliezer b. Nathan. Eliezer studied
under his father *Joel ha-Levi of Bonn, as well as under Judahhe-Ḥ asid, and Judah b. Kalonymus of Mainz. His brother Uri
died a martyr’s death in 1216; Eliezer’s mourning for him wasso great that his vision was impaired and he was compelled
to dictate his novellae to his students, among them *Isaac b.
Moses Or Zaru’a. In the course of his long life, Eliezer wandered from place to place: Bonn, Worms, Wuerzburg, Mainz,
Metz, Cologne, Regensburg, and, apparently, through Franceand Lombardy. He refused to accept rabbinical office so as“neither to be glorified by, nor benefit from, the Torah” (Ravyah, no. 396) until he was robbed of his fortune. At his father’srequest, he accepted the rabbinate of Cologne in 1200. The
status he then attained as spiritual leader and halakhic expert
bore out the prophecy of Eliezer of Metz, “Honor will pursue

326

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6eliezer ben nathan of mainz
you, and you will merit a lofty seat on high” (ibid.). In 1220 heparticipated in the communal synod at Mainz and was among
the signatories of the enactments passed there. Nothing further is known of him after this date.
His major work, Ravyah, also called Avi ha-Ezri (“My Father is my Help”), is a compendium of articles that developed
into a book. It contains halakhot and legal decisions according
to the order of the tractates in the Talmud as well as researchon halakhic subjects which he calls “responsa.” Among these“responsa” are some genuine responsa written by him and his
father to contemporary scholars. They are written in simple,
lucid language, and are generally prefaced by rhymed introductions. In 1885 Ḥ .N. Dembitzer published tractate Berakhot
with the relevant responsa from a manuscript of Ravyah towhich he added his own notes, Livyat Ḥ en. V. Aptowitzer continued the task in a two-volume critical edition (published by
Mekiẓ e Nirdamim, Berlin, 1913; Jerusalem, 1935) up to section
893. He later published addenda and corrigenda (1936) andan introduction (1938). She’ar Yashuv Cohen and E. Prisman
revised Aptowitzer’s editions in three volumes (Jerusalem,1965) and added a fourth volume covering sections 894–919.
Eliezer also wrote Mishpetei Ketubbah, to which Seder Binyan
Bayit Sheni (“The Order of the Construction of the Second
Temple”) is an appendix. Yom Tov Lipmann Heller quotes it
15 times in his commentary on tractate Middot. Early authorities mention his Avi’asaf, a commentary on the orders Nashim
and Nezikin, in addition to other material not included in
Ravyah, which was seen by Ḥ .J.D. Azulai. He apparently also
composed tosafot on various tractates; likkutim, consisting of
explanations of passages of the Pentateuch; and six piyyutim.
Although his chief purpose was the determination of the halakhah, Eliezer’s approach to textual clarification and to the basic sources (Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds; rishonim) isreminiscent of the approach of the tosafists. His works wereconsidered basic in halakhic literature until the publicationof the Shulḥ an Arukh. The great codifiers relied heavily upon
him and R. Eliezer of Metz called him “the pillar of decisionand the foundation of halakhah.” He was also famous for his
piety and for his ethical teaching, his contemporaries referring to him as “one who by his exhortations brought about
repentance” (Ravyah, no. 922 in Ms.).

bet din in Rozwadow, where he probably spent most of hislife. Later, at the time of the printing of his book, he was apreacher in the town of Tarnigrad. His Ir Dammesek Eliezer(Zolkiew, 1764) is, for the most part, a detailed homiletic andhalakhic analysis of the weekly Torah portions. Each homily is divided into two parts: “Ḥ uẓ ot Dammesek” and “Penei
Dammesek.” Very often Eliezer brings lengthy sayings andrules by contemporary East European rabbis; his work is thus
an important source for their teachings. The second part ofthis book, a short ethical work entitled “Sha’arei Dammesek,”
contains four sections called she’arim (“gates”). The first deals
with the Torah, the second with prayer, and the third, withrepentance; the fourth, “the gate of Jerusalem,” deals mainlywith reverence toward and fear of God. To this last section
the author added, at the conclusion of the work, a collectionof homilies on various ethical themes, called “Pirkei de-Rabbi
Eliezer.” Well versed in Kabbalah, Eliezer often quotes both
the Zohar and ethical kabbalistic literature, in addition to theusual rabbinic sources.

Bibliography: Zunz, Lit Poesie, 326f.; Gross, in: MGWJ,
34 (1885), 303–20, 367–75, 505–24, 555–72; 35 (1886), 24–32, 74–81;
Weiss, Dor, 5 (19044), 72–73; Davidson, Oẓ ar, 4 (1933), 365; Germ Jud,1 (1963), 75–78; V. Aptowitzer, Mavo le-Sefer Ravyah (1938); H. Tchernowitz, Toledot ha-Posekim, 2 (1947), 50–54; Urbach, Tosafot, 315–21;
Monumenta Judaica, Handbuch (1963), 95, 103, 121, 122f.; S.Y. Cohenand E. Prisman (eds.), Sefer Ravyah, 4 (1965), 11–38.

Bibliography: Nadav, in: Zion, 34 (1969), 101–4; W.Z. Rabinowitsch, Lithuanian Ḥ asidism (1970), index.

Bibliography: Benjacob, Oẓ ar, 440.
[Joseph Dan]ELIEZER BEN MEIR HALEVI OF PINSK (second half
18t century), rabbi and darshan. A descendant of Samuel*Edels (Maharsha), Eliezer was rosh yeshivah in Pinsk in the1760s and 1770s, and, in the early 1780s, rabbi and av bet din
in Chomsk (Khomsk). Returning to Pinsk in the late 1780s,
he served as the rabbi of that city and of its kloyz (a type ofbet ha-midrash). In this latter period, he became involved in a
dispute in connection with a ḥ asidic leader, Aaron ha-Gadol.
The Maggid *Dov Ber of *Mezhirech sent a letter to Eliezer inwhich he requested that they unite in one group together with
Aaron. The exact nature of this dispute is not known; somethink that Eliezer was sympathetic to the Ḥ asidim.
Eliezer wrote two homiletic works, Si’aḥ ha-Sadeh (Shklov, 1787) and Re’aḥ ha-Sadeh (ibid., 1795), the first containing
one sermon for each weekly Torah portion, and the second,
two for each weekly Torah portion. The sermons, primarily
ethical and moralistic in tone, are concerned with repentancein the realm of the mitzvot between man and God. Eliezer often uses kabbalistic symbols.

ELIEZER BEN MANASSEH BEN BARUCH (mid-18t
century), preacher in western Russia and author of an ethicalwork. In his youth, Eliezer spent some time studying in Berlin. It is not known who his teachers were or what he studied there. After some years of traveling, he was appointed av

ELIEZER BEN NATHAN OF MAINZ (known as RaBaN= Rabbi Eliezer Ben Nathan; c. 1090–c. 1170), one of “the elders of Mainz” and a leading rabbinic authority in Germanyin the 12t century. Eliezer was apparently born in Germany
and in his youth seems to have studied with rabbis of Mainz.
Later he lived for a time in the Slavic countries, and possibly
in Russia. He then returned to Mainz, where he married thedaughter of Eliakim b. Joseph, of whose rabbinical court hewas a member. Among his four sons-in-law were *Samuel b.
Natronai and *Joel b. Isaac ha-Levi. He was also related to*Ephraim b. Jacob of Bonn and Jacob b. Isaac ha-Levi. It is

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6327[Yehoshua Horowitz]

eliezer ben nathan of mainz
doubtful whether *Asher b. Jehiel was a descendant of his.
When the latter refers to zekeni ha-Rabban, the quotations
are mainly from the Ravyah of *Eliezer b. Joel ha-Levi. Raban’s contemporaries in France and Germany recognized his
authority, and they addressed him in terms of great respect.
Indeed Raban was in contact with all the major Jewish communities of his time. In 1150, together with Jacob b. Meir *Tamand *Samuel b. Meir, he drew up the famous Takkanot Troyes(the Troyes Ordinances).
His great work (Sefer ha-Raban) which he called Even haEzer (“Stone of Help”) is the first complete book that has survived emanating from German Jewry. It contains responsa andvarious extracts and halakhic rulings following the order of
the talmudic tractates. The book appears to have come down
exactly as Eliezer wrote it (but cf. Sefer ha-Raban, p. 106a),
although there is no logical continuity from one section to
the next and there are a number of omissions. The section
numbers are by Eliezer himself, who used them for internalreference purposes, but in the printed editions they are deleted
from §385 onward. The book contains expositions of talmudic topics and commentaries on customs, liturgical passages,
including the Kaddish, as well as interpretations of various Midrashim and of chapter 31 of Proverbs, together withcorrespondence with over 20 rabbinical authorities of theday.
The book contributes much to knowledge of the way oflife of the Jews of France and Germany in the 12t century andis a mine of information on the state of scholarship and religious practice in France, Germany, and Babylonia. The bookfunctioned as a bridge between the world of the Talmud andthe daily life of the Jew. Even ha-Ezer was a conduit for theWestern dissemination of geonic literature and ideas. It is alsoa major source of early German customs. Special mention
should be made of Eliezer’s considerable use of the talmudiccommentary of *Hananel b. Ḥ ushi’el (“Rabbenu Hananel”;
often without mention of the source) only about 50 years after it appeared. Most likely Hananel’s commentaries came tohim from the Arukh of *Nathan b. Jehiel of Rome whom healso quotes. The citations from Hananel are rendered moreaccurately by Eliezer than by other early authorities. Eliezer
is also the first to cite the anonymous Sefer ha-Mikẓ o’ot. The
Wolfenbuttel manuscript of Even ha-Ezer contains a sharply
worded anti-Christian polemic that is based on chapter 30
of Proverbs. This is the first known polemic to emerge frommedieval Germany.
There is some confusion with regard to the book Ẓ afnat
Pa’ne’aḥ (“Revealer of Secrets”), which the early authorities
cite frequently, and which they attribute to Eliezer. The factthat many of the quotations appear in the Even ha-Ezer indicates that it may have been known by two names. Another
opinion is that the reference is to a shorter edition of thebook, while still another view is that there was an entirely different book, from which the copyists added to the Sefer haRaban that has been preserved. Another book ascribed to
Eliezer, Even ha-Roshah, which is in manuscript, is merely aBibliography: S. Albeck (ed.), Sefer Raban (1904), 3–27
(introd.); Davidson, Oẓ ar, 4 (1933), 364–5; V. Aptowitzer, Mavo leSefer Ravyah (1938), 49–57; Urbach, Tosafot, 148–58; idem (ed.),
Sefer Arugat ha-Bosem, 4 (1963), 24–39; A.M. Habermann, Gezerot
Ashkenaz ve-Ẓ arefat (1945), 72–82; Levine, in: Tarbiz, 29 (1959/60),
162–75; Baron, 4 (1957), 287–8; K. Schilling (ed.), Monumenta JudaicaHandbuch (1963), 674, 676. Add. Bibliography: D. Ackerman,
in: WCJS, 11, C1 (1994), 57–64; idem, in: Proceedings of the Rabbinical
Assembly, 55 (1994), 94–104; A. Shapiro, “Jewish Life in Germany of
the 12t century: A Study of Eben ha-Ezer of Rabbi Eliezer bar Nathan of Mayence as a Source for the History of the Period,” dissertation, Dropsie College (1968); S. Eidelberg, The Jews and the Crusaders (1996).
[Israel Moses Ta-Shma]

328

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6compilation from “Hilkhot Dinin” in the Sefer ha-Raban (pp.
92ff.), corresponding in all respects with a similar compilation printed in the *Kol Bo. Sefer ha-Raban was first published in Prague (1610) and subsequently (only as far as tractate Niddah) by S. Albeck, who added a long introduction in
Warsaw (1905). Part of it was published in Jerusalem (1915) by
Leib Raskes, and the entire work was published by Solomon
S. Ehrenreich (Simleul-Silvaniei, 1927), who wrote an extensive commentary to it.
Eliezer was the first commentator on piyyut in Germany.
Part of his commentaries are preserved in manuscript, ofwhich only fragments have been printed, often interspersedwith selections from the commentaries of other early authorities in maḥ zorim published in Ostrog (1810, 1817 et al.) andSlawita (Maḥ zor Korban Aharon, 1826, et al.). An old manuscript, given to the editors by Ephraim Zalman Margaliot,
served as the basis for this printing. Another incomplete manuscript was in the possession of Solomon Zalman *Halberstam (Kehillat Shelomo, Vienna, 1890). Eliezer’s commentary
encompassed the entire maḥ zor, the complete siddur for Sabbaths and weekdays, the Haggadah, and Pirkei Avot (“Ethicsof the Fathers”). He has mistakenly been credited with the authorship of the anonymous Ma’amar Haskel (Cremona, 1557), a
commentary on his own piyyut El Elohim ha-Shem Dibber. The
commentary was actually written more than 100 years after histime. It is also doubtful whether he is the author of the commentary on the kinah of Kallir, Eikhah Yashevah Ḥ avaẓ ẓ elet
ha-Sharon, published by J.H. Schorr (see bibl.). Of Eliezer’s
piyyutim, some have been printed and others are extant only inmanuscript. The horrors of the First Crusade form the themeof some of his piyyutim. He also devoted a special booklet tothis subject, Kuntres Gezerot “Tatnu” (“Booklet on the Massacres of 1096,” publ. Leipzig, 1854; publ. in English translation
by Eidelberg, 1986). His commentary on Avot (also includedin the above-mentioned manuscript owned by Margaliot), wasin the possession of Jehiel Michael Moravchik, who made useof it “from the manuscript of the RaBaN written in 1145” inhis own commentary on Avot (Minḥ ah Ḥ adashah, Cracow,
1576). A didactic poem by Eliezer on the laws of sheḥ itah was
published in Sefer ha-Yovel le-Rav Shimon Skop (Vilna, 1936).
In Sefer ha-Roke’aḥ (§319) he is credited with having written
a book on customs.

eliezer ben yose ha-gelili
ELIEZER BEN SAMSON (fl. 12t century), paytan and rabbi
in Cologne; a pupil of R. Isaac b. Asher ha-Levi in Speyer. He
exchanged responsa with R. *Abraham b. Nathan, who referred
to him with admiration. Many of his decisions were used as
precedents by early authorities (Mordecai Ket. 219, Kid. 515,
Shev. 761; and R. Isaac b. Moses Or Zaru’a). He composed anumber of liturgical poems including a reshut in Aramaic to
the Sukkot haftarah, which described the era between the creation of the world and the revelation at Mount Sinai.
Bibliography: Landshuth, Ammudei, 23ff.; Fuenn, Keneset,
133; Germ Jud, 74; Kohn, in: MGWJ, 27 (1878), 44ff.; Zunz, Lit Poesie,
176; Davidson, Oẓ ar, 4 (1933), 365.

ELIEZER BEN SAMUEL HALEVI (d. 1357), German Jew,
son of Samuel b. Yakar, the ḥ azzan of Mayence (also known as
Tov Elem). Eliezer, who was not a rabbi, but was titled *ḥ aver,is known from his ethical will, which is preserved in several
manuscripts and first published in 1870 in a German translation (ed. by A. Berliner in Juedische Presse, 1 (1870), 90f., 99).
The Hebrew original was afterward published by M. Guedemann (Guedemann, Quellenschr, 295–8) and again, alongwith an English translation by I. Abrahams (Hebrew EthicalWills, 2 (1926), 1207–18). In this touching document Eliezer
requests that his children walk in God’s ways, that they fulfill
strictly all the mitzvot, that they be not mercenary, and if possible, live among Jews.

a manuscript by him on Ḥ ullin. Very few of his responsa havebeen preserved.
Bibliography: Gross, in: MGWJ, 34 (1885), 506f.; V. Aptowitzer, Mavo le-Sefer Ravyah (1938), 246f., 312–5; H. Tchernowitz,
Toledot ha-Posekim, 2 (1947), 78–87; M. Reich, in: Sinai Sefer Yovel(1958), 356–72; Urbach, Tosafot, 132–40.
[Israel Moses Ta-Shma]

ELIEZER BEN SAMUEL OF VERONA (early 13t century),
Italian tosafist. Eliezer was a pupil of Isaac b. Samuel of Dampierre (Roke’aḥ 377) and the teacher of *Avigdor b. Elijah Kohen
Ẓ edek of Vienna. He was a colleague of *Eleazar b. Judah ofWorms and of Abraham b. Moses of Regensburg. He wrote tosafot to the Talmud, and those to Bava Batra (from 144b ff.) in
particular are attributed to him. One of his rulings gave rise toconsiderable controversy. He permitted the widow of a certain
Solomon b. Jacob to remarry, seven years after he had disappeared when the ship in which he was sailing sank near Pesaro
in 1214. He sent his ruling to “the communities of the Rhineand of Cologne,” but Baruch b. Samuel of Mainz forbade theagunah to remarry. After Baruch’s death, Abraham b. Mosesof Mainz sent Eliezer’s ruling to Eliezer b. Joel ha-Levi, but
he confirmed the prohibition (Sefer Ravyah, 4 (1965), 133–43).
Eliezer’s responsa to *Isaac b. Moses of Vienna (Or Zaru’a) arequoted in Zedekiah b. Abraham’s Shibbolei ha-Leket (ed. by S.
Buber (1886), nos. 13, 237, and 247) and in Sefer Issur ve-Hetter (no. 9) by the same author (published in Ha-Segullah, 1,1934). There is also mention of his biblical exegesis (Zunz, in
HB, 7 (1864), 20ff.). Isaac Or Zaru’a calls Eliezer and *Isaiahdi Trani the Elder “the two kings of Israel.” *Hillel of Verona
was his grandson.

ELIEZER BEN SAMUEL OF METZ (c. 1115–c. 1198), tosafist
and halakhic authority. Eliezer was a pupil of Jacob *Tam (seeSefer ha-Yashar, ed. by F. Rosenthal (1898), 128 n. 57), as well
as of *Samuel b. Meir, and Ḥ ayyim Cohen of Paris. Among
his disciples were some of the greatest German rabbis, suchas *Eliezer b. Joel *ha-Levi and *Eleazar b. Judah of Worms,
author of the Roke’aḥ . He thus served as an intermediary between the centers of study in France and those in Germany.
Eliezer obtained his livelihood by moneylending, and was incharge of the distribution of charity. His daughters died during his lifetime. Little else is known of him. Eliezer’s mostimportant work is his Sefer Yere’im, written between 1171 and
1179, a work on the 613 precepts according to the enumeration of the *Halakhot Gedolot. It was abridged by Benjaminb. Abraham *Anav, who divided it into 12 “Pillars,” in which
form it was published in Venice in 1566, and in many later
editions. The complete book (464 paragraphs) was publishedfrom a Paris manuscript in Vilna (1892–1902) by Abraham
Abba Schiff who added a commentary entitled To’afot Re’em.
Other commentaries have also been written. Although essentially a halakhic work, Sefer Yere’im includes ethical maxims
and homilies on the true service of God. Halakhic discussions
are sometimes preceded by rhymed introductions. The rulingsof Sefer Yere’im as well as those in Eliezer’s commentaries on
the Talmud were accepted as authoritative by the rishonim.
Eliezer is also an author of tosafot and novellae. Mention ismade of his commentary to Berakhot, Shabbat, Zevaḥ im, andNedarim. Ḥ ayyim Joseph David *Azulai was in possession of

ELIEZER (Eleazar) BEN YOSE HAGELILI (“of Galilee”;
fl. second century C.E.), tanna. Eliezer is mentioned only oncein the Mishnah, but more than ten times in the Tosefta, andeven more frequently in the tannaitic Midrashim. Almost allof his dicta in both Talmuds, in beraitot, and in Midrashim
are aggadic. According to the Talmud, R. Eleazar b. Simeon
said of him: “Whenever you find the words of Eliezer b. Yosein the aggadah, bend your ear attentively” (Ḥ ul. 89a). The
Baraita of the Thirty-Two Rules, which defines the hermeneutical rules for the aggadic exposition of scripture, is ascribedto him, though in its present form this is highly unlikely (see:*Baraita of the Thirty-Two Rules). Among his statements are:
“A person in distress is forbidden to pray” (TJ, Ber. 5:1, 8d);
“Even if nine hundred and ninety-nine argue against a man[in the Heavenly Cause], while one argues in his favor, he isacquitted” (Shab. 32a). He applied the well-known saying of
R. Eleazar b. Azariah, to the effect that the full praise of a person should not be uttered in his presence, to teach that “oneENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6329

Bibliography: Zunz, Schr, 3 (1876), 250f.; S. Buber (ed.),Shibbolei ha-Leket ha-Shalem (1886), introd., 9; V. Aptowitzer, Mavo
le-Sefer Ravyah (1938), 195, 311f., 429–32; Urbach, Tosafot, 357–9,
504f.
[Yehoshua Horowitz]

eliezer fischel ben isaac of strzyzow
utters only a portion of the praise of Him at whose word theworld came into being” (Gen. R. 32:3).
Bibliography: Weiss, Dor, 2 (19044), 149; Hyman, Toledot,
180–1; Zunz-Albeck, Derashot, 143; Bacher, Tann, S.V.
[Alter Hilewitz]

ELIEZER FISCHEL BEN ISAAC OF STRZYZOW (end of
18t century), Galician kabbalist. Eliezer, who was born andlived in Strzyzow near Tarnopol, was close to the circle of the
kabbalists of the Klaus of Brody, and devoted four books tothe exposition of kabbalistic teaching in which the principles
of Lurianic doctrine were presented in a more lucid way thanin earlier works. His works include:(1) Sefer Olam ha-Gadol, also called Midrash la-Perushim(Zolkiew, 1800); (2) Sefer Olam Eḥ ad, on the unity of God according to kabbalistic teaching (ibid., 1802); (3) Sefer Olam
Barur, on the doctrine of the elevation of sparks (niẓ oẓ ot) andpurification of souls (ibid., 1800?); and (4) Sefer Olam Hafukh,
homilies on morality in Kabbalah (ibid., 1800?).
In addition to his works on Kabbalah, he also published
Olam Va’ed (1849), on the calculation of the seasons and newmoons (first days of months). Eliezer was nevertheless considered one of the leading opponents of Ḥ asidism and severalof his books contain both explicit and implicit criticism of thepractices of the Ḥ asidim.
[Gershom Scholem]

ELIEZER OF BEAUGENCY (fl. 12t century), biblical commentator from N. France. Nutt was of the opinion that Eliezer
was a student of *Samuel b. Meir but there is no clear-cut
evidence in support of this view. Few biographical details
are known of him. He had a knowledge of Latin and often
cited the Vulgate in his commentaries. Three of his commentaries have been preserved: on Isaiah (publ. by Nutt, 1879),
on Ezekiel, and on the minor prophets (both publ. by S.
Poznański, 1907–13). From references in these works and in
those of other exegetes, however, it appears that Eliezer also
wrote commentaries on the Pentateuch, Jeremiah, Psalms,
Ecclesiastes, and Daniel. It is possible that he covered all the
books of the Bible. Generally speaking Eliezer followed theliteral method of interpretation of the Bible adopted by his
French predecessors Rashi, Samuel b. Meir, and Joseph Kara.
Although he did not cite these commentators frequently, it
is quite clear that he relied upon them. Eliezer held Rashi ingreat esteem and called him simply “our teacher” or “our illustrious teacher.”In his attempts to give a literal exegesis of the Bible
Eliezer ignored rabbinic exegesis to an even greater degree
than his French colleagues. He occasionally referred to theMidrashim but adds that he would not utilize them since
they were not in accordance with the plain sense of the verse(cf. his comments on Zech. 7:3; Ezek. 43:17). His commentson certain verses conflicted with the halakhah (e.g., Isa. 9:6).
Nevertheless, he did concur at times with the homiletical interpretation. Eliezer attempted to identify the historical events

330

alluded to by the prophets and their significance, sometimes
interpreting the events to apply to the prophets’ own times; onother occasions he applied them to the future. In his identifications he was greatly influenced by the Sefer *Josippon. He also
placed greater emphasis than did his French predecessors on
the problems of dating the prophecies and the editing of thebooks (cf. his introduction to Isaiah). Like his contemporary,
Joseph *Bekhor Shor, Eliezer attempted to give a rational explanation of the supernatural miracles (e.g., Isa. 30:26; Zech.
4:3). On the other hand he believed that the constellations
influenced man’s fate. Orion and the Pleiades controlled the
movements of the planets and at their command the world
was destined for good or evil, war or peace, famine or plenty,
everything in its season (Amos 5:8 and in greater detail in Isa.
38:1). His comments were usually brief and to the point, but
his comments on the building of the Temple in Ezekiel constitute an exception which he justified because of the farfetchedinterpretations given by other exegetes.
In its simplicity and clarity Eliezer’s style was similar tothat of his French colleagues. His language was studded withbiblical and talmudic phrases and expressions, but he alsocoined new terms and expressions. Eliezer paid little attention
to questions of grammar. Like Rashi, he followed the system
of *Menahem b. Saruq and *Dunash ibn Labrat. In his exegesis he was usually guided by the cantillation signs (e.g., Isa.
6:3), though occasionally he disregarded them. On occasion
he drew upon the Targum, but here also he did not hesitate todisagree when he felt that its interpretation was contrary to theliteral meaning. In order to determine the exact biblical text
Eliezer examined various manuscripts which were available tohim in France. There were instances when the spelling in his
text differed from the present masoretic text (e.g., Ezek. 8:16;
Micah 6:7). Many of the French words (*la’azim) of which hemakes use are derived from Rashi’s commentary. Eliezer resorted to the Vulgate, which he attacked together with Christological interpretations of the Bible (cf. Isa. 7:14; 9:5). At times
his remarks reflect the conditions of his own times. For instance, in his commentary on Ezekiel 37:12, “I shall bring you
to the land of Israel,” he stated: “This verse is a great comfort
to all those who die a martyr’s death and even to those who
do not make the supreme sacrifice since they constantly suffer shame, disgrace, and physical abuse when they refuse toacknowledge false gods.”
Bibliography: S. Poznański (ed.), Perush al Yeḥ ezkel u-Terei
Asar le-Rabbi Eli’ezer mi-Belganzi (1913), introduction.
[Avraham Grossman]

ELIEZER OF TOUL (d. before 1234), French tosafist. Eliezer
came from Toul, near the German border. He studied under *Isaac b. Samuel the Elder of Dampierre. For some time
he lived in Boppard, Germany, where he served as a tutor in
the household of one of the local leaders of the community.
When the latter withheld his remuneration, the case was referred to the rabbis. Eliezer’s talmudic discussions appear in
the works of later *posekim, the disciples of *Meir b. Baruch
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6elijahof Rothenburg. Zedekiah b. Abraham *Anav of Rome mentions that he consulted his tosafot to tractate Beẓ ah, but thesehave not survived.
Bibliography: Urbach, Tosafot, 277f., 285.
[Israel Moses Ta-Shma]

ELIEZER OF TOUQUES (d. before 1291), one of the last tosafists and editors of tosafist literature. Only a few details of
his biography are known. He was a nephew of *Hezekiah of
Magdeburg and appears to be identical with the Eliezer b. Solomon who signed a well-known responsum on the questionof whether the *Ḥ erem ha-Yishuv applied to the communityof *Goslar. He studied under *Isaac b. Moses (Or Zaru’a) andwas the teacher of Ḥ ayyim *Paltiel. Eliezer’s contemporaries
had the highest regard for him, considering him an equal of*Meir b. Baruch of Rothenburg. Isaac Joshua b. Immanuel de*Lattes looked upon him as “head of the yeshivah of France,” apost later attributed to *Perez b. Elijah of Corbeil. The *tosafotof Eliezer of Touques are primarily an adaptation of those of*Samson b. Abraham of Sens, with the addition of later novellae. He sometimes adapted the tosafot of other scholars,among them *Judah b. Isaac Sir Leon. The disciples of Meir b.
Baruch of Rothenburg used Eliezer’s tosafot extensively, andit was through them that they became the accepted tosafot
of France and Germany. Consequently the publishers of the
Talmud also made an effort to include them, in order to enhance the value of their publication. The tosafot to the tractates Shabbat, Pesaḥ im, Ketubbot, Gittin, Bava Kamma, Bava
Meẓ ia, Bava Batra, Shevu’ot, and Ḥ ullin in the printed editionsof the Talmud, and possibly also of some other tractates, wereedited by Eliezer.

In the Aggadah
The aggadah praises both the wisdom and modesty of Elihu.
He was called “buzi” (lit. “lowly”; Job 32:2), only because heconsidered himself of low account in the presence of thosegreater than himself (Zohar, 2:166a), and showed his wisdomin never speaking until he had listened to what Job had to say(ARN1 37, 111–112). His wisdom is reflected in his statement:“Touching the Almighty, we can never find Him out” (Job
37:23). He would have merited to be mentioned in Scriptures
had he done no more than describe the action of the rainfall (cf. Job 36:27 and 37:3; Gen. R. 36:7). Elihu was a prophet(Sot. 15b) and descended from Nahor, the brother of Abraham (SER 28, 141–2).
Bibliography: Ginzberg, Legends, index; Y. Ḥ asida, Ishei
ha-Tanakh (1964), 65–66.

[Harold Louis Ginsberg]

ELIJAH (Heb. ּ‫ ֵאלִ ָ ּיהו‬, also ‫) ֵאלִ ָ ּיה‬, Israelite prophet active inIsrael in the reigns of *Ahab and Ahaziah (ninth century
B.C.E.). In the opinion of some scholars, the designation “theTishbite of the inhabitants of Gilead” (I Kings 17:1) supports
the hypothesis that Elijah did not live in one specific place inGilead but was a member of either the *Kenites or the *Rechabites, sects which led a nomadic existence. These scholars
detect even in his resolute war against *Baal and in his zeal
for Yahweh a line of conduct which they believe was characteristic of the Kenites and Rechabites but not of the nation
at large. (For the role of Jehonadab son of Rechab in Jehu’spurge of Baal, see II Kings 10:15–17.) But the accounts of Elijah’s wanderings (I Kings 17) describe his withdrawal fromsociety as a matter not of principle but of necessity (persecution, famine). In addition, the reading “of the inhabitants ofGilead” is suspect. It is impossible to decide whether “Elijah”
was a cognomen symbolizing the prophet’s mission: Eli-Jahu(“YHWH is God”), or whether he had been given that nameby parents zealous for Yahweh. Elijah brought matters to ahead by stressing the idea of zeal for YHWH, which unconditionally opposed the toleration of any cult (especially any official cult) other than that of YHWH in Israel. This extremist
position, summed up in the sentence “I have been moved byzeal for the Lord, the God of Hosts” (I Kings 19:10, 14), was aminority opinion among Israelites, who evidently could comfortably serve Yahweh and Baal (I Kings 18:21), let alone intrinsically different from the polytheistic outlook, which never
opposed in principle the blending of different religious cults,
or their separate existence side by side. Even *Jezebel, whofought against zealots like Elijah and is accused of killing the
Yahweh prophets (I Kings 18:13), was probably not opposedto the worship of Yahweh per se, but to the demand that he
be worshipped exclusively at the expense of Baal. Ahab, infact, gave his sons the names Ahaz-iah and Jeho-ram, which
are compounded with the name of the national god YHWH.
For the “Yahweh-alone” zealots, it was insufficient to worship
Yahweh as the national god while tolerating others. The attitude of Elijah and those of like mind was liable to impair relations between Israel and her neighbors. Because of this, Elijah’s

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6331

Bibliography: Urbach, Tosafot, index.
[Israel Moses Ta-Shma]ELIHU (Heb. ‫ ֱאלִ יהוּא‬, once ‫“ ; ֱאלִ יה ּו‬God is the one [who is to be
thanked, or worshipped]”), son of Barachel the Buzite, of thefamily of Ram, a character – first introduced, and quite unexpectedly, at Job 32:2 – who addresses Job and his three friends
from 32:6 through chapter 37. (For the literary problem thiscreates and an analysis of Elihu’s contribution to the discussion, see *Job, Book of.) The names assigned to Elihu and to
his father (Barachel, “God has [or “is”] blessed”) may hint thatthe author of these chapters approves of the point of view that
Elihu represents. The tribe and family assigned to him, however (“the Buzite, of the family of Ram”), are obviously chosen,
like for example, the name and tribe of *Eliphaz the Temanite,in order to conform to the setting of the oldest stratum of theBook of Job (“the land of *Uz,” Job 1:1; “the *Kedemites,” 1:3b);
for according to Genesis 22:21, Buz was a younger brother ofUz and an uncle of Aram, with whom the Septuagint and Symmachus, probably rightly, identify this Ram. A less likely possibility is the connection of Elihu’s ancestry to Ram, grandsonof Judah in the late sources (Ruth 4:19; I Chr. 2:9) that are followed by the New Testament (Matt. 1:2).

elijahactivity encountered opposition from the royal court whose
policy was to cultivate economic ties with Israel’s neighbors
and specifically with Tyre. Ahab saw no more harm in showing tolerance toward the religion of the people of Tyre andestablishing a place of worship in Samaria than did Solomon
who had acted similarly in behalf of his foreign wives (I Kings
11:7–8). But Elijah, whose attitude to the Sidonians themselves
was not hostile (cf. the incident at Zarephath, which belonged
to Sidon, I Kings 17:8–16), believed that it was his people’s obligation to preserve within its own borders a “pure” religious
cult that did not recognize any other gods but Yahweh. Hence,his vehement opposition to the cults of Baal and *Asherah of
Sidon, supported by the royal court.
The most dramatic point of Elijah’s activity was the confrontation on Mount Carmel. In response to Elijah’s demands,
Ahab assembled “all Israel unto Mount Carmel” together with
850 prophets of Baal and Asherah (I Kings 18:19). In their presence and that of the king, Elijah turned to the people: “Howlong will you keep limping between the two boughs? [ThusJoseph Caspi] If Yahweh is God, follow Him; and if Baal, follow him” (18:21). While the priests of Baal were offering up
their sacrifices and calling “O Baal hear us,” cutting themselves with knives and lances until the blood gushed out, Elijah mockingly suggested that they cry more loudly, since their
god might be asleep or his attention otherwise engaged. Only
after their prolonged pleas and cries proved of no avail did
Elijah step forward to repair the demolished altar of Yahweh,
make all the necessary preparations for the sacrifice, and offer up a short prayer. According to the biblical narrative, fire
immediately descended from heaven, consuming the burnt
sacrifice, and all the people of Israel present fell on their faces
chanting, “Yahweh, He is the God; Yahweh, He is the God.”At Elijah’s command those present attacked and killed theprophets of Baal. The king showed no sign of opposition to
Elijah’s actions. This story is interwoven with another occurrence, which has a historical foundation, connected with thedrought, the beginning and end of which were prophesied by
Elijah. A short while after the events on Mount Carmel, the sky
became black with clouds and heavy rain began to fall (I Kings
18:45). This was seen by Elijah and his followers as a sign that
God had forgiven the repentant people their sin of Baal-worship which had been the cause of the drought (cf. I Kings 17:1).
The Tyrian chronicle of Menander, which is generally reliable(Ant., 8:323–4), confirms that a drought occurred at that time,
though it ascribes the rains to the prayers of Ethbaal (Ithobal)
of Tyre, Ahab’s father-in-law.
Elijah triumphed over the adversaries of Yahweh on theborder of Tyre and Israel, and the altar on Mount Carmel remained in existence for some time (II Kings 2:25; 4:25). However, Jezebel was furious over the massacre of the prophets ofBaal and launched a bloody war against Elijah and his followers, According to I Kings 19, Elijah was forced to flee to thedesert south of Beersheba, where, tired and disheartened, helonged to die. However, while he was lying in a mood of despair under a broom bush, an angel appeared, strengthened

Elijah with food and drink, and urged him to continue hisjourney. Elijah traveled 40 days until he reached Mount Horeb.
There, in the place where the Lord had revealed Himself to
Moses, He appeared to Elijah. The description of the revelation to Elijah differs from similar revelations which the Bible
recounts as taking place on Mount Sinai. Fearful phenomena
such as tempests, fire, and a general cacophony accompanied
the revelation there also, but the Bible stresses specifically thatthese mighty forces appeared before the revelation of the Lord;that the Lord did not reveal Himself within them but rather
in a still, small voice.
It is the task of the prophet to listen to the voice of God
and pass on its message to the people. Since Elijah had fulfilled
his prophetic task and the people had failed to stand by him
in his war against Jezebel, retribution was merely a matter oftime. The instruments of God’s retribution were to be *Hazael,
who was to assume power in Syria; *Jehu, the future king of
Israel; and *Elisha, Elijah’s successor. Elijah was commanded
to anoint all three (I Kings 19:15–16), but the narrative makes
it clear that he only appointed Elisha as a prophet and passed
on to him the task of anointing Hazael and Jehu. Elisha, inturn, anointed only Hazael, and Jehu was anointed by one of
the “sons of the prophets” at the behest of Elisha. All these actions, however, were carried out in the spirit of Elijah’s ideals,
with the aim of uprooting the worship of Baal in Israel. Despite
the sharp conflict between Elijah and the royal palace overBaal-worship, there is no conclusive evidence that because ofthis Elijah prophesied the destruction of Ahab’s house; in fact,
the accusation of Baal-worship was leveled equally against themasses and the royal household. What finally caused Elijah toprophesy the complete destruction of the House of Ahab was
the crime committed against *Naboth.
Elijah’s last deed in the days of Ahaziah son of Ahab also
reflects his zeal for the Lord. When Ahaziah fell ill and sent
to inquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron, whether or not
he would recover, his messengers were intercepted by Elijah
who asked, “Is it because there is no God in Israel that you aregoing to inquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron? Now therefore, thus says the Lord, you shall not come down from the
bed which you have mounted, but shall surely die” (II Kings
1:3–4). In contrast to his relations with Ahab, on this occasion Elijah had no dealings with the king; he passed his judgment on to the king and after a short while his words were
fulfilled. It seems that the difference lay in the nature of theking’s fault – open consultation of a foreign god, a sin which
Ahab never committed. The account in II Kings 1–2 makes it
difficult to establish whether Elijah’s activity ceased during
the reign of Ahaziah or in that of his brother and successor
Jehoram. According to II Chronicles 21:12, Elijah sent a letter
to Jehoram son of *Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah. It is likely
however that the letter was sent while Jehoram was acting as
regent for Jehoshaphat (according to Thiele, 853–848 B.C.E.),and it is therefore possible that the event occurred in the lifetime of Ahab. By the time Jehoram of Judah was king in his
own right, Elisha had succeeded Elijah. Elijah’s standing was

332

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6elijahbolstered by wonder-tales. He was fed bread and meat by ravens (I Kings 17:6) at the divine command. As an ish-elohim(“Man of God,” i.e, divine messenger, he miraculously causeda jar of flour and a jug of oil to keep on producing for the benefit of a poor woman whose son he subsequently raised fromthe dead (I Kings 17:7–24). It was believed that a divine wind
could take him from one place to another (I Kings 18:11). He
could bring rain and then, seized by the hand of YHWH, outrun the royal chariot from Mount Carmel to Jezreel (I Kings
18:46). That being the case, we should not be surprised that
Elijah did not die but was carried to heaven in a chariot andhorses of fire (II Kings 2:1–11). Elijah was well-known by his
gait and manner of dress. Ahaziah’s envoys described him as
wearing “a garment of haircloth, with a girdle of leather about
his loins” (II Kings 1:8). Miraculous powers were attributed to
Elijah’s cloak. As Elijah ascended to heaven, his cloak dropped
to the ground and with its help Elisha too performed miracles(ibid. 2:8, 13). II Chr. 21:12–15 expands on Elijah’s activity by
attributing to the prophet a letter to King Jehoram of Judahprophesying dire punishment for worshipping foreign gods
and for fratricide. The prophecy at the end of Malachi (3:23)
that the prophet Elijah would be sent to the people before thecoming of “the great and fearful day of YHWH” came within
Judaism to mean that Elijah would herald the coming of the*Messiah. Some early Christians, accordingly, identified *John
the Baptist with Elijah (Matt. 11:14; 17:10–13).
In the Aggadah
The deep impression left by Elijah’s revolutionary ministry
and his miraculous translation to heaven in a “chariot of fire”
drawn by “horses of fire” (II Kings 2:11) had already made Elijah a legendary figure in biblical times. Malachi’s final prophecy that Elijah would be sent by God “before the coming of
the great and terrible day of the Lord,” so that he may “turnthe hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of thechildren to their fathers” (Mal. 3:23ff.), became the point of
departure for the subsequent association of Elijah with theMessianic age.
Ben Sira (c. 200 B.C.E.), in his eulogy of Elijah, attributed the future restoration of “the tribes of Jacob” to him (Ecclus. 48:10). By the first century C.E., it was taken for granted
that Elijah was to be the precursor and herald of the Messiah.
Jesus himself was at first believed to be Elijah, but when herevealed his own messianic claim, he proclaimed John the
Baptist as having been the reincarnated Elijah (Matt. 11:10ff.;
17:10ff.; Mark 9:11ff.).
It was perhaps against this Christian and sectarian tendency to associate Elijah with religiously dubious and politically dangerous movements that attempts were made tocounter the excessive veneration accorded to Elijah among
apocalyptic-sectarian and Christian circles. It was, accordingly, denied that Elijah had ever gone up to heaven (Suk.
5a), biblical evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. Elijah’s
habit of revealing divine secrets to pious mortals (cf. BM 59b)

once earned him a severe punishment of 60 lashes of fire (BM85b). Elijah’s denunciation of Israel for having forsaken the
divine covenant (cf. I Kings 19:10, 14) had so angered God
that He dismissed Elijah from His service and appointed Elisha in his place (Song R. 1:6, no. 1; cf. I Kings 19:16). Above
all, the scope of Elijah’s future tasks was limited to the solution of certain halakhic problems (Eduy. 8:7; Tosef., Eduy. 3:4).
Subsequently, too, it was believed that “when Elijah comes,
he will tell us” (Ber. 35b; cf. Men. 45a; Bek. 24a). He was indeed supposed to have his own court (Av. Zar. 36a), and legal
problems which defied solution were to be referred to him(Shek. 2:5; BM 1:8; 2:8; 3:4–5; Men. 63a). Nevertheless, the predominant tannaitic view was that Elijah was not only to solve
halakhic disputes, but also to be the great peacemaker in theworld (Eduy. 8:7).
Rabbis and pious men endowed with a mystical frame ofmind established a spiritual communion with Elijah and werereputed to have been guided by him in their studies (cf. Tanna
de-Vei Eliyahu, ed. M. Friedmann, 27ff.; Ginzberg, Legends,
4 (1913), 217–23). Nine aggadic beraitot in the Talmud are introduced by the words “It was taught at Elijah’s school” (cf.
Friedmann op. cit. 44ff. for a complete list). Although theseberaitot may have originated from a compilation by a tanna
called Elijah (Ginzberg, Legends, 6 (1928), 330, n. 70) or froma school called after Elijah (Friedmann, op. cit., 60–61), they
were soon attributed to the prophet. In post-talmudic times,
the Midrash Tanna de-Vei Eliyahu (“It was taught at Elijah’s
school”) was likewise believed to have emanated from theprophet’s own “school.”
Despite such relatively restricted rules assigned to Elijah
by the rabbis, his primary task of heralding the redemptionof Israel was never forgotten (cf. also the third benediction
after the reading of the haftarah), and in the post-talmudic
era it assumed primary importance in Jewish eschatology(cf. PR 35:161). Even earlier, Elijah appears almost invariably
in the role of one who is deeply concerned about Israel’s suffering and exile, and who does what he can to speed the dayof deliverance. In a beautiful tannaitic aggadah, R. Yose relates how Elijah once told him that “whenever Israelites enter synagogues and houses of study… the Holy One, Blessed
be He, as it were shakes His head and says: Happy is the kingwho is thus praised in his house! Woe to the father who exiled
his children, and woe to the children who are banished fromtheir father’s table” (Ber. 3a).
R. Simeon b. Yoḥ ai, a relentless opponent of Roman rule
who had to flee from Roman persecution, was freed from his
hiding place in a cave by Elijah’s announcement that the emperor had died (Shab. 33b). As the carrier of good tidings for
Israel (cf. the Grace after Meals, in which Elijah is assigned
the function of bringing good news to the Jewish people), Elijah inevitably became the antithesis of Rome and all it stoodfor. Thus, he sharply rebuked R. Ishmael b. Yose who had undertaken police work on behalf of the Romans: “How long
will you deliver the people of our God for execution?” (BM83b–84a). Similarly, when the pious R. Joshua b. Levi, who was

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6333[Joshua Gutmann / S. David Sperling (2nd ed.)]elijahsaid to have been in constant communication with Elijah (cf.
Sanh. 98a; Mak. 11a; Gen. R. 35:2), persuaded a Jew sought by
the Roman authorities to give himself up, thereby saving theentire Jewish community of Lydda from destruction, Elijah
shunned R. Joshua for about 30 days. Later he explained thathe could not be “a companion to informers”: and although R.
Joshua had acted according to mishnaic law, Elijah maintainedthat “this should have been done by others, not by you” (TJ,
Ter. 8:10, 46b; Gen. R. 94:9, end).
On another occasion, Elijah told R. Joshua b. Levi that
the Messiah was to be found among the beggars of Romeready and willing to redeem Israel, although, as he subsequently explained, only if they repented and obeyed God(Sanh. 98a). A late Midrash, however, maintained that Israel
would repent only when Elijah made his public appearance(Pd RE 43, end).
Elijah’s association with the Messiah became more pronounced in the late talmudic and post-talmudic ages. Increasingly, Elijah becomes not only a precursor, but an active
partner of the Messiah. Both Elijah and the Messiah are busy
recording the good deeds of the righteous, no doubt with aview to hastening the day of Israel’s redemption (Lev. R. 34:8;
Ruth R. 5:6). Ultimately, Elijah and the Messiah are to beamong four world conquerors (Song R. 2:13, no. 4); though,according to one Midrash, Elijah himself is destined to overthrow the foundations of the heathen (Gen. R. 71:9). Elijah is,indeed, accorded the exclusive privilege of bringing about theresurrection of the dead (Sot. 9:15 end; cf. Song R. 1:1, no. 9) –no doubt because of his achievement in reviving the son of
the widow of Zarephath (I Kings 17:17ff.).
Elijah’s solicitude for Israel’s safety was also demonstrated
in the past. Thus, when Haman was threatening to exterminate the Jews, Elijah was said to have intervened with the Patriarchs and with Moses to secure their intercession with the
Almighty. At the decisive moment he appeared in the guiseof Harbonah to denounce Haman (Esth. R. 7:13; 10:9). Likewise, at the time of the siege of Jerusalem by the Babylonians,
Elijah was searching among those who were languishing withhunger in the hope of saving those who might renounce idolatry (Sanh. 63b).
Of equal concern to Elijah were individual pious Jews
who happened to be in trouble. Among those whose lives
were saved or whose health was restored by Elijah’s timely appearance in various guises were Nahum of Gimzo (Ta’an. 21a;Sanh. 109a), R. Meir (Av. Zar. 18b), R. Eleazar b. Perata (Av.
Zar. 17b), Judah ha-Nasi (TJ, Kil. 9:4, 32b; Gen. R. 33:3; 96:5),
R. Shila (Ber. 58a), R. Kahana (Kid. 40a), and many others (cf.
also Matt. 27:47ff., and see Mark 15:35–36 for similar expectations in connection with Jesus’ crucifixion). Innumerable
legends and stories are still told of the poor and hopeless being aided by Elijah.
It was because of Elijah’s great love for Israel that hehad boldly assumed an attitude of insolence toward God,
Whom he blamed for turning their hearts away from Him(cf. I Kings 18:37). God, however, eventually agreed with him(Ber. 31b–32a). The furious zeal displayed by Elijah on thatoccasion (cf. I Kings 18:40; 19:10, 14) was so similar to thatshown by Aaron’s grandson Phinehas (cf. Num. 25:7ff.; Ps.
106:30) that in rabbinic literature the two are often identified,either expressly or by implication (P d RE 47; cf. BM 114a–b;
Kid. 70a; Num. R. 21:3; Targ. Yer., Num. 25:12), and both are,accordingly, regarded as immortal (BB 121b; Gen. R. 21:5; 25:1;
Num. R. 21:3).
Elijah is often associated with Moses in both rabbinic
and Christian literature – first because Elijah was to inaugurate Israel’s future redemption just as Moses had liberated theIsraelites from Egyptian bondage; second, because his career
resembled that of Moses’ inasmuch as both were granted revelations at Mount Sinai in somewhat similar circumstances(Ex. 3:2; 19:16ff.; 20:18; Deut. 4:11ff., 33ff.; I Kings 19:11–12); andsince, moreover, Malachi’s admonition to “remember the lawof Moses” and his prediction of the future mission of Elijah
are in close juxtaposition (Mal. 3:22–24). Elijah appears as adisciple and follower of Moses and also as a fellow prophet
active in the same cause of delivering Israel, in which both areto participate on the advent of the messianic age (Tosef., Sot.
4:7; Tosef., Eduy. 3:4; Sot. 13a; TJ, Sanh. 10:1, 28a; Ex. R. 44:1;
Num. R. 18:12; Lam. R. 1:2, no. 23; Matt. 17:3ff.; Mark 9:4ff.;
Luke 9:30ff. et al. For a detailed comparison of the careers ofMoses and Elijah, see PR 4:13).

334

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Moses Aberbach]

In Mysticism
According to *Moses b. Shem Tov de Leon, Elijah belongs tothe angels who advocated the creation of man (Cordovero,
Pardes Rimmonim, 24:14); accordingly, Elijah is an angel who
dwelt only temporarily on earth as a human being, before
again ascending to heaven. Moses *Cordovero compares Elijah’s life with the fate of Enoch (ibid., 24:13), as the two are theonly biblical personages who were carried off from earthly life
in an extraordinary manner. The further fate of Elijah andEnoch in heaven is imaginatively described by Jewish mystics. While Enoch’s body is consumed by fire and he himself
is changed into *Metatron, the highest angel, Elijah remains
after his ascension in possession of his earthly shape, which
is why he can maintain his association with the human world
and, when necessary, reappear on earth. Though his body is
not made from dust like that of human beings but came fromthe tree of life, it enables him to carry out God’s commands
and miracles (ibid.; Zohar, 1:29a; 2:197a; Yalk. R. 27). Therefore, unlike Enoch who is known only as the archangel Metatron, Elijah keeps his name under which he intervenes in thefate of the Jewish people. The *Zohar, like the Talmud, tellsof devout men to whom Elijah is supposed to have revealed
himself. In the later mystic literature, Elijah’s comments on thesecrets of the Torah are extremely frequent. Elijah prophesied
the births of Isaac *Luria and *Israel b. Eliezer Baal Shem Tov
to their parents. He appeared frequently to Israel Baal Shem
Tov, and also played an important part in the legends of theẒ addikim.
[Samuel Abba Horodezky]elijah
In Jewish Folklore
Many of the legends and stories in written and oral Jewish folk
literature are spun around biblical and post-biblical (historical) figures and legendary characters. Among these Elijah is
a favorite hero and overshadows other popular folklore protagonists: e.g., Moses, King David, King Solomon, Maimonides, and such local sages as R. Shalom *Shabbazi of Yemen,
R. Ḥ ayyim b. Moses *Attar of Morocco, R. Israel b. Eliezer Baal
Shem Tov of the ḥ asidic legend, and others. The redemptive
motif associated with Elijah in rabbinic literature as the heraldof the future redemption of Israel and of the messianic era is
not stressed in folklore; he is rather portrayed as the heavenly
emissary sent on earth to combat social injustice. He rewards
the poor who are hospitable and punishes the greedy rich.
In his attempts to right wrongs, he seeks to bridge the gap ofsocial inequality and does not hesitate to punish the unjust,regardless of their status even if they be rabbis or respected
communal leaders. In Joseph Shabbethai Farḥ i’s collectionof folktales, Oseh Pele (vol. 2 (1954), 114), Elijah strangles the
local rabbi while the latter rests after the *seder. The prophet
admonishes the rabbi: “You collected all the money as charity,
but you distributed it according to your own will. The cries[of the needy] reached heaven and came before God, the Almighty…” Many of the stories about Elijah are outcries of thewretched and unfortunate against the proud and oppressive
elements in the Jewish community and were used by the authors as a vehicle for social protest. At the same time, theselegends are a type of comfort and solace to the poor. Elijah appears especially on the eve of *Passover when he punishes themisers and provides the despairing poor with the necessaries
to prepare the seder. His activities continue late into the sedernight; the Cup of Elijah is placed in the center of the festive
table and the prophet is expected to announce the redeemer.
Elijah also alleviates the burdens of Jewish communities suffering from religious and national persecution, and exposes*blood libels – mainly occurring on Passover – as absurd andperfidious calumnies.
Elijah’s benign acts and the miracles he performs extend
beyond the specifically Jewish sphere and have their parallelin other folklore. A recurrent theme in the Elijah legends isthe prophet’s ability to ward off the *Angel of Death from theyoung fated to die (a motif rooted in the biblical revival story);
this he usually does by advising them to study the Torah. A
healing agent, he also blesses the barren with fertility and isable to interpret occult events and visions described in cryptic passages in the Torah and in the Talmud. Another prevalent Elijah motif is the prophet’s task to act as provider, basedon his biblical endowment to make rain. He confers an inexhaustible barrel of oil on Mayer Amschel Rothschild, distributes magic money-making boxes to the poor but deprives
them of this heavenly gift when they become uncharitable
and stop giving alms. In the Yiddish song “God of Abraham,”chanted by East European Jewish women at the termination of
the Sabbath, Elijah is heralded as Israel’s redeemer, but since
the song is chanted at the beginning of the new week, it alsostresses his role as provider. Since Elijah did not die, and isthought to wander the earth, usually disguised as a poor man,a beggar, or a gentile peasant, there are those who are eager
to meet him, or at least to see him in a dream (Gillui Eliyahu,“Elijah’s revelation”). The practical Kabbalah and Jewish folk
beliefs describe ways to bring this about. His name is, therefore, also inscribed on many amulets, especially in the areas
influenced by Islamic culture.
The stories and beliefs revolving around Elijah were thesubject of many *chapbooks composed in Yiddish, Ladino,
and Judeo-Arabic dialects. All these legends testify not only
to the popularity of the prophet among all Jewish communities, but also reveal the close affinity in Jewish folklore between
written and oral literature and customs (see *Elijah, Chair of;*Elijah, Cup of). Many of the customs associated with Elijah
can be explained by etiological tales. Their setting is usuallyan Elijah cave or shrine found on Mount Sinai, at Haifa, Alexandria, Cairo, Damascus, Aleppo, etc. The miracles in thesetales, which are mainly of a healing nature, often give the nameand describe the origin of the cave. Elijah’s role in the circumcision ceremony is not only associated with the “Chair of Elijah,” but he heals and is the guardian angel of the newborn
Jewish child during the “critical birth” period (lasting at least
30 days from the date of birth). Numerous religious and secular folk songs and dances testify to this fact. Many proverbial
sayings and aphorisms grew around Elijah’s name. The mostpopular among them “until Elijah arrives,” used when referring to a doubtful and unsolved matter, is similar to the folk
explanation of the word ‫( תיק ּו‬teiku), which is actually a formof ‫“ תיקום‬let it stand,” “stalemate,” as a *notarikon consisting of
the initial letters of Tishbi yetareẓ kushyot u-ve’ayot “the Tishbite (Elijah) will resolve difficulties and problems.” Though themain stream of the Elijah folklore is associated with his socionational and religious roles, the prophet – as is usual withpopular folk heroes – is also a protagonist in witty tales, folk
jokes, and humoristic stories. In these Elijah is identified with,or is the guardian angel of, the simpleminded Jew who at theend of the story is victorious; a factor which testifies to a typeof wishful thinking at the root of Jewish folklore.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6335[Dov Noy]In IslamAccording to the Koran (Sura 37:123–130), Ilyās (Elijah) was
one of the apostles sent to his people to admonish them tofear God and not worship Baal. They, however, regarded him
as a liar. In Sura 6:85 he is mentioned among the righteous
ones, together with figures from the New Testament who included ʿĪsā (Jesus). The commentators of the Koran and theauthors of Muslim legend enlarge upon this limited information and explain that Ilyās lived during the days of Ahab andJezebel. They also add that he was the fourth generation (!) after Aaron the Priest. In light of the Bible and the Midrashim
they shaped the figure of the prophet who wages war against
the worshipers of Baal and its priests, even though they occasionally change the names of the characters: Ahab becomeselijahLājab, Jezebel becomes Arbil (this difference is due to omission of the diacritical mark on the letter R).
In the Arts
Elijah has inspired a wealth of literary material, mainly inthe form of drama and verse. However, apart from an early
appearance in the 17t-century medieval English Stonyhurst
Pageants, he only began to receive serious attention in the late
18t century, when the Countess de Genlis included La Veuve
de Sarepta in her sacred plays and T.S. Dupuis wrote his English dramatic poem Elijah (1789). These were followed in the
19t century by the U.S. writer R. Davidson’s Elijah, a sacreddrama… (1860), and by two Hebrew poems: Tiferet ha-Tishbi(1839) by Max E. Stern (1811–1873) and Ru’aḥ Eliyahu ha-Tishbi(1879) by Samuel Loeb Silbermann. The subject acquired
greater popularity in the 20t century, when writers invested
Elijah with fresh social or political significance. The pioneer
Yiddish dramatist Peretz *Hirschbein contributed Eliyohu derNovi (1916), a comedy portraying the sudden arrival of Elijah
at the home of a poor Jew; and Ben Jair (Moritz Golde) wrote
a three-part dramatic poem entitled Elijahu (1914). Between
the world wars the English author Clemence Dane wrote herplay Naboth’s Vineyard (1925) and John Kinmont Hart a poem
entitled Prophet of a Nameless God (1927). During the periodof World War II and immediately following it, there were further works, such as The Vineyard (1943), a drama about Elijah,
Ahab, and Jezebel by the Earl of Longford; Norman Nicholson’sverse play The Old Man of the Mountains (1946); and Helmut
Huber’s German drama Elias (1947). Nicholson’s play set the
Elijah-Ahab conflict in the North of England, the prophet here
appearing as the champion of the working classes. Mid-20t
century treatments of the subject include Jean Bothwell’s Flamein the Sky… (1954); Heinrich Bela Zador’s Die Erfuellung (1958;
Hear the Word!, 1962), a novel about Elijah and Elisha; and alate work by Martin *Buber, Elija; ein Mysterienspiel (1963).
The prophet Elijah is also a prominent figure in Christian art of both East and West. From Greece, where the namewas assimilated to Helios (god of the sun), his cult spread to
Byzantium and Russia. In the West, the cult was propagatedto some extent by the foundation of the Carmelite Order, so
named because Elijah, its patron and “founder,” is associated with Mount Carmel. Through this patronage Elijah acquired the attribute of a white mantle, the dress of the Order.
In Christian typology, Elijah figures as the precursor of John
the Baptist; like him he is an ascetic, living in the desert, andlike him he is shown as emaciated and wearing a hair-tunic.
Elijah, however, also prefigures Jesus: his despair in the desert
parallels the Agony in the Garden; the resurrection of the sonof the widow of Zarephath (I Kings 17:8–24) is seen as a prefiguration of the resuscitation of Lazarus; and his ascension in achariot of fire is equated with the Ascension of Jesus. Even thefire of heaven which ignites his sacrificial offering is likened tothe descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Elijah cycles exist
in several Carmelite environments. Examples include a 12t-

century storiated capital from the Carmelite cloister of Trie(now in Tarbes); paintings of the school of Jörg Ratgeb in therefectory of the Carmelite convent at Hirschhorn am Neckar(1507); 17t-century windows in the Carmelite church of Antwerp; and 18t-century paintings by Jean-Baptiste Despax inthe chapel of the Carmelites in Toulouse. The beautiful Russian church dedicated to Elijah at Yaroslavl on the Volga (17t
century) is painted with scenes from his life.
The important scenes in Elijah’s life are Elijah fed by ravens, Elijah fed by the widow of Zarephath (Sarepta), the resurrection of the widow’s son, Elijah comforted by an angel inthe wilderness, the sacrifices on Mount Carmel, the massacre of the prophets of Baal, Naboth’s vineyard, the smiting of
the Jordan, and the ascension in a chariot of fire. These havereceived varying emphasis in iconographic treatment, thosemost favored being the ravens, the widow, the angel, and theascension. The feeding of the ravens appears in a 14t-century
fresco in a monastery on Mount Athos; in a 15t-century frescoin a church at Lublin, Poland; in a privately owned painting
by Guercino (1620); and in a work by Washington Allston(1779–1843). The widow of Zarephath and her sticks and theresurrection of her son appear in the synagogue of *DuraEuropos; the widow is also depicted in a window at Chartres(12t century) and another at Bourges (13t century); in the
16t-century tapestry of La Chaise-Dieu; and in a painting byJean Massys (1565). The resurrection of the widow’s son also
occurs at Bourges; in an icon of Pskov (Tretiakovskaya Gallery, Moscow; 16t century); and in a curious late 19t-century
watercolor by Ford Madox Brown (Tate Gallery, London). Theangel in the desert appears in a fresco in Orvieto Cathedral(14t century); in 16t-century paintings by Luini (Brera, Milan) and Tintoretto (Scuola di San Rocco, Venice); and in a
Tiepolo ceiling in the archbishop’s palace at Udine and a Rubens tapestry cartoon (17t century). The holocaust on Mount
Carmel is represented at Athos and in a 16t-century frescoin Siena Cathedral by Beccafumi. The ascension of Elijah is,
iconographically, in the strong classical tradition including
Helios, Apollo, and Pluto. Some early examples are third- andfourth-century catacomb paintings and Christian sarcophagi.
The Chapel of Golgotha in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher,
Jerusalem, had an early mosaic representation of the scene andthe subject also appears on the sixth-century wooden doorsof Santa Sabina, Rome; in a ninth-century miniature of the
Kosmas Indikopleustes manuscript (St. Catherine, Sinai); on
the bronze door of Saint Sophia, Novgorod (1155); in Athosand Prague (14t century); in the 14t-century Weltchronik
manuscript of Rudolf von Ems; and in paintings by Tintoretto(Scuola di San Rocco), Rubens, and Simon Vouet.
A rich and variegated selection of Elijah songs forms partof the folk and paraliturgical repertory of almost every Jewish community. In Christian music, the “History of Elijah andAhab” occurs among Hungarian Protestant Bible songs of the
16t century (Hofgreff manuscript). Oratorio composers, fromthe 17t century onward, made use of the subject when the political climate was favorable, although no oratorios or cantatas

336

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Haïm Z’ew Hirschberg]elijah, chair of
about Elijah were composed for the French court. Some earlyexamples are M. Cazzati’s Il Zelante Difeso (Bologna, 1665),
on Elijah and the priests of Baal; and the oratorios written
for the Viennese court by composers such as Georg Reutter(1728) and Antonio Caldara (1729; libretto by Zeno). A comic
opera after Kotzebue by Conradin Kreutzer, Die Schlafmuetze des Propheten Elias (1814), was by the whim of the censor
retitled Die Nachtmuetze…, varying the term for nightcap.
Felix *Mendelssohn’s oratorio Elijah, first performed at the
Birmingham Festival in 1846, has remained the outstanding
musical interpretation of the prophet’s character and deeds; itis also practically the only 19t-century oratorio that survives
in the repertory and is most often performed in England, Germany (except during the Nazi era), and Israel. Abraham Zvi*Idelsohn’s opera Elijah has yet to be published.
[Bathja Bayer]
Bibliography: IN THE BIBLE: H. Gunkel, Elias Jahwe und
Baal (1906); R. Kittel, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 2 (1917), 312ff.; A.S.
Peake, in: BJRL, 11 (1927), 296–321; R. de Vaux, in: Bulletin du Muséede Beyrouth, 5 (1941), 7–20; J. Morgenstern, Amos-Studies, 1 (1941),
291ff.; Alt, K1 Schr, 2 (1953), 135–41; H. Galling, in: Alt-Festschrift(1953), 105–25; G. Fohrer, Elia (1957); R.S. Wallace, Elijah and Elisha(1957); Kaufmann Y., Toledot, index; D.R. ap-Thomas, in: PEQ, 92(1960), 146–55; H.H. Rowley, Men of God (1963), 37–65. Add. Bibliography: R. Hallevy, in: JNES, 17 (1958), 237–44; K. Roberts, in:
CBQ, 62 (2000), 632–44; S. Otto, in: JSOT, 27 (2003), 487–508; M.
Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament(1971); M.A. Cohen, in: ErIsr, 12 (FS Glueck; 1975), 87–94; M. Cogan, I Kings (AB; 2000), 424–86. IN THE AGGADAH: Ginzberg, Legends, index; Tanna de-Vei Eliyahu, ed. by M. Friedmann (Ish-Shalom) (1904), 1–62; V. Aptowitzer, Parteipolitik der Hasmonaeerzeit…
(1927), 95–104; M.W. Levinsohn, Der Prophet Elia nach den Talmudim- und Midraschimquellen (1929); D. Daube, The New Testamentand Rabbinic Judaism (1956), 20–26; E. Margoliot, Eliyahu ha-Navibe-Sifrut Yisrael… (1960). IN FOLKLORE: D. Noy, in: Maḥ anayim, 44(1960), 110–6; B. Silverman Weinreich, in: Field of Yiddish, 2 (1965),
202–31; Yeda Am, 25 (1961); H. Schwarzbaum, Studies in Jewish andWorld Folklore (1968), 522 (index); Sartori, in: Handwoerterbuch desdeutschen Aberglaubens, 2 (1929/30), 781–5; S. Thompson, Motif Index
of Folk-Literature, 5 (1957), V 200–V 299; C.G. Loomis, White Magic(1948), index; J. Bergmann, Die Legenden der Juden (1919), 73–83. IN
ISLAM: Kisāʾī, Qiṣaṣ, ed. by I. Eisenberg (1922), 244–50; A.J. Wensinck
and J.H. Kramers (eds.), Handwoerterbuch des Islam (1941), S.V. Ilyās;
H.A.R. Gibb and J.H. Kramers (eds.), Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam(1953), S.V. Ilyās; Thaʿlabī, Qiṣ aṣ (1356 AH), 212–9; H. Speyer, Die biblischen Erzaehlungen im Qoran (1961), 406. Add. Bibliography:“Ilyās,” in: EIS2, 3:1156 (incl. bibl.). IN ART: E. Werner, Mendelssohn, A
New Image of the Composer and his Age (1963), 457–73, includes bibliography; A. Schering, Geschichte des Oratoriums (1911), 440ff.; J.Y.
Rivlin, Shirat Yehudei ha-Targum (1959), 272–4; Yeda Am, 7 (1960);
L. Réau, in: Etudes Carmélitaines (1956).

tence of such a work is confirmed by Origen’s comment thatthe verse in I Corinthians 2:9 (Commentary to Matthew 27:9)
is from the Apocalypse of Elias the Prophet. A similar claim is
made by other Church Fathers, but Jerome, a great opponentof all apocryphal books, denies it vigorously (Epistula LVII [adPammachium], 9). This same verse is quoted in the Ascensionof Isaiah 11:34, definitely from I Corinthians and perhaps independently in Pseudo-Philo (Antiquitatum biblicarum liber
26:13), Clement of Alexandria (Protrepticus 10:94), and elsewhere. Likewise, some ancient sources attribute a quotationin Ephesians 5:14 to the same source (cf. Schuerer, Gesch,vol. 3, 361ff.).
Two Latin documents containing quotations from the
Apocalypse of Elijah have been discovered, one of particularinterest (de Bruyne, in Revue Benedictine (1908), 146ff.), presenting a description of the torments in Hell. A similar revelation is shown by Elijah to R. Joshua b. Levi in the Chronicles
of Jeraḥ meel (ed. by M. Gaster (1899), 34ff.). De Bruyne published additional Latin materials relevant to the Apocalypseof Elijah in Revue Benedictine in 1925. There are also two later
Apocalypse of Elijah. One, in Coptic, first published by G.
Steindorff in 1899 (there is a 1981 edition: The Apocalypse of
Elijah, based on Pap. Chester Beatty 2018: Coptic text, ed. andtransl. by A. Pietersma and S. Turner Comstock, with H.W. Attridge), probably preserves a considerable body of older Jewish
apocalyptic material, including descriptions of the Antichrist.
Similar descriptions are also to be found in the Hebrew Sefer
Eliyahu, a work edited with an explanation in German by M.
Buttenwieser (1897), who discerned in it an apocalypse written
about 260 C.E. with later, supplementary materials. A description of the Antichrist is also found in quotations attributed to
the Apocalypse of Elijah in the fragments published by F. Nau
in Journal Asiatique in 1917 (Ilesérie, tome 9, p. 453ff.).
Bibliography: In addition to that cited above see M.R.
James, Lost Apocrypha of the Old Testament (1920), 53–61; and DBI,
Supplement 1 (1928), 456–8, both with bibliographies.
[Michael E. Stone]

ELIJAH, APOCALYPSE OF, apocryphal work. In the Stiehometry of Nicephorus, a Christian list of biblical books andApocrypha generally dated to the middle of the sixth century,
there is the item, “Of the Prophet Elias, 316 stichoi.” Similarreferences are found in other early Christian lists and the Listof 60 Books gives the title as The Apocalypse of Elias. The exis-

ELIJAH, CHAIR OF (Heb. ‫ ִּכ ֵּסא ׁ ֶשל ֵאלִ ָ ּיה ּו‬, kisse shel Eliyyahu),
a special chair placed at the right of the sandak (godfather) at
the circumcision ceremony and left unoccupied. The chair issymbolically meant for Elijah the prophet, called “The Angelof Covenant” (Mal. 3:1; covenant = berit = circumcision). It is
usually richly carved and ornamented with embroideries. The
Shulḥ an Arukh (YD 265:11) prescribes the reservation of a special chair or seat for Elijah, and the mohel (circumciser) refers
to it in the opening prayer preceding the circumcision: “Thisis the chair of Elijah, blessed be his memory.” The chair is alsomentioned in the special piyyut for circumcision when the rite
is performed on a Sabbath. Midrashic literature links the custom to Elijah’s plaint to God that “the children of Israel haveforsaken Thy covenant” (I Kings 19:10, 14). According to thehomiletic interpretations of this verse, Elijah had complainedthat the Jewish people had disregarded the commandment ofcircumcision and God is said to have replied: “Because of ex-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6337

elijah, cup ofcessive zeal for Me you have brought charges against Israel thatthey have forsaken My covenant; therefore you shall have tobe present at every circumcision ceremony” (PdRE 29; Zohar,
Gen. 93a). Since “the messenger [angel] of the Covenant,”
spoken of in Malachi 3:1, was identified with the prophet Elijah, it was only proper that the Angel of the Covenant should
be present whenever a Jewish child entered the Covenant of
Abraham (i.e., circumcision). Scholars have suggested that thecustom is rooted in the belief in guardian angels for the newborn; Elijah is identified as the guardian angel of the Jewish
child. Most probably, the biblical story (I Kings 17:17–24) inwhich Elijah revived the child of the widow was instrumental
in creating this concept. Elijah is also the child protector in
the inscription on *amulets against *Lilith. These were placed
above the bed of the mother and the newborn child.
Bibliography: H. Schauss, The Lifetime of a Jew (1950),
34–37; Eisenstein, Dinim, 182.

ELIJAH, CUP OF (Heb. ‫כּ וֹ סוֹ ׁ ֶשל ֵאלִ ָ ּיה ּו‬, koso shel Eliyyahu),
term designating the cup of wine which is placed on the table of the *Passover eve ceremonial (seder), but which is not
drunk. There was controversy among the rabbis whether theseder ritual required four or five cups. Since, according to traditional belief, all doubtful cases of tradition will be resolved“when Elijah comes,” custom decreed that the fifth cup should
be filled but not partaken of (cf. Pes. 118a; Maim., Yad, Ḥ ameẓ
u-Maẓ ẓ ah 8:10). Later this custom became associated with thebelief that Elijah had not died but had ascended to heaven ina fiery chariot (II Kings 2:11), and that he would return as theforerunner of the Messiah (Mal. 3:23). The festival of redemption from Egyptian bondage was naturally associated with theforerunner of the Messiah, who was expected in this “seasonof redemption” to herald the coming deliverance (cf. RH 11b).
Hence the popular notion arose that the “cup of Elijah” wasprepared to welcome the prophet who visited every Jewish
home on the Passover night.
Bibliography: H. Schauss, Jewish Festivals (1938), 80–82;
J.L. Avida, Koso shel Eliyahu ha-Navi… (1958); Hoffer, in: Hḥ Y, 11(1927), 211–3.

ELIJAH BEN AARON BEN MOSES (also referred to as
Ibn-’Abd-al-Wālī or ha-dayyan, “the judge”), Karaite author
in Jerusalem; according to A. *Firkovich, he lived in the 15tcentury, and according to P.F. Fraenkel (see bibliography) in
the 16t. He wrote the following works in Arabic: Shurūṭ alDhabaḥ āt, on the laws of ritual slaughter; a key (fihrist) to
Judah *Hadassi’s Eshkol ha-Kofer; collectanea (manuscript
in Jewish Theological Seminary, N.Y., presumably the sameas Sefer le-Eliyahu ha-Dayyan, referred to in S. Pinsker, Likkutei Kadmoniyyot (1860), 192 no. 14); and a commentary on
the weekly portion Ha’azinu. He also composed Shevaḥ fı̄ alTorah, a prayer on opening the Ark.
Bibliography: Fraenkel, in: MGWJ, 32 (1883), 400–15; Mann,
Texts, index, S.V. Elijah Haddayan.
[Jakob Naphtali Hertz Simchoni]

338

ELIJAH BEN ABRAHAM (first half of 12t century), Karaite scholar who may have lived in Ereẓ Israel. He wrote a polemical tract Ḥ illuk ha-Kara’im ve-ha-Rabbanim (“The Controversy between the Karaites and the Rabbanites”). In thisElijah lists 14 Jewish sects of which there remained in his time
only four: the *Rabbanites, the *Karaites, the Tiflisites, and thefollowers of the faith (i.e., sect) of *Meshwi al-Ukbari. Following *Kirkisānī and other Karaite writers, Elijah considers thatthe breach between Karaism and Rabbanite Judaism is traceable as early as the time of *Jeroboam I. Elijah was the first
Karaite author to relate the questionable Karaite tradition according to which *Anan b. David and other Karaites were thefirst Avelei Zion (“Mourners of Zion”) in Jerusalem. The listof Karaite sages in Elijah’s work includes authors not known
from other sources and also Rabbanite scholars such as *Judahb. Eli of Tiberias and Judah ibn Quraysh. The author states inconclusion that “although the Rabbanim go astray in most of
the mitzvot, they are our brothers and our coreligionists. And
our soul grieves for their errors.”
Bibliography: S. Pinsker, Likkutei Kadmoniyyot (1860), 19,
225 (first pagination); S. Poznański, Karaite Literary Opponents of
Saadiah Gaon (1908), 72–74; Mann, Texts, 2 (1935), index; L. Nemoy,
Karaite Anthology (1952), 4–8; Z. Ankori, Karaites in Byzantium(1959), index.
[Simha Katz]

ELIJAH BEN BARUCH (ben Solomon ben Abraham) THE
ELDER (d. before 1712), Karaite author. Elijah lived at first inConstantinople but is included by Simḥ ah Isaac *Luẓ ki among
the Karaite writers of the Crimea. Elijah subsequently visited
Ereẓ Israel, and is therefore referred to as “Yerushalmi.” Whilein Jerusalem he copied the polemic by Salmon b. Jeroham
against *Saadiah Gaon, as well as the polemical tract of Sahl
b. Maẓ liaḥ . Elijah inserted his own comments, strongly critical of the *Rabbanites in general and Saadiah Gaon in particular. Elijah’s writings, mainly polemical, include (1) Asarah
Ma’amarot, his major work, on the differences between the
Rabbanites and the Karaites; (2) Iggeret ha-Vikku’aḥ , in fourparts, not extant (mentioned in Luẓ ki’s Oraḥ Ẓ addikim);(3) Yalkut, a collection of 61 essays by Karaite and Rabbanite
scholars, with commentary; (4) Sippurei Massa’ot, a description of his journey from the Crimea to Ereẓ Israel; (5) Ẓ eror
ha-Mor, a commentary on Judah Gibbor’s Minḥ at Yehudah.
None of his works was published.
Bibliography: A. Geiger, in: Oẓ ar Neḥ mad, 4 (1863), 18;
A.B. Gottlober, Bikkoret le-Toledot ha-Kara’im (1865), 159; S. Pinsker,
in: Likkutei Kadmoniyyot (1860), 25, 27, 43; S. Poznański, Karaite Literary Opponents of Sa’adiah Gaon (1908), 86, no. 45; Mann, Texts, 2(1935), 1426–27.

ELIJAH BEN BENJAMIN HALEVI (d. after 1540), rabbi
and paytan of Constantinople. He belonged to an indigenous
Turkish Jewish family. He studied under Moses *Capsali, towhose aid he came in his dispute with Joseph *Colon, and afterward under Elijah *Mizraḥ i, whom he succeeded as chief
rabbi of Constantinople in 1525. Elijah wrote a book of reENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6elijah ben loeb of fulda
sponsa called Tanna de-Vei Eliyahu, comprising 451 responsa(in manuscript), 221 of which were edited by Benjamin b.
Abraham *Motal and published by Aaron Galimidi, one ofhis descendants, under the title Zekan Aharon (Constantinople, 1734). Some of his responsa were published in the worksof his contemporaries, in the responsa Oholei Tam (in Tummat Yesharim) of *Tam ibn Yaḥ ya, and in the Avkat Rokhel ofJoseph *Caro. Benjamin Motal published Elijah’s article “Kol
De’i,” on the laws of *asmakhta, in his collection Tummat
Yesharim. Elijah edited and published the Maḥ zor Romania,
the liturgy in use in Greece and the neighboring countries,
adding to it bakkashot, teḥ inot, and other piyyutim. Benjamin Motal states that Elijah wrote thousands of poems, andthe following books of poetry are known to be by him: Beit
ha-Levi, Tokheḥ ah Megullah, Shevet ha-Musar, and Mei Zahav.
The book Zekan Aharon mentions his Livyat Ḥ en, which deals
with ethical conduct. It is divided into three parts: Maḥ aneh
Leviyyah (of which one chapter was published as no. 148 of
Zekan Aharon), Maḥ aneh Yisrael, and Maḥ aneh Shekhinah. He
also prepared for publication Jacob b. Asher’s Arba’ah Turim(Constantinople, 1494 or 1504) and Alfasi’s code (Constantinople, 1509).
Bibliography: Motal, in: Elijah b. Binyamin ha-Levi, Zekan
Aharon (Constantinople, 1734), introduction; Zunz, Poesie, 388–90;
A. Berliner, Aus meiner Bibliothek (1898), 3–5; S. Wiener, Kohelet
Moshe, 4 (1902), 441, no. 3665; Rosanes, Togarmah, 1 (19302), 206–9; 2(19382), 8f.; Davidson, Oẓ ar, 4 (1933), 363, S.V. Eliyahu ha-Levi; Goldschmidt, in: Sefunot, 8 (1964), 205–36.
[Abraham David]

ELIJAH BEN ELIEZER PHILOSOPH HAYERUSHALMI(fl. 15t century), scholar and Hebrew poet who lived in Crete.
Elijah wrote a book on logic, Sefer Higgayon al Derekh She’elot
u-Teshuvot (manuscripts in Leiden, Paris, and Parma), which
is based entirely on Aristotelian logic, omitting the categories.
He also wrote Perush Pirkei ha-Merkavah, a commentary on
Maimonides’ interpretation of Ezekiel’s vision in his Guide(manuscript in Paris). In this work Elijah cites his commentary on the book of *Bahir. He is also the author of a numberof poems written in Hebrew and Aramaic and of prayers inprose (Mss. Parma 997; Paris 707).
Bibliography: G.B. De Rossi, Manuscripti Codices Hebraici, 2 (1803), 163, no. 772, 3; M. Steinschneider, Catalogue Leyden (1858), 239ff.; Steinschneider, Uebersetzungen, 499, 523; idem,
in: HB, 19 (1879), 63; 21 (1881), 27; Zunz, Lit Poesie, 518, 711; Zunz,
in: ZHB, 19 (1916), 61, no. 3, 63, no. 18; S. Munk, Manuscrits hébreux
de l’Oratoire (1911), 54–56; Davidson, Oẓ ar, 4 (1933), 364. Add. Bibliography: C. Sirat, A History of Jewish Philosophy in the Middle
Ages (1985), 344; Sh. Rosenberg, in: Daat, 1 (1978), 63–71; 2–3 (1979),
127–38; 7 (1981), 73–92.
[Jefim (Hayyim) Schirmann]

ELIJAH BEN Ḥ AYYIM (1530?–1610?), rabbi and halakhist,known as Maharanaḥ or Morenu ha-Rav ibn Ḥ ayyim. Elijah was born in Adrianople and in about 1575 was appointed
chief rabbi of Constantinople. His writings – including noENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6vellae, discussions on most of the tractates of the Talmud,
and responsa – were stolen, but some were recovered andpublished. They comprise Teshuvot ha-Ranaḥ (Constantinople, 18102), responsa, with an appendix consisting of novellaeon tractate Ketubbot published by his disciple, Isaac di Leon;
Mayim Amukim (Venice, 1647), responsa, together with others by Elijah *Mizraḥ i; Ha-Noten Imrei Shefer (Venice, 1630),
homilies on the Pentateuch (the first edition entitled Mikhtav
me-Eliyahu (Constantinople, 1624) was probably incomplete).
He was highly regarded by later rabbis, among them Akiva*Eger, who praised his Teshuvot ha-Ranaḥ , which he used asa source for his decisions.
Bibliography: Conforte, Kore, 42a–b, 48b; Beer, in: Literaturblatt des Orients, 9 (1848), 805f.; Rosanes, Togarmah, 3 (1938),
32f.; Habermann, in: Sefer Assaf (1953), 217–22.
[Jacob Haberman]

ELIJAH BEN JUDAH OF PARIS (first half of the 12t century), French talmudist, commentator, and halakhist. Elijah
is quoted in the tosafot and in the works of *Eliezer b. Nathan
of Mainz, *Eliezer b. Joel ha-Levi of Bonn, *Moses of Coucy,*Mordecai b. Hillel, *Meir b. Baruch of Rothenburg, and others. He was considered one of the leading scholars of his time,
together with R. *Tam and *Meshullam b. Nathan of Melun,
who held him in great esteem. Eliezer b. Nathan of Mainz
directed his question on Ḥ ezkat ha-Ḥ allonot to these threescholars (Raban, 153:3); and questions were also addressed to
Elijah by Isaac b. Samuel ha-Zaken (Tos. to Ket. 54b). *Moses
b. Abraham of Pontoise, in a responsum to R. Tam (Sefer haYashar, Resp. 51), refers to Elijah as “our teacher and our light.”
The Jews of Paris followed his customs, even in opposition to
the views of R. Tam. His ruling (Tos. to Eruv. 97a) that the
tefillin knot must be tied every day is well-known. Zunz attributes to Elijah a number of liturgical poems.
Bibliography: Zunz, Gesch, 458; Gross, Gal Jud, 515f., no.
9; Michael, Or, no. 381; V. Aptowitzer, Mavo le-Sefer Ravyah (1938),
310–1; Urbach, Tosafot, index.

ELIJAH BEN KALONYMUS OF LUBLIN (second half of
17t century), preacher and rabbi. Little is known about Elijah,
whose only extant work, Adderet Eliyahu (Frankfurt on theOder, 1696), contains sermons commenting on each weekly
Torah portion. They resemble short fables, each of which canstand independently, while together they form an intricate
whole. In these derashot, written in a pleasant style, Elijah
employs much kabbalistic terminology, quoting from suchworks as the Zohar, Zohar Ḥ adash, and Sefer ha-Peli’ah, andmakes use of talmudic-midrashic literature as well as Rashi.
At the end of the book is appended a prayer from Ereẓ Israel,
the recitation of which could ensure forgiveness for sins connected with the destruction of the Temple and the resultant
Diaspora.
ELIJAH BEN LOEB OF FULDA (c. 1650/60–c. 1720), rabbi
and halakhic author. Elijah was born in Wiznica (Poland),339

elijah ben raphael solomon ha-levi
where he spent most of his life, and where he died. Toward
the end of his life he moved to Fulda (southwest Germany),although there is no evidence that he became rabbi there as
has been stated by some. Elijah made a special study of theJerusalem Talmud, his fame resting principally on his commentaries to Shekalim (Frankfurt, 1689), the order of Zera’im(Amsterdam, 1710), Bava Kamma and Bava Meẓ ia (Offenbach,1725), and Bava Batra (Frankfurt, 1742). Using manuscripts
upon which he also relied for his corrections to the editio
princeps of the Jerusalem Talmud, Elijah’s commentaries deal
with each topic in halakhah and aggadah. His style is generally succinct; lengthier discussions are inserted in a separate
rubric. Elijah’s commentary was published approximately 50
years after that of Joshua *Benveniste, the existence of which
was unknown to him, and his commentary, published together
with the text, exercised great influence on his contemporaries
and initiated the systematic study of the Jerusalem Talmud in
18t-century Poland.
Bibliography: L. Ginzberg, Perushim ve-Ḥ iddushin ba-Yerushalmi, 1 (1941).
[Jacob Haberman]

ELIJAH BEN RAPHAEL SOLOMON HALEVI (end of
18t and beginning of 19t century), Italian rabbi, author, kabbalist, and liturgical poet. Elijah was both a pupil and a colleague of Isaac *Lampronti together with whom he studied
under Judah *Briel in Mantua. He was at first rabbi of Finale
and later worked in Alessandria. He composed a number ofmarriage poems and other occasional poems as well as a large
work, Seder de-Eliyahu (Mantua, 1786). The names of all his
books are connected with the name Elijah, such as Sava Eliyahu and Eliyahu be-Arba. His responsa are to be found in theShemesh Ẓ edakah of Samson Morpurgo, in the Paḥ ad Yizḥ akof Isaac Lampronti, and in the Givat Pinḥ as (unpublished) of
Phinehas Anau. A number of talmudic and kabbalistic works,
responsa, and homilies by Elijah remained unpublished. Isaac
Raphael Finzi composed an elegy on his death.
Bibliography: Fuenn, Keneset, 117; Ghirondi-Neppi, 13f.

629; Muenster, in: Scritti… Sally Mayer (1956), 224–58, includes bibliography; C. Roth, Jews in the Renaissance (1959), 39, 210, 215–6, 355.
[Ariel Toaff]

ELIJAH BEN SHEMAIAH (fl. 11t century), liturgical poetin Bari, southern Italy. He was one of the most prolific poetsof the Italian school. He composed about 40 seliḥ ot, most ofthem strophic, which have remained in manuscripts and old
editions; some were included in the German-Polish ritual.
Y. David, who prepared a critical edition of Elijah’s piyyutim(1977), commented also on their sources, meaning, and characteristics. The subject matter is mostly a variation of the same
theme: grief over present misery of Israel in exile and trust in
God’s help. Some of his poems allude to cruel persecutions in
his time, and he refers to the enemies of Israel with many allegorical names. Stylistically, the poems resemble the seliḥ otof his contemporary *Solomon ha-Bavli, who was probably
his master, but the language is more stereotyped. Zunz madea special study of his language and style. Elijah’s signature is,among others, preserved in a responsum of Samuel b. Natronai. In the past scholars underlined the lack of depth andoriginality of this kind of piyyutim and the obscurity of thelanguage. More recently, scholars have come to have a muchhigher opinion of the quality of Ben Shemaiah’s seliḥ ot, considering him an excellent spokesperson of the Jewish community of Bari in its historical situation and a good representative of the literary tendencies of the epoch with his own
individuality.
Bibliography: Zunz, Vortraege, 406; Zunz, Lit. Poesie, 139,
244ff.; 616ff.; Landshuth, Ammudei, 17; Michael, Or, no. 412; Elbogen, Gottesdienst, 333; H. Brody and M. Wiener, Mivḥ ar ha-Shirahha-Ivrit (1922), 233ff.; Schirmann, Italia, 41–47; A.M. Habermann,
Be-Ron Yaḥ ad (1945), 105–7; A. Mirsky, Yalkut ha-Piyyutim (1958),
264ff.; Davidson, Oẓ ar, 4 (1933), 362; Roth, Dark Ages, 180, 258–9.
Add. Bibliography: Y. David (ed.), Piyyuṭ ei Eliyah Bar-Shemaiah (1977); B. Bar-Tikva, in: Sinai, 83, 1–2 (1978), 92–94.
[Jefim (Hayyim) Schirmann / Angel Sáenz-Badillos (2nd ed.)]Bibliography: Gauthier, in: REJ, 49 (1904), 259; Wiener, in:
JQR, 18 (1905/06), 142ff.; Simonsen, ibid., 360; Milano, Italia, 155, 483,

ELIJAH BEN SOLOMON ABRAHAM HAKOHEN OFSMYRNA (d. 1729), one of the outstanding preachers of histime. Born in Smyrna, Elijah spent most of his life there as apreacher, dayyan, and rabbi. Elijah came from a family of rabbis
and writers; his grandfather, R. Michael ha-Kohen, wrote exegetical works on the Torah, and his uncle, R. Isaac ha-Kohen,
was also a writer. His father, Abraham Solomon ha-Kohen, oneof the rabbis of Smyrna, is known for his involvement in the
rescue of Jews who had been taken captive. It would seem that
he was also a scholar, as Elijah often quotes him.
Elijah was a prolific writer; about 30 of his works are extant, some in print, others in manuscript; his lost works are
known only from references to them in his own writings. The
following are among his extant works:(1) Shevet Musar (Constantinople, 1712, and many subsequent editions), one of the most popular Hebrew works inthe fields of ethics and homiletics, also translated into Yiddish. This work consists of 52 sermons, corresponding to the340

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Samuel Abba Horodezky]

ELIJAH BEN SHABBETAI BE’ER (14t–15t centuries; also
known as Elia di Sabato of Fermo and in England as Elias
Sabot), papal physician. He attended Popes Innocent VII(1404–06), Martin V (1417–31), and Eugene IV (1431–47), as
well as the duke of Milan and the marquess of Ferrara. In
1410 he was summoned to England to treat King Henry IV
and was empowered to bring with him a retinue of ten persons. A teacher of medicine at the University of Pavia, he was
the first Jew recorded on the faculty of a European university. In recognition of his services, he was accorded the dignity of knight, and in 1405 was awarded Roman citizenship.
An enigmatic medal was struck in 1497 (or 1503) in honor of
his son Benjamin.

elijah ben solomon zalman
weekly Torah portions and to the numerical value of his Hebrew name, “Eliyahu.”(2) Me’il Ẓ edakah (Smyrna, 1731), an ethical work dealing with the question of charity.
(3) Midrash ha-Ittamari (Constantinople, 1695; Salonica,1725), a homiletical work consisting of sermons on various
subjects, many of them ethical (e.g., charity and repentance).
Because of this work, Elijah became known in Hebrew literature as Elijah ha-Kohen ha-Ittamari.
(4) Midrash Talpiyyot, novellae on various subjects, collected, according to the author, from the 300 books listed in
the preface. Only the first half of this work, arranged in alphabetical order, was printed (Smyrna, 1736).
(5) Minḥ at Eliyahu (Salonika, 1824), 33 sermons, or chapters on ethical subjects.
The rest of his works includes several other ethical-homiletical collections, commentaries on Psalms, on other parts of
the Bible, on Pirkei Avot, the 613 commandments, prayers, rabbinical sayings related to the various Torah portions, and on
the aggadot of the Jerusalem Talmud. In addition, Elijah wrote
several responsa, some to questions sent from far away. It is
possible that he also dabbled in magic; many legends, which
can be found in Ladino folktales, were related about him.
The teaching of ethical behavior, however, was Elijah’s
main purpose. He made extensive use of the vast ethicalliterature of the Middle Ages, both early and late – from
Sefer Ḥ asidim to the Shenei Luḥ ot ha-Berit, by Isaiah ha-Levi
Horowitz. In the sermons, ethical writings, and exegeticalworks, he also used kabbalistic literature, in which he was wellversed. Later writers of homiletics and ethics, the author of thefamous Ḥ emdat Yamim, for example, made use of his works.
Social problems are a basic concern in his thought. The
social and economic gap between rich and poor disturbed
him, and some of his sermons are devoted to the question oftheodicy: Elijah dwells at length upon the heavenly rewardsof the poor and the just after death while vividly describing
the horrible punishment awaiting the wicked. His preachingdisplays a strongly negative attitude toward the benefits derived from this world, and his listeners are asked to renounce
all its joys, even purposely to take suffering and hardshipupon themselves.
A considerable portion of Elijah’s sermons deals withmessianic subjects. G. Scholem – through the aid of historical documents and theological analysis of some of Elijah’s
works – proved that in fact he was a Shabbatean, although not
one of the extremists. He probably adhered to its theology as
expounded by Abraham *Cardoso. It is possible that late in hislife Elijah became detached from this movement, but he did
not delete the Shabbatean portions from his earlier works.

ELIJAH BEN SOLOMON HAKOHEN, Palestinian gaon
from 1062 to 1083. His father Solomon was gaon from about
1020 to 1025 and was succeeded by *Solomon b. Judah, who
held that office until 1051. Elijah and his elder brother Joseph,
who were very young when their father died, occupied important positions during Solomon b. Judah’s incumbency, Elijah
being the “shelishi” (“third”) and his brother the *av bet din.
According to the prevailing custom Joseph should have been
appointed as gaon, and Elijah as av bet din after the death ofSolomon b. Judah, but they were forcibly prevented by *Daniel b. Azariah who belonged to the family of the Babylonian
geonim. Daniel assumed the gaonate, holding the office from1051 to 1062, and the two brothers were obliged to accept his
authority. Only after the death of Daniel was Elijah appointed
gaon. After the conquest of Jerusalem by the Seljuks in 1071,
Elijah moved to Tyre together with his yeshivah. About two
years before his death he designated his son *Abiathar to succeed him after his death, and his second son, Solomon, as
av bet din. A few of his responsa have survived, in which heand Abiathar reply to questions from *Meshullam b. Mosesof Mainz.
Bibliography: S. Schechter, Saadyana (1903), 80–104; Bornstein, in: Sefer ha-Yovel… N. Sokolow (1904), 125ff.; Marmorstein, in:
REJ, 73 (1921), 84ff.; Mann, Egypt, 2 (1922), index; Mann, Texts, 2(1935), index; Dinur, Golah, 1, pt. 4 (19622), index; Scheiber, in: Tarbiz, 32 (1962/63), 273–6.
[Simha Assaf]

Bibliography: Steinschneider, Cat Bod, 932; Michael, Or,
188–90; M. Wunderbar, in: Literaturblatt des Orients, 37 (1847), 579;
A. Jellinek (ed.), Beit ha-Midrash, 1 (19382), 16; Rosanes, Togarmah, 6(1945), 291; Zinberg, Sifrut, 5 (1960), 196–200; S. Werses, in: Yavneh,
2 (1940), 156–73; G. Scholem, in: Sefer ha-Yovel Alexander Marx
(1950), 451–70.

ELIJAH BEN SOLOMON ZALMAN (the “Vilna Gaon”
or “Elijah Gaon”; acronym Ha-GRA = Ha-Gaon Rabbi Eliyahu; 1720–1797), one of the greatest spiritual and intellectual
leaders of Jewry in modern times. A man of iron will, Elijah
combined the personal life of an intellectual hermit with active and polemical leadership in Jewish society through hisoverwhelming influence on a chosen circle of disciples. Born
in Selets, Grodno province, he came from a well-known rabbinical and scholarly family, whose members included Moses
Rivkes. From his childhood, Elijah showed unusual gifts. At
the age of six and a half, he gave a homily in the synagogue of
Vilna and answered with great perception the rabbi’s questions
on it. When he was seven, Abraham Katzenellenbogen, rabbiof Brest-Litovsk, took him to Moses Margalioth of Keidany(Kedainiai), with whom Elijah studied for a time. However
he mainly studied on his own, and thus remained untrammeled by the conventional methods of talmudic education of
his day. Besides the Torah and the Oral Law, Elijah also studied Kabbalah, and before the age of 13 attempted to cultivate“practical” Kabbalah and to create a golem. Elijah stated, however, that “while I was making it, an image appeared aboveme, and I ceased from making it, for I said, doubtless God
is preventing me” (Ḥ ayyim of Volozhin, in Sifra de Ẓ eni’uta(with a commentary by the Vilna Gaon), introd.). Elijah alsoacquainted himself with astronomy, geometry, algebra, andgeography in order to understand certain talmudic laws anddiscussions. Thus his main concern with astronomy was to

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6341

elijah ben solomon zalman
understand the rules of the Jewish calendar. For similar reasons he paid great attention to Hebrew grammar (see below).
After his marriage around the age of 18 he would seclude
himself in a small house outside the city and concentrate on
learning day and night.
After staying briefly with his father-in-law in Keidany,
Elijah traveled throughout Poland and Germany and visited important communities, including those of Zolkiew(Zholkva), Lissa (Leszano), and Berlin. Subsequently he settled in Vilna, where he remained until his death. He received
financial support from the bequest of Moses Rivkes (who left
a foundation for scholars in his family) and was additionallyassisted by a sum allocated him by the community board,which also provided him with a rented apartment. In about
1785 his weekly allowance was raised by the community to 28
zlotys, which was higher than the stipend of the av bet din,the rabbi, or the shtadlan. Since there were many outstanding scholars in Vilna at the time, the financial assistance given
to Elijah, although he did not hold communal office, testifies
to the high esteem in which he was held, despite his extreme
personal modesty.
In Vilna his exceptional diligence in study became evenmore pronounced. To shut out distraction, Elijah would close
the windows of his room by day and study by candlelight. In
winter he studied in an unheated room placing his feet in cold
water to prevent himself from falling asleep (Israel of Shklov,
Sefer Pe’at ha-Shulḥ an (Safed, 1836), introd.). According toElijah’s sons he did not sleep more than two hours a day, andnever for more than half an hour at a time. He noted his comments and remarks in the margin of the page he was studying.
Elijah made a special study of the Jerusalem Talmud, “opening
up new horizons and clarifying incomprehensible passages”(his son Abraham in his eulogy Sa’arat Eliyahu). When he was
40 Elijah evinced a revolutionary change in his life. According to his students, he gave up studying exclusively by himself
and began to teach, giving lectures to a group of outstanding
scholars. In 1768, a wealthy relative, Elijah Peseles, bought aplot near Elijah’s home where the edifice he built was dedicated to prayer and study. The master’s “prayer room” waslater enlarged and became the bet ha-midrash (Klaus) of theGaon. Several of Elijah’s disciples, including Ḥ ayyim of Volozhin and the brothers Menahem Mendel and Simḥ ah Bunemof Shklov, recorded his observations and explanations, andhence through them and Elijah’s sons his teachings were disseminated. Elijah at this time generally refrained from contact
with people who were not close to him. An exception was the“Maggid of Dubno,” Jacob b. Ze’ev *Krantz, whose friendshiphe sought, and to whom he once wrote: “Come, my friend,
to my house and do not delay to revive and entertain me.”Though his views had been sought earlier, only at this time
did the Gaon also begin to express opinions on public issues.
When in 1756 he was requested by Jonathan *Eybeschuetz’s
party to express his opinion on the controversy with Jacob*Emden, Elijah modestly refused to arbitrate, saying: “Whoam I, a man from a distant land, a man young in years, of re-tiring disposition, that they should listen to me.” However his
intellectual and spiritual influence continued to grow, and according to the testimony of his contemporaries, “without his
knowledge no important activity can be carried out” (I. Klausner, Vilna bi-Tekufat ha-Ga’on (1942), 237).
Elijah encouraged the translation of works on the natural sciences into Hebrew but opposed philosophy and Haskalah, seeing them as a threat to faith and tradition. He violently
opposed the ḥ asidic movement. Although he devoted considerable attention to Kabbalah he looked with concern on any
suggestion of giving Kabbalah precedence over halakhic studies, and he also objected to changes in prayer rites and newcustoms that were being introduced by Ḥ asidim. He was apprehensive over the possibility of the creation of a new groupwhich would lead to a split in the community. When the firstgroups of Ḥ asidim were organized in Belorussia and Lithuania the leaders of the Shklov community asked Elijah what
policy they should adopt toward the new sect; Elijah repliedthat it should be fought. Etkes demonstrates that Elijah was
the one who initiated the rejection of the Ḥ asidim. The Vilna
community decided to close the prayer rooms of the Ḥ asidim,
burn their works, and excommunicate them. In 1772 its leaders dispatched letters to a number of other communities urging them to combat the new movement.
Thus, under the leadership of Elijah, Vilna became thecenter of opposition to Ḥ asidism. In 1772 and 1777 Menahem
Mendel of Vitebsk and Shneur Zalman of Lyady, the headsof the ḥ asidic movement in Belorussia, attempted to meet
Elijah to demonstrate that the new movement did not conflict with traditional Judaism, but the Gaon refused to seethem. After publication of Jacob Joseph of Polonnoye’s Toledot
Ya’akov-Yosef (1781), Elijah’s fight against Ḥ asidism intensified.
Through his influence, the ban was again pronounced on theḤ asidim, and emissaries were sent to rouse the communities
against the movement. Around 1794 the Gaon gave instructions that the Ẓ avva’at ha-Ribash (“Testament of R. Israel
Ba’al Shem Tov”) should be publicly burned in Vilna. In 1796,
the Ḥ asidim having spread a rumor that Elijah regretted his
stand against the movement, the Gaon replied in a letter sentby special emissaries to the communities of Lithuania andBelorussia: “I will continue to stand on guard, and it is theduty of every believing Jew to repudiate and pursue them [theḤ asidim] with all manner of afflictions and subdue them, because they have sin in their hearts and are like a sore on the
body of Israel.” When several Ḥ asidim in Minsk cast doubts on
the authenticity of Elijah’s signature on the letter the community leaders sent two emissaries to Vilna to clarify the matterand Elijah responded with an even sharper condemnation ofḤ asidism. Because of the denigration of the Gaon in ḥ asidic
circles, the leaders of the Minsk community threatened excommunication to anyone impugning Elijah’s honor. In thedispute which broke out in Vilna between the heads of thecommunity and Samuel, the av bet din, Elijah opposed Samuel, although they were related. Elijah’s intervention resulted
in a judgment by the rabbis ruling that Samuel had broken an

342

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6elijah ben solomon zalmanoath and was guilty of other instances of bad conduct. Samuel’s supporters thereupon tried to persuade the state court
to prevent payment of the community’s weekly allowance to
Elijah, since he did not hold a formal position in the communal institutions. The community leaders, however, vigorously
condemned this action and imprisoned the preceptor Joel for
defaming Elijah. At that time a son of one of the community
leaders ran away to a monastery and became converted toChristianity. When the youth was kidnapped from the monastery to induce him to return to Judaism, the ecclesiasticaland state authorities arrested several suspects and charged
them with the kidnapping. Elijah was also interrogated andimprisoned for a month in February 1788; in September 1789
he was again imprisoned for 12 weeks but the term was commuted. After his death, the opposition to the ḥ asidic movement abated somewhat but did not die out completely.
Elijah had decided, before 1783, to immigrate to Ereẓ
Israel. He set out alone with the intention of sending for his
family later, and on his way sent them a letter – a kind of spiritual testament. The missive reflects his delicate feelings toward
his children, his wife, and his mother. He requested his wife
not to economize on the tuition of his sons and to care for theirhealth and diet. He also gave instructions for the education of
his daughters and admonished them to refrain from taking
oaths, cursing, deceit, or quarreling. He considered that vain
talk was one of the greatest sins and therefore advised making few visits, even to synagogue, and praying at home, alone,in order to avoid idle talk and jealousy as much as possible.
He warned them not to covet wealth and honor, because “itis known that all This World is vanity” (in his Alim li-Terufah,1836). For unknown reasons Elijah did not reach Ereẓ Israel
and returned to Vilna.
Over time, Elijah became known as the Gaon and Ḥ asid.
The first appellation is based on his enormous scholarshipthat spanned the entirety of rabbinic literature, including thevast world of Midrash and kabbalistic literature. In addition,
the depth of his knowledge and understanding is evident in
his writings. The combination of Elijah’s asceticism and almost obsessive devotion to Torah study and religious observance earned him the title of Ḥ asid. Through his teachings
and actions Elijah did much to form the characteristics of the“Litvak” Mitnaggedim peculiar to Lithuanian Jewish culture
whose achievements attained their pinnacle of expression
in the 19t century in the many celebrated yeshivot of Lithuania, such as those of Volozhin and Mir. The semi-legendary
figure of saint and intellectual giant towered over Lithuanian
Jewry and influenced its cultural life in the 19t and into the20t centuries.
Teachings
The importance of the spiritual activity of the Vilna Gaon
stemmed primarily from the vast range of subjects with which
he dealt. There is no subject relevant to Judaism on which hedid not write a book or notes and glosses that at times amountto a complete book. The Bible, the Talmud, including theminor tractates, the tannaitic Midrashim, the Zohar and the
Tikkunei ha-Zohar, the Shulḥ an Arukh, Hebrew grammar,
and a long list of general sciences such as geometry, measurements, astronomy, and medicine – all these occupied theGaon of Vilna, to such an extent that it may be said of him
that no Jewish or general topic which had a bearing on Judaism was alien to him. Even in the order of the prayers and in
the piyyutim he formulated new readings that have been accepted (e.g., in the hymn for the termination of the Sabbath,instead of “our seed and wealth he shall multiply as the sand,”he read, “our seed and peace”).
The fundamental base of his outlook was the concept of
the eternity of the Torah, with all its details and minutiae, in
actual practice. He regarded the slightest attack on any single
detail of the halakhah, or the undermining of a single preceptof the Torah, as a blow at the foundations of the Torah as awhole. His outlook on the absolute eternity of the Torah he expressed strikingly in his commentary to the Sifra de-Ẓ eni’uta(Ch. 5): “Everything that was, is, and will be, is included in the
Torah. And not only principles, but even the details of eachspecies, the minutest details of every human being, as well
as of every creature, plant, and mineral – all are included in
the Pentateuch.” This belief also encompassed the Oral Law,
whence his punctiliousness about every smallest detail of thehalakhah which established the content and the mode of observance of the precepts of the Torah. In consequence of thisoutlook the Vilna Gaon came to revive many customs andearly prohibitions no longer mentioned even in the Shulḥ an
Arukh but mentioned in the talmudic sources, or for which
he found support in these sources.
The Vilna Gaon interested himself in secular sciences tothe extent that he saw in them an aid to the understanding of
the Torah. It was his opinion that “all knowledge is necessary
for our holy Torah and is included in it.” “To the degree that aman is lacking in knowledge and secular sciences he will lack
one hundred fold in the wisdom of the Torah” (introduction
to Baruch of Shklov’s Euclid, The Hague, 1780). For this reason
he influenced the physician Baruch of Shklov to translate into
Hebrew works in such secular sciences as he found necessary
for this purpose. He also desired to see the works of Josephus
translated into Hebrew, “since they are in aid to the understanding of many passages in the Talmud and Midrash which
deal with topics connected with the Holy Land in ancient
times.” According to a statement dated 1778, he regarded thelack of interest in secular sciences that was widespread in thecircles of talmudic scholars as a profanation of Israel’s nameamong the nations, “who like the roaring of many waters willraise their voice against us, saying, where is your wisdom? And
the name of Heaven will be profaned” (ibid.).
After deeply studying many branches of science, he tried
his hand at writing works on mathematics (Ayil Meshullash,1833), on geography (Ẓ urat ha-Areẓ , Shklov, 1822), on astronomy, and on the calculation of the seasons and planetary motions (in Mss.). He also greatly valued music and said that“most of the cantillation of the Torah, the secrets of the le-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6343[Israel Klausner]elijah ben solomon zalman
vitical songs, and the secrets of the Tikkunei ha-Zohar, cannot be understood without it” (Israel of Shklov, introduction
to Elijah’s Pe’at ha-Shulḥ an, 1836). Similarly he greatly interested himself in medicine. However he had no knowledge of
foreign languages and derived all his secular knowledge from
Hebrew sources, most of which had been compiled during the
Middle Ages. As a result he had no idea of Newton’s theory or
the theory of Lavoisier and his entire scientific thinking wasbound up with the theory of the four elements. Despite thisElijah was far removed from the *Haskalah, which spread in
his time in the circles of German Jewry. He imposed a severe
punishment upon the preacher Abba of Glussk who identified
himself with the maskilim when in Berlin, and in a conversation with Elijah expressed himself to the effect that “Rashi did
not succeed in interpreting the Torah according to the plain
meaning of the Scripture, and the authors of the Midrash as
is well known are not masters of the correct literal meaning”(J.H. Lewin, Aliyyot Eliyahu (1856), n. 34). He did not join
battle with the Haskalah movement because at that time themaskilim still stood within the bounds of traditional Judaism.
They saw no contradiction between Elijah’s attitude to secularsciences and the activities of Moses Mendelssohn and some ofthem had connections with both of these simultaneously.
Elijah’s chief strength lay in halakhah. The fact that many
halakhot and dicta in the Talmud are quoted in a fragmentary or defective form in one place, but in full or in a morecorrect version elsewhere, roused in him the determination
to establish the correct reading of many halakhot by comparing the different sources. Emendations of the text not based
upon investigation of the sources but the result of mere conjecture he regarded as “an absolute crime… for which excommunication is merited” (Be’ur ha-Gra to Sh. Ar., YD 279:2).
Frequently he succeeded in explaining difficult problems in
the Talmud by establishing the correct readings. His eschewalof casuistic hair-splitting, of which he said that “through it
transgression increases, iniquity grows, pleasant speech islost, and truth driven from the congregation of the Lord”(introd. by his sons Judah Leib and Abraham to Be’ur ha-Gra
to Sh. Ar., Oḥ ), was also connected with this desire to clarify
the readings of the halakhot. Hence he also demanded of thestudent “that he should delve into the subject with integrity,
detest piling up difficulties, admit to the truth even if utteredby school children, and all his intellectual desires be nullified
as against the truth” (ibid.). He regarded the commentaryof Rashi as ideal for the study of the Talmud, since his comments “are very straightforward to the discerning” (ibid.). In
the same spirit of this approach to the study of the Talmud healso established rules for the study of the Mishnah. The rabbisof the Talmud were accustomed in his opinion to explain thewords of Mishnah as they explained the words of the Torah,i.e., both according to the plain meaning and exegetically.
Expositions of the Mishnah on the basis of the assumption“there is a lacuna and this is what was taught” are exegetical.
According to the Gaon, in actual fact the Mishnah lacks nothing, but Judah I occasionally cites a Mishnah which expressedthe view of one of the halakhic scholars, and as the amoraim
inclined to a different view, they understood the Mishnah as
if it were defective through omissions, in order that it should
conform with their view. This view of the relationship between
the Mishnah and the Gemara is expressed with complete consistency in his commentary on the Mishnah. At times he deviates from the conclusions of the Gemara in connection withcertain mishnayot and explains them in accordance with theliteral meaning of the passage (see, e.g., his commentary toBer. 4:1 and 7:2).
The Vilna Gaon included within the Torah the Zohar,
the Tikkunei ha-Zohar, and other early kabbalistic books likethe Sefer ha-Bahir, of which he had a profound and extensive
knowledge. Here, too, he paid special attention to establishing
the correct readings. His chief aim, however, was to explain
the Kabbalah sources in such a way as to abolish any contradictions between them and the talmudic sources. Wherever
he found such contradictions he ascribed them to error in theunderstanding of the Kabbalah sources or of the words of the
Talmud. He applied the same thoroughness to the kabbalistic works of Isaac *Luria, in which he delved deeply, and “hebrought them out of the darkness caused by copyists’ errors”(Ḥ ayyim of Volozhin in the introduction to the commentary
to the Sifra de-Ẓ eni’uta). His method of exposition in Kabbalah literature was also directed to understanding the words
in their plain sense, although pupils said that in every literalinterpretation he gave there was latent the esoteric meaning of
the passage. Because of his attachment to Kabbalah he took anegative attitude to philosophy, which he designated “the accursed.” In particular his criticism was directed against Maimonides who rejected the efficacy of the use of Divine Names,
charms, and amulets, thus denying the possibility of practical Kabbalah, which Elijah had followed from his early youth(Be’ur ha-Gra to Sh. Ar., YD 179:6). In his critical observations
against philosophy he did not refrain from sharply attacking
even Moses *Isserles. When the Gaon gives the view of Isserles
who, following Maimonides, interprets pardes as wisdom, hecomments, “Neither he nor Maimonides saw the pardes” (ibid.
to YD 246:4). Despite all his vast knowledge and understanding of Kabbalah, Elijah opposed preference being given to its
study over that of the halakhah, as he opposed changes in the
text of the liturgy and new customs, in which he saw echoesof Shabbateanism. In Ḥ asidism’s stress on the fundamentalof the love of God and the service of God in joy which it regarded as being on a higher level than Torah study, he saw
contempt for the importance of Torah. Elijah’s spiritual pathstarts with ritual observance and Torah study. Only after one
has perfected these two aspects of religious life can one enter
the realm of mystic experience. Mysticism is attained throughperfection of the self, not by enthusiasm.
The curriculum he laid down conforms to the demandsof the Mishnah (Avot 5:21). He demanded that girls should also
have a certain knowledge of the Bible and laid particular importance on their acquiring a knowledge of the Book of Proverbs and conducting themselves according to its principles.

344

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6elijah ben solomon zalman
Writings
Over 70 works and commentaries are attributed to Elijah.
More than 50 have appeared in print while several of his
manuscripts have been completely lost. Up to the age of 40 hewrote only for his own use. Subsequently he would teach hisnovellae to his pupils who could take down only part of his
teachings as he did not pause to allow time for this. None of his
works was published during his lifetime. His commentary to
the Shulḥ an Arukh (Oḥ , Shklov, 1803; YD, Grodno, 1806; EH,
Vilna and Grodno, 1819; ḥ M, Koenigsberg, 1855), Ayil Meshullash, fragments of a commentary on Scripture, and parts of acommentary on several aggadot which are extant were written
by his own hand. Of his other teachings there remained notes
written in haste on the margins of books and later copied – attimes with errors that distort the meaning – by his sons or
pupils. Of these notes, Hayyim *Volozhiner said (introduction to Be’ur ha-Gra to Sh. Ar., Oḥ ) that they are “like thestars which appear small but beneath which the whole world
stands.” In the scholarly circles of Vilna and beyond, several
Torah novellae were also known that were transmitted in his
name, and in order to make sure that everything attributed tohim actually emanated from him, a proclamation was issued
by the Vilna bet din on Kislev 19, 1798 forbidding anything tobe published in the name of Elijah until it had been made absolutely certain that it was in his actual handwriting (Shenot
Eliyahu to mishnayot of Seder Zera’im, Lemberg, 1799). The
unsatisfactory external form of the Gaon’s spiritual testament
resulted in the fact that his great work in establishing the correct readings was not fully exploited.
The Gaon wrote commentaries to practically all the
books of Scripture and to several of the books of the Mishnah.
Among his expositions of the Mishnah, his commentary onthat of Arugah (Kil. 3:1) became especially well-known inscholarly circles (Be’ur al ha-Arugah, in: Zerahiah Gerondi,
Sefer ha-Ẓ ara (Shklov, 1803). Knowledge of geometry is necessary for its understanding, for which reason previous commentators of the Mishnah had experienced difficulty in explaining it. Israel b. Samuel of Shklov, the pupil of the Gaon,
who, during the years he dwelt in Ereẓ Israel interested himself
especially in the Gaon’s novellae to Zera’im (from the standpoint of their value for agricultural work in Israel), testifies:“He toiled on the theme of Arugah for as long a time as it
would have taken him to complete half the Babylonian Talmud, rejecting all the explanations of the early commentatorsand expounding it by a new and true system” (introduction
to Pe’at ha-Shulḥ an, 1836). He also wrote commentaries andglosses on the tannaitic Midrashim – Mekhilta (1844), Sifra(1911), Sifrei (1866) – on various parts of the Tosefta, on the
Jerusalem Talmud, on the whole of the Babylonian Talmud,
and on the aggadot of the Talmud. Among his commentaries on the sources of the Kabbalah are a commentary to theSefer Yeẓ irah (Grodno, 1806), the Sifra de-Ẓ eni’uta (Vilnaand Grodno, 1820), the Zohar (Vilna, 1810), the Tikkunei haZohar (1867), the Ra’aya Meheimna (1858), and the Sefer haBahir (1883). Many attempts have been made to collate histeachings and sayings. The most reliable such collection isMa’aseh Rav (Zolkiew, 1808, and many more editions) by Issachar Ber of Vilna.
A singular aspect of the Gaon’s writings was his constant emendation of the text. Elijah made textual emendations throughout all of rabbinic and kabbalistic literature. He
combined two methods of emendation: (a) assuming that all
rabbinic literature is a seamless whole, Elijah harmonized parallel sources, and (b) he corrected texts even when he had no
textual sources. Rather, his amazing command of the entire
literature allowed him to speculate as to the correct readingof the text. He even based some of his legal decisions on such
emendations. Later historians claim that in emending thetext, Elijah was a forerunner of modern scientific philological scholarship. However, what the Gaon did and how he did
it is vastly different from modern scholarship. Nevertheless,he was a pioneer in thinking that many if not all of the available printed editions were filled with errors.
The Gaon’s kabbalistic writing had great influence on
the religious thinkers of the 19t and 20t centuries, starting with his student Ḥ ayyim Volozhiner, continuing throughsuch ḥ asidic giants as Abraham of *Sochaczew and *Ẓ adok
ha-Kohen of Lublin, to Abraham Isaac ha-Kohen *Kook. His
kabbalistic ideas were explicated and expanded upon by Isaac
Ḥ aver and Solomon Eliashiv, author of the Leshem Shevo veAḥ lamah.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6345[Samuel Kalman Mirsky / David Derovan (2nd ed.)]As Grammarian
Elijah’s study of Hebrew, Dikduk Eliyahu (“Elijah’s Grammar”),
was first published by Ẓ evi the grammarian (1833), and laterin an edition by A.L. Gordon (Mishnat ha-Gra, 1874). Employing the methodology of the medieval grammarians, the study
concerns itself with details from the field of phonology. It
includes chapters on consonants, vowels, the sheva, the dagesh,
and rules of accentuation in the Bible. In an additional list,
Elijah summarizes the general principles of vocalization
by means of mnemotechnical symbols and numbers. In
the second part of the work, apparently authentic, are summaries of the categories of words in Hebrew (noun, verb,
particle), and a short description of their morphologicalstructure (conjugations and declensions). Here also the description is concise; at times it is summarized by numericalsymbols.
Many grammatical observations are also found in Elijah’s commentary on the Pentateuch (e.g., Gen. 1:1–7) andon the Prophets and Hagiographa. His entire exegesis on thefirst verses of the Torah is a morphological analysis, a summary of the rules of vocalization. His purism in defining themeanings of words, especially in distinguishing between synonyms, is apparent throughout his commentaries. At times hedistinguishes between synonyms by using the etymology of
the words (e.g., dal, “poor,” is from dal minneh – “it becameless for him,” i.e., “his wealth was taken from him”). Similarly,
linguistic and literary observations, accompanied by examples,elijah chelebi ha-kohen of anatolia
are to be found in his commentary on the “thirty-two principles of exegesis of Rabbi Yose ha-Galili.”[Menahem Zevi Kaddari]
Bibliography: S.J. Fuenn, Kiryah Ne’emanah (1860, 19152),
144–70; S.J. Jazkan, Rabbenu Eliyahu mi-Vilna (1900), incl. bibl.; M.
Silber, The Gaon of Wilna (1905); M. Teitelboim, Ha-Rav mi-Ladi uMifleget Ḥ abad (1913); L. Ginzberg, The Gaon, Rabbi Elijah (1920);
Dubnow, Ḥ asidut, index; I. Klausner, Vilna bi-Tekufat ha-Ga’on (1942);
idem, Ha-Gaon Rabbi Eliyahu mi-Vilna (1969); I. Unna, Rabbenu
Eliyahu mi-Vilna u-Tekufato (1946); M.G. Barg, Ha-GRA mi-Vilnah(1948); J.I. Dienstag, Rabbenu Eliyahu mi-Vilna, Reshimah Bibliografit(1949; repr. from Talpioth, vol. 4, 1949); M.M. Yoshor, in: L. Jung (ed.),Jewish Leaders (1953), 25–50; B. Katz, Rabbanut, Ḥ asidut, Haskalah, 2
vols. (1956–58); B. Landau, Ha-Ga’on he-Ḥ asid mi-Vilna (1965); H.H.
Ben-Sasson, in: Zion, 31 (1966), 39–86, 197–216; M. Wilensky, Ḥ asidim
u-Mitnaggedim, 2 vols. (1970); M.S. Samet, in: Meḥ karim le-ZekherẒ evi Avneri (1970), 233–57. Add. Bibliography: A. Feldman, The
Juggler and the King: An Elaboration of the Vilna Gaon’s Insights into
the Hidden Wisdom of the Sages (1990); Y.I. Herczeg (ed.), Vilna Gaon
Haggadah (1993); E.J. Schochet, The Hasidic Movement and the Gaonof Vilna (1994); J. Levisohn, in: Le’ela, 44 (1997), 9–19; I. Lempertas(ed.), The Gaon of Vilnius and the Annals of Jewish Culture (1998);
R. Schnold, The Gaon of Vilna: The Man and His Legacy (1998); E.
Etkes, The Gaon of Vilna: The Man and His Image (Heb., 1998; Eng.,
2002); Y. Vinograd, Thesaurus of the Books of the Vilna Gaon: Detailed and Annotated Bibliography of Books By and About the Gaon
Hasid R. Eliahu (2003); M. Hallamish, Y. Rivlin, and R. Schuchat(eds.), The Vilna Gaon and His Disciples (2003). AS A GRAMMARIAN: Elijah b. Solomon Zalman, Berak ha-Shaḥ ar (1863), references to
Elijah’s commentary on synonyms by Samuel b. Abraham of Slutsk;
Y.L. Maimon (ed.), Sefer ha-GRA, 1 (1954), 201–41; J.H. Greenstone,
in: JBA, 6 (1947/48), 76–83.

ELIJAH CHELEBI HAKOHEN OF ANATOLIA (probably
15t century), liturgical poet. Five religious poems by him areprinted in the Maḥ zor Romania and in the collection of devotional poems Shirim u-Zemirot ve-Tishbaḥ ot (Constantinople,
1545). Menahem Tamar in the introduction to his own Azharot (Ms. Leyden 34) claims to have seen a collection of poems
by Elijah. He is also mentioned in the collection of poems by
Joshua Benveniste (written in 1635).
Bibliography: Dukes, Poesie, 141 (read Chelebi for Bilibi);
Zunz, Lit Poesie, 519; Fuenn, in: Ha-Karmel, 1 (1871/72), 507; Margoliouth, Cat, 3 (1965), 251, no. 930 viii; Markon, in: Devir, 1 (1923), 249;
Davidson, Oẓ ar, 4 (1933), 363.
[Jefim (Hayyim) Schirmann]

THE GENEAOLOGY OF
ELIJAH MENAHEM
OF LONDONCRESSE
d. 1269ISAAC
COK HAGIN
Archpresbyter
from 1281–90

CHERA
VIVES
d. 1274

HAGIN

ANTERASIMEONThe Greatof Mainz

R. ELIJAH
MENAHEMb. c. 1220
d. 1284
R. YOMTOV

R. MOSESof Londond. c. 1268
ANTERA

1 PUCELLE
2 FLURIAJACOB
of Oxfordd. 1277

BENEDICTMOSES
of Northhampton
ANTERAHENNA
MOSESof Bristolof c. 1186

R. BERECHIAH(BENEDICT)of Lincoln

BELASETJOSCEJOSCE JEHIELISAAC
of Oxford

SIMEONof Oxford

CRESSEd. before 1284
ISAAC
ABRAHAM
BENEDICTMOSESLEOVIVES HAYYIM
BELASETJUDITH
HAGIN
BENEDICT AARONSOLOMON
MAANSER

AARON

COK

HAGIN
of Lincoln
Archpresbyter
from 1257–80
d. 1280

dtr.
BENEDICT

ISAAC

Haggadah. Elijah also achieved some reputation as a physician, on one occasion being called upon to attend the countof Flanders. One of his brothers was Hagin (Ḥ ayyim) of Lincoln, archpresbyter of the Jews of England from 1257 to 1280;
another was the scholar Berechiah of Lincoln.
Bibliography: M.Y.L. Sacks, Peirushei Rabbenu Eliyahu miLondres u-Fesakav (1956), 10–42 (introd.); idem, in: KS, 20 (1943/44),
229f.; Roth, in: JHSET, 15 (1946), 29–62; Urbach, Tosafot, 401–4; idem,
in: Essays… I. Brodie, 2 (1966), 1–12 (Heb.); Epstein, in: Madda’ei haYahadut, 1 (1926), 51–71; Wilhelm, in: Tarbiz, 22 (1951), 45–52.
[Cecil Roth]ELIJAH MENAHEM BEN MOSES (c. 1220–1284), English
rabbi, physician, and financier. Elijah Menahem was the sonof R. *Moses of London. From 1253, when he is first mentioned
in the records, he was one of the most active English financiers. Many nobles, and even members of the royal family,
were among his clients. Recent research has disclosed that he
was one of the greatest and most prominent of the pre-exilic
rabbis of England. Apart from various responsa, he wrote acommentary on the Mishnah (at least on the order Zera’im)
which was frequently utilized by Yom Tov Lipmann *Heller (inhis Tosafot Yom Tov) and also a commentary on the Passover

ELIJAH OF LA MASSA (15t century), Italian rabbi and author. Elijah was head of the Padua yeshivah in the 1520s. He
made a pilgrimage to Palestine via Egypt after 1433. A shortwhile after his arrival in Jerusalem in 1437 he was appointed
dayyan; halakhic questions were also addressed to him fromneighboring countries, such as Syria and Egypt. He wrote several letters from Jerusalem to his sons via his brother in Ferrara. One of these, written after he had lived in Jerusalem forover a year, is the only known document about the Palestinian Jewish community of the first half of the 15t century. In
this letter he describes his adventures and misfortunes on theway to Palestine; relates the details of the plague that struck
Palestine and Syria, which was responsible for the death of
90 persons in Jerusalem; tells of his appointment as dayyan

346

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

elimelechin Jerusalem; and mentions the occupations of the local Jews.
In the last part of his letter he speaks of the rumors current inJerusalem about the wars of Beta Israel in Ethiopia, and also ofwhat he heard about the Ten Tribes in India from a Jew who
emigrated from Iraq. These rumors were already current in
Italy, and Elijah was asked to get more details about them. It
is not known whether he stayed in Jerusalem or returned to
Italy. An English translation was published by E.N. Adler in
his Jewish Travellers (19662), 151–55.

ELIJAH OF PRAGUE, rabbi and head of the yeshivah in
Prague in the 15t century. Elijah was strict in applying his rabbinical authority, frequently placing his opponents under theḥ erem (ban), and even invoking the assistance of the secularauthorities, an act for which he was censured by Israel *Isserlein. His ruling that in a case of *blood libel all the communities of the realm should be considered “one city,” and obliged
to share the expenses for defense was accepted under protest
because he had not consulted the communities concerned.
He became involved in financial affairs “not in accordancewith his honor” and was summoned before a bet din by Isserlein. Toward the end of Elijah’s life Eliezer of Passau settled in
Prague and encroached upon Elijah’s sphere of competence,
opening a rival yeshivah, among other activities. Israel *Brunaand Perez succeeded in stopping the conflict between themwhich affected the whole Prague community.

ited he furthered his Jewish learning, in particular his knowledge of Kabbalah, as well as his secular studies. Elijah became
known through his work Sefer ha-Berit, the first edition ofwhich appeared anonymously in Brno in 1797. This work enjoyed a relatively wide circulation and was particularly wellreceived in Haskalah circles in Galicia and in Berlin, where,according to Elijah’s own testimony, it was regarded as a kindof encyclopedia of the natural sciences, astronomy, and theology. When the work was attributed to *Elijah ben Solomon
Zalman, the Gaon of Vilna, and to Moses *Mendelssohn, Elijah had the second edition published under his own name
(Zolkiew, 1807, with additions and emendations; third edition, Vilna, 1818). The work is divided into two parts. The first,
composed of 21 treatises, deals with science and philosophy;
the second, comprising 14 treatises, deals with ethics and Kabbalah. The section on science was already outdated at the timeof its composition, for, while it contains new empirical data,
it embodies a conception of the universe that is based on medieval Aristotelian philosophy and on the Kabbalah of Isaac*Luria. Elijah ignores the principles of Galileo and Newton
in physics, and of Lavoisier in chemistry, maintaining, for instance, that the earth is stationary. The section on ethics andKabbalah, which Elijah intended to be the main part of thework, is modeled after Ḥ ayyim *Vital’s Sha’arei Kedushah. In
this section Elijah accepts *Judah Halevi’s view that the Jewish people is on the fifth level in the ascending scale of creation – mineral, vegetable, animal, rational, and Israel, and hemakes use of the kabbalistic concept of the five souls inherent
in rational beings – nefesh, ru’aḥ , neshamah, ḥ ayyah, yeḥ idah,
and of the doctrine of the Sefirot. Turning to more practicalmatters Elijah discusses the means by which one can prepare
oneself for communion with the holy spirit (ru’aḥ ha-kodesh).
Since the principal requisite is “the fulfillment of the commandments for their own sake,” he provides guidance for theobservance of the commandments, according to the teachingsof Isaac Luria. The love of one’s neighbor, Elijah maintains, is
one of the foundations of the service of God. However, higher
than the love of human beings is the love of God, which he discusses in the final section of the work, entitled “Love and Joy,”
and which he defines as the soul’s cleaving to God. In addition
to Sefer ha-Berit, Elijah wrote a commentary on Immanuel Ḥ ai*Ricchi’s Mishnat Ḥ asidim (published in 1889); Mitzvot Tovim,
dealing with the reasons for the commandments (Ta’amei haMitzvot); Matmonei Mistarim, on the combinations of letters;
and Beit Yoẓ er, a commentary on Sefer Yeẓ irah. These last threeworks are extant only in manuscript.

Bibliography: Horowitz, in: Zeitschrift fuer die Geschichte
der Juden in der Tschechoslowakei, 1 (1930/31), 231–4; Suler, in: JGGJČ,9 (1938), 109–11, 135–44, 167; Michael, Or, 159–60; M. Frank, Kehillot
Ashkenaz u-Vattei Dineihem (1937), 24.

Bibliography: Ha-Me’assef (1809), 68–75; Letteris, in: Bikkurim (1864/65), 51; S.J. Fuenn, Kiryah Ne’emanah (19152), 206; A.
Walden, Shem ha-Gedolim he-Ḥ adash (1864), S.V. Phineḥ as Elijah of
Vilna; H.D. Friedberg, Luḥ ot Zikkaron (1904), 93.

Bibliography: E. Ashkenazi, Divrei Ḥ akhamim (1849),
61–63; A.M. Luncz (ed.), Ha-Me’ammer, 3 (1920), 77–80; A. Yaari, Iggerot Ereẓ Yisrael (1943), 86–89, 541. Add. Bibliography: E. Carmoly, Itinéraires de la Terre Sainte, Bruxelles, 1847, 323–360; Y. Haker,
Zion, 50 (1985), 241–63.
[Avraham Yaari / Moti Benmelech (2nd ed.)]ELIJAH OF PESARO (16t century), Italian scholar andtraveler. After living for some time in Venice, Elijah set out
for the Holy Land in 1563 but was obliged to stop his journey
in Cyprus as there was an outbreak of cholera in Ereẓ Israel.
From Famagusta he wrote a letter to his relatives in Italy describing the journey, giving advice to travelers, and including an account of Cyprus which remains a primary source
for the social and economic history of the island. Elijah also
wrote philosophical homilies and commentaries on the Songof Songs, Jonah, and Job (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale Ms.
Heb. 276).
Bibliography: A. Yaari, Masot Ereẓ Yisrael (1946), 165–96.
[Ariel Toaff][Meir Hillel Ben-Shammai]

ELIJAH PHINEHAS BEN MEIR (c. 1742–1821), scholar,
kabbalist, and maskil. Elijah was born in Vilna, but in his
youth, after his father’s death, he traveled extensively among
the Jewish communities of Europe. In each city that he vis-ֶ ִ‫“ ; ֱאל‬God [or my God] is king”), the
ELIMELECH (Heb. ‫ימלֶ ְך‬
husband of *Naomi and father of Mahlon and *Chilion, fromBeth-Lehem in Judah. Due to the famine in Israel during the

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6347

elimelech of lyzhansk
time of the Judges, Elimelech crossed over to Moab, where heand his two sons died. Following their deaths, his wife Naomi
returned to Beth-Lehem together with her daughter-in-law*Ruth (Ruth 1:1–3; 2:1, 3; 4:3, 9). There Ruth married *Boaz,one of Elimelech’s relatives. The name itself is attested in the*El-Amarna letters of the 14t century B.C.E. as Ili-Milku, avariant of the name Milk-ilu, ruler of Gezer. In Ugaritic documents of the 13t century the name is written ʾImlk and pronounced either Ili-Milku or Ili-Malku.
Add. Bibliography: W. Moran, The Amarna Letters (1992),
326; W. Watson and N. Wyatt (eds.), Handbook of Ugaritic Studies(1999), index, 841.

ELIMELECH OF LYZHANSK (1717–1787), popular ẓ addikof the third generation of Ḥ asidim and one of the founders of*Ḥ asidism in Galicia. Elimelech was a disciple of *Dov Baer
the Maggid of Mezhirech and is considered the theoretician
and creator of “practical ẓ addikism.” Elimelech and his brotherZusya of Hanipol traveled from village to village, according to
the principle of nedudei galut (“wanderings of exile”), i.e., theirtravels, symbolically expressing their identification with thewanderings of the shekhinah (Divine Presence). According toa later interpretation, the purpose of their wanderings was thepromotion of repentance. After the death of Dov Baer (1772),
Elimelech settled in Lyzhansk, Galicia, which as a result became an important ḥ asidic center. He headed a court financedby pidyonot (lit. ransoms), i.e., a system of internal taxes paid
to the ẓ addik usually accompanied by kvitlakh (lit. “receipt”),
slips on which the Ḥ asidim wrote their spiritual and material problems for the ẓ addik to solve. Letters published under
his name show his attitude toward the quarrels between theḤ asidim and the Mitnaggedim. Elimelech is also mentioned in
the indictments against the Ḥ asidim in Sefer ha-Vikku’aḥ andin Zemir Ariẓ im. In his letters, he defends himself against theobjections of the Mitnaggedim to Ḥ asidim praying according
to the Sephardi ritual (following the rite of Isaac *Luria). Elimelech cited as proof Joseph *Caro and even Moses *Isserles,
who according to him established the Ashkenazi ritual for thegeneral community, but not for the pious who had attained
a higher plane of faith. Elimelech was ascetic, but he did notregard asceticism as the way of life for all. According to him,
asceticism corresponds to the “breaking of the vessels” in Lurianic Kabbalah, whose purpose is tikkun (“restitution of theworld”). However, it is not the only path to tikkun; for “oneẓ addik reaches tikkun through eating and another, throughasceticism” (No’am Elimelekh, “Va-Yikra”).

could not withstand the pressure of the life of a ẓ addik, andtoward the end of his life concentrated on self-fulfillment. He
withdrew from his disciples and even neglected the spiritualleadership of his community. According to Elimelech, theẓ addik possesses a higher spiritual status than the seraphim
and is the foundation of the world. He has power to influence
the higher spheres, i.e., “the ẓ addik decrees and God fulfills”(Shab. 59b, cf. No’am Elimelekh, “Shelaḥ ”). The authority of aḥ asidic leader comes from his direct connections with higher
powers whose assistance he receives for his concerns for theindividual and the community. “Every utterance of the ẓ addik
creates an angel, and influences higher spheres” (ibid.). Bymeans of reflection and contemplation, the ẓ addik wages awar whose ultimate purpose is devekut and the ascent to theabsolute. He “lives below” (i.e., on earth) “but in reality hedwells in higher worlds” (ibid., “Va-Yera”). The ẓ addik faces
the danger of death from an excess of enthusiasm. Therefore,
God calms him in the height of his devekut in order that henot die from the ecstasy of the mystical experience. The condition of devekut is not static, but varies in its intensity, having ascents and descents.

The Doctrine of the Ẓ addik
Elimelech formulated the mores of ḥ asidic society in the doctrine of the ẓ addik. In contrast with the view that the ẓ addik
was solely a spiritual leader, Elimelech maintained that theẓ addik possessed the task of leadership in all spheres of life.
The ẓ addik had to live in the dialectical tension between thespiritual life of devekut (devotion) and the pragmatic, materialistic requirements of society. Apparently, Elimelech himself

Nefillat ha-Ẓ addik (“The Fall of the Ẓ addik”)
Elimelech recognizes two types of falls (Heb., nefillot) in thestatus of the ẓ addik: descent for the purposes of tikkun anddescent because of Satan. Descent for the purpose of tikkun
is conceived of as a voluntary process. The ẓ addik knows that
he is obligated to improve his community and, therefore, descends to its level in order to uplift it. Elimelech regarded thesublimation in this doctrine of descent as the inner identification and conscious comparison of the ẓ addik with the ordinary individual. As a result there takes place the process of theelevation or sublimation of evil thoughts (ha’ala’at maḥ ashavot
zarot), the abolition of sin, and the transformation of the profane into the holy. Tikkun by the elevation of niẓ oẓ ot (“sparks”)
in the Lurianic Kabbalah is transferred to the sphere of thesoul in Elimelech’s teachings and is interpreted as the elevationof evil thoughts, leading to personal redemption. The “fall” ofthe ẓ addik is essential, and his capacity to sin is a conditionof his charismatic mission. Practical application of this doctrine, which apparently stemmed from the Shabbatean idea ofsin as a source for performance of a mitzvah, contains a serious religious danger. Inability of the ẓ addik to “fall,” however,interferes with the spiritual elevation of the community. The
ascent of the ẓ addik which follows the “fall” is higher thanthe level he attained in his previous ascents. From this pointof view, evil strengthens holiness. Elimelech’s solution to the
problem of evil is the sanctification of material things and theovercoming of temptation. The ẓ addik must abolish the dualism of coexistent good and evil by transforming evil into good,a process which will bring the advent of the messiah when
all will return to their original unity. The innovations of this
doctrine are the spiritual renewal of man and the revelationof the inner aspects of the Torah not revealed on Mount Sinai.
These ideas appear in No’am Elimelekh (Lvov, 1787) arranged

348

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

eliphazin the form of sermons on the weekly readings of the Torah,mostly describing how the ẓ addik worships God. It includes
his letters, his religious testament on matters of leadership,
and a treatise, Likkutei Shoshanim. Elimelech’s disciples wereAbraham Joshua Heshel of *Apta, Jacob Isaac *Horowitz, theSeer (“Ha-Ḥ ozeh”) of Lublin, Kalonymus Kalman *Epstein of
Cracow (author of Ma’or va-Shemesh), Menaḥ em Mendel of*Rymanow, and *Moses Leib of Sasov.
Bibliography: Schatz, in: Molad, 18 (1960), 365–78; M. Buber, Tales of the Ḥ asidim, 1 (19684), 253–64; Dubnow, Ḥ asidut, 178–88;
Horodezky, Ḥ asidut, 2 (19534), 149–273; A.H.S.B. Michaelson, Ohel
Elimelekh (1914); B. Landau, R. Elimelekh mi-Lyzhansk (1963); Y.
Berger, Eser Ẓ ahẓ aḥ ot (1900), 17–41.
[Esther (Zweig) Liebes]

ELION, GERTRUDE BELL (1918–1999), U.S. pharmacologist and Nobel Prize laureate. Elion was born in New York
City. She studied chemistry at Hunter College and NYU, where
she obtained her master of science degree in 1941. After a series
of intellectually less challenging appointments, she joined Burroughs Wellcome in North Carolina as a biochemist in 1944,
becoming head of the Department of Experimental Therapy
in 1967 and scientist emeritus after her retirement in 1983. Her
collaboration with George Hitchings led to her lifelong interest
in DNA and RNA synthesis from purine and pyrimidine precursors and the design of drugs which selectively inhibit thesepathways. This led to the development of 6-mercaptopurine,a landmark drug which inhibits cell proliferation and thus
has anti-cancer properties, and its derivative, the anti-leukemic drug 6-thioguanine. Later came the immunosuppressive
drug Imuran (Azathioprine), used to combat graft rejection
and to treat immunological diseases; acyclovir, which inhibits herpes viruses and was the first anti-viral drug; and allopurinol, which inhibits uric acid synthesis and is a mainstay
of gout treatment.
In 1988 she received the Nobel Prize in medicine (jointlywith George Hitchings and James Black). Other honors include the Garvan Medal (1968), the American Cancer Society’s
Medal of Honor (1990), election to the National Academy of
Sciences (1990) with subsequent Council membership, andthe National Medal for Science (1991).

°ELIOT, GEORGE, pseudonym of Mary Ann Evans (1819–
1880), English novelist. A Christian, George Eliot was a friendof the talmudic scholar Emanuel *Deutsch, and began to
study Hebrew and to show an interest in Jewish matters at an
early age. Daniel Deronda (1874–76), her celebrated “Zionist”
novel, was, however, her last great work of fiction. Possibly
suggested by the career of Colonel A.E.W. *Goldsmid, thehero of this novel, after discovering his Jewish identity onlyin his 20s, eventually leaves for Palestine to help “revive theorganic center” of his people’s existence. Daniel Deronda influenced the early Zionist thinker Eliezer *Ben-Yehuda, andsuch Hebrew writers as I.L. *Peretz and P. *Smolenskin. Literary critics have severely criticized this novel complainingthat the Zionist part is inflated, rhetorical, and not based on
genuine observation. But it has been claimed that the author
was writing a special kind of novel, dealing with the destinies
of nations rather than individuals. George Eliot discussed theJewish question again in “The Modern Hep-Hep,” a strong attack on anti-Jewish prejudice published in a collection of essays entitled Theophrastus Such (1878).
Bibliography: G. Eliot, Daniel Deronda, ed. by B. Hardy(1967), with introd.; D. Kaufmann, George Eliot and Judaism (1877); N.
Sokolow, History of Zionism 1600–1918, 1 (1919), 209–13; idem, Hibbath
Zion (Eng., 1934), 105–27; A. Moeller, George Eliots Beschaeftigung mit
dem Judentum und ihre Stellung zur Judenfrage (1934); M.F. Modder,
The Jew in the Literature of England (1939), index; F.R. Leavis, The
Great Tradition (1948); E. Rosenberg, From Shylock to Svengali (1961);
Fisch, in: 19t Century Fiction (March 1965); G.S. Haight, George Eliot,a Biography (1968); Leavis, in: Commentary, 30 (1960), 317–25. Add.
Bibliography: M. Laski, George Eliot and Her World (1973); G.
Levine (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to George Eliot (2001); S.
Nurbhai, George Eliot, Judaism, and the Novels: Jewish Myth and Mysticism (2002); W. Baker, George Eliot and Judaism (1975).
[Harold Harel Fisch]

Bibliography: Jos., Ant., 19:342; Schuerer, Gesch, 2 (19074),
271, no. 19; Klausner, Bayit Sheni, 4 (19502), 300ff.

ELIPHAZ (Heb. ‫יפז‬ָ ִ‫ ֱאל‬, ‫ ; ֱאלִ ַיפז‬perhaps: “God is victorious”; Ar.
fwz), the name of two biblical characters. The first is the oldest
son of *Esau and his wife Adah, and the ancestor of several
Edomite clans, the most important of which is Teman, since
its name is employed in poetry as a synonym for “Edom” (Jer.
49:7; Obad. 9) and “Amalek” (Gen 36:2, 10–12, 15–16). The second, Eliphaz the Temanite, is the oldest of the three friends
with whom the later stratum in the book of “Job the Patient”(see *Job) furnishes its hero. In his choice of a name and nationality for this friend, the author of the later stratum may
have been guided by the following considerations: the older
stratum locates Job himself in the land of *Uz and in the general ambience of the *Kedemites (Job 1:1, 3b). The land of Uz is
identified in Lamentations 4:21 with Edom, which, in any case,included a group known by the name of Uz (Gen. 36:28), andwas certainly an important Kedemite nation (Isa. 11:14). From
the above data on the first Eliphaz, it is not difficult to see why
within Edom the author was attracted to the tribal name of Teman and within Teman to the personal name of Eliphaz.

[Edna Elazary][Harold Louis Ginsberg]

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6349[Michael Denman (2nd ed.)]ELIONAEUS, SON OF CANTHERAS (or Cithaerus), highpriest 43–44 C.E. Elionaeus was appointed by *Agrippa I. It is
not clear whether he is to be identified with the “Cantheras”
who was deposed by Herod of Chalcis and was succeededby Joseph, the son of Camei (Kimḥ it; Jos., Ant., 20:16). The
Mishnah refers to him as Elioneiai b. ha-Kof (Par. 3:5), oneof the few high priests who prepared the ashes of the *red
heifer.

elishaIn the Aggadah
Eliphaz, the comforter of Job, is identified with Eliphaz, theson of Esau (Gen. 36:4; Targ. Yer., Gen. 36:12). He had, however, few dealings with Esau (Yal. 897), and became a righteous
man by virtue of the fact that he grew up under Isaac’s care
(Tanḥ . Va-Yera, 38). When his father sent him to kill Jacob,
after the latter’s flight from Haran, and Jacob beseeched him
to spare his life, he agreed to do so, but, in order technicallynot to disobey his father completely, took all Jacob’s worldly
goods, since “one who has lost his possessions is regarded asdead” (Mid. Ag., Gen. 28:20). Eliphaz even attempted to avert
a later tragedy by advising Amalek his son (Ten 36.12) to help
Israel, because they were to inherit both this world and theworld to come. In the time to come, Eliphaz will testify that
Israel has observed all the Torah (Av. Zar. 3a).

ELISHA (Heb. ‫ישע‬ָ ׁ ִ‫“ ; ֱאל‬God is salvation”), Israelite prophetic
wonder-worker of the ninth century B.C.E. in the days of *Jehoram son of *Ahab, *Jehu, *Jehoahaz, and *Joash. According
to I Kings 19:16, God commanded *Elijah on Mount Horeb toanoint Elisha as prophet in his place. (II Kings 19:15 is the solebiblical reference to anointing as an element of prophetic investiture.) When Elijah passed by the fields of Elisha’s father
and found Elisha busy plowing, “he cast his mantle upon him.”
The mere touch of Elijah’s cloak transformed Elisha. The factthat he was plowing with 12 yoke of oxen that he slaughteredas a farewell feast before leaving his family for Elijah’s service
shows that he was wealthy. He became Elijah’s devoted servant and outstanding disciple. Elisha came from *Abel-Meholah (19:16). On the basis of the opinion that Abel-Meholah
was in Gilead (see Glueck in bibl.), certain scholars postulated that geographical proximity was one of the causes of thepersonal affinity between Elijah and Elisha. Elisha was given
the task of continuing Elijah’s general prophetic mission. He
also performed certain acts which had been imposed on Elijah but which the latter did not carry out in his lifetime, e.g.,
the anointing of *Hazael as king of Aram and Jehu as king of
Israel. The transfer of Elijah’s prophetic mission to Elisha isalso described in the story of Elijah’s ascension. Elisha, who
saw Elijah ascending and “took the mantle of Elijah that had
fallen upon him,” was vouchsafed two-thirds of Elijah’s prophetic spirit, and the sons of the prophets said: “The spirit of
Elijah rests on Elisha” (II Kings 2:1–18). In contrast to Elijah,
who appears as a hermit-like prophet performing his deeds
alone, Elisha in the performance of his acts avails himself ofthe sons of the prophets (9:1–12). He is also in need of a musician, so that the hand of God may rest upon him (3:15). Elisha’s
first appearance as a prophet in his own right took place during the expedition against Moab undertaken by *Jehoram kingof Israel and *Jehoshaphat king of Judah (about 850 B.C.E.).
Jehoram asked Elisha to reveal to him the “word of the Lord”
about the outcome of the battle. Elisha did not hesitate tospeak to Jehoram in the sharpest terms, and at first even re-fused to prophesy. Only when the king pressed him, hintingthat not only was he in danger but also his allies – the kings ofJudah and Edom – did Elisha agree to prophesy because of thevirtues of Jehoshaphat (II Kings 3:11–19). The relations between
Elisha and the kings of Israel were generally, but not always,
harmonious (II Kings 6:31–3). Jehoram is described as an improvement over his parents Ahab and Jezebel because “he put
away the pillar of Baal which his father had made” (3:2). The
Bible has preserved an account of how the king asks *Gehazi,
Elisha’s young servant, to describe some of his master’s deeds(8:4–6). The king listened with interest to Gehazi’s narration,evidence not only of admiration for the prophet but also ofcomplete belief in him and his prophetic powers. Nevertheless,this did not prevent Elisha from apprehending the failures ofJehoram’s regime: the Moabite rebellion against Israel, defeatsin the wars against the Arameans, the Aramean invasion andsiege of Samaria, and the many years of famine, which Elisha
saw as an indication that the sins of Ahab’s house demanded
atonement. In Jehu and Hazael, he saw the rod of God’s wrathin the awful and terrifying events that befell Israel as a punishment for the sins of Ahab’s house.
Especially noteworthy is Elisha’s prophecy to the Aramean Hazael (II Kings 8:7–15) in which the prophet told
Hazael that he would succeed to the throne of his ailing master *Ben-Hadad. Elisha instructed Ben-Hadad to tell Hazaelthat he would recover, despite Elisha’s prophetic knowledge
that Ben-Hadad would die. Encouraged by Elisha’s prophecy
Hazael hastened Ben-Hadad’s death. Noteworthy as well in thesame story is how Elisha wept when he told Hazael that his
greatness would come at the expense of the Israelite people.
Elisha is likewise depicted as playing a role in Jehu’s revolution in the kingdom of Israel. It was Elisha who sent one ofthe disciples of the prophets (Heb.: benei ha-nevi’im) to anoint
the army commander Jehu and instruct him: “You shall strike
down the house of Ahab your master, that I may avenge on
Jezebel the blood of my servants the prophets, and the bloodof all the servants of the Lord” (9:1–7). Interestingly, the biblical writers do not mention any direct involvement of Elisha
with Jehu in the destruction of the house of Ahab, or in Jehu’s
bloody purge of the worshippers of Baal. Nor do we have an
account of Elisha’s intervention in subsequent events of Jehu’s
reign. Only in the days of Jehu’s grandson, Joash, more than
40 years after the bloodshed, does Elisha once again appear
to prophesy future victories for the kingdom of Israel over
the Arameans (II Kings 13:14–19). He died during the reignof Joash son of Jehoahaz.
Elisha was remembered as a powerful wonder-worker
for both good and ill. One of his miracles rescues the son of
the widow of one of the disciples of the prophets from slavery (II Kings 4). In another tale he brings fertility to a barren
woman and later brings the boy back to life (ibid.) In anothertale he heals the Aramean general Naaman of a dread skindisease (II Kings 5). In yet another case he responds to youngsters who had teased him about his baldness by cursing themin Yahweh’s name with the result that 42 of them are mangled

350

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: Ginzberg, Legends, 1 (1961), 421–3, 345–7; 5(1955), 322; I. Ḥ asida, Ishei ha-Tanakh (1964), 68–69.

elisha ben abraham
by bears. Elisha was a prophet by profession and sometimes
received payments or gifts for services rendered, but refused
to take them from the grateful Naaman (II Kings 5:16). In fact,
when his servant Gehazi cunningly received the gift fromNaaman, Elisha cursed him vehemently (II Kings 5:20–27). It
appears that the stories of the wonders performed by Elisha
and his master Elijah influenced the New Testament writers
in their portrayals of Jesus as wonder-worker.
[Yehoshua M. Grintz / S. David Sperling (2nd ed.)]In the Aggadah
Elisha was the only one of Elijah’s disciples whose prophetic
powers were not only not diminished after his master’s ascension but were increased, as a reward for his undeviating
loyalty to his master. When the angel descended to take Elijah to heaven, he found the two so immersed in a learned
discussion that he had to return without accomplishing his
mission (SER 5:90–91; cf. Ta’an. 10b). Elijah’s promise to bestow a double portion on his disciple was realized in that Elisha performed 16 miracles compared to the eight performedby his master (David Kimḥ i to II Kings 2:14). While Elijah
restored one person to life, Elisha revived two – the son of
the Shunammite woman and Naaman, since a leper was considered as dead (Ḥ ul. 7b). His washing of Elijah’s hands is extolled since serving a teacher is more meritorious than being
his disciple (Ber. 7b).
The Shunammite built a private chamber for him tominimize his contact with other people since any woman gazing directly at Elisha would die (Pd RE 33). She discerned theholiness of the prophet since she never saw a fly on his tableand because a pleasant fragrance surrounded him (Ber. 10b;
Zohar, 2:44a). Elisha did not refuse her hospitality becausea sage may benefit from the generosity of his followers, though
Samuel refused to do so (Ber. 10b). Elisha sanctified God’sname when he refused to accept any recompense from Naaman (Num. R. 7:5). The children devoured by the bears on
Elisha’s command were in reality disgruntled water carriers whose livelihood was affected by the miraculous healingof the waters of Jericho. They, their ancestors, and their posterity were completely devoid of virtue. Nevertheless, Elisha
was punished and afflicted with severe illness because heyielded to anger and cursed his antagonists. He was also visited with illness for completely thrusting Gehazi away insteadof maintaining some relationship with him (Sot. 46b–47a).
When Elisha rebuked King Jehoram in anger, the spirit ofprophecy departed from him and he had to resort to artificial means to arouse it again (Pes. 66b). Elisha recoveredfrom his two illnesses and was the first person in history tosurvive serious illness. Before him, every illness had resulted
in death (BM 87a). Even after his death a great miracle occurred when a dead man was revived by touching his bier(Pd RE 33; Sanh. 47a).

38:48), once together with Ishmael, Jonah, and Lot (Sura 6:86)
and the second time with Ishmael and Dhū al-Kifl, a figure
who is not easy to identify (see *Ezekiel). It is, however, evident that Muhammad did not know where to place him. According to the commentators of the Koran, he lived before
King Saul.
[Haïm Z’ew Hirschberg]

Bibliography: H. Gunkel, Das Maerchen im Alten Testament (1917), index; W.W. Fereday, Elisha the Prophet (1924); L. Bieler,
in: ARW, 32 (1935), 228–45; J. Morgenstern, Amos Studies, 1 (1941),
349ff.; F. James, Personalities of the Old Testament (1943), 187–95; N.
Glueck, in: BASOR, 90 (1943), 2–23; Y. Kaufmann, Toledot, 2 (1960),
index. IN THE AGGADAH: Ginzberg, Legends, 4 (1913), 239–46; 6(1928), 343–8. IN ISLAM: A. Geiger, Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthume aufgenommen? (1833), 192; EIs2, S.V.; H. Speyer, Biblische
Erzaehlungen… (1961), 406; Thaʿlabī, Qiṣ aṣ (1356 H), 218–9. Add.
Bibliography: M. Cogan, I Kings (2000), 455; M. Cogan and H.
Tadmor, II Kings (1988), 30–96, 147–52; Y. Zakovitch, Every High Official (Heb., 1986), 142–45.

ELISHA BA’AL KENAFAYIM (Heb. ‫ישע ַ ּב ַעל ְּכנָ ַפיִ ם‬ָ ׁ ִ‫“ ; ֱאל‬Elisha the man-of-the-wings”; c. second century C.E.), pious manof the tannaitic period whose name is said to reflect his miraculous escape from death during the Roman persecutions.
The talmudic story reads as follows: “… the wicked state (i.e.,Rome) once proclaimed a decree against Israel that whoever
put on phylacteries should have his brains pierced; yet Elisha
put them on and went out into the streets. A quaestor saw him;
and when Elisha fled from him, the latter gave pursuit. As heovertook him, Elisha removed the phylacteries from his headand held them in his hand. ‘What is that in your hand?’ heasked, to which Elisha replied ‘The wings of a dove.’ He openedout his hand and the wings of a dove were found therein.
Hence he is called ‘Elisha the man-of-the-wings’” (Shab. 49a,130a). The Jerusalem Talmud states “Whoever is not like Elisha the man-of-the-wings should not put on phylacteries”(Ber. 2:3, 4c; see Penei Moshe, ibid.). It seems however, thatthe epithet “man of the wings” is in fact a euphemism for “onewith clean hands,” i.e., that he was scrupulous with regard to
the ritual washing of hands (see Arukh ha-Shalem, ed. by A.
Kohut, 4 (1926), S.V. Kanaf, and S. Lieberman, Tosefta ki-Feshutah, 1 (1955), 215).
[Jacques K. Mikliszanski]

In Islam
Al-Yasaʿ or Alyasaʿ is to be identified with Elisha, the disciple of Elijah. He is mentioned in the Koran twice (Sura 6:86;

ELISHA BEN ABRAHAM (d. 1749), rabbi and author. Elisha was born in Leczyca, Poland. He also lived in Frankfurt
and Altona in Germany and in Grodno in Lithuania. In his
youth he was a pupil of Joseph Samuel of Cracow, the rabbi
of Frankfurt, in whose home he was brought up. In 1697 hepublished in Amsterdam Kav ve-Naki, a short commentary to
the Mishnah, which was brought out together with the text in
one compact volume and has been frequently republished. He
was appointed head of the bet din of Grodno, but in his old
age returned to Germany, staying for some time in the homeof Joseph Oppenheimer (son of David *Oppenheim). Oppenheimer placed at Elisha’s disposal a manuscript of *Asher b. Je-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6351

elisha ben avuyah
hiel’s commentary to the Mishnah on the order Zera’im, which
he published together with his own notes and glosses under
the title Pi Shenayim (Altona, 1735). The work received several
approbations, including that of Moses Hagiz and his opponent
Jacob *Emden, who rarely gave approbations. The manuscriptof Asher b. Jehiel’s commentary is now in the Bodleian Library,
Oxford, and an edition of Pi Shenayim (1966) collated anew
with the manuscript was published in 1966.

ELISHA BEN AVUYAH, tanna, quoted once in the Mishnah
as saying: “Learning in youth is like writing with ink on clean
paper, but learning in old age is like writing with ink on blotted paper” (Avot 4:20). From the position of this saying toward the end of the fourth chapter (see: *Avot, Structure) – after R. Jacob and R. Shimon ben Eleazar and before R. Eleazar
Hakapar – it would seem likely that he was one of the very
last of the tannaim. In the talmudic tradition (TJ, Ḥ ag. 2:1,
77b) he was identified with “Aḥ er” (“the Other”), the third of
the four companions who “entered the pardes.” In the earliest
form of this baraita (Tosef., Ḥ ag. 2:3, cod. Vienna), this third
companion was named explicitly as “Elisha.” Elisha is a relatively rare name among the tannaim, and this probably
contributed to the identification of these two figures. Fromthe story in Tosefta Ḥ agigah, it seems clear that the Elisha
mentioned there was a contemporary of R. Akiva. Beyond
what is told in Avot and in Tosefta Ḥ agigah, tannaitic sources
provide no additional information on either of these two figures. Chapter 24 in Avot de-Rabbi Natan version A ascribes
various statements to Elisha ben Avuyah. However, Avot deRabbi Natan in the forms in which we possess it is a posttalmudic work, and these specific traditions are variously
ascribed to other Sages in other sources. They cannot, therefore, be viewed as reliable evidence for early traditions concerning Elisha.
Tosefta Ḥ agigah tells us that Elisha “looked and destroyed
the plants.” “Destruction of plants” is a standard phrase intannaitic sources for wanton destruction. It can refer either
to damage caused to oneself or to damage caused to another(BK 8:6). In later sources it is used by extension to refer tothe destructive consequences of sin (Gen. R. 19), and specifically to one who learns Torah but does not fulfill its precepts(Deut. R., ed. Lieberman, 109). In the Palestinian tradition two
related interpretations of Elisha’s “destruction of the plants”
are suggested. According to one interpretation (TJ, Ḥ ag. 2:1,
77b–c; Ruth R. 6; Eccles. R. 7), Elisha himself stopped learning Torah and gave up observing the Sabbath. In this tradition Elisha is viewed as a tragic figure, who has strayed fromthe ways of the Torah and is convinced that there is no way
back. In response to R. Meir’s repeated attempts to convince
him to repent, Elisha states: “Once I was passing by the Holyof Holies riding on my horse on the Day of Atonement whichfell on the Sabbath, and I heard a heavenly voice coming fromthe Holy of Holies, which said: ‘Return, O children’ – except
for Elisha ben Avuyah.” This interchange, which provides thethematic framework for this entire narrative tradition, reflects
a literary reversal of R. Meir’s own position in Tosefta Demai
2:9, where R. Meir states that a sage who has abandoned theways of the ḥ avurah “can never be accepted back” into the fold,while R. Shimon and R. Joshua ben Korḥ ah state that he canalways be accepted back, as it is written (Jer. 3:14): “Return, O
repentant children.” This theme of the “sinful sage” (Rubenstein, 64–104; Goshen-Gottstein, 21–229), as developed in the
Jerusalem Talmud and the parallel Midreshei aggadah, has
no obvious connection to the story of the “four who entered
the pardes.” In response to the question of what led to Elisha’s
apostasy, this tradition provides a number of answers. Two ofthem relate to the impure nature of Elisha’s conception andbirth, and two to Elisha’s crisis of faith concerning the suffering of the righteous (e.g., seeing the tongue of R. Judah haNaḥ tom in a dog’s mouth, regarding which he commented:“Is this the Torah and this its reward?” (TJ, Ḥ ag. ibid.), cf. theparallel description of the tongue of Ḥ uẓ pit the Meturgeman
being dragged along by a pig in the Babylonian Talmud (Kid.
39c), concerning which Elisha exclaimed: “The mouth thatuttered pearls licks the dust,” and see below). Since none ofthese reasons seem to have any connection to what Elisha may
have “seen” when he entered the pardes (however this is understood), the later Palestinian tradition (Song R. 1) omitted
the word “looked” from the original text of the baraita, reading instead: “Elisha destroyed the plants.” According to thistradition his experience in the pardes was not the cause of his
apostasy. Rather the underlying causes of both his apostasy
and of his negative experience in the pardes were the flaws in
his character and the weakness of his faith.
Another early Palestinian interpretation of Elisha’s “destruction of the plants” is also found in the Jerusalem Talmud (TJ, Ḥ ag. 2:1, 77b) and echoed in Song R. 1. According
to this understanding, Elisha did not merely bring damage
upon himself by ceasing to learn Torah and to observe the
Sabbath. He also inflicted damage upon others, by forcing
them to desecrate the Sabbath, or by preventing children fromlearning Torah, or even – according to an extreme version ofthis tradition – killing children who learned Torah. Clearly
this tradition does not portray Elisha as a tragic figure, butrather as an arch-villain, deserving no sympathy, but rather
only contempt and hatred. It is therefore significant to notethat only in this tradition does the Jerusalem Talmud use theterm “Aḥ er” to refer to Elisha, thus avoiding referring to him
by name. R. Meir also does not appear in this tradition, nor
is there any discussion of his repentance or his return to thefold (cf. Tosef., Yoma 4:11).
In the Babylonian Talmud (Ḥ ag. 15a–b) these two very
different early aggadic traditions were combined into a single
composite, but fairly continuous narrative. Elisha both sins
against himself and commits crimes against others. He is simultaneously a sympathetic and tragic figure, accompanied

352

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: J. Emden; Megillat Sefer, ed. by D. Kahana(1896), 120; S.A. Friedenstein, Ir Gibborim (1880), 58; S.Z. Horowitz,
Reḥ ovot Ir (1891), 30–32; Michael, Or, no. 472.
[Shlomoh Zalman Havlin]

elisha ben avuyah
by his still devoted disciple R. Meir, and given consideration
by sages like R. Joḥ anan, yet at the same time an arch-villain,never referred to by his own name, but rather only as “Aḥ er” –“the Other” – and clearly despised by R. Judah ha-Nasi. As
such, his complex and contradictory (or if you will: paradoxical) figure provides a profound challenge for literary critics.
But the most important change in the Babylonian tradition isin fact a return, in part, to the earliest forms of the Elisha tradition, namely the connection between his apostasy and theexperience of the pardes. No doubt basing itself on the original
tradition of Tosefta Ḥ agigah, the Babylonian Talmud assumes
that Elisha’s “destruction of the plants” was a direct result ofwhat he saw when he entered the pardes (“Elisha looked anddestroyed the plants”). Moreover, the Babylonian Talmud assumes (probably correctly) that the original story of the entry
into the pardes as described in the Tosefta reflects a mysticaljourney, involving an ascension (physical or spiritual) into theheavens, and a vision of some aspect of divinity. The clarification of the precise nature of the tannaitic understanding of
the mystical ascent to the divine, and of the dangers inherent
in this ascent, are therefore crucial to any appreciation of theroots and development of the Elisha traditions. In their present form, the Babylonian Talmud’s version of these traditions
reflects a relatively late stage in the evolution of the Metatron
traditions, and shows some degree of interdependence withthe later strata of the heikhalot literature. For a powerful andprofound study of these aspects of the Elisha traditions, see
Liebes, The Sin of Elisha.
Given the composite character of the Elisha traditions, it
is quite clear that any attempt to write a single consistent andcoherent “biography” of this character will ultimately break
down in contradiction. One extreme example of this phenomenon is reflected in the willingness of earlier scholars to accept on face value the identification of the tanna R. Jacob b.
Korshai as Elisha’s grandson. The textual basis of this pseudoidentification provides a good text-case both of the talmudic
method of “creative historiography,” and of the uncritical use
of talmudic sources by some scholars. As mentioned above,
one of the reasons given for Elisha’s apostasy was his loss offaith in divine reward and punishment. The Jerusalem Talmud(Ḥ ag. 2:1, 77b) tells that Elisha once saw a man ascend to the
top of a date palm, take the young birds without sending off
the mother, and came down safely, despite the fact that he hadtransgressed the law of the Torah (cf. Deut. 22:7). The next day,Elisha saw another man ascend to the top of a date palm, send
off the mother and then take the young birds, thus fulfilling
the law of the Torah. When he came down, he was bitten by apoisonous snake and died. Elisha was distressed because the
Torah explicitly promises that one who fulfills this commandment will be given “goodness and length of days,” and so helost his faith. To this the Jerusalem Talmud adds that Elisha
lost his faith only because he was unaware of R. Jacob’s interpretation of the verse: “‘you shall receive goodness’ – in theworld to come, which is all good; ‘you shall receive length ofdays’ – in the future world, which is ‘long’ [i.e., unending].”

This dictum is brought in the name of R. Jacob (b. Korshai) in
Tosefta Ḥ ullin 10:16, a text which also includes a story abouta man who ascended a tree, etc. Given the similarity between
the story told by R. Jacob in the Tosefta and the story told by
the Jerusalem Talmud in the name of Elisha, there can hardly
be any doubt the entire passage in the Jerusalem Talmud is afree reworking and elaboration of R. Jacob’s original story in
the Tosefta in order to suggest an additional reason for Elisha’s
apostasy. In the context of the Babylonian Talmud’s discussionof R. Jacob’s position (Kid. 39b; Ḥ ul. 142a), it brings a dictumof Rav Joseph, which states: “If Aḥ er had only interpreted thisverse like R. Jacob the son of his daughter, he would not havesinned.” This is the only evidence for any family connection
between Elisha and R. Jacob. Attempts like this to provide detailed family connections between characters in aggadic narratives are very common in the Babylonian Talmud. For example, both Abba Hilkiah and Ḥ anan ha-Neḥ ba are describedin Ta’an. 23a–b as grandsons of Ḥ oni Hameagel – the former
as the “son of his son” and the latter as the “son of his daughter.” In fact, the only substantial connection between them isthat they were all miraculous rainmakers. Even the precise
phrase “Jacob the son of his daughter” occurs elsewhere in
the Babylonian Talmud (Sot. 49a) with regard to Rav Aha bar
Jacob. “Evidence” like this is inherently weak. However in ourcase, the very notion that Elisha was R. Jacob’s grandfather istotally implausible. R. Jacob b. Korshai’s was one of R. Judahha-Nasi’s teachers. In TB Ḥ ag. 15b when Elisha’s daughter appeared before R. Judah ha-Nasi to ask for charity, he asked
her: “Whose daughter are you.” She replied: “I am the daughter of Aḥ er.” To this he exclaimed: “Does he have any offspring
still remaining in the world?” If his own teacher was the sonof Aḥ er’s daughter, how could he be unaware that Aḥ er had
offspring? Moreover, how could R. Jacob b. Korshai be Aḥ er’sdaughter’s son, and still be old enough to have been R. Judahha-Nasi’s teacher? These are the sort of problems one is boundto encounter when one takes what is in effect a minor literary embellishment (“the son of his daughter”) as an assertionof historical “fact.”
The various legends of Elisha, who forsook Judaism toseek new paths, influenced the Jewish writers of the Haskalah period, many of whom had passed through a similar crisis. He is the central character of several historical novels andpoems of that period, and is the subject of various studies, including those of M.J. Berdyczewski, Y. Liebes, J. Rubenstein,
and A. Goshen-Gottstein. M. *Letteris’ Hebrew adaptation of
the first part of Goethe’s Faust is called Ben Avuyah. Elisha b.
Avuyah is also the subject of Milton *Steinberg’s novel As a
Driven Leaf (1940).

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6353

Bibliography: H. Graetz, Gnostizismus und Judenthum(1846), 62–71; M.D. Hoffmann, Toledot Elisha b. Avuyah (1880); S.
Back, Elisha ben Abuya-Acher (Ger., 1891); Bacher, Tann, 1 (19032),
430–4; Weiss, Dor, 2 (19044), 113, 126ff.; Hyman, Toledot, 155–7; Bin
Gorion, in: Ha-Goren, 8 (1912), 76–83; Buechler, in: MGWJ, 76 (1932),
412–56; Yalon, ibid., 79 (1935), 238–40; idem, in: Leshonenu, 29 (1965),
213–7; G. Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism (19652), 14–19; Y. Liebes, The Sinelishahof Elisha (Hebrew; 1990); J. Rubenstein, Talmudic Stories (1999); A.
Goshen-Gottstein, The Sinner and the Amnesiac (2000).

Bibliography: Yaari, Sheluḥ ei (1951), 281–2, 331; Scholem,
Shabbetai Zevi, 162–3, 188, 544, 602, 770–1.

[Stephen G. Wald (2nd ed.)][Avraham Yaari]

ELISHAH (Heb. ‫ישה‬ָ ׁ ִ‫) ֱאל‬, one of the sons of Javan, a grandson of Japheth (Gen. 10:4; I Chron. 1:7), and also the name of
the island from which the Tyrians obtained blue and purple
dyes (Ezek. 27:7). Elishah is usually identified with the name
Alašiya (= *Cyprus, or a part of the island) which occurs in
document form in Alalakh, Tell el-Amarna, Ugarit, and in Hittite sources. The copper of Alašiya was already well-known in*Mari in the Old Babylonian period. Other forms of Elishah
are Ugaritic, Alṯ y (“from Alṯ ”), and Egyptian ʾá-la-sá.

ELISHEBA (Heb. ‫יש ַבע‬ֶ ׁ ִ‫[“ ; ֱאל‬my] God is fullness”), wife of*Aaron, the daughter of Amminadab, and the sister of *Nahshon. She bore Aaron four sons, *Nadab, *Abihu, *Eleazar,
and *Ithamar (Ex. 6:23).

Bibliography: G.F. Hill, A History of Cyprus, 1 (1940), 42–50;
C.F. Schaeffer, Enkomi-Alasia (1952); EM, 1 (1955), 52–3 (incl. bibl.); J.
Simons, The Geographical and Topographical Texts of the Old Testament (1959), 28–29; H.W. Catling, in: CAH2, vol. 1, ch. 9 (1966), 58–62;
Ugaritica, 5 (1968), index.

ELISHA Ḥ AYYIM BEN JACOB ASHKENAZI (d. 1673),
father of *Nathan of Gaza and emissary of the Ashkenazi
community of Jerusalem. In 1650 Ashkenazi and the kabbalist Solomon Navarro were sent as emissaries to North Africa
by their community. On their return, they stayed for a timein Venice where Isaac *Bing of Jerusalem published Joseph*Caro’s Maggid Meisharim (1654), from a manuscript which
Ashkenazi had brought from Jerusalem. Bing had publishedthe first part of the work in Lublin in 1646. Ashkenazi alsobrought to Italy for publication Abraham *Galante’s ZohoreiḤ ammah, a commentary on the *Zohar (Venice, 1655). During
his stay in Italy, Solomon Navarro converted to Christianity.
The money they had collected on their mission was therefore
lost, and Ashkenazi was compelled to begin anew, leaving
for Germany and Poland. He returned to Italy in 1665, andin Leghorn heard of his son’s prophecies in Gaza. Ashkenazi
proceeded to Ereẓ Israel via Egypt, where he was received by
the wealthy Raphael Joseph with honor and gifts, on accountof his son, the prophet. In 1666 he again departed for Germany and Poland on a mission for the Ashkenazi communityof Jerusalem, passing through Constantinople, the Balkans,
Budapest, and Vienna. Toward the end of his life, Ashkenazi
went to Morocco on a mission, and he died there in the cityof Meknès. It is possible that he brought his son’s kabbalistic
writings with him on this mission, for they were circulated
widely throughout Morocco at that time. Certainly the factthat Nathan’s father was well known and respected in the
North African communities facilitated the spread of Shabbateanism there. There is no doubt that Ashkenazi believed in
the prophecies of his son, who corresponded with him notifying him of his activities, and in the messianism of *ShabbetaiẒ evi, even after the latter’s conversion to Islam. Ashkenazi’sother son, AZARIAH ḥ AYYIM ASHKENAZI, was also sent toMorocco as an emissary of the Jerusalem Ashkenazi community. His novellae on the Torah appeared in Mareh Einayim(in Ms.) written by Eliezer Bahalul in 1710.

354

Bibliography: Noth, Personennamen, 146; Rowley, in: JNES,
3 (1944), 75–76; Koehler, in: ZAW, 55 (1937), 165–6.

°ELISHEVA (pen name of Elisheva Bikhowsky née Elizaveta Zhirkova; 1888–1949), non-Jewish Hebrew poet. Bornin Russia, she began writing poetry in Russian in 1907, cameinto contact with Jewish circles, and was deeply attracted by
the movement for Jewish national renaissance. Her admiration for the Jewish people and their hopes for redemption
found expression in poems full of yearning for the beautiful
and noble qualities of Judaism. Her Russian poems were published in two volumes in 1919: Minuty (“Minutes”) and Tainye
Pesni (“Hidden Songs”). She studied Hebrew, which she regarded as the “language of the heart of lights and shadow,”
and translated into Russian works by Judah Steinberg, J.Ḥ .
Brenner, J.D. Berkowitz, G. Schoffmann, and U.N. Gnessin.
Her first Hebrew poems were published in Ha-Tekufah (1921)
no. 13. In addition to stories and poems, her Hebrew writings
include articles of literary criticism on Hebrew and general
European literature, particularly Russian. In 1925 she settled
in Palestine with her husband Simeon Bikhowsky, whom she
had married in 1920. Referred to as “Ruth from the banks of
the Volga,” her stories and her poems are pervaded by a deep
love of everything Jewish. Her poems often have the innocenceof a folk song, while her stories reflect a desire to stress thenoble elements in life and to describe all that is good and exalted in man. Her Hebrew books are Kos Ketannah (“A Small
Cup,” poems, 1926); Sippurim (“Stories,” 1928); “Mikreh Tafel”(“Unimportant Incident,” a story, 1929); Simtaot (“Alleys,” anovel, 1929; 1977); Meshorer ve-Adam (“Poet and Man,” about
the poetry of Aleksandr Blok, 1929); Shirim (“Poems,” 1946). A
collection of poems, Yalkut Shirim, appeared in 1970.
Bibliography: V. Weiner, Pirkei Ḥ ayyim ve-Sifrut (1960),
74–96; Genazim, 1 (1961), 151–67. Add. Bibliography: Koveẓ
Ma’amarim odot ha-Meshoreret Elisheva (1927); H. Barzel, “Essay,”in: Simta’ot (1977); G. Shaked, in: Maariv (Sept. 7, 1983); idem, HaSipporet ha-’Ivrit, 3 (1988), 87–93; O. Rav-Hon, in: Moznayim, 67:10(1993), 7–11; S. Kagan, Elisheva: “The Forgotten Poetess,” in: Jewish
Affairs, 52:3 (1997), 115–18; S. Kornhandler, Ikkaron ha-Hitraḥ avut
ha-Zhaneristit bi-Yeẓ iratah shel Elisheva (1999); D. Miron, “She’atahshel Elisheva,” in: Iyyunim bi-Tekumat Yisrael, 12 (2002), 521–66; 13,
345–92.
[Gedalyah Elkoshi]

ELISOFON, ELIOT (1911–1973), U.S. photographer. Born in
New York, the first generation of his Latvian Jewish family in
America, Elisofon grew up in poverty and he later developed
an immense sympathy for the victims of the cataclysms he
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6eliyia, joseph
witnessed and photographed in traveling two million miles
across six continents. He became a professional photographer in 1935 after graduating from Fordham University. He
depended on commercial work until 1939 when the Museumof Modern Art hired him as its first staff photographer. By
the following year he had transformed himself into an energetic and committed photojournalist, artist, activist, teacher,lecturer, and writer. His still work ranged from war reportage
and social photojournalism to food and glamour photography. He focused often on art and architecture of ancient cultures, and he loved Africa as a subject. He covered the London blitz, and as a staff photographer for Life magazine, he
accompanied United States troops to North Africa. As a Hollywood color consultant, he created the mood-inducing huesof the film Moulin Rouge. Exhibitions of his paintings, oftenwith his photographs, were held in leading museums and galleries throughout the world. He contributed to many books,
including The Art of Indian Asia: Its Mythologies and Transformations (1955), The Sculpture of Africa (1958), and The Nile
(1964), a work involving years of research.
[(Stewart Kampel (2nd ed.)]

ELITZUR, sports organization of the religious workers movement, *Ha-Po’el ha-Mizrachi. It was founded in 1938 at theinitiative of R. Meir *Bar-Ilan. Its early years in Ereẓ Israel
were devoted to mixed military and sports activities in theframework of the Haganah and Palmaḥ and also in helping“illegal” immigrants come safely ashore. Intensive sports activities only developed after World War II. Its object was toencourage sport among religious youth in a framework which
would not interfere with observance, with all activities taking
place on weekdays. Elitzur’s membership reached 25,000 in
130 branches throughout Israel by the 1990s. Its teams playedin the national leagues for basketball, volleyball, table tennis,
tennis, judo, swimming, chess, athletics, badminton, squash,
and handball but not for soccer where games are played on
Saturdays. Outstanding has been the encouragement of sport
among Ethiopian immigrant children and youth, producing
several Israel champions in light athletics and winners of theIsrael marathon.
Starting in 1983, the Elitzuria games were held every 4–5
years with the participation of religious Jewish youth fromthe Diaspora and Israel, attracting as many as 2,000 athletes
from 20 countries, including Eastern Europe and the former U.S.S.R. World Elitzur has branches in North and SouthAmerica, Europe, South Africa, and Australia.

he studied with Rabbi Abraham Yeshaya *Karelitz, the Ḥ azon
Ish. He graduated from the Institute of Rabbis and Religious
Judges headed by Rabbi Isaac *Nissim, the former chief rabbiof Israel. Upon graduation he became the youngest dayyan(religious court judge) appointed to a religious court in Israel.
He served on the rabbinic court in Beersheba for four years
and then transferred to the court in Jerusalem. Eventually, he
was elected to the High Rabbinic Court, where he continued
to serve. In 1983 he was elected Sephardi chief rabbi of Israel
and served one term until 1993. During his term as chief rabbi
and afterwards, as well, Eliyahu, together with his colleague,
Chief Rabbi Abraham *Shapira, became one of the spiritualleaders of the religious Zionist camp in Israel. For over 20
years, he spoke out on political and social issues of concern toreligious Zionism. During the events leading up to the Israeli
government’s disengagement from Gaza in 2005, he was a vocal opponent of the removal of the Jews from their homes andthe uprooting of Jewish communities in Gaza.
Eliyahu is the author of several popular works on halakhah, including Darkhei Taharah, about the laws of family purity (published in five languages); an annotated and updated
edition of the Kiẓ ẓ ur Shulḥ an Arukh; a Sephardi rite siddur;and various pamphlets regarding Jewish law. Every Monday
Rav Eliyahu taught a shi’ur (lesson) that could be heard on
the radio over the Internet and by satellite in 250 localities
throughout Israel. He also had his own website: http://www.
harav.org. Eliyahu’s second son, SAMUEL, was chief rabbi of
Safed. Eliyahu was recognized as a posek (halakhic decisor)
and kabbalist, with many coming to him with their halakhic
questions and for personal advice.
[David Derovan (2nd ed.)]ELIYAHU, MORDECHAI (1929– ), Israeli religious leader,kabbalist, and former Sephardi chief rabbi of Israel. Born
into a Jerusalem family of little means, Eliyahu was 11 years
old when his father and teacher, Ḥ akham Salman Eliyahu,
passed away. Eliyahu then continued his studies at Yeshivat
Porat Yosef with the Rabbi Ezra Attiah. For a number of years

ELIYIA, JOSEPH (1901–1931), Greek poet, scholar, Hebraicist, and translator. Eliyia was born in Janina (Ioannina), wasan ardent Zionist in 1917–18, and taught French at the Alliance Israélite Universelle school in Janina. He was a radical in
defense of workers. His poem “Militarism” (1920) criticizing
the role of Greece in the Asia Minor War angered the Greek
authorities. He published demotic verse in various Athenian
periodicals (Noumas, Vigla, and Nea Estia) and in the Epiritikon Aghon of Janina. His outstanding poems were love songs
dedicated to Rebekah, his ideal of womanhood. Eliyia’s majortranslations include Greek versions of Isaiah and Job, the Songof Songs, Ruth, and Jonah, the poems of Judah Halevi and Ibn
Gabirol, and the works of such modern Hebrew writers as Bialik, Frishman, Shneur, Peretz, and Tchernichovsky. He also
wrote articles on Kabbalah and eschatology. He was one of thefirst Jews to advocate liberal ideas in Ioannina. In 1924, as ananti-militarist and leftist, he was arrested. He also developed
a socialist ideology. To avoid problems with the authorities,
he settled in Athens in 1925, writing in Filiki Etairia and theGreat Greek Encyclopaedia. In Athens he graduated from theEcole Française d’Athènes in 1930. A teaching appointment
necessitated Eliyia’s move in 1930 to Kilkis, a remote town innorthern Greece, where he was the only Jew in a hostile en-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6355

Bibliography: M. Michelson (ed.), Ḥ overet Eliẓ ur (1968).
[Zeev Braverman]eli Ẓ iyyon ve-areha
vironment. By the time of his premature death from typhoidat age 29, Eliyia had written 257 poems and had contributed
over 200 articles on Jewish themes to the Great Greek Encyclopedia. A biographical study of Eliyia (together with 90 of his
poems in English translation) and a Greek edition of his poetry (sponsored by the B’nai B’rith) appeared as posthumous
tributes to the writer.
Bibliography: J. Eliyia Poems, ed. by R. Dalven (1944); G.
Zographaki, In Memoriam… J. Eliyia (1934); Dymaras, in: Proia (Aug.
1, 1931); Daphnis, in: Nea Estia, 10 (1931), 828. Add. Bibliography:
R. Dalven, The Jews of Ioannina (1990), 167–72; E. Kourmantzi-Panayotakou, “Josef Eliya and Sabbethai Kabili: Ideological Problems in
Ioannina’s Pre-War Jewish Community,” in: I.K. Hassiotis (ed.), The
Jewish Communities of Southeastern Europe, from the Fifteenth Century to the End of World War II, Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan
Studies (1997), 263–80.
[Rachel Dalven / Yitzchak Kerem (2nd ed.)]ELI Ẓ IYYON VEAREHA (Heb. ‫יה‬ָ ‫“ ; ֱאלִ י ִצ ּיוֹ ן וְ ָע ֶר‬Wail, Zion
and its cities”), the initial words of an acrostic elegy forthe fast day of the Ninth of *Av. This dirge, written in the Middle Ages but of anonymous authorship, consists of 12 stanzas,
each closing with the refrain: “Wail, Zion and its cities,/ as awoman in labor pains,/ and like a maiden that dons sackcloth
to mourn for the husband of her youth.” The dirge enumerates, in detail, the cruelties suffered by Judea and its inhabitants during the destruction of the Second Temple. Eli Ẓ iyyon
is sung by the congregation standing. The refrain is sungslowly (and in some traditions twice) at the beginning, andthen repeated faster after each stanza. The melody is of anelegiac character, and has become, for all Ashkenazi communities, a symbol of the yearly commemoration of the Destruction. It therefore came to be used also for some otherkinot, such as the last stanza of Az be-ḥ ata’einu (“Then, for oursins”), and for Teraḥ em Ẓ iyyon ka-asher amarta (“Have mercy
upon Zion as Thou didst promise”); and also for *LekhahDodi during the “Three Weeks” (17t of Tammuz to 9t of Av).
It is sometimes considered one of the *Mi-Sinai Niggunim.
The origin of the melody has been discussed by EmmanuelKirschner and Abraham Zvi Idelsohn. Kirschner related it
to a 15t-century German court ballad Die Frau zur Weissen
Burg, and to 14t- and 17t-century Catholic songs. Idelsohn
related it to a 17t-century Spanish folksong, and a Czech songof the same period, both of which belong to a melodic typewhich he also found among the Balkan Sephardim. Since allthese comparisons are based upon resemblances of isolated
motives or melodic phrases, and a direct prototype has notbeen identified as yet, it seems more probable that it represents
a particular instance of a widespread European “migrant”
tune or melodic pattern. The earliest notated evidence ofthe melody found so far is in the manuscript manual of Judah
Elias of Hanover (1743), for Lekhah Dodi (in a slightly variedform), and in several of the manuals of 18t-century ḥ azzanim
published in Idelsohn, Melodien, vol. 6 (1932) (Isaac Glogau,
Moshe Pan, I.L. Wolf). Its earliest appearance in print is

356

in Isaac Nathan’s very free paraphrase of the melody, for his
setting of “O weep for those that wept by Babel’s stream”
in Byron’s Hebrew Melodies (1815). An interesting version is
given by Moses Margoliouth who states that he heard it sungby Polish immigrants at the Western Wall on the Ninth ofAv, 1848 (A Pilgrimage to the Land of my Fathers, 2 (1850),
356–9).
The melody can be found in the following publications:S. Sulzer, Schir Zion (1838), 188, no. 148; M. Kohn, Vollstaendiger Jahrgang von Terzett- und Chorgesaengen, 3 (1839), 130,
no. 89; S. Naumbourg, Zemirot Yisrael, 3 (1864), 23, no. 25; A.
Baer, Baal T’fillah (18833), 90; A.S. Ersler, T’fillah w’Zimrah, 1(1907), 48, no. 49; L. Kornitzer, in: Israelitisches Familienblatt(July 28, 1927), supplement; Idelsohn, Melodien, 6 (1932), 213,
no. 35; 7 (1933), 105, no. 302 a and b; 148, no. 101. It was published in Israel in Y. Sharett (ed.), Anot, 5 (1938), in M. Ayali,Ḥ aggim u-Zemannim, 1 (1953), 527, and in Sefer ha-Mo’adim,
7 (1957), 16–18 (music section).
In the 20t century, several composers made arrangements of the melody, including L. Zeitlin and Joseph *Achron.
Its poetical and melodic structure was the inspiration for A.
Luboshitzky’s elegy on the death of Theodor Herzl Eli Ẓ iyyon
ve-Nodedeha (“Wail, Zion, and her dispersed ones”; Mivḥ arShirei Amenu (1921), 59–60). A modern kinah, J.L. Bialer’s Eli,
Eli Nafshi, Bekhi (Wail, wail my soul, cry”), in commemoration of the Holocaust, was approved by the Union of Synagogues in Israel for use on the Ninth of Av, and is sung to the
Eli Ẓ iyyon melody.
Bibliography: Davidson, Oẓ ar, 1 (1924), 229; E. Kirschner, Ueber mittelalterliche hebraeische Poesien und ihre Singweisen(1914); A. Nadel, in: Gemeindeblatt (Berlin 1924), no. 9; Idelsohn,Music, 168, 171.
[Haim Bar-Dayan]

ELKABBACH, JEANPIERRE (1937– ), French broadcast
journalist. Elkabbach was born in Oran, Algeria. He was aleading figure of radio and television journalism in France.
From 1970 to 1972 he was a newscaster on the first channel.
In 1975 he was chief editor on the state radio network, France
Inter, and he became director of the news division in 1976.
During the years 1977 to 1981 he was head of the news department of the second channel of French television. Since
the position at that time was based on a political appointment, he was replaced when the Socialist government came
to power in 1981. He became an editor and newscaster on themain daily news report on Europe No. 1 radio station. In 1993
he reached the peak of his career when he was appointed
chairman of France Television, the French public broadcasting company. His methods of dealing with the strong competition from private networks were somewhat controversial,and he was forced to resign in 1996. He wrote about his experiences and the role of public broadcasting in France in 29
mois et quelques jours (1997).
From December 1999, Elkabbach, a dynamic reporter
noted for his aggressive broadcasting style, was chairman

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

elkanahof Public Senat, the parliamentary channel of the French
Senate.

[Gideon Kouts / Dror Franck Sullaper (2nd ed.)]

ELKAN, BENNO (1877–1960), sculptor and graphic artist.
Elkan was born in Dortmund, and studied art in Munich andKarlsruhe. He became a very versatile artist and could not decide whether to work as painter or sculptor. But after he hadfinished The Walking (1904, Ostenfriedhof Dordmund) he decided to specialize in sculpture. In 1905 he went to Paris where
he taught himself sculpture. There he became acquainted withPaul Albert Bartholomé, whose monumental sepulcher in the
Pére-Lachaise cemetery greatly influenced Elkan. A year after
his marriage to Hedwig Einstein in 1907, the couple went toRome for three years, where he immersed himself in the artof the Renaissance. In 1911 he returned to Germany where he
executed a large number of stone tombstones decorated withbronze statues, and several large sculptures in colored stone.
Among the busts he carved is a bronze mask of Jules Pascin(1906, Hamburger Kunsthalle), and busts of Truebner (1911,
Ursula Hammil, Beverly Hills, U.S.), Alfred Flechtheim (1912,
Stadtmuseum Düsseldorf), and Rathenau (1925, Museum am
Ostwall Dortmund). Elkan’s bas-relief portrait medals capture
elements of chiaroscuro. In World War I, Elkan enlisted but
was released after a bout of cholera. Elkan settled in Frankfurt
for 15 years and had a profound impact on local cultural life.
He published his war experiences (Polnische Nachtstuecke) as
lithographs in 1918. The medals and busts created by Elkan
are to be found in all the important museums of Europe. His
most outstanding works in Germany were the freedom monument in Mainz (Erwachende, 1930, granite, about 17 ft., 4.5
meters, high) which was destroyed during World War II,
and the memorial to the victims of war, erected in Frankfurt,
which the Nazis removed in 1933, but which was restored in1946.
In 1933 Elkan settled in London, spending the war years
in Oxford. He modelled portraits of Lord Keynes, Winston
Churchill, Lord Samuel, James de Rothschild, Claude Montefiore, Chaim Weizmann (on his 75t birthday), and Chief
Rabbi J.H. Hertz. He created large bronze candelabra engravedwith biblical figures for King’s College (1934), Cambridge, New
College, Oxford (Verkündigung, 1938), and several churches.
His twin candelabra (Old Testament, 1931; New Testament,
1942, 2 × 2 meters) in Westminster Abbey depict 24 groupsof figures from the Bible. Elkan’s monumental bronze sevenbranched candelabra (1956) decorated with biblical scenes
was presented by members of the British Parliament to theIsrael Knesset.
Bibliography: F. Hofmann and Peter Schmieder, Benno Elkan. Ein juedischer Kuenstler aus Dortmund (1997); H. Menzel-Severing, Benno Elkan (1980); idem, “Benno Elkan – ein künstlerischer
Kosmopolit aus dem Ruhrgebiet,” in: J.-P. Barbian, M. Brocke, L. Heid
(eds.), Juden im Ruhrgebiet. Vom Zeitalter der Aufklärung bis in die
Gegenwart.(1999), 133–53.

ELKAN, SOPHIE (1853–1921), Swedish novelist. She published some early works under the pseudonym Rust Roest, but
her best-known novels, based mainly on historical themes, appeared under her own name. These include John Hall (1899)
and two novels dealing with the Swedish king, Gustavus
Adolphus IV – Konungen (“The King,” 1904) and Konungen ilandsflykt (“The King in Exile,” 1906). Her central characters
are perverted personalities, whom she analyzes with psychological subtlety. Following a voyage to Egypt and Palestinewhich she undertook with Selma Lagerlöf (1858–1940), shewrote an interesting book entitled Drömmen om Österlandet(“The Dream of the Eastern Land,” 1904).
Bibliography: Svenskt Litteraturlexikon (1964), 120.
[Hugo Mauritz Valentin]

ELKANAH (Heb. ‫“ ; ֶאלְ ָקנָ ה‬God has created”), father of *Samuel. I Samuel 1:1 names four generations of Elkanah’s ancestors, thereby suggesting his important lineage. He lived in
Ramathaim-Zophim (ibid.), which was apparently Ramah inthe land of Zuph, at the southern end of Mount Ephraim. The
genealogical lists in I Chronicles 6:7–12, 17–23, trace Elkanah’sline to *Kohath, the son of Levi, i.e., the levites who dwelt
in Mount Ephraim. But the text in I Samuel 1:1 calls him an
Ephraimite, and there are some who believe that this suggeststhat he was a descendant of Ephrath, Caleb’s concubine, whoseline is associated with Beth-Lehem in Judah. Possibly theclaim to his descent from Kohath was added by later sources,
which concluded from Samuel’s priestly service that he wasa levite. Elkanah has often been praised for nobility of character attempting to comfort his barren wife Hannah (I Sam.
1:8), but in fact he negates the legitimacy of her feelings, andshe is not comforted as the ensuing verses make clear. In thegenealogical lists in I Chronicles several ancestors of Samuelare mentioned by the name of Elkanah.
[Samuel Ephraim Loewenstamm]In the Aggadah
The good deeds of Elkanah are compared with those of Abraham (Agg. Ber. 50). He was the only pious man of his generation, and was able to overcome the problem of having two
wives who hated each other (ibid.). He did not marry Peninah until he had been married to Hannah for ten years without offspring (PR 43, 181a). He used to encourage his fellow
men to accompany him on pilgrimages to Shiloh, and himself
always made four annual pilgrimages instead of the obligatory three. Because he always traveled with his kinsmen andhousehold, his caravan invariably roused the interest of the
inhabitants of the towns through which he passed. Elkanah
informed them of the purpose of his journey and encouraged
them to join him. By taking a different route to Shiloh every
year, he was eventually responsible for all Israel going on pilgrimage (SER 8).

[Sonja Beyer (2nd ed.)]Bibliography: Noth, Personennamen, 172; Levi Della Vida,
in: JBL, 63 (1944), 8; W. Rudolph, Chronikbuecher (1955), 56. Add.
Bibliography: S. Bar-Efrat, I Samuel (1996), 52.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6357

elkann, jean-paul
ELKANN, JEANPAUL (1921– ), French engineer, businessman, and Jewish community leader. Elkann was born in Paris;
he received his engineering degree from Columbia University.
In addition to his engineering endeavors, he was appointed
director of important French fashion houses and director ofgovernment companies. He was the director of Christian Dior
from 1983 and prior to that of Parfums Givenchy (1980–83).
Elkann was the owner and director of Vanadium Steel Italiana from 1948 and of Vanadium Alloys Steel Company Canada from 1950, and vice chairman of Vanadium Alloys Steel(U.S.A.) from 1953. Among his activities in the Jewish community, he was president of the Association de la cooperation
economique France-Israel and vice president of the FranceIsrael Chamber of Commerce. In 1982 he became presidentof the *Consistoire Centrale Israélite de France, holding thisposition for a decade. In addition, Elkann was a member ofthe Alliance Israélite Universelle Central Committee and theTechnion’s Board of Governors.
He was awarded France’s highest honors: Commanderof the Legion of Honor and Grand Officer of the National
Order of Merit.
[Gideon Kouts / Dror Franck Sullaper (2nd ed.)]

ELKERBOUT, BEN (1940–1987), Dutch-Jewish documentary film producer. Elkerbout joined the Dutch Labor Broadcasting Company VARA as a young man, first in an administrative position but later working as a producer of television
documentaries. In this capacity he made many reports fromabroad – from Vietnam, Biafra, and particularly Israel, where
he felt closest to the Israel Labor party. His interview withGolda Meir in 1976 won a special prize from the internationalpress jury at the First Jewish Film and Television Festival in
Jerusalem.
In 1979, together with his younger colleague Ludi Boeken,
he founded the independent Belbo Film Productions Company, which specialized in documentaries on unusual subjects. The topics included the uncovering of the financial resources of the neo-Nazis throughout the world, the dumpingof unlicensed medicines in the Third World, prisons in Argentina, and a reconstruction of the students’ revolts in Europe in the late 1960s.
In 1986 he went over to producing full-length featurefilms, the first of which was Dreamers, on pioneers of the Third
Aliyah in Palestine.
[Henriette Boas]

ELKES, ELHANAN (1879–1944), chairman of Kovno(Kaunas) Aeltestenrat (Council of Elders under the Nazis).
Elkes was born in Kalvarija (Lithuania). He received both a
traditional Jewish and a private secular education. Elkes studied medicine in Koenigsberg, Germany, was a village doctor
in Belorussia, and then served as a physician in the Russianarmy during World War I before coming to Kovno, where
he was director of internal medicine at Bikkur Holim. A respected physician, he treated prominent non-Jews as well as358

Jews and thus had excellent contacts, which he used when theSoviet Union occupied Kovno to assist in the emigration ofPolish Jews stranded in Lithuania. Although an ardent Zionist
from youth, he was not active in Jewish public life until theGerman occupation (June 1941), when he was unanimously
elected chairman of the Kaunas Aeltestenrat, a position he accepted with great reluctance. Thus, he derived the legitimacyof his administration from the Jewish community and notfrom the Germans, who routinely appointed the Jewish leadership. Despite his failing health, Elkes guided the council for
more than three years, during which time he took upon himself fateful decisions involving the future of the community
while actively furthering the local resistance movement. He
was a man of unquestioned integrity, who conducted the affairs of the Judenrat with equity and fairness, in marked contrast to other ghettos where corruption and the enticementsof power – however limited and derivative from the German
master – were rampant. Also in contrast with other Judenrat
chairs, Elkes cooperated with the resistance. In Kovno theJewish police directly assisted the partisans. In 1942, word of
the fate of Polish Jews reached Kovno through Irena Adamowicz, a non-Jewish courier for the underground. From thenon the members of the Jewish Council understood they would
lead the battle for survival even without knowing if their efforts could postpone or prevent the day of destruction. Despite the Judenrat’s best efforts, only 2,000 Jews – 8 percentof the ghetto’s original population – survived, a rate little different from that of other ghettos whose internal governance
was more corrupt and less benignly guided.
By his personality and dignity of bearing Elkes represents
an outstanding example in the history of imposed Jewish “selfgovernment.” He wrote of his fate in a letter to his children,
who were safe in England (written on October 19, 1943).
I am writing these lines, my dear children, in the vale of tearsof Vilijampole, Kovno Ghetto, where we have been for over two
years. We have now heard that in a few days our fate is to besealed. The Ghetto is to be crushed and torn asunder. Whether
we are all to perish, or whether a few of us are to survive, is in
God’s hands. We fear that only those capable of slave labor will
live; the rest, probably, are sentenced to death.
We are left, a few out of many. Out of 35,000 Jews of
Kovno, approximately 17,000 remain; out of a quarter of a million Jews in Lithuania … only 25,000 live … The rest were put
to death in terrible ways by the followers of the greatest Hamanof all times and generations …
We are trying to steer our battered ship in furious seas,
when waves of decrees and decisions threaten to drown it every day. Through my influence I succeeded, at times, in easing
the verdict and scattering some of the dark clouds that hungover our heads. I bore my duties with head high and an upright countenance. Never did I ask for pity; never did I doubt
our rights. I argued our case with total confidence in the justice of our demands.
The Germans killed, slaughtered and murdered us in complete equanimity. I was there with them. I saw them when they
sent thousands of people – men, women, children, infants – totheir death, while enjoying their breakfast, and while mocking

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

elkus, abram isaac
our martyrs. I saw them coming back from their murderous
missions – dirty, stained from head to foot with the blood of ourdear ones. There they sat at their table – eating and drinking,listening to light music. They are professional executioners.
I am writing this in an hour when many desperate souls –widows and orphans, threadbare and hungry – are camping
on my doorstep, imploring us for help. There is a desert inside
me. My soul is scorched. I am naked and empty. There are nowords in my mouth.

Following the liquidation of the ghetto, he was deported to
Lansberg, where he served as a physician before succumbing
to illness on October 17, 1944.
Bibliography: L. Garfunkel, Kovnah ha-Yehudit beḤ urbanah (1959); A. Turai, in: Heikhal she-Shaka, ed. by I. Yablokowski (1962), 235–49; Hidden History of the Kovno Ghetto, A Project of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council (1997); W.W.
Mishell, Kaddish from Kovno: Life and Death in a Lithuanian Ghetto
1941–1945 (1988); A. Tory, Surviving the Holocaust: The Kovno Ghetto
Diary (1990); J. Elkes, Values, Beliefs and Survival, Dr. Elchanan Elkes
and the Kovno Ghetto: A Memoir (1997).
[Michael Berenbaum (2nd ed.)]ELKIN, ADOLPHUS PETER (1891–1979), Australian anthropologist. Born in Maitland, New South Wales, Elkin began
his fieldwork in the mid-1920s among the Australian aborigines and was one of the founders of anthropology in Australia. In 1934 he joined the faculty of the University of Sydney
and became the chairman of its department of anthropology,
remaining until 1956. During this time he did fieldwork in allparts of Australia, as well as in New Guinea and other areasof Oceania, and wrote on the rapidly disappearing aboriginesof these areas. His books include The Australian Aborigines(19543) and Marriage and the Family in Australia (1957). He
became editor of the anthropology journal Oceania in 1933.
Elkin made great efforts to better the condition of the aboriginal peoples of Australia and New Guinea, and to improve
relations between them and the white populations of these areas. From 1933 to 1962 he was president of the Association for
the Protection of Native Races. Although Elkin’s father, Reuben Israel Elkin, was Jewish, his mother was a Christian and,it should be noted, Elkin apparently regarded himself as an
Anglican. He was married as an Anglican and for some years
after 1919 was vice warden of St. Johns Theological College,
Armadale, New South Wales, an Anglican institution.

popular culture in the U.S.A., has become increasingly popular since the 1960s. His first novel Boswell: a Modern Comedy(1964) chronicles the post-World War II era as seen throughthe eyes of a cynical outside observer. His 1976 novel The
Franchiser describes the life of Ben Flesh, who collects franchises, lives out of his Cadillac, eats fast food, and sleeps inmotels. Only serious illness forces Ben to confront the sterility of his life.
Elkin’s fiction is peopled by fantastically comic characters. In his third novel, The Dick Gibson Show (1971), Elkinutilizes a radio talk show format to recreate a set of eccentric
comic personalities. His novella The Living End (1979) traces
the lives of hold-up victims in Minneapolis-St. Paul, the castof characters including Jesus, Mary, and Joseph and others
both living and dead.
Elkin often uses the Jew and his exile as analogy for man’s
striving for freedom. In his first collection of short stories, Criers and Kibitzers, Kibitzers and Criers (1966), Elkin evokes theatmosphere of growing up Jewish in the late 1930s.
Elkin’s other works have included the novel A Bad Man(1967) and the volume of short stories Searches and Seizure(1973), George Mills (1982), for which he won the 1983 National
Book Critics Circle Award, and Magic Kingdom (1985).
Bibliography: D. Dougherty, Stanley Elkin (1990); T. Pughe,
Comic Sense (1994).
[Susan Strul][Ephraim Fischoff / William D. Rubinstein (2nd ed.)]ELKIND, ARKADI DANIILOVICH (1869–?), Russian physician and anthropometrist. Elkind was born in Mogilev. After graduating in medicine, he became increasingly involvedin the scientific study of anthropometry and craniology. As aresult, he was entrusted by the Imperial Society of the Friendsof Natural Science, Anthropology, and Ethnography with thestudy of the physical anthropology of Russian Poland. His extended investigations resulted in two important monographs
for the society’s journal, one an anthropological and cranialsketch of the Vistula Poles, the other Yevrei, a study based
mainly on his observations of Polish Jews. The latter, whichappeared in 1903, was described by M. *Fishberg as the mostcomprehensive work ever published on the anthropology of aparticular Jewish community. Elkind later pursued his demographic and anthropometric research in Germany and Italy.
He came to the conclusion that there was a distinctive Jewish
type, especially among the Jews of Russian Poland, which had
been crystallized for the most part in the pre-Christian period.
He published his findings in Zeitschrift fuer Demographie undStatistik der Juden (nos. 4–5, 1906; no. 12, 1908).

ELKIN, STANLEY (1930–1995), U.S. novelist and short story
writer. From 1955 to 1957, he served in the U.S. Army. From
1960, he taught and wrote at Washington University in St.
Louis, Missouri, where he was appointed professor of English in 1968.
Elkin has been described as a black humorist. His fiction,
which dramatizes the conflicts and vulgarity of contemporary

ELKUS, ABRAM ISAAC (1867–1947), U.S. lawyer and public official. Elkus, who was born in New York City, practiced
law there. He was appointed special United States attorney toprosecute bankruptcy in 1908, and in 1911 counsel for the New
York State Factory Investigating Commission. Under the administration of President Woodrow Wilson, he was ambassa-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6359

Bibliography: R.M. Berndt and C.H. Berndt (eds.), Aboriginal Man in Australia (1965), 453–70 (incl. bibl.). Add. Bibliography: Australian Dictionary of Biography.

[Ellen Friedman]ellenbogen, wilhelm
dor to Turkey (1916–19). Upon his return to the United States,
he served briefly on the New York State Court of Appeals andas a League of Nations commissioner before resuming his
private law practice. He was active in a number of Jewish organizations, especially the New York Free Synagogue, whose
president he was from 1919 to 1927, and the Jewish Publication
Society of America, of which he was honorary vice president
until his death.
[Hillel Halkin]

ELLENBOGEN, WILHELM (1863–1951), Austrian politician. Born in Breclav (Lundenburg, Moravia), he was taken
to Vienna by his family in 1870 and qualified as a physician
in 1886. He was one of the first members of the newly constituted Social Democratic party, and served on its Executive
Board from 1891. He was elected to the Reichsrat in 1901 andremained in the Austrian parliament also after 1918, until its
dissolution in 1934. In 1907, Ellenbogen played an importantpart in securing the passage of the Universal Franchise Bill.
At the end of World War I, he negotiated with the Hungarian
government for food shipments to save Vienna from famine.
In 1919 he became undersecretary for commerce, and in 1921
he succeeded Otto *Bauer as secretary for socialization, withthe rank of a cabinet member. Later he headed the office forelectrification of the state railroads (until 1929). After the Anschluss in 1938, Ellenbogen fled to France and in 1940 to New
York. His publications include Was will die Sozialdemokratie?
(1910), Sozialisierung in Oesterreich (1922), and Anschluss undEnergiewirtschaft (1928).
Add. Bibliography: A. Barkai, “The Austrian Social Democrats and the Jews,” in: Wiener Library Bulletin, 24 (1970); A. Rabinbach, The Crisis of Austrian Socialism: from Red Vienna to Civil War,
1927–1934 (1983); R.S. Wistrich, Socialism and the Jews: The Dilemmasof Assimilation in Germany and Austria-Hungary (1982).
[Josef J. Lador-Lederer]

ELLENSON, DAVID HARRY (1947– ), U.S. Reform rabbi
and scholar of modern Jewish thought; president of Hebrew
Union College. Born in Brookline, Mass., Ellenson was raisedin an observant home in Newport News, Virginia. He received
his undergraduate degree from the College of William andMary in 1969, a master’s degree from the University of Virginia in 1971, and his Ph.D. from Columbia in 1981. He wasordained at the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion (HUC) in 1977, and from 1979 to 2001 was a professor
at the HUC campus in Los Angeles. In 2001, Ellenson was appointed as the president of the Hebrew Union College.
Over the course of his life, Ellenson has belonged toOrthodox, Conservative, and Reform communities. Consequently, some observers greeted his appointment as HUC
president as reflective of a new post-denominational trend in
American Jewish life. Ellenson’s wide-ranging life experiences,broad scholarly interests, and well-known affability have enabled him to forge connections with scholars and religious
leaders of differing outlooks in the United States and Israel.

360

At the same time, his vision of a liberal Judaism balanced by
ethical obligation and personal autonomy, as well as a strong
commitment to Zionism and the State of Israel, have infusedconsiderable new energy into Hebrew Union College and theAmerican Reform movement. Since becoming president of
HUC, Ellenson has been a vocal spokesperson on contemporary Jewish issues in North America and the State of Israel.
Ellenson’s research has been devoted to the manifold efforts of Jews to mediate between tradition and modernity ina post-Enlightenment age, as indicated by the titles of three
volumes of his collected papers: Tradition in Transition (1989),
Tradition and Culture (1994), and After Emancipation (2004).
Throughout these books, Ellenson extensively analyzes two
types of Jewish sources: liturgy and halakhic responsa. In
the first case, Ellenson has followed his fellow Reform scholars Jakob J. *Petuchowski and Lawrence *Hoffman in utilizing liturgical innovation and translation as a prism throughwhich to understand the ways in which modern Jews adapt
age-old ritual formulae to contemporary realities. Typical of
his intellectual reach, Ellenson’s study of liturgy has spanned
the denominational spectrum and engaged German, American, and Israeli milieux.
The other major genre of literature that has occupied
Ellenson’s scholarly attention is the halakhic responsum. In
a long series of studies of articles, he has sought not only tounderstand halakhic decision-making from within the Jewish legal tradition, but also to examine the shifting functionof the responsum in modern contexts that are quite distinct
from the well-guarded bounds of the pre-modern kehillah. His
approach owes much to the historical sociological method of
Jacob *Katz, with whom Ellenson studied. For Ellenson, responsa are important barometers of the struggle of observant
Jews to remain true to traditional legal norms while confronting the challenges of modernity.
David Ellenson has devoted the majority of his research to Orthodox Judaism. His main monographic study,
based on his Columbia doctoral dissertation, is Rabbi Esriel
Hildesheimer and the Creation of a Modern Jewish Orthodoxy(1990) that traces the intellectual path of the founder in 1873of the new-style Berlin Orthodox rabbinical seminar. Ellenson
brings his historical sociological method to bear on a subject
who, to him, personifies the central question of modern Jewish existence: “how to live in two different cultural worlds.”
Although their paths differ, Ellenson avers, “I have come tosee much of his problem as my own.”[David N. Myers (2nd ed.)]ELLENSTEIN, MEYER C. (1886–1967), U.S. politician. Ellenstein was born in New York City and raised in Patterson,
New Jersey. He graduated from Columbia University’s dental
school (1912) and opened a practice in Newark, meanwhile
studying law at the New Jersey Law School. Receiving a law
degree in 1925, Ellenstein gave up dentistry and entered politics. In 1933 he was elected on the Democratic ticket to thefive-member Newark City Commission, which chose him
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6ellison, lawrence J.
mayor and returned him once more to the office in 1937. During his administration Ellenstein developed Newark’s airportand harbor, but his second term was marred by charges ofconspiracy to defraud the city in a real estate swindle. Aftera three-year investigation, Ellenstein was finally acquitted in
1940, but failed in his bid for reelection in 1941. In 1945 he wasvoted onto the City Commission again, where he served foreight more years. After another unsuccessful mayoral candidacy in 1958, he retired permanently from politics.
ELLINGER, MORITZ (1830–1907), U.S. public official, communal leader, and journalist. Ellinger was born in Fuerth, Bavaria, and arrived in New York in 1854. He advocated Reform
Judaism. Active in the affairs of B’nai B’rith, he was a member of its National Executive Committee and served as corresponding secretary between 1895 and 1905, besides being
instrumental in helping to establish lodges in several European countries. Ellinger toured Europe in 1882 on behalf ofAmerican Jewish leaders in an attempt to organize the migration of Russian refugees. In addition, he edited the Menorah
Monthly, the official organ of B’nai B’rith, from 1860 to 1901,
and as founder and editor of the Jewish Times (1869–78) he
expressed the views of David *Einhorn. In civic life, Ellinger
was coroner of New York City (1876–81) and an official of the
Surrogate’s Court (1888–1907). He also served as secretary of
the New York Medico-Legal Society.
Bibliography: E. Grusd, B’nai B’rith (Eng., 1966), index.
[Robert Shosteck]

ELLIOT, “MAMA” CASS (Ellen Naomi Cohen; 1941–1974),
U.S. folk singer, member of the rock group The Mamas andthe Papas. Born in Baltimore, Maryland, to a middle-class
Jewish family, Elliot was given the nickname Cass by her father. She changed her last name from Cohen to Elliot when
she went to New York to try to make it as a Broadway actressin the early 1960s. Elliot joined a rock group, The Big Three,a short-lived band called the Mugwumps, and then the folkrock band, the New Journeymen, which became The Mamas
and the Papas in 1965. In December of that year the group’s
first album, If You Can Believe Your Eyes and Ears, was issued, containing the single, “California Dreamin’,” whichreached No. 4 on the music charts in March 1966, followedby “Monday, Monday,” which in May reached No. 1 and later
won a Grammy Award. Other hits included “Words of Love,”“Dedicated To the One I Love,” “Go Where You Wanna Go,”“I Saw Her Again,” and “Dream a Little Dream of Me,” whichbecame her theme song.
The Mamas and the Papas were arguably the first music act to combine both hippie and pop sensibilities, enabling
Middle America to see the “safe” side of the Haight-Ashbury
counterculture of the 1960s. Elliot, who had the most outgoing and appealing personality in the group, and who wore
big yellow and orange flower and sun images in appliqué
on a long white dress, became the poster girl for the “Age ofAquarius.”
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

In June 1967, the group played at the prominent Monterey
Pop Festival, but tensions within the band led to a break-up ayear later. Eliot went solo, and had some hits with songs suchas “It’s Getting Better,” “Make Your Own Kind of Music,” and“New World Coming.” In 1969 Eliot began appearing on TV
variety shows doing comedy sketches and performing songs,
with much success.
Eliot had health problems brought on by her obesity –she stood 5ʹ5ʹʹ and weighed 238 lbs. – and on July 28, 1974, shedied in London of a heart attack. It was initially misreported
that her death was caused by choking on a ham sandwich,
but despite the autopsy report by a pathologist and a London coroner a week later, the “ham sandwich” story became
an urban legend.
Elliot and her fellow band mates from The Mamas andthe Papas were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Famein 1998.
[Elli Wohlgelernter (2nd ed.)]ELLIS, VIVIAN (1904–1996), British theatrical composer.
Born in London, the son of a tailor, Ellis started as a concert
pianist and began composing for musical shows before he was
20. He subsequently contributed music and lyrics to many
revues, wrote popular songs, and was the composer for A.P.
Herbert’s musical plays Big Ben (1946), Bless the Bride (1947),
Tough at the Top (1949), and The Water Gypsies (1955). He also
wrote humorous books and two volumes of autobiography,
Ellis in Wonderland (1939) and I’m on a See-Saw (1953). Ellis
wrote many pieces of “light classical” music which have become well-known, such as “Coronation Scot,” as well as popular songs like “Spread a Little Happiness.”
Bibliography: ODNB.

ELLISON, LAWRENCE J. (1944– ), U.S. computer entrepreneur. Born out of wedlock in New York to a Jewish teenager
and an Italian-American Air Force pilot, Ellison was raised byan aunt in a lower middle-class Jewish community in Chicago.
At the University of Illinois, he was named science student of
the year but dropped out of school after his aunt died. He enrolled at the University of Chicago, but also left before graduation. Ellison went to California, where, after a few jobs, hebecame a computer programmer. He was inspired by a paperon relational database theory, which held that if data could be
stored in computers in a less “hierarchical” way, it would beeasier to find and use. With two other programmers, Ellison
began in 1977 what became the Oracle Corporation, now theforemost producer of computer software for corporate databases. At the time, IBM was doing pioneering research on thesubject, but doubted that relational databases were commercially viable. Ellison put together a prototype and made his
first sale to the CIA. Over the next few years, Oracle found itself on the cutting edge of data storage technology. IBM waswrong and Ellison was right. Relational databases were thefuture, and Oracle, under strong pressure from Ellison, won
marquee-name clients like the National Security Agency and361

Ellmann, Richard
Navy Intelligence before going public in 1986. Ellison turned
Oracle into a world leader in producing software that runs
large organizations. The initial release of Oracle was Oracle
2, even though there was no Oracle 1. The release number was
intended to imply that all of the bugs had been worked outof an earlier version. Ellison was chief executive officer anda director from the time he cofounded the company. He wasbelieved to be one of the richest people in America, with a net
worth estimated at $18.7 billion.
Ellison and Oracle developed a reputation for dealingon the edge. It sold software not yet ready for use and blamedcustomers when things went wrong. In the early 1990s the
mistakes caught up with the company and it suffered significant losses. But in 1992 Ellison brought in new leadership andOracle regained its place in the market. At that time Ellison
began focusing on the big picture. In the mid-1990s, when Microsoft was still not appreciating the importance of the Internet, Ellison pushed Oracle to switch over to web-based data
storage software. It was a brilliant move, and Oracle rode theInternet to new heights.
Ellison was also the leader and principal financier ofOracle-BMW Racing, which competed for the America’s Cup
in 1999 and 2003 on behalf of the Golden Gate Yacht Club of
San Francisco. Ellison was the winner of the disastrous 1998
Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race in his boat Sayonara. The stormthat hit the race cost six other sailors their lives, an experience that caused Ellison to swear off ocean racing. Ellison was
believed to have the biggest yacht (as of 2004) in the world,
named Rising Sun. It was 452.75 feet long and reportedly costmore than $200 million to build.
[Stewart Kampel (2nd ed.)]ELLMANN, RICHARD (1918–1987), U.S./British literary biographer and critic. One of the most eminent of recent literary biographers, Richard Ellmann was born in suburban Detroit, the son of a lawyer, and was educated at Yale University.
When stationed in Britain during World War II he became
interested in studying the lives of the leading modern Irish
writers, and produced a long list of path-breaking and highly
regarded studies and biographies, beginning with his life ofWilliam Butler Yeats, Yeats: The Man and the Masks (1948).
Much of Ellmann’s professional career was spent at Northwestern University in Illinois (from 1951 to 1968). From 1970 to 1982
he lived in England, where he was Goldsmiths’ Professor ofEnglish Literature at Oxford University, the first American tohold this position. Ellmann returned to the United States in
1982, although he died in Oxford in 1987. Ellmann’s long anddistinguished list of works include his much-lauded biography James Joyce (1959), based on ten years of research, andOscar Wilde (1987), completed immediately before his death,
which received the Pulitzer Prize, as well as many other biographical works and essays. Ellmann was notable for the respect in which he held his subjects, declining, in contrast to
many biographers, to concentrate on their pathologies. Ellmann was also the co-editor (with Robert O’Clair) of The

362

Norton Anthology of Modern Poetry (1973), a standard collection. A posthumous Festschrift in his honor, edited by Susan
Dick et al., Essays for Richard Ellmann: Omnium Gatherum,
appeared in 1989.
Bibliography: R.E. Johnsen, “Richard David Ellmann,” in:John A. Garraty and Mark C. Carnes (eds.), American National Biography, vol. 7 (1999), 453–54.
[William D. Rubinstein (2nd ed.)]ELLSBERG, DANIEL (1931– ), U.S. government adviser responsible for leaking the Pentagon Papers. Born in Chicago,
Ellsberg was a graduate of Columbia University, receiving
both his B.S. (1952) and his Ph.D. (1959) there. A Vietnam
veteran, he was a first lieutenant in the Marine Corps. He
then went to work for the Rand Corporation on defense issues, ultimately becoming an important adviser to Secretaryof Defense Robert McNamara. His views then were decidedly
hawkish. He was assigned to study American policy toward
Vietnam and in the course of that study became a fierce opponent of the war. He then took the major step of leaking a
study of the history of American involvement in Vietnam to
the New York Times. The study, commonly known as the Pentagon Papers, documented the way in which the Johnson administration had misled the American people during the Vietnam War. Although the Papers did not directly attack Richard
Nixon’s actions, his administration reacted with fury. Ellsberg
was charged with leaking the document; a petition was filed
against the New York Times, enjoining them from publishing
the papers; and then the White House had some secret operatives, later known as the “plumbers unit” of Watergate fame,break into Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office in search of potentially
incriminating information that could be used to destroy his
reputation. When the Washington Post, which had not beenenjoined from publication, printed the Pentagon Papers, thecase became moot and the information became public. The
break-in at the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist became public during the Watergate hearings that led to the downfall ofRichard Nixon, who resigned as president of the United Statesin August 1974. Having achieved his “five minutes of fame”
Ellsberg remained politically active, most especially fighting
against nuclear arms proliferation and becoming a prominent
figure at public protests.
Bibliography: D. Ellsberg, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam
and the Pentagon Papers (2002).
[Michael Berenbaum (2nd ed.)]ELLSBERG, EDWARD (1891–1983), U.S. naval officer. Born
in New Haven, Conn., Ellsberg was the son of Jewish refugees
from czarist Russia. The family moved to Colorado when Ellsberg was a boy. He trained as an engineer. One of very few
Jews to be accepted into the U.S. Naval Academy in 1910, heranked first in his class. After varied service on the USS Texas,
he was ordered to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
for postgraduate work in naval architecture, receiving a masterof science degree. Although he was encouraged to remain an
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

elmalehexecutive officer, he transferred into naval construction. During World War I he worked in refitting confiscated German
liners in the New York Navy Yard and subsequently became
an authority on raising sunken vessels. In 1925 he became thefirst person to be awarded the Distinguished Service Medalin peacetime when he raised the submarine USS S-51, which
had sunk after a collision off Block Island, Rhode Island. During the ten-month salvage operation, Ellsberg became the first
naval officer to qualify as a deep-sea diver, understanding theimportance of going down to the ocean floor with his men. He
earned a reputation as an expert in submarine salvage.
In industry, Ellsberg worked as chief engineer of the
Tidewater Oil Company until 1935. He patented several inventions, including a method for increasing the yield of highoctane gasoline and a process for removing water from lubricating oil.
Ellsberg organized the rehabilitation of the U.S. naval
base in Eritrea (then Massawa, Ethiopia) following the entryof the United States into World War II. There, with a makeshift
workforce, he restored the demolished Italian naval base andcleared the harbor of scuttled ships. At the end of 1942 he wasmade principal salvage officer for the Mediterranean. On the
North African coast, he cleared the ports of Oran and Algiersfor Operation Torch. He also took part in the Artificial Harbors project connected with the Allied invasion of France in1944. He was released from active duty shortly before the endof World War II. Ellsberg was the recipient of many awards
from the United States and British governments, such as the
Legion of Merit and the Order of the British Empire. He retired in 1951 with the rank of rear admiral. He consulted forshipbuilding companies and remained on the sea, travelingand sailing on his boat.
Ellsberg was the author of books on naval topics, including On the Bottom (1928), Thirty Fathoms Deep (1930), Pigboats (1931), S-54 (1932), Hell on Ice (1938), Men under the Sea(1940), Under the Red Sea Sun (1946), No Banners, No Bugles(1949), Passport for Jennifer (1952), Midwatch (1954), and The
Far Shore (1960).

ish affairs, Ellstaetter was, because of racial prejudice, only officially confirmed as minister of finance in 1888. He retired
due to ill health in 1893.
Bibliography: NDB, 4 (1959), 460.
[B. Mordechai Ansbacher]

ELLSTEIN, ABRAHAM (Abe; 1907–1963), composer, conductor, and pianist. Born in New York, Ellstein studied with
Frederick *Jacobi, Rubin *Goldmark, and Albert Stoessel, andbecame the accompanist for Mischa Mischakoff, Michel Piastro, Isa Kramer, and Jossele *Rosenblatt. At the age of 19 hewrote the first of his 33 scores for the Yiddish musical theater.
He also wrote the scores for several Yiddish films producedin Warsaw before World War II and composed over 500 Yiddish songs. In 1957 he turned to composing works for concert,
stage, and the synagogue. Among his compositions are Odeto the King of Kings, a cantata in celebration of the tenth anniversary of the State of Israel; The Thief and the Hangman, a
one-act opera; Hora Fantasy, for piano; Haftorah, for violin
and string orchestra; Negev Concerto, for piano and orchestra;
two Sabbath Eve Services; Passover Service; The Redemption, a
Hanukkah oratorio for chorus, organ, and percussion; and an
opera, The Golem (1962).

ELLSTAETTER, MORITZ (1827–1905), German politician,the first Jew to become a minister in a German state. Born in
Karlsruhe, Ellstaetter studied law and worked in a banking
house in Berlin, where he met Karl Mathy (1807–1868), thefuture Baden minister of finance. When Mathy assumed office in 1866, he appointed Ellstaetter department head of his
ministry. In 1868, on Mathy’s death, Ellstaetter was given responsibility for the ministry. He reformed the Baden finances
and introduced a new taxation policy which was followed byother German states. Ellstaetter advised the German government on fiscal and coinage legislation for 25 years. In 1881 hebecame director of railways. Although he took no part in Jew-

ELMALEH, family of rabbis and communal leaders in Turkey,
Morocco, and Italy. The family originated in Spain. (1) ABRAHAM BEN JUDAH ELMALIK, kabbalist, settled in Pesaro in1551. He was the author of Likkutei Shikhḥ ah u-Fe’ah (Ferrara,
1556), kabbalistic expositions of talmudic aggadot. In the introduction he relates his adventures on leaving his home, possibly Salonika, though some scholars took it to refer to the expulsion from Spain. (2) AARON BEN GERSHON ELMALI was
an important member of the Salonika community in the firsthalf of the 17t century. His signature occurs on a documentof 1647, and members of his family were represented in the
Évora congregation of Salonika (whose members originallycame from *Évora). The first known member of the Turkish
branch of the family is (3) MOSES BEN DON DAVID ELMALEH
of Adrianople. He apparently served as dayyan and there is areference to him dating from 1510. After this date the nameis hardly found in Turkey, the family reappearing in Salé and
Rabat in North Africa at the beginning of the 18t century.
(4) JOSEPH BEN AYYUSH ELMALEH (1750–1823), kabbalist andhalakhist, was considered one of the outstanding Moroccan
scholars of his time. He served as rabbi of Salé and of Rabat in
1780. There he maintained a large yeshivah, which continued
to function after his death. In 1809 he was in Gibraltar with
the intention, according to one source, of journeying on to
Ereẓ Israel, and was invited to serve as rabbi there. In the same
year, however, he returned to Rabat. He introduced a specialtax (imposta) on behalf of the poor, which is still levied. His
responsa (Leghorn, 1823–55), chiefly on Ḥ oshen Mishpat andin part on Even Ha-Ezer, are a valuable source for the historyof the Jews of Morocco. His son (5) AMRAM (d. before 1855),
a wealthy merchant, dwelt in Mogador and in Lisbon. Ac-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6363

Bibliography: J. Ben Hirsh, Jewish General Officers (1967),
96–98. Add. Bibliography: J. Alden, Salvage Man: Edward Ellsberg and the U.S. Navy (1997).
[Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]elmaleh, abrahamof Beka la-Gulgolet (Jerusalem, 1911) on the Bible, as well as
novellae on the Talmud and the Codes.

cording to one source he was once imprisoned in Lisbon, but
was freed on the intervention of the British authorities. During the last years of his life, he was appointed Sicilian consul
in Mogador. His protection of the Jews aroused the anger ofthe Muslims.
(6) AARON BEN REUBEN ELMALEH of Demnat in south
Morocco settled in Rabat and studied in the bet ha-midrash
of Joseph ben Ayyush Elmaleh, whose daughter he married.
When his father-in-law went to Gibraltar, he acted in his stead.
His halakhic rulings were extant in manuscript. (7) JACOB BENJOSEPH, rabbi and poet, lived in Rabat. He was the author ofpoems and dirges, among them a kinah on the persecutions
in Morocco in 1790. (8) JOSEPH ELMALEH (1788–1866), sonof (7), rabbi, writer of books on Kabbalah, and merchant, wasborn in Rabat and married into the wealthy Gedaliah family,
which had many business connections in Morocco and London. Joseph served as rabbi in Mogador for over 50 years andbuilt a large synagogue there. His great influence with Abdul
Raḥ man, sultan of Morocco, enabled him to be of great assistance to the Jews. When the city was attacked by the Kabyles
in 1844, hundreds of Jews gathered in his house and defended
themselves against their attackers. Later he lost his wealth andimmigrated to Jerusalem shortly before his death. (9) JOSEPH
BEN AARON ELMALEH (1809–1886) was born in Rabat, where
he later served as dayyan. In 1826 he went to Mogador andabout 1840 was appointed rabbi there. He became Austrian
consul and was decorated both by the emperor Franz Josephand by the bey of Tunis. Joseph was active on behalf of thepersecuted Jews of Morocco, opposing missionary activities,
and bringing many apostates back to the fold. In 1879 on oneof his numerous business visits to Europe, he was offered theposition of rabbi to the Spanish and Portuguese community
in London, but declined. He died in London. His son REUBEN
became head of the community of Mogador as well as Austrian consul.
(10) ABRAHAM BEN JOSEPH ELMALEH, rabbi of Mogador, played an important role in the spiritual and communal
life of the Jews of Morocco, and was considered one of its important contemporary poets. In 1855 he was in Leghorn as anemissary. While there he published Sova Semaḥ ot, a book of
poems, a shortened version of which was published in Algiersin 1890. The poems are full of religious yearning and of longing
for Zion and redemption. He also published Tokpo shel Yosef,
responsa. (11) JUDAH BEN MORDECAI ELMALEH, rabbi of Sefrou, was also in Fez, Meknès, and Rabat. In 1833 he endorsed a
responsum of the sages of Fez and in the following year, himself wrote a responsum in Tetuán. He appears to have been abookseller, and correspondence on books and halakhic topics between him and Amir Abutbol of Sefrou are extant. (12)ELIJAH BEN ABRAHAM ELMALEH, lawyer and jurist, was theauthor of Naḥ alat Avot (Leghorn, 1874) on the will of the caid,
Nissim *Samama of Tunis, Mishpat ha-Yerushah (Leghorn,1878), and other works. (13) ELIJAH BEN JACOB ELMALEH(1837–1908) was born in Mogador, settled in Tangiers in his
early youth, and was appointed rabbi there. He was the author

EL MALE RAḤ AMIM (Heb. ‫“ ; ֵאל ָמלֵ א ַר ֲח ִמים‬God full ofcompassion”), a prayer for the departed recited at the funeralservice, on the anniversary of the death (*Yahrzeit), on visiting the graves of relatives (especially on the Ninth of *Av andduring the month of Elul), or after having been called up to
the reading of the Law (see *Ashkavah). In some Ashkenazi
rites it is also part of the memorial service (*Hazkarat Neshamot) on the festivals and on the Day of Atonement. El Male
Raḥ amim originated in the Jewish communities of Westernand Eastern Europe where it was recited for the martyrs of the*Crusades and of the *Chmielnicki massacres. This explains
the many different versions of this prayer in various European
communities (e.g., Nemirov, Lublin, Prague, etc.). At a funeralservice which takes place on those days when *Taḥ anun is not
said, El Male Raḥ amim is also omitted and other appropriate prayers are substituted. In the Conservative version of El
Male Raḥ amim, the words “and in whose memory charity isoffered by… so and so…” are omitted (see Likkutei Tefillah, A
Rabbi’s Manual [RAA] (1965), 120ff.). The Reform ritual has

364

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: The Voice of Jacob, 4 (1844), 33–34, 50–51;
JC (Jan. 5, 1886); J. Nehama, Mikhtevei Dodim mi-Yayin (1893), 100;
Kaufmann, in: ZDMG, 50 (1896), 238–40, 335–6; idem, in: REJ, 37(1898), 120–6; J.M. Toledano, Ner ha-Ma’arav (1910/11), 168–91; N.
Leven, Cinquante ans d’histoire, 2 (1920), 81, 89; J. Benaim, Malkhei
Rabbanan (1931), 19b, 52b, 102a; M.D. Gaon, Yehudei ha-Mizraḥ beEreẓ Yisrael, 2 (1937), 73–78; A.M. Hyamson, The Sefardim of England(1951), 363; Toledano, in: Minḥ ah le-Avraham Elmaleh (1959), 22–26;
Benayahu, ibid., 27–39.

ELMALEH, ABRAHAM (1885–1967), Hebrew author anda leader of the Sephardi community in Ereẓ Israel. Born
in Jerusalem, Elmaleh fostered Hebrew education among
the Sephardi Jewish communities in Palestine, Istanbul, andDamascus before World War I. He was a member of the Asefat
ha-Nivḥ arim and of its executive, the Va’ad Le’ummi. Electedto the Jerusalem Municipal Council, Elmaleh served as
deputy mayor for some time. In 1949 he was elected to the first
Knesset on the Sephardi list. A journalist and writer, he wasfounder and editor in chief of the daily Ha-Ḥ erut (1909–10),
served on the editorial boards of the daily Do’ar ha-Yom,and edited the monthly magazine Mizraḥ u-Ma’arav (1912–32).
In addition to publishing popular works on the history ofPalestine and Syria during World War I and on the Jews
in Oriental countries, Elmaleh compiled the following dictionaries: Hebrew-French (1923, 1925, 1947), French-Hebrew(1935, and eight other editions), Hebrew-Arabic (1929), Arabic-Hebrew (1930), and a Hebrew-French dictionary in five
volumes (1950–57). A list of his Hebrew writings is found in
Minḥ ah le-Avraham (1959), 11–43 (Hebrew numerals). Elmaleh also wrote Rishonim le-Ẓ iyyon Toledoteihem u-Fe’-ulatam (1970), containing biographies of the Sephardi rabbis ofEreẓ Israel.
Bibliography: Tidhar, 1 (1947), 512–4.

elnathan ben achbora shorter version of the traditional Hebrew and English text
(Rabbis’ Manual [CCAR] (19612), 99).

to recreate his famous solo on “Angels”; his trumpet part was
dubbed by Mannie Klein.

Musical Rendition
The elaborate musical form of the prayer, and its – often
virtuoso – rendition by a cantor, are customary only among
the Ashkenazi communities. There it has become the symbolic center of the burial and commemoration ceremonies,
next to the *Kaddish. The melody is almost never featured
in the standard collections of synagogal song. The version attributed originally to Joshua (Osia) *Abrass became famouswhen Solomon *Razumni recited it after the Kishinev pogrom.

Bibliography: J. Chilton, “Ziggy Elman,” in: Who’s Whoof Jazz: Storyville to Swing Street (1978); D. Fairweather, “Ziggy Elman,” in: Jazz: The Rough Guide (1995); O. Ferguson, “The Boy fromthe Back Row,” in: The New Republic (May 17, 1939).

Bibliography: Davidson, Oẓ ar, 1 (1924), 176, no. 3808, and3800, 3801, 3804, 3805, 3806, 3807; Elbogen, Gottesdienst, 203; Siddur Oẓ ar ha-Tefillot (Sephardi, 1916), 723ff. MUSICAL RENDITION: A.
Baer, Ba’al Tefillah (18832), no. 829; M. Wodak, Ha-Menaẓ ẓ e’aḥ (1898),
no. 442; J.J. Sebba, Shirei Yosef (1914), no. 102.
[Bathja Bayer]

ELMAN, MISCHA (1891–1967), violinist. Born at Talnoye,near Kiev, Elman received his first violin lessons from his father Saul, who later wrote a book entitled Memoirs of Mischa
Elman’s Father (1933). At the age of six he was taken to the
Odessa Music Academy. In 1902 he was accepted in Leopold *Auer’s class at the St. Petersburg Conservatory, having
received a permit of residence by Imperial assent, since Jews
were not allowed to live in that city. As a youth he made sensational debuts in St. Petersburg and Berlin (1904), in London (1905), and in New York (1908). Thereafter he made theUnited States his home, but traveled widely. His playing, remarkable for its sweet intonation as well as technical perfection, gave rise to the phrase “the Elman tone.” Besides manytranscriptions for violin, he composed several works, including a light opera.
Bibliography: M. Carpenter, Mischa Elman and Joseph
Szigeti (1955); Grove’s Dict.
[Dora Leah Sowden][George Robinson (2nd ed.)]EL MELEKH NE’EMAN (Heb. ‫“ ; ֵאל ֶמלֶ ְך נֶ ֱא ָמן‬God, faithful King”), an affirmation of faith pronounced before the recital of the *Shema. The rabbis interpreted the word *Amenas being composed of the initial letters of El Melekh Ne’eman(Shab. 119b). The phrase, however, is pronounced only in private prayer and not at public services where an interposition(even Amen) between Shema and the preceding benediction
is omitted (according to some opinions) as an unlawful “interruption.” A midrashic interpretation (Tanḥ , B., Lev. 74ff.)
derives the custom of reciting El Melekh Ne’eman from the factthat the Shema consists of 245 words, and the phrase El Melekh
Ne’eman brings the number up to 248, corresponding to thatof the human limbs (cf. Ps. 35:10 “All my bones shall say: Lord,
who is like unto Thee”). At public synagogue services where
the ḥ azzan repeats the last three words of the Shema aloud, thenumber of the words comes to 248 and the recital of El Melekh
Ne’eman is therefore omitted (see Sh. Ar., OḤ 61:3).
Bibliography: Elbogen, Gottesdienst, 21ff.; Eisenstein,
Dinim, 16.

EL MELEKH YOSHEV (Heb. ‫“ ; ֵאל ֶמלֶ ְך יוֹ ׁ ֵשב‬God, King enthroned”), first words and name of a petitional prayer for theforgiving of sins, with reference to *God’s Thirteen Attributes(Ex. 34:6–7). It is the main theme and refrain of the *Seliḥ otservices in all rites and is thought to have originated in thesixth century C.E.
Bibliography: Elbogen, Gottesdienst, 222; Davidson, Oẓ ar,
1 (1929), 177, no. 3822.

ELMAN, ZIGGY (Harry Finkelman; 1914–1968), U.S. trumpeter and band leader. Elman is one of those handful of jazzmusicians who has the misfortune of being known for a single recording, “And the Angels Sing,” which was a huge hit for
the Benny Goodman band in 1938. The song was a reworking of an Elman tune, “Frailach in Swing,” that bespoke bothmusicians’ all-but-forgotten roots in Jewish music. Elmanwas born in Philadelphia but raised in Atlantic City, where
he flourished as a startlingly natural musician, first playing
trombone with the Alex Bartha band on the Steel Pier, thenjoining Goodman in 1936. Elman could play any instrument
he picked up, once teaching himself clarinet in a single day fora performance with the Goodman band. After leaving Goodman in 1940, he played with several other important bands,
including Tommy Dorsey’s and his own, basing himself in
Los Angeles. Ironically, when Hollywood came calling for The
Benny Goodman Story Elman, who played himself, was too ill

ELNATHAN BEN ACHBOR (Heb. ‫“ ; ֶאלְ נָ ָתן‬God has given”;
Septuagint reads here the semantically equivalent Yehonatan),a minister of King *Jehoiakim (Jer. 36:12). Yeivin identifies him
with Elnathan, the father-in-law of King Jehoiakim (II Kings
24:8). At the king’s command Elnathan brought the prophet*Uriah from asylum in Egypt to be executed (Jer. 26:20–23).
In another episode he begged the king not to burn Jeremiah’s
scroll of denunciation (Jer. 36:25). Certain scholars feel thatthese two acts are incompatible. However, human behavior
is not always consistent. Indeed, Elnathan’s reverence for Jeremiah’s scroll may very well have resulted from a guilty conscience because of his role in Uriah’s murder.
The *Lachish ostraca mention a prophet of Zedekiah’s reign whose words are “not good, making hands weak”(6:2–8), as well as an army officer named C[on]iah b. Elnathan,
who went to Egypt (3:13–21). Torczyner (Tur-Sinai) attempted
to relate the two references and explained that the ostraca refer to the prophet Uriah’s being brought back from Egypt by

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6365

elnecavÉ, david
Elnathan. The fact remains, however, that Jeremiah speaks ofa prophet who fled to Egypt during Jehoiakim’s reign, while
the ostraca refer to a prophet of Zedekiah’s time. In addition, according to the biblical text, the minister who goes to
Egypt is Elnathan b. Achbor, while in the Lachish ostraca it isC[on]iah b. Elnathan. Therefore it seems that two similar but
not identical events took place, the first during Jehoiakim’s
and the second during Zedekiah’s reign. The “true” prophets
opposed an Egyptian orientation and preached capitulation
to Babylonia (“to weaken our hands”). During the reigns ofboth kings they were persecuted and forced to flee. Political
fugitives had traditionally sought asylum in Egypt. It is almost
certain that C[on]iah mentioned in the ostraca was the sonof the Elnathan in the biblical text, and that he performed a
mission in the time of Zedekiah similar to his father’s during
Jehoiakim’s reign.
Bibliography: H. Torczyner (Tur-Sinai) et al., The Lachish
Letters (1938), 63–67; idem, Te’udot Lakhish (1940), 93–103; Yeivin, in:Tarbiz, 12 (1940/41), 255–9; Malamat, in: BJPES, 14 (1948), 871. Add.
Bibliography: W. Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (1989), 252.
[Jacob Elbaum]

ELNECAVÉ, DAVID (1882–1963), journalist and writer. Born
in Istanbul, Turkey, he studied at the Rabbinical Seminar of
Istanbul and in 1909 founded the Sephardi Zionist daily El
Djudio. Political persecution in Turkey for his Zionist activities motivated his immigration to Sofia, Bulgaria, where hecontinued to publish El Djudio between 1925 and 1930. In 1930
he immigrated to Argentina and was the correspondent of the
JTA. In 1931 he founded the Spanish bi-weekly La Luz, which
fulfilled a central role in spreading the Zionist ideology among
the Sephardim in Argentina during the 1930s and 1940s. After
his death La Luz was directed by his son Nissim and subsequently by his grandson David. Elnecavé was the author of anumber of books on biblical and Jewish topics, including El
buen pastor and Introducción a la Biblia.
[Efraim Zadoff (2nd ed.)]EL NORA ALILAH (Heb. ‫“ ; ֵאל נוֹ ָרא ֲעלִ ילָ ה‬God that doest
wondrously”), name of a solemn hymn for the *Ne’ilah service of the Day of Atonement. The initial letters of the stanzas(‫ )משה חזק‬form the name of its author, Moses b. Jacob *Ibn
Ezra of Spain. The motive of this hymn is expressed in the refrain of each of its eight stanzas: “Pardon at Thy people’s cry,/As the closing hour draws nigh,” referring to the last hoursof the Day of Atonement. The hymn (which is to be found in
the prayer books of Aragon, Barcelona, Algiers, Tunisia, Leghorn, Constantine, and Tlemcen) originally formed part onlyof the Sephardi and Yemenite (Tiklal) Ne’ilah liturgy, but because of its moving text and solemn melody some Ashkenazi
congregations also included it in their liturgy (cf. High Holiday Prayerbook, ed. M. Silverman (19542), 458).
[Meir Ydit]

366

ELOESSER, ARTHUR (Marius Daalmann; 1870–1938),
German literary historian and dramatic critic. Born and educated in Berlin, Eloesser was denied an academic career at theuniversity because of his refusal to convert and thus becamea drama critic for the Vossische Zeitung and a producer at theLessing Theatre in Berlin. He published essays and criticism
in the Neue Rundschau and edited the works of Otto Ludwig,
Heinrich von Kleist, Shakespeare, and Frank Wedekind. In
1925 Eloesser wrote the first biography of Thomas Mann. His
main achievement was Die Deutsche Literatur vom Barockbis zur Gegenwart (2 vols., 1930–31). Its second volume waspublished in English as Modern German Literature (1933) andcontained a preface by Eloesser’s cousin, Ludwig Lewisohn.
He published monographs on French and German literary
figures and an autobiographical work, Die Strasse meiner Jugend (1919). Eloesser was long indifferent to his Jewishness,but he adopted a positive Jewish attitude after Hitler came to
power and was impressed by two visits to Palestine. He became
an occasional contributor to the Juedische Rundschau and in1933 published Judentum and deutsches Geistesleben. In 1936
Eloesser published Vom Ghetto nach Europa on the role of theJews in 19t-century culture from material he had prepared for
Juden im deutschen Kulturbereich and whose publication wasprohibited by the Nazis. It concentrated on German-Jewish
authors such as Moses *Mendelsssohn, Berthold *Auerbach,and Heinrich *Heine. Eloesser promoted the return to Ereẓ
Israel; however, on his return from his second journey to Palestine he became severely ill and died in the Jewish hospitalin Berlin in 1938.
Bibliography: A. Terwey, “Arthur Eloesser: der Philologe
als Kritiker,” in: G. Bey (ed.), Berliner Universität und deutsche Literaturgeschichte (1998), 201–14; D. Schaaf, Der Theaterkritiker Arthur
Eloesser (1962).
[Ann-Kristin Koch (2nd ed.)]

ELON, AMOS (1926– ), Israeli journalist and author. Born in
Vienna, Elon came to Israel as a young child. He began his career as a journalist for Ba-Maḥ aneh and in 1948 published his
first book, Yerushalayim Lo Naflah (“Jerusalem Did Not Fall”).
From 1954 he was associated with Ha’aretz and from 1961 wasa member of the editorial board. He served as foreign correspondent in New York, Washington, Paris, Bonn, and Eastern
Europe. His book A Journey through a Haunted Land (1967), a
reportage on the new Germany, was highly praised. His bestselling The Israelis: Founders and Sons (1971) was heralded byNewsweek magazine as “the most illuminating, even-handed,candid appraisal of the Jewish condition yet to appear,” andhis biography Herzl (1975) was also widely acclaimed. Herzl
was later made into a Broadway play by Dore *Schary in collaboration with Elon.
His other books include Between Enemies (1974), a dialogue with Egyptian Sana Hassan; the novel Timetable (1980);
Flight into Egypt (1981); Founder: Meyer Amschel Rothschildand His Time (1996); and The Pity of It All: A Portrait of the

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Elon, Menachem
German-Jewish Epoch, 1743–1933 (2002). His works have appeared in English, Hebrew, French, German, Italian, Spanish,Portuguese, and Japanese.
ELON, BINYAMIN (Benny; 1954– ), Israeli rabbi and politician, member of Knesset since the Fourteenth Knesset. Born
in Jerusalem, the son of former Supreme Court justice Menachem *Elon, he studied at Yeshivat Merkaz ha-Rav in Jerusalem and the Idra Kolel in the Golan Heights. He served in
the IDF in the artillery corps. He was ordained as a rabbi in
1978. In 1979–82 Elon served as rabbi in Kibbutz Sheluḥ ot in
the Beit She‘an Valley. In 1983–85 he was an emissary of theJewish Agency to the Jewish students organizations in the
United States, and after his return taught at the Makhon Meirand Atteret Kohanim yeshivot in Jerusalem. He settled with hisfamily in Bet-El near Ramallah in 1982 and in 1987 founded
there, together with his wife, Emuna, the Sifriyat Bet-El publishing house, and the Tov Ro‘i Institute, where he publishedAbraham Isaac *Kook’s talmudic commentaries. In 1990 heestablished the Bet Orot Yeshivah, heading it until 1996, when
he was elected to the Knesset.
Elon was an active opponent of the Oslo Accords andconsequently founded the Emunim Movement, which fought
against the establishment of a Palestinian authority, which heviewed from the start as a terrorist entity. He maintained that
it was legitimate to discuss a transfer of the Palestinian population to a Jordanian-Palestinian state in Transjordan, andargued that the refugee camps should be dismantled, and therefugees resettled.
Elon entered the Fourteenth Knesset on the list of Reḥ avam *Ze’evi’s Moledet party, and despite the extreme views that
he represented soon came to be known for his mild manner.
He promoted the unification of the various right-wing parties
in the Knesset and ran in the elections to the Fifteenth andSixteenth Knessets on the National Union list. Following theassassination of Ze’evi in October 2001, Elon was appointed
minister of tourism, but resigned from Ariel *Sharon’s government in March 2002 because of Sharon’s agreement that theassassins of Ze’evi be held in prison in Jericho instead of being
turned over to Israel. He was again appointed minister of tourism in the government formed by Sharon after the elections to
the Sixteenth Knesset. During both his terms in the Ministryof Tourism he contended with the drop in tourism to Israel
due to the second Intifada, by encouraging Christian tourism
to the Holy Land and the development of tourist sites in Judeaand Samaria. The National Union objected fundamentally to
Sharon’s disengagement plan, and the removal of Jewish settlements from parts of Ereẓ Israel, and as a result its ministers
were dismissed by Ariel Sharon from the government in June
2004, before the government voted on the issue.
Since his dismissal from the government Elon has beenan active member in the Finance Committee.
From 1990 Elon was active in establishing various associations engaged in the purchase of property and buildings in

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

East Jerusalem and the renewal of Jewish settlement in them.
He was also active in renewing Jewish settlement in Bethlehem, in the vicinity of Rachel’s tomb. He maintained close ties
with Jewish communities abroad and communities of Christians who support Israel throughout the world.
His wife, EMUNA, an educator and writer, served as theprime minister’s adviser on women in 1996–97, and in thiscapacity led the establishment of the National Authority for
the Advancement of Women. She has written numerous children’s books.
[Susan Hattis Rolef (2nd ed.)]

ELON (Fetter), MENACHEM (1922– ), Israeli jurist andSupreme Court justice. Born in Dueseldorf, Germany, Elonimmigrated to Palestine in 1935. After eight years of study atthe Hebron Yeshivah in Jerusalem, where he was ordained asa rabbi, Elon was awarded an M.A. degree in humanities (cumlaude), and a doctor of laws degree (cum laude) from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where he subsequently taught
for over 40 years. From 1959 to 1966 Elon was adviser on Jewish Law to the Israel Ministry of Justice. From 1966 he taught
Jewish Law at the Hebrew University, where he founded anddirected the Institute for Research in Jewish Law.
Elon was appointed to the Supreme Court of Israel in1977 and was named deputy president of the Court in 1988. He
was awarded the Israel Prize in 1979 for his classic work, theauthoritative four-volume Ha-Mishpat ha-Ivri (Eng. version:
Jewish Law: History, Sources, Principles, 1994). It compares
Jewish legal traditions and modern legal systems, emphasizing
both the differences between them and their common denominators. The work became the classic textbook in universities
and law schools in Israel and abroad in Jewish Law.
The first part of the work deals with the history and elements of Jewish Law, its scientific study and its impact – as aliving legal system – on Jewish history and society. The second
section deals systematically with the various legal sources ofJewish Law such as exegesis (midrash) and interpretation, legislation, custom (minhag), precedent, and legal reasoning. The
third section is devoted to a broad description of the literarysources of Jewish Law, from biblical times until the modern
era, including the basic sources (Bible, Mishnah, and Talmud)
and their interpretation, the commentaries and novellae literature, the codificatory literature, and the vast responsa literature. The fourth part deals extensively with the implementation of Jewish Law in the modern legal system, particularly in
Israeli legislation and case law. Elon, together with his predecessors (such as Judges S. *Assaf, M. Zilberg, and H. *Cohen),made a remarkable and most important contribution to theimplementation of Jewish Law in hundreds of judgments hewrote while serving as a Supreme Court judge. Amongst his
most important and renowned judgments are the decision enabling women to serve as active local religious council members, a decision forbidding active euthanasia, and a decision
forbidding imprisonment for civil debt.

367

el pasoElon’s attitude in the study of Jewish Law can be characterized by three main qualities: (1) research into all periodsof Jewish Law (unlike his predecessors, who focused on the
biblical and talmudic periods) and the intensive use of posttalmudic legal sources, in particular the vast responsa literature; (2) historical-analytical methodology, analytically examining each legal institution while examining at the sametime how its development was affected both by time and place;(3) emphasis on the potential of Jewish Law to contribute to
the modern legal system and indication of how its principals
should be implemented in modern law, legislation, and judgments alike.
Elon published many works on the history and natureof Jewish Law and the relationship between it and the modern State of Israel, including The Freedom of the Person of the
Debtor in Jewish Law (1964, 20002), Religious Legislation in
the Laws of the State of Israel and within the Jurisdiction of the
Civil and Rabbinical Courts (1968), Jewish Law (Mishpat Ivri):Cases and Materials (1999), and The Status of Women: Tradition and Transition (2004). From 1968 to 1971 he was editorof the Jewish Law section of the Encyclopaedia Judaica, whose
entries were subsequently collected in his Principles of Jewish
Law. By 1984 he had edited ten volumes of the Annual of theInstitute for Research in Jewish Law of the Hebrew Universityof Jerusalem and also edited Indices to the Responsa of Jewish Law (5 vols.).
Elon established Chairs of Jewish Law at the Harvard
School of Law, New York University, and McGill University,
Montreal, and was the founder of the Institute for Researchin Jewish Law of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (1963)
and the Center for the Study and Research of Jewish Law at
Sha’arei Mishpat College (1997), where he served as dean until 2003. From 1995 Elon also served as the president of theWorld Union of Jewish Studies and continued to serve as editor of the Jewish Law section of the second edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica.
[Aviad Hacohen (2nd ed.)]EL PASO, west Texas city bordering New Mexico and situated on the Rio Grande River across from Juarez, Chihuahua,
Mexico; Jewish population (1969) was approximately 4,500 out
of a total population of 400,000. Its general population increased significantly with the expansion of the Southwest andnumbered 750,000 in the early 2000s but the increase of theJewish population did not keep pace proportionately. There
were approximately 5,000 Jews in El Paso in 2005. The Jewish
population was unusual in its low median age range, its large
proportion of American-born newcomer families, and its large
proportion of third-, fourth- and fifth-generation American
Jews. Despite its geographic isolation from important Jewish
population centers, the El Paso community maintained organizational counterparts of several Jewish institutions andphilanthropic agencies. El Paso was a major crossroad for the
east-west and north-south trails of the 1800s. There were Jews
in El Paso as early as 1850 and major influxes of Jews occurred

368

after each of the world wars. Many Jewish pioneers were involved in business transactions with Mexican government
and anti-government forces, with the U.S. Indian Bureau, andwith the U.S. Quartermaster Corps. Many Jewish soldiers were
stationed at Fort Bliss and other military installations in thearea and a sizable number of these stayed on after discharge.
Mount Sinai Temple, the oldest Jewish institution in El Paso,
is located in the Mission Hills district of the west side of theFranklin Mountains where most Jews reside. In 2005 this Reform congregation consisted of approximately 480 members.
Congregation B’nai Zion (Conservative) is located further
west and has a comparable membership. Although there wasan Orthodox congregation in El Paso between the world wars,
none existed by the 1960s until Chabad came to town.
The El Paso Jewish Federation coordinates Jewish organizational activities and the annual Jewish fundraising appeal
which originated in 1935. El Paso also boasts a Jewish Family
and Children’s Service, housing for the elderly, and a Jewish
day school, El Paso Hebrew Academy, with grades 1–8. Eachof the congregations has a religious school for children andthere is a great deal of informal Jewish learning sponsored bymany of the local institutions. El Paso is home to a Holocaust
Museum and Study Center that serves the Jewish as well as
the non-Jewish community. A sizable collection of Judaica
was established in the library of the University of Texas at El
Paso by the family of the late Dr. Vincent Ravel.
By the 1960s, El Paso Jews were primarily merchants.
As in much of the United States, by the new millennium,
El Paso’s Jews were increasingly professionalized, including
lawyers and doctors, accountants, academics, businesspeople, and others.
Bibliography: Broddy, in: Southwestern Studies, 3 (1965);
Freudenthal, ibid., no. 3; L.M. Friedman, Jewish Pioneers and Patriots (1942), 367–74; F.S. Fierman, The Impact of the Frontier on a Jewish Family: the Bibos (1961); idem, in: El Paso County Historical Society, Password, 8 (1963), 43–54; idem, Some Early Jewish Settlers on
the Southwestern Frontier (1960); idem, in: aja, 16 (1964), 135–60;
W.V. D’Antonio and W.H. Form, Influentials in Two Border Cities: A
Study in Community Decision Making (1965); R. Segalman, “A Testof the Lewinian Hypothesis on Self-Hatred Among the Jews” (Thesis, N.Y. University, 1966).
[Ralph Segalman / Anne Schwartz Schaechner (2nd ed.)]EL SALVADOR, republic of Central America; population,
6,704,932 (2005); Jewish population, 120.
El Salvador is one of the smallest communities in Latin
America. A few Crypto-Jews from Portugal passed throughEl Salvador in colonial times. The recorded existence of Jews
in El Salvador dates back to the first half of the 19t century,
when some French-Sephardi Jews settled in the small townof Chalchuapa. More French and German Jews, most of them
Alsatians, settled in the capital, San Salvador, during the second half of the 19t century. Alfredo Widawer, arriving in 1909,
was the first to organize the services of the High Holidays.
East European and some Oriental Jews came during the 1920s
and a few German Jews arrived as a consequence of WorldENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

eltekeh
War II. During that period, El Salvador granted Salvadoran
documents of citizenship to 10,000 Jews, most of them from
Hungary, thus rescuing them from deportation to Auschwitz.
This operation was carried out by George Mandel-Mantello,a Romanian Jew, who was appointed as first secretary in the
Salvadoran Consulate in Geneva, Switzerland. Mandel-Mantello was supported by José Castellanos, consul general of El
Salvador in Switzerland, by José Gustavo Guerrero, former
president of El Salvador, and by the foreign minister of El Salvador, Julio Enrique.
The communal organization La Comunidad Israelita de
El Salvador was founded in 1944, as the representative organof the Jewish community and the provider of its social andreligious needs. A year later it inaugurated its cemetery andin 1950 it opened a synagogue that conducts services on Sabbaths and holidays. The Zionist Organization was establishedin 1945 and an affiliate of *WIZO somewhat later. There is no
regular Jewish school, but some classes in Hebrew and religion
are conducted by the rabbi. The Jewish community of El Salvador is affiliated to FEDECO – Federación de Comunidades
Judías de Centro América that was founded in 1956. The Liebes and De Sola families were the most prominent in philanthropic, cultural, and business activities of the community.
Alexander Freund was for many years the spiritual leader ofthe community.
Prior to the civil war of 1979–91 there were around 300
Jews in El Salvador, most of them in the capital. A census of
the community carried out in 1971 recorded 268 affiliated Jews
and 43 non-affiliated; 277 were Ashkenazim and 34 Sephardim;
53 couples were Jewish and 60 were of mixed marriages, withmost of the children considered as non-Jews.
The signing of peace treaties in 1991 led to the return ofseveral Jewish couples with children who had moved elsewhere during the civil war, and, as of 2000, the Jewish population in El Salvador was approximately 120. A new community
center and synagogue were inaugurated in the 1990s. There are
two synagogues, and the community is divided between adherents to Conservative and Reform Judaism. At the Conservative synagogue, Sabbath services are held on Friday evenings
only; however, the Comunidad Israelita de El Salvador holds
services on Friday, Shabbat morning, and on holidays. University students have a Jewish students association, ejes (Estudiantes Judíos de El Salvador), and a Zionist group, fusla (Federación de Universitarios Sionistas de Latinoamérica), both ofwhich are active throughout the year. For adults, the community offers different educational classes in Hebrew and othertopics of interest. The “Chevra of Women” offers a course in
Jewish cooking, and there is a monthly Jewish bulletin called
El Kehilatón, which advertises synagogue events. The Noar
Shelanu youth movement, with about 30 children age 8–18
and a kindergarten for young children, meets weekly.

1947, but was one of the first countries which recognized theState of Israel (on Sept. 11, 1948). The Instituto Cultural El Salvador-Israel was founded in 1956. El Salvador is one of only
two countries (Costa Rica is the other) to maintain its embassy
in Jerusalem. One of the only times of tension between the twocountries was during the civil war, when the Israeli Honorary
Consul was kidnapped and murdered by guerillas.
Bibliography: J. Beller, Jews in Latin America (1969), 42–45.
Add. Bibliography: Y. Govrin, Bi-Tefuẓ ot ha-Golah, 16 (1975),
130–32; D. Kranzler, The Man Who Stopped the Trains to Auschwitz(2000). Website: http://www.ujcl.org/espanol/elsalvador/.
[Alfred Joseph / Margalit Bejarano (2nd ed.)]

ELTE, HARRY (1880–1944), Dutch architect of buildings
with a Jewish (ritual) function in the interwar years; also active as a restorer and project developer. He came to prominence when he won a design competition for a stadium that
opened in Amsterdam in 1914. His work was influenced bythree architectural styles. His early work, including villas andresidential complexes in Amsterdam, reflects the influenceof the Berlage School (1900–25). Examples of his Amsterdam School style (1910–30) include the Second Synagogue
in The Hague, demolished in 1981, and the Amsterdam nursing home De Joodsche Invalide (Jewish Invalid), both datingfrom 1924–25. International Expressionism (1920–30) influenced his design for the monumental synagogue on Amsterdam’s Jacob Obrechtplein (1927–28), considered Elte’s finest
achievement. Its Cubist architecture, featuring characteristiccolors and use of daylight, reflects the influence of Americanarchitect Frank Lloyd Wright. The interior decoration is Art
Deco, with beautiful materials and warm colors. While mostof the 12 synagogues Elte completed between 1904 and 1932
have since been demolished or converted for some other purpose, the Obrecht Shul continues to serve as a synagogue. It
was granted historical monument status and completely restored in 1997. Elte was deported to Theresienstadt in February 1944, where he died on April 1, 1944.
Bibliography: L. van Grieken a.o., in: Negentigste Jaarboek
van het Genootschap Amstelodamum (1998), 159–95; R. Wischnitzer,
Architecture of the European Synagogue (1964), 99, 232–36, 262.
[Julie-Marthe Cohen (2nd ed.)]Relations with Israel
El Salvador abstained in the debate about the Partition of Palestine in the UN General Assembly session of November 29,

ELTEKEH (Heb. ‫ ֶאלְ ְּת ֵקא‬, ‫) ֵאלְ ְּת ֵקה‬, levitical city in the territoryof Dan (Josh. 19:44; 21:23; but according to TJ, Sanh. 1:2, 18c“of Judah”). It was in the “plain of Eltekeh (written: Altaqû)”that *Sennacherib in 701 B.C.E. defeated the Egyptians who
had come to the aid of the rebelling king of Judah Hezekiah
and his allies. The battle is described in Sennacherib’s annals (1:76–79). *Albright proposed identifying Eltekeh with
Khirbet al-Muqannaʿ, 6 mi. (10 km.) S.E. of ʿĀqir, but recent
surveys have shown that this was the largest fortified city inthe area and probably the site of *Ekron. Mazar has consequently suggested Tell al Shallāf, about 2½ mi. (4 km.) N.E.
of Jabneh, where potsherds from the Early and Late Iron Age
have been found.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6369

elton, sir geoffrey rudolph
Bibliography: Albright, in: BASOR, 15 (1924), 8; 17 (1925), 5f.;
Mazar, in: IEJ, 10 (1960), 73–77; Pritchard, Texts, 287f.; EM, 1 (1950),
419f.; Press, Ereẓ , 1 (19512), 23. Add. Bibliography: S. Ahituv,
Joshua (1995), 322.
[Michael Avi-Yonah]

ELTON, SIR GEOFFREY RUDOLPH (1921–1994), British historian. Elton, a son of Victor *Ehrenberg, was born in
Tuebingen, Germany, and went to England in 1939. He beganteaching at Cambridge University in 1949, and in 1967 wasappointed professor of constitutional history. From 1983 to
1988 Elton was Regius Professor of Modern History at Cambridge.
Elton’s interpretation of the political and constitutional
history of 16t-century England has brought about a major reassessment of the Tudor period. His most important work, The
Tudor Revolution in Government (1953), portrays the 1530s as
a revolutionary decade, when Henry VIII’s minister, Thomas
Cromwell, reshaped England’s government. Elton later extended and consolidated his insights in England under the Tudors (1955), and in a collection of documents, The Tudor Constitution (1960). His other books include Reformation Europe(1963), which is a basic introduction to the subject, and The
Practice of History (1967). He edited a number of volumes of
the New Cambridge Modern History.
Elton was one of the most distinguished historians ofearly modern Britain, although many of his theories about
Tudor government were widely disputed. He received innumerable honors, including honorary degrees from six universities, while no fewer than five Festschriften were published in
his honor. He was knighted in 1986.

ted to report the new crescent of all the months because of the
Temple sacrifices (ibid.). According to some tannaim the firstof Elul was to be considered a Rosh Ha-Shanah (beginning ofa new year) in respect of the tithing of animals (RH 1:1; Bek.
9:5–6). There is a tradition that the seventh or 17t of Elul had
once been observed as a fast, commemorating the death of
those spies whom Moses had sent to Canaan and who broughtback an evil report of the land (Num. 14:37; Tar. Jon., ibid.;
Meg. Ta’an. 13, ed. Neubauer; Sh. Ar., OḤ 580:2, et al.).
As it precedes the *Ten Days of Penitence, Elul becamea month of repentance and of special ascetic and devotional
practices. A rabbinic homily derives an allusion to the nameof the month from the initial letters of Ani le-Dodi ve-Dodi Li(Heb. ‫“ ; ֲאנִ י לְ דוֹ ִדי וְ דוֹ ִדי לִ י‬I am my beloved’s, and my beloved ismine,” Song 6:3), as describing the relationship between God
and His people. The *shofar is sounded daily at the morning
service (except on the Sabbath), and Psalm 27 is recited. In
the Sephardi rituals *Seliḥ ot are also recited daily throughout
Elul, whereas in the Ashkenazi ritual, they are recited only
during the last four to nine days of Elul (Sh. Ar., OḤ 581). A
similar liturgical divergence existed already in the geonic age(Tur., ibid., citing R. Hai Gaon). Rabbinic aggadah connects
the special significance of Elul with the 40 days of Moses’ stayon Mount Sinai (Ex. 34:28) which was calculated to have commenced on the first of Elul and ended on the tenth of Tishri(the Day of *Atonement, Pd RE 46).
Bibliography: S. Dominitz, Sefer Ramzei Elul…, 1 (1928).
[Ephraim Jehudah Wiesenberg]

ELUL, the post-Exilic name of the sixth month in the Jewish year. The name is Babylonian and was subsequently adopted in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic. Its first occurrence ina Hebrew text is in Nehemiah 6:15. The zodiacal sign of thismonth is Virgo. In the present fixed calendar, it invariably consists of 29 days, and the first of Elul never falls on a Tuesday, aThursday, or a Sabbath. In the 20t century, Elul in its earliest
occurrence extended from Aug. 8 to Sept. 5 and in its latest
from Sept. 6 to Oct. 4. The talmudic rule that Elul invariably
consists of 29 days reflects the early endeavor to facilitate theprior calculation of the date of Rosh Ha-Shanah, i.e., the *NewMoon of Tishri (the seventh month, which followed Elul, andwas therefore directly determined by the length of Elul), andconsequently also the dates of the other festivals occurringin that month. For the same reason, the New Moon of Elul
was announced to Jewish communities by the messengers of
the Sanhedrin (RH 1:3). Witnesses to the sighting of the New
Moon of Elul were not permitted to travel on the Sabbath toreport their sighting to the court in Jerusalem; the witnesses
to the new crescent of Nisan and Tishri were so permitted (RH
1:4; cf. EJ). In Temple times traveling on Sabbath was permit-

ELUSA (Gr. Ελουσα), Nabatean city in the Negev, now theruins of Ḥ aluẓ a (Ar. al-Khalaṣ a), 12 mi. (20 km.) S.W. of Beersheba. Elusa was the starting point of the roads leading from
Palestine to Egypt and Sinai in the Roman and Byzantine periods (Ptolemy, Geography, 5:15, 7; cf. Peutinger Map, where it islocated 71 Roman miles from Jerusalem, 24 from Eboda, and
53 from Thamara) and especially of the pilgrim road to Sinai(Theodore, Itinera Hierosolymitana, 78). Elusa was colonizedby the Nabateans in the last decades of the first century C.E. In
the fourth century C.E. Elusa was the seat of a school of rhetoric and had its own police chief; the city’s area extended as far
as Nessana (Nessana Papyri). In Targum Jonathan (Gen. 16:14)
Elusa is identified with Bered. The monk Hilarion visited Elusa
and was served wine from the local plantations; the inhabitants of the city apparently spoke Aramaic (Jerome, Vita Hilarionis, 25). Its bishops participated in the church councils from431 onward. In Arab times Elusa was the seat of a district governor who was under the jurisdiction of the governor of Gaza.
The site was surveyed by E. Robinson (1838), E.H. Palmer(1869/1870), A. Musil (1897), A. Jaussen, R. Savignac and H.
Vincent (1905), and C.L. Woolley and T.E. Lawrence (1914).
Although the ruins of the city are extensive, they were greatly
damaged by the builders of Gaza during Turkish and British
Mandate times. Some of the city’s dumps were excavated in1936 by the archaeologist H. Dunscombe Colt. Excavations
were conducted at Elusa by A. Negev in 1973, 1979, and 1980,

370

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Add. Bibliography: ODNB online.
[Theodore K. Rabb / William D. Rubinstein (2nd ed.)]elyashar, jacob saul ben eliezer jeroham
revealing fortifications (represented by a tower), an area ofdwellings, a theater that had been repaired in the fifth century
C.E. (based on the evidence of an inscription which speaks ofa new floor made for the “old theater”), and a Byzantine period church, one of the largest known in the Negev Desert.
Additional, smaller, churches are known at Elusa. A Nabatean
cemetery was also discerned near the settlement. New excavations were conducted at the site in 1997 by H. Goldfuss andP. Fabian in the area of the Roman theater, the constructionof which can now be shown to date from the late second or
early third century C.E., with its abandonment taking place inthe sixth century C.E. Additional work was done in an area of
pottery workshops on the edge of the settlement.
Bibliography: C.L. Woolley and T.E. Lawrence, The Wilderness of Zin (1915), 113, 145; A. Musil, Arabia Petraea, 2 (Ger., 1907),
67–77; M. Schwabe, in: Zion, 2 (1937), 106–20; idem, in: BJPES, 4(1936/37), 61–66; C.J. Kraemer, Excavations at Nessana, 3 (1958), geographical index, S.V. Elousa. Add. Bibliography: Y. Tsafrir, L. Di
Segni, and J. Green, Tabula Imperii Romani. Iudaea – Palaestina. Mapsand Gazetteer (1994), 119; H. Goldfuss and P. Fabian, “Haluza (Elusa),”
in: Excavations and Surveys in Israel, 111 (2000), 93–94; A. Negev and
S. Gibson (eds.), Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land (2001),
156–58; P. Fabian and Y. Goren, “A New Type of Late Roman Storage
Jar from the Negev,” in: J.H. Humphrey (ed.), The Roman and Byzantine Near East; JRA Supplement No. 49 (2002), 145–55; R. RosenthalHeginbottom (ed.), The Nabateans in the Negev (2003).
[Michael Avi-Yonah / Shimon Gibson (2nd ed.)]ELVIRA (Eliberis, Illiberis), town in Andalusia, Spain, near
Granada. The church council convened in Elvira in 300–303(or 309) issued canons forbidding marriage between Christian women and Jews unless the Jew first adopted Christianity (§16); prohibiting Jews from keeping Christian concubines(§78); from entertaining at their tables Christian clergy or laymen (§50); and from blessing fields belonging to Christians(§49): Christians who turned to Jews for such blessings were
to be excommunicated. These were the earliest canons of any
church council directed against the Jews. A Jewish community
still existed in Elvira at the time of the Muslim conquest. Its
scholars corresponded with Saadiah Gaon in the tenth century, as attested by Abraham *Ibn Daud in Sefer ha-Kabbalah(ed., G.D. Cohen (1967), 79). In the course of time the Elvira
community became merged in that of Granada.
Bibliography: J. Parkes, Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue (1930), 174ff.; C.G. Goldaraz, El Códice Lucense (1954), 377–93;
J. Vives, Concilios Visigóticos e Hispano-Romanos (1963), 1–15.
[Haim Beinart]

ELYAN, SIR ISADORE VICTOR (1909– ), chief justice ofSwaziland. Born in Dublin, Ireland, Elyan qualified as a lawyer
and from 1946 was a magistrate in the British Colony of Gold
Coast (Ghana) until his appointment as judge of the Basutoland Court of Appeal in 1955. From 1965 to 1970 he was chiefjustice of Swaziland and from 1966 also served as judge of the
Court of Appeal for newly independent Botswana.
ELYASHAR, JACOB BEN Ḥ AYYIM JOSEPH (after 1720–
1788), rabbi and communal leader in Ereẓ Israel. Elyashar
was born in Hebron. He was a grandson, through his mother,of Jacob Vilna, a member of the group of *Judah he-Ḥ asid.
He acted as an emissary of the Hebron community to various countries, visiting Italy, Germany, and Poland after 1751,
Baghdad in 1763, and Sofia and other Turkish towns in 1768,
returning in about 1770 to Hebron, where he became one ofits notables. He was included there among the pupils of Ḥ .J.D.
*Azulai and the two became very close friends. He helped
Azulai in his literary activities, copying on his behalf various
manuscripts. In 1773 Elyashar again visited Baghdad as an emissary of the Hebron community, and in 1774 went to Basra
where he stayed until 1781. During that time the Persian armyin 1775 captured the town, ruling over it until 1779.
Elyashar, who was a composer of piyyutim and poems,
commemorated the day the Persians left Basra by composing a poem, “Megillat Paras,” in which he described events in
Basra during the siege and its capture by the Persians. It was
first published by his grandson, Jacob Saul *Elyashar, at the
beginning of the latter’s Ish Emunim (1888). A critical version with a commentary was published by M. *Benayahu in
his book Rabbi Ya’akov Elyashar (1960). Jacob also composed
poems in honor of that day, which the Jews of Basra continued to recite annually amid great celebrations for about 100
years after the event. In 1781, through the influence of the wellknown Farḥ i family, he reached Safed. There he served as av
bet din and one of the leaders of the community. He devoted
himself to the rebuilding of *Safed, whose Jewish settlement
began to develop anew in the years 1778–79. He wrote several
books which were lost as a result of his wanderings and thepersecutions he suffered.
Bibliography: M. Benayahu, Rabbi Ya’akov Elyashar (Heb.
1960); idem, Rabbi Ḥ ayyim Yosef David Azulai (Heb. 1959), index,s.v.; Yaari, Sheluḥ ei, 591f. and index, s.v.; A. Ben-Jacob, Yehudei Bavel(1965), 123, 139, 282, 335f.
[A’hron Oppenheimer]

ELYAM, Israeli merchant shipping company. Cargo Ships ElYam Ltd. was founded in 1949 by a subsidiary of the Israel Discount Bank and started operations in 1953 with three 10,800ton vessels. It developed rapidly and in 1977 its fleet (owned
through affiliated and subsidiary companies), consisting ofbulk carriers and refrigerated vessels for the transport of fruit,
meat, and dairy products, exceeded 1.75 million tons deadweight, representing an investment of $200,000,000.

ELYASHAR, JACOB SAUL BEN ELIEZER JEROHAM(1817–1906), Sephardi chief rabbi of Ereẓ Israel (rishon leẒ ion). A grandson of Jacob ben Ḥ ayyim *Elyashar, he wasborn in Safed. His father, a dayyan, shoḥ et, and cantor there,
was arrested by the Turkish authorities, but succeeded in escaping and settled with his family in Jerusalem. When Jacob
Saul was seven, he lost his father, and his mother remarriedin 1828. His stepfather, Benjamin Mordecai *Navon, became
his teacher and supported him for many years. Elyashar mar-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6371

elyashivried the daughter of *ḥ akham bashi, Raphael Meir *Panigel.
He was appointed a dayyan in Jerusalem in 1853, and in 1869
head of the bet din. He succeeded his father-in-law as ḥ akham
bashi and rishon le-Zion in 1893.
A cultured scholar and a fluent linguist, Elyashar wrote
thousands of responsa in answer to questions from both
Ashkenazim and Sephardim all over the world. He was respected by the authorities and the heads of other religious
communities, and received orders of merit from the Turkish sultan, Abdul Hamid, in 1893, and the German kaiser,
William II, in 1898. He was accepted by both the Sephardi
and Ashkenazi communities and worked hard to put religious
institutions in Jerusalem on a solid foundation. The affectionin which he was held is reflected in the fact that he was referred
to as “Yissa Berakhah” (“conferring a blessing”), the word
Yissa (‫ )יִ ּ ָׂשא‬being derived from the Hebrew initials of his
name. He enjoyed marked success as an emissary to Smyrna(1845), Damascus (1854), Alexandria (1856), and Leghorn(1873).
In 1888 when a controversy arose as to the permissibilityof working on the land during the following year, a sabbatical year, Elyashar decided that such work could be permitted
by selling the land formally to a non-Jew, but suggested thateach Jewish agricultural settlement leave a small portion ofland uncultivated as a symbol and reminder of the commandment. Elyashar died in Jerusalem, where the Givat Sha’ul district is named after him.
He was the author of the following works, all publishedin Jerusalem (some by his son, Ḥ ayyim Moshe) and all bearing the word “Ish,” the initials of his name, in their title:(1) Yikrav Ish (1876–81), 2 parts, novellae and responsa,
which were included in the Benei Binyamin of his stepfather;(2) Ish Emunim (1888), homilies for festivals and various special occasions; (3) Ma’aseh Ish (1892), responsa; (4) DerekhIsh, homilies; (5) Divrei Ish, 2 parts (1892–96), homilies;(6) Simḥ ah le-Ish (1888), novellae, responsa, and piyyutim;(7) Yissa Ish (1896), responsa; (8) Olat Ish, responsa, as well
as a number of sermons entitled Penei Ish (1899); (9) Sha’al
ha-Ish (1909), responsa and rulings, together with responsa
by his son, Ḥ ayyim Moshe, entitled Penei Ḥ aMA; (10) Kavod
le-Ish (1910), responsa, including the eulogies in his honor.
Elyashar possessed a large collection of manuscripts, some ofwhich are in the Jerusalem National Library.
His eldest son, Rabbi ḥ AYYIM MOSHE ELYASHAR (1845–
1924), a merchant and businessman, represented the Jewish
community on the council of heads of religious communities established by the Turkish authorities, and, in the earlydays of the Mandate, served as rishon le-Ẓ ion. He was one of
the initiators of the combined rabbinical committee which
was the forerunner of the chief rabbinate of Ereẓ Israel. His
son ISAAC ELIACHAR (1873–1933), the first chairman of theUnited (Sephardi and Ashkenazi) Jewish Community Council of Jerusalem, was appointed to the Jerusalem municipality
in 1917. His grandson ELIYAHU ELIACHAR (1898–1981) was
chairman of the United Community Council of Jerusalem

from 1938 until 1949. He headed for many years the Committee of the Sephardi Community of Jerusalem and served
during the mandatory period as a member of the Asefat haNivḥ arim and the Va’ad Le’ummi. He was a member of theFirst and Second Knesset.

372

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: J.S. Elyashar, Toledot ve-Zikhronot (autobiography), in: Lu’aḥ Ereẓ Yisrael, 6 (1900), 39–61, ed. and annot. by
A.M. Luncz; Frumkin-Rivlin, 3 (1929), 310–1; M.D. Gaon, Yehudei
ha-Mizraḥ be-Ereẓ Yisrael, 2 (1937), 59–60, 62–68; Yaari, Sheluḥ ei,
index; Benayahu, in: Yerushalayim, 4 (1953), 212; Eẓ D.
[Geulah Bat Yehuda (Raphael)]

ELYASHIV (Heb. ‫) ֶאלְ יָ ׁ ִשיב‬, moshav in central Israel, in theḤ efer Plain, affiliated to Tenu’at ha-Moshavim. One of the first
Yemenite agricultural settlements in Israel, it was founded in
1933. Its economy was based on intensive farming including
citrus orchards as well as outside employment. In 2002 thepopulation of Elyashiv was 436.
[Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]ELZAS, BARNETT ABRAHAM (1867–1939), U.S. Reform
rabbi and historian. Elzas was born in Germany, the son of a
Hebrew teacher, and moved with his parents to Holland andthen to London where he was educated at Jews’ College andthe University of London. In 1890 he went to America andserved congregations in Toronto, Canada and Sacramento,
California, being eventually appointed to the pulpit of Congregation Beth Elohim in Charleston, South Carolina (1894). Elzas became keenly interested in local Jewish history and madean exhaustive study of records of Charleston Jewry and of theolder smaller communities of the state. After writing a number of studies on the subject, he produced the comprehensive
Jews of South Carolina: From Earliest Times to the Present Day(1905), which still ranks as one of the best historical studies ofan American Jewish community. While in Charleston, Elzas
also qualified at the Medical College of South Carolina (1900),
although he never practiced. In 1910 he moved to New York
City where he ministered to the Hebrew Congregation of theDeaf and served as Jewish chaplain to the City Departmentof Correction and the State Mental Hygiene Department. He
also served as president of the New York Board of Rabbis. In
1912 Elzas became rabbi of Beth Miriam Congregation, Long
Branch, N.J.
Bibliography: Bloch, in: CCARY, 47 (1937), 225–9; C. Reznikoff and U.Z. Engelman, The Jews of Charleston (1950), index.
[Thomas J. Tobias]

EMANATION, a theory describing the origin of the material
universe from a transcendent first principle. According to thistheory, the universe, which is multiple, is generated from theOne, which is unitary, through the medium of a hierarchy of
immaterial substances. The ultimate source is undiminished,
while the beings which are emanated are progressively lessperfect as they are further removed from the first principle.
The process is conceived as being atemporal. In neoplatonic

emanation

In Jewish Philosophy
The Hebrew terms used for emanation are aẓ ilut or aẓ ilah (cf.
Num. 11:17), hishtalshelut, meshekh, shefa; the verbs shalaḥ andsadar (in the pu’al) are also used (see J. Klatzkin, Thesaurus
Philosophicus (1930), 96; 4 (1933), 112). The theory of emanation was known to medieval Arabic and Jewish philosophersfrom several sources. Plotinus was known from the Theology ofAristotle (in both a vulgate and long recension), a paraphraseof texts from the Enneads, as well as from Plotinian material
ascribed to “al-Sheikh al-Yūnānī” (“The Greek Sage,” probably Porphyry, editor of the Enneads), and a work titled al-ʿIlmal-Ilāhī (“The Divine Science”), falsely ascribed to al-*Fārābī
(translations of this material are in Plotinus, Opera, ed. by H.
Schwyzer (1959), vol. 2). Proclus was known from the Liber decausis (Kitāb al-Idāh fī al-Khayr al-Maḥ ḍ ) ascribed to Aristotle
but actually based on Proclus’ Elements of Theology (ed. andtr. by E.R. Dodds, 1963). One must also take into account neoplatonic texts such as the pseudo-Aristotelian source utilized
by Isaac *Israeli and Abraham *Ibn Ḥ asdai (see S.M. Stern, in
Oriens, 13–14 (1960–61), 58ff.) and the pseudo-EmpedocleanBook of Five Substances (ed. by D. Kaufmann, Studien ueber
Salomo Ibn Gabirol (1899), 17ff.). Jewish philosophers also relied on the appropriation and development of emanationism
by Arabic philosophers such as al-*Kindī, al-Fārābī, *Avicenna,and the Sincere *Brethren (Ikhwān al-Ṣ afāʾ). In medieval Arabic and Jewish neo-Aristotelianism, the neoplatonic theory of
emanation was applied to the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic cosmology which posited a series of nine concentric spheres encompassing the earth, each endowed with an intelligence. Thus,
Aristotle’s active intellect (De Anima, 3) was identified eitherwith Plotinus’ universal intellect in the neoplatonic hierarchy,
or with the intelligence of the lowest sphere (of the moon) in
the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic cosmology. Emanation is a necessary (natural) and eternal process, and is thus thought to imply the absence of will and design on the part of the ultimate
source. Thus, the theory of emanation is in conflict with thebiblical concept of temporal creation by divine volition. Also,
emanationism sees the divine source as somehow omnipres-ently immanent in the world, and it therefore tends towardpantheistic expressions.
In their discussions of cosmology, Jewish philosophers
sometimes tried to harmonize emanation with biblical concepts of *creation and *providence. Isaac Israeli, for example,
postulates an initial act of creation by “the will and power”
of God which results in the first two substances, which arein his system prime matter and form (or wisdom), while thesubsequent entities are generated by a process of emanation.
These are the typical hierarchy of intellect, soul, and nature of
Plotinus, but the universal soul, like the individual soul, istripartite (rational, animal, vegetable; as in Ibn *Gabirol),and nature is identified with the first or outer sphere. Eachemanated being is derived from “the shadow” of its anteriorcause. Ibn Gabirol injected an element of voluntarism into an
emanationist system with his notion of “will,” which mediates between the first essence and primary matter and form,
which together constitute the hypostasis of intellect. Will thus
appears not as a function of the creator (cf. Israeli), but as a
distinct hypostasis. Gabirol often appeals to the metaphorsof a spring of water, light from the sun, the reflection in a
mirror, and human speech to explain emanation. There is apronounced tendency toward pantheism (see Mekor Ḥ ayyim
5:39, 3:16).
Pseudo-*Baḥ ya‘s Kitāb Maʿanī al-Nafs (“On the Essenceof the Soul”) combines creation and emanation. The entire
chain of being hinges on God’s will and wisdom. Intellect iscalled Shekhinah and soul is called Kevod Elohei Yisrael (seeGuttmann, Philosophies, 110). *Abraham bar Ḥ iyya posits fiveworlds above the celestial spheres, which he correlates withthe five days of creation, giving each a theological interpretation. The lower three (the worlds of knowledge, soul, andcreation) seem to correspond to the neoplatonic hypostases.
Above them are the world of light (ha-olam ha-nurani) andthe world of dominion (olam ha-ravrevanut), probably derived
from an Arabic neoplatonic work (Megillat ha-Megalleh, ed.
by A. Posnanski (1924), 21ff.; see also, G. Scholem, in MGWJ,
75 (1931), 172ff.; and Guttmann, Philosophies, 112ff.). Like Ibn
Gabirol, Abraham bar Ḥ iyya uses expressions which are tantamount to pantheism. God is essentially identical with theuniverse insofar as He gives it the power of being.
The emanation theory of Arabic and Jewish Aristotelians,
an intricate system explaining the derivation of the spheres
and their intelligences, was rejected by *Judah Halevi as an
unproven claim (Kuzari, 4:25). Abraham *Ibn Daud also rejected the emanationist explanation of the derivation of thespheres and their intelligences, but without denying the order itself (Emunah Ramah, ed. by S. Weil (1852), 67). The position of *Maimonides is complex. He was keenly aware of
the opposition between eternal necessary emanation of theworld from God and the free act of creation. Nevertheless hewrote: “It has been said that the world derives from the overflow (fayḍ ) of God and that He has caused to overflow to it
everything in it that is produced in time.” In the same context he compares the derivation of the world from God to a

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6373

emanationism the ultimate product, the material universe, is
not regarded as evil, as in gnostic systems of emanation. A variety of models are used to describe emanation. For example,
it is compared to the efflux of light from a luminous body, or
to water flowing from a spring. The emanationist theory was
given its classical formulation by Plotinus in the Enneads,
in which the typical fourfold scheme of the One, Intellect,Soul, and Nature is found. Emanationism tends to be combined with an eschatology (or soteriology) that envisions thesoul’s return to its ultimate source of being by epostrophē or“reversion” (see A. Altmann, Studies in Religious Philosophy
and Mysticism (1969), 41ff.). The theory of emanation wasdeveloped further by Plotinus’ successors, particularly Proclus, who systematized the scheme of monēproodos-epistrophē(immanence, procession, reversion) to account for the process of emanation.

emancipation
spring of water which, he says, is “the most fitting simile forthe action of one who is separate from matter” (Guide of the
Perplexed, 2:12). Divine emanation also accounts for cognitionand prophecy (ibid., 2:37). The governance of the lower worldis perfected by means of forces emanating from the spheres(ibid., 2:5). Still, this emanation is said to be unlike that of heatfrom fire and light from the sun in that it constantly assuresduration and order for the existents that emanate from God
by “wisely contrived governance” (ibid., 1:59). Maimonides’
insistence on creation in time and insertion of intention andwisdom into a scheme of emanation appear to contradict thepresuppositions of the latter. *Levi b. Gershom found several
difficulties with the theory of emanation which postulates aneternal procession from God (Milḥ amot Adonai, 6:1, 7; seealso Guttmann, Philosophies, 211ff.). He maintained, for example, that it was impossible for existence to flow constantly
from God to the heavenly bodies (as opposed to their beingbrought into being at once), for the heavens would thus exist only potentially.
[Joel Kraemer]

In Kabbalah
Though the term aẓ ilut has many meanings in Hebrew, theJewish philosophers and kabbalists used it to describe different
forms of emanation. The Hebrew term is understood as pointing to both the process of emanation and to the realm that isemanated. The major concept that is conveyed by this termis the prolongation of a spiritual entity into a hypostasis that
does not separate itself essentially from its source. According
to such a view, the Infinity, Ein-Sof, underwent a process ofautogenesis that produced a realm of ten divine powers which,different as they are from each other, nevertheless constitute
together the divine zone. In this mode of understanding theprocess of emanation is conceived of as remaining within
God, offering a pseudo-etymology of aẓ ilut as if related to
the Hebrew word eẓ lo, “with him,” namely with God. Thougharticulated since the 13t century, this view has much earlier
Jewish sources, as early as second century, according to whichsome angels are extensions of the divine glory and return toit after completing their mission. This view is known in Kabbalah as the doctrine of essence, which means that the divine
emanated powers are identical with the divine essence. According to another view, the emanation is constituted as the
shadow of the higher plane of being. This view understands
aẓ ilut as if derived from the Hebrew ẓ el, “shadow,” and points
to a concept of efflux that somehow leaves its source. This view
is more consonant with the kabbalistic theory according towhich the first emanated powers are the instruments used by
the Infinite to create the world and to interact with it, or thevessels which contain the divine energy, which pour themselves out. The instrumental view of emanation is closer to,
and derived and adapted by, the kabbalists from Neoplatonic
sources which reached them via Arabic and Latin translations.
In some few cases, the astrological theory of emanations descending from stars and other celestial bodies was represented
by the term aẓ ilut.

374

Though emanation explains the gradual descent fromthe Infinity to the lower world as part of a great chain of being, in two important cases there is a direct emanation fromthe divinity: both the Torah and the soul are described as
circumventing the great chain of being, and having a special
relationship with the divine. In these cases, evident in Naḥ manides and Cordovero, the special emanation is described
as a cord that allows the kabbalist to have a theurgical impact
on the divine sphere.
In many forms of theosophies, the first world is describedas the world of emanation, olam ha-aẓ ilut, as part of the fourfold distinction ABYA (Aẓ ilut, Beri’ah, Yeẓ irah, Asiyyah). During the Renaissance period, kabbalists in Italy like Johanan*Alemanno or David Messer *Leon paid special attention to
the processes of the emanation of the Sefirot, and this development influenced the Safedian kabbalists.
[Moshe Idel (2nd ed.)]Bibliography: Guttman, Philosophies, index; D. Neumark,Geschichte der juedischen Philosophie des Mittelalters 1 (1907), 503ff.;
Scholem, Mysticism, S.V. emanation; idem, in: Tarbiz, 2 (1931/32),
415–42; 3 (1932/33), 33–66; J. Ben-Shlomo, Torat ha-Elohut shel R.
Moshe Cordovero (1965), 170–82. Add. Bibliography: E. Gottlieb, Studies in Kabbalah Literature (1978), 11–17, 397–476; E. Gottlieb
and M. Idel, Enchanted Chains (2005); M. Idel, “Between the View
of Sefirot as Essence and Instruments in the Renaissance Period,” in:Italia, 3 (1982), 89–111 (Heb.).

EMANCIPATION.
Definitions and Dialectics
Emancipation of the Jews in modern times stands alongsidesuch other emancipatory movements as those of the serfs,
women, slaves in the United States, and Catholics in England.
The term “emancipation” is derived from Latin (emancipatio), and originally meant in ancient Rome the liberation of ason from the authority of his father and his attainment of independent legal status. It has come to mean the liberation ofindividuals or groups from servitude, legal restrictions, andpolitical and social disabilities. Jewish emancipation denotes
the abolition of disabilities and inequities applied specially toJews, the recognition of Jews as equal to other citizens, andthe formal granting of the rights and duties of citizenship.
Essentially the legal act of emancipation should have been
simply the expression of the diminution of social hostility
and psychological aversion toward Jews in the host nation.
Indeed, Jewish emancipation was related to the weakeningof the general social antipathy toward Jews; but the antipathy
was not obliterated, and constantly hampered the realizationof equality even after it had been proclaimed by the state andincluded in the law. Emancipation was achieved by ideologicaland social change and political and psychological strife. Before
achieving full emancipation the Jews in many countries passed
through several transitional stages. They had to overcome
the barriers of vested interests and such ancient prejudicesas the hateful image of the Jew as alien, his religion odious,and his economics unscrupulous. Ideologically, emancipation
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6emancipation
stemmed from the utopian political and social thought sincethe 18t century. Emancipation was, however, dependent on
actual political and social conditions in each country and on
the residential, cultural, and social characteristics of the Jewish
population. Stages in the history of emancipation have beenmarked by the strength or weakness of egalitarian ideology
and the corresponding interaction with existing laws, institutions, and relationships.
The Three Periods in the History of Jewish Emancipation
The first period, “heralding emancipation,” covered the 50
years preceding the *French Revolution (1740–89). The second period, the 90 years from the French Revolution until
the Congress of *Berlin (1789–1878), comprised emancipation in Western and Central Europe. Finally, the third period extended from the Congress of Berlin to the Nazis’ rise
to power (1878–1933) and saw in an atmosphere charged with
newly inflamed hatred and racial animosity the achievementof Jewish emancipation in Eastern Europe, and the struggle
in many countries to maintain civic equality and the right tonational definition.
During the first period, demands for alleviating the lotof the Jews, with a view to their ultimate emancipation, werebased on a theory of the “civic improvement of the Jews.” Theproponents of this idea, men like John *Toland, Christian Wilhelm von *Dohm, Comte de *Mirabeau, and their supporters,argued that existing legislation disabling the Jews was motivated primarily by religious intolerance, hence contrary to theenlightened “spirit of the times.” They pointed out, moreover,the economic advantages which would accrue to the state as aresult of permitting Jews to function in society with the samerights and obligations as other groups. Admitting the faultsof the Jews pointed out by opponents, enlightened thinkers
showed the defects to be the natural result of the degrading
status in which Jews were compelled to live when all decent
ways of life were closed to them. Such considerations wereexpressed in the deliberations on the Jewish question in prerevolutionary *France. Their influence is reflected in the announcement of an essay competition set by the Société Royale
des Arts et Sciences in 1785 on the question: “Are there any
ways of making the Jews of France happier and more useful?” and the entry of Abbé Henri *Grégoire which gained
the prize. New legislation ameliorating the status of Jews was
inspired by this idea. Notable examples were the 1740 law enabling the Jews to become naturalized in the British colonies
if they had lived there for at least seven years, and the law
passed by the British Parliament in May 1753, according theJews of *England the right of naturalization. The British government, however, was compelled to revoke the latter law on
Dec. 20, 1753, because of vigorous public opposition. For the
first time Jews were also given the right, in several places (Leghorn [Italy] and Belorussia), to elect representatives to municipalities and other institutions, like merchant and burgherorganizations, although with some educational limitations.
The Toleranz-Patent (1781–82) of *Joseph II of Austria aimed

at encouraging the integration of the Jews into Christian society, and is thereby a law “heralding emancipation,” as werethe laws abolishing the “body tax” (see *taxation) in Austria
in 1781 and in the France of Louis XVI in 1784. The declarations and laws issued on freedom of conscience and religion
at the time of the American Revolution were radical in theiregalitarianism (see below).
Among the Jewish initiatives toward obtaining civic liberation, the literary activity of Moses *Mendelssohn is of historic importance, and the demands of Zalkind *Hourwitz are
worth noting. The petitions for equal rights and “equality inreligious rights,” presented by U.S. Jews in 1784 and 1787, set
an example which was later widely followed.
The second period opens with the principles and warsof the French Revolution and ends with the resolutions andtactics of the Congress of Berlin. In the intervening 90 years,
Jewish emancipation became a political and legal fact in all
European countries where revolution and liberalism were in
the ascendancy: France, *Belgium, the *Netherlands, *Italy,*Germany, and *Austria-Hungary. The revolutionary peaks of1789–91, 1830–31, 1848–49, and times of fundamental change
in the structure of European states (e.g., unification of Germany and of Italy, and national independence in Hungary)were periods of progress in Jewish emancipation. Even where
the emancipation evolved from legislation created within thepermanent framework of the existing order (England andScandinavia), or as the result of international circumstances(*Switzerland), or international pressure (*Serbia; *Bulgaria),
the relation between the new liberal political climate and theemancipation of the Jews was decisive. The ideals of the Enlightenment were also evident in the numerous arguments andlengthy literary and political deliberations on Jewish emancipation which took place during this period. It was stressed thatkeeping the Jews in a politically limited and socially inferior
status was incompatible with the principle of civic equality.
Such deprivation would be a contradiction of the principleof “natural rights” of man, and, therefore, would undermine
the civic equality of all who had attained it by revolution andthe application of this principle. Emphasis was placed on the
belief that “it is the objective of every political organization
to protect the natural rights of man,” hence “all citizens havethe right to all the liberties and advantages of citizens, without exception.”
As men, Jews should be guaranteed political rights inthe countries in which they reside. Their ethnic origin andmessianic hopes notwithstanding, the Jews had adopted thelanguage and the culture of their environment; they wereloyal to the state and identified themselves with the national
feelings of their fellow countrymen. The activity of Jews in
the struggle for their rights was bound up with their energetic participation in the general striving toward politicalliberty and egalitarianism as exemplified by Heinrich *Heine, Ludwig *Boerne, Johann *Jacoby, Ignaz *Kuranda; by thejournalists and parliamentarians Gabriel *Riesser, Berr Isaac*Berr, Moritz *Veit, Sir David *Salomons, and Lionel Nathan

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6375

emancipation*Rothschild; and by the statesman Adolphe *Crémieux, whoin 1870 issued in the name of the French government the law
which conferred French citizenship on the Jews of *Algeria.
Jewish society fought for its emancipation not only throughgeneral institutions (the *Board of Deputies of British Jews,
the Central *Consistory of Paris, individual communities),
but also through organizations specifically devoted to thisaim. The *Alliance Israélite Universelle worked energeticallyfor its declared goal “of striving universally for the freedomof the Jews.”
The third period (1878–1933) witnessed a reaction to Jewish emancipation, and in Europe was marked with the prevalence of rabid *antisemitism. Intense opposition brought many
Jews to realize that the state’s legal recognition of Jewish civic
and political equality does not automatically bring social recognition of this equality. The controversy over Jewish emancipation intensified and became embittered in almost every
European country. Racism and nationalism were the bases foranti-emancipation agitation. Opponents claimed that emancipation was granted under the false pretenses that Judaism isonly a religion, and that emancipated Jews would give up all
Jewish national identity and assimilate into the host nations.
The “price of admittance” had not been paid by most Jews,
who continued to form a separate national group. Even in theview of many liberals, the claim of Jews for participation in thegovernment of the nation in which they were not an organicpart was unjustified. Racists added that Jews should not be
granted civil rights or become assimilated because their racial
inferiority could only harm the “superior race.” Throughout
its difficult and complex history, Jewish emancipation was atouchstone of freedom and social openness in European culture. Support came from those who cherished liberalism inlife, thought, and politics, while bitter opposition came mostly
from the reactionary camp. In Jewish life the fight for emancipation at first went hand in hand with a readiness to assimilate, and then, in the late 19t century, became associated withnational Jewish loyalty and *autonomy.

The American Revolution and the Federal Constitution
brought emancipation in the political realm to Jews and otherdisadvantaged white minorities. Most of the newly enacted
state constitutions abolished Christian oath formularies andseparated church and state. The Virginia Statute of Religious
Liberty, long promoted by Thomas Jefferson and enacted in
1786, not only guaranteed freedom of worship and prohibited public support of religious institutions, but provided that“religious opinions and beliefs shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect civil capacities.” This law influenced the Federal Constitution of 1787. The latter’s clause that “no religious
test shall ever be required as a qualification for any office or
public trust under the United States” is the closest the UnitedStates ever came to a definitive act of religious emancipation,
including Jews. The First Amendment, enacted in 1791 within
the Bill of Rights, completed the process by disestablishing all
religions. Such Federal constitutional law did not, however,supersede the rights of individual states, although virtually
all of them emulated the Federal model. The right of Jews to
hold public office was actually sharply debated in Maryland
between 1816 and the abolition of the Christian oath requirement in 1824. Vestigial oath clauses remained on the statutebooks of North Carolina until 1868 and New Hampshire until 1877, but they were generally disregarded. Both states had
only a handful of Jews.
For emancipation in Latin America see *Latin America.

Emancipation in Various Countries
UNITED STATES. The first country to emancipate the Jews
was the United States. Jewish political inferiority during thecolonial period before 1776, however, was not the result of apeculiar legal status. It derived rather from the Jews’ belonging
to the non-Protestant portion of the population, or in somecolonies their nonmembership in one privileged Protestantdenomination. Before the period of the American Revolution,
Jews living in the colonies were generally ineligible for public office, owing to a Protestant form of oath which operated
to exclude Catholics as well. There are instances where Jews
entered public life nevertheless, perhaps by disregarding suchforms. Jews were not limited in the rights of domicile, economic activity, or the practice of Judaism. Their full enjoymentof civil rights, together with the newness, foreignness, and minuscule numbers of colonial Jews, probably did not encouragethem to seek the full political rights which they lacked.

ENGLAND. Jewish emancipation in England came throughthe gradual change in the climate of social opinion rather than
through revolution, although the ideas of the American andFrench revolutions, and the emancipation of English Catholics
in 1829, were influential in changing English attitudes. Jews
had participated with Catholic leaders in planning the strategy
for achieving Catholic emancipation. Jewish emancipation in
England was accomplished by laws specifically relating to theJews. These laws were passed only after some social equality
had become an accomplished fact and the state was required
to give it legal expression. Literature, as well as law, did muchto shape and reflect public opinion. Byron, for example, expressed sympathy for the suffering Jew; Richard *Cumberland
in The Jew (1794) created a complimentary portrait of the Jew
as a man. In addition, there were English translations of theliterature written in defense of the Jews by such men as *Lessing, Mendelssohn, and Grégoire; publication of books andessays by various English authors calling for emancipation ofJews; and the defense of the rights of Jews in other countries
by English diplomacy (e.g., at the Congresses of Vienna andAix-la-Chapelle; support of Moses *Montefiore’s interventions in the *Damascus Affair; Morocco; Russia). The change
in public attitude toward Jews was largely due to their civic
and economic progress. In practice, neither the right of theJews to reside in England, nor their choice of profession orcommercial opportunity were restricted after their return inthe 17t century, the Jews being gradually allowed to improve

376

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6emancipation
their economic and social status to a great extent. Jewish civic
and political inequality was bound up with the formula ofthe oath of loyalty, “according to the usages of the Anglican
Church,” to be taken in order to hold any office. In the deliberations on the emancipation of the Catholics (1828), one of
the bishops proposed the new formula, “on the true faith of a
Christian,” which would then only discriminate against Jews.
Thereafter, Jews and their public sympathizers and parliamentary supporters demanded the abolition of this formulafor Jews. An attempt in 1830 by a Liberal member, Sir Robert
Grant, to change the oath, was carried at first by a majorityof 18, but was defeated in second reading. In 1833 after the reform of the British Parliament, Grant proposed “that it is expedient to remove all civil disabilities at present affecting His
Majesty’s subjects of the Jewish religion, with the like exceptions as are provided with reference to His Majesty’s subjects
professing the Roman Catholic religion.” During the discussion following this motion, speeches were made which havebecome classics in the polemics of Jewish emancipation, including one by the English historian Macaulay (see *Apologetics). The motion was finally carried by a great majority in all
three readings. The House of Lords, however, rejected it, as it
was to do again in 1834. During this time, nevertheless, Jews
were being elected to various honorary positions. After David
Salomons, a banker and communal worker, was elected sheriff in 1835, the government passed a law in Parliament whichenabled Jews to hold this position. Similarly, after Salomons
was elected to the court of aldermen in 1841 and again in 1844,a law was passed in 1845 enabling a Jew elected to municipal
office to substitute an oath which was acceptable to his conscience for the prejudicial declaration ordinarily demanded.
In 1835 a law was enacted which exempted voters from taking any oath. The Jews were enabled in 1837 to receive degrees
from the University of London (a secular university), and in
1841, the Jew Isaac Lyon *Goldsmid was knighted. Admissionof Jews to Parliament and university was gradual, changes
coming through compromises occasioned by the election of
two Jews, Lionel Nathan Rothschild and David Salomons, toParliament and their struggle to take their seats from 1841 to1858; a compromise law of 1858; the deletion by law in 1866 of
the Christological portion of the oath; and a further abolitionof limitations for Jews in 1871.
BRITISH COMMONWEALTH. The later development of the
major countries of the British Commonwealth and their colonization by the English (and to a far lesser extent by Europeans) created a situation in which the problems of politicalemancipation did not present themselves either at all or to any
great degree. This development became effective only toward
the middle of the 19t century or later, and by this time theclimate of opinion and political thinking was characterized byliberal concepts averse to legal discrimination for reasons ofreligion. Originally administered as colonies direct from London through a local representative of the central government,
they achieved or were granted self-government when these

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6liberal concepts were dominant. The social stratification of
the settlers also had an influence in the same direction. These
were frontier societies engaged in promoting and establishingthemselves, in which there was no room for religious discrimination. And in that frontier society, Jews themselves occupied
a prominent position and played an important role as entrepreneurs of various kinds. The generally superior educational
attainment of Jews also helped. A further element was the verysmall percentage of the total European population that Jews
constituted, in New Zealand never more than about a quarter
percent and in Australia one-half percent. The problem confronting the Jews in these Commonwealth countries was not“legalized” religious discrimination and restrictions but theabsence thereof and the prevalence of measures of social freedom which brought quite different problems manifested in atrend to intermarriage and complete assimilation.
SCANDINAVIAN COUNTRIES. Emancipation was not an acuteproblem in the Scandinavian countries in which Jewish settlements were comparatively recent (17t and 18t centuries)
and few in number. There Jewish emancipation came as thelegal expression of the quiet victory of a sociopolitical principle natural to civilized states, developing in a conservativemode. On March 29, 1814, the king of Denmark authorized
all “the believers in the Mosaic faith” born in Denmark, or living there legally, to engage in all professions, obliged them tokeep their books in Danish or in German, and narrowed community autonomy. In 1837 Jews became eligible for municipal
election, and in 1843, the special Jewish *oath was abrogated.
In the constitution of June 5, 1849, article 84 was tantamount toa grant of emancipation in refusing to recognize the inequalityof “any person on the basis of religious grounds.” In Sweden
the government abolished discrimination against Jews by anadministrative decree on June 30, 1838, but was compelled torescind it under pressure of public opinion. Some disabilities
were abolished by general laws on freedom in the choice ofprofession. In 1860 Jews were permitted to acquire real estate.
Marriage between Jews and Christians was legalized in 1863,
and in 1873 it was also permitted to give a Jewish education
to children born of such marriages. In 1865 Jews were granted
the active right to vote and in 1870, the passive right. In Norway, the 1814 prohibition against the entrance of Jews was abrogated in 1851, after several unsuccessful previous attempts
in 1842, 1845, and 1848. It was only in 1891 that the Jews wereauthorized to enter government service.
FRANCE. The emancipation of the Jews of France was linked
to the French Revolution and its principles. Jewish equality
was implied in the Declaration of the Rights of Man (Aug. 27,
1789), where it states that no man ought to be molested because of his opinions, including his religious opinions. Equality was gradually implemented through various national laws
amid a continual, and sometimes fierce, discussion of the applicability of full equality to Jews, but full emancipation was
granted on Sept. 27, 1791. Various features in the composition377

emancipationand distribution of the Jewish population, and in the traditional French attitude toward Jews, caused this acrimonious
two-year struggle (see also *France, *French Revolution, *Alsace). During the debate in the National Assembly Comte de*Clermont-Tonnerre, an advocate of emancipation, explicitly
formulated the assimilationist assumptions of the emancipation when he declared on Dec. 23, 1789: “The Jews should bedenied everything as a nation, but granted everything as individuals…” and that “it should not be tolerated that the Jews
become a separate political formation or class in the country. Every one of them must individually become a citizen; if
they do not want this, they must inform us and we shall thenbe compelled to expel them. The existence of a nation withina nation is unacceptable to our country.” Indeed, Jews striving for emancipation abandoned all demands for autonomy,
especially those of the Portuguese communities in the southof France (see *Avignon; *Bordeaux; *Berr Isaac Berr), whowere emancipated somewhat earlier than the Ashkenazi Jews
of Alsace. The law of September 1791 (ratified by the king on
November 13) emancipating all Jews as a matter of principle
was considered by Jews as an historic turn in their fate, “a tremendous revolution which heralded happiness,” and a victoryof revolutionary principles, while the clergy and the royalists
considered it a “further insult” to the Church and French historic tradition.
Every territory conquered by the French revolutionary armies, or placed under their rule, and where the lawsof France were introduced, saw the proclamation of Jewish equality (e.g., Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, southern
Germany). Jews in these countries considered the French“friends of the Jews,” and *Napoleon Bonaparte was admiredby most, even though he later (from 1806 publicly) restricted
full emancipation (see France, *Assembly of Jewish Notables,
French *Sanhedrin). Napoleon’s restrictions lapsed in 1818,
and ironically were not renewed by the reinstituted reactionary Bourbon regime; civic equality of the Jews in France became an established fact. Jewish legal equality was renewed by
the law of Feb. 8, 1831 (passed in the French Parliament after
numerous discussions), which recognized the Jewish religion
as equal in rights to the Christian churches, and provided forthe salaries of its religious officials to be paid by the state. In
1846 the *oath more Judaico was abolished by a decision of
the court of appeal.

political nature of the Jewish people, who, although deprivedof a state, considered Ereẓ Israel to be its country and the Torah its law. One of the debaters, Van Hamelsveld, claimed thatsince the Jews anticipate a messiah, bringing political revival,
to grant them political rights in Batavia would cause the Jews
to deviate from their correct historic path, which was similar to that of the Greeks, who stood on the verge of a politicalrevival. All Jews, the argument continued, should have civic
rights, which are encompassed by human rights, while political rights should only be given to those who explicitly declaretheir wish to become Batavian citizens. This conception was
supported by the majority of Dutch Jews and their communal
leaders, both noted for loyalty to the monarchy (the princesof Orange) and the desire not to cooperate with the revolutionaries who relied on the French conquest.
The opponents of equality claimed that by their religion
the Jews were monarchists and thus opposed to any republican regime. They argued, in addition, that Jews are opposedto the abolition of their autonomy and feared that active
participation of the Jewish masses in the affairs of state would
finally bring misfortune to the Jewish population. In practice,emancipation in the Netherlands did not encounter muchdifficulty (see the *Netherlands), and the change of regime
in the Netherlands did not change the law of equality. In theconstitution, redrafted in 1848, the article on equality waseven more clearly formulated: “The members of the various
religions are to benefit from the same rights as the citizens of
the state and the citizens of the communities, and they havean equal right to hold honorary, clerical, and public service
positions.”
With the conquest of Belgium by the French armies, thelaws of France were applied. Emancipation continued throughthe time of union with the Netherlands (1815–30), and was incorporated into the Belgian constitution of 1831, which proclaimed the equality of all citizens.

THE NETHERLANDS. The French revolutionary conquest of
the Netherlands precipitated Jewish emancipation. It was declared legally on Sept. 2, 1796, by the Batavian National Assembly, which stated that “it is impossible to deprive any Jewof the rights and privileges which are attached to Batavian citizenship, if he wishes to employ them, on condition that the
Jew answers to all the requirements and fulfills all the obligations to which every citizen is bound.” Both the basis of thislaw and the discussion about it centered on the definition ofJews and their aims. Neither party to the discussion was inimical to Jews. The opponents of emancipation emphasized the

ITALY. The beginnings of emancipation in *Italy were also
connected with the victories of the French revolutionary armies. Opening the gates of the ghetto and the destruction of
their walls symbolized the new regime. The government of the
Cisalpine Republic invited the Jews to send their delegates to
its founding assembly, and declared in its first proclamationthat “the Jews are citizens and society must recognize themas citizens.” One of the first steps of the government of the
Republic in Rome was to publish in February 1798 the following decree: “The Jews answering to all the conditions required for the obtention of the rights of Roman citizens shallbecome subject to the laws which have been decreed for all
the citizens of the Republic. Therefore, from this day, all the
special laws and decrees concerning the Jews are declared tobe null and void.” The grounds for this decree were the “sanctified principles of the Constitution of the Roman Republic,”
according to which “the laws must equally apply to every Roman citizen.” Support of Italian patriotism, unification, andrevolutionary aims became characteristic of traditional Jewish

378

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6emancipation
community leaders (rabbis, parnasim, etc.), as well as Italian
Jewry in general during the 19t century.
The first emancipation in Italy was of short duration, being repealed with the return of the “ancient order.” The rhythmof repeal varied in the different Italian states. The renewed animation of the Italian liberation movement in the 1840s helped
to bring about a considerable shift in public opinion in favorof the Jews. During the Revolution of 1848, the equality of
the Jews was proclaimed in almost all the states of Italy: theduchy of Tuscany in its founding constitution of Feb. 17, 1848;
Sardinia (which granted Jews civic rights on Mar. 29, 1848) on
July 8, 1848; and Rome at the beginning of 1849. The generalreaction which followed the year of the Revolution especiallyaffected the Jews of the Papal States, where the period of reaction was also of longer duration. Only with the unification of
Italy in 1870 did emancipation also come to the Jews of Rome
when all restrictions connected with religion were abolishedby the decree of Oct. 13, 1870, and by the parliamentary decision of Dec. 15, 1870. Liberation of parts of Italy during theprocess of unification also accomplished Jewish emancipation:
in Modena, June 14, 1859; Lombardy, July 4, 1859; Romagna,
Aug. 10, 1859; Umbria, Feb. 27, 1860; Sicily, Feb. 12, 1861; Naples, Feb. 16, 1861; and Venice, Aug. 4, 1866. Jewish emancipation in Italy was an expression of both social reality and public
opinion, until the conclusion of the alliance between Benito*Mussolini and Adolf *Hitler.
GERMANY. Jewish emancipation in Germany prior to unification was related, as in Italy, to aspirations for the reform of
the state along liberal and democratic lines, and to the desire
for unifying the nation, as well as to the revolutionary movement. But after 1848 Germany was controlled by conservative,“historic,” elements, which shaped the form of German unity
and the nature of its political life. The process of emancipationin Germany was, therefore, a prolonged and bitter struggle,
complicated by *assimilation on the one hand, and the powerof the German “tradition of hatred” of Jews on the other (seeG.E. Lessing; Ch. W. von Dohm). The struggle was to last fromthe 1780s until the passing of the law on Jewish equality in the
North German Confederation on July 3, 1869, and its extension, with the ratification of the Constitution, to the whole of
the German Empire on April 14, 1871. Emancipation in Germany also came first to those regions conquered by the French(see *Westphalia; *Frankfurt on the Main; *Hamburg). In theGerman states which retained their independence, “improvements and concessions” in the situation of the Jews were introduced (e.g., the abolition of the body tax, etc.).
The most important initial law in the emancipation ofGerman Jews during the French revolutionary period was
the edict issued in *Prussia on March 11, 1812, with its various
modifications and limitations. It recognized all Jews alreadyresident in Prussia by virtue of privileges and “special concessions” as citizens of Prussia, and abrogated all limitations
on their rights of residence and commerce, all special taxes,
and in general, all special laws relating to the Jews. It imposed

on Jews all civic duties, including army service, and entitledthem to serve in municipal and academic offices. However it
did not give them the right of appointment in the civil service
and army, and did not regulate communal affairs and Jewish
religious education. After liberation of the “free cities” in Germany from French domination, stringent measures were taken
to return the “ancient order,” i.e., they endeavored to deprive
the Jews of their civic rights (Frankfurt; Hamburg) and evenof their right of residence (*Bremen; *Luebeck). The Jews appealed to the Congress of Vienna for assistance, thus making
Jewish emancipation in Germany an international question.
A result of the German-Jewish conflict was the wording of article 16 of the credentials of the German Confederation (June10, 1815), which stated that only rights granted Jews “by thestates” will be continued and not rights granted “in the states,”thus eviscerating, through the change of one word, the rights
granted under French dominion. The states did indeed use thisopportunity to restrict the freedom of the Jews (see Bremen,
Luebeck, Hamburg, Frankfurt, *Mecklenburg). Only during
the 1830s was the movement for Jewish emancipation revived,a movement in which the literary and political activities of Gabriel Riesser played a central role. He succeeded in founding
societies for the obtention of equality which influenced thegovernments and public opinion. Riesser considered himself aGerman nationalist, but he gave a distinctly Jewish communal
character to the Jewish fight for their rights in Germany. The
most prominent and talented members of the Jewish community aided Riesser in the battle, as did all of the Jewish communities in the German states. By the 1840s the results of thiscampaign were evident in public opinion in Prussia, expressedby the demands of the provincial assemblies (Landtage), andin the “law on the reform of the Jews” (July 23, 1847). The law
resulted in a certain improvement in the organization of theJewish communities, especially in southern Germany.
The Revolution of 1848 caused all the German states toproclaim emancipation. “The fundamental rights of the German people” (published on Dec. 27, 1848), which were to serveas the norm for every constitution of the German states, declared that “civil and political rights are not conditioned byreligion or restricted as a result of it” and that “religion must
not diminish civic obligations.” This article was included, in
one form or another, in the basic constitutions of most German states (Prussia, April 6, 1848, Dec. 5, 1848; Wuerttemberg,
Dec. 21, 1848, Jan. 14, 1849; *Baden, Nov. 17, 1849) and waseven preserved in the “constitutions” of the early reactionary
period. Article 12 of the Prussian Constitution (Jan. 31, 1850)
declared “freedom of religion and the freedom of organization of religious societies,” and, further, that “the use of civic
and political rights is not dependent on religion,” nor doesthe “use of religious freedom impair civic and political obligations.” This article appeared to be a firm guarantee for the
emancipation of Jews.
Serious attempts were made during the 1850s to challenge the emancipation as a matter of principle and to abolishit in fact. Friedrich Julius *Stahl stressed the Christian char-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6379

emancipation
acter of the state and the resultant impossibility of granting
equality to the Jews. In 1856 a motion was even introduced
for the abolition of article 12 of the constitution. But the Jewish communities, led by Ludwig *Philippson, raised a stormof protest and the motion was dismissed. However, throughits interpretation of the “amended” constitution’s article 14, anarticle which dealt with the Christian religion, a means wasfound to bar Jews from government service. In other states,
too (e.g., *Bavaria) many discriminatory laws were revived
or remained in force.
On Nov. 1, 1867, all restrictions on the Jews’ right of residence, acquisition of real estate, and choice of profession wereabolished in the states of the North German Confederation.
These restrictions were similarly abolished in the states ofsouthern Germany (Bavaria in 1861; Wuerttemberg in 1862;
Baden in 1864). The law of equality was passed by the Parliament of the North German Confederation on July 3, 1869.
With the extension of this law to the states united within theGerman Empire (Bavaria, April 22, 1871), the struggle of Germany’s Jews for emancipation achieved success.
AUSTRIA AND HUNGARY. The first period of emancipationin Austria made no change in the status of the Jews. But on thebasis of the general constitution of the empire (March 4, 1849),
which contained an article on “civic and political rights” being “not dependent on religion,” all restrictions on Jews wereabolished. With the abrogation of this constitution on Dec. 31,
1851, however, the ancient disabilities were renewed in aspectsof life ranging from the acquisition of real estate (Oct. 20, 1853)
to the employment of male and female Christian domestics.
It was only during the 1860s that emancipatory laws were reinstituted. On Dec. 21, 1867, emancipation was achieved inAustria with the promulgation of the new fundamental laws
in which article 14 assured “complete freedom of religion andconscience for all” and that “the benefits derived from civic
and political rights were not dependent on faith and religion.”“In any event,” the article continued, “religious faith should
not collide with the fulfillment of civic obligations.”
In Hungary the townspeople tended to oppose granting
rights to the Jews, whose numbers were constantly increasing. However, the lower aristocracy, whose economic progress
was connected with the commercial activity of the Jews, and
who were generally the standard-bearers of national liberalism, actively supported the Jews. As a result of their influence
the demand “to give to the Jews all those rights from which
the non-aristocratic population benefits” was included in the
instructions of the provincial assemblies to their delegates inparliament. These instructions resulted in the law making the
Jewish religion a “government-recognized religion,” abolishing the “tolerance-tax,” and declaring “the Jews equal in theircivic rights to the other citizens who were not of the nobility.”
Therefore, public and government offices, including positionsin the war ministry, which were not reserved for the nobility,
could be occupied by Jews (1840). The Upper House however
did not ratify the law, and the king would not even agree to380

the abolition of the “tolerance-tax.” The Austrian government
consented only to the extension of the right of residence to theJews. Magyarization was made a prerequisite for Hungarian
Jewry before it could achieve emancipation. The Jews have “tospeak the language of Hungary and to sing its songs” so as “tocleave to the fatherland, which we have acquired for ourselves.”
But *Orthodoxy, in the words of Moses *Sofer, claimed thatemancipation – i.e., “having all the same rights as the otherinhabitants of our country” – proves that it is the Will of God
to maintain His people in the Exile for a prolonged period,
therefore the Jews should be roused to ask for mercy and pray
for Redemption. The assimilationists and reformers claimed
that declarations of the Orthodox had “strengthened the opponents of equality” and had caused the Upper House in 1844 todeny even the abolition of the “tolerance-tax” (abolished two
years later by the Austrian government, after exacting “compensation” from the Jews for losses anticipated as a result of
the abolition). Direct negotiations conducted by the Jews with
the Austrian government, without taking into consideration
the national rule in Hungary, angered the Hungarian nationalists and brought about a deterioration in their relations with
the Jews. During the first days of the Revolution in 1848, the
Hungarian Parliament deliberated on the issue of equality for
the Jews. Even the Liberals, who in principle demanded it,
were mostly of the opinion that such equality must be gradual and conditional to preliminary “reform” of the Jews. The
Parliamentary Assembly, on March 14, 1848, decided to grantto the Jews the right to vote, but had to rescind this decisionbecause of demonstrations and riots against Jews in several
Hungarian towns (in most cases in connection with the admission of the Jews into the National Guard). The riots were notsuppressed by the government, which even exerted pressure
on the Jews to relinquish their rights “of their own free will.”
The patriotic activity, however, of many Jews during Hungary’s
war of independence created a bond between the Hungariannational cause and the Jews, strengthened by severe fines imposed on the Jewish communities by the victorious Austrians.
On July 28, 1849, the government presented a motion to theFounding Assembly in Szegedin (Szeged) stating that “every
believer in the Mosaic faith born on the soil of Hungary, or
who has settled on it legally, shall benefit from all those civic
and political rights which the believers of other religions enjoy.” This emancipation turned out to be only a gesture, because the rule of the Hungarian government was rapidly disintegrating. Jewish emancipation was to become legal onlywith the establishment of Austria-Hungary as a dual monarchy. The two Hungarian houses of parliament, on Dec. 20/27,
1867, declared one of the fundamental laws of Hungary to bethat “the Israelite inhabitants are equal to the Christian inhabitants in their civic and political rights” (art. 1) and that “allthe laws, usages, and decrees which are in contradiction withthese are hereby abrogated” (art. 2).
SWITZERLAND. The struggle for emancipation in Switzerland
was drawn out over more than 75 years. It developed from nine

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6emancipation
French demands imposed upon Switzerland (1797) to exempt
French Jews visiting the country from special customs duties
and taxes. The Helvetic Republic, established in 1798, passed
general resolutions on emancipation. Special taxes on Jews
were abrogated on July 1, 1798, as “a disgrace to the honor of
mankind.” This problem only concerned *Aargau, the one canton in which Jews were living legally. Full emancipation was
rejected in 1799. The constitution of 1848 declared the theoretical equality of all Swiss citizens (art. 4), but, in effect, reserved full rights of citizenship only for members of one of therecognized Christian churches (art. 41). In 1856 the National
Council decided that Jews living in the cantons permanently
were to benefit from civic and political rights in their placesof residence, and guaranteed their right to move freely within
Switzerland. These resolutions, however, met with strong opposition from both the public and the authorities of Aargau.
Only on Aug. 27, 1863, was the vote granted to the Jews ofCanton Aargau. The emancipation of Switzerland’s Jews concluded as it had begun by pressure from the outside. Many
countries (France, the Netherlands, the U.S.A.) requested that
Switzerland not discriminate against their Jewish citizens visiting there. Threats to cancel commercial treaties were madeby France in 1835 and 1864, and the Netherlands in 1863, if therights of their Jewish citizens were not guaranteed. Switzerland’s consent to such demands created the anomaly of giving
preference to Jews of other countries over Jews of Swiss nationality, which strengthened the case of those who demanded
full emancipation. On Jan. 14, 1866, all restrictions concerning
the right of Jews to establish residence were abolished, and on
April 19, 1874, article 49 of the new constitution declared fullemancipation in Switzerland.
THE BALKANS. In the Balkan countries (*Greece, *Bulgaria, *Serbia, and *Romania), which gained their independence from the *Ottoman Empire with the support of Russia,
the question of the status of Jews was raised as soon as eachcountry became independent. The Jews were generally loyal
to *Turkey. The Christian insurgents were imbued with religious fanaticism, and Russia’s hostility toward the Jews wasnotorious.
The question of Jewish emancipation became connectedwith the fate of Muslim minorities. From the time of establishment of the Balkan countries, these factors brought about theintervention of the great powers to help determine the statusof minorities. In the protocol of the Conference of London(Nov. 30, 1830), which recognized the independence of Greece,
the powers agreed that “all the subjects of the new state, without distinction of religion, shall be eligible for appointment
in public service, government, and honorary positions, andtheir treatment should be based on complete equality in all
religious, civic and political matters.”
In the irade (a decree on governmental organization),
which the sultan gave to Serbia on Dec. 24, 1838, the obligationof the government to “protect the property, the freedom, andthe honor” of all the inhabitants was emphasized. After the

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Crimean War, the protocol of the Council of Constantinople(Feb. 11, 1856) declared that in the principalities of the Danube (Moldavia and Wallachia, which by their union formed
the Kingdom of Romania) “freedom would be given to all
the members of the various religions, and all of them, without distinction of religion, would be accorded the protectionof the law, would be eligible for employment in the service ofthe public and society, and would be authorized to acquirelands and real estate.” The Treaty of Paris (Aug. 19, 1858), however, stated in article 46 that “those belonging to the Christian
Churches would benefit from political equality, while the extension of political rights to other elements of the population
was the concern of the legislature.” Agreeing in principle with
the non-equality practiced in Serbia and Romania, the article
continued to be the source of discrimination and expulsions(in Serbia, 1856 and 1869; in Romania, 1867–70, etc.), and evenriots (in Romania, 1866–68).
It was only in Greece that emancipation gradually materialized (1870–72) without any additional outside pressure.
In the other Balkan countries, emancipation was guaranteedby the Congress of Berlin, where, as a result of the numerous
intercessions of the Alliance Israélite Universelle, it was decided that special articles on equality in Bulgaria, Serbia, andRomania would be a condition for international recognitionof their independence. The article on Bulgaria declared that“no person should be deprived of his civic or political rights
because of his religious beliefs,” and that “all the inhabitantsof the Bulgarian Principality, without distinction of religion
or race, may be accepted into every public office, government
service, and honorary position.” With respect to Serbia, theCongress decided to consent to Serbian independence on thecondition that religious freedom be recognized. The kingdomsof Bulgaria and Serbia included the articles on emancipationin their constitutions.
ROMANIA. The situation developed differently in Romania.
Article 44, ratified at the Congress of Berlin, dealt with emancipation in Romania, and although not explicitly mentioning
the Jews, reflected an understanding of their oppressed position in that country and was directed toward ameliorating
it. The article declared “the differences between the religious
faiths, or the credo of any person, cannot serve as a pretext
for exclusion from the society which enjoys civic and political rights, or from certain professions, categories of crafts orindustry, in any place.” “Freedom of worship,” the article continued, “shall be guaranteed to members of all religions in Romania, as well as to all foreigners, and no obstacles shall belaid in the way of the hierarchic organization of the various
communities or their relations with their spiritual leaders.
The treatment of the subjects of all the powers, businessmen,or others, when in Romania, shall be on the basis of complete
equality.” In actual practice, the Romanian government founda way to nullify this article. Although formally drafting theseventh article of its constitution according to the demands of
the Congress of Berlin (the difference in religions and faiths in381

emancipation

POLAND. Demands for Jewish emancipation in *Poland were
presented at the end of the 18t century, amid the social andspiritual agitation resulting from the collapse of the regime
and the state. During the interim period between its second
and third partition, Poland’s struggle for existence compelled
it to seek ways of exploiting all available resources, including
the increased economic resources which would accrue from“reform of the Jews.” Thus “reform” was proposed by Mateusz*Butrymowicz, Tadeusz *Czacki, Kołłątaj, and others, mainlyin the spirit of mercantilist exploitation of Jewish economic
activity and their “improvement” through assimilation into
Polish culture rather than as the natural result of a liberal regime in which Jews would be permitted civic equality and access to Polish cultural life. The Jewish population in Poland,
which was the largest and most specifically Jewish in the Diaspora, could not be considered a mere collectivity of individuals. Influenced by Western political liberalism, Polish theorists formulating the methods for Jewish “reform” believedthat the state should be based on the principles of civic equality legislated systematically and implemented with persistenceby the state. It was the conflict between the theoretical liberal and the practical mercantilist orientations which caused
the complete failure of the projects to “reform the Jews.” The
constitution of May 3, 1791, did not mention the Jews, and thelaw on the municipalities was based on the principle that municipal citizenship could be granted only to Christians. Afterthe dismemberment of Poland, Polish legislation concerning
Jews was applied only within those territories which enjoyedintermittent independence: the Grand Duchy of Warsaw,
1807–13; Kingdom of Poland, 1815–30; and Republic of *Cracow, 1815–46. Polish attitudes continued to influence the sta-tus of the Jews under alien rule, especially during the Polishuprisings, and in autonomous Galicia from 1848 to 1918.
The Grand Duchy of Warsaw tortuously followed Napoleon Bonaparte’s policy toward the Jews. On Oct. 17, 1808,the duke decreed that “the inhabitants of the Grand Duchyof Warsaw of the Mosaic faith” could not make use of theirpolitical rights for a period of ten years, though “this law will
not prevent us from authorizing individual members of thisreligion to benefit from political rights even before the lapseof the said period, should they be found meritorious and suitable.” However, all petitions presented by a group of individuals, who considered themselves deserving of full equality, weredismissed by the government which emphasized that “equality before the law does not transform the inhabitants of thecountry into citizens.” The government also took pains to issue
special laws against the Jews, such as prohibiting the acquisition of estates, and restricting residence in Warsaw.
The Kingdom of Poland followed a similar but simpler
course: it promised and did even less to emancipate Jews. In
its draft constitution presented at the Congress of Vienna, anarticle promised that “all the civic rights, which are guaranteed in the present laws and regulations, shall also be reserved
for Jewish people; special reforms should also be introduced
in order to facilitate a larger Jewish participation in the rights
of citizens.” During the same year (1815), however, the Jewish
question was studied by a reforms commission, headed by
Prince Adam *Czartoryski, which endorsed the principle ofemancipation only in theory, withholding it in practice until
the Jews took up agriculture, abolished their community organization, acquired modern Polish education, and refrained
from trading in and sale of alcoholic beverage (see *Wineand Liquor Trade). The decree which abrogated the equalityof the Jews was prolonged by the Sejm (parliament). All suggestions advanced by “progressive,” wealthy, or enlightened
Jews (maskilim) to be considered “reformed” and separate
from Jewish society as a whole and, therefore, worthy of civic
rights brought no legal change in the condition of the Jews.
An extensive polemical literature emerged, which was overwhelmingly and violently opposed to the Jews.
During the Polish uprising of 1830, there were those who
favored the equality of the Jews, and there were some Jews, especially among the youth and the masses, who openly manifested their sympathy for the uprising and wished to participate in it. The leaders of the uprising and the Sejm generally
adopted a negative attitude toward the desires of the Jews. A
step toward Jewish emancipation was made later by Marquis
Wielopolski who obtained from Czar *Alexander II permission to grant the Jews “partial civic equality.” As a result, Jews
were allowed to acquire land, and residence restrictions inseveral towns and regions were abolished, as were the Jewish
oath and other limitations. But the use of Hebrew or Yiddishin bookkeeping or documents was forbidden on May 24, 1862.
The national revolutionary government of 1863 addressed itself to “the Polish brothers of the Mosaic faith” in a special
manifesto in which it promised that “the people’s government

382

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Romania shall not entail any limitations in the acquisition of
civic and political rights), the Romanian authorities included
articles on “aliens” which permitted civic rights to be given
to only 885 Jews while enabling the government to withholdthese rights from more than 250,000 Jews (1885) who were declared aliens and required to undergo naturalization.
The peace treaty concluded with Romania after WorldWar I (Dec. 9, 1919) included an article stating that “all thoseborn in Romania, who are not subjects of another country
by birth, shall become Romanian citizens on the strength oftheir birth in the country.” In addition, a special article (7) was
drafted into the treaty according to which Romania “commits
herself to recognize as Romanian citizens the Jews living on
Romanian territory who do not have any other nationality, by
the actual fact of their living in the country, without requiring any formal demands of them.” Another article (8) declaredthat “all Romanian subjects shall be equal before the law andshall benefit from the same civic rights without any distinction
based on race, religion, or language.” However, the motion to
include article 7 in the constitution of 1923 was rejected, andthe Jews were again required to provide documents attesting their right of citizenship causing about 10 of the Jewish
population to remain without rights.

emancipation
would not ask about religion and race, only the place of birth,”and that the Jews would be granted “all civic rights without
restrictions” (see Dov Berush *Meisels).
The Sejm in Galicia ratified on Dec. 21, 1867, the abolition of restrictions on Jews’ participation in municipal elections. The recognition of Jewish emancipation in principle waswidespread among Polish progressives in the 1860s and 1870s.
The belief was based on the assumption that after emancipation the Jews were bound to identify themselves nationallyand politically with Poland and assimilate its culture. However, the increase in Jewish population and its social and cultural cohesiveness convinced the Poles that this assumption
was illusory. The Poles argued that although the Jews fulfilled
their civic obligations and were loyal to the state, they did not
accept assimilation. Opposition to the Jews grew continually
in intensity. It was encouraged by the Russian government’s
policy of “divide and rule,” and by the Christian urban classes’enmity toward the Jews as rivals in commerce and in the liberal professions.
At the beginning of the 20t century Jewish participation in revolutionary activity (1905), the development of theirown press, public schools, and economic institutions, the riseof modern Jewish nationalism (*Zionism, the *Bund, etc.),
and the weight of their increasing numbers in municipal
and *Duma elections sharpened Polish opposition to emancipation for the Jews. Only the Polish socialist movements
demanded Jewish civic and political equality. During theGerman conquest of Poland in World War I, many laws andregulations directed against the Jews were actually abolished,
and the organization of the communities received a moredemocratic character. Between the two World Wars the Jewish fight for equality in independent Poland was influenced
by these developments. Emancipation of the Jews in Poland
had been guaranteed by the Treaty of Versailles (arts. 86 and93), and, in particular, by the “additional Treaty of Versailles”(June 28, 1919) signed by Poland, which provided for *minority rights in Poland. After numerous delays, the Polish government was compelled to sign the treaty. Although the Polish constitution of March 17, 1921, included the “additional
Treaty of Versailles” and promised “complete equality in civic
rights” (art. 9), there was also included an article stating that“in order to execute the constitution, the preparation of suitable legislation would be required.” In other words, until the
publication of new laws, it was possible – perhaps even necessary – to apply the ancient laws and restrictions. It was only in1931 that several of these laws and restrictions were abrogated.
In the new Polish constitution of April 23, 1935, the principleof equality was outlined in article 7 according to which “therights of a citizen would not be restricted because of his origin, religion, sex, or nationality,” and that “the right of the citizen to determine the course of public affairs would be considered in respect to the value of his efforts in the service of
public welfare.” Yet the violent opposition of Polish authorities
and society to Jewish emancipation did not cease. The law ofequality and the law concerning the rights of minorities weresuccessfully emptied of their contents, remaining merely a political and judicial framework for Jewish complaints against
the oppressive injustice and perverted laws under which they
were compelled to live.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

383

RUSSIA. The beginnings of the struggle for emancipationin Russia took place after the first partition of Poland (1772),
when Russia annexed Polish provinces which contained large
Jewish populations (Belorussia). On May 7, 1780, Catherine II accepted the “requests of the Jews living in the districtsof *Mogilev and *Polotsk to register among the merchants.”
She ratified the rights of the Jews who had registered with themerchant class and who had been elected to public positionsin the self-governing institutions of the burghers, ordering officials not to prevent the Jews from exercising this right (May13, 1733). This episode is the beginning of the difficult fight for
Jewish emancipation in Russia. Emancipation conflicted with
the ideology of the czarist regime, which was built on a system of special privileges in all areas of life, and on rigid social
classes legally separated. Under such a regime, every attempt
to attain Jewish civic equality was doomed to failure from thestart. The promptings of theory and pretensions toward principle often resulted in decrees which were supposedly intended
to “reform” the Jews in order to render them suitable “for admission into civil society.” On Dec. 23, 1791, the *Pale of Settlement was set up for the Jews, with further discriminations
and impositions following suit. The Commission for the Reform of the Jews, at first inclined toward the liberal opinion
that “prohibitions should be reduced and liberties increased”(Sept. 20, 1803), in the end issued the “Jewish Statute” of 1804
which determined the limits of the Pale of Settlement andimposed further domiciliary and economic disabilities. The
commission, however, encouraged Jews to enter agriculture
by recommending that the government allocate land and subsidies for their agricultural settlements. Also, Jews were to bepermitted to attend general schools of all standards. In 1847
Czar Nicholas I replied to Moses Montefiore’s plea for Jewish
emancipation by saying that “such a thing is inconceivable,
and as long as I live, such a thing shall not take place.” Yet Nicholas supposedly believed in the principle of “betterment of
the Jews,” which meant that “if the experiment to direct the
Jews toward useful work should succeed, time will graduallybring about automatically the abolition of those restrictions,which in the meantime are still indispensable.” The czar’s*Cantonist decree was occasionally “explained” by reasons of“reform in order to achieve citizenship.”During the reign of Alexander II, the situation remained
basically unchanged. He ordered the appointment of a special commission to “examine all the existing regulations concerning the Jews in order to adapt them toward the generalobjective of the integration of this nation within the country,
as far as the moral condition of the Jews renders them suitable for this” (March 31, 1856). The czar, however, shared withsome members of the commission their opposition to Minister of the Interior Lanskoy’s belief that the civic equality ofemancipation
the Jews was a preliminary condition for their assimilation.
Alexander II held the view that “the emancipation of the Jews
of Russia must be graduated in accordance with their intellectual progress and their adaptation to useful occupations.” He
only consented to the extension of the rights to certain classes
in the Jewish population who had proven their usefulness tothe state (see *Russia). He rejected any “far-reaching” suggestions, such as the abolition of the Pale of Settlement, or evenless dramatic but immediate alleviation of the Jewish plight.
During the reign of *Alexander III the Supreme Commission
for the Study of the Current Laws Concerning the Jews was
set up on Feb. 4, 1883, under the presidency of Count K. vonPahlen. On May 24, 1888, a report was presented whose majority opinion suggested “changing the system of laws andrestrictions for a system of graduated laws of freedom andequality,” because “from the governmental point of view, theJew should benefit from all the rights available.” Alexander III,
however, rejected the opinion of the majority, accepting theminority viewpoint which accentuated the policy of discrimination. Convinced that there was no hope for an improvement in their conditions within the framework of the existing
political regime, many Jews became active participants in therevolutionary movement.
While previous generations of Jews had presented theirdemands for reform to the authorities through the intermediary of shtadlanim (Nathan Note *Notkin, Lippman Selzer),*deputies of the Jewish people, or delegations of the wealthy
and intellectual (Baron Horace *Guenzburg, Samuel *Poliakoff, Alexander *Passover, and others), the generation prior
to the Russian Revolution expressed their demands for civic
equality through increased numbers of Jewish political parties
and movements (see *Bund; *Jewish Socialist Workers’ Party(“Sejmists”); *Po’alei Zion). All of these parties approved of
the “political struggle” within Russia in general and the struggle for the rights of the Jews in particular. At the beginningof 1906, political activism within Russia was included in the
program of the Zionist Organization, largely for the purposeof obtaining civic, political, and national rights for the Jews.
With the rise of the revolutionary movement (1904–05), andthe appointment of Prince Svjatopolk-Mirski as minister ofthe interior (succeeding V.K. *Plehve who was assassinatedby a revolutionary) to “appease” the public, many groupsof Russian Jews presented demands for civic equality to thegovernment. In April 1905 the *Society for the Attainment of
Equal Rights for the Jewish People in Russia was established.
As a protest against the 1892 law which deprived Jews of theright to vote in local elections, the league encouraged Jewish
members of the municipalities appointed by the government
to resign. It also organized a protest movement against the intention of the government to deprive Jews of the right to votefor members of the Duma.
Jewish revolutionary activities, especially participation in
revolutionary parties and in the Bund, led the government tointensify its persecutions (see *Pogroms; *Minsk; *Kishinev;*Gomel; *Zhitomir) and actually to declare “war on the Jews”

to “protect the Russian state and people.” The czar’s decree issued on the eve of the first revolution, Dec. 12, 1904, which
was intended to appease the public, promised an “investigation into the laws which restrict the rights of aliens,” and that“the restrictions which are necessary for the welfare of the state
and the Russian people are not to be abolished.” To the government manifesto of Oct. 17, 1905, Count *Witte appended
a declaration which discriminated against Jews in the application of “civic freedom.” Dealing with the “civic equality of
all citizens without distinction of religion and nationality,”
the declaration stated “this would be executed through thechannels of ordinary legislation,” while the application of theother articles (freedom of the press and assembly) would be
carried out immediately. And to article 76 in the basic laws
issued on May 6, 1906, guaranteeing “to every Russian citizen
the right to freely choose his place of residence,” the Russian
government added that “the restrictions to these laws are to
be defined in special laws.”
The first Duma did not deal specifically with the “Jewish
question”; yet in answer to the opening speech of the czar it
undertook to prepare “a law on the complete equality of rights
of all citizens and to abolish all the restrictions and privileges
which are conditioned on class, nationality, religion, or sex.”
A motion to this effect was introduced and supported by 151
delegates. A special commission was appointed to draft thebill, but the first Duma was dissolved before the work wascompleted. The government introduced a motion in the second Duma for the abolition of all restrictions based on faithor religion, “with the exception of the restrictions concerning the Jews.” The Duma commission decided to delete thislimitation, but it did not succeed in bringing the revised law
to the plenum before the second Duma was also dissolved. In
the third Duma, which was not a liberal one, the Jewish deputy
L.N. *Nisselovich introduced (May 31, 1910) a bill, supported
by 166 deputies, for the abolition of the Pale of Settlement.
The bill was transferred (Feb. 9, 1911) to the commission on“personal liberties,” but it, too, failed to reach the plenum.
The government removed the issue of Jewish equality fromthe agenda as a matter of principle. During World War I thepartial abolition of the Pale of Settlement by a circular of theminister of the interior (August 1915) was actually forced by
the pressure of Jewish refugees expelled by the Russian authorities from the front area.
After the overthrow of the czarist regime the decree of
the Russian Provisional Government (March–October, 1917),
although not formulated only for Jews, was the most complete of all the laws of civic equality enacted with respect tothe status of the Jews. In its preamble the decree stated that
“according to our firm inner consciousness, in a free country,
all citizens must be equal before the law, and the conscienceof the nation cannot consent to the restriction of the rights ofindividual citizens because of their religion or race.” On thebasis of this ideology the Provisional Government decreed that“all the restrictions in the rights of Russian citizens becauseof their attachment to any faith, religion, or nation – such

384

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6emancipation
restrictions as are in force according to existing laws – shallbe abolished.” The first article of the decree enumerated innine subsections the categories of restrictions to be abolished – both those in force throughout Russia and thoselimited to localities or regions. In six articles (2–7), the decree
specified in great detail, giving dates of publication and numbers in the legal codes, all the numerous laws discriminating against Jews and members of other religions and nations.
Article 8 declared invalid all prior administrative orders issued by civil or military authorities “which contained restrictions in rights because of affiliation with any faith, religion, or
nation.” Inclusion of an itemization of anti-Jewish legislation in the equality decree, reflecting the extent of Russian
discrimination and the struggle for emancipation, resulted
from the initiative and counsel of the Jewish Political Committee (delegates of the Jewish parties and Jewish representatives in the Duma), which provided this material for thegovernment. The policy of the antisemitic czarist Russian
govern-ment had compelled the Jews to act for themselvesin every sphere of life: legal defense, self-defense against pogroms, founding schools and educating the masses, mutual
credit, professional training, emigration arrangements, andpolitical organization. The resulting “strengthening” of theJews’ ability to solve the problems of everyday life, together
with the widespread appeal of the Zionist movement, increased Jewish cohesion to the point where it became a powerful instrument in the fight for survival. A basic political demand of Jewish political parties was “national *autonomy,”
expressing the collective character of Russian Jewry’s struggle
for emancipation.
THE BALTIC STATES. *Finland, *Estonia, *Latvia, and *Lithuania, which all became independent after World War I, included Jewish civic equality in their constitutions, because
the *League of Nations accepted them as members only aftercommitting themselves to providing for minority rights.
On Jan. 12, 1918, by granting emancipation in its constitution, Finland abolished the prohibition against Jewish settlement in force from 1806. This prohibition had been relaxed
only for a few Jewish soldiers, whose other rights were nevertheless restricted, after their demobilization in 1865. The constitution permitted all Jews living in the country for at least
five years prior to 1918 to become naturalized citizens.
Estonia’s constitution of 1919 promised the Jews fullequality. The law concerning cultural autonomy (Feb. 5, 1925)
granted the Jews the right to elect a national council to administer their own schools, provide for their cultural needs,
and supervise the communal organizations.
In Latvia civic equality was promised in its constitution.
A special law on minorities (Oct. 8, 1919) granted the Jews,
among other minorities, extensive cultural autonomy. An official appointed by the minority group was placed at the headof its school network. With the abrogation of the constitutionin May 1934, the autonomous institutions of minorities werealso dissolved.
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

The leader of the Lithuanian Paris peace delegation, Prof.
Voldemaras, informed the *Comité des Délégations, in a letter of Aug. 5, 1919, that Lithuania would now promise the Jews
representation in the country’s legislative institutions, complete autonomy in their internal affairs, legal status for theirautonomous institutions, recognition of the right to use theirmother tongue, and the appointment of a special minister for
Jewish affairs. The promises were ratified in the constitutionof 1922 and, to a large extent, in the constitution of 1928, eventhough autonomous Jewish institutions in the meantime weredissolved. With the dissolution of the Jewish National Council
and the Jewish Ministry in 1924, the Jewish community again
became merely a religious community.
MuSLiM STATES. In the Islamic world there was no emancipation in the Western sense, neither as a public movement towhich was linked the Jewish desire for civic equality and participation in the life of the state, nor as a reform movement
holding civic equality to be a sign of a new order. To a certain
extent, however, the civic equality granted to the Jews in the
Ottoman Empire may be considered “emancipation.” During
the 19t century the sultan twice, in 1839 and 1856, proclaimed
the civic equality of Jews and Christians, which represented
a great change in the attitude of the Islamic countries toward“infidels.” The revolution incited by the Young Turks in 1908
resulted in the ratification of this equality. The number of Jews
who participated in the organizations of the Young Turks, andin the political life of Turkey, was not inconsiderable. After
World I, Turkey signed a minorities treaty (1923), but, in theletter of the Jewish notables to *Kemal Pasha of Feb. 6, 1926,
the Jews officially waived these rights for fear that they be accused of separatism. *Yemen, which won its independence
between the two World Wars, never granted legal emancipation to Jews. Other Arab states (*Egypt, *Iraq, *Syria, *Libya,*Morocco, *Algeria, *Tunisia) granted Jewish emancipation
officially, but took it away in reality after the Israel War of Independence through restrictions, persecutions, and humiliations as Jew-hatred became part of the fight against Zionism and Israel.
Bibliography: Graetz, Hist; Dubnow, Hist; J. Katz, Jewish
Emancipation and Self-Emancipation (1986); idem, Out of the Ghetto:
The Social Background of Jewish Emancipation, 1770–1870 (1973); S.W.
Baron, The Modern Age, in: L. Schwarz (ed.), Great Ages and Ideas of
the Jewish People (1956), 315–484; Baron, Social, 2 and 3 (1937); idem,
Die Judenfrage auf dem Wiener Kongress (1920); idem, in: Journal ofModern History, 10 (1938); idem, in: Diogenes, 29 (1960), 56–81; R.
Mahler, Jewish Emancipation – A Selection of Documents (1941); B.
Dinur, Be-Mifneh ha-Dorot (1955), 9–68, 231–354; H.M. Sachar, Courseof Modern Jewish History (1958); D. Rudavsky, Emancipation and Adjustment (1967); M.A. Meyer, The Origins of the Modern Jew (1967); S.
Ettinger, in: Scripta Hierosolymitana, 7 (1961), 193–219; idem, in: H.H.
Ben-Sasson (ed.), Toledot Am Yisrael, 3 (1969), 30–51, 86–110, 157–77,
223–72, 297–302, 340–53; A. Gorali, She’elat ha-Mi’ut ha-Yehudi beḤ evver ha-Le’ummim (1952); E. Silberner, Ha-Soẓ yalizm ha-Ma’aravi
u-She’elat ha-Yehudim (1956); Y. Toury, Mehumah u-Mevukhah beMahpekhat 1848 (1968); M.U. Schappes (ed.), Documentary Historyof the Jews in the United States 1654–1875 (1950); J.L. Blau and S.W.

385

emanuel
Baron, Jews of the United States, 1790–1840, 3 vols. (1963); C. Stember,
et al., Jews in the Mind of America (1966); H.S.Q. Henriques, Jews andEnglish Law (1908); I. Finestein, in: JHSET, 20 (1954–61), 113–44; Roth,England; V.D. Lipman, Social History of the Jews in England 1850–1950(1954); A. Cohen, in: REJ, 1 (1880), 83–104; N. Leven, Cinquante ans
d’histoire: L’Alliance Israélite Universelle 1860–1910, 2 vols. (1911–20);
B. Hagani, L’Emancipation des Juifs (1928); R. Anchel, Napoléon et lesJuifs (1928); S. Posener, in: JSOS, 1 (1939), 271–326; E. Tcherikower,
Yidn in Frankraykh, 2 vols. (1942); A.Z. Aescoly, Ha-Emanẓ ipaẓ yah
ha-Yehudit, ha-Mahpekhah ha-Ẓ arefatit u-Malkhut Napoleon (1952);
Z. Szajkowski, Economic Status of the Jews in Alsace, Metz and Lorraine, 1648–1789 (1954); A. Hertzberg, French Enlightenment and
the Jews (1968); I. Freund, Die Emanzipation der Juden in Preussen,
2 vols. (1912); N. Rotenstreich, in: YLBI, 4 (1959), 3–36; U. Tal, HaAntishemiyyut ba-Reich ha-Germani ha-Sheni (1963); F. Friedmann,
Die galizischen Juden im Kampfe um ihre Gleichberechtigung (1929);
Y. Gruenbaum, Milḥ emet Yehudei Polin (1941); R. Mahler, Toledot haYehudim be-Polin (ad la-Me’ah ha-Tesha Esreh) (1946), 216ff.; N.M.
Gelber, in: Zion, 13–14 (1948–49), 106–43; idem, in: I. Halpern (ed.),Beit Yisrael be-Polin, 1 (1948), 110–27; A. Hartglas, ibid., 128–51; B.
Bernstein, in: Gedenkbuch … David Kaufmann (1900), 599–628; N.
Katzburg, Antishemiyyut be-Hungaryah, 1867–1914 (1969); idem, in:Zion, 22 (1957), 119–48; PK Romanyah; Dubnow, Hist Russ; Y. Maor,
She’elat ha-Yehudim ba-Tenu’ah ha-Liberalit ve-ha-Mahpekhanit beRusyah, 1890–1914 (1964); L. Greenberg, Jews in Russia (1965); S.
Ullmann, Histoire des Juifs en Belgique jusqu’au 19e siècle (1700–1830)(1934); Z.H. Ilfeld, Divrei Negidim (Amsterdam, 1799); S. Seeligman,
De emancipatie der Joden in Nederland (1913); Roth, Italy, 421–536;
Milano, Italia, 338–419; HM Koritzinsky, Jødernes historie i Norge(1922); H. Valentin, Judarnas Historia i Sverige (1924); A. Linwald,
Die daenische Regierung und die Juden (1928); L. Wolf, Notes on the
Diplomatic History of the Jewish Question (1919); O.I. Janowsky, Jews
and the Minority Rights, 1898–1919 (1933). Add. Bibliography:
P. Birnbaum and I. Katznelson (eds.), Paths of Emancipation: Jews,
States, and Citizenship (1995); R. Liedtke and S. Wendehorst (eds.),
The Emancipation of Catholics, Jews and Protestants: Minorities andthe Nation-State in Nineteenth-Century Europe (1999).

EMANUEL, WALTER LEWIS (1869–1915), humorist. A
London lawyer, Emanuel contributed to Punch and wrote
amusing books such as A Dog Day (1902), The Snob (1904),
The Dog World and Anti-Cat Review (1909), and One Hundred
Years Hence (1911). His father and brother both served as secretary to the Board of Deputies of British Jews and Emanuelhimself was active in communal affairs.

Bibliography: E. Schwarzfeld, in: Anuar pentru Israeliţi, 7(1885), 113–6; JC (Jan. 2, 1885), 5.
[Eliyahu Feldman]

EMAR, ancient city in the Near East. The cuneiform finds
from Emar, at modern Meskeneh, must be understood in relation to those from *Ugarit. They are contemporary, spanning the 13th and early 12th centuries B.C.E.. Emar is directly
inland from Ugarit, on the great bend of the Euphrates River.
Both populations were dominated by Semitic speakers, whose
dialects appear to have been distinct, though both western.
Both towns were ruled in this period by their own local kings,
with a circle of dependent towns and villages. For our understanding of the indigenous culture, it is unfortunate that Emar
did not share Ugarit’s alphabetic cuneiform alternative. Like
much of Ugarit’s cuneiform, the texts from Emar are mostly
written in Akkadian, the language of the eastern Mesopotamians who were the system’s first users. Emar’s most striking
textual discovery is the archive of a scribal school that was run
by the man who oversaw the main body of public religious
life in the town. As a whole, the cuneiform finds from Emaroffer a counterpoint to Ugarit, that adds variety and nuanceto our picture of Syria at the time of Israel’s emergence. Politically and socially, Emar was in some ways more like Israel
than was Ugarit (see below).
Excavations at Emar have taken place in two phases, thesecond of which is still in progress as of 2006. When Lake elAssad was created by a new dam in the 1970s, a French teamled by Jean-Claude Margueron explored much of the Late
Bronze II town. All of the cuneiform finds came from thisphase of work and belong to this period, including the tabletsfrom the illicit antiquities market. Tablets were uncovered in apair of temples, a public building of modest size, and several
houses. The major discovery, however, was the building M1,
both the residence and shrine of an official who called himself“the diviner of the gods of Emar.” Roughly a thousand tablets
and fragments were found here, mostly written in Akkadian,but also including two Hittite letters, scribal lore in Sumerian,and divination manuals in Sumerian and in Hurrian. The diviner was a well-educated man.
Margueron did not uncover any strata from earlier periods, even though texts from other sites make clear that Emaralready existed in the third millennium, at the time of the*Ebla archives. He concluded that the town was completely
rebuilt under Hittite sponsorship at the end of the 14th century.
New excavations by a joint German-Syrian team led by Uwe
Finkbeiner, Shawki Sha’ath, and Farouk Ismail, beginning in
1996, have now demonstrated that the older town occupied thesame site, suggesting greater cultural continuity in the society
depicted in the texts. Perhaps the most fascinating feature of
the Emar excavations, in vivid contrast to Ugarit, is the lack of

386

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Benzion Dinur (Dinaburg)]

EMANUEL, a man of Jewish origin mentioned in a letter ofthe Austrian envoy in Istanbul in 1591 as the Turkish sultan’s
nominee for the gospodar of the principality of Moldavia. According to the envoy the man came from Poland and owed his
appointment to the efforts of the physician Solomon *Ashkenazi, and even more to the large sums (half a million ducats)
which he had paid to the sultan and his courtiers. The envoy
states that Emanuel had many enemies and that his appointment might be nullified even before he left Turkey. Some identify Emanuel with Prince Aron Vodã, ruler of Moldavia from1591 to 1595, who rebelled in 1594 against the Turks; 19 Jews
from Turkey who were in Jassy at that time were then killed
along with the Turks. This identification has no grounds; according to some Romanian historians, Aron belonged to aprincely Moldavian family. Emanuel could have been one ofthose who tried to buy the Moldavian throne but did not succeed, as the Austrian envoy indeed says.

emar
a proper palace. The texts prove that the town had a king andpalace, but no royal archives were unearthed, and the small
public building that Margueron identified as the palace is far
from convincing. It appears that the palace did not occupy
either of the two main high points of the tell, both of whichhave been explored. Without palace finds, other buildings
and their contents take center stage. Beyond the building M1,
three temples were found, one pair at the western summit of
the town and another just above the diviner’s residence, near
the middle of the site. Several houses were excavated, proving that unlike some administrative and religious enclosures,
these city walls protected a substantial population. The texts
from the temple include only lists, and those from the houses
are private legal documents.
The real novelty at Emar is the diviner’s building, which
has a temple-shaped hall and entrance, modified by rooms
along one side. Cuneiform tablets were found jumbled acrossits main level, badly broken and suggesting collapse from asecond story. The archive is diverse, with various threads indicating the diviner’s personal interest. A large collection oflexical tablets includes colophon signatures for this diviner
and his associates or students. Some of the divination lists include similar signatures, and the nature of the texts by itself
suits the “diviner” title. The Hittite letters involve the financial
interests of the first in the family of diviners, a man named
Zu-Ba’la. Many of the tablets reflect everyday affairs at Emarrather than standard professional texts. These are divided into
two main groups, both of which carry Emar’s main interest for
the Bible because they reflect the particular life of this Syrian
site. There are many private legal documents of the same typeas those from Emar’s houses. One part of these record the affairs of Zu-Ba’la’s family through four generations. A larger
number of tablets and fragments pertains to the administration of Emar’s religious institutions, apparently including theactivity of the building M1 itself. To our benefit, some of thisadministration was tied to prominent rites and festivals thatare described in considerable detail. A few of the ritual texts
were even copied as exercises. Throughout the rituals, “the diviner” receives various portions and payments, evidently forhis services, and he surfaces occasionally with other roles.
The longer ritual texts form two natural groups. One set
is defined by the calendar, for rites defined by the sacred year,
generally celebrated once a year. Most prominent is the zukru
for the turn of the year every fall, which survives in two versions. The simpler rite was understood to be annual. One tablet presents a special event focused on a certain seventh year,
first anticipated by ritual preparations a year in advance. Nothing defines the zukru itself, a local Semitic word that makes
best sense as something spoken. The central event of the zukru
in both annual and seventh-year forms is a procession outside the town walls that has the god Dagan (see *Dagon) passbetween upright stones. Dagan is the most important god of
this part of the Euphrates valley. At Emar, he is invoked by far
most often in personal names, and the zukru festival presents
him as the explicit head of the pantheon. This is a major event

for a preeminent god, gathering all the people and including
offerings for all the town’s gods. Removed from Dagan’s temple in favor of the external site and simple stones, the wholething has an old-fashioned feel to it. Neither the king nor any
temple servant has any active role. Somehow, the rite is central to Emar’s identity as a single community.
Another small set of festivals is defined by special events
not tied to the calendar. The two most impressive are rites toinstall in office two leading priestesses, one for the storm god,
and the other for the goddess Ashtartu. In the first rite, thepriestess of the storm god is prepared in stages to move fromher father’s house to the house of the god. She takes up residence in the temple, a privilege that may be shared only by
the priestess of Ashtartu. These installations take place only
upon the death of a sitting priestess.
As a whole, the collection of ritual administration isdominated by local concerns, and this allows us a view of longstanding religious practices at Emar in western Syria. With
cuneiform archives, local origin cannot be taken for granted,
because the scribal lore is often learned from distant sources,
ultimately founded in eastern Mesopotamia. For those interested in the Bible, the distinction is crucial. Western Syrian
culture shared much more with ancient Israel than did eastern Mesopotamia, and this explains the many continuities inreligious practice.
By any measure but the most traditional, however, theBible is a product of the first millennium, the periods of the
kingdoms, the ends of Israel and Judah, and the early survivalof Judah’s people. Many would challenge the very relevance ofa Late Bronze site to the Bible, and the application merits conscious explanation. First of all, Emar must be considered in
combination with Ugarit, the more famous city on the Mediterranean coast. The archives of Ugarit date to the same period
and are also cuneiform based. Because a subset of the Ugarit
tablets is written in an alphabetic cuneiform with the local
West Semitic dialect, this site has attracted special interest, andit presents unique comparative possibilities. In a larger sense,
however, Ugarit and Emar should be treated in combination,with the same argument for their relevance to the Bible. Thisis especially true for questions about religion.
Together, Ugarit and Emar provide a baseline from written evidence for understanding what is ancient and indigenous
in the Bible, as opposed to late borrowings from outside contacts with distant empires. Both sites are far north of Israel and
Judah, and they represent distinct expressions of Syrian culture. Both reflect many contrasts with the peoples of the Bible.
Where we find points of continuity, these probably reflect deeplines of cultural likeness between these northern and southern societies. Little if anything can be treated as borrowed,
because there is no reason to imagine any contact between
these populations, either directly or through intermediaries.
The comparisons are then all the more valuable for the independence of the writings on both sides. By the nature of thiscomparison across cultures, in no case does it date any biblicaltext or tradition. Common ground between early Syrian writ-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

387

emar
ing and the Bible may undermine certain arguments for lateforeign influence or uniquely late and Judahite developments.
Where similar features appear, the biblical expression appears
then to be in long continuity with regional patterns.
Before addressing the specific possibilities of how Emartexts may illuminate the Bible, it is worth distinguishing theapplications from Emar and Ugarit. Ugarit is essential for goodreason. The West Semitic dialect of Ugarit by itself offers theprimary point of reference for the earliest development ofHebrew. Emar’s tablets are entirely cuneiform, and the local
West Semitic language is only visible in personal names, terms
that pass into the texts without translation, occasional glosses
for Emar vocabulary, and grammar that does not fit proper
Akkadian. In spite of these limitations, it still seems that the
dialect of coastal Ugarit had more in common with ancient
Hebrew than did that of Emar. More precisely, an adequate
grammatical comparison is impossible for Emar Semitic, but
the vocabulary of Ugarit overlaps substantially with Biblical
Hebrew, much more than that of Emar.
In a way, religion presents a similar situation. With El(Ilu), Baal (Ba’lu), and Asherah (Athiratu) among the leading deities, even the vocabulary of Ugarit’s pantheon coincides
more with the Bible’s divine names than does the pantheon of
Emar. Of course, the name of Israel’s particular god YHWH
appears in neither, a detail not to be missed. Like the vocabulary of the languages as a whole, the religious vocabulary of
Ugarit matches that of the Bible in significant ways, including sacred personnel (e.g. the khn “priest”). Ugarit’s religious
poetry displays themes and language that have echoes in the
Bible, especially in the poetry of Jerusalem. Emar’s ritual texts
offer comparisons based less on vocabulary than on procedure, but the degree of ritual similarity is striking.
As we consider various individual comparisons between
Emar documents and the Bible, we must keep in mind at least
two dimensions of the Emar component: its inland geography, and its political heritage. Like Ugarit’s, Emar’s archives
are earlier than biblical writing, from what would be the firststages of Israel’s existence in the land and before. Both are far
north of Israel, though closer than the origins of cuneiform
in eastern Mesopotamia. Cultural proximity must be distinguished from physical distance and decided by the actual characteristics of the peoples involved. Egypt is physically closer
to Israel and Judah than either of these two northern sites, but
its language and religion are much more sharply separated. It
appears that the peoples of the Bible shared much with thoseof the lands directly to the north, to an extent measured by
the specific continuities found between their writings, evenacross centuries of chronological distance. Especially in thecase of Emar, we must remember that this evidence precedes
the spread of the *Arameans across Syria at the beginning of
the Iron Age.
In spite of the fact that both Emar and Ugarit are roughly
the same distance north of Israel, their geographical relationship both to each other and to Israel requires precision. According to various biblical lore, confirmed by the 9th-century

Mesha Inscription from Moab, Israel straddled the Jordan
River valley, with a sizable population on the east side. In
Genesis 31, the tradition of Jacob’s return from Syria has Laban chase him south along an inland route, from the vicinityof the Euphrates into this territory east of the Jordan River.
On the southwestern elbow of the Euphrates, Emar participated in currents of exchange that moved north and south
without ever entering the coastal regions or the land more
properly called Canaan.
The other large factor to keep in mind as context for any
Emar comparisons is political tradition. During the 13th century, Emar did have a king whose power is visible even though
no royal archive was discovered. Because most of the Emartexts were not composed in the palace, however, including
the whole output of the building M1’s diviner, we have an unusually good view of life outside royal circles. At Emar, kings
struggled to establish true dominance in a town that for centuries had maintained a stubborn tradition of collective decision-making, defined by “elders” or a governing council. The
public ritual life of Emar, as depicted in the diviner’s archive,
gives the king no active role, in radical contrast to the ritual
found at Ugarit. In this respect, the Emar evidence stands
in closer continuity to the world of the Bible than does thatof Ugarit. The Bible also leaves much of the world of kings
opaque. We learn almost nothing about royal and palace ritualand religion. In the Torah, Israel is presented as celebrating its
festivals as a gathered people, without kings.
The tablets from the authorized excavations at Emar were
only published in the mid-1980s, and their study has barely
passed its first phase. Because the author both took part inthis early research and maintained a continuing interest in
the Bible, he has pursued several separate applications, andthis article follows his personal work. There remains much to
be done, however, especially to take advantage of the social
context offered by Emar. Very soon after the publication of
the main Emar volumes, Ben-Barak incorporated Emar into
her discussions of women’s inheritance, as with Zelophehad’sdaughters. Hundreds of legal documents from private households can be identified with Emar, whether or not from theauthorized excavations. These offer a rich and varied portraitof family affairs in Late Bronze Syria, as a backdrop to the portrayal of family life and law in the Bible.
A second category of broad comparison that has not yet
attracted attention is political. In broad terms, the Bible presents Israel as a people that maintained a political identity forsome long period without having a king. Emar represents avery different setting in that its political identity is defined by
the town and whatever surrounding population depends on it.
Nevertheless, the combination of evidence from Late Bronze
Emar itself and about Emar (written Imar) in the Middle
Bronze archives of *Mari suggests that a strong monarchy only
emerged in the 13th century. Kings may have existed during
earlier periods, but their leadership was always balanced by avigorous collective alternative. During the Middle Bronze Age,
this took the form of a council called the tahtamum, known

388

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6emar
only at Emar and Tuttul. Even at the time of the Late Bronze
archives, elders retained important legal and ritual responsibilities. Israel’s monarchy also had to build its power in a political environment with long-established traditions for collective governance, in this case rooted in populations spread
across a much larger region. Aside from any direct politicalcomparison, the strength of collective political life at Emargives its public religious celebrations a flavor more like what
the Bible portrays for Israel than much Near Eastern publicritual, which tends to revolve around the king.
The most striking specific comparisons between Emartexts and the Bible have to do with religion, and public ritual
life in particular. One preoccupation of the biblical Torah isthe definition of a collective Jewish religious practice by reference to Israel in its life before kings, before Jerusalem and its
temple, even before settlement in the land. This religious practice includes a major public component, with the ark and its
tent shrine, priests for all Israel, and festivals to be celebrated
in the name of Israel.
Although Emar religion belongs to a Late Bronze Agetown, far to Israel’s north, the cultural framework has points
in common with Israel, beyond the collective political traditions. Most telling is the foundation of a shared temple architecture. In broad Near Eastern terms, the temples of Syria-Palestine, drawn north-south to include what become the landsof Israel and Judah, stand out from many other types. Even in
the central cities of significant states, Syrian temples are mostoften constructed along one axis, with a doorway that opens
directly onto the main sanctuary room. Four Emar temples,
including the sacred room of the diviner’s building M1, share
this form. The only descriptions of temple form in the Bible
apply to Solomon’s structure at Jerusalem and the mobile tentof *Exodus. Both of these share the simple axial layout of theregional type. Together with these simple sanctuary forms wefind a lack of large temple-based communities, in contrast to
the major sacred centers of the southern Mesopotamian cities,
for one. Only a small number of priests enter the temple, and it
is rare that the temple serves as the home for sacred personnel.
At Emar, it is possible that only the storm god’s (NIN.DINGIR)
priestess and perhaps the neighboring mash’artu priestess of
Ashtartu lived in the temples they served.
The most provocative comparisons between Emar andbiblical religion relate to ritual procedure. Two clusters merit
special attention, one related to the calendrical structure of
festivals and the other to the technique of anointing. Bothclusters are embedded in the public ritual life of the people on
both sides of the comparison. On the biblical side, the closest
comparisons appear in the priestly lore of the Torah. Although
the finished versions of this lore may date to the exile of Judahor later, the similarities to Emar practice suggest that these
traits do not derive from external contacts unique to such latetimes. They appear to be deeply indigenous, never borrowed,
arising and developing in the local setting.
Three of Emar’s all-town festivals are constructed aroundseven-day blocks, like the Bible’s seven-day festivals of Pesah/

Massot (Passover/Unleavened Bread) and Sukkot (Booths).
Two of the Emar events are the installation rites for the priestesses of the storm god and Ashtartu, which were evidently
performed after the death of the previous officeholder. Only
one was celebrated according to the annual calendar, and thesimilarities are striking. Emar’s zukru festival was focused on
the full moon of the first month, with a seven-day period offeasting to follow. Emar counted the new year from the fall.
At least once, a special version took place in the seventh year,
and this event was by far the most expensive rite recorded in
the archive. The zukru was an all-town festival during which
the whole population brought all the gods outside the walls
to pay special honor to Dagan as head of Emar’s pantheon.
The word zukru is West Semitic, not Akkadian, and probably
represents an act defined by speech, a prayer or oath that renewed devotion to Dagan in this leading role.
Emar’s zukru has more in common with the major calendar festivals than does any one rite found at Ugarit. Pesah/
Massot and Sukkot are celebrated at the two axes of the ancient
year, in spring and fall, and in the Holiness Code and Priestly
versions of Leviticus 23 and Numbers 28–29, both incorporate
a seven-day block and are focused on the full moon. The autumn new year at Emar matches the timing of Sukkot, in particular. Although this feast came to give came to give pride ofplace to the spring event in later tradition, the importance of
the autumn equinox is visible in several aspects of the biblicalcalendar. In spite of the count of numbered months from thespring in priestly writing and the eventual borrowing of theBabylonian calendar with its spring new year, Exodus 23:16
and 34:22 indicate a turn of the year in the fall. This tradition
is preserved in Rosh Hashanah, celebrated at the new moonof the first autumn month. A late note at the end of Deuteronomy preserves the most striking comparison with Emar’s
zukru (31:10–11). Every seventh year, at the feast of Sukkot,
the written instruction of Moses was to be read aloud to theassembled population. The calendar is exactly like that of
Emar's’special event, and the centrality of speech also offers
an impressive continuity. How can we explain these similarities? The contents of each religious tradition are surely distinct. Deuteronomy’s choice of this timing for such a majorrite must, however, reflect ancient practices in Israel or Judah,
even if they are transformed here to fit the notion of a Mosaic
text. Somehow, the zukru at Emar belongs to a stream of ritual custom in which the biblical festivals participate at a later
date. Where the calendar of biblical ritual corresponds withthat of Emar’s zukru, it is unlikely that the biblical timing was
first created or borrowed at the date of textual composition,even if that may finally be exilic or later. The priestly calendar for the spring and fall festivals, along with the fall rite ofDeuteronomy 31, appear to be much older than the texts inwhich they are embedded.
Aside from the calendar, Emar’s festival accounts resemble the Torah instructions for Israel in at least one more
important respect. They share an emphasis on the assemblyof the people, without differentiation, and without leadership

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6389

embalming
by any special individual, whether priest or king. In the Bible,
Moses and Aaron have leading ritual roles, depending on thecontext, but the spring and fall festivals never specify the roleof a priest, even in the Holiness and Priestly versions of Leviticus 23 and Numbers 28–29. All the accounts of Israel’s primary
festivals emphasize the gathering of the populace. At Emar, themost striking comparison again is found in the zukru, “given”
by “the sons of the land of Emar” together and with feastingby “the people” as a whole. The feasting takes place outside thecity walls, where all the gods of the town have gathered to witness Dagan’s procession between sacred stones. Although the
king’s financial commitment to the festival is impressive, noritual role is attributed to him. Likewise, the diviner is absent.
Only the gods have individual roles, and we are never told whomoves them or manipulates their statues. What is importantis the participation of all the people and all their gods, the human and divine population of Emar. The same full participation characterizes the ideal of the Torah festivals.
The continuities between the worlds of Emar and of
the Bible have more to do with the structures of their societies. At the same time, the ritual calendar and emphasis on thecollective at the ritual expense of the king, for example, are
not universal Near Eastern traits. Somehow, both Ugarit andEmar show different expressions of a cultural kinship thatreached north and south along the Mediterranean and inland.
The overlapping preoccupations of Torah instruction andthe Emar ritual texts allow glimpses of this common cultural
foundation beneath the superstructures of their separate developments. These glimpses warn us neither to treat the Bible
and its religion as a world unto itself nor to explain points ofsimilarity by the notion of borrowing, especially by contacts
with conquering Mesopotamian powers. Rather, these similarities are hints of a massive commonality, from which thedistinct features of particular peoples developed. The commonality itself is not uniform across the ancient world, andthe north-south axis is striking, even as lines of distinction
will not often be sharp. Emar, like Ugarit and other Syrian
sites with cuneiform archives from the Bronze Age, suggests
a depth to the cultural traditions embedded in the Bible thatis too easily neglected. Evaluation of the stories and the events
they describe is a problem that requires other comparative
evidence.

126–38; E. Pentiuc, West Semitic Vocabulary in the Akkadian Texts
from Emar (2001); R. Pruzsinszky, Die Personennamen der Texte aus
Emar (2003); S. Stephano, L’accadico di Emar. (1998); A. Tsukimoto,in, Acta Sumerologica, 12 (1990) 177–259; (II), 13 (1991) 275–333; (III)
14 (1992) 311–15; (IV) 16 (1994) 231–36; J. Westenholz, Cuneiform Inscriptions in the Collection of the Bible Lands Museum: The Emar
Tablets (2000).
[Daniel Fleming (2nd ed.)]Bibliography: M. Adamthwaite, Late Hittite Emar (2001); D.
Arnaud, Recherches au pays d’Astata, Emar VI. 1–4 ( 1985–87); idem,
Textes syriens de l’âge du Bronze Recent (1991); G. Beckman, Texts fromthe Vicinity of Emar in the Collection of Jonathan Rose. 1996; Z. BenBarak, in, M. Heltzer and E. Lipinski (ed.), Society and Economy in
the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500–1000 B.C.) (1988), 87–97; D. Beyer,
Emar IV. Les sceau. ( 2001); M. Chavalas, (ed.). Emar: The History, Religion, and Culture of a Syrian Town in the Late Bronze Age (1996); U.
Finkbeiner, et al. in: Baghdader Mitteilungen, 32 (2001) 41–110; ibid,
33 (2002), 109–46; ibid, 34 (2003) 9–100; D. Fleming, The Installationof Baal’s High Priestess at Emar (1992); idem, in, Ugarit-Forschungen24 (1992) 59–71; idem, in, RB 106 (1999) 8–35; 161–74; idem; Time at
Emar (2000); J.-C. Margueron, (ed.), Le Moyen-Euphrate (1980); Articles by Arnaud, Laroche, and Margueron; idem, in, BA, 58 (1995)[Heinrich Karplus]

EMBDEN, GUSTAV (1874–1933), German biochemist. Born
in Hamburg, Embden was appointed professor of physiology
at Frankfurt University in 1914, where he carried on his productive investigations into the chemistry of muscular contraction. Recognizing that muscle glycogen is not directly
oxidized for energy, he helped to elaborate the metabolic
pathways by which carbohydrate is degraded within the cell.
This biochemical pattern, which bears his name, is characteristic of most living cells. Embden also stressed the significance of phosphoric acid in the intracellular metabolism ofsugars. Other research contributions were in the area of fat

390

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

EMBALMING. The natural drying out of the body by solar heat (mummification) is the oldest method of preserving
a corpse. The ancient Egyptians may have simply tried todry corpses in the hot desert sands, or as in one of the chambers found at Thebes, in rooms which were artificially heated.
Embalming is the artificial treatment of a corpse to prevent or delay its putrefaction. In ancient Egypt the techniqueconsisted, according to Herodotus, of using an iron hook
to draw out the brain through the nostrils, and then making a cut along the flank to remove the abdominal contents,
which were washed and soaked in palm wine and infusionsof spices, and then stored in “canopic” jars. The heart, as seatof intelligence, was removed, wrapped in linen, and replaced
into the chest cavity. The cavity was filled with myrrh, cassia,
and other spices before being sewn up; the body was thenwashed and wrapped from head to foot in fine linen. The Bible
describes embalmers as “physicians” (Gen. 50:2), and mentions it (perhaps to provide local color) only with reference to
Jacob and Joseph (Gen. 50:2–3, 26), who both died in Egypt.
The statement that the process required 40 days (Gen. 50:3)
is at variance with Herodotus’ statement that it required 70,
the period which the Bible assigns to the Egyptians’ mourning
for Jacob. In actuality, the mummification process might range
between 30 and 200 days. The strong belief in an afterlife waswhat made preservation of the body so important in Egypt, inmarked contrast to the situation in ancient Israel.
Today embalming before burial is widely practiced in the
United States by undertakers, who inject a formalin solution
into the blood vessels; but in Israel it is rare, being confinedentirely to bodies being sent abroad for burial (in conformity
with international regulations).
Bibliography: H.E. Sigerist, A History of Medicine (1951),
353–54; I. Thorwald, Science and Secrets of Early Medicine (1962), index. Add. Bibliography: L. Lesko, in: CANE III, 1764–66.

embryometabolism. He contributed, with G. Schmidt, to Handbuch
der biologischen Arbeitsmethoden (1921–39) and edited, withothers, Handbuch der normalen undpathologischen Physiologie (6 vols., 1925–29).
[George H. Fried]

EMBER, AARON (1878–1926), U.S. Orientalist and Egyptologist. Born in Kovno, Lithuania, Ember migrated to the U.S.
in 1891. From 1904 to 1910 he worked as a fellow of Semitics
at Johns Hopkins University and from 1911 was assistant professor (professor 1924) in its Semitics department. His studies
in Ancient Egyptian, Assyrian, Arabic, and Ethiopic led him
to seek an earlier form of proto-Semitic in Egyptian, which
he came to regard as the oldest Semitic language. He died asa result of a fire in his house in which his wife and child also
perished. His papers, which were partially destroyed, werepartly published by Cyrus Adler in the Paul Haupt Anniversary Volume (1926), in a chapter entitled “Partial Assimilationin Old Egyptian” (pp. 300–12), where Ember discussed thephonological relationship of Egyptian to Semitic languages
and his theory that abstract terms developed from a concrete
basis. The book also includes a biographical sketch of Ember.
In 1930 a manuscript that survived the fire was published as
A. Ember, Egypto-Semitic Studies. Its publication was due inlarge part to the efforts of Ember’s former teacher, the great
Egyptologist Kurt Sethe of Berlin. Ember took an active partin the Jewish community of Baltimore. For many years he wasa director of the Baltimore Talmud Torah and of the Isaac Davidson School and helped to found the Jewish Public Library
there. He was also an ardent Zionist and assisted the Hebrew
University Library, Jerusalem.

bryo may be killed in order to save its mother in the case of adifficult confinement, see *Abortion.
Parentage
Generally, the same laws that apply in determining the parentage of a born child and the capacity of the mother or her
husband to deprive it of its status apply to the embryo; see*Mamzer; Parent and *Child.
Levirate Marriage or Ḥ liẓ ah of a Pregnant Woman
If a woman was pregnant when her husband died and thechild is subsequently born alive, she is exempt from levirate
marriage or ḥ aliẓ ah (Sh. Ar., EH 156:4; see *Levirate Marriage
and Ḥ aliẓ ah).
Proselytization
For the status of a child born after its mother became a proselyte while pregnant with it see *Proselyte.

Mother or Embryo
Who Takes Precedence? On the question of whether an em-

Succession
An embryo is incapable of acquiring rights, for only a person
born can possess rights. Accordingly, if an embryo dies in
its mother’s womb, it does not leave the right of succession,to which it would have been entitled had it been alive when
the deceased died, to those who would have been its heirs
had it been born alive when the deceased died. Instead, suchright of succession passes to the heirs of the deceased as if
the embryo had never existed (BB 142a; Nid. 44a; and Codes,
Rif to Yev. 67a). There is a contrary opinion, however, to theeffect that intestate succession being automatic, the embryo
does acquire it (Piskei ha-Rosh to Yev. 67a; see Tur, ḥ M 210).
All agree, however, that a child born alive after the deathof its father inherits its father as though it had been alive
when he died (Rif, Ritba, to Yev. 67a, Beit Yosef and Bah to Tur
and Sh. Ar. loc. cit.; see Ḥ iddushei Ḥ ayyim ha-Levi to Yad,
Terumot 8:4). Hence, an embryo that is born after the deathof the deceased, even if it dies the day it is born, leaves theright of succession (after its mother) to its heirs on its father’sside, but not to those on its mother’s side – who would haveinherited had the embryo died in her womb (Tur and Sh.
Ar., ḥ M 276:5). Only in respect of the special rights due to afirstborn son is a child born after the death of his father notof equal status with one already born when the father dies.
Thus, if twins are born, the first one will not be entitled tothe additional share in the father’s estate due to the firstborn(see *Firstborn), since the Torah states of the primogenitary
right, “If they have borne him children …” (Deut. 21:15), i.e.,
only a firstborn alive when the father dies, but not an embryo, is entitled to the (additional) primogenitary share (BB142b, and Codes).
A will in favor of the embryo of another has no validity,
even if the embryo is born alive, since no rights can be conferred upon one not yet born (BB 141b–142; Piskei ha-Rosh to
Yev. 67a; Sh. Ar., ḥ M 210:1). However, when a man whose wife
is pregnant makes a will in favor of his own embryo whether
it be a will of a person being on his deathbed (shekhiv me-ra)or of a person regarded as being in health (bari) (see *Wills) –ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6391

Bibliography: H. Loewe, Aaron Ember (Ger., 1926); K.
Sethe, in: Zeitschrift fuer aegyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde, 4(1926), 130–1. Add. Bibliography: O. Sellers, in: AJSL, 50 (1934),
109–10.

EMBRYO (Heb. ‫ ֻע ָ ּבר‬, ubbar), a child in the womb of its motherbefore its head emerges (Sanh. 72b; Sh. Ar., Ḥ M 425:2), the Hebrew ubbar meaning the unborn child in both the embryonicand fetal stages. Generally speaking, an embryo is incapable ofhaving legal rights or duties, although there are various rules
intended to protect its rights when born, and to prevent uncertainty with regard to its status.
Determining the Identity of the Embryo
A widow or divorced woman must not remarry until 90 days
after the death of her husband or after her divorce (Sh. Ar., EH
13:1; see *Marriages, Prohibited). The reason for this prohibition is to remove any doubt should she immediately become
pregnant from her second husband, as to whether the childshe bears is a nine-month child of the first, or a seven-monthchild of the second, a doubt which might seriously affect its
personal status (Yev. 41a–42a; and Codes).

emdenit is valid, because a person is favorably disposed toward his
own child and wholeheartedly wishes to transfer ownershipto him (Sh. Ar., ḥ M 253:26–27). Some are of the opinion that
this law applies only to a will made by a person on his deathbed and not to one made by a healthy person (Beit Yosef toTur, ḥ M 210:3; Sh. Ar., ḥ M 210:1).

The community numbered 900 in 1905, and 1,000 in
1930. Nearly half left with the advent of Nazi rule and anotherquarter through 1938. The synagogue was burned down on
Kristallnacht and most of those remaining were later deported
and perished, including at least 150 on October 23, 1941. Community life was not resumed after the Holocaust.

Contractual Obligations to an Embryo
According to some authorities although transfer of rights
cannot be made to an embryo, a contractual obligation canbe undertaken in his favor (see *Contract). A guardian canbe appointed to protect the rights of an embryo (Sh. Ar., ḥ m
290:1).

Bibliography: Lewin, in: MGWJ, 2 (1890), 27–32; H. Kellenbenz, Sephardim an der unteren Elbe (1958), index; M. Markreich, in:
Jahrbuch der juedischen Gemeinden Schleswig-Holsteins, 5 (1933/34),
24–36; PK Germanyah; Germ Jud, 2 (1968), 208–9; A. Cassuto, in:Juedische Familien-Forschung, 2 (1926), 289. Add. Bibliography:
J. Lokers, Die Juden in Emden 1530–1906 (1990); M. Claudi, Die wir
verloren haben. Lebensgeschichten Emder Juden (1991); M. Studemund-Halévy, in: Aschkenas, 7 (1997), 389–439.
[Zvi Avneri]

The State of Israel
In general, Jewish law is followed. With regard to succession,
however, section 3 of the law of succession (1965) provides thata person born within 300 days after the death of the deceased isdeemed to have been living when the deceased died, unless it isproved that he was conceived thereafter. In terms of section 33(b) of the Capacity and Guardianship Law, 5722–1962, the court
may appoint a guardian for a child en ventre de sa mére.

EMDEN, city in Germany. The first authentic reference toJews in Emden dates from the first half of the 16t century.
David *Gans mentions Jews of Emden in his Ẓ emaḥ David.
A Jewish cemetery is mentioned in 1586. In 1590 the citizensof Emden complained to the representative of the emperorthat the Jews were permitted to follow their religious precepts
openly and were exempted from wearing the Jewish *badge.
Marranos from Portugal passed through Emden on their
way to Amsterdam, and a few settled in Emden and returned
to Judaism. Moses Uri ha-Levy (1594–1620), a former rabbi
of Emden who settled in Amsterdam, officiated there as thefirst ḥ akham of the Portuguese community. The city councilof Emden discriminated between the local Jews and the Portuguese, encouraging the latter to settle in the city, while attempting to expel the former. Their attempts, however, were
unsuccessful, since the duke intervened in their favor. The
judicial rights of the Portuguese Jews were defined in a grantof privilege issued by the city council in 1649, and renewedin 1703. In 1744, when Emden was annexed to *Prussia, theJews there came under Prussian law. In 1762 there was an outbreak of anti-Jewish riots in Emden. In 1808, during the rule ofLouis Bonaparte, the Jews in Emden were granted equal civic
rights. There were then 500 Jews living in Emden. The rightsof the Emden Jews were abolished under Hanoverian rule in
1815, and they did not obtain emancipation until 1842. Noted
rabbis of Emden were Jacob *Emden (1728–33), and Samson
Raphael *Hirsch (1841–47).

EMDEN, JACOB (pen name Yaveẓ ; derived from Ya’akov
Ben Ẓ evi; 1697–1776), rabbi, halakhic authority, kabbalist,
and anti-Shabbatean polemicist. Emden was regarded as oneof the outstanding scholars of his generation. Emden’s teacher
was his father Ẓ evi Hirsch *Ashkenazi (Ḥ akham Ẓ evi). He inherited his father’s interest in secular studies, his dissociationfrom the Ashkenazi method of study (pilpul) and customs, hisstormy, independent, and uncompromising character, and his
devotion to the campaign against the Shabbateans and their
sympathizers. In addition, he possessed a fine literary talent,a critical tendency, and a knowledge unusual for his age ofgeneral non-halakhic Jewish literature. He was also familiar
with sciences and languages (German, Dutch, Latin). Despite
his distinguished descent and his remarkable talmudic attainments, Emden occupied no official position, with the exception of a few years as rabbi of Emden (1728–33). This made it
possible for him to be exceptionally critical toward the society and the tradition of his time. He was more on guard about
anything that he considered ḥ illul ha-Shem (bringing the nameof the Jew into disrepute) than for the good name of the rabbinate and of the community. He made extensive use of theprivate printing press he founded in *Altona to disseminate
his views. As a result, because of his views on a number of issues, both personal and communal, he became a figure of contention. His important halakhic works are Leḥ em Shamayim,on the Mishnah (pt. 1, 1728; pt. 2, 1768); a letter of criticism
against R. Ezekiel Katzenellenbogen, rabbi of Altona (1736);
responsa, She’elat Yaveẓ (2 pts., 1738–59); Mor u-Keẓ i’ah, on the
Shulḥ an Arukh, OḤ (2 pts., 1761–68). In addition, he publishedan important edition of the prayer book (whose parts had different names) with a valuable commentary (1745–48). This
prayer book was reprinted several times. His main historical importance lies in his campaigns against the Shabbateans
to which he dedicated many years. He relentlessly examined
and investigated every suspicious phenomenon pertaining
to the sect. He called upon the contemporary rabbis to publish excommunications and mercilessly attacked anyone suspected of supporting or showing sympathy to the Shabbateans. The Shabbateans were accustomed to introduce hints of
their secret doctrine into their literary works, particularly in

392

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: Gulak, Yesodei, 1 (1922), 33; 3 (1922), 82, 116,
147; ET, 7 (1956), 50–53; 8 (1957), 102–20; 11 (1965), 255f.; Miklishanski,
in: Sefer ha-Yovel… Federbush (1960), 251–60; G. Ellinson, in: Sinai,
66 (1969/70), 20–49; Elon, Ha-Mishpat Ha-Ivri (1988), I, 496; idem.
Jewish Law (1994), II, 604.
[Ben-Zion (Benno) Schereschewsky]

emden, jacob
the field of Kabbalah. Consequently, Emden became an expert in uncovering such allusions and hidden meanings, anddeveloped an extraordinarily sharp critical faculty by which
he could recognize any suggestion of the Shabbatean heresy.
Many books in which no one saw anything to which objection
could be taken, were condemned by him as heretical. Though
at times he was at fault and suspected the innocent withoutcause, his judgment in general was sound (F. Lachover and I.
Tishby (eds.) Mishnat ha-Zohar, 1 (19572), 52–56).
His most famous controversy was with Jonathan *Eybeschuetz, rabbi of the “Three Communities” (Altona, Hamburg,
Wandsbek) from 1750 until he died in 1764. It commenced in
1751 soon after Eybeschuetz came to Altona and did not ceaseeven with the latter’s death. It divided German Jewry, particularly rabbinic circles, into two camps, and undermined theprestige of rabbinical institutions.
The conflict at first centered around several amulets which
Eybeschuetz circulated in Metz and Hamburg. Emden published their content in his work Sefat Emet u-Leshon Zehorit(1751) and interpreted them rather convincingly as Shabbatean
amulets. As a result of this publication, Emden was compelled
to escape to Amsterdam for some time and there he publishedin Torat ha-Kena’ot (1752) an anthology of documents on Shabbateanism. Eybeschuetz too was a great scholar; he had devoted
disciples but also many enemies. He was suspected of adhering secretly to the Shabbatean groups or at least of affinity tothem. His son was a declared Shabbatean. Eybeschuetz denied
the accusation, which in any case could not be proved with certainty. The majority of the greatest rabbis in Poland, Moravia,
and Bohemia, as well as the leaders of the Three Communities
supported him, either because the accusation was utterly incredible, or because condemnation of a rabbi who enjoyed suchan enormous prestige as Eybeschuetz would cause inestimabledamage to the communal organizations as a whole. Emden disregarded these considerations vehemently. He fought his opponent and his numerous supporters by means of books andpamphlets which came out in unabated succession.
Emden’s major works in this dispute, apart from several
small pamphlets and leaflets, are Edut be-Ya’akov (1756); Shevirat Luḥ ot ha-Even (1756–59), a detailed critique of the defenseof Eybeschuetz; Luḥ ot Edut, Sefer Hitabbekut (1762–67), which
also includes important protocols on the Shabbatean propaganda activities in the yeshivah of Eybeschuetz in Hamburgand in the great yeshivah in Pressburg. In addition, Emden
dedicated his Sefer Shimmush as “a special weapon for every
Jew to use in order to know what to answer to the Shabbatean
groups” (1758–62) and to fight Frankism, which arose in histime. The two opposing camps in Altona requested the intervention of the authorities and it was only through this intervention that the conflict subsided.
From this campaign, Emden went on to criticize theZohar, the bastion of the Shabbateans (see *Kabbalah). The
Zohar was regarded by many as second only to the Bible insanctity. Emden had questioned its antiquity, and consequently its sanctity in Mitpaḥ at Sefarim (1768), which pro-voked opposition. His piety and profound attachment to tradition would not permit him to condemn the work as a whole.
Nevertheless, he did not hesitate to state his conclusion thatlater and forged additions had been interpolated into an ancient and sacred book. His critical attitude toward accepted
ideas and beliefs is revealed also in his criticism of the Guideof the Perplexed, the major work of Jewish philosophy, which
he found to contain heretical tendencies; he did not believethat *Maimonides was its author. His activity in many directions as well as his general approach which he based on theuse of grammar, philology, and history and the like, his brilliant and scholarly style, his tolerant attitude to Christians
and his deprecation of Polish Jews, created a certain affinity
between him and the first proponents of Haskalah, who had
already emerged in his day, and most of whom were opposedto the Kabbalah and its influence. Although in fact Emden
rejected philosophy and scientific criticism in the sphere of
Judaism, permitting only the study of the natural sciences,
he was friendly with Israel of Zamosc and his disciple, Moses*Mendelssohn. He held discussions with them on halakhic
topics, customs, and principles of religion. From the correspondence between Emden and Mendelssohn, the difference
between the maskil of the old school such as Emden and the
new type such as Mendelssohn emerges clearly.
The independence, originality, and stormy temperamentof Emden are noticeable in his halakhic works. In certain subjects he takes up an extreme view against the majority opinion,
and in others he is outstandingly lenient (e.g., with regard to
concubinage and eating legumes during Passover). In a dispute with Israel of Zamosc on the authority of the Shulḥ an
Arukh, it was precisely Emden who upheld the principle ofthe freedom of the posek (halakhic authority), from dependence on this code. Emden’s autobiography, Megillat Sefer(first published from an Oxford Ms. in 1896), is unique in the
rabbinic world. In addition to its historical importance it is ofno small belletristic value.
Emden’s ability as a grammarian is evident in his commentary on the prayers (Siddur Beit Ya’akov), where he combines grammatical comments and kabbalistic commentary.
He explains, for example, that barukh is not a passive past
participle but a noun like raḥ um, the kamaẓ compensating
for the lack of a dagesh in the letter resh. In consequence hearrives at the explanation that God is the source of blessings.
He also discusses mishnaic Hebrew (e.g., the word “Nishtannah” as a conflation of nifal and hitpa’el). In his commentaryon the Mishnah Leḥ em Shamayim, he discusses variant readings, determining the correct one by linguistic considerations.
Em la-Binah, his commentary on Scripture, abounds in inferences drawn from differences between synonyms, and Gal Ed
contains discussions on correct vocalization.
Bibliography: M.J. Cohen, Jacob Emden, a Man of Controversy (1937); G. Scholem, in: KS, 16 (1939/40), 320–38; Y. Raphael, inAresheth, 3 (1961), 231–76; B.-Z. Katz, Rabbanut, Ḥ asidut, Haskalah, 1(1957); A. Shochat, Im Ḥ illufei Tekufot (1960), index; J. Katz, Exclusiveness and Tolerance (1961), index; M.A. Wagenaar, Toledot Yaveẓ (1868);

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6393

emery, richard wilder
D. Kogan, Toledot ha-Mekubalim ha-Shabbeta’im ve-ha-Ḥ asidim, 2(1913), 27–64; A.R. Malakhi, in: Hadoar, 18 (1938–39), 155–6; M. Grunwald, Hamburgs deutsche Juden (1904), 89–124.
[Moshe Shraga Samet]°EMERY, RICHARD WILDER (1912–1989), U.S. historian.
Emery was professor of history at Queens College, New York.
A non-Jew interested in medieval French history, Emery began detailed research on the rich notarial records of Perpignan
in southern France. The amount of material of Jewish interest
was so great that he devoted a separate volume to this subject,
The Jews of Perpignan in the Thirteenth Century: An Economic
Study Based on Notarial Records (1959), which was followed byother monographs. This is the most detailed study of certain
aspects of the history of a medieval Jewish community thathas ever appeared, and it reveals the existence of vast untappedsources of information. In addition, his studies have thrownmuch light on the real extent and consequences of the forced
conversions that began in 1391 and on eminent personalities,
such as Menahem *Meiri and Profiat *Duran. He also wrote
The Friars in Medieval France: A Catalogue of French Mendicant Convents 1200–1550 (1962) and Heresy and Inquisition in
Narbonne (1967).
[Cecil Roth]EMESA (now Homs), city in Syria. It was ruled by a dynasty
which enjoyed friendly political relations in the first century C.E. with Agrippa I (Jos., Ant., 18:135; 19:338) and withAgrippa II (ibid., 20:139). The marriages contracted between
members of the two royal families were apparently dictated bypolitical expedience. It is likely, although evidence is lacking,that at this period Jews were living in Emesa. Azizus king of
Emesa consented to be circumcised in order to marry Drusillathe sister of Agrippa II, and it may be that he was not the only
proselyte in his kingdom at this time. There is reference toother proselytes in Emesa at a later period, in about the third
century (TJ, Yev. 11:2, 11d, et. al.). Several Palestinian amoraim
visited Emesa: Ḥ iyya b. Abba received money for orphans andwidows from the local Jews (TJ, Meg. 3:1, 74a). R. Yose was
asked there about the laws concerning a levirate marriage
and proselytes (TJ, Yev. 11:2, 11d), and R. Haggai about thoseconcerning the tithe from fields rented to non-Jews (TJ, Dem.
6:1, 25b; TJ, Av. Zar. 1:9, 40b). Still in existence at the time of
the Arab conquest (635–40), members of the community assisted the conquerors. With the fall of the *Umayyad caliphate
and the Byzantine invasions of the region, the town was impoverished and the Jews abandoned it. *Benjamin of Tudela,
the 12t century traveler, found about 20 families there. Aftera short period of prosperity during the 13t century, there isno further information on Jews in the town.

EMIN PASHA (Eduard Schnitzer; 1840–1892), Austrian
traveler and explorer. Born of Jewish parents in Silesia, he wasbaptized as a child. He served as a quarantine doctor in Albania, and from 1870–74 as private physician to the governor of
Albania. He adopted a Turkish name, Emin Effendi, and entered the services of General Gordon, who was then governorof the Equatorial Province of Egypt. When Gordon was madegovernor general of the Sudan in 1878, he appointed Emin to
succeed him. They were both determined to stamp out theslave trade, and Emin traveled the length and breadth of his
province continuously on the watch. When the Mahdi revolution broke out in 1881, Emin Pasha (as he now called himself)
held his province although he was completely surrounded andisolated. The Germans and the British made various plans torelieve him but the British explorer H.M. Stanley was the firstto reach him and with great difficulty persuaded him to leave
the province. In 1880 Emin entered the service of the Germans
and led an expedition along the coast of Lake Victoria to Lake
Albert. The aim was to acquire certain lands for the German
government but while he was traveling, the Anglo-German
agreement was signed excluding these territories. He was ordered to return but quarreled with the Germans and refused.
Disease now broke out among the men of his expedition andEmin went into the Congo, sending the able members to thecoast while he stayed inland with the stricken. In 1892 Emin
was murdered by slave traders against whom he had neverstopped fighting. Emin was a good governor, a great linguist,and his contributions to the ornithology, ethnography, andmeteorology of Central Africa were important. He publisheda number of treatises and diaries. Emin Pasha Gulf, the Southern Bay of Lake Victoria, was named after him.
Bibliography: F. Stuhlmann, Mit Emin Pascha ins Herzvon Afrika (1894), contains bibliography p. 59–60; G. Schweinfurt etal. (eds.), Emin Pasha in Central Africa (1888); B. Schweitzer, Emin
Pasha, his Life and Work (1898); A.F.A. Symons, Emin, Governor of
Equatoria (1950). Add. Bibliography: C. Edel and J.P. Sicre,
Vers les montagnes de la lune – Sur les traces d’Emin Pasha (1993);
I.R. Smith, The Emin Pasha Relief Expedition 1886–1890 (1972); S.
White, The Lost Empire on the Nile – H.M. Stanley, Emin Pasha andthe Imperialists (1969).

Bibliography: Neubauer, Géogr, 299–300; Domaszewski,
in: ARW, 11 (1908), 223–42; R. Dussaud, Topographie historique de laSyrie … (1927), index; Al-Balādhurī, Futūḥ al-Buldān (Cairo, 1932),
143; M.N. Adler, The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela (1907), 31. Add.
Bibliography: “Ḥ imṣ,” in: EIS2, 3, 397–402 (incl. bibl.)[Lea Roth / Aryeh Shmuelevitz]

EMIOT, ISRAEL (pseudonym of I. Goldwasser; 1909–1978),Yiddish poet. Influenced by the Warsaw Jewish Writers’ Club,
Emiot moved in the years 1932–36 from ḥ asidic to worldly
themes and published several collections containing ballads
on Jewish history, pastoral lyrics, and innovative triolets thatreflect the somber interwar mood (Mit Zikh Aleyn, “Alonewith Self ”; Tropen in Yam, “Drops in the Ocean”; Bay Zayt,“Beside Me”; Iber Makhitses, “Over Partitions”). In 1939 he fledto Russia, where Lider (“Songs,” 1940) contained lamentations
about family, homeland, and war. While he was a correspondent in Birobidzhan (1944–8), he published Oyfgang (“Rising,”
1947), with Sovietized content. When the Jewish *Anti-Fascist
Committee was liquidated (1948), he was arrested and imprisoned for seven years in Siberia. Repatriated to Poland, he published Benkshaft (“Yearning,” 1957), before immigrating to the394

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

emmaus
U.S. (1958), where he republished and augmented his previous
work during the years 1960–69: In Nign Ayngehert (“In Melody
Absorbed”), Fardekte Spiglen (“Covered Mirrors”), In Mitele
Yorn (“In Middle Years”), Eyder Du Leshst Mikh Oys (“Before
You Extinguish Me”), and Tsulib Di Tsen Umshuldike (“Forthe Sake of Ten Innocents”). His prose memoir Der Birobidzhaner Inyen (“The Birobidzhan Affair,” 1960) provides a dispassionate account of his Siberian experience, retained in theauthor’s 1981 translation, while his verse translation, Siberia(1991), reveals a more anguished personal account. Emiot edited the trilingual journal Roots. His work after 1958 includes
sonnets, addresses to God, free verse, lyrics of alienation andlove, and reflections on the U.S. in prose and poetry. He expanded his interest in musical themes and modernist poetry,but maintained his use of traditional Jewish imagery.
Bibliography: LNYL, 6 (1965), 601–6; J. Glatsteyn, Mit
Mayne Fartog-Bikher (1963), 523–35.
[Leah Zazulyer (2nd ed.)]EMMA LAZARUS FEDERATION OF JEWISH WOMEN’S CLUBS, U.S. progressive women’s group, founded in1944 by the Women’s Division of the Jewish People’s Fraternal Order (JPFO) of the International Workers Order (IWO).
Formed to combat antisemitism and racism and to nurture
positive Jewish identification through a broad program of Jewish education, the Emma Lazarus Division attracted a membership of left-wing, largely Yiddish-speaking women of theimmigrant generation. One founder was labor leader, Clara
Lemlich *Shavelson.
In 1951, when New York State’s attorney general initiatedproceedings against the IWO as a subversive institution, theWomen’s Division reorganized as the Emma Lazarus Federation of Jewish Women’s Clubs. Despite revelations about
Stalinist terrors and antisemitism, ELF Executive Director
June Croll Gordon and her successor, Rose Reynes, called forcoexistence with the U.S.S.R. ELF’s public disregard of Soviet
antisemitism remained a conspicuous blind spot.
At home, the ELF commissioned writer Eve Merriam towrite a biography of poet and essayist Emma *Lazarus, and in1954 published Yuri Suhl’s biography of Ernestine *Rose, who
was seen to combine Jewish patriotism with broad humanism.
The Federation wrote study outlines of other Jewish women,
including Rebecca *Gratz, Lillian *Wald, Sophie Loeb, andPenina *Moise. The ELF also developed curricula on working
women, dissident women (from Anne Hutchinson to Ethel
Rosenberg), and black women, and joined in a statement ofprinciple with the Sojourners for Truth and Justice, an African-American women’s group. In the 1950s and 1960s, it sent
food and clothing to the South and joined boycotts and sitins. In 1963, the ELF initiated a petition campaign for the U.S.
to ratify the Genocide Convention, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948; it considered this campaign its mostimportant political project.
With chapters in Brooklyn, the Bronx, Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, Miami,
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Rochester, Newark, Jersey City, Lakewood, and Toms River,
New Jersey, the ELF maintained its educational and political activism for almost 40 years, attracting approximately
4,000–5,000 members in 100 clubs at its peak. Affected by
the aging of the membership, the transformation of women’swork, and the women’s movement, ELF disbanded in 1989,
though some individual clubs remained.
Bibliography: J. Antler, “Between Culture and Politics:
The Emma Lazarus Federation of Jewish Women’s Clubs and the
Promulgation of Women’s History, 1944–1989,” in: A. Kessler-Harrisand K.K. Sklar (eds.), U.S. History as Women’s History (1995); idem,“Emma Lazarus Federation,” in: P.E. Hyman and D.D. Moore (eds.),
Jewish Women in America, vol. 1 (1997), 375–77.
[Joyce Antler (2nd ed.)]EMMANUEL, ISAAC SAMUEL (1899–1972), Greek-born
rabbi and historian. Emmanuel was born in Salonika, the sonof Samuel Emmanuel, a rabbi. He studied at the rabbinicalseminary there and was ordained at the Jewish TheologicalSeminary of Breslau. Thereafter he held pulpits in Curaçao,
Panama, Rio de Janeiro, and Cincinnati. His works include
Histoire de l’industrie des israelites de Salonique (1935); Gedolei
Saloniki le-Dorotam (1936), 500 epitaphs of the Jewish cemetery of Salonika with biographical notes; Precious Stones of theJews of Curaçao (1957); Maẓ ẓ evot Saloniki (2 vols., 1963–68);
and with his wife Suzanne A. Emmanuel (1912–1969), Historyof the Jews of The Netherlands Antilles (2 vols., 1970).
EMMAUS, ancient town in the Judean Shephelah, 20 mi.
(33 km.) N.W. of Jerusalem. It is first mentioned as the site of
the camp of the Seleucid army under Georgias, which Judah
Maccabee routed in 166 B.C.E. (I Macc. 3:40). Six years later
it was fortified by Bacchides (Jos., Ant., 13:15; I Macc. 9:50).
In 43 B.C.E. the Roman general Cassius sold its inhabitants
into slavery for failure to pay taxes (Jos., Ant., 14:275; Wars,
1:222).
When Zealot activity was intensified in the area immediately after the death of Herod in 4 B.C.E., Varus burnt
down the city in reprisal (Jos., Wars, 17:29). During the Jewish War, Vespasian established a fortified camp at Emmaus(in 68 C.E.) and stationed the Fifth Macedonian Legion there(ibid., 4:444–5); during the Bar Kokhba War (132–135 C.E.),
Roman detachments were posted there to encircle the rebels(Lam. R. 1:16, no. 45). In talmudic sources the city was considered the boundary between the Central Mountain Rangeand the Shephelah (TJ, Shev. 9:2, 38d). Described as a place of“fair waters and healthy climate” (ARN1 14, 59), it apparently
possessed hot springs and public baths, which is possibly thereason for its Hebrew name Hammat (ḥ am, “hot”; Song Zuta,
6:9). Eleazar b. Arak settled in Emmaus after the death of his
teacher Johanan b. Zakkai, and there, far removed from hiscolleagues, he is said to have forgotten his learning (Eccl. R.
7:7, no. 2; Shab. 147b). The city was also the home of *Neḥ unyab. ha-Kanah (Mid. Tan. to 26:13). Archaeological remains indicate that a Samaritan community had lived there. According to395

emd, tamas
Christian tradition, Jesus appeared before his disciples at Emmaus after his crucifixion and resurrection (Luke 24:13–16). In
the third century, the Christian writer Julius Africanus lived
there. In 221 he headed a deputation that induced the emperor
Elagabalus to confer on Emmaus the status of a city enjoying
Roman rights, and it was henceforth called Nicopolis. There
was a Christian community there from very early times andJews continued to live in the city until the Arab conquest in
639 (J. Moschos, in: Patrologia graeca, ed. by Migne, vol. 87, pt.
3 (1863), 3032). A plague broke out in the city after the Arabs
took it (the “Plague of Emmaus”) and it decimated the conquerors. After the founding of Ramleh, the town (see *Latrun)
declined in importance. It became the Arab village ‘Imwās
on the Jerusalem–Tel Aviv highway which before 1948 had apopulation of 1,420 Muslims and was destroyed during the
Six-Day War (1967). Excavations conducted there in 1924–25
by the Ecole biblique et archéologique française uncovered remains of a Roman villa and a Christian basilica that was destroyed during the Samaritan revolt in the sixth century andlater rebuilt. The Crusaders also erected a small church there.
Today the excavations are part of Ayalon-Canada park.
Bibliography: L.H. Vincent and F.M. Abel, Emmaüs (Fr.,1932); Neubauer, Géogr, 100–2.
[Michael Avi-Yonah]EMŐD, TAMAS (Ernő Fleischer; 1888–1938), Hungarianpoet. Emőd was born at Berekböszörmény and graduated inlaw at Oradea (then Nagyvárad) Law Faculty. He worked asa journalist but mainly devoted himself to literature. Emőd’s
first poems, influenced by the great Hungarian poet E. Ady,
appeared in the avant-garde anthology Holnap (“Tomorrow”).
The poems he wrote during World War I were particularly
well-known. Emőd chose Jewish subjects for a number of his
works, including Temetés (“Funeral”), Falusi zsidó (“The Village Jew”), and Vox Humana. Of his plays, the most important are A vándor katona (“The Wandering Soldier”), written
in collaboration with F. Karinthy, and Ferenc Jóska ládájából(“From Ferenc Jóska’s Box”). Emőd was one of the originators of the chanson, which was at one time a feature of Hungarian literary cabarets.

4:10; 15; 6:5; 8:21; 18:17; 29:31), emotions which are revealed at
Sinai as essential to His nature (Ex. 20:5, 6; 34:6). The Israelites
encountered God’s fearsome, possessive love, frequently expressed in jealous wrath and moral indignation, in their desert
wanderings, and the prophets tended to identify with thesesame emotions (see Ex. 19:3; 32:9; Num. 14:11; 17:8; Isa. 65:3; Jer.
7:19; Ezek. 16:36). However, the Torah advocates a different setof relationships and emotions as an ideal, one in which God
loves His people and wishes them to respond in love as well
as fear (Deut. 6:5; 10:12, 15), and in which man is exhorted torid himself of hatred and lust, relate to his fellow man in loveand kindness, and joyfully observe God’s commandments (Ex.
20:14; Lev. 14:17, 18; Deut. 16:11). Then God will bless men bothmaterially and spiritually, meaning with emotional peace andhappiness (Num. 6:24–26; Isa., 65:17ff.).
TalmudProphetic and rabbinic Judaism also appeal, in particular,
to such emotions, as in Micah’s terse summary of the religious ethic (6:8: “to do justice, to love kindness (ḥ esed), andto walk humbly with your God”; and in Hillel’s paraphraseof Lev. 19:18: “what is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow man” (Shab. 31a)). Anger, jealousy, lust, and pride are allcondemned by the rabbis (see, e.g., Avot 2:11; 4:21); the Talmud even blames the destruction of the Second Temple on
the Jews for the sin of unjustified hatred, Sinat ḥ innam (Yoma9b). The ideal emotional type, according to the rabbis, is one
who controls his passions and is good-hearted, humble, andpeace loving (Avot 1:12; 2:9; 4:1; 5:11). Such a man finds emotional gratification in the study and observance of the law, enjoying a happiness (simḥ ah shel mitzvah) that, while itself areward, is an intimation of future bliss as well. Prayer (as well
as devotional, i.e., musar, literature, and most poetry), study,
and ritual increasingly became outlets for the Jewish psyche
in exile, and deeply felt personal and national emotions wereformalized in such holidays as Simḥ at Torah and such commemorations as the Ninth of Av.

Bible
Biblical figures are frequently emotional, and in this lies muchof their human appeal and credibility. Genesis introduces feelings of *Love, *Joy, Fear, and their opposites (in, e.g., 3:6; 4:5;
29:18; and 37:3) that are later found in such figures as Saul andDavid, the psalmist, and the lovers of the Song of Songs. Similarly, in His initial appearances God is portrayed as a deity
who acts out of deep feelings of compassion and anger (Gen.

Medieval Jewish Philosophy
Medieval Jewish philosophy resumed the attempt of Hellenistic Jewish thought to subjugate the emotions to the intellect,and attempted, even more than rabbinic exegesis did, to rationalize away the biblical depiction of God’s emotions (see *Allegorical Interpretation and *God, Attributes of). Using Arabic
mediated Greek models, Jewish philosophers analyzed emotions in terms of both the humors and organs of the body andthe faculties, or parts, of the soul. Whatever the variation indetails (for which see *Soul), however, the philosophers generally agreed with Aristotle that moderation should be observed in expressing emotion (see, e.g., Solomon ibn Gabirol,
The Improvement of the Moral Qualities (1901), pt. 4, 84–86;
and The Eight Chapters of Maimonides on Ethics (1966), 54ff.).
Yet for all its rational emphasis, like that of its Arabic and late
Greek predecessors, Jewish philosophy views the dispassionate, analytical search for Truth as a religious quest, beginningin anxious doubt and culminating in feelings of certitude and396

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: Magyar Irodalmi Lexikon, 1 (1963), 290.
[Baruch Yaron]

EMOTIONS. Jewish tradition has shown a positive interestin human emotions, and they are portrayed and discussed in
the Bible, Talmud, Jewish philosophy, and mysticism.

emperor worshipthe bliss of divine love (Saadiah Gaon, The Book of Beliefs andOpinions, trans. by S. Rosenblatt (1948), introduction, 6ff.;
Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, trans. by S. Pines(1963), introduction, 5ff., 51, 618ff.).
Mysticism and Hasidism
Jewish mysticism seeks to lead man from a state of psychic
alienation to one of ecstatic intimacy with God. Mostly, however, it attempts to reach this emotional goal through an intellectual process and a discipline parallel to that of philosophy.
It is mainly *Ḥ asidism, with its suggestion of antinomianism
and its anti-intellectual direction, that emphasizes the emotions – particularly joy, trust, and gratitude – as a primarymeans to the religious life.
Bibliography: S. Schechter, Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology (1909), 148–69; S. Belkin, In his Image (1960), 185–93.
[Alfred L. Ivry]°EMPEDOCLES (fifth century b.c.e.), Greek poet, prophet,and natural philosopher who set forth the doctrine of thefour elements, which dominated Arabic, Hebrew, and Latinthought in the Middle Ages. Empedocles is known in medieval
Jewish circles through stray references to him and his work,
mainly found in the works of Aristotle, which were translated
into Arabic and then into Hebrew. The form of his name in
the Hebrew translations from the Arabic follows the Arabic
form, that is, Abnduqlīs, Abīduqlīs, and others. In translations
from the Latin, the Latin form is found. Empedocles’ name
was taken over by late Greek neoplatonic circles and affixed
to treatises later translated into Arabic, which became known
to medieval Jewish thinkers. The main representative of thisliterature is the Book of the Five Substances. The Arabic version is lost but it is partially preserved in a Hebrew translation, published by D. Kaufmann as an appendix to his Studien
ueber Salomon ibn Gabirol (1899).
Among medieval Jewish philosophers, Shem Tov ibn
Falaquera mentions that Solomon ibn Gabirol’s Source of Lifewas influenced by the Book of the Five Substances (S. Munk,
Mélanges, 1). Joseph ibn Zaddik refers to the true conceptionof the will as a secret whose true meaning may be derived fromthe Book of Empedocles or works by other philosophers written
on these subjects. Judah Halevi twice refers to Empedocles as
the head of a philosophic school, in his Kuzari (4:25 and 5:14).
Maimonides, in his famous letter to Samuel ibn Tibbon, statesthat one should not waste one’s time studying the works of
Empedocles, which form a part of ancient (pre-Aristotelian)philosophy (A. Marx, in: jqr, 25 (1935), 380).
Bibliography: Stern, in: EI2, S.V. Anbadukīs; Steinschneider,
Uebersetzungen, index; D. Kaufmann, Geschichte der Attributenlehre(repr. 1967), index; A. Altmann and S.M. Stern, Isaac Israeli, A Neoplatonic Philosopher… (1958), index.
[Lawrence V. Berman]

appointment to the professorship of Hebrew at the Universityof Leiden (1627) did he start to study rabbinical literature seriously. Within six years he published several (fairly competent) editions of rabbinical works, most of them with a parallel
Latin translation and annotations, meant to facilitate the study
and use of Jewish literature. He paid *Menasseh ben Israel andIsaac *Aboab da Fonseca to assist him in his studies. His books
did not sell well. His emphasis on rabbinical literature in his
lectures was not well received by the students and professorsof the theological faculty, and he was ordered to focus on biblical Hebrew. In 1633 he was passed over in a fiercely contested
appointment to a professorship in the faculty of theology. To
compensate him, the board of the university raised his salary, and justified this unusual generosity by appointing him
to a spurious professorship of Jewish controversies, which did
not entail any duties. In 1637 he published an edition, translation, and commentary on the tractate Bava Kamma, a highly
original (although implicitly antisemitic) work in which hecompared its rulings with the corresponding legislations ofRoman Law. In 1647 he was, finally, appointed to a professorship in the faculty of theology.
Bibliography: P. van Rooden, Theology, Biblical Scholarshipand Rabbinical Studies in the Seventeenth Century (1989).
[Peter van Rooden (2nd ed.)]

EMPEROR WORSHIP, the Roman cult established during
the reign of Augustus, first in the provinces but not in Italy,
and practiced throughout the Roman Empire. It is the directcontinuation of the Hellenistic worship of the ruler. Emperor
worship first appeared in Palestine during the reign of *Herodthe Great. Although it was completely unacceptable to theJewish population, Herod could nevertheless not afford tolag behind other vassal princes in establishing the cult. Thus
although a temple was not erected in Jerusalem to honor theemperor, these rites were adopted in the cities of Sebaste andCaesarea, both predominantly non-Jewish. The Jewish population, though not the Christian, was everywhere exemptedfrom the loyal duty of emperor worship and only one attempt
was made to compel the Jewish nation to accept emperor worship, when *Caligula issued a decree to erect a statue of himself in the sanctuary at Jerusalem (Jos., Ant., 18:262; Jos., Wars,
2:184; Philo, De Legatione ad Gaium, 188, 207–8; Tacitus, Historiae, 5:9). The decree was never carried out, however, due
to the death of Caligula in January 41 C.E.
Following the destruction of the Second Temple there
was a tendency among the rabbis to mitigate various laws
concerning idolatry, which was no longer considered athreat to the Jewish community. Nevertheless these samerabbis continued to reject any compliance with the imperial cult.

°EMPEREUR, CONSTANTIJN L’ (1591–1648), Dutch Calvinist theologian and Christian Hebraist. L’Empereur pursued an academic career as a theologian. Only following his

Bibliography: C.R. Taylor, The Divinity of the Roman Emperor (1931); CAH, 10 (1934), 481–9 (bibliography: 951f.); Urbach, in:Eretz Israel, 5 (1958), 189–205 (English summary: 94f.); A. Schalit,
Koenig Herodes (1969), 421–3.
[Isaiah Gafni]

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6397

emrniEMRĀNI (Imrāni; probably a pen name; 1454–after 1536),
Judeo-Persian poet. Emrāni was born in Isfahan and diedin Kashan. He is considered the second greatest Judeo-Persian poet after *Shāhin. Emrāni produced the following Judeo-Persian works, the majority of which were discovered
after 1960.
1. Fath-Nāmeh (“Book of Victory”) is an epic poetic paraphrase of the biblical books of Joshua, I and II Samuel, part of
I Kings, and the Book of Ruth. This is Emrāni’s longest composition. It was composed in 1474 and consists of about 10,000
couplets. In some Fath-Nāmeh mss. one may find other poetic
compositions such as Shofetim-Nāmeh and Pilegesh al ha-Giva
with interpolations which do not belong to Emrāni.
2. Ganj-Nāmeh (“Book of Treasure”) is a poetic paraphrase of Pirkei Avot. Composed in 1536, this is apparently
Emrāni’s last important work and consists of about 5,000
couplets.
3. The following are relatively short poems by Emrāni
found in collections of mss: (a) Vājebāt-e Sizdahgāneh….
a poetic paraphrase of Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles;(b) Hanukkah-Nāmeh (“Book of Hanukkah”) narrates thehistorical events of Hanukkah; (c) Entekhāb-e Nakhlestān(“Choice of the Palm Grove”) is a didactic poetic work;(d) Sāqi-Nāmeh (“Book of the Cupbearer”) is a mystical-lyrical poem; (e) Qesse-ye Haft Barādarān (“Story of the Seven
Brothers”), written in prose and verse, narrates the story of
Hannah and her seven sons who were murdered because
they refused to worship the Greek idols; (f) Asarah harugei
ha-malkhut (“The Ten Martyrs of the Kingdom”), in prose
and verse, relates the torture and death suffered by ten Jewish
sages of Mishnaic times; (g) a few other short poems mostlyof didactic nature; (h) a few short prose works such as thestory of the *Akedah (Binding of Isaac) and tafsir of Pirkei
Avot.
Some selections of Emrāni’s works have been publishedin Persian transliteration (Netzer, 1973). The manuscripts ofEmrāni’s works are kept in the libraries of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the Ben-Zvi Institute, JTS in New York, HUC
in Cincinnati, and the British Library in London.
Bibliography: A. Netzer, Montakhab-e ashʿār-e farsi az āsāre yahudiyān-e Irān (Teheran, 1973); idem, Oẓ ar Kitvei Yad shel Yehudei
Paras be-Makhon Ben-Zvi (1985); D. Yeroushalmi, The Judeo-Persian
Poet ʿEmrāni and His Book of Treasure (1995).
[Amnon Netzer (2nd ed.)]EMSHEIMER, ERNST (1904–1989), Swedish musicologist ofGerman birth. Born in Frankfurt on the Main, Germany, Emsheimer studied piano and music theory, and thereafter musicology, at the universities of Vienna and Freiburg, where hereceived his doctorate in 1927. After concluding his studies hewent to Soviet Russia, where he began his research on folk andnon-European musical traditions. He was research assistant at
the Russian Academy of Sciences in Leningrad from 1932 until
1937, and accompanied a music research expedition in north-398

ern Caucasia in 1936. In 1937 he joined a scientific expedition
to the northwestern provinces of China. In 1937 Emsheimer
immigrated to Sweden, where he intensified the ethnomusicological tradition. From 1949 until his retirement in 1973
he was the curator of the music history museum in Stockholm.
After War World II he investigated Georgian folk polyphony. In 1962, he created jointly with Erik Stockmann the firststudy group on European instruments under the auspices of
the International Folk Music Council and founded the famous
series of studies dedicated to popular European and nonEuropean instruments under the title Studia Instrumentorum Musicae Popularis, of which the first volume appearedin 1969. His writings include Musikethnographische Bibliographie der nichtslavischen Voelker in Russland (1943); Preliminary Remarks on Mongolian Music and Instruments (1943);
Music of Eastern Mongolia (1943); and Lappischer Kultgesang(1950).
Bibliography: MGG 2 , S.V; NG 2 , S.V.
[Amnon Shiloah (2nd ed.)]EMUNAH, World Religious Zionist Women’s Organization,
the third largest women’s movement in Israel. Founded in
Jerusalem in 1925, Emunah was incorporated as a worldwide
movement in 1977. World Emunah combines the Israel National Religious Women’s Movement and its sister organizations in 28 countries with a membership of over 150,000. This
voluntary organization is devoted to educational and social
service programs. Emunah is unique in that it is rooted in Jewish tradition and emphasizes the spiritual and moral heritageof the Jewish people within a Zionist framework. In Israel,
Emunah has around 100,000 members.
The Israeli programs include a network of 120 day carecenters, six residential homes for deprived children, six highschools, an arts and technology college for girls, and Emunah’steachers college. Its social-welfare projects in Israel range fromliteracy programs to group dynamics and family counseling.
The organization runs an emergency center for abused children. In Israel, Emunah volunteers’ activities in the absorption of new immigrants have been noted with distinction by
the awarding to them of municipal and national awards. In
the field of women’s rights, Emunah is active in promoting
legislation and representing women in such bodies as the rabbinical courts. The organization also runs a club for businessand career women.
In addition to supporting the Israeli projects, the member organizations worldwide conduct adult education outreach programs within their own countries to strengthen
their commitment to Jewish values and Jewish living. Emunah worldwide is actively involved in community programs
relating to religious education, support for Israel, and pressing
contemporary issues affecting world Jewry. Emunah is represented on major Zionist and Jewish bodies in its member
countries as well as in international forums.
Website: www.emunah.org.il.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

encyclopedias
ENCYCLOPEDIAS.
Encyclopedias of General Content in Hebrew and Yiddish
Outside of Israel
The first Hebrew encyclopedias were translations or adaptations of Arabic works, which were intended as systematic presentations of the sciences in the medieval Aristotelian scheme,
not usually arranged in alphabetical order. The first of thesewas Yesodei ha-Tevunah u-Migdal ha-Emunah by *Abraham b.
Ḥ iyya ha-Nasi of Barcelona (in the early 12t century), which
included sections on mathematics, geometry, astronomy, optics, and music. Only the preface and the beginning of thiswork have been preserved in manuscript. In 1247 Judah b.
Solomon ibn Matka, a native of Toledo, Spain, wrote an Arabic work that he later translated into Hebrew as Midrash haḤ okhmah. The first part deals with logic, physics, and metaphysics, in addition to commentaries on passages in Genesis,
Psalms, and Proverbs; the second, with mathematics, in addition to a kabbalistic study of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet; there is also an enumeration of Bible passages that are to
be interpreted philosophically. Again, only fragments of thisencyclopedia have been preserved.
Shem Tov b. Joseph *Falaquera, another Spanish scholarof the 13t century, wrote De’ot ha-Filosofim, dealing with physics and metaphysics, based mainly on Averroes. Although thetwo extant manuscripts of this work ascribe its authorship to
Samuel ibn *Tibbon, Zunz and Steinschneider identify Falaquera as its author. *Gershon b. Solomon of Arles presents a
vivid picture of the scientific works available in Hebrew in thelate 13t century in his Sha’ar ha-Shamayim. In the introduction he states that he used only Hebrew sources or works in
Hebrew translation; thus, it is known that at this time someof the works of the major writers of classic antiquity had become part of the Jewish cultural background. His book is divided into three parts: physics, subdivided into a discussion of
the four elements, minerals, plants, and animals; astronomy,
according to Almagest (see *Ptolemy), *Avicenna, *Averroes,*Aristotle, and others; and theology or metaphysics, according
to Averroes and Maimonides. This work is the oldest medieval
encyclopedia to be printed, although in abridged form, first in
Venice in 1547 and several times in the 19t century, as a partof the program of the East European Haskalah to broaden thehorizon of the masses. Based in part on Sha’ar ha-Shamayim
is the Shevilei Emunah by the 14t-century Spanish scholar
Meir ben Isaac *Aldabi, whose intent was to combine naturalsciences and Jewish religious tradition (Riva di Trento, 1518).
Between the 15t and 18t centuries no major encyclopedia
was written by Jews, as their interest in the general sciences
declined. In 1530–32 the Sephardi physician Solomon b. Jacob*Almoli published a plan for such a work, Me’assef le-Khol haMaḥ anot, in Constantinople. Another small work was Kelal
Kaẓ er mi-Kol ha-Rashum bi-Khetav by Judah ibn Bulat, another exile from Spain in Constantinople, who attempted toorganize the sciences systematically (Constantinople, 1531–32;
reprint Jerusalem, 1936).

Jacob b. Isaac *Zahalon, a physician in Ferrara, Italy,
had prepared a large work to be called “Oẓ ar ha-Hokhmot,”but only the third part, devoted to medicine, appeared, Oẓ ar
ha-Hayyim (Venice, 1683). In the 17t century physicians were
the only Jews in Central and Eastern Europe who had an opportunity for secular education. Thus, another representativeof that profession, Tobias *Cohn (Tobias b. Moses Narol ofMetz), compiled an encyclopedic work, Ma’ase Toviyyah (Venice, 1707), covering metaphysics, physics, astronomy, geography, medicine, and pharmacology.
With the rise of the Haskalah, an interest in publishinga general encyclopedia in Hebrew developed. In particularDavid *Franco-Mendes, a Jewish community leader and Hebrew poet in Holland, formulated such a suggestion in HaMe’assef (1785), but except for a prospectus, Ahavat David,
nothing came of it. A pupil of the Gaon of Vilna, Phinehas
Elijah b. Meir Horowitz, tried to present the general sciencesfrom the point of view of Jewish tradition in his Sefer haBerit (Bruenn, 1797). This work became quite popular, as isevidenced by the publication of several editions in the 19t
century. In 1856 Julius *Barasch, a Romanian physician, published the philosophical part of a general encyclopedia under
the title Oẓ ar ha-Ḥ okhmah. The first alphabetically arranged
general encyclopedia in Hebrew was attempted by Isaac Goldmann in Warsaw in 1888; it was called Ha-Eshkol, but only six
parts came out, and even the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet was not completed.
Joseph *Lurie and Ḥ ayyim Dov *Horowitz began thefirst general encyclopedia in Yiddish, Di Algemeyne Yidishe
Entsiklopedye, in St. Petersburg, Russia, in 1904, but only threeparts were published before the venture failed. In 1917 the wellknown Yiddish writer and journalist Hillel *Zeitlin began Di
Ershte Algemeyne un Yudishe Hand-Entsiklopedye with similar abortive results. David Goldblatt’s Algemeyne Ilustrirte Entsiklopedye (2 vols., New York, 1920–23) was more successful,
but it did not get beyond alef either (it should be rememberedthat an initial alef for transliterated words is equivalent in the
Latin alphabet to a, e, i, o, and u).
The most ambitious attempt in Yiddish encyclopedias was
Algemeyne Entsiklopedye, published by the Dubnow Fund from
1931, first in Paris and then in New York. After the first five volumes, devoted to general subjects, seven more on Jews and Judaism, arranged according to topic, were published by 1966.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6399

Encyclopedias of Jewish Content Only
The first large Jewish encyclopedia in alphabetical arrangement was Paḥ ad Yiẓ ḥ ak (13 vols., 1750–1888) by Isaac ben
Samuel *Lampronti, a physician in Ferrara, who worked on
this reference book covering Talmud, rabbinics, and responsa
throughout his life, part of it being published posthumously.
It was the first such enterprise to be completed to the last letter of the alphabet. In each entry the history of the topic istraced through Mishnah, Talmud, and the responsa up to
Lampronti’s day.

encyclopedias
points, its approach was more traditional, but it was considered inadequate in many respects.
Also influenced by the Jewish Encyclopedia was theRussian Yevreyskaya Entsiklopediya (16 vols., St. Petersburg,
1906–13) under the editorship of such outstanding scholars
as Judah Leib *Katzenelson (Buki ben Yogli), Simon *Dubnow, David *Guenzburg, and Albert (Abraham) *Harkavy.
Yet, while omitting some of the material about Jewish life in
America that figured so prominently in the Jewish Encyclopedia, it concentrated on Eastern Europe and gave full scope
to modern Hebrew literature. Its ideology was that of the Galut (“Diaspora”) nationalism advocated by Dubnow, but theZionist point of view was also presented. Thus, it was in a way
a complement to the Jewish Encyclopedia.
Under the leadership of George *Herlitz and Bruno
Kirschner, the Juedisches Lexikon (Berlin, 1927–30), a five-volume work in German, was published. Because of its size it had
to be more limited in scope than the Jewish Encyclopedia andconcentrated more on contemporary Jewish life than had theother major Jewish encyclopedias published earlier in the century. A more ambitious project was the Encyclopaedia Judaica(10 vols., Berlin, 1928–34) in German under the editorship ofJacob *Klatzkin, Nahum *Goldmann, and Ismar Elbogen. It
was intended to present a new synthesis of Jewish knowledge
some 20 years after the appearance of the Jewish Encyclopedia and to include all those areas neglected in the earlier pioneering work. However, because of the establishment of the
Hitler regime in Germany, the plan could not be completed;
only ten volumes appeared, through the article “Lyra.” Of its
Hebrew companion, Eshkol, Enẓ iklopedyah Yisre’elit (Berlin,
1929–32), only two volumes were printed, not completing eventhe first letter. An oddity among encyclopedias with Jewish
content published in Germany was the Sigilla Veri (4 vols.,
Erfurt, 1929–31), a work with antisemitic sponsorship in four
volumes through the article “Polak.”
The need for a more up-to-date and popular encyclopedia in English in the mid-20t century was met by a numberof one-volume works, which are noted below in the bibliography, and by the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia in ten volumes(New York, 1939–43). Similar in purpose to the Juedisches
Lexikon (whose English translation rights the editors Isaac*Landman and others had secured at the time of its publication), it concentrated on the more recent past and on the history of American Jewry.
The growth of the Latin American Jewish community isreflected in the Enciclopedia Judaica Castellana (10 vols., Mexico, 1948–51), based largely on the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia but containing original material for Latin America.

With the development of the study of Judaism and Jewish history on a scientific basis in the 19t century, the Jews
sought to emulate others in promoting encyclopedias devoted
to their interests alone. The Jewish historian Isaac Marcus *Jost
suggested such a project in his journal Israelitische Annalen in
1840. In 1844 the prestigious scholars Moritz Steinschneider
and David Cassel published Plan der Real-Enzyklopaedie desJudenthums, zunaechstfuer die Mitarbeiter. Some of the articles intended for this work found their way into the generalencyclopedia edited by Ersch and Gruber, Allgemeine Enzyklopaedie der Wissenschaften und Kuenste, into other journals,
or into separate monographs. Another talmudic dictionary
was begun by the Prague chief rabbi, Solomon Judah Leib
*Rapoport, under the title Erekh Millin (Prague, 1852), but it
did not go beyond the letter alef.
The first Jewish encyclopedia in German was the RealEncyclopaedie fuer Bibel und Talmud by Jacob *Hamburger,
chief rabbi of the German principality of Mecklenburg-Strelitz. It treated biblical and talmudic subjects in two separate
volumes with a six-part supplement and appeared in three
editions, the latest between 1896 and 1901. In spite of many
defects, it was considered an achievement for its time, since
it was helpful in tracing Jewish religious ideas in the Bible
and Talmud.
Aḥ ad Ha-Am’s suggestion to publish a Jewish encyclopedia in Hebrew did not gain much support. He had wanted
to present the salient areas of Judaism and Jewish history andliterature in a systematic, rather than an alphabetical scheme.
There were objections that Hebrew literature was in its beginnings and could not sustain such an ambitious venture. Others
believed that a general encyclopedia in Hebrew was needed
more urgently than one devoted to Jewish subjects only. On
Aḥ ad Ha-Am’s suggestion, a sample of the Oẓ ar ha-Yahadut
was published in Warsaw in 1906, containing four articles
by four young scholars who later made their mark in Jewish
learning, David *Neumark, Hirsch (Ẓ evi) Perez *Chajes, Ismar *Elbogen, and Joseph *Klausner.
Despite the great accomplishments in Jewish studies in
Europe during the 19t century, it was not granted to European
Jewry to publish the first synthesis of its rich harvest. Instead,
it was the American Jewish community, which at the turn ofthe century consisted of a population less than half its present size, a large proportion of whom were new immigrants,that published this basic work, The Jewish Encyclopedia (12vols., 1901–06). Under the editorship of Isidore *Singer andwith the participation of hundreds of scholars in the UnitedStates and abroad, the attempt was made to bring all Jewish
knowledge within the scope of this work. Naturally it, too,
had weaknesses, as in its treatment of modern Hebrew literature and the history of East European Jewry, but many of its
entries (e.g., those by Louis Ginzberg) have remained unsurpassed statements. Shortly thereafter, Judah David *Eisenstein
prepared a ten-volume encyclopedia in Hebrew, Oẓ ar Yisrael(New York, 1906–13). Unlike the Jewish Encyclopedia, which
took account both of the traditional and the modernist view-

Encyclopedias in Israel
The first general encyclopedia in Palestine on a large scale
was the Enẓ iklopedyah Kelalit (6 vols., 1935–37). It was conceived and planned by Joseph Klausner. A work on a larger
scale is the Enẓ iklopedyah Kelalit Yizre’el (16 vols., 1950–61).
Another popular work is the Enẓ iklopedyah Kelalit Massadah

400

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

encyclopedias(6 vols., 1960–61) with a supplementary volume (1966). The
most ambitious Jewish encyclopedia ever attempted is HaEnẓ iklopedyah ha-Ivrit (Encyclopaedia Hebraica; (1949–1981);
first supplementary volume, covering volumes 1–16, 1967;
second supplementary volume, 1983), a general, Jewish, andIsrael reference work.
The special needs of Israel require, in addition to generaland Jewish encyclopedias, specialized ones devoted to suchfields as the social sciences, agriculture, and education, as wellas Bible and Talmud. The young State of Israel has already met
the need to a considerable extent.
Jews and Judaism in General Encyclopedias
Until the 19t century the treatment of Jews and Judaism inencyclopedias as well as in all other reference works was determined by the Christian point of view. Primary attention was
paid to the biblical period as a background to Christianity, butvery little interest was shown in the period that followed.
Among the first general encyclopedias to depart fromthis pattern was the Ersch-Gruber Allgemeine Enzyklopaedie
der Wissenschaften und Kuenste (1818–89), when it included
Moritz *Steinschneider among its contributors. His article on
Jewish literature in its volume in 1850 and published separately
in English translation in 1857 is considered a classic.
Since that time post-biblical Jewish history and Judaism
have generally received more comprehensive and fairer treatment. It is now customary to assign such topics to recognized
Jewish scholars. Notable among such encyclopedias are Hastings’ Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (1908–26), Religion
in Geschichte und Gegenwart (1927–312, 1957–653), Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (1930–35; repr. 1948–49), and New
Catholic Encyclopedia (1967).
Quite striking is the difference between the earlier andmore recent editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. In
its third edition of 1797 the detailed history of the Jews ended
with the destruction of the Second Temple in the year 70.
The laws of rabbinic Judaism that followed are dismissed
as mere “absurdities” deserving no consideration. In a concluding paragraph the history of the following 16 centuries
is summarized with persecutions and massacres duly noted,
the more tolerant attitude of the present day emphasized, andmentioning the recent emancipation of the Jews in France
in 1791.
In the ninth edition of 1881 the history is divided into
two articles, “Israel,” dealing with antiquity and the medieval period, until the emancipation, written by the German
Protestant Bible scholar Julius *Wellhausen, who gave a fairpresentation, also referring to Jewish scholars, such as Jost,
Graetz, and Herzfeld, in his bibliography, and “Jews,” the period beginning with Mendelssohn, written by Israel Davis, aJewish lay leader in England. More recent editions have hadcontributions by Isidore *Epstein, Norman *Bentwich, Jacob
R. *Marcus, and other well known Jewish scholars.

06; 19252; repr., 1963); Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, 10 vols.
(1939–43); Encyclopaedia Judaica (1971, 20062).
Other works: J. De Haas (ed.), Encyclopedia of Jewish
Knowledge (1934); A.M. Hyamson and A.M. Silbermann(eds.), Vallentine’s Jewish Encyclopedia (1938); American Jewish
Cyclopedia (1943); D.D. Runes, Concise Dictionary of Judaism (1959); P. Birnbaum, A Book of Jewish Concepts (1964);
S. Glustrom, Language of Judaism (1966); Z. Werblowsky
and G. Wigoder, Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion (19902);
J. Neusner, Encyclopedia of Judaism, 3 vols. with supplements(1999, 2003); G. Wigoder et al., New Encyclopedia of Judaism (20022).
Special encyclopedias: Interpreter’s Dictionary of the
Bible, 4 vols. (1962); G. Wigoder, S. Paul, et al., Illustrated Dictionary and Concordance of the Bible (20052); A. Negev and S.
Gibson, Archeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land (2001); S.
Spector and G. Wigoder, Encyclopedia of Jewish Life Before andDuring the Holocaust, 3 vols. (2001); R. Rozett and S. Spector,
Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (2000); Yad Vashem Encyclopedia of the Righteous Among the Nations (vols. 1–6, 2003–5), in
progress; P. Hyman and D.D. Moore, Jewish Women in America: An Historical Encyclopedia, 2 vols. (1997); M.D. Sherman,
Orthodox Judaism in America: A Bibliographical Dictionary
and Sourcebook (1996); P.S. Nadell, Conservative Judaism inAmerica: A Biographical Dictionary and Sourcebook (1988);
K.M. Olitzky, L.J. Sussman, and M.H. Stern, Reform Judaismin America: A Biographical Dictionary and Sourcebook (1993);
A. Steinberg, Encyclopedia of Jewish Medical Ethics, tr. F. Rosner (2003); R. Slater, Great Jews in Sports (20002); R. Posner,
Junior Judaica (19942); G. Wigoder et al., Student’s Encyclopedia of Judaism (2004).
DUTCH. J. Meijer, Encyclopaedia Sefardica Neerlandica (deals
with the Sephardi community in Holland).
GERMAN. Major works: Juedisches Lexikon, 5 vols. (1927–30),
Encyclopaedia Judaica, 10 vols. (1928–34), incomplete (Aachen
to Lyra only).
Other works: E.B. Cohn, Das juedische ABC (1935); E. Bin
Gorion, et al. (eds.), Philo-Lexikon; Handbuch des juedischen
Wissens (19374); Philo-Atlas; Handbuch fuer die juedische Auswanderung (1938); J.F. Oppenheimer (ed.), Lexikon des Judentums (1967; a revision and up-dating of the Philo-Lexikon).
Special encyclopedias: J.L. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopaediefuer Bibel und Talmud, 2 vols. (1896–19013), Supplement 6 vols.

Jewish Encyclopedias
ENGLISH. Major works: Jewish Encyclopedia, 12 vols. (1901–

HEBREW. J.D. Eisenstein (ed.), Oẓ ar Yisrael, 10 vols. (1907–13);
Eshkol, Enẓ iklopedyah Yisre’elit, 2 vols. (1929–32), incomplete– A-Antipas only (Hebrew edition of Encyclopaedia Judaica);
I. Press, Ereẓ Yisrael, Enẓ iklopedyah Topografit Historit, 4 vols.
(1951–552); S.Z. Ariel, Enẓ iklopedyah Me’ir Nativ le-Halakhot,
Minhagim, Darkhei Musar u-Ma’asim Tovim (1960); J. Pevsner,
Enẓ iklopedyah Yehudit (1966); idem, Enẓ iklopedyah Yuda’ikah(1961); C. Roth and G. Wigoder (eds.), Enẓ iklopedyah shelhaYahadut, 2 vols. (1969; revised Hebrew edition of Standard

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6401

endecja
Jewish Encyclopedia); Y.T. Lewinsky, Enẓ iklopedyah shel Havai
u-Masoret ba-Yahadut, 2 vols. (1970).
Bible: B. Natanson, Ma’arekhet Sifrei Kodesh (1870); A.H.
Rosenberg, Oẓ ar ha-Shemot Asher be-Khitvei ha-Kodesh, 10
vols. (1898–1922); Enẓ iklopedyah Mikra’it, 8 vols. (1950–82);
P. Ne’eman, Enẓ iklopedyah le-Geografyah Mikra’it, 4 vols.
(1962–65); D. Kimḥ i, Enẓ iklopedyah le-Ishim ba-Tanakh, 2 vols.
(1964?); M. Solieli and M. Berkooz (eds.), Leksikon Mikra’i, 2vols. (1964/65); G. Cornfeld and B. Lurie (eds.), Enẓ iklopedyahshel ha-Mikra vi-ymei Bayit Sheni (1967); Talmud and Rabbinics: I. Lampronti, Paḥ ad Yiẓ ḥ ak, 13 vols. (1750–1888; repr.
1998); M. Guttman, Mafte’aḥ ha-Talmud, 4 vols. (1906–30),
incomplete; H.Z. Medini, Sedei Ḥ emed, 16 vols. (1896–1911);
Enẓ iklopedyah Talmudit, 28 vols. (1947–2005); M. Wulliger,
Koveẓ ha-Tosafot, Oẓ ar Nehmad, 3 vols. (1952); I.M. Fishleder, Mivẓ ar Yisrael (1958); A.N. Orenstein, Enẓ iklopedyahle-To’orei-Kavod be-Yisrael, 4 vols. (1958–63) (encyclopedia on
honorific titles in the Bible and Rabbinic literature); A. Maged,
Beit Aharon (encyclopedia of talmudic principles and personalities), 11 vols. (1962–78).

(1959–69); History: M. Timor, Enziklopedyah-le Historyah; H.
Messing, Enẓ iklopedyah Historit shel Medinot ha-Olam (1966);
Literature: B. Karou (ed.), Enẓ iklopedyah le-Safrut Yisraelit uKhelalit, 4 vols. (19612); J. Twersky, Sifrut ha-Olam, Leksikon,
4 vols. (1962/63–1963/64); Music: I. Shalita, Enẓ iklopedyahle-Musikah, 2 vols (1965); Social sciences: Enẓ iklopedyah leMadda’ei ha-Ḥ evrah, 6 vols. (1962–70); Sports and physicaleducation: Y. Abiram, Enẓ iklopedyah li-Sport u-le-Tarbut haGuf, 2 vols. (19662).
[Theodore Wiener]

Special Encyclopedias
Agriculture: Ha-Enẓ iklopedyah le-Ḥ akla’ut (vol. 1, 1966),
in progress; Education: Enẓ iklopedyah Ḥ innukhit, 5 vols.

ENDECJA (so called after the pronunciation of N.D., abbr.
of Polish “Narodowa Demokracja,” National Democracy; also
Endeks), right-wing political party which became a focus for
Polish antisemitism in the first half of the 20t century. The
party was active in all parts of partitioned Poland. It originated from the “National League,” established at the end of
the 19t century, to unite Poles of various political allegiance
to work for the resurrection of Poland. At first the liberal andright-wing tendencies in the party were balanced, but from1903 the chauvinist tendency gained in strength, finding expression in struggle against the Jews and a stand against liberalism, among other objectives. It also adopted a pro-Russian and anti-German policy. In Galicia, Endecja was set up
in 1905, where it was anti-Ukrainian, and in 1907 won a victory in the elections to the Austrian parliament in which its
representative was elected president of the “Polish club” of
all Polish deputies in the parliament. Between 1907 and 1911
Endecja was split and weakened by an internal crisis over its
pro-Russian policy. During the elections to the fourth Dumain 1912 in Warsaw, when the Jewish vote tipped the balance infavor of a Socialist candidate against the Polish majority, theoccasion was used by Endecja as a springboard to strengthen
the party. Under the leadership of Roman *Dmowski, Endecja
proclaimed an anti-Jewish economic boycott, which was carried out by the mass of Poles. During World War I, the party
supported Russia and the Allies and achieved its maximum
influence on the future of Poland through the establishmentof the National Polish Committee, in which Dmowski playeda decisive role as chairman. This committee was recognized
as the official representative of the Polish nation at the Versailles Peace Conference. The Endecja-led delegation took partin the coalition government of 1919 headed by I. Paderewski.
Endecja became the dominant party in the first elected Polishparliament (Sejm), and took a share in several governments
until Pilsudski’s coup in 1926. Active mainly on behalf of theinterests of the petty bourgeois urban classes, the party was
adept in making political capital out of emotionally charged
issues, such as a chauvinistic attitude toward the national minorities. Endecja continued its extreme antisemitic stand in its
struggle to preserve the Polish character of the towns in Poland against Jewish influence and economic competition. Its
connections with capitalist circles and the clergy determined
its objectives in domestic policy. Endecja was instrumental in

402

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

HUNGARIAN. Magyar Zsidó Lexikon (1930), 1929 edition published as Zsidó Lexikon.
PORTUGUESE. F. Levisky, Enciclopédia Judaica Resumida(1961); C. Roth, Enciclopédia Judaica, 3 vols. (1967).
RUSSIAN. Yevreyskaya entsiklopediya, 16 vols. (1906–13);“Shorter Jewish Encyclopedia,” 11 vols. (1976–2005).
SPANISH. P. Link, Manual Enciclopédico Judío (1950); Enciclopedia Judaica Castellana, 10 vols. (1948–51); E. Weinfeld,
Judaismo Contemprano (1961).
YIDDISH. Algemeyne Entsiklopedye: Yidn, 7 vols. (1939–66);
H.B. Bass (ed.), Dertsiungs-Entsiklopedye, 3 vols. (1957–59),
in progress; S. Petrushka, Yidishe Folks-Entsiklopedye, 2 vols.
(1943, 19492).
SERBO-CROATIAN. O. Mandić, Leksikon judaizma i krscanstva (1969).
Israel encyclopedias
General and Jewish Content
J. Klausner (ed.), Enẓ iklopedyah Kelalit, 6 vols. (1935–37); HaEnẓ iklopedyah ha-Ivrit, 21 vols. (1949–81); Enẓ iklopedyah Kelalit Yizre’el, 16 vols. (1950–61); D. Pines (ed.), Enẓ iklopedyahla-Am, 3 vols. (1956–57); Enẓ iklopedyah Kelalit Massadah, 6
vols. and supplement (1958–66).
Junior Encyclopedias
S.Z. Ariel (ed.), Enẓ iklopedyah Maʾyan, 12 vols. (1950–62);
Y. Safra (ed.), Margaliyyot, Enẓ iklopedyah li-Yladim, 9 vols.
(1954–66); I. Avnon (ed.), Mikhlal, Enziklopedyah la-No’ar,
15 vols. (19632).

endingenthe passing of various laws intended to curtail Jewish influence on the Polish economy and culture. It was active in the
numerus clausus case of 1923, and later influenced the youth
in the universities to demonstrate against the Jewish students,
leading to bloody incidents. Concerning discrimination incommercial taxation Endecja found it difficult to remain
consistent, since the party largely represented the urban element in Poland. However it acted energetically regarding
the extension of the government monopoly, and in supportof Polish cooperatives – all in an anti-Jewish direction – andin the economic restriction of Jews, even if the aims did notcorrespond with the party’s basic principles concerning the
sanctity of private property and free enterprise. Through theeconomic boycott Endecja inspired the *Rozwoj organization.
The party’s antisemitic influence was strong in military circles,
particularly among the Polish volunteers who returned after
the war from France and the United States, led by General*Haller. With Hitler’s rise to power and the spread of Nazism
in Europe, Endecja changed its traditional attitude toward
Germany, which it had always considered Poland’s principal
enemy. The party’s youth faction, influenced by Fascist ideas,
founded a new body, *NARA, that saw in the Nazi regime adesirable example for Poland. After the outbreak of WorldWar II and the collapse of the Pilsudski regime, which had
been Endecja’s political opponent, the party’s influence increased among Polish émigré circles, both among the army
reorganizing abroad and the government-in-exile, established first in France and later in England. During the Nazi
occupation Endecja was also active in the nationalist underground movement “Armja Krajowa,” which in many cases
acted against Jews. In 1970 it still had adherents among Poles
outside the country.

for Judaic Studies. In 1982 and 1999 he was a visiting scholar at
the Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies.
Endelman is known as a specialist in the social historyof the Jews of Western Europe, particularly Anglo-Jewish
history, and his work examines conversion and other formsof radical assimilation. His 1979 work, The Jews of GeorgianEngland, 1714–1830: Tradition and Change in a Liberal Society,received the National Jewish Book Award for History and the
A.S. Diamond Memorial Prize of the Jewish Historical Societyof England. His other works include Radical Assimilation in
English Jewish History, 1656–1945 (1990) and The Jews of Britain, 1656–2000 (2002). He served as editor of (and contributorto) Jewish Apostasy in the Modern World (1987) and Comparing
Jewish Societies (1997). He was coeditor, with Tony Kushner, ofDisraeli’s Jewishness (2002). He has written extensively for academic journals and has contributed to many works, including
The Legacy of Jewish Migration: 1881 and Its Impact (1983), History and Hate: The Dimensions of Anti-Semitism (1986), Livingwith Anti-Semitism: Modern Jewish Responses (1987), and The
Self-Fashioning of Disraeli, 1818–1851 (2000).
A fellow of the American Academy for Jewish Research,
he is also a member of the American Historical Association,
the Association for Jewish Studies, and the Jewish Historical
Society of England. He has received fellowships from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture, the Lucius N. Littauer Foundation,and the Lilly Endowment. Endelman’s later research involves
the study of Jewish apostasy in Europe and America from the
Enlightenment to the present.
[Dorothy Bauhoff (2nd ed.)]ENDELMAN, TODD M. (1946– ), scholar of Jewish history.
Born in Fresno, Calif., he was educated at the University ofCalifornia at Berkeley, and at Warwick University, Coventry,
England, and the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of
Religion. He received his doctorate from Harvard University
in 1976. He was an assistant professor of Jewish history at the
Bernard Revel Graduate School of Yeshiva University in New
York from 1976 to 1979 and a lecturer in history at Hebrew
Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in 1979. From 1979
to 1985 Endelman was an associate professor of modern Jewish
and European history at Indiana University, Bloomington. He
became the William Haber Professor of Modern Jewish History at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in 1985, andthe director of the university’s Jean and Samuel Frankel Center

ENDINGEN, town in Baden, Germany, site of a notorious*blood libel. Jews are first mentioned there in 1331; in 1349
they were affected by the *Black Death persecutions. Whenthe headless corpses of two adults and two children were
found in the grounds of the cemetery in March 1470, Rabbi
Elias and his two brothers (granduncles of *Joseph b. Gershon
of Rosheim) were accused of ritual murder, tortured, put on
trial, and burned at the stake on April 8, 1470. On May 5, Emperor Frederick III condemned the executions on the grounds
that the Jews were under imperial protection and ordered therelease of other imprisoned Jews, repeating this demand on
June 22 and stressing papal prohibitions of the blood libel. In
consequence of the libel, the Jews were expelled from Endingen. Despite imperial and papal disapproval, the blood libel
story was kept alive; the remains of the supposed victims wereenshrined in the altar of the Church of St. Peter. The story
was reenacted in the Endinger Judenspiel, first performed before huge crowds in 1616. A church bell cast in 1714 bears reliefs of the headless children. Carrying the children’s relics inchurch processions was prohibited under Emperor *Joseph II(1765–90). By 1871 some Jews were living in the town once
more. Their number reached 43 in 1888, but declined to ten
in 1925, and five in 1933. The remaining couple was deported

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6403

Bibliography: S. Segal, The New Poland and the Jews
(1938); R.L. Buell, Poland, Key to Europe (1939), index, s.v. Endeks;
A. Bełcikowska, Stronnictwa i związki polityczne w Polsce (1925); L.
Oberlaender, Opatrznośiowy żyd (1932); A. Micewski, Z geografii politycznej II Reczypospolitej (1964). Add. Bibliography: R. Wapinski, Narodowa Demokracja; S. Rudnicki, Oboz narodowo radykalny,geneza i dzialalnosc (1985).
[Moshe Landau]

endingen and lengnau
in 1940. In 1967 the remains of the “martyred” children were
removed from the church.
Bibliography: K.V. Amira, Das Endinger Judenspiel (1883); I.
Kracauer, in: REJ, 16 (1888), 236–45; Baron, (1967), 177, 372; K.J. Baum,in: Miscellanea Mediaevalia, 4 (1966), 337–49; Germ. Jud., 2 (1968),
209–10; F. Hundschnurscher and G. Taddey, Die Juedischen Gemeinden in Baden (1968); K. Kurrus, in: Schau-ins-Land, 83. Jahresheftdes Breisgauer Geschichtsvereins (1965), 133–48; T. Oelsner, in: Aufbau(Dec. 18, 1966 and July 31, 1970); New York Times (Oct. 1, 1967). Add.
Bibliography: W. Frey, in: R. Erb (ed.), Die Legende vom Ritualmord (1993), 201–21.

ENDINGEN AND LENGNAU, villages in the Swiss canton
of *Aargau, in the Surbtal near the German border. A few Jewish families are known to have lived there during the Middle
Ages, when the villages were in the county of Baden, but organized communities were not formed until early in the 17t
century. Around 1650 Marharam (Meir) Guggenheim was theirleader. The legal status of the Jews was based on letters of protection, which had to be renewed (and paid for) periodically.
From 1696 these letters were renewed every 16 years, the last
dating from 1792. The letters authorized them to trade in thewhole Baden region, though not in real estate, but for the mostpart they engaged in the sale of livestock. They were authorized
to grant loans against movable property only. The number ofJewish houses was limited and a Jew and non-Jew were forbidden to live under the same roof. The Jews were subject to thebailiff, but they had recourse to their rabbis in civil and religious affairs. The 1776 letter of protection limited Jewish residence in the county of Baden to Endingen and Lengnau only.
From 20 households in the entire county in 1634, the number
grew to 35 in 1702, 94 in 1761, 108 in 1774, and 240 in 1890.
A cemetery was leased to the Jews in 1603 on a small island in the Rhine, called the Judenaeule or Judeninsel. In 1750
they were allowed to acquire another cemetery (Waldfriedhof ), halfway between the two villages. In the same year a permanent synagogue was dedicated in Lengnau (which had nochurch!), and in Endingen in 1764; both communities shared
the services of a rabbi from around the same date. The synagogues were rebuilt in 1848 and 1852 respectively.
The French Revolution and the formation of the Helvetic Republic brought the Jews of Endingen and Lengnau nonearer to civic and political emancipation. By a law of 1798
they at least achieved the status of other aliens in the republic. When the French left in 1803, the Christian population of
the district rioted, plundering Jewish homes, as had alreadyhappened in 1729 and recurred in 1861. The Jews’ Law of 1809
was a retrograde move, and like the laws of 1824 (Organisationsgesetz) and 1835 (Schulgesetz) led to increased interference in the autonomy of the communities, which by then had
achieved the legal status of public corporations. The struggle
for full equality continued and was successful only in 1878.
The Reform movement led to sharp controversies within thecommunities, but the majority remained loyal to tradition.
The Jewish scholars J. *Fuerst and M. *Kayserling served as
rabbis of the communities from 1854 to 1858 and 1861 to 1870

404

respectively. The Jewish population of Endingen and Lengnau, around 1,500 in 1850, had decreased to less than 100 by
1950, and in 1962 the combined community had only 17 members. The Swiss-Jewish Home for the Aged was established inLengnau in 1903.
Bibliography: A. Weldler-Steinberg, Geschichte der Judenin der Schweiz (1966), index; F. Guggenheim-Gruenberg, Die Sprache
der Schweizer Juden von Endingen und Lengnau (1950); idem, Aus einem alten Endingen Gemeindebuch (1952); idem, Die aeltesten juedischen Familien in Lengnau und Endingen (1954); idem, Der Friedhof
auf der Judeninselim Rhein … (1956).

°ENDLICH, QUIRIN (d. 1888), antisemitic journalist in
Vienna called the “Judenfresser” (“Jew-eater”), particularly
prominent during the revolution of 1848. Endlich first contributed to S. *Ebersberg’s Zuschauer, later founding Schild und
Schwert (“Shield and Sword”), with a column entitled “Judenkontrolle” which heaped denunciations and obscenities upon
the Jews. Taking advantage of the newly proclaimed freedomof the press, Endlich called the Jews “Austria’s greatest disaster” and asserted that all their activities were destructive. His
book, Der Einfluss der Juden auf unsere Civilisation, was published in 1848. According to Endlich, the Jews had instigated
all the unrest of March 1848 in order to achieve their emancipation. To divert public resentment, they stimulated hatredagainst the real benefactors of the people, i.e., the aristocracy
and the army. By building railways the Jews ruined the innkeepers and carters, and their factories ruined the artisans.
His style and methods were later adopted by the Austrian*Christian Social Party.
Bibliography: Y. Smotricz, Mahpekhat 1848 be-Austria(1957), 15–24; J.A. von Helfert, Die Wiener Journalistik im Jahre 1848
(1877), index.
[Israel Smotricz]

ENDOR (Heb. ‫ ֵעין דּ וֹ ר‬, ‫) ֵעין דּ אֹר‬.
(1) A city in the territory of Issachar that was occupiedby the strong Manasseh tribe (Josh. 17:11). The biblical statement that Gideon’s triumph over the Midianites took place at
En-Dor (Ps. 83:11) corresponds well with its location north of
the hill of Moreh (Gibeath-Moreh, Judg. 7:1). The city’s notoriety is mainly due to Saul’s visit to “the woman that divineth
by a ghost” – the famous witch of En-Dor (I Sam. 28:7). Saul
disguised himself because he and his army were then at Gilboa and the Philistines at Shunem and he had to pass near theenemy camp to reach En-Dor. Eusebius describes it as a verylarge village 4 m. (6½ km.) south of Mount Tabor and north of
the Little Hermon (al-Nabī Daḥ ī), and also mentions its proximity to Na’im, near Scythopolis (Onom. 34:8; 94:20). En-Dor
seems to have been originally part of the district of Sepphoris
and was detached from it with Na’im to form a separate district. The name is preserved in ʿIndūr, east of Na’im and northof the hill of Moreh. Tell al-ʿAjjūl or Khirbat al-Ṣ afṣ āfa, twotells in the vicinity of Na’im containing Iron Age remains, havebeen suggested as possible sites of the ancient city.
[Michael Avi-Yonah]

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

enelow, hyman(2) The modern kibbutz of En Dor, S.E. of Mt. Tabor, wasfounded on June 16, 1948, a few days after the region was secured by Israel forces in the War of Independence. It is affiliated to Kibbutz Arẓ i ha-Shomer ha-Ẓ a’ir. Its settlers include
Israel-born pioneers and immigrants from the United States,
Bulgaria, Turkey, Germany, and South America. Its economy
was based on field crops, poultry, dairy cattle, and a factoryfor modern electronic equipment. The kibbutz also operated
a station for seed development. In the mid-1990s the population was approximately 635, rising to 783 in 2002.
[Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]Bibliography: Zafrir, in: BJPES, 14 (1948/49), 93; Abel,
Geog, 2 (1938), 316; Zori, in: PEQ, 84 (1952), 114ff.; Aharoni, in: JNES,
26 (1967), 213., n. 9.

ENDOR, WITCH OF, the popular designation of a medium
from the town of En-Dor in Manasseh, who was consulted by
King *Saul (I Sam. 28:7–25). (The woman is not designated“witch,” Heb. mekašepah.) The narrative begins with a reportof the Philistine advance; their superiority is so great that
Saul, seized with terror, vainly seeks ways of discovering thewill of God. In desperation, he resorts to necromancy, which
he himself has outlawed (ibid. 28:3; cf. Deut. 18:11). Saul finds
the necromancer of En-Dor, who is persuaded to accede to
his request to conjure up *Samuel. The prophet rebukes Sauland predicts his defeat at the hands of the Philistines. The
woman, who had recognized Saul, solicitously provides him
with a meal before he departs.
[Shlomo Balter]In the Aggadah
According to the aggadah, the witch of En-Dor was themother of *Abner and was called Zephaniah (the hidden one;
Pd RE 33), while Pseudo-Philo calls her Sedecla (unrighteous)and tells that she deceived Israel with her sorcery for 40 years(Pseudo-Philo 64:3–5). The rabbis state that the evocationof Samuel took place within 12 months of his death when
the body has not yet decomposed and the soul still hovers
near it (Shab. 152b). The witch knew it was Saul who called
upon her because the ghost appeared face upward, while
for an ordinary person it comes face downward (Lev. R.
26:7). From the details given in this story, the rabbis concluded that the necromancer sees the spirit but does not hearit, while the person that evokes the spirit hears its voice but
does not see it. Others present neither see nor hear it (Lev.
R. 26:7).
Two interpretations are given of the words “Elohim Olim”(I Sam. 28:13). One is that Samuel was evoked like a god
and thus told Saul, “Do you not know that just as punishment is inflicted upon the worshiper so it is inflicted upon theworshipped?” The other is that the word “elohim” refers
to Moses (Ex. 7:1). Samuel, fearing that the Day of Judgment
had come, brought Moses up with him to act as his advocate.

°ENDRE, LÁSZLÓ (1895–1946), Hungarian antisemite. After World War I Endre joined various antisemitic organizations and published anti-Jewish pamphlets, including a booklet in 1936 on the Protocols of the *Elders of Zion. In 1937 heorganized the “Socialist Party for the Defense of the Race,”
which merged with Szalasi’s party in August of that year. His
administrative career started in the White Terror period; heserved as county sheriff in various places and from 1923 on in
Gödöllő. In 1937, as deputy prefect of the Pest district, he became known for his brutal orders against the Jews. In 1940,
in a memorandum to Prime Minister Teleky, he proposed thesterilization of the Jews serving in forced labor units. He maintained close ties with the German Nazi party and attended
several of its conventions.
Shortly after the formation of the puppet government
under Sztójay (March 1944), he became director-general of
the Ministry of Interior, with the special assignment of dealing with the “Jewish problem.” He then issued various orders
for the concentration of the Jews in ghettos, including the secret order of April 14, 1944, providing for the establishmentof ghettos in Hungary. In his statement to the Israeli Police,
Adolf *Eichmann described Endre as a very clever man who
needed no urging to act against the Jews; on the contrary, he
was sometimes forced to restrain Endre. In his negotiations
with (Israel) Rezsö *Kasztner, Eichmann on one occasion
hesitated to agree to one of Kasztner’s requests, wondering“What will Endre say?” During the Soviet advance into Hungary in 1945, Endre fled to Austria, where he was caught by an
American unit, turned over to Hungary, sentenced to death,and executed in Budapest.
Bibliography: E. Landau (ed.), Kastner Bericht … (1961);
M. Himler, Igy néztek ki a magyar nemzet sirásói (1958), 174–84; J.
Robinson and P. Friedman, Guide to Jewish History under Nazi Impact (1960), 328; R. Hilberg, Destruction of the European Jews (1961),
index.
[Yehouda Marton]

Bibliography: Ginzberg, Legends, 4 (1913), 70, 73; 6 (1928),
235–8.

ENELOW, HYMAN (Hillel Gershom; 1877–1934), U.S. Reform rabbi, scholar, and writer. Enelow, who was born inKovno, Lithuania, went to the U.S. as a young man, age 16, andwas ordained by Hebrew Union College in 1898. Enelow served
as rabbi of Temple Israel, Paducah, Kentucky (1898–1901),
Temple Adath Israel, Louisville, Kentucky (1901–12), and Temple Emanu-El, New York (1912–34). During World War I, Enelow served in France with the Jewish Welfare Board. He wasvice president of the Central Conference of American Rabbis(1925–27), its president (1927–29), and a member of both theAmerican Historical Association and the American Jewish
Historical Society. Enelow was instrumental in having chairs
for Jewish studies established at Harvard (with the aid of his
friend Lucius *Littauer) and Columbia (aided by Mrs. Nathan
Miller). His numerous books on Jewish religion include thefollowing: The Synagogue in Modern Life (1916); The Faith ofIsrael (1917); and A Jewish View of Jesus (1920). His Selected
Works were published in four volumes by F. Levy in 1935.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6405

en-gannim

ENGEDI (Heb. ‫) ֵעין ֶ ּג ִדי‬.
(1) An oasis on the western shore of the Dead Sea andone of the most important archaeological sites in the Judean
Desert. En-Gedi (En-Gaddi in Greek and Latin; ʿAyn Jiddī inArabic) is actually the name of the perennial spring whichflows from a height of 656ft. (200 m.) above the Dead Sea. In
the Bible, the wasteland near the spring where David sought
refuge from Saul is called “the wilderness of En-Gedi” andthe enclosed camps at the top of the mountains, the “strongholds of En-Gedi” (I Sam. 24:1–2). En-Gedi is also mentioned
among the cities of the tribe of Judah in the Judean Desert(Josh. 15:62). A later biblical source (II Chron. 20:2) identifies
En-Gedi with Hazazon-Tamar but this is rejected by mostscholars. In the Song of Songs 1:14 the beloved is compared
to “a cluster of henna in the vineyards of En-Gedi”; the “fishers” of En-Gedi are mentioned in Ezekiel 47:10.
In later literary sources, Josephus speaks of En-Gedi as
the capital of a Judean toparchy and tells of its destruction
during the Jewish War (Wars, 3:55; 4:402). From documents
found in the “Cave of the Letters” in Naḥ al Ḥ ever, it appears
that in the period before the Bar Kokhba War (132–135), theJewish village of En-Gedi was imperial property and Roman

garrison troops were stationed there. But in the time of Bar
Kokhba, it was under his control, and was one of his military
and administrative centers (see *Judean Desert Caves). In the
Roman-Byzantine period, the settlement of En-Gedi is mentioned by the Church Fathers; Eusebius describes it as a verylarge Jewish village (Onom. 86:18). En-Gedi was then famous
for its fine dates and rare spices, and for its balsam.
After surveys of the area, five seasons of excavations wereconducted at En-Gedi by B. Mazar, T. Dothan, and I. Dunayevsky between the years 1961–62 and 1964–65. The settlement of En-Gedi was found to have been established only inthe seventh century B.C.E. with no evidence of occupation in
the time of David (tenth century B.C.E.). Excavations showedthat Tell Goren (Tell el-Jurn), a small hill above the southwestern part of the plain near Naḥ al Arugot, was one of the main
centers in the oasis beginning with the Israelite and especiallyin the Iron II, Hellenistic, and Roman-Byzantine periods. Surveys of the area revealed that the inhabitants of En-Gedi had
developed an efficient irrigation system and engaged in intensive agriculture. The combination of abundant water andwarm climate made it possible for them to cultivate the palm
trees and balsam plants for which En-Gedi was renowned. The
settlement was apparently administered by a central authority
which was responsible for building terraces, aqueducts, andreservoirs, as well as a network of strongholds and watchtowers along the road linking En-Gedi with Teqoa.
Five periods of occupation were uncovered on Tell Goren. The earliest settlement, Stratum V, was a flourishing town
which had spread down the slopes of the tell dating from the
Judean kingdom (c. 630–582 B.C.E.). Various installations,especially a series of large clay “barrels” fixed in the ground,
together with pottery, metal tools, and ovens indicated thatworkshops had been set up for some special industry. This
discovery conforms with various literary sources (Josephus
and others) which mention En-Gedi as a center for the production of opobalsamon (“balsam”). It can thus be assumed
that En-Gedi was a royal estate which ran this costly industry
in the service of the king. This first settlement was apparently
destroyed and burned by Nebuchadnezzar in 582/1 B.C.E.
The next town on the tell (Stratum IV) belongs to the Persian period (fifth–fourth centuries B.C.E.). Its area was more
extensive than the Israelite one and its buildings were larger
and well-built. A very large house, part of it two-storied, whichcontained 23 rooms, was found on the northern slope of thetell. En-Gedi at this time was part of the province of Judahas attested by the many sherds inscribed “Yehud,” the officialname of the province.
Stratum III belongs to the Hasmonean period. Its famous
dates are mentioned in this period by Ben Sira (Ecclus. 24:14).
En-Gedi flourished, especially at the time of Alexander *Yannai and his successors (103–37 B.C.E.). A large fortress on thetell was probably destroyed in the period of the Parthian invasion and the last war of the Hasmoneans against Herod.
The next occupation (Stratum II) contains a strong fortress on the top of the tell surrounded by a thick stone wall

406

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Enelow’s four-volume edition of Israel *Al-Nakawa’sMenorat ha-Ma’or (1929–32) was an important contribution
to Jewish scholarship. His thesis that this work served as themodel for Isaac *Aboab’s work of the same name was widely
discussed though not universally accepted. Of equal importance is Enelow’s edition of Mishnat Eliezer (or Midrash of 32
Hermeneutic Rules, with an English introduction and full apparatus, 1933). A collection of manuscripts was presented in
his memory to the Jewish Theological Seminary, New York,by his friend Mrs. Nathan Miller. His private library of over
20,000 volumes was also willed to the Seminary.
Bibliography: Philipson, in: AJYB, 36 (1934), 25–53; Rivkind, in: Essays … L.R. Miller (1938), 69–83 (Heb. sect.); Kressel, Leksikon, 1 (1965), 127–8.

ENGANNIM (Heb. ‫) ֵעין ַ ּג ִ ּנים‬.
(1) A locality in the territory of Judah, about 2 mi. (3 km.)south of Beth-Shemesh, that is mentioned in the Bible together with Zanoah (Josh. 15:34). Its identification with ʿAyn
Faṭīr near Beit Jimal has been proposed.
(2) A levitical city in the territory of Issachar (Josh. 19:21;
21:29). This has been identified by various scholars with themodern Jenin on the southern extremity of the Jezreel Valley, which Josephus mentions (Wars, 3:48) as Ginaea, on thenorthern border of Samaria. Jenin, however, is probably thebiblical Beth-ha-Gan (“gardenhouse,” II Kings 9:27), and amore plausible identification is Khirbat Beit (Bayt) Jann near
Jabneel on the northern border of Issachar.
Bibliography: G. Dalman, Sacred Sites and Ways (1935), 211;
Abel, Geog, 2 (1938), 317; Albright, in: ZAW, 44 (1926), 231f.; A. Saarisalo, in: Boundary between Issachar and Naphtali (1927), 37–39.
[Michael Avi-Yonah]

en-gedi
with a rectangular tower. This settlement is attributed to thetime of Herod’s successors (4–68 C.E.); it was destroyed andburned apparently during the Jewish War in 68 C.E. Coinsfrom the “Year Two” of the war were found in the area of theconflagration.
During the Roman-Byzantine period (Stratum I) the inhabitants of the tell lived in temporary structures and cultivated the slopes of the hill (third–fifth centuries C.E.). It appears that at least from the time of the Herodian period themain settlement at En-Gedi moved down to the plain, eastand northeast of Tell Goren between Naḥ al David and Naḥ al
Arugot.
A Roman bath was found in the center of this plain about
660 ft. (200 m.) west of the shore of the Dead Sea. It is dated
by finds, especially six bronze coins, to the period between thefall of the Second Temple and the Bar Kokhba War.
A sacred enclosure from the Chalcolithic period wasfound on a terrace above the spring. It consists of a group ofstone structures of a very high architectural standard. The
main building was apparently a temple which served as thecentral sanctuary for the inhabitants of the region.
Excavations (1970) brought to light the remains of a Jewish settlement dating from the Byzantine period. The synagogue had a beautiful mosaic floor depicting peacocks eating
grapes, and the words “Peace on Israel,” as well as a uniqueinscription consisting of 18 lines which, inter alia, calls down
a curse on “anyone causing a controversy between a man andhis fellows or who (says) slanders his friends before the gentiles or steals the property of his friends, or anyone revealing
the secret of the town to the gentiles. …” (According to Lieberman, it was designed against those revealing the secrets ofthe balsam industry.) A seven branched menorah of bronze
and more than 5,000 coins (found in the synagogue’s cash box
by the ark) were also uncovered.
[Benjamin Mazar]

Since the writing of the entry above by Benjamin Mazar,
new archaeological work and historical studies concerning EnGedi have been made. En-Gedi is an oasis on the fringe of the
Judean Desert, situated in the middle of the western shore of
the Dead Sea, in the rift valley, the lowest place on earth. The
climate of the rift valley is arid and climatic changes have inthe past influenced the flow of the springs as well as the levels of the Dead Sea. The source of the springs is in the aquiferof the Judaean Group of the Cenoman-Touron Formation. In
the past, there were ten springs, but only four are active today:‘Arugot, David, En-Gedi, and Shulamit.
En-Gedi is mentioned for the first time in the Bible asHazazon Tamar (Gen. 14:7), which was identified as En-Gedi(II Chron. 20: 2). In I Samuel 23:29; 24:2–3, David took refugein the wilderness of En-Gedi. En-Gedi is mentioned once ineach of the Talmudic writings (Tj, Shevi’it 9:2, 38d; Tb, Shabbat 26a). The inhabitants of En-Gedi made their living fromagriculture. They cultivated a very poor marl and stony soil
with irrigation channels from the waters of the springs. They
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6also collected salt and asphalt (bitumen) from the shores of
the Dead Sea, as well as chunks of sulfur from the marl plains
for the production of medicines. The main cultivations inthis oasis were palm trees and barley; balsam, a cash crop,
was also grown in the region. Writers from the Roman period praised the excellent dates that grew in En-Gedi and Judaea (Pliny, Hist. Nat. 13:6, 26; Josephus, Ant., 9: 7). The palm
tree, a symbol of Judaea, was used as a motif on Jewish coinsand Flavian victory coins. Transportation between En-Gedi
and other parts of the country was dictated by geographicaland political conditions. During ancient times En-Gedi had
a strong connection with Jerusalem. During the First Temple
period, En-Gedi was first established as a military outpost on
the western shores of the Dead Sea over against Moab andEdom. Later maritime transportation was undertaken on the
Dead Sea, as has been proven by the discovery of wooden andstone anchors, as well as of anchorages near En-Gedi and atother locations around the Dead Sea. Although sailing vessels
have not yet been found underwater, drawings and graffiti ofsailing ships are known from Masada and on the mosaic mapof Madaba. The connection between En-Gedi and Nabataea,
and later with Arabia, is attested by ancient historians, on the
one hand, as well as in the Judean Desert Documents, on theother. Nabatean coins have also been found in archaeological excavations.
During the 1980s–90s a systematic archaeological survey
was conducted in the area, and a number of intact burials of
the Second Temple period were revealed and excavated. These
were family tombs and the bodies were wrapped with linen
shrouds and interred in wooden coffins, usually without funerary objects (Hadas, 1994). In the late 1990s a large area of the
Byzantine village adjacent to the synagogue was excavated andmany dwellings were revealed, all of which supports Eusebius’
description of En-Gedi as “a large village of Jews” (Hirschfeld,in press). During this project the irrigated agricultural systems
were also investigated and excavated (Hadas, 2002). In recent
years (2003–5), a new suburb of En-Gedi dating from the Second Temple period has been revealed to the northwest of thesynagogue (Hadas, forthcoming). Caves in the cliffs behind
En-Gedi have also been surveyed, revealing Bar-Kochba coins
and papyri in some of them, and much earlier Persian period
ornaments in another. Additional excavations conducted in
the area of the synagogue area (Hadas, in press) have shownthat the Byzantine village was destroyed and burnt in the sixth
century C.E. This was the end of the Jewish settlement, which
had existed here almost continuously for about one thousand
years. A gap in the occupation of En-Gedi existed until the
13t–14t centuries C.E., when a Mamluke village was foundedat the spot and existed there for about a century. Remains of
this period were found above the synagogue site and in thegeneral vicinity. A water mill was also built at this time (Hadas, 2001–2) and it still exists near the En-Gedi spring. EnGedi remained in ruins until the establishment of the Stateof Israel in 1948.
[Gideon Hadas (2nd ed.)]407

Engel, Eliot L.
(2) Settlement in the Judean Desert on the west bank of
the Dead Sea, founded by Israeli-born youth first as a *Naḥ almilitary outpost in 1953 and later in 1956 as a civilian kibbutz affiliated to the Iḥ ud ha-Kevuẓ ot ve-ha-Kibbutzim. Its
primary functions were, initially, those of defense; but it also
successfully developed farming methods adapted to the local
conditions of a hot desert climate and an abundance of fresh
water from the En-Gedi Springs. These are fed by an underground flow (from the rain-rich intake area on the western
slopes of the Hebron Hills), which emerges on a fault line.
An area surrounding the Springs has been declared a nature reserve because of the small enclave of Sudano-Deccanian flora existing there. A field school of the Society for the
Preservation of Nature, a youth hostel (Bet Sara), and a recreation home are all situated there. Until 1967 the means oftransportation to En-Gedi were by land or sea from Sodom,
on the south side of the Dead Sea. In 1962 a narrow asphalt
road was built and it replaced the 50 km. dirt road that was
frequently destroyed by flash floods in the winter months. At
that time there was a motorboat that sailed from Sodom to
En-Gedi, and a medical doctor used to arrive once a week bylight plane (Piper) from Beer Sheva. In 1971 an asphalt roadwas built northwards and connected En-Gedi to Jerusalem,
shortening the travel time from En-Gedi to Tel Aviv, from 5
to 2 hours. The kibbutz economy was based mainly on tourism, including a guest house and medicinal waters. Farming
was based on mango plantations, date palms, and herbs. The
kibbutz had a 25-acre botanical garden with 900 plant species from all over the world. In 2002 the population of EnGedi was 603.

Law School. After graduation from college he was a teacher
and guidance counselor in the New York school system before entering politics.
He began his political career as a member of the New
York Assembly (1977–88) where he chaired the Committee
on Alcoholism and Substance Abuse as well as the Subcommittee on Mitchell-Lama Housing. After six terms in the Assembly, he challenged ten-term incumbent Mario Biaggi, who
had been convicted of bribery and extortion. He beat him ina Democratic primary, which was paramount to election in
the district. He served in Congress from 1989. In Congress
he was a member of the Energy Committee and a member of
the International Relations Committee. In typical New Yorkfashion he pursued the three I’s strategy: Israel, Ireland, andItaly. He was outspoken in his defense of Israel, and a prime
mover of the bill to move the American Embassy from Tel
Aviv to Jerusalem. He also pressed the issue of American participation in Bosnia during the crisis of the mid-1990s. Engel
was a member of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus,
the Democratic Study Group on Health, and the Long Island
Sound Caucus. He co-chaired the Albanian Issues Caucus andwas an Executive Board Member of the Congressional Ad Hoc
Committee on Irish Affairs.
Bibliography: L.S. Maisel and I. Forman, Jews in American Politics (2001); K.F. Stone, The Congressional Minyan: The Jews
of Capitol Hill (2002).
[Michael Berenbaum (2nd ed.)]

ENGEL, ELIOT L. (1947– ), U.S. congressman. Engel wasborn and raised in New York. His family lived in a third floor
Bronx tenement and around the time of his bar mitzvah
moved to middle-class public housing. During the summersof his teenage years, he worked as an actor. In 1969, he graduated from Hunter-Lehman College with a B.A. in history
and received a master’s degree in guidance and counseling in
1973 from Herbert H. Lehman College of the City Universityof New York. In 1987, he received a law degree from New YorkENGEL, JOEL (Yuli Dimitriyevich; 1868–1927), composer
and music editor, a pioneer of music in Ereẓ Israel. Born inBerdyansk, Russia, he studied at Kharkov and the Moscow
Conservatory. He was music critic of the journal Russkiye
Vedomosti for 20 years and in 1911 he published a collectionof criticism, At the Opera. The turning point in Engel’s work
came in 1900, when he began to adapt Jewish folk songs andto organize concerts for their performance. His activity attracted young Jewish musicians and the Society for Jewish
Folk Music was founded in 1908. In 1912 Engel took part with
S. *An-Ski in an ethnographical expedition to South Russia,
and collected many folk songs among the Jewish population.
Engel found in the Ḥ asidic wordless niggunim manifestationsof an original Hebrew melos. He believed that folk songs sungfor years by the Jewish people, even though containing alienelements, reflected the Jewish spirit. He applied this idea in
his most important composition, the music to An-Ski’s play
The Dybbuk (published as a suite for orchestra, 1926). He also
set Hebrew poems of *Bialik and *Tchernichowsky to music. In 1924 he settled in Tel Aviv and devoted himself to thecreation of original Hebrew-Palestinian songs. His music for
Peretz’s works was performed at the Peretz Festival in the
Ohel Theater in 1926. He also wrote children’s songs. In 1916
in Moscow he published Fifty Children’s Songs (in Yiddish).
More songs appeared in the booklets Yaldei Sadeh (1923) and
Shirei Yeladim, and in a posthumous collection Be-Keren Za-

408

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa and Gideon Hadas (2nd ed.)]Bibliography: B. Mazar et al., En-Gedi, Ḥ afirot… (1963);
B. Mazar, in: BIES, 30 (1966), 183ff.; idem, in: Archaeology, 16 (1963),
99ff.; idem, in: Archaeology and Old Testament Study, ed. by D. Winton Thomas (1967), 223ff.; idem, in: IEJ, 14 (1964), 121–30; 17 (1967),
133–43; Y. Aharoni, in: Atiqot, 5 (1961–62), En-Gedi; ibid., 3 (1961),
148–62; idem, in: IEJ, 12 (1962), 186–99; B. Mazar, S. Lieberman, andE.E. Urbach, in: Tarbiz, 40 (Oct. 1970), 18–30. Add. Bibliography: G. Hadas, “Stone Anchors,” in: Atiqot, 21 (1992), 55–57; idem,“Nine Tombs,” in: Atiqot, 24 (Hebrew; 1994); idem, “Water Mills,” in:
BAIAS, 19–20 (2001–2), 71–93; idem, “Ancient Irrigation Agriculturein the Oasis of Ein Gedi” (Doctoral Thesis, 2002); idem, “Excavations
by the Synagogue,” in: Atiqot, 49 (in press); G. Hadas et al., “Two Ancient Wooden Anchors,” in: JNA, 34:2 (2005), 307–15; Y. Hirschfeld,
Excavations (forthcoming).

engelmann, gabrielvit (1927). The Tel Aviv municipality named a prize for Israel
composers after Engel.
Bibliography: Sendrey, Music, index; A. Weisser, Modern
Renaissance of Jewish Music (1954), 71–80; M. Ravina, Yo’el Engel,Ḥ ayyav vi-Yẓ irato (1937), includes bibliography; idem, Yo’el Engelve-ha-Musikah ha-Yehudit (1947), includes list of compositions andbooks written by J. Engel.
[Simha Katz]

ENGEL, JOSEPH BEN JUDAH (1859–1920), Polish rabbi
and halakhist. Born in Tarnow, after his marriage he settled
in Bendin, where his father-in-law lived, and there becamefamous as one of the greatest of Polish rabbis. In 1906 he waselected av bet din of Cracow and was the virtual chief rabbiof the city, no one being appointed to the position during his
tenure of office. At the outbreak of World War I he moved toVienna where he died.
Engel wrote more than 100 works on halakhah, aggadah,
and Kabbalah. His works comprise a sort of (mostly alphabetic) encyclopedia and include 30 volumes on Talmud; morethan 20 volumes on Kabbalah; and five of responsa, novellae
on talmudic themes and on the Shulḥ an Arukh, and sermons.
During his lifetime about 20 of his works were published, but
the rest have remained in manuscript. After his death a committee of the friends of Engel was formed in Vienna, with thename “Ohavei Torah,” for the purpose of collecting and publishing all his manuscripts. Some of them are in the processof publication, but many others were lost as a consequenceof the Holocaust.
The following of his published works are noteworthy:
Atvan de-Oraita (1891), giving 27 fundamental principles on
talmudic methodology; Beit ha-Oẓ ar (Pt. 1, 1903; Pt. 2, 1907),
on biblical themes, arranged in alphabetical order; Bet Porat,
responsa (Pt. 1, 1907; Pt. 2, 1912); Oẓ erot Yosef (1921), comprising eight sermons; halakhic novellae on the laws of thesabbatical year as they apply at the present time (1928); andnovellae to Shulḥ an Arukh Yoreh De’ah (1929). His revolutionary interpretation concerning the sabbatical year is noteworthy: even if the sabbatical year applies to modern times,
it has only the force of a rabbinical enactment, whereas the
mitzvah of settling in Ereẓ Israel is a commandment ordainedby the Torah and hence completely abrogates the laws of thesabbatical year, thus making it unnecessary, in order to permit cultivation of the land, to have recourse to the expedientof selling it temporarily to a non-Jew. Other published worksof his are Gilyonei ha-Shas, marginal notes on the Babylonianand Jerusalem Talmuds in three volumes (1924–37), containing source references, novellae, and comparisons. They testify to Engel’s great erudition. He reveals points of similarity
with the subject under discussion in apparently unconnectedpassages. Additional works are Hoshen Yosef (1945), novellaeon the Maharit, and on the Avnei Millu’im of Aryeh Leib haKohen; Gevurot Shemonim (1903), containing 80 solutions toa single problem; and Ẓ iyyunim la-Torah (1904), consisting

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6of 40 pilpulistic discourses. These last works in particular reflect Engel’s keen and penetrating intellect. His approach to
the Kabbalah is interesting in that he finds a parallel in the
Talmud for every kabbalistic idea, and endeavors to demonstrate the close connection between Jewish mysticism and therational part of the talmudic halakhah and aggadah. Recognized as an outstanding halakhist, he was consulted on halakhic problems by hundreds of rabbis.
Bibliography: J.L. in: Der Israelit (1930), no. 15–16, p. 3f.;
S.J. Zevin, Soferim u-Sefarim-Pesakim/Perushim ve-Ḥ iddushim (1959),
150–56; Gashuri, in: Pinkas Bendin (1959), 329.
[Itzhak Alfassi]

ENGEL, JÓZSEF (1815–1901), Hungarian sculptor, born at
Sátoraljaujhely, Hungary. Intended for the rabbinate, he wassent to study at the yeshivah of Moses *Sofer at Pressburg.
While still studying, Engel began to practice sculpture, and his
father asked the rabbi whether this was permissible according to rabbinic law. On his receiving a negative reply, Engel
was forced to stop. When his father died, however, Engel left
for Vienna and became apprentice to a wood-carver. In 1840
he moved to England, where he made his name and executedbusts of Queen Victoria and of Prince Albert, who commissioned several works from him. He also executed a bust of
Sir David *Salomons, the first Jewish lord mayor of London.
In 1847 he went to Rome, remaining there for nearly 20 years
before returning to Hungary.
Bibliography: Roth, Art, 868.

ENGELBERG, Ḥ AYYIM OF (Ferdinand Franz Engelberger; d. 1642), apostate who converted to Christianity in
1636 to evade the penalty for stealing. After publishing a missionary pamphlet, he went to Vienna where he won the favor of *Ferdinand III. When he and two Jewish accomplices
were caught pilfering gems from the treasury and sentenced
to death, he assumed that the emperor would pardon him andaccepted the last sacraments peacefully. Becoming aware thatthe sentence was to be carried out, he smashed a crucifix, rejected Christianity, and asked to die a Jew, also announcingthat he had desecrated the *Host. This admission spurred themob to kill a number of Jews and plunder their homes. Afterbeing tortured and maimed, Ḥ ayyim was burned at the stakeon the Sabbath, Aug. 26, 1642, and was heard mumbling: “Maymy death be my atonement.” The incident was commemorated
on two marble tablets in Vienna. His wife and children, whom
he had persuaded to accept baptism, escaped to Poland andreverted to Judaism.
Bibliography: D. Kaufmann, Die letzte Vertreibung derJuden aus Wien (1889), 36–38; H. Gold, Geschichte der Juden in Wien
(1966), 18–19; Glanz, in: jsos, 5 (1943), 8–9; Baron, 14 (1969), 239f.,
392.

ENGELMANN, GABRIEL (d. 1850), Hungarian talmudist
and rosh yeshivah. Engelmann was born in Vaguihely. For 15409

engelmann, susanne charlotte

ENGLAND. The British Isles were unknown to the Jews untila late date, and the settlement of the Jews in medieval England was among the latest in Europe. It is possible that a small
nucleus was to be found there under the Romans and that in
the Saxon period, isolated Jews extended their commercial
activities as far as the British Isles. But the slender evidence
formerly adduced in support of this (e.g., the references in the
Liber Poenitentialis ascribed to Archbishop Theodore of Canterbury, 669) has no validity.

The Medieval Period
Jews were settled in some numbers in the continental possessions of William the Conqueror. With the Norman Conquest
in 1066, it was inevitable that some should follow him to England, even if (as sometimes reported) he did not specificallyinvite them. The new community thus had a comparatively
artificial origin, and possessed a remarkable homogeneity,
being composed almost entirely of financiers and their dependents. It may thus be regarded as a type of late medieval
Jewry in composition and in occupation as well as in its close
subjection to royal control.
The community originated in the main in northern
France, of which it was to some extent a cultural, linguistic,
and economic offshoot. A minority came from Germany, Italy, and Spain, while one or two came even from Russia andthe Muslim countries. By the mid-12t century, communities
were to be found in most of the greater cities of the country, in*Lincoln, *Winchester, *York, *Oxford, *Norwich, and *Bristol. However, the *London community was always the mostimportant. Until 1177 the only cemetery allowed was in London. No communities were found west of *Exeter or north ofYork. The Jews were treated tolerantly by the Norman monarchs. William Rufus (1087–1100) is even said to have encouraged them to enter into disputations with Christian clerics.
Under Henry I (1100–35), an exemplary charter of liberties,
the text of which is no longer preserved, was probably granted
to the Jews.
In the course of the 12t century, anti-Jewish feeling began
to manifest itself. In 1130 the Jews of London were fined thethen enormous sum of £2,000 on the charge that one of their
number had killed a sick man. The first recorded *blood libel
took place at Norwich in 1144 and was imitated at *Gloucester in 1168, before the precedent came to be followed outside
England. Similar accusations were made before the end of
the century at *Bury St. Edmunds (1181), Bristol (before 1183),
and Winchester (1192). Nevertheless, the community grew in
wealth and numbers, and its financial importance became
increasingly recognized and exploited by the Crown. In 1168
a tallage (an arbitrary tax, theoretically levied only in emergency) of 5,000 marks (a mark was two-thirds of a £) was imposed by Henry II. In 1188 a tax of one-fourth of the value of
their movable property was levied upon London Jewry. The
amount raised, according to the rough contemporary estimate,
was £60,000, as against only £70,000 raised from the general
population. The annual revenue obtained by the state fromthe Jews is conjectured to have averaged at this time £3,000.
*Aaron of Lincoln (c. 1125–1186) was the greatest English capitalist of his day. His financial aid made possible the completion of several English monasteries and abbeys, besides secular buildings. On his death, his property and credits wereclaimed by the Exchequer, where a special department was
set up to deal with them.
The period of relative tranquility ended with the spreadof crusading enthusiasm under Richard I. At his coronation,a riot began at the doors of Westminster Hall, which ended

410

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6years he served as dayyan in his native town and later was appointed rabbi and av bet din of Rohonc, Hungary, where heremained until his death. He devoted most of his life to his
yeshivah and in the introduction to his Einei Yisrael (pt. 1) relates that he chose for himself the way trodden by most Jewish
scholars to devote himself to study and teaching. His contemporaries esteemed him highly and those who gave their approbations to his books included Moses *Sofer. Engelmann’s
Einei Yisrael is in two parts, the first (Vienna, 1822) on tractates
Shevu’ot and Bava Batra, the second (ibid., 1824) on Ḥ ullin.
Some erroneously attributed to him the Gevurat ha-Shem(1838), a commentary on the Passover Haggadah, but its author is Gabriel b. Jacob Katz of Szamotuly.
Bibliography: Fuenn, Keneset, 206; J.J. (L.) Greenwald(Grunwald), Pe’erei Ḥ akhmei Medinatenu (1910), 61 no. 6; P.Z.
Schwartz, Shem ha-Gedolim me-Ereẓ Hagar, 1 (1914), 22b no. 7; M.
Stein, Magyar Rabbik, 2 (1906), 152.
[Naphtali Ben-Menahem]

ENGELMANN, SUSANNE CHARLOTTE (1886–?), educator. Born in Germany, she was recognized during the Weimar
period as an influential educator of girls, as well as the authorof significant works on education, including Die Krise der heutigen Maedchenerziehung (1929) and Methodik des deutschen
Unterrichts (1929). From 1933 on, she was deprived of theright to pursue her professional work, but she did not leave
Berlin until 1940, when she migrated to the U.S. She wasa guest scholar at Wilson College, Chambersburg, Pa., andlectured at other institutions. Her writings after 1940 stressed
the educational changes in Germany of the 1930s and thewar period. As author of German Education and Reeducation (1945), she was characterized as one of the most competent writers to assess the effectiveness of Nazi methods of indoctrination and the necessity of reeducating the German
mind.
[William W. Brickman]

ENGELSBERG, LEON (1919–1998), Israel painter. Born in
E. Europe, Engelsberg studied at the Warsaw Academy of Art.
He settled in Israel after World War II in Jerusalem, in 1955. He
painted expressionist landscapes of the Jerusalem countryside,
but did not exhibit. His landscapes describe the hills and valleys of the Jerusalem area, so that landmarks like the Temple
Mount and other religious sites are absent from his paintings.
He won the Yad Vashem and Sussman prizes.

englandin the sack of London’s Jewry and the murder of many of its
inhabitants (September 1189). The example spread throughout the country in the following spring. The leaders were inmany cases members of the lesser baronage whose religious
ardor was heightened by their financial indebtedness to theJews. At Dunstable, the handful of Jews saved themselves by
accepting Christianity. At Lynn (later *King’s Lynn), foreign
sailors exterminated the entire little community. At *Stamford
and Norwich, all who did not take refuge in the royal castle
perished. The most tragic episode occurred in York. There, thecommunity, headed by R. *Yom-Tov b. Isaac of Joigny, escapedmassacre by voluntary death (March 16–17, 1190).
These outrages had been accompanied everywhere by
the burning of the deeds of debts due to the Jews. The Crown,which derived much revenue from the profits of the moneylenders, thus suffered considerable loss. Accordingly, after his
return from captivity (to supply ransom the Jews of the country had been made to contribute three times as much as thecitizens of London) Richard, by his “Ordinance of the Jewry”(1194), ordered the establishment of an *archa or chirographchest in principal cities, under the charge of Jewish and Christian “chirographers,” in which duplicate records of all debts
contracted with the Jews were to be deposited. Thus, whatever disorders might occur, the Crown’s dues were henceforthsecure. As coordinating authority over these provincial centers, ultimately some 26 in number, there came into being
the Scaccarium Judaeorum or “*Exchequer of the Jews” – aninstitution with both judicial and financial functions. Closely
connected with it was the office of Presbyter Judaeorum or*archpresbyter – not a chief rabbi, as once believed, but official representative and expert on Jewish matters appointed by
the Crown. Of the occupants of this post, the names of Jacobof London (appointed 1199), Josce (1207), *Aaron (fil’ (i.e.,son of) Josce) of York (1236), *Elias le Eveske (1243), Hagin(Ḥ ayyim) fil’ Moses of Lincoln (1258), and Cok Hagin fil’ Deulecresse (1281) are known. In the Exchequer, the Jews of England had an organization acting in the royal interest equaled
in no other European country. Its records, preserved in unparalleled completeness, yield minute information as to theircondition.
The English communities never fully recovered from theblow they received at the time of the accession of Richard I.
John indeed favored them at first and in 1201 confirmed theircharter of liberties. However, later in his reign he began tosqueeze money out of them by a succession of desperate expedients culminating in 1210 in the harshly-exacted Bristol
Tallage of 60,000 or 66,000 marks (though this figure may
have been used merely to describe a vast sum) which reduced
them to the verge of ruin. Nevertheless, the barons viewed theJews with aversion, as instruments of royal oppression; in thecourse of armed baronial resistance to the Crown, the Jewryof London was sacked. A clause in the Magna Carta (omitted
in subsequent reconfirmations) restricted the claims of Jewish creditors against the estates of landowners who had diedin their debt.

During the minority of Henry III, the Jews recoveredsome degree of prosperity. This was, however, counterbalanced by the introduction at the Council of Oxford (1222) ofthe discriminatory legislation of the Fourth *Lateran Councilof 1215, which was enforced in England earlier and more consistently than in any other part of Europe. The most important of these provisions was the wearing of the Jewish *Badge
which here took the form of the two tablets of stone.
From the beginning of the personal rule of Henry III in
1232, the condition of the Jews rapidly deteriorated. Tallage
succeeded tallage with disastrous regularity. A “Parliamentof Jews,” consisting of six representatives from each of the
major communities and two from the smaller centers, washeld at *Worcester in 1241 in order to apportion one suchlevy. When nothing further could be extorted from the Jews
directly, Henry exercised his rights as suzerain by mortgaging them to his brother, Richard of Cornwall. They were subsequently made over to Edward, the heir to the throne, whoin turn consigned them to their competitors, the Cahorsins.
The Crown, however, resumed its rights before the expiration of the period.
Meanwhile, ecclesiastical enactments against the Jews
were enforced with unprecedented severity. A new synagogue
built at London was confiscated on a frivolous pretext (1232).
There was a whole series of ritual murder accusations, culminating in the classical case of Hugh of *Lincoln in 1255. In 1253
a decree was issued forbidding the Jews to live henceforward
except in towns with established communities. With the outbreak of the Barons’ Wars in 1263, the Jews found themselves
exposed to the animosity of the insurgents who regarded themas the instruments of royal oppression. From 1263 to 1266, one
Jewish community after another was sacked, with considerable loss of life, including those of London (which suffered
twice, in 1263 and 1264), *Cambridge, *Canterbury, Worcester, and Lincoln.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

411

The Expulsion
On his accession in 1272, Edward I found the Jews so impoverished that their importance to the treasury had become negligible. Moreover, foreign bankers who enjoyed a higher patronage had begun to render the services for which the Jews had
formerly been indispensable. By the Statutum de Judaismo of
1275, the king endeavored to effect a radical change in the occupations and mode of life of his Jewish subjects. The practiceof usury was forbidden. On the other hand, they were empowered to engage in commerce and (for an experimental period)
to rent farms on short leases. They were not, however, permitted to enter the Gild Merchant, without which the privilege
to engage in trade was virtually useless; nor were they given
the security of tenure necessary for agricultural pursuits. The
Statutum failed in its purpose. A few of the wealthier began totrade in wool and corn (though this was in many cases a mask
for moneylending) but others continued to carry on clandestinely the petty usury now prohibited by law; while some eked
out a living from their capital by clipping the coinage. This led

england+FXJTITFUUMFNFOU
CFGPSFFYQVMTJPOJO
$POUFNQPSBSZ  @    @     @   

&EJOCVSHI(MBTHPX/FXDBTUMF
VQPO5ZOF(BUFTIFBE
4VOEFSMBOE#FMGBTU.JEEMFTCSPVHI/*3*4) 4&"

0

35

)4

&"

:PSL
#MBDLQPPM-FFET4U"OOFTPO4FB)VMM#SBEGPSE
4PVUIQPSU.BODIFTUFS-JWFSQPPM
BOE4BMGPSE
4IFGGJFME-JODPMO/PUUJOHIBN&/(-"/%,JOHhT-ZOO

4UBNGPSE-FJDFTUFS#JSNJOHIBN
8PSDFTUFS
8FPCMFZ

4XBOTFB(MPVDFTUFS#SJTUPM
"5

/5

0$&

&YFUFS#VSZ4U&ENVOET$BNCSJEHF *QTXJDI
4VECVSZ-VUPO $PMDIFTUFS
0YGPSE #FSLIBNTUFE
4U"MCBOT
8BMMJOHGPSE$BMOF .BSMCPSPVHI-POEPO 4PVUIFOEBOE8FTUDMJGG
4UBJOFT

8JMUPO"/)VOUJOHEPO#FEGPSE%FWJ[FT*$/PSXJDI/PSUIBNQUPO

8BSXJDL)FSFGPSE$BSEJGG-"$PWFOUSZ

3FBEJOH.BSHBUF

8JODIFTUFS
1PSUTNPVUI#PVSOFNPVUI$BOUFSCVSZ8PSUIJOH#SJHIUPO
BOE)PWF

Jewish settlement in Britain before the expulsion of 1290, and communities existing in the late 20t century.

in 1278 to widespread arrests and hangings, in many cases on
the flimsiest pretexts.
Edward may have contemplated a relaxation of the situation by permitting a resumption of usury but for a variety of
economic and political reasons, and from sheer rapacity, hefinally decided to resolve the problem drastically. On July 18,

1290, he issued an edict for the banishment of the Jews fromEngland – the first of the great general expulsions of the Middle Ages – by All Saints’ Day (November 1). Most of the refugees made their way to France, Flanders, and Germany.
The English Jews of the Middle Ages perhaps numbered
fewer than 4,000, though contemporary chroniclers put the412

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

englandfigure far higher. They formed, intellectually as well as politically, an offshoot of the neighboring Franco-German center,even speaking French among themselves. Their interests wereaccordingly halakhic rather than literary, though no name of
the first importance figures among them. Outstanding scholars included *Jacob b. Judah of London, author of the ritualcompendium Eẓ Ḥ ayyim; the grammarian Benjamin of *Cambridge; Isaac b. Perez of Northampton; *Moses b. Ha-Nesi’ah
of London who wrote the grammatical work Sefer ha-Shoham; *Meir of Norwich, a liturgical poet; *Moses b. Yom-Tov
of London, halakhist and grammarian; and his sons *Benedict of Lincoln (Berechiah of Nicole) and *Elijah Menahemof London, physician, scholar, and financier, the greatest luminary of medieval English Jewry.
Their expulsion in 1290 cleared England of the Jews more
completely than was the case in any other European country.
The *Domus Conversorum founded by Henry III in London
in 1232 continued indeed to function until the beginning of
the 17t century, but ultimately its few inmates were in every
case foreigners. The only professing Jews known to have cometo the country were half a dozen individuals in 1310 (perhaps
to negotiate conditions for readmission), one or two physicians who were invited professionally, and occasional wandering adventurers.
The Resettlement Period
This almost absolute isolation was broken by the repercussionsof the expulsions from Spain and Portugal and of the activities of the Inquisition in the Iberian Peninsula, which drove
refugees throughout Western Europe. A small *Marrano settlement was established in London in the reigns of Henry VIII
and Edward VI but broke up on the accession of Mary in1553 and the Catholic reaction which ensued. In the reign of
Elizabeth, a semi-overt congregation existed for some years
in London and Bristol, comprising among others Dr. Hector*Nunez whose commercial connections were found usefulby the government in Spanish affairs, and Roderigo *Lopez,
the queen’s physician, who was executed in 1594 on a chargeof having plotted against her life. The latter was connected bymarriage with Alvaro Mendes (Solomon *Abenaes), duke of
Mytilene, who sent diplomatic missions to the English courton more than one occasion. Although this Marrano community at one time numbered approximately 100 persons, it had
no legal guarantee of existence. With a change in political andeconomic conditions in 1609, it disappeared.
Toward the middle of the 17t century, a new Marranocolony grew up in London, partly of refugees who had been
settled for a time at Rouen and the Canary Islands. The revolution and the spread of extreme Puritan doctrine among
the English people led to the development of a spirit morefavorable to the Jews, which increased proportionately with
the importance attached to the Old Testament. Sir Henry*Finch, Roger Williams, Edward *Nicholas, and John Sadler
were among the notables who joined in the agitation for theformal readmission of the Jews into England, whether as ameasure of humanity or in the hopes of securing their conversion. The economic revival under *Cromwell, coupled withhis anti-Spanish policy, combined to create an atmosphere
more and more favorable to the Marrano merchants, some ofwhom, such as Antonio Fernandez *Carvajal, rendered thegovernment valuable service in obtaining intelligence fromthe continent.
Meanwhile, the reported discovery of Jews in America
by Antonio (Aaron) de *Montezinos had led *Manasseh Ben
Israel, the Amsterdam rabbi and mystic, to look forward to themillennium which would be ushered in by the completion of
the dispersion through the official introduction of the Jews to
the “end of the earth” (Keẓ eh ha-Areẓ = Angle-Terre). Negotiations with him, which had been going on fitfully since 1650,
came to a head with his arrival in England in the autumn of1655. A petition presented on behalf of the Jews was backed upby his eloquent plea in the “Humble Addresses” (Amsterdam,
1655), presented to the Lord Protector. On December 4, 1655, aconference of notables met at Whitehall to consider the wholequestion. The judges present decided that there was no statutewhich excluded the Jews from the country. On the other hand,a large body of theological and mercantile opinion manifested
itself, which would consent to readmission only on the severest terms. After four sessions, Cromwell dissolved the conference before it arrived at a positive conclusion. In the following March, the London Marranos presented a fresh petition,
merely asking for permission to have their own burial groundand to be protected from disturbance in the performance of
their religious ceremonies. Their position was meanwhilestrengthened by a judicial ruling which restored the propertyof Antonio *Robles (seized on the outbreak of war with Spain
because of his Spanish nationality), mainly on the grounds
that he was a Jew. In July, as it seems, the petition of the previous March was at last taken into consideration and assented
to by the Council of State. Although the relevant pages were
subsequently torn out of the minute book, the settlement of
the Jews in England was never thereafter seriously questioned.
This was far from the formal recall for which Manasseh Ben
Israel had hoped, but its very informality secured its continuance even after the restoration of the monarchy in 1660 andsaved English Jewry from that special and inferior status which
was the rule elsewhere in Europe.
The easygoing King Charles II was indeed little disposed,on his return to England, to reverse the arrangement which
had become established under the Protectorate, in spite ofanti-Jewish agitation fostered by Thomas Violet and embodied
in a petition by the City of London. In 1664, in consequenceof an attempt at blackmail made by the Earl of Berkshire andPaul Ricaut, the community received from the Crown a formal promise of protection, and in 1673, after another petty
persecution, a guarantee of freedom of worship, which was
confirmed in similar circumstances in 1685. This pragmatic
policy of protection for the Jews was continued throughout
the reigns of the later Stuarts. Suggestions for special taxation(which must inevitably have led to special status) were not im-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6413

englandplemented. The legality of the practice of Judaism in Englandat last received indirect parliamentary recognition in the Act
for Suppressing Blasphemy of 1698.
The community henceforth grew in wealth and in importance. Its numbers were increased by immigrants, principallyfrom Amsterdam, or else directly from Spain and Portugal.
Its position was consistently favorable, despite certain vexatious restrictions – e.g., the obligation to support their children even after conversion to Christianity and the limitation of
the number of “Jew Brokers” in the City of London to 12. The
only other community in the British Isles was a small Sephardi
group in *Dublin. Nevertheless Jews figured in an increasing
proportion in the growing colonial empire – at *Tangier, *New
York, *Bombay, and in the West Indies – especially *Jamaica
and *Barbados. Numbers rapidly grew in the final years of the
17t century, particularly during the period of the close connection with Holland under William of Orange, when several families came over from Amsterdam. A new synagogue,
now classified as an historic monument, was erected in Bevis
Marks in London in 1701. The upper class of the community
was composed of brokers and foreign traders; the lucrative
coral trade, for example, was almost entirely in their hands.
Jews entered gradually into various aspects of the country’s
life. Mention may be made of city magnates, such as Samson*Gideon and Joseph *Salvador, whose financial advice wassought by successive ministries, and of Jacob de *Castro Sarmento, a notable physician and scientist, of Moses *Mendes,
the poet, and of Emanuel *Mendes da Costa, clerk and librarian of the Royal Society and a prolific writer.
Meanwhile, an influx of Ashkenazim had followed upon
the Sephardi pioneers. The forerunners came principally from
Amsterdam and Hamburg, but they were followed by othersfrom other parts of Germany and elsewhere, and later in increasing numbers from Eastern Europe. About 1690, a small
Ashkenazi community was formed in London. In 1706, as
the result of a communal dispute, a second was formed, andin 1761, a third. The newcomers were, for the most part, distinctly lower in social and commercial status than their Sephardi precursors. A large number of them were occupied initinerant trading in country areas where the Jewish peddler
became a familiar figure. They generally returned to pass the
Sabbath in some provincial center. Thus congregations, severalof which have since disappeared, grew up in the course of thesecond half of the 18t century in many country towns – Canterbury, Norwich, Exeter, and others, as well as ports such as*Portsmouth, *Liverpool, Bristol, *Plymouth, King’s Lynn,*Penzance, and Falmouth, and manufacturing centers such as*Birmingham and *Manchester. London remained, however,
the only considerable center.
The external history of the Jews in England was meanwhile tranquil. In 1753 the introduction to Parliament of theJewish Naturalization Bill (“The Jew Bill”), giving foreign-born
Jews facilities for acquiring the privileges enjoyed by their native-born children, resulted in an anti-Jewish agitation so virulent that the government withdrew the measure; but it was

not accompanied by physical violence. Political opposition,on the other hand, led to greater solidarity among the various
sections of the community. From 1760 representatives of the
Ashkenazi congregations began to act intermittently with the
deputados of the Sephardim as a watch-committee in mattersof common interest. This gradually developed into the London Committee of Deputies of British Jews (usually known
as the *Board of Deputies), ultimately comprising representatives also of provincial and (in a minor degree) “colonial”
congregations, which assumed its present form in the middleof the 19t century.

414

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

The 19t Century
The Napoleonic Wars marked an epoch in the history of theJews in England. Ashkenazi families, notably the *Goldsmids
and *Rothschilds, began to occupy an increasingly important
place in English finance and society. A generation of nativeborn Jews had meanwhile grown up, who were stimulated by
the example of Jewish emancipation in France and elsewhere
to desire similar rights for themselves. The civic and political
disabilities from which they suffered did not in fact amountto very much, for they had enjoyed a great measure of social
emancipation almost from the beginning, and commercial
restrictions were confined to a few galling limitations in thecity of London. In 1829, on the triumph of the movement for
Catholic emancipation, agitation began for similar legislation
on behalf of the Jews. It was championed in the Commons byRobert Grant and Thomas Babington *Macaulay, the great
Whig historian, and in the Lords by the Duke of Sussex, sonof George III, a keen Hebraist. On its second introduction in
1833, the Jewish Emancipation Bill was passed by the recently
reformed House of Commons, but it was consistently rejectedby the Lords in one session after the other. Meanwhile, theJews were admitted to the office of sheriff (1835) and othermunicipal offices (1845). Minor disabilities were removed by
the Religious Opinions Relief Bill (1846), which left their exclusion from Parliament the only serious grievance of which
the English Jews could complain. Lionel de *Rothschild waselected by the city of London as its parliamentary representative time after time from 1847, but the continued oppositionof the Lords blocked the legislation which could have enabled
him to take the required oaths. In 1858, however, a compromise was reached, and each house of Parliament was allowed
to settle its own form of oath. In 1885 Nathaniel de *Rothschild(Lionel’s son) was raised to the peerage – the first professing
Jew to receive that honor. The example of Benjamin *Disraeli,
one of the most brilliant of modern English statesmen, who
made no effort to disguise his Jewish origin and sympathies,
did much to improve the general social and political positionof the Jews. Sir George *Jessel was made solicitor general in
1871, and several Jews subsequently received government appointments. Herbert (later Viscount) *Samuel became a cabinet minister in 1909. Sir David *Salomons, who had been thefirst Jewish sheriff in 1835 and the first Jewish alderman in 1847,
became lord mayor of London in 1855 – a position in which

englandseveral Jews have since followed him. In 1890 religious restrictions on virtually every political position and dignity were removed and Jewish emancipation became complete.
Considerable changes had meanwhile been taking place
within the community. There was a gradual movement toward
greater cohesion. The Sephardi community had to yield prideof place to the Ashkenazim before the end of the 18t century.
Solomon *Hirschel, son of R. Hirschel *Levin (Hart Lyon),
was appointed rabbi of the Great Synagogue in London in
1802, in succession to David Tevele *Schiff of Frankfurt. His
authority was recognized by the other Ashkenazi congregations in London, who were induced by him to enter into a
closer union. His successor, Nathan Marcus *Adler, who waselected to office by the delegates of the London congregationsin association with those of the major provincial communities, may be considered the first chief rabbi. The extension of
his authority is indicated in the Laws and Regulations for all
the Synagogues in the British Empire which he issued in 1847.
He was followed as chief rabbi in 1891 by his son, Hermann*Adler, who had been acting as his father’s delegate for someyears. He was succeeded by Joseph Herman *Hertz.
COMMUNAL EXPANSION. During the 19t century AngloJewry took the lead in measures for the protection of the Jews
and the amelioration of their position in every part of theworld. In this they were assured of the assistance of the British government, which was now identified with a strikingly
protective policy toward the Jews, especially of Palestine andthe Muslim countries of the Middle East – partly because of
the absence of closely allied Christian bodies on whose behalf
the exertion of political influence could ostensibly be based, as
was the case with the rival Russian and French governments.
The Board of Deputies increased in scope of activity and inimportance. Sir Moses *Montefiore, backed up by the British
government, acted as the ambassador for the whole of Jewry,in the event of persecution, from the *Damascus Affair of 1840
onward. In 1871 the *Anglo-Jewish Association was founded tocollaborate in the work of the *Alliance Israélite Universelle,
prejudiced by the enmities aroused through the Franco-Prussian War; and in 1878 the Joint (Conjoint) Foreign Committee,
which it formed in conjunction with the Board of Deputies,
came into being as an agency for safeguarding Jewish interestsabroad. The *Jewish Chronicle, the first permanent Anglo-Jewish periodical (now the oldest continuing Jewish publicationin the world), was established in 1841. In 1855 *Jews’ College
was founded in London – the first theological seminary for the
training of Anglo-Jewish ministers of religion. It was followed
four years later by the Jewish Board of Guardians (since 1964
known as the Jewish Welfare Board), a model London organization for the relief of the poor, which was widely imitatedin provincial centers. The loose union for certain charitableand other purposes of the Ashkenazi synagogues in London,
which had been in existence since the beginning of the century, became consolidated in 1870 by the establishment, under authority of an act of Parliament, of the United Synagogue
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

which is today one of the most powerful Jewish religious organizations of its sort in the world.
The basis of the community had meanwhile been broadening, though it remained overwhelmingly centered in London. The industrial developments of the 19t century led to awidening of the area of Jewish settlement, important communities based largely on German immigration being formed or
expanded in provincial centers such as Manchester, *Bradford, etc. All were Ashkenazi, except at Manchester, where aSephardi community was also organized in the second halfof the century, mostly composed of newcomers from the Levant. With the recrudescence of persecution in Russia in 1881,
immigration increased immensely. A majority of the refugees settled in London; the communities of Manchester, Birmingham, and other places were similarly reinforced whilethat of *Leeds, wholly based on the tailoring industry, proportionately attracted the greatest number of all. The congregations in all the more important industrial towns and seaports throughout the country – including *Scotland, *Wales,
and *Ireland – now grew to important dimensions. However,at the same time, some of the older country centers, suchas Canterbury or Penzance, were decaying. The newcomers
largely settled in urban districts and entered one or two specific trades; the ready-made clothing industry was virtuallycreated as a result of their efforts. The characteristically English Trade Union and Friendly Society movements rapidly acquired a stronghold. The tide of immigration was, however,checked by the Aliens Immigration Act of 1905, passed after
a long agitation which at one time assumed something of anantisemitic complexion.
The Federation of Synagogues was established in London
by the first Lord *Swaythling in 1887 to coordinate the manysmall congregations set up by the Russian-Polish immigrantelements – partly in rivalry with the “aristocratic” United
Synagogue. The Reform movement had been introduced into
England, in spite of strenuous opposition, in 1840, when theWest London Synagogue of British Jews was founded. It waslong confined almost entirely to the capital. Branch congregations were set up before the end of the 19t century only in
Manchester and in Bradford. A more radical movement was
begun by the foundation at the beginning of the 20t century,
under the auspices of C.G. *Montefiore, of the Jewish Religious Union, which in 1910 established the Liberal Jewish
Synagogue. This also showed in the mid-century a considerable measure of expansion. The vast mass of English Jewry,
however, remained attached to the compromising Orthodoxy
represented by the United Synagogue.
SCHOLARSHIP AND CULTURE. The most eminent Jewish
scholars associated with England have been immigrants fromabroad, such as David *Nieto, Ephraim *Luzzatto, Michael*Friedlaender, Solomon *Schechter, and Adolf *Buechler.
The most eminent native-born scholars have been humanists
rather than talmudists, such as David *Levi, an able polemicist and translator of the liturgy, and (in more recent years)415

englandIsrael *Abrahams, H.M.J. *Loewe, and C.G. Montefiore. On
the other hand, through the building up of the superb collections of Hebrew printed books and manuscripts at the British
Museum, the *Bodleian Library at Oxford, and the Library of
the University of Cambridge (the last predominating in the*Genizah Mss.), England has become in many ways the Meccaof the Jewish student throughout the world.
The *Disraelis, father and son, are noteworthy figures inthe English literature of the 19t century. Grace *Aguilar andAmy *Levy are among the earliest names in a series of Anglo-Jewish novelists which culminated with Israel *Zangwill,
Louis *Golding, etc. Joseph *Jacobs was an eminent figure in
English as well as in Jewish letters. Sir Sidney *Lee, editor of
the Dictionary of National Biography and the foremost Shakespearian scholar of his day, and Sir Israel *Gollancz, secretaryof the British Academy, illustrated the Jewish contribution to
English literary studies. In art, Simeon *Solomon, Solomon
J. *Solomon, Sir Jacob *Epstein, and Sir William *Rothenstein were notable figures. Sir Landon Ronald occupied an
important position in the world of music. Alfred *Sutro wasamong the most popular English dramatists of the Edwardianera, while in the middle of the 20t century Arnold *Wesker,
Harold *Pinter, Wolf *Mankowitz, Peter *Shaffer and others
have attracted considerable attention. In politics, the Jewish
representation in Parliament is considerable. Jews have been
identified with all parties (since World War II, especially the
Labour Party), and individuals have risen to high rank under
governments of every complexion.
Modern Period
MASS IMMIGRATION. The mass immigration from Eastern
Europe that began in 1881 opened a new epoch in Anglo-Jewish history. The Anglo-Jewish community was affected not
only by the sheer size of the migration, which increased the
population of the community from 65,000 in 1880 to 300,000
in 1914, but also by the differences it imposed on the character of the community. The immigration injected into what
was by then an increasingly middle-class, anglicized, mainly
latitudinarian body, a mass of proletarian, Yiddish-speaking,predominantly Orthodox immigrants. Whereas the existing
community had begun to disperse from the old Jewish quarters into the suburbs, the immigrants formed compact, overcrowded ghettos in East London, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, and Glasgow. Furthermore, while the earlier English
Jews had tended to seek an increasing diversity of occupationsin the 19t century, the immigrants were concentrated in alimited number of trades: in 1901, about 40 of the gainfully
employed Russo-Polish immigrant males were tailors, about
12–13 were in the boot and shoe trade, and about 10 werein the furniture trade, mainly as cabinetmakers. The immigrants created a network of institutions such as Yiddish anda few Hebrew newspapers and fraternal societies and tradeunions, although the Jewish trade-union movement had no
lasting history in Britain. They also created many small syna-

gogues (ḥ evrot) and joined in the London Federation of Synagogues – albeit under the leadership of English Jews – headedby Sir Samuel Montagu, later Lord Swaythling.
The communal leadership sought to “anglicize” the immigrants by encouraging their participation in classes inEnglish, the state-aided Jewish schools, such as the Jews’ Free
School, and clubs and youth movements, like the *Jewish Lads
Brigade. The London *United Synagogue tried to found a large
synagogue in the Jewish quarter with associated community
services (the “East End Scheme”), but this plan was frustrated
largely by opposition from the ḥ evrot it was intended to replace. The immigrants themselves generally sought anglicization, as British prestige was high in the world and the British
libertarian tradition was appreciated among Jews. While somestalwarts, such as the Machzike Hadath community, remained
aloof, many immigrants joined the United Synagogue, since
its rite was broadly traditional. The instance of social mobility
was high among the immigrants: they sought economic independence, moved to the suburbs, and joined the Anglo-Jewish
middle class. Leaving aside minorities of Orthodox, secularists, Yiddishists, socialists, and anarchists, the Anglo-Jewish
community that evolved was probably more integrated thanany other in the western lands of immigration.
The influx of so many aliens, at a time when there wasno effective control over immigration, produced considerable reaction among the native population. Charges weremade that aliens working for low wages on piecework insmall workshops would depress wages generally and cause
unemployment; pressure on housing accommodation would
cause overcrowding, raise rents, and introduce “key money”(premiums for grant of tenancies); the English or “Christian”
character of whole neighborhoods would be altered, and immigrants would bring disease and crime. Strong sections of
the trade unions were hostile to immigration. Organizations
such as the British Brothers’ League were formed to combat
it, and, unfortunately, the peak years of immigration occurred
during a period of economic depression.
The charges against the aliens were investigated by several official inquiries, culminating in the Royal Commission
on Aliens in 1903, which declared all the charges unfounded,
except, in part, that relating to overcrowded housing conditions. A majority of the commission recommended measures
to prevent the concentration of immigrants in particular areas.
This move proved impracticable, but the government reacted
by introducing the 1905 Aliens Act to restrict immigration.
The act had some effect at first, but, since it contained appeal
provisions for genuine refugees from racial or religious persecution, the number of immigrants increased again to the former annual average. Many opponents of immigration sought
to distinguish between the immigrant population and the established Jewish community. The latter had at first displayed
an ambivalent attitude toward the immigrants. Although
they recognized the humanitarian problem, some leaders
feared that the communal institutions would be swamped by
the helpless, and at first it was not generally appreciated that

416

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Cecil Roth]englandRussian persecution was more than a temporary check on
the progress of liberalization. In the earlier years, therefore,
attempts were made to dissuade immigrants from coming toEngland and even to “repatriate” them to Eastern Europe. After the 1903–04 pogroms, however, there was no longer any
doubt about the nature of the situation in Eastern Europe andthe support of the Jewish communal leadership for immigration was unquestioned.
PARTICIPATION IN PUBLIC LIFE. Meanwhile, political emancipation for British Jews reached its climax when the first peerage was conferred upon a Jew, Lord *Rothschild (1885). The
attainment of social acceptance was expressed by the presence of a number of Jews in the “Marlborough House set”
centered around the Prince of Wales (later Edward VII); Lord
Rothschild and his brothers, Alfred and Leopold, the Reubenbrothers, Arthur and Albert *Sassoon, Sir Ernest *Cassel,
Baron de *Hirsch, and others, were members of this group.
Jews had also become prominent in politics as Conservative
members of Parliament (such as the communal leaders Lionel
Louis and Benjamin *Cohen), although as a group they still
belonged primarily to the Liberal Party which had fostered
Jewish emancipation. Notable in the Asquith administration,
which began in 1906, were Sir Rufus Isaacs (who became lordchief justice as Lord *Reading in 1913) and the young Herbert
Samuel. The prominence of Jews in Liberal politics, the Marconi case (in which both Isaacs and Samuel were, however
unfairly, involved), the wealth of Jewish financiers, and eventhe friendship of Jews with royalty were all ingredients in theliterary antisemitism of the Edwardian period, in which Hilaire Belloc, G.K. Chesterton, and Rudyard Kipling all attacked
the allegedly alien influences in high places.
WORLD WAR I. The outbreak of World War I (1914) ended thegreat immigration, although the refugees from Belgium included a considerable number of Jews of East European origin.
The high-strung xenophobia of the early war years, in which
everything related to Germany was attacked, created some
antisemitism and some curious anti-German reactions in the
Anglo-Jewish community. The demand for uniform clothing
produced an economic boom which benefited small Jewish
entrepreneurs. On the other hand, because their civilian occupations were generally not essential enough to defer themfrom military service in the national interest, the proportion ofJews in the armed forces was higher than in the general population. Genuine loyalty, however, was also responsible for thisfactor: there were 10,000 casualties among the 50,000 Jews
serving, and 1,596 were decorated (including six recipients of
the highest award, the Victoria Cross), which was also probably above the general average. Of special significance was theraising of Jewish battalions of the Royal Fusiliers to serve inthe campaign to liberate Palestine from the Turks.
The outstanding event of the war, however, was the attainment of the *Balfour Declaration in 1917. Zionism in England originated with the *Ḥ ovevei Zion in 1887, led by Elimd’Avigdor and Colonel Albert *Goldsmid. Although some of
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

the older members of Anglo-Jewry were interested in the Jewish national movement, the recent immigrants provided themass of support, particularly after the development of political
Zionism in 1897. *Herzl visited England on a number of occasions and the offer of *Uganda was made to him by Joseph*Chamberlain, then colonial secretary. Although Sir Francis
Montefiore became president of the English Zionist Federation, formed in 1899, many leading figures of the establishedcommunity, notably the first Lord Rothschild, Sir Samuel*Montagu (Lord Swaythling), and Hermann *Adler, the chief
rabbi, opposed it. The turmoil World War I brought to theMiddle East and the desire to influence American Jewry on
behalf of the Western allies provided Chaim *Weizmann withthe opportunity to persuade the British government to issue
the Balfour Declaration. To some extent, Weizmann had been
anticipated by Herbert Samuel, a member of the government
until 1916, in a pro-Zionist memorandum to the prime minister. The official leadership of the community was now much
more disposed to Zionism: the new chief rabbi, Joseph Hertz,
the Haham of the Sephardim, Moses *Gaster, and the second
Lord Rothschild (who succeeded his father in 1915) were allactively associated with Zionism. The issue of the declaration
had been preceded by a letter to the Times from the presidentsof the Board of Deputies (D.L. Alexander) and the Anglo-Jewish Association (Claude Montefiore) dissociating themselvesfrom Jewish nationalism. The declaration precipitated theresignation of Alexander and the victory of the pro-Zionists,
whose views were henceforth the official policy of the AngloJewish establishment. The events of 1917 thus served as a catalyst within the Anglo-Jewish community and promoted it into
a new role in world Jewry, since Britain was to become the administering power for the Jewish National Home.
RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL TRENDS. Although Russo-Jewish
immigrants had exercised a decisive influence in the religious
and intellectual spheres, they were not alone. A group of British- or Empire-born scholars and writers grew up in the 1880s
with the Romanian-born Solomon *Schechter as their mentor.
The Anglo-Jewish Historical Exhibition of 1887 (with whoseorganization the art connoisseur Sir Isidore Spielmann was associated) was visited by Heinrich *Graetz, who urged the formation of a body to study Anglo-Jewish history. This suggestion was implemented in 1893 by the foundation of the *Jewish
Historical Society of England, with whose work Lucien *Wolf,
equally celebrated as an expert on international affairs, wasassociated for over 35 years. Apart from the continuation ofhistorical studies, the specifically Anglo-Jewish renaissancewas short; Schechter and Jacobs moved to America, as did the*Jewish Quarterly Review (begun by Claude Montefiore andIsrael Abrahams in 1888).
The main body of religious Anglo-Jewry continued its
latitudinarian way. While small congregations of German
or East European origin maintained a separate existence on
the extreme right of the religious spectrum, the immigrants
increasingly joined the United Synagogue in London and its

417

englandprovincial counterparts. Some changes in liturgical usage had
been sanctioned by the aged chief rabbi, Nathan Marcus Adler,in 1880 and may have led to his retirement from active office.
His son, Hermann, who succeeded him sanctioned further
changes in 1892. But these changes were in detail rather thansubstance and followed what the United Synagogue then described as its principle of progressive Conservatism, an attitude confirmed by the next chief rabbi, Hertz.
In contrast to this trend was a movement in the 1890s
for more radical change that soon broke from the Orthodox
ranks, although several of those originally concerned, such as
Simeon *Singer, the translator of the prayer book, remained in
the Orthodox community. As a result, in 1902, Claude Montefiore formed the Jewish Religious Union, which soon developed into the Liberal Jewish Synagogue.
The 1920s was a period of deceptive political calm andrelative intellectual stagnation for Anglo-Jewry. Socially, thedecade saw the progressive anglicization of the community
and its increasing upward mobility from the working to the
middle class. Small businesses prospered; the new generation
turned to professional callings as lawyers, doctors, dentists,
and accountants; and university education, even in the established institutions, began to be the practice for the middle
class, instead of the prerogative of virtually the upper classalone. Social change was reflected in the steady exodus fromthe crowded Jewish quarters in London and the main provincial centers as middle-class families acquired a house andgarden in the expanding residential suburbs. A distinctively
Anglo-Jewish, middle-class way of life began to develop there,
and Golders Green became as characteristic a milieu of interwar Anglo-Jewry as Maida Vale had been in the 1880s.
An attempt to finance a massive education renaissance as
the Jewish memorial to World War I fell far short of achievement, but the United Synagogue, under the effective paternalism of the industrialist Sir Robert Waley-*Cohen, continued to expand as an efficiently run religious organization andfounded new synagogues in the developing districts of London. During this period, the Board of Deputies was led by
Sir Osmond d’Avigdor-Goldsmid, a founder of the “mixed”*Jewish Agency, on which both Zionists and non-Zionists
served. Although the Zionist victory of 1917 had changed thecommunity’s political trend, it had not yet effected a social
revolution and removed control from members of the older
establishment.
THE SHADOW OF NAZISM. The 1930s were overshadowed by
the rise of fascism, which produced an immigration of 90,000
refugees (73,000 from Germany and Austria, 10,000 from
Czechoslovakia, 4,000–5,000 from Poland, and 2,000 from Italy and elsewhere). Of this number, 10,000–12,000 left Britain
in 1940, 2,000–2,500 were transferred as internees to Australia
and Canada and did not return, and 15,000–20,000 left after
1945 or died during the period, so that some 40,000–55,000
prewar refugees, mostly but not exclusively Jewish, werecounted in Britain by 1950. Quantitatively, this was a sub-418

stantial intake for a community of between 300,000 and
400,000, though a much smaller one than the Russo-Jewish
immigration of 1881–1914. Qualitatively, its impact was almost
as great. The Central European immigrants were essentiallyfrom the middle class, unlike the originally proletarian RussoJewish ones. Before drastic restrictions were imposed on theexport of property from Germany, the refugees of the 1930s
brought considerable capital: it is estimated that up to mid1938, £12,000,000 were transferred from Germany to Britain.
The immigrants created or transplanted many businesses, particularly in the fashion trades, pharmaceutical production, andlight engineering, and made London the European center ofthe fur trade in place of Leipzig. Equally important was theinfluence of the many professionals, intellectuals, and artists
upon British scientific, literary, and cultural life.
The effect of this immigration upon Anglo-Jewry waseven more dramatic. Both branches of religious life were
strengthened. Ministers and scholars trained in the German
Reform movement revitalized progressive Judaism; the Frankfurt-inspired Orthodox expanded the separatist Orthodox
movement in England and also produced a shift to the rightin the United Synagogue. The Jewish day-school movement,
the *Gateshead yeshivah (founded in 1927) and associated institutions and, after 1945, a number of other educational institutions (especially in North and North-West London) were
strengthened by German and Hungarian Jews. The Central
European immigrants virtually created a cultural revival in
the academic sphere. They took part in every aspect of activity from rabbinic studies to Anglo-Jewish historiography, andpostwar institutions like the Department of Hebrew and Jewish Studies at University College, London, would have beenunthinkable without them.
Continental fascism was imitated in England on a smallerscale and fostered by the economic depression of the early
1930s. Attacks on Jews and Jewish property by the “blackshirts” led by the English fascist leader Sir Oswald Mosley,provocative processions through the Jewish areas, and street
clashes with left-wing elements followed, but were checked by
the 1936 Public Order Act, which, inter alia, banned the wearing of political uniforms. The need to defend the community
against these attacks induced a feeling of solidarity that was
intensified by the need to raise funds for the relief of refugees
and the work of settlement in Palestine. Fund raising again
became a primary communal commitment that served as aunifying force as well as an engrossing organizational andsocial activity.
WORLD WAR II. The outbreak of war in 1939 had a centrifugal effect on Anglo-Jewry. At first schoolchildren and somemothers were evacuated from London and other large centersof population; the heavy bombing which began in the autumn
of 1940 brought about a more general dispersal. Service in thearmed forces took away women as well as men, and in 1940
refugees were subjected to large-scale, though temporary, internment. Religious and communal life in London continued

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

englandon a smaller scale, and the dispersal of the population was followed by a regrouping in new communities in the evacuation
areas. The countryside and small towns, which had hardly
known a Jew, became the homes of thriving communities forthe duration of the war, and some of these new communities
maintained their existence even after the war. The main effectof the war on the distribution of the Jewish population, however, is seen in the East End of London and in some of theother Jewish quarters in the main provincial cities, where thebombing destroyed the physical environment. The Ashkenazi
Great Synagogue in Duke’s Place, London, was only one of theJewish monuments and institutions that was lost. In the East
End of London, the old Jewish residential area was never rebuilt though some of the older people remained or returnedand many others continued to come in daily to work.
ENGLAND AND PALESTINE. The relations of the developing
Jewish community in Palestine with the British government
as a mandatory power increasingly concerned the Anglo-Jewish community, which expressed opposition to the policy set
down in the White Paper of 1939, limiting Jewish immigration to Palestine. Support for a Jewish state was the policy of
the Zionist bodies and the *World Jewish Congress, but notof the *Anglo-Jewish Association nor of its splinter group,
the anti-Zionist Jewish Fellowship, headed by Sir Basil *Henriques (which dissolved in 1948). The Anglo-Jewish Association enjoyed great prestige for its distinguished membershipand 70 years of concern with foreign affairs. The wish to mobilize the support in the representative body of Anglo-Jewry
for Zionist policies was combined with a desire to make its
leadership reflect the changing character of the community
as a whole. These aspirations were symbolized by the 1939
election of Selig *Brodetsky, a first generation Russo-Jewish
immigrant, educated in Britain, as president of the Board of
Deputies. They were realized in 1943 by a carefully planned
campaign to secure the election to the board of a majority
committed to the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. The
newly elected board dissolved its joint Foreign Committeewith the Anglo-Jewish Association. As in World War I, theproblems of Palestine effected a polarization in the Anglo-Jewish community between those who put primary emphasis on
Jewish national ideals and those who stressed the overriding
claims of British citizenship.
Although this dichotomy was unrealistic in many respects, it sharpened communal tensions. After the creationof the State of Israel, the Anglo-Jewish Association adopted apolicy of goodwill toward the new state, but stressed the responsibilities of Anglo-Jews as citizens of Britain who wereidentified with its national life. Communal tensions were alsoheightened by some antisemitism, which resulted from theconflict between the mandatory administration and the yishuv, beginning with the assassination of Lord Moyne in 1944
and culminating in the hanging of two British army sergeantsin August 1947. The latter was followed by minor disorders insome provincial cities and some attacks on Jewish property.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Normalcy was restored after the establishment of diplomatic
relations between the British government and the new state.
EDUCATION. The need to provide for the education of children dispersed in the 1939–45 evacuation led to the formation of a joint emergency organization. In 1945 Jewish education was substantially reorganized on this basis with a central
council for the whole country and an executive board for
London, representing the United Synagogue and other Orthodox institutions. Jewish education during the evacuation
had been limited to an average of one hour a week, and improvement of standards after the war was slow. The new organization was responsible for the reconstitution of the Jews’
Free School and two other of the prewar private schools thatwere closed during the war, one of which was a secondary
comprehensive school in a central location with a plannedcomplement of 1,500 pupils. As Jewish education regained
importance, the schools took various forms: the Jewish secondary schools movement, begun in 1929 by Victor Schonfeld;
the day schools begun in the 1950s under Zionist auspices; independent Orthodox day schools with Yiddish as a languageof instruction; the long-standing provincial day schools; andCarmel College, a private school in the country, founded by
Kopul Rosen.
Early Postwar Period
Chief Rabbi Hertz died in January 1946 and Israel *Brodie succeeded him in May 1948. The first chief rabbi to be both bornand educated in Britain, Brodie found the religious spectrumof Anglo-Jewry not only growing stronger at either end but
also tending to disintegrate in the middle. Orthodoxy, combining strict observance and exact learning with secular culture, had been strengthened by the Central European refugees of the Frankfurt school and, particularly after 1945, wasalso increased by refugees from Poland and Hungary, many ofwhom were Ḥ asidim. The Reform and Liberal congregations,while still a minority, probably increased their membershipat a greater rate than the United Synagogue, opening numerous new congregations and founding the Leo Baeck College
to train their own ministers. Although their leadership was
clearly strengthened by the Central European immigration of
1933–39, much of their postwar membership could only havecome from the ranks of the nominally Orthodox. The Spanish and Portuguese Congregation also increased with the immigration of Jews from Egypt, Iraq, and Aden.
In 1956, Anglo-Jewry celebrated the tercentenary of theresettlement, with a more or less united service at the historic
Bevis Marks Synagogue and a dinner at London’s Guildhall,in the presence of the Duke of Edinburgh. But the sentiments of communal solidarity – and of self-congratulationon communal self-discipline – engendered by these celebrations were short-lived. There had already been considerable
changes within the main synagogal bodies. The character of
the Federation of Synagogues changed as its membership,
while hardly increasing, moved from the small ḥ evrot of the419

englandEast End to live in the suburbs. There they often attended local synagogues but retained membership in the federation for
sentiment and burial rights. The old-fashioned minister (andeven his clerical collar) had disappeared in the United Synagogue in favor of younger rabbis, often pupils of Jews’ College
under the direction of Isidore *Epstein, who strove to remodel
it as a rabbinical seminary. The bet din, under the influence
above all of the great scholar Yehezkel *Abramsky, steadily
kept the religious orientation of the United Synagogue to theright; at the same time, however, the old lay leadership, under
the presidency of Frank Samuel and Ewen Montagu, tended
toward religious flexibility. The influence of members of theolder families must not be exaggerated, however. As early as
the 1950s, a new generation of laymen – second-generation
citizens, Zionist, and traditionally Orthodox – was maturingin the United Synagogue.
In all these changes lay the seeds of conflict, which crystallized around Louis *Jacobs, a rabbi of Orthodox practice
who held certain modernist views. Minister of the fashionable
New West End Synagogue (London), Jacobs was appointed tutor of Jews’ College in 1959 with the consent of the chief rabbi.
The latter, however, vetoed Jacobs’ appointment as college
principal and then in 1964 his reappointment to his former
synagogue, because he held that Jacobs maintained parts of
the Torah were not of divine origin and human reason should
select which parts were divine. The local management of thesynagogue persisted in their desire to have Jacobs as ministerand permitted him to preach, although the requisite certificate
or special sanction had not been issued by the chief rabbi. The
central body of the United Synagogue then constitutionallydeposed Jacobs’ supporters, who founded a new congregation in another area with Jacobs as minister. The “Jacobs Affair” received wide publicity in the non-Jewish press, but its
significance may have been exaggerated. Since the formationof the Reform Synagogue in 1840, Anglo-Jewry has not beenvery interested in theology or biblical criticism, as distinct
from ritual or liturgy. There were personal and social factors
underlying the controversy, and a shift took place in the leadership of the United Synagogue in 1962, when the presidency
was first filled from outside the circle of older families by thefinancier and industrialist Sir Isaac *Wolfson. The incident
that led to the formation of a new synagogue was over a disciplinary issue, not a theological one (preaching without thechief rabbi’s certificate), and the new congregation has not yet
inspired a wider movement. The issues involved in the “Jacobs
Affair” and its consequences could, however, be regarded as
marginal to the much more important problem of Jewish religious life, i.e., the progressive alienation of growing sectionsof the Anglo-Jewish community from Jewish religious affiliation of any kind.
The main countervailing factor to the trend away fromJewish identification was the influence of the State of Israel.
Mobilizing support for Israel was a major communal and social activity and, to some extent, a substitute for the organized
religious life of earlier times. But it actively affected only a mi-

nority of the community until the *Six-Day War (1967), when
the danger to and triumph of Israel produced an emotional
reaction unprecedented in intensity and affecting even many
who were previously estranged from Jewish life. It was notclear, however, how lasting the effect would be or whether it
might weaken Anglo-Jewry still further by adding to thosenumbers, previously inconsiderable, who have gone to settlein Israel. Anglo-Jewry made little impact on world scholarship in the second third of the 20t century.

420

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Vivian David Lipman]

DEMOGRAPHY. The number of Jews in Britain, which was estimated to be 410,000 in 1967, is declining in absolute terms.
World Jewish population figures show that during the 1960s
Britain’s Jewish community has slipped numerically fromfourth to sixth place. This decline is being felt acutely in theprovinces, in both very small communities and larger centers.
Greater London, on the other hand, has maintained its levelof 280,000 Jewish inhabitants (61 of the total Jewish population of the country). Close to 75 of the Jewish populationof Britain is concentrated in the country’s five largest cities.
The most significant trend in the last two decades has been
the migration of the Jewish population from the urban central
areas – the old ghetto quarters – to the new suburban districts
surrounding big conurbations. The exodus from the older districts has not, however, been characterized as a transplantationof old communities in new areas. A concomitant phenomenon has been the wider distribution of the Jewish populationin places more distant from urban centers and settlement ina more scattered fashion among a predominantly non-Jewish
population. In these areas Jews lack effective community organization and are isolated from the more developed forms ofJewish life found nearer the cities, exposing them to the potent forces of assimilation. The influence of assimilation must
be regarded as one of the factors contributing to the numerical decline of the community. In purely demographic terms,
the most visible symptom of this decline, and one reflecting
the speed with which it is taking place, is the drop in Jewish
marriages, and the intermarriage rate has been estimated tobe between 12 and 25. The drastic change can be seen when
the synagogue marriage rate of 4.0 per thousand in the period
1961–65 is compared with the marriage rate in the general population, which was 7.5 in the same period. This very substantial
difference may be attributed to two main causes:(a) the rise in the number of Jews who marry by civil ceremony only, a phenomenon which might also signify a rise in
the rate of intermarriage;(b) the decline in the Jewish birthrate over the last few
decades. In the second half of the 20t century a strong tendency had set in among Jews in Britain not to go through a religious ceremony in the synagogue, the causal factor for whichmight be the increase in the intermarriage rate.
OCCUPATIONS. The occupational trends in the second quarter of the 20t century (up to the 1960s) have been as follows:englandlarge numbers have abandoned the semi-skilled and manual
occupations; increasing proportions have entered occupations
with opportunities for self-employment, such as shopkeeping,hairdressing, and taxi driving; and there has been a continuous rise in the number of Jews entering the professions. The
number of economically active persons in the community
has declined, but one explanation for this turn is the greaternumber of Jewish students who remain in school after age 15
and proceed into the professions. The disproportionate Jewish
interest in finance has drastically decreased and preoccupation with manufacturing has increased substantially. Since thebeginning of the 20t century, the predominance of Jewishowned merchant banks has declined, while Jews have become
more prominent in enterprises of large-scale production, particularly of consumer goods. On the whole, information concerning industrial distribution shows that remarkable similarities exist between Jews in Britain, the United States, Canada,
and continental Europe. In all cases large concentrations ofJews are found in the clothing and textile trades, distributive
trades, and light industries, and to an increasing degree inprofessional and administrative services. There is an underrepresentation of Jews, however, in agriculture and heavy
industries. The fact that the younger generation has largely
avoided the traditional Jewish industrial setting of tailoring
and furniture making in the last three decades has resulted
in a decline of the Jewish labor and trade-union movementsthat flourished at the turn of the century. The Jewish worker
in the 1950s exhibited a strong tendency to leave the ranks of
the working class and become self-employed. It has been estimated that Jewish students compose 3 of the total student
population of Britain, whereas Jews account for less than 1
of the population of the country. In addition, only 11.4 of theJewish women were economically active, compared to 33.9
in the general population.

organizations are represented; the Association of Jewish
Youth, with some 15,000 members; and the Inter-University
Jewish Federation, with some 30 affiliated societies in most
universities and in many other higher educational establishments.
Some of the basic constituents of religious identification
seem to have remained stable since the 1930s. Thus, in 1934
there were 310 registered synagogues in England and Walesand 400 in 1962; however, considering that there were fewer
than 300,000 Jews in the country in 1934, the number of synagogues per thousand Jews had not changed. In London morethan a third of the Jewish population is not affiliated with any
synagogue, while in Leeds and Liverpool less than a quarterof the Jews were found to be similarly unaffiliated. All thesurveys taken in this area point to the fact that the vast majority of Jews still ascribe to religious burial. Synagogue attendance compared with prewar years has been low, except
for the High Holidays; however, fragmentary statistics on thispoint suggest that attendance runs parallel to church attendance among the general population, i.e., between 13–15 ofthe population attend services weekly. Some religious practices, such as bar-mitzvahs, are observed by a substantial majority, and other practices, such as circumcision, are almost
universally maintained. There can be no doubt, however, thaton the whole the influence of religion on Anglo-Jewry has
declined. Immanuel *Jakobovits, who was elected chief rabbi
in 1966, declared after taking office in 1967 that the survivalof Judaism was the primary challenge, in view of “staggering
losses by defections, assimilation and intermarriage.” He drew
particular attention to the estimate that 85 of the students
and 90 of the 2,000 academics were outside organized Jewish religious life.

COMMUNITY LIFE. Organization life in Britain boasts a widearray of charitable, religious, educational, recreational, andpolitical groups. These often overlap both in function andmembership, which makes it difficult to estimate the proportions of Jews associated with particular types of organizations. Some figures are available, however; in London 61 ofthe Jews are members of synagogues, as are 75 in Liverpool;in Leeds more than 43 contribute to charitable organizations,and over 63 contribute to the *Jewish National Fund; in theWillesden district of London, 72 of the boys and 53 of thegirls are members of Jewish youth groups. Youth organizations
are divided into the following categories: various clubs offering social and sports activities, the best example of which is*Maccabi; Zionist organizations offering educational and recreational programs and strengthening cultural and personalties with Israel, such as *Habonim and *Bnei Akiva; organizations providing study courses and the Jewish Youth Study
Group movement; and societies for Jewish students at universities and colleges. The larger representative youth organizations are the Jewish Youth Council, on which nearly 40

EDUCATION AND CULTURE. The leadership of the community agrees that the key to the preservation of Jewish identification in general, and religious practice in particular, iseducation, although Jewish education in and of itself will not
insure identification without the maintenance of a Jewish atmosphere in the home. Statistics also reveal a continuing desire on the part of Jews to associate mainly with fellow-Jews.
Education has been constantly highlighted, therefore, and in
the past 15 years much effort has gone into the establishmentof Jewish day schools, especially after it became evident that
Jewish education imparted through talmud torah classes after
school hours was becoming less and less satisfactory. In 1962
it was estimated that in London and the provinces, at any one
time, only about 57 of Jewish children of school age werereceiving Jewish instruction. Despite the efforts to extend
day-school programs to larger numbers, the achievement isless impressive than it might at first appear. In the whole ofBritain in 1963 there were some 8,800 children in the 48 Jewish day schools (of which only 12 were secondary schools), a
figure that represented a doubling of students compared withthe situation ten years before. Progress since 1963 has beenrather slow, although a certain amount of consolidation in

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6421

englandthe day-school movement has taken place. (See also *Education, Great Britain.)
Higher Jewish and Hebrew *education can be obtainedin yeshivot and colleges with specialized departments in thesefields. A survey published in 1962 showed that in the eight yeshivot in Britain, there were 392 full-time students (many ofwhom were from overseas). Jews’ College had 31 students in
its combined degree and minister’s-diploma course during
the 1959–60 session. Similarly, the numbers associated with
cultural bodies such as the Jewish Historical Society or the
Friends of Yiddish are relatively small. The larger Jewish public is reached, however, by the Jewish press, which has a strong
influence on the measure of individual identification. The
leading position is taken by the Jewish Chronicle, which has
the widest circulation in the community. A number of smaller
newspapers also cater to some of the provincial towns andto some sections of the community more actively connectedwith Israel and its specific political parties. Two leading academic journals, The Jewish Journal of Sociology (1959– ) and
The Journal of Jewish Studies (1949– ), are published, and twosocial science units, one at the Board of Deputies and the otherat the Institute of Jewish Affairs, are specifically engaged in research on Jews. There is no regular Hebrew publication in theform of a journal or a newspaper, and the almost total declineof Yiddish is reflected in the closing of the last weekly Yiddish
newspaper in 1967. The trend in Britain toward an open society
and the existence of equal citizenship rights has closed the social distance between the Jewish minority and British society,and in turn has been eroding Jewish identification. There canbe no doubt that progressive emancipation has been leading
to a greater degree of assimilation. The persistence of prejudiceand some degree of discrimination against Jews has worked,
however, in the opposite direction. During the 1950s and 1960s
Britain was not free of such anti-Jewish prejudices. They havebeen promoted by tiny antisemitic groups, who in 1959 andagain in 1965 engaged in desecration and arson against synagogues and have spasmodically disseminated virulent antisemitic literature. Less extreme or overt prejudice has also been
evident in the business world; for example, in some insurance
firms and other commercial enterprises. Quotas exist for Jewish pupils in some elite schools, and Jews have been excluded
from the membership of some recreational clubs. At the sametime forces more favorable to gentile-Jewish relations havebeen growing in the postwar period. Special efforts made by
the Council of Christians and Jews, established in 1942 andfunctioning through its 20 branches, have succeeded in fostering better Jewish-gentile relations in the 1960s.
Later Developments
DEMOGRAPHY. A conference in March 1977, organized by the
Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Institute of Jewish
Affairs, surveyed Jewish life in modern Britain and reviewed
trends since a previous conference in 1962, basing itself on
the social and demographic data produced by the Board’s

Research Unit, established in 1965. Generally, the conference
found a trend towards polarization in Anglo-Jewry: a growing minority were intensifying their commitment to Jewish
religion and education, but there was also an increasing general drift towards intermarriage and assimilation. No official
estimates of the Jewish population had been published since
the estimate of the Research Unit in 1965 of 410,000, but informed observers now put the number of those identified with
the Anglo-Jewish community at considerably below 400,000.
While between 1960 and 1979 the annual number of burials(and cremations) under Jewish auspices remained in the range
between 4,600 and 4,900, the number of persons married under Jewish religious auspices fell from an annual average of
3,664 for 1960–65 to 2,782 for 1975–79 and 2,606 in 1979. Local
community surveys carried out indicated households of sizes
varying from 2.4 to 2.98 according to the age structure andcharacter of the local Jewish community, and data on children
per marriage in the 1970s reinforced the conclusion that Anglo-Jewry was not replacing itself by natural increase: nor was
this deficiency being made up by net immigration.
The surveys confirmed the picture of organized AngloJewry as consisting of increasingly middle class, and increasingly aging, communities; with a high proportion of homeand car-ownership, and a wide range of occupations; and witha tendency well above the national average towards self-employment. Geographically, there remained pockets of elderly
and often poorer residents in the inner cities but the trends
were towards dispersal from the larger conurbations into thesuburbs and countryside, combined with the decline or extinction of established smaller provincial communities.
Synagogue affiliation showed 110,000 members of synagogues in 1977, a decline of 6 since 1970; the Central Orthodox (e.g., United Synagogue and Federation of Synagogues)
appeared to be losing ground to the Progressives (Reform andLiberal) with over 20 of the membership and to the small
but growing right-wing Orthodox (3.5). This apparent trend
towards religious polarization was also found in the marriage
figures for 1979, with the Progressives responsible for 22.5
(compared with 18.6 in 1960–65) and the right-wing Orthodox for 8.4 of the total number of synagogue marriages. The
overall decline in synagogue affiliation continued into the 21st
century, dropping to a membership of 88,000 in 362 congregations in 2001. The United Synagogue and Federation of Synagogues accounted for half the congregations, with the United
Synagogue accounting for 57 percent of overall membership,
the Progressives next with 25,000 members (28 percent), andthe Ḥ aredim with 7,500 (8.5 percent).
The Jewish population continued to decline in the 1980s,
from 336,000 (plus or minus 10) in 1983 to around 300,000
in 1990, a level which it maintained into the 21st century, making it the fifth largest Jewish community in the world. The percentage of Jews who were members of synagogues in the central Orthodox stream fell from 70.5 in 1983 to 64 in 1990.
The percentage of those affiliated to the right-wing Orthodox
community increased from 4.4 in 1983 to 10 in 1984, fall-

422

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Ernest Krausz]

englanding to 6.9 in 1990. Only the Progressive movements showedsigns of consistent growth. In 1983, 22.4 of Jews affiliated tosynagogues belonged to Reform and Liberal congregations.
According to 1990 figures, the Reform Synagogues of GreatBritain accounted for 17, the Union of Liberal and Progressive Synagogues claimed 7, with the Masorti movement taking a small, but growing share. The Sephardi community held
steady at just under 3 of the total.
The geographical and social distribution of British Jews
barely altered. Two-thirds continued to inhabit the capital.
The only growth areas were the “sun-belt” towns on the South
Coast such as Brighton, the largest with 10,000. Manchester
Jewry maintained its numbers at around 30,000, but Leeds had
seen a fall from around 14,000 to about 11,000. A similar drop
was estimated for Glasgow. Within each metropolitan center,
Jews remain concentrated in a small number of prosperous,
suburban, middle-class districts: Bury in Manchester, Moortown in Leeds, northwest London and Redbridge, an eastern
suburb of the capital. The first centers of settlement are now
almost bereft of Jewish residents or institutions.
In the mid-1990s the Board of Deputies Community Research Unit estimated the total number of Israelis in the UK to
be at least 27,000. Their distribution reflected that of the Jewish population. Over two-thirds live in Greater London, withthe majority concentrated in the northwestern boroughs. The
highest concentration of Israelis outside London, 7 of thetotal, is in the northwest of England. The Israelis had a different age profile than British Jews. Over 25 were aged under
16 and only 2 were over 65 years, as compared to 17 and25 respectively for British Jews. There have been no significant changes in the geographical or occupational distributionof British Jews.
POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS. The General Election of 1979
returned to the new House of Commons 21 Labour and 11
Conservative Jewish members. The new Conservative Government included one Jewish cabinet minister, Sir Keith Joseph, responsible for industry and regarded as a strong influence on the economic thinking of Prime Minister Thatcher,and senior ministers outside the cabinet including Nigel Lawson (Financial Secretary, Treasury), Leon Brittan (Home Office), Mrs. Sally Oppenheim (Consumer Affairs), as well as
junior ministers such as Malcolm Rifkind (Scotland) and Geoffrey Finsberg and Lord Bellwin (Environment). In spite of
the prime minister’s personal commitment to Israel and thestrong Jewish vote in her constituency (Finchley), concern
was expressed at the pro-Arab record of influential Foreign
Office ministers and some evidence of Britain modifying her
attitude towards Israel in line with developing EEC policies
on the Middle East.
In 1980, earlier discussion of the question whether there
was a specifically Jewish pattern of voting crystallized in a debate between the political scientist, Dr. Geoffrey Alderman,
who maintained that Jews voted according to their communal interests and could exercise a key influence in importantmarginal constituencies, and Dr. Barry Kosmin, director of theBoard of Deputies’ Research Unit, who showed that the trendof Jewish voters to support the Conservative Party merely reflected their increasingly middle class status; and even if Jews
did vote to support a particular policy, they could not affectthe outcome in more than a very few constituencies.
A disturbing change during the later 1970s was that of
the extreme right-wing National Front from latent to overt
antisemitism; and their obtaining 75,000 votes, with somehigh percentages locally, in the 1976 district council elections.
In the 1979 general election, however, when the turnout wasmuch higher, their 301 candidates polled a total of only 191,000
votes with the highest vote for any of their candidates just over
2000; nor did any National Front candidate win even one local council seat. However, in late 1980 Anglo-Jewry shared theunease caused in European Jewry generally by the violence ofright-wing movements, notably the Paris synagogue bombing; and the recurrence of anti-Jewish incidents, albeit scattered and unpublicized, combined with deepening economic
recession, gave cause for concern.
The principal manifestation of anti-Jewish activity was
however associated with the Arab and overwhelmingly leftwing propaganda against Israel, particularly on university
campuses. With some 12,000 Arab students in British universities and higher technical institutions, outnumbering Jewish
students, especially in engineering and other vocational faculties, anti-Israel propaganda in student organizations had beenrife for some years, and it developed into overt anti-Jewish
discrimination in 1977. The (British) National Union of Students had voted in 1974 to “refuse any assistance (financial orotherwise) to openly racist and fascist organizations … andto prevent, by whatever means are necessary,” any membersof these organizations from speaking in colleges. The resolution of the UN Assembly in November 1975, equating Zionism
with racism, thus gave a welcome opportunity to the Socialist
Workers Party and the General Union of Palestinian Students.
Student unions at some eight universities and five polytechnics voted to withdraw recognition from local university Jewish societies. Decisions at such meetings are usually taken bya small minority of the total number of students in the institution, and several were subsequently reversed. In 1980, however, the exclusion of Israeli scholars from an Arab-sponsoredcolloquium at Exeter University was widely criticized as an
infringement of academic (and tax-payer supported) freedom of discussion.
Support for Israel continued to be possibly the most socially unifying factor in Anglo-Jewry with the organizationalframework complementing, even to some extent replacing,
more traditional patterns of organization. The advent of the
Begin Likud government in 1977 evoked at first a detached,even critical, attitude, from personalities accustomed to dealing with the previous governments in Israel. The peace initiative of Prime Minister Begin and the Camp David agreement
which followed, however, produced a much more sympathetic
attitude within Anglo-Jewry. The Likud government’s settle-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6423

englandment policy in the administered territories, however, evoked
controversy within Anglo-Jewry, in which Chief Rabbi Jakobovits became involved, when he argued that the retention ofoccupied territory in the Holy Land had to be considered in
the light of the possibility of advancing the cause of peace andthe saving of life. While there was not unqualified support for
his views within Anglo-Jewry, there was condemnation of attempts to impugn the integrity of his commitment to the causeof Israel. Organizationally, the union of the Zionist Federationof Great Britain with the Mizrachi as the United Zionists wasannounced but not consummated as of 1981.
The 1980s saw a shift of political allegiances among British Jews from the left to the right. Affluence and self-interest
have underpinned the trend, but it was abetted by the perceived anti-Zionism of the Labour Party and the appeal of
Mrs. Thatcher, prime minister for most of the period, who
was seen as “strong” on Jewish issues. Yet the same period saw
manifestations of a stubborn prejudice against Jews within
Conservative political circles.
In the June 1983 General Election, 28 Jewish MPs were
elected of whom 17 were Conservative and 11 Labour. Three
Jews were appointed to serve in the new cabinet, rising tofour in 1984 and briefly five in 1986. The General Election ofJune 1987 saw 63 Jewish candidates. Of these, 16 Conservative and 7 Labour candidates were elected. This marked thesecond highest ever number of Jewish Tory MPs and a big fallin the number of Jewish Labourites. In the June 1992 General
Election out of 43 Jewish Parliamentary candidates, 11 Tory, 8Labour, and 1 Liberal Democrat were successful. The unsuccessful candidates included 4 Jewish Greens, a new phenomenon. Three Jewish Conservative MPs retired and two others
were defeated. Among the appointments to the new cabinet
made by the prime minister, John Major, were two Jews: Michael Howard, secretary of state for the environment (homesecretary in 1993) and Malcolm Rifkind, secretary of state for
defense.
Unlike the rest of Europe, the far-right has been conspicuously unsuccessful in British electoral politics at either
a local or national level. In April 1992, the British National
Party obtained a mere 7,000 votes for the 13 candidates itfielded. The National Front did even worse, winning under
5,000 votes in 13 constituencies. A visit to Britain by M. Le
Pen in December 1991 was met by Jewish protests and antifascist demonstrations.
The government’s stand on immigration and asylum issues throughout the decade has aroused disquiet among sections of the Jewish population. In February 1992, a delegationfrom the Jewish Council for Community Relations saw thethen home secretary, Kenneth Baker, to protest against the
Asylum Bill. The Board of Deputies also expressed its concern.
The Jewish historical experience was alluded to several times
by Jewish speakers in the debates accompanying the Asylum
Bill’s passage through Parliament during 1991–93.
Another long-running Parliamentary issue of Jewish
concern was the punishment of alleged Nazi war criminals

and collaborators domiciled in the United Kingdom. An All
Party Parliamentary War Crimes Group was formed in November 1986 to press first for a government investigation and,
subsequently, for action against suspected war criminals. Intense lobbying and media revelations caused the government
to announce an inquiry in February 1988. Its report in July
1989 called for legislation to enable the trial in Britain of men
suspected of committing war crimes in Nazi-occupied Europe
at a time when they were not of British nationality. Legislation was introduced into Parliament in November 1989, but
opposition by a minority of MPs and a majority of Peers delayed its passage into law until May 1991. The debates about
the bill exposed the persistence of many negative stereotypes
about the Jews. By April 1992, around £10 million had beenspent on the investigations being conducted by the Metropolitan War Crimes Unit and its Scottish counterpart. Over 90
cases were being looked into, but there was still no indicationof any case coming to trial.
In July 1992, Antony Gecas, a former member of the
11t Lithuanian Police Battalion who had lived in Scotland
since 1946, lost his libel case against Scottish TV for a program which had accused him of being a war criminal. The
hearing lasted four months and cost £650,000. In his ruling,
the presiding judge, Lord Milligan, concluded that Gecas had“participated in many operations involving the killing of innocent Soviet citizens including Jews in particular.” Despite
this, Gecas has not been charged with war crimes under the
1991 Act.
Anti-Jewish prejudice surfaced in politics and society.
Leon Brittan, the trade and industry secretary who resigned
from the cabinet over the “Westland Affair” in 1986, Lord
Young, secretary of state for trade and industry who Mrs.
Thatcher wanted to take over the chairmanship of the Conservative Party, and Edwina Currie (née Cohen), a juniorhealth minister who resigned in December 1988 over her
pronouncements on salmonella in eggs, were all thought tohave been victims of a “whispering campaign” among Tory
backbenchers.
A series of criminal cases involving Jews attracted muchattention and discussion during the late 1980s. The Jewishnessof those involved was mentioned sometimes directly, sometimes obliquely, and efforts were made to find a link between
this and the malfeasance in question. Such commentary could
be open and well-intentioned, but at other times it was insidious and malevolent.
In August 1990, the first trial in the Guinness fraud case,which had lasted 113 days, resulted in the conviction of Gerald
Ronson, Sir Jack Lyons, Anthony Parnes, and Ernest Saunders.
Parnes, Ronson, and Lyons were Jews, the last two being notable donors to Jewish causes. Saunders was Viennese-bornof Jewish parents, but raised as a Christian. In the two subsequent trials connected with the Guinness affair, none of the
defendants was Jewish and none was convicted. This fostered
the sense that the defendants in the first case had been at best
“fall-guys” or, at worst, victimized.

424

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

englandThe sensational death of Robert Maxwell in November
1991 was followed rapidly by the collapse of his business empire and the revelation that he had stolen hundreds of millions of pounds from his employees’ pension fund in order toprop up the share value of his companies. His sons were subsequently arrested for abetting this fraud and await trial. Although Maxwell’s ostentatious burial on the Mount of Olives
could not help but draw attention to his Jewish roots, media
commentary was relatively restrained. However, it was widely
considered that Maxwell and the Jewish entrepreneurs in the
Guinness case were outsiders in the City. This denied themprotection by the “old boys” network when their schemes, inno way unique, ran foul of the law.
British Jews were, on the whole, spared violent forms ofantisemitism. The exception was 1990 when, over a 12-month
period there were 29 cases of vandalism against Jewish cemeteries, synagogues, and Holocaust memorials in the London
area alone and seven reported cases of physical assault on Jewish persons. This violence is miniscule compared to the assault on non-white minorities, but the attacks provoked media comment and provoked reassuring statements from theprime minister in May 1990.
The most prevalent form of anti-Jewish action in Britain
has been the distribution of antisemitic literature. In November 1990, Greville Janner, MP, sponsored an early day motionin the House of Commons which attracted the names of 100
MPs in support of suppressing the circulation of Holocaust
Denial material. In March 1991, Dowager Lady Birdwood wascharged under the Public Order Act (1986) for distributing
the ritual murder accusation against the Jews. She was subsequently found guilty and given a two-year unconditional
discharge. In December 1992, glossily produced pseudoḤ anukkah cards containing doggerel that embraced antisemitic libels were sent to hundreds of Jewish organizations andprominent individuals. Police investigations failed to identify
the source of this “hate mail” and the Government has consistently rebuffed pleas by the Board of Deputies, most recently
in October 1992, for a community libel law.
The announcement that a gathering of Holocaust Denial practitioners would be held in London in November
1991 led to demands that the home secretary ban the entryof Robert Faurrison and Fred Leuchter. Leuchter actually entered the country illegally and was deported after showing
up at a “conference” that was heavily-picketed by anti-fascistgroups. David *Irving, sometime British historian and now
a propagandist well known for addressing neo-Nazi rallies
in Germany, had become a linchpin in this shadowy global
network.
Jews and the Holocaust figured in several historical controversies. In 1987 Jim Allen’s anti-Zionist play Perdition deployed the canard that Zionists collaborated with the Nazis.
Production was canceled after expressions of outrage fromthe Jewish community and intense media scrutiny, but this
only inflamed the debate. The War Crimes Bill occasioned
many reflections on the Holocaust, often yoked disturbingly

to Jewish terrorism in Palestine in 1946–47. In January 1992,
when Irving claimed to have discovered new Eichmann papers
the press treated him as a right-wing historian whose views
merited serious reportage. In July 1992, the Sunday Timescaused a storm of controversy by employing him to transcribe and comment on newly revealed portions of Goebbels’ diary.
Alan Clark, junior defense minister, was widely condemned in December 1991 for attending a party to launch therevised version of Irving’s book Hitler’s War in which Irving
states that Hitler was innocent of the Final Solution and denies the existence of gas chambers for killing Jews. Clark later
endorsed a political biography of Churchill by John Charmley, which appeared in January 1993, that suggested Britain
should have made peace with Hitler in 1940 or 1941. Clark
and Charmley agreed that there was little to choose between
Stalinism and Nazism, and that the plight of the Jews under
Nazism was a marginal issue. The exposure in the Guardian
newspaper in May and December 1992 of war crimes in the
Nazi-occupied Channel Islands, and the concurrence of thelocal authorities in the deportation of Jews, shed a different
light on the matter. The Irving affair reached a head when Irving filed a libel suit in 1996 against Deborah Lipstadt and her
British publisher, Penguin Books, claiming that Lipstadt’s Denying the Holocaust had accused him of being a Nazi apologist,
Holocaust denier, racist, and antisemite. Lipstadt contended
that this was precisely what he was, and the Court agreed inits 2001 verdict denying his suit.
Controversy also surrounded efforts to set up an eruv
in the London borough of Barnet. The project was launchedby the United Synagogue “Eruv Committee” in 1987. In June
1992 it was passed by the Public Works Committee of Barnet Council. It was then considered by the Hampstead Garden Suburb Trust, which manages this architecturally uniquesuburban area. At a stormy meeting in September 1992, theTrust’s chairman, Lord MacGregor, was censured for approving a letter to Barnet Council advising it to reject the plan andcalling the eruv “a very unpleasant exhibition of fundamentalism.” He subsequently resigned. This fracas made the eruv
into a heated issue locally and in the national newspapers. On
February 24, 1993, the council’s planning committee defeatedthe eruv proposal by 11 to 7 votes. Jewish councilors were split
and it generated fierce opposition from both Orthodox and“assimilationist” Jews. It was also attacked by non-Jews unable
to accept the public expression of Jewish difference.
In June 1992 the prime minister, John Major, appointed
two Jews to his new government: Michael Howard became
secretary of state for the environment and Malcolm Rifkind
was appointed secretary of state for defense. After a cabinet
reshuffle in March 1993, Howard was made home secretary. In
November 2003, however, Howard was elected leader of the
British Conservative Party, the first Jewish leader of a government or opposition party in Britain in the 20t century. Howard stepped down after the 2005 elections. Another reshufflein September 1995 led to Rifkind’s appointment as foreign sec-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6425

englandretary. He was the first Jew to hold this office since the brief
tenure of Rufus Isaacs, the Marquess of Reading, in 1931.
After the death of John Smith MP, in April 1994 the Labour Party chose Tony Blair MP, as its new leader. He actively
sought to heal the breach between British Jews and the Labour Party so marked in the 1980s. Blair promoted a numberof Jewish MPs and political activists. Blair’s closest advisers
include Peter Mandelson MP, and David Miliband. In October 1995, Barbara Roche MP, a former headgirl of the Jews’
Free School, was elevated to the ranks of the Labour shadow
government. The veteran Jewish Labour MP, Greville Janner,
former president of the Board of Deputies and chairman of
the House of Commons Employment Select Committee, announced that he would not stand again for Parliament at thenext general election.
The far-Right enjoyed a modest revival in September
1993, when Derek Beackon, an unemployed 47-year-old former steward for the neo-Nazi British National Party (BNP),
won a local council by-election in the Milwall ward of the Isleof Dogs in London’s docklands. However, the election of thefirst BNP councilor proved to be a local quirk. Beackon took34 of the vote, winning by seven votes, in a contest with adisorganized Labour Party opposition. The vote was more ofa protest gesture than an endorsement of neo-Nazi ideology.
The BNP “triumph” was universally deplored by mainstream
politicians and triggered the revival of a national anti-racism
campaign. In the May 1994 local council elections, Beackon
increased his vote by 500. But he polled only 30 of the total
vote on a much higher turnout that resulted in a Labour victory. The BNP won over 25 in two other east London constituencies, but failed to elect a single councilor.
The Board of Deputies reported that antisemitic incidents numbered 346 in 1993 (as against 292 in 1992) and 327
in 1994. In 2000 the number was 405 and in 2002, 350. Jewish
cemeteries were desecrated in Newport in May 1993; Southampton in August 1993; East Ham, London, in December
1993, January 1994 and June 1995; Bournemouth in July 1995.
A Manchester synagogue was daubed with swastikas in August 1993 and the following month a Jewish nursery schoolin Stamford Hill, London, was destroyed in an arson attack.
There were mailings of antisemitic literature in September andDecember 1993. In April 1994, 80-year-old Lady Birdwood wasfound guilty of distributing material liable to incite racial hatred. Upsurges in antisemitic incidents were generally related
to events reflecting the conflict in the Middle East, like 9/11 or
the 2002 Israeli military action against Jenin. In this context, ina particularly outrageous act, Britain’s 48,000-member Association of University Teachers decided in April 2005 to boycott
Israel’s Bar-Ilan and Haifa universities. In the face of international pressure it rescinded its decision a month later.
Jewish leaders made numerous representations to thegovernment for stronger legislation against racism. In December 1993, the Board of Deputies gave evidence of escalating
anti-Jewish activity to the House of Commons Home Affairs
Select Committee. The Board assisted the drafting of a private

members bill, introduced into the House of Commons by theConservative MP Hartley Booth, to impose tougher penalties on criminals convicted of racial crimes and outlaw groupdefamation. In January 1994 the Runnymede Trust publisheda report, “A Very Light Sleeper: The Persistence and Dangers
of Anti-Semitism,” charting the increase of anti-Jewish attacks
and urging that religious discrimination be outlawed. The
Home Affairs Select Committee report in April 1994 recommended making “racial harassment” an offense and tightening the penalties for racial crimes.
Michael Howard promised to clamp down on racial violence, but rebuffed calls for tougher legislative action made bya Board delegation in February 1994. The government refused
to support Booth’s widely backed bill, and in June 1994 rejected
the recommendations of the Home Affairs Select Committee.
However, in October 1995, the minister of state at the Home
Office gave instructions to the police and the courts to be as
harsh as possible within the existing legal framework when
dealing with racial crimes. Meanwhile, Howard flagged newmeasures to reduce illegal immigration and curb the numberof “bogus” asylum seekers. His proposals were regretted by
Jewish representatives.
Following the Washington Peace Accords in September
1993, anxiety about communal security focused on militant
Islamic groups allowed to operate in the UK. In February 1994
the Board complained to the Home Office about Hizb ut-Tahrir, an association of mainly overseas Muslim students attending British universities. After the March 1994 Hebron massacre, which was condemned by the chief rabbi and presidentof the Board of Deputies, there were attacks on Jewish targets
in London, Birmingham, and Oxford. After the bombing of
the Israeli Embassy and JIA offices, in London on July 26–27,
1994 (see below), Jewish organizations reiterated their concern about radical Islamic groups. The Board unsuccessfully
called on the Home Office to ban a rally organized by Hizb utTahrir at Wembley Conference Centre in August 1994. Aftermuch prevarication, in November 1994, the governing bodyof the London School of Oriental and Asian Studies (SOAS)
banned Hizb ut-Tahrir from holding meetings on SOAS premises. Hizb ut-Tahrir held a mass meeting in Trafalgar Squarein August 1995 at which speakers called for the destructionof Israel and denied that the Holocaust had taken place. British Jews have also been concerned by the growing influenceof the Chicago-based Nation of Islam among British blacks.
In 2002 Sheik Abdullah al-Faisal was arrested for incitement
to murder Jews.
War crimes cases continued to cause controversy. In February 1994 the Scottish police war crimes unit was wound up
and the Crown Office later announced that there was insufficient evidence to charge Antony Gecas, the sole subject ofinvestigations, under the 1991 War Crimes Act. In December
1994, Lord Campbell of Alloway introduced into the Houseof Lords a bill to stop war crimes trials in England, basing hiscase on the need to harmonize English with Scottish practice.
It was opposed by the government. In July 1995, Simeon Se-

426

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

englandrafimovicz, an 84-year-old former carpenter, was charged withthe murder of four Jews in Belorussia in 1941–42. He is the first
person in England ever to be charged with war crimes underthe Act. However, British efforts to prosecute war criminals,
from the passage of the Act through the early years of the 21st
century, have been, on the whole, tepid.
The bid by the United Synagogue Eruv Committee,
launched in 1987, to establish an eruv with a circumferenceof 6.5 miles in Golders Green, Hendon, and Hempstead Garden Suburb finally met with success. In February 1992, BarnetCouncil planning committee had rejected the proposal. An
appeal was lodged with the Department of the Environment
and a revised plan was put to the planning committee in October 1993. It was again rejected, but the Department of theEnvironment ordered a public inquiry which took evidencein December 1993. Much of the rhetoric at the inquiry by opponents of the eruv was lurid and inflammatory. In September
1994 the government inspector conducting the inquiry issued
his report. It refuted the arguments of eruv protesters and thefollowing month, during Sukkot, John Gummer, Secretary ofState for the Environment, gave his sanction for its erection.

COMMUNITY LIFE. In mid-1979, Lord Fisher of Camden
retired as president of the Board of Deputies. His six years
of office saw the affiliation of the Board to the World Jewish
Congress, changes in the organization and representational
basis of the board, and the growth of a sense of communal
purpose in support for Israel and Soviet Jewry, and in opposition to threats against civil liberties from extremes of theleft and right. He was succeeded by Greville Janner, QC, MP,
son of a former president (Lord Janner) and, at 50, the Board’s
youngest president. On taking office, he declared that his policy would be to emphasize working with youth and with provincial communities.
The 1980s also saw the first visit of a prime minister, Mr.
James Callaghan, to the Board as well as that of the foreign
secretary, Lord Carrington, at his own request, to explain British policy in relation to Israel.
The community was increasingly concerned with the
problems of meeting the welfare needs of its increasingly aging membership. The London Jewish Welfare Board devoted
the greater proportion of its expenditure to homes and flatlets, day centers and home visits to the aged. Coordination ofsocial work was advanced by cooperation between organizations and professional workers, and shared use of accommodation in buildings like the Golders Green Sobell House or
the Redbridge Jewish Centre.
The Board of Deputies acquired a new chief executive inFebruary 1991 when Neville Nagler, a senior civil servant, succeeded Hayyim Pinner, holder of the position for 14 years. In
June 1991, Judge Israel Finestein, QC, won the election for thepresidency of the Board of Deputies and succeeded the outgoing Dr. Lionel Kopelowitz who had held office since 1985.
Rosalind Preston was elected the first woman vice president of
the Board. Finestein announced that he intended to increase
democracy in Anglo-Jewry and secure greater participation incommunal governance by the young, women, regional communities, and academics.
Chief Rabbi Dr. Immanuel Jakobovits was elevated to
the House of Lords in January 1988 and in March 1991 wasawarded the prestigious Templeton Prize for progress in religion. In May 1991 he was criticized by figures in the Joint Israel
Appeal because of an interview in the Evening Standard newspaper in which he expressed reservations concerning Israeli
conduct in the Administered Territories. He was succeeded in
September 1991 by Rabbi Dr. Jonathan Sacks. As principal of
Jews’ College, in 1989 Sacks organized two important conferences on “traditional alternatives” in Judaism, one on generaland another on specifically women’s issues.
In February 1992, the new chief rabbi unveiled his review
of women’s role in Jewish life and named Rosalind Preston as
its head. This followed a bitter struggle over women’s services
in Stanmore Synagogue. Although in April 1991 he resigned
from a Jewish education “think tank” because it included a
Reform rabbi, in April 1992 Chief Rabbi Dr. Sacks led a delegation that embraced Reform and Liberal rabbis (including
a woman) to a major interfaith conference.
In September 1992 a report on the United Synagogue,
conducted under the guidance of Stanley Kalms, found “mistakes, miscalculations, poor management, and financial errors” and revealed a debt of £9 million. The report also notedthat a majority of members felt alienated by the rightward
trend of the rabbinate and recommended an “inclusivist” position. It precipitated the resignation of Sidney Frosh, the pres-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

427

THE ANGLO-JEWISH HERITAGE. The introduction of government aid for historic places of worship in use assisted therestoration of the third oldest surviving synagogue, Exeter,
established in 1763/4 and re-opened in October 1980, its use
as a synagogue being combined with the provision of a center for Jewish students at Exeter University. This highlighted
the problem of architecturally and historically important
Jewish buildings no longer viable because of the movementof Jewish population from provincial towns or city centers,
which was exemplified by the appeal to convert the former
Sephardi synagogue in Manchester established in 1874 to a
Jewish museum.
A unique commemoration took place on October 31, 1978
when on the initiative of the Jewish Historical Society of England, and in the presence of the chief rabbi and the archbishop
of York, the massacre of the Jews of *York in 1190 was commemorated by the unveiling of a plaque at Clifford’s Tower,
the site of the massacre. The inscription in English reads: “Onthe night of Friday, 16 March 1190, some 150 Jews and Jewesses of York, having sought protection in the royal castle on
this site from a mob incited by Richard Malebisse and others,
chose to die at each other’s hands rather than renounce theirfaith,” and concludes with the verses in Hebrew: “They ascribe
glory to the Lord and his praise in the isles” (Isaiah 42:12); theword ha-iy, “the island,” being the name used for England in
medieval Hebrew.

englandident. In December 1992, the United Synagogue announced£0.8 million of cuts and a freeze on rabbis’ salaries. It wound
up its three-year old sheḥ itah operation, established as a result of the bitter “sheḥ itah wars” in the 1980s, with a loss of£0.7 million.
The search for economies underlay the amalgamation of
the Jewish Blind Society and the Jewish Welfare Board to form
Jewish Care in December 1988. In the recession of the early
1980s and again in the slump of 1990–92, Jewish welfare organizations had to cater for Jewish unemployed persons, too,
despite a shrinking income base. The second recession saw
many of the fortunes built up by Jewish entrepreneurs in the
1980s crumble. Grodzinski, the kasher baker, went into receivership in February 1991 after trading for 102 years. The famous
kasher caterer Schaverin suffered a similar fate in November
1991. In June 1992, the Glasgow Jewish Echo closed down after
64 years of publication.
Nor was Anglo-Jewry immune to the social problems afflicting the rest of society. In July 1991 David Rubin, son of aneminent rabbi, absconded after allegedly defrauding fellowJews of millions of pounds. A few weeks later, a child-abusecase in the Orthodox community of Stamford Hill led to violent demonstrations by members of the community against
the family that had taken the matter to the police.
Jewish communal institutions have been dogged by poor
finances, while attempts at reorganization have had unevensuccess. In March 1993 the highly effective and inexpensive
Association of Jewish 6t Formers (AJ6), which prepares Jewish teenagers for university, faced closure due to lack of funds.
AJ6 received a last-minute reprieve, but the affair showed theneed for a strategic funding policy. In April 1993, Lord Young,
former Tory cabinet minister and businessman, initiated theCentral Council of Jewish Social Services (CCJSS) which heenvisaged as a directorate for British Jewry. In July 1993 he
was elected chairman of the CCJSS, now embracing over 40
Jewish organizations.
Lord Young dismissed the Board of Deputies as inefficient and incapable of providing either policies or leadership.
His view appeared to be confirmed when plans for its reform
were stymied. In December 1993, the Board failed to give a
two-thirds majority to measures to decrease the size of the executive, the number of Deputies, and the frequency of plenary
meetings. The election of Eldred Tabachnik, QC, as president
in June 1994 revived hopes of reform.
The United Synagogue (US), which announced that it had
lost £1 million on a disastrous sheḥ itah operation in June 1993,
pulled itself back into the black by means of draconian economies. A series of institutional reforms failed to placate women
who demanded a greater say in its affairs (see below). The Rix
Report on Jewish youth in September 1994 called for greater
investment in youth work which was met with alacrity by the
CJCS and other funding bodies. After a series of poor appeal
results, the JIA was relaunched in October 1995.
The most important communal initiative was the inauguration of Jewish Continuity in April 1993. Jewish Conti-

nuity was intended to raise money to fund new and existingeducational projects, invest in people to “champion” Judaism, and provide advice and guidance across the whole Jewish community. However, Continuity immediately aroused
the suspicions of Progressive Jews because of the absence ofany but Orthodox Jews from its directorate and staff. In May
1994 an allocations board was set up that included membersof the Reform and Liberal movements. Continuity hoped to
avoid Orthodox criticism of this move by making the allocations board semi-detached, dispensing moneys given it for the
purpose by Continuity. In July 1994, Continuity reached anagreement with the JIA that £12 million of the money raisedby the JIA in Britain would go to educational projects identified by Continuity. In September 1994 it announced its first
grants, totaling £435,000. The largest number and amount ofgrants went to Orthodox causes.
During 1995, critics continued to charge Jewish Continuity with bias and a lack of strategy. In October 1995 it announced a major review of its operations, to determine what
its role should be and end the confusion between its functions
as grant giver and service provider. The review would also deal
with the antagonism which had built up between it and the
JIA and Progressive Jews in Britain.
The fortunes of Jewish Continuity were inextricably
linked with those of its progenitor, Rabbi Dr. Sacks. He appeared increasingly beleaguered by an intractable rabbinate,
an assertive Jewish women’s movement and confident Masorti,
Reform, and Progressive movements. In February 1993 a Jewish women’s prayer group held the first women’s Sabbath service in a manner authorized by Rabbi Dr. Sacks: in a privatehouse and without use of a Sefer Torah or prayers requiringa male quorum. But there was pressure for more radical, andaccording to many authorities permissible, steps such as useof a Sefer Torah and praying in a synagogue. In March 1994, awomen’s prayer group defied Rabbi Dr. Sacks and held a service using a Sefer Torah on a Sunday at Yakar, an independent
Orthodox study center in London.
In July 1993, Rabbi Dr. Sacks issued guidelines to the US
on how to accommodate women’s demands for greater involvement. He ruled that women could become members of
the US council and sit on synagogue boards of management,but only by co-option not election. This did not satisfy the
women of the US. In October 1993, Rabbi Dr. Sacks announced
his solution to the problem of agunot. He recommended mandatory prenuptial contracts entitling the wife to support fromher husband until divorced by a get, and mutual cooperationto achieve that end. Enforcement of this recommendation wasstymied by members of his Beth Din.
The inquiry into women in the community, initiated by
Rabbi Dr. Sacks and headed by Rosalind Preston, announced
its findings in June 1994. It revealed that women wanted more
spiritual involvement, more rituals in recognition of female
life-cycle events, the right to say kaddish, greater recognitionof the needs of single women and single mothers, urgent reform of the get system, and greater sensitivity by Batei Din to428

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

englandwomen’s issues including domestic violence. Yet Sacks foundit difficult to deliver anything meaningful and his hands werestill tied even on prenuptial agreements. Acting out of frustration, on October 28, 1995, “chained” Jewish women demonstrated outside the office of the United Synagogue Chief
Rabbinate. The debate about Jewish women’s rights underhalakhah has consistently attracted national press and television coverage.
In January 1995 Sacks launched an attack on the Masorti
movement in England. The pretext was an article in theMasorti magazine insinuating that he had recognized marriages conducted by Masorti rabbis. He responded with anarticle in the ultra-Orthodox Jewish Tribune in which he declared that the Masorti were guilty of “intellectual dishonesty”;
using the term “ganavim” (thieves) to describe them. He statedthat a follower of Masorti had “severed his links with the faithof his ancestors.” Masorti, Reform, and Liberal rabbis, as wellas lay leaders upbraided Sacks for the violence of his outburst.
It put the future of Jewish Continuity into doubt since nonOrthodox Jews could not see how a body under Sacks’ influence could fund their work or merit their support and Rabbi
Dr. Sacks struggled to contain the damage.
The cultural agenda has been dominated by the anniversaries connected with World War II and the Holocaust.
The 50th anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, the liberation of Auschwitz, the liberation of Belsen, and the end of
the war were all marked by commemorative events, academic
conferences, and a spate of publications. Media coverage ofthese events was intense and raised public awareness of the
Holocaust. In November 1994, the Imperial War Museum announced that it was considering the construction of a permanent exhibit on genocide in the 20th century, focused on the
Holocaust. Plans for a Holocaust Museum were unveiled in
Manchester, too. Beit Shalom, the first Holocaust Museum in
Britain, a private initiative originated, funded, and developedby a non-Jewish family in rural Nottinghamshire, opened in
September 1995.
The Board of Deputies considered legal action against
the Jewish authors, producers, and director of a TV fictionalfilm, “Wall of Silence,” about murders in the ḥ asidic community of North London. First screened at the 9t Jewish Film
Festival and then transmitted on BBC on October 17, 1993, thefilm was widely criticized for presenting negative stereotypesof Orthodox Judaism.
A Center for Jewish Studies was inaugurated at SOAS in
December 1993, for German-Jewish Studies at Sussex University, and Sephardi Studies in London, under the auspices of theSephardi community, in 1994. In November 1994, Dr. Dovid
Katz started the Oxford Institute for Yiddish Studies, incurring the wrath of the Oxford Center for Hebrew and Jewish
Studies, from which he subsequently resigned. New positionsin Jewish studies were created at professorial level at Manchester University and at lecturer level at Bristol University. The
Institute for Jewish Affairs transferred to a new home in April
1993 and broke away from the World Jewish Congress, form-

ing instead close ties with the American Jewish Committee.
Jewish Book Week moved to a new venue and attracted bigger literary figures and audiences than ever before. A speciallydesigned building to house the London Jewish Museum was
opened in Camden in 1995. In 1994 the Jewish Quarterly was
invigorated by a new editor, Elena Lappin.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6429

EDUCATION AND CULTURE. While estimates of the Jewish
child population (and of those receiving part-time Jewish education) fell with the decline of the general child populationin Britain, the number enrolled in Jewish day schools reachedsome 13,000 at the end of the 1970s, representing over 20 ofthe estimated Jewish child population. New Jewish day schools
continued to be founded and there were positive developments in Jewish adult education in various aspects involving
synagogues of different religious affiliation, the Lubavitch
movement, and courses for younger Jewish leaders. Enrollment continued to rise through the 1980s and 1990s reaching30 in 1992 and 51 in 1999. The United Synagogue Agency
for Jewish Education operated 14 primary and nursery schools
and five secondary schools in the early 2000s and had trained
over 150 teachers since 1997. The Leo Baeck College Center for
Jewish Education offered an M.A. program in Jewish education from 2002.
In 1984, Jews’ College moved to new accommodations
and the Manor House Sternberg Center for Reform Judaism
was set up. Jewish museums were founded in London andManchester. In 1990–92 there were several conferences andpublications on the preservation of the documents, artifacts,
and buildings that constitute the Jewish heritage in Britain.
Sadly, Bevis Marks synagogue suffered collateral damage froman IRA bomb attack in London in August 1992. In 1991, Immanuel College was opened and the Jewish Chronicle Chairin Modern Jewish History was established at University College London to mark the paper’s 150t anniversary and a chairin Modern Jewish Studies was dedicated at the University ofManchester. During 1992–93, lectureships in Modern Jewish
History were established at Warwick and Leicester universities. In 1992, Dr. David Paterson was succeeded by Professor
Phillip Alexander as head of the Oxford Center for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies, having secured its future. Jewish schools
topped the national league for the award of “A” Levels in August 1992. Less happy publicity was created by the decision ofstate-aided Jewish schools in Liverpool and Manchester in
September 1991 not to admit Jewish children from a Reform
Jewish background.
Jewish culture found diverse expression in the courses of
the Spiro Institute throughout the decade. There were festivalsof Yiddish culture on the South Bank, an annual Jewish Film
Festival, and Jewish music festival. In December 1991, Leon the
Pig Farmer, an independent film funded largely by Jews andon a Jewish subject, won awards at the Edinburgh and Venice
Film Festivals. In 1988, the conference “Remembering for the
Future” inquired into the Holocaust. The anniversary of themassacre at Clifford’s Tower in York in 1090 occasioned sev-

englanderal solemn events. The 50th anniversary of the 1942 Wannsee
Conference was the subject of an international conference inLondon organized principally by the Wiener Library. During
1992 there were many celebrations of the Sephardi experience
to mark the anniversary of the expulsion from Spain.
Relations with Israel
Britain’s relations with Israel should be viewed in the perspective of half a century, beginning with the closing phasesof World War I. In November 1917, with the war against Germany and her allies still at its height, the British government
issued a statement of policy, the *Balfour Declaration, favoring the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine.
The near euphoria and sense of gratitude to Britain that thisannouncement aroused among Jews everywhere was to give
way a generation later to an atmosphere of bitterness andmutual recrimination, in which the British Mandate over
Palestine finally came to an end (1948). But in the intervening years, despite all the frictions and difficulties, the foundations of Jewish statehood had in fact been laid. The period
immediately following Israel’s Declaration of Independence
in May 1948 was a somber one in the relations between the
new state and the former mandatory power. Unlike the UnitedStates and the Soviet Union, Britain refused to recognize the
newly established state for many months. At the United Nations General Assembly in Paris in the latter part of 1948, theBritish delegation was the principal, though ultimately unsuccessful, protagonist of the so-called *Bernadotte Plan, a central feature of which was the proposal to transfer the Negev
from Israel to the Arabs. Relations between Britain and what
it termed “the Jewish authorities in Tel Aviv” reached an acutepoint when, on Jan. 7, 1949, in the course of renewed fighting
between Israel and Egypt, the Israelis shot down five British
planes that had been sent on a reconnaissance mission fromthe Suez Canal Zone. At this time, however, a strong reaction
against the policy of Foreign Secretary Ernest *Bevin began toassert itself in Britain. The debate in the House of Commons
on January 28 was a damaging one to the government. Threedays later Bevin announced the de facto recognition of Israel
and, shortly thereafter, the appointment of Britain’s first diplomatic representative to Israel, Sir Knox Helm.
Gradually a new pattern of relations evolved between thetwo countries. The period of Bevin’s influence had not beenforgotten by the people of Israel, but Britain’s initial role inhaving made the development of Jewish nationhood in Palestine politically and physically possible was increasingly recalled and recognized. Steady progress was made in day-today contacts through trade, tourism, and cultural relations.
But despite these positive developments, British policy toward
Israel continued to be markedly reserved, for reasons connected with Britain’s interests and commitments in the Arabworld. As late as 1955, the British government still harboredideas about the transfer of at least a part of the Negev to Egypt.
This attitude was reflected in Prime Minister Anthony Eden’s

speech at the Guildhall on Nov. 9, 1955, in which he suggested
a compromise on the frontiers set by the Partition Resolutionof 1947 and those established under the Armistice Agreements
as a way out of the Arab-Israel impasse. This proposal was
unequivocally rejected by Israel and eventually abandoned.
Less than a year later, Britain and Israel found themselves inunlikely association in military action against Egypt–Israel in
Sinai, Britain in Suez. The events leading to this development
were President Nasser’s nationalization of the Suez Canal on
the one hand, and his active sponsorship of the fedayeen terror gangs, organized on Arab territory for acts of murder andsabotage within Israel, on the other.
For more than a century, the preservation of Britain’s
communications with India, the keystone of her empire, hadbeen a dominant factor in Britain’s interest in the Middle East.
In 1947, India achieved independence almost contemporaneously with Israel. The strategic and political implications of
this event for Britain’s status in the world were not immediately obvious. Britain remained the paramount power in the
Middle East with military bases in Iraq, Egypt, and Jordan,
and with a vital financial stake in the ever-increasing oil wealththat was being uncovered not only in Iran but in the Arablands bordering on the Gulf, including Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, and the sheikhdoms. In the mid-1950s a revolutionarychange occurred: the collapse of British power and prestige
that accompanied the Suez debacle of 1956 was followed two
years later by the murder of the king of Iraq and the lynching of his premier, Nuri Said, Britain’s faithful friend and ally.
The last British base in the Arab Middle East other than one
in Aden was now relinquished. By 1968, as Britain’s policy ofwithdrawal from direct military commitment to areas eastof Suez began to be extended even to the Persian Gulf; Aden
too was abandoned. Middle East oil, so vital to the European
economy, continued to flow more or less uninterruptedly because of the mutual interests of the Arab governments on the
one hand and of Western purchasers on the other. But theold power relationship, including its implications for Israel,
had dissolved.
Nevertheless, Britain’s role in the area in the 1960s mustnot be underestimated. As a great world financial and trading community, with the support of experienced and effective
diplomats, Britain continued to exert extensive influence. The
decline of Britain’s authority in the Arab world significantly
affected British-Israel relations. Although the traditional sensitivity of the Foreign Office to possible Arab reactions persisted, a more relaxed, less inhibited attitude toward Israel
began to assert itself. This was manifested not only in official
contacts and public statements, but also in willingness to sellIsrael such major items of military equipment as Centurion
tanks, naval vessels, and submarines. Within the aggregate ofBritain’s overseas trade, Israel occupied a modest but increasingly significant place in 1968. The total bilateral trade between
the two countries in 1967 amounted to about $215,000,000, an
increase of nearly 75 compared with 1957. In fact, the valueof Britain’s exports to Israel exceeded that to any of the Arab430

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Vivian David Lipman and David Cesarani]englandcountries. Britain constituted Israel’s most important overseas market, with agricultural products (notably citrus) andpolished diamonds predominating. Israel–British economic
relations have long been a target of the Arab boycott offices,but, as trade figures reveal, their success has been marginal.
The Suez Canal – blocked as a result of the *Six-Day War – remained closed. The resultant loss to British trade and shipping,although eventually much reduced, undoubtedly contributed
to Britain’s active interest in seeking a solution to the Middle
East crisis. British diplomats at the United Nations thus took
a leading part in sponsoring and securing the passage of the
Security Council resolution of Nov. 22, 1967. The war brought
about a rupture in relations between Britain and a numberof Arab countries, but these were reestablished, and Britain’s
policy ostensibly aimed at seeking to maintain a balance offriendship with both the Arab states and Israel.
Although there is not always an identity of views between
Israel and Britain on the problems of the Middle East, there
was a broad base of common understanding in the late 1960s.
The interest of the British people in Israel is not a passing phenomenon but rests on deep religious and spiritual foundations
and was impressively demonstrated at the time of the Six-Day
War. Attitudes and suspicions on the part of both countries
survive from a more troubled period in their relationship. But
the dominant motive was one of mutual regard that found its
expression not only in political and economic spheres, butalso in cultural relations and public opinion.
For most of the 1980s British foreign policy was conducted by Sir Geoffrey Howe. Britain urged the PLO to recognize Israel and renounce terrorism, while calling on Israel
to halt settlements in the occupied territories as a quid pro
quo. Between 1984 and 1987 there were several friendly highlevel exchange visits, but British unease about conditions in
the Gaza Strip were forcefully expressed by junior Foreign
Office Minister David Mellor during a visit in January 1988.
After Yasser Arafat announced acceptance of UN resolutions
242 and 338 and renounced the armed struggle, William Waldegrave, Mellor’s successor, met with Abu Bassam Sharrif of
the PLO.
The outbreak of the intifada in 1989 led to the revivalof the propaganda war in the media and in student politics.
British Government officials repeatedly expressed concern at
Israeli handling of the disturbances. In March 1990, the newforeign secretary, Douglas Hurd, met with Abu Bassam Sharrif, although the Palestinian terrorist attack on Israel in May
1990 led to demands to sever links with the PLO. Hurd issued
a call to the Palestinians to curb terrorism, but contacts with
the PLO continued. The situation was transformed by Iraq’s
invasion of Kuwait in August 1990. The British Government
deplored PLO support for Saddam Hussein and rejected any“linkage” between Iraq’s invasion and the Palestinian problem, although in October 1990 it said that Israeli policy towards the Palestinians could not go unchanged. In November

1991, Britain resumed diplomatic ties with Syria, severed after
the 1988 Lockerbie disaster, which was now a member of theanti-Iraq coalition.
When the war started, hundreds of British Jews, including the chief rabbi, went to Israel on solidarity missions. Prime
Minister John Major congratulated Israel on its “admirable restraint” following Iraqi missile attacks. Popular attitudes towards Israel and the Palestinians changed radically, although
British official policy soon reverted to type. In January 1992
Mr. Major addressed a letter to the Zionist Federation of GreatBritain calling on Anglo-Jewish leaders to intervene with theIsrael Government against the deportation of 12 Palestinian
activists. On July 30, 1992, Mr. Major addressed the annual
dinner of the Conservative Friends of Israel. He called thesettlements “a major impediment to the peace process,” denounced the Arab boycott as “iniquitous” and said it should
be ended in return for freezing the settlements.
In March 1993, Douglas Hogg, the minister of state at
the Foreign Office, met with Faisal Husseini and PLO officials, thus ending the ban on official ministerial contacts with
the PLO. On July 2, 1993, the Foreign Secretary met Husseinialong with Nabil Shaath and Afif Safieh, the PLO’s London
representative. Following the White House Accords, whichwere welcomed by the government and opposition parties,
Douglas Hogg visited Yasser Arafat in Tunisia and the statusof the PLO office in London was upgraded to a “delegation.”
The Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, visited Israel duringa Middle East tour in December 1994. A visit to London by
Israeli prime minister Yiẓ ḥ ak Rabin was curtailed by a terrorist bombing in Israel.
On October 30, 1994, Prince Philip made the first royal
visit to Israel. During his 25-hour stay he attended a ceremony at Yad Vashem to honor his mother for rescuing Jews in
Greece during the war, and dined with President Ezer Weizman. In March 1995, Prime Minister John Major became thesecond serving British premier to go to Israel. The accent of
his visit was firmly on strengthening trade links between thetwo countries. However, British diplomats avoided the Jerusalem 3000 celebrations.
The peace accords divided British Jews. While welcomedby Israel Finestein, president of the Board of Deputies, andChief Rabbi Dr. Jonathan Sacks, they were anathematized by
British Mizrachi and Ḥ erut, including many rabbis. On December 15, 1993, during an official visit to London, Yasser Arafat met British Jewish leaders including Israel Finestein, Lord
Rothschild, Greville Janner MP, and Sir Sigmund Sternberg.
But 60 rabbis and prominent dayyanim issued a statement
condemning the meeting. On August 6, 1995, businessman
and JIA leader Cyril Stein and Rabbi Alan Kimche, the outreach director of Jewish Continuity (see below), joined a demonstration outside the Israeli Embassy in London against thepeace negotiations. It was organized by the New York Rabbi
Avi Weiss. In October 1995, Rabbi Dr. Sacks was again attacked
by his own rabbinate for endorsing the peace process and theprinciple of withdrawal from the West Bank.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6431[Arthur Lourie]

Englard, Yitzhak
The peace process had a more dangerous and tragic impact. On July 26–27, 1994 bombs exploded outside the Israeli
Embassy at Palace Green, Kensington, and Balfour House in
North Finchley, which houses the offices of the Joint Israel Appeal (JIA) and the Zionist Federation. Nineteen people were
injured in the first attack, none seriously, but the embassy wasbadly damaged. The Jewish community was aggrieved that its
warnings to the authorities had been ignored. Armed police
guards were subsequently posted at potential Jewish targets
and communal security stepped up, but the government refused to help fund the installation of surveillance systems. In
December 1994, Israeli police minister Moshe Shaḥ al heldtalks with Scotland Yard in London to discuss measures tocounter the threat posed by radical Islamic groups operatingin London. On September 5, 1995, Danny Frei, a former pupilof Hasmonean school in London, was murdered in Israel on
the West Bank where he lived.
During the Blair years, Israel’s relations with England
were fairly smooth. Blair himself exhibited warmth and support while maintaining what England considers an evenhanded approach to the Middle East conflict. In a meetingwith Shimon Peres in October 2005 he called Israel’s disengagement from Gaza a “crucial and courageous act,” reaffirming his commitment to a secure Israel as well as a viable
Palestinian state. The British media, on the other hand, andparticularly the BBC, is perceived as hostile in Israel and in effect as encouraging terrorism through its biased reporting.
[Vivian David Lipman and David Ceserani]
Bibliography: GENERAL: Roth, Mag Bibl; Lehmann, Nova
Bibl (include detailed bibliography on Anglo-Jewish history up to1961); Roth, England; J. Finestein, Short History of Anglo-Jewry (1957);
A.M. Hyamson, History of the Jews in England (19282); D.S. Katz, The
Jews in the History of England, 1485–1850 (1994); H.S.Q. Henriques,
Jews and the English Law (1908). MIDDLE AGES: M. Adler, Jews of Medieval England (1939); J. Jacobs, Jews of Angevin England (1893); H.G.
Richardson, English Jewry under Angevin Kings (1960); B.L. Abrahams, Expulsion of the Jews from England in 1290 (1895); G. Caro,
Sozial-und Wirtschaftsgeschichte der Juden, 1 (1909), 313–51; 2 (1920),
3–68; Rigg-Jenkinson, Exchequer; M.D. Davis, Hebrew Deeds of English Jews before 1290 (1888). MODERN PERIOD (FROM 17t CENTURY):
V.D. Lipman, Social History of the Jews in England 1850–1950 (1954);
idem (ed.), Three Centuries of Anglo-Jewish History (1961); idem, A
Century of Social Service 1859–1959 (1959); idem, A History of theJews in Britain since 1858 (1990); idem, in: JHSET, 21 (1968), 78–103;
T. Endelman, The Jews of Georgian England, 1714–1830: Tradition ina Liberal Society (1979); D. Englander (ed.), A Documentary Historyof the Jews in Britain, 1840–1920 (1993); G. Alderman, Modern British
Jewry (1992); J. Gould and S. Esh (ed.), Jewish Life in Modern Britain(1964); M. Freedman (ed.), A Minority in Britain (1955); A.M. Hyamson, Sephardim of England (1951); L.P. Gartner, The Jewish Immigrantin England, 1870–1914 (1960); N. Bentwich, They Found Refuge (1956);
C. Roth, Rise of Provincial Jewry (1950); idem, Life of Menasseh ben
Israel (1934); idem, Essays and Portraits in Anglo-Jewish History (1962);
idem, The Great Synagogue, London 1890–1940 (1950); J. Shaftesley(ed.), Remember the Days (1966); L. Wolf, Menasseh ben Israel’s Mission to Oliver Cromwell (1901); idem, Essays in Jewish History (1932);
C.H.L. Emanuel, A Century and a Half of Jewish History, Extracted
from the Minute Books of the London Committee of Deputies of the432

British Jews (1910); S. Salomon, The Jews of Britain (1938); Gesher, 3(Oct. 1961); P.H. Emden, Jews of Britain (1943); I. Finestein, A ShortHistory of Anglo-Jewry (1957); E. Krausz, Leeds Jewry: Its History andSocial Structure (1964); B. Litvinoff, A Peculiar People (1969), 168–70;
Temkin, in: AJYB, 58 (1957), 3–63; Prais and Schmool, in: JJSO, 10(1968), 5–34; 9 (1967), 149–74; H. Brotz, ibid., 1 (1959), 94–113; Bentwich, ibid., 2 (1960), 16–24; Krausz, ibid., 4 (1962), 82–90; idem, in:In the Dispersion, no. 3 (1963–64), 80–89; N. Cohen, in: Tradition,
8 (1966), 40–57; C. Bermant, Troubled Eden (1969); B. Wasserstein,
Britain and the Jews of Europe, 1939–1945 (1979); V.D. and S. Lipman(eds.), Jewish Life in Britain 1962–77 (1981); Jewish Journal of Sociology
19, 228; House of Commons Official Report (November 25, 1977), cols.
2058ff; ija Research Reports, Western Europe 2, 3 G.B. 7, 8, Western
Europe 77/1, 2; August 1980, No. 10; Sunday Telegraph (December 3,1977); “The Jews of Britain,” Jewish Chronicle Supplement (November
24, 1978); Research Unit, Board of Deputies, Steel City Jews (1976);
idem, Jews in an Inner London Borough (1975); Social Demography ofRedbridge Jewry (1979). Add. Bibliography: T. Endelman, The
Jews of Britain, 1656–2000 (2002); W.D. Rubinstein, A History of theJews in the English-Speaking World: Great Britain (1996); AJYB 2003.
RELATIONS WITH ISRAEL: W. Eytan, The First Ten Years (1958); E.H.
Samuel, British Traditions in Administration of Israel (1957).

ENGLARD, YITZHAK (1933– ), Israeli jurist. Englard wasborn in Frankfurt, Germany. He received his Magister Juris(cum laude) at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in 1956
and his Diploma d’Etudes Superieures at the Faculte de Droit,
Paris. Admitted to the Israeli Bar in 1960, he served in the
Israel Defense Forces (as judge advocate) in 1962–63. Subsequently he became professor and later dean of the Hebrew
University Law Faculty and director of the university’s Institute for Research in Jewish Law. He was also a visiting professor at the University of Zurich, Switzerland; the Universityof Grenbole, France; and the University of Toronto, Canada.
He was also an honorary member of the World Jewish Academy of Sciences.
In 1997 Englard was awarded the Israel Prize for law
and in 1997–2003 he served as a justice of the Israel Supreme
Court, occupying the “Orthodox seat.” He wrote numerous
books and articles on torts and Jewish law, state and religion,
legal capacity and comparative law. Englard has been a criticof Menachem *Elon’s dogmatic-historic approach to *Mishpat
Ivri, preferring to place the emphasis on spiritual input rather
than legal doctrine in assessing the desired relationship between halakhah and Israeli law.
[Leon Fine (2nd ed.)]ENGLISH LITERATURE.
Biblical and Hebraic Influences
The Bible has generally been found to be congenial to the English spirit. Indeed, the earliest English poetry consists of theseventh-century metrical paraphrases of Genesis and Exodus
attributed to Caedmon (died c. 680). Here the emphasis is on
the military prowess of the ancient Hebrew warriors. Abraham
in his fight against the five kings (Gen. 14) takes on the character of an Anglo-Saxon tribal chief leading his thanes into
battle. One early biblical work was Jacob and Josep, an anonyENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

english literature
mous early 13t-century poem written in the Midlands dialect.
As in France, biblical figures also appear in the medieval miracle or mystery plays staged in York and other towns. A morereligious understanding of the Old Testament was achieved
later, in the period of the Reformation, with works such as the
Greek academic drama about Jephthah written in 1544 by the
Catholic Christopherson. This Hebrew judge inspired several
dramatic works, notably the ballad “Jephthah Judge of Israel,”quoted by William *Shakespeare (Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2) andincluded in Bishop Thomas Percy’s Reliques of Ancient English
Poetry (1765); and Jephthes Sive Votum (1554), by the Scottish
poet George Buchanan, who also wrote a Latin paraphraseof the Psalms (1566). Other biblical works of the 16t century
were God’s Promises (1547–48) by John Bale; The Historie of
Jacob and Esau (1557), a comedy by Nicholas Udall in which
Esau represents the Catholics and Jacob the faithful Protestants; the anonymous New Enterlude of Godly Queene Hester(1560), which had strong political undertones; Thomas Garber’s The Commody of the most vertuous and Godlye Susanna(1578); and The Love of King David and Fair Bethsabe (1599) by
George Peele mainly about Absalom. From the Middle Ages,
biblical and Hebraic influences had a profound impact on
English culture. Works inspired by the Bible were especiallyprominent in the 17t century, first during the era of Puritanism, and later when the undogmatic, practical temper of Anglican piety led to a new evaluation both of the Jews and of
the Hebrew scriptures. The Puritans were particularly drawn
to the Psalms and to the records of the Judges of Israel, withwhom they were apt to identify themselves. John *Milton, theirgreatest representative, knew Hebrew, and his epic Paradise
Lost (1667) and Samson Agonistes (1671) are steeped in biblicaland Judaic lore. The Puritans’ doctrine of election and covenant also derived to a great extent from Hebrew sources. They
made the “Covenant” a central feature of their theologicalsystem and also of their social life, often undertaking theirreligious and political obligations to one another on the basisof a formal covenant, as recorded in Genesis. There are interesting developments of the covenant idea in the philosophiesof Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) and John Locke (1632–1704),
and also in Milton and the 17t-century religious radicals
known as the Levellers. The same period saw the publication of other works based on the Bible or Jewish history, suchas the Davideis (1656), an anti-royalist epic poem by Abraham Cowley, and Titus and Berenice (1677), a play by Thomas
Otway based on the tragedy Bérénice by Jean *Racine. John
Dryden dramatized Milton’s Paradise Lost unconvincingly
as The State of Innocence and Fall of Man (1677). His famous
satire Absalom and Achitophel (1681), in which David represents Charles II, reflects the contemporary political scene.
In the 18t century, various minor writers provided the librettos for Handel’s oratorios, over a dozen of which deal with
Old Testament themes ranging from Israel in Egypt (1738) toJudas Maccabaeus (1747). Hannah More, who wrote Belshazzar (one of her Sacred Dramas, 1782), was one of several English writers who paid attention to this figure. Others wereHenry Hart Milman (Belshazzar, 1822); Robert Eyres Landor,
who wrote The Impious Feast (1828); and Lord *Byron, whose
Hebrew Melodies (1815) contains a poem on this subject. William Wordsworth revealed an imagination shaped by biblical forms and patterns, and in “Michael” the dramatic focusof the whole poem is the picture of an old man setting up aheap of stones as a covenant between himself and his son attheir parting. In a more scholarly field, the Christian Hebraist Robert *Lowth devoted much time to the study of Hebrew
poetry in the Bible. One novelist in whom a fairly strong Hebraic background can be discerned is Henry Fielding, whose
Joseph Andrews (1742) was intended to recall the lives of Joseph and Abraham.
BIBLICAL MOTIFS IN LATER WRITERS. During the third decade of the 19t century, the biblical figure of Cain was the center of some literary controversy and interest. The publicationof an English translation of Salomon Gessner’s German prose
epic Der Tod Abels (1758) in 1761 set a fashion, and Coleridge’s“Gothic” work on this theme was one of many. Byron’s attempt
to transform the first murderer into a hero in his Cain (1821)
roused a storm of protest, provoking The Ghost of Abel (1822),
a riposte by William *Blake. A less revolutionary side of Byron is seen in his Hebrew Melodies, which includes poems on
Jephthah’s daughter, Sennacherib, and the Babylonian Exile.
The 19t century produced many other works of biblical inspiration by English writers. One which had a great vogue in its
day was Joseph and His Brethren (1824), a grandiose epic poem
written under a pen name by Charles Jeremiah Wells. In his
Poems (1870), Dante Gabriel Rossetti used Midrashic and legendary material for his treatment of the conflict between Satanand Lilith and Adam and Eve in “Eden Bower.” Alfred Austin
wrote The Tower of Babel (1874); and in defiance of the censors Oscar Wilde first published his daring comedy Salomé inFrench (1893), the English version only being allowed on to the
British stage in 1931. A number of leading 20t-century writers
maintained this interest in the personalities and themes of the
Old Testament. They include C.M. Doughty, with the dramatic
poem Adam Cast Forth (1908); George Bernard Shaw, in his
play Back to Methuselah (1921); Thomas Sturge Moore, authorof the plays Absalom (1903), Mariamne (1911), and Judith (1911);
the poet John Masefield who wrote A King’s Daughter (1923)
on Jezebel; D.H. Lawrence, with his play David (1926); Arnold
Bennett, whose Judith had a brief, sensational run in 1919; andSir James Barrie, who wrote the imaginative but unsuccessfulplay The Boy David (1936). The works of the Scots playwright
James Bridie include Tobias and the Angel (1930), Jonah andthe Whale (1932), and Susannah and the Elders (1937). A number of anti-biblical Old Testament Plays were published in 1950
by Laurence Housman. Figures from the Bible are also introduced in A Sleep of Prisoners (1951), a symbolic play written
by Christopher Fry, whose The Firstborn (1946) transformed
Moses into a superman. Curiously enough, most of the Jewish writers who emerged in Britain during the 19t and 20tcenturies avoided biblical subjects and devoted their attention

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6433

english literature
to social and historical themes. However, Isaac *Rosenberg
wrote a Nietzschean drama, Moses (1916).
IMPACT OF JEWISH PHILOSOPHY AND MYSTICISM. In thegeneral abandonment of medieval Christian authorities during the Reformation, there was a certain tendency to look to
the medieval Jewish philosophers and exegetes for guidance.
The thinking of writers like John, Jeremy Taylor (1613–1667),
and the “Cambridge Platonists” was in part shaped by the
Bible and by Maimonides. The Platonist poet Henry More
(1614–1687) drew heavily on both Philo and Maimonides,
and made frequent reference to the Kabbalah. Like manyother English writers of his time, More had, however, only avery imperfect idea of what the Kabbalah contained. Two earlier writers whose works contain kabbalistic allusions are theRabelaisian satirist Thomas Nash and Francis Bacon. Nash’s
Pierce Pennilesse His Supplication to the Divell (1592), a humorous discourse on the vices and customs of the day, draws
from the Christian Kabbalah; while Bacon’s The New Atlantis(1627) describes the utopian Pacific island of Bensalem, where
the Jewish colonists have a college of natural philosophy called“Solomon’s House” and are governed by rules of kabbalistic
antiquity. Genuine kabbalistic motifs, admittedly obtained atsecond hand, are to be found in the late 18t century in theworks of William Blake. His notion of the sexual inner lifeof his divine “Emanations” and “Specters” is at least partiallykabbalistic, while his portrait of the “Giant Albion” is explicitly derived from the kabbalistic notion of the Adam Kadmon(“Primal Man”). Kabbalistic notions and images later played apart in the occult system employed by W.B. Yeats (1865–1939)
in his poetry; and in the mid-20t century the Kabbalah acquired a considerable vogue, exemplified by the poetry of Nathaniel *Tarn and by Riders in the Chariot (1961), a novel by
the Australian writer Patrick White.

the Crucifixion and the rise of the *blood libel, which reached
its culmination in the notorious case of *Hugh of Lincoln(1255). This accusation became the subject of several horrificearly poems, including the old Scottish ballad of “The Jew’s
Daughter,” reproduced in Percy’s Reliques. In this ballad thestory is slightly varied, the ritual murder being committed bya young Jewess. Chaucer’s Prioress’s Tale, a story of child murder committed by Jews, explicitly refers the reader to the caseof Hugh of Lincoln a hundred years earlier, the suggestion being that the killing of Christian children by Jews was habitual.
Echoes of these medieval fantasies continue to be heard down
the centuries, and they provide the starting point for Christopher *Marlowe’s The Jew of Malta (c. 1589) and for Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice (c. 1596). Both Marlowe’s Barabas and Shakespeare’s Shylock obviously delight in the murderof Christians either by knife or by poison, a partial reflectionof the charges leveled at the trial of the unfortunate Marrano
physician Roderigo *Lopez. The stage Jew down to the Elizabethan period looked rather like the Devil in the old mystery
plays, and was very often dressed in a similar costume: this explains why, in Shakespeare’s play, Launcelot Gobbo describes
Shylock as “the very devil incarnation,” while Solanio sees him
as the devil come “in the likeness of a Jew.”

The Figure of the Jew
Jews were expelled from England in 1290, and the great medieval English works in which Jews were portrayed, notably
John Gower’s Confessio Amantis (c. 1390), William Langland’s
The Vision of Piers Plowman (three versions c. 1360–1400),
and Geoffrey *Chaucer’s Prioress’s Tale (one of the Canterbury
Tales, c. 1390) were all composed about a century later. The figure of the Jew was therefore almost certainly not drawn fromlife, but rather from imagination and popular tradition, thelatter a mixture of prejudice and idealization. This approach is
not untypical of medieval writing generally, which often usedstereotypes and symbols and gave them concrete shape. The
evil stereotype of the Jew is clearly based on the Christian account of the crucifixion of Jesus, including his betrayal by Judas (identified with the Jew in general) and his often-statedenmity toward the Jewish scribes and Pharisees. This provided the basis for the image of the Jew in the early mysteryor “miracle” plays, current from the 13t century, which presented the Bible records in dramatic form. A contemporary
touch was sometimes added by representing Judas as a Jewish
usurer. There is an historical link between the dramatizing of

THE DUAL IMAGE. The Jew, however, aroused not only fear
and hatred but also awe, and even admiration. Thus the medieval imagination had room not only for Judas, but also forheroic Old Testament figures such as Isaac and Moses. Thereis no doubt that the Israelites at the Red Sea in the old mysteries were also clearly identified as Jews. *Judah Maccabee(another Judas) was one of the famous Nine Worthies of early
legend, along with David and Joshua. Shakespeare, who refers to the Jews in seven of his plays, draws on this traditionin the closing scene of his comedy, Love’s Labour’s Lost. Another early Christian tradition which carries undertones ofadmiration and awe is that of the *Wandering Jew. Ahasuerus,
as he is sometimes called, in the early ballads was a “cursed
shoemaker” who churlishly refused to allow Jesus to rest on
a stone when he was on his way to Golgotha, and for this wasmade to wander the world forever. As the Jew who lives on
eternally to testify to the salvation offered to the world, he isby no means an unsympathetic figure. In later romantic literature, particularly in poems by Percy Bysshe Shelley (Queen
Mab, 1813) and Wordsworth (“Song for the Wandering Jew,”
1800), he finally symbolizes universal wisdom and experience.
The anonymous interlude Jacob and Esau (first published in1568) includes acting directions which state that the players“are to be considered to be Hebrews, and so should be apparalled with attire.” Thus, both Jacob the saint and his brother
Esau, the lewd ruffian, are clearly Jews. The portrait of the Jew
therefore becomes ambiguous: he is both hero and villain, angel and devil. There is more of the devil than the angel in theearly portraits, but the balance varies. What is lacking is the
middle, neutral ground of everyday reality, for little attempt
is made to visualize the Jew in his ordinary environment. It

434

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

english literatureis, however, worth noting certain speeches in The Merchantof Venice, especially Shylock’s famous lines beginning, “I ama Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions?” Here, there is at leasta glimmer of realism. Jews are usually referred to by writers of
the Elizabethan and succeeding periods in derogatory terms,
the very word Jew invariably suggesting extortioner, beggar,
thief, or devil’s accomplice. But the resettlement of the Jews
in England after 1656 and the new undogmatic character of
17t-century Anglicanism led to some change. George Herbert’s poem “The Jews” (in The Temple, 1633) breathes a strainof devout love for Israel as the exiled people of God. Herbert
was imitated a few years later by Henry Vaughan who, in an
equally passionate poem of the same title, prays that he “might
live to see the Olive bear her proper branches.” The reference
is to the metaphor of the olive used by the apostle Paul (N.T.
Rom., II), when he speaks of Israel as destined one day to berestored to flourishing growth. William Hemings based his
drama, The Jewes Tragedy (1662), on the Jewish revolt against
Rome, as described by *Josephus and *Josippon. Milton’s Samson Agonistes presents a picture which is in part that of the heroic Jew of the Bible, in part a self-portrait of the poet himself.
This marks a new phenomenon: the subjective projection of
the author into the portrait of the Jew, and it was not to be repeated until much later, by such 19t-century poets as Byron
and Coleridge, and by James Joyce in the figure of Leopold
Bloom in Ulysses (1922).
LATER DRAMA AND FICTION. In 18t-century drama theJew continued to be portrayed as either utterly evil and depraved or else completely virtuous. One dramatist might often produce both types, as did Charles Dibdin in The Jew andthe Doctor (1788) and The School for Prejudice (1801). Richard Brinsley Sheridan introduces an unpleasant Jew, Isaac,
in his comic opera, The Duenna (1775), balanced by a virtuous Jew, Moses, in The School for Scandal (1777). The hero ofan anonymous play, The Israelites (1785), is a Mr. Israel, whopractices all the virtues that the Christians only profess. The
most sympathetic portrayal of all is that of the Jew Sheva in
Richard *Cumberland’s play, The Jew (1794). A kind of Shylock in reverse, Sheva is the English counterpart of the heroof the German dramatist *Lessing’s Nathan der Weise (1779).
In fiction there was a similar tendency to extremes. The vicious and criminal Jew painted by Daniel Defoe in Roxana(1724) is balanced in Tobias Smollett’s novel The Adventuresof Ferdinand Count Fathom (1753), where the benevolent Joshuah Manasseh insists on lending the hero money without
interest. Yet Smollett himself had a few years earlier (in The
Adventures of Roderick Random, 1748) drawn a no less exaggerated portrait of the Jewish usurer in Isaac Rapine, whosename suggests his character. The same duality in the portraitof the Jew is noticeable in the 19t century. Maria Edgeworth,having produced a gallery of rascally Jews in her early Moral
Tales (1801), compensated for those in Harrington (1816), a
novel largely devoted to the rehabilitation of the Jews, whom

she represents as noble, generous, and worthy of respect andaffection. All this was part of the new liberal attitude generated by the French Revolution and the spread of the belief inhuman equality and perfectibility. To entertain anti-Jewish
prejudices was to subscribe to outmoded social and ethicalforms. Thus, “Imperfect Sympathies,” one of the Essays of Elia
(1823–33) by Charles Lamb, expresses mild reservations about“Jews Christianizing, Christians Judaizing,” Lamb having little
time for Jewish conversion or assimilation. The novel Ivanhoe(1819) by Sir Walter Scott introduces Isaac of York, the medieval usurer who, though described as “mean and unamiable,”is in fact radically humanized in line with the new conceptions. He has become grey rather than black, and his daughter
Rebecca is entirely white, good, and beautiful. Scott has comea long way from the earlier stereotypes, and the Jews, far frombeing murderers, preach peace and respect for human life to
the murderous Christian knights. In later 19t-century English
novels there are many Jewish portraits. William Makepeace
Thackeray always pictures his Jews as given to deceit and as
suitable objects for social satire. In his Notes of a Journey from
Cornhill to Grand Cairo … (1846), which includes the record ofa visit to the Holy Land, Thackeray indulges in a rather moreemphatic strain of antisemitism. Charles Kingsley and Charles*Dickens, on the other hand, both have sympathetic as well as
unfavorable portraits. Kingsley’s bad Jews are to be found in
Alton Locke (1850), and his good Jew in Hypatia (1853), while
Dickens introduces Fagin, the corrupter of youth and receiverof stolen goods, in Oliver Twist (1837–38), and Mr. Riah, thebenefactor of society and ally of the innocent, in Our Mutual
Friend (1864–65). Charles Reade has as the central character of
his novel It is Never too Late to Mend (1856) a Jew, Isaac Levi,
who initially more sinned against than sinning, ends by taking
a terrible revenge on his rascally foe. George Henry Borrow,an agent of the British and Foreign Bible Society, was obsessedwith Jewish exoticism, but disliked Jews as people. He used a
Hebrew title for Targum (1835), a collection of translations, andin his most famous work, The Bible in Spain (1843), recorded
his encounter with the alleged leader of Spain’s surviving Marranos and included his own verse translation of Adon Olam.
In his novel The Way We Live Now (1875), Anthony Trollope
drew the fantastically wicked Jew Augustus Melmotte on a
melodramatic scale and with no real attempt at verisimilitude.
But in the following year, the ultimately noble Jew makes his
appearance in George *Eliot’s Zionist novel, Daniel Deronda(1876). This shows the Jews not merely as worthy of sympathy, but as having within them a spiritual energy throughwhich mankind may one day be saved and made whole. The
19t-century belief in race and nationality as a source of vital
inspiration has here combined with a certain moral idealism
to produce a remarkable vision of the Jewish renaissance, insome measure prophetic of what was to come after the riseof Herzlian Zionism. Something similar is to be found in thenovelist and statesman Benjamin *Disraeli, who never tiredof vaunting the superiority of the Jewish race as a storehouseof energy and vision. In Tancred (1847) and his biography of

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6435

english literature
Lord George Bentinck (1852) he maintained his belief that the
Jews were “the aristocrats of mankind.” George du Maurier
propagated a Jewish caricature nourished by the new Nietzschean philosophy of race. Svengali, the evil Jew in his novel
Trilby (1894), is the eternal alien, mysterious and sinister, asorcerer whose occult powers give the novel the character ofa Gothic thriller. Svengali belongs, of course, to an “inferior
race,” and his exploits are ultimately designed to corrupt the“pure white race” personified in the novel’s heroine, Trilby. On
the other hand, George Meredith, in The Tragic Comedians(1880), presents a romantically attractive Jew, Alvan, who isactually a portrait of the German-Jewish socialist Ferdinand*Lassalle. Sir Thomas Henry Hall Caine also showed unstinted
sympathy and admiration for the Jew in his novel of Jewish
life in Morocco, The Scapegoat (1891), although his account is
not without some inner contradictions. The non-Jewish Anglo-American Henry Harland, using the pen name Sidney
Luska, published three novels – As It Was Written (1885), Mrs.
Peixada (1886), and The Yoke of Thorah (1887) – in the guise of
an immigrant of Jewish background describing the life of theGerman Jews of New York. The poets Wordsworth and Byron were drawn to the romantic glamour of the Jewish past,
the former in a touching descriptive lyric, “A Jewish Family”(1828), the latter in the more famous Hebrew Melodies. Like
Blake, Shelley was repelled by the Old Testament’s stress on the
Law and the Commandments – his instinct being toward freelove and anarchism – but was drawn to the figure of the Wandering Jew. Samuel Taylor Coleridge, too, in his “Rime of theAncient Mariner” (in Lyrical Ballads, 1798) shows an interestin the same theme evidently derived from his reading of M.G.
Lewis’ gruesome novel The Monk (1796). Coleridge translated
Kinat Jeshurun, a Hebrew dirge on the death of Queen Charlotte by his friend Hyman *Hurwitz, calling it Israel’s Lament(1817). The warmest and most detailed accounts of Jews areto be found in the poetry of Robert *Browning, who seemed
determined to show that even post-biblical Jews, such as the
medieval Rabbi Ben Ezra and the Jews of the Roman ghetto,
could be given sympathetic, even noble, treatment. Browning
tried to do in poetry what *Rembrandt had done in paint –suggest the mixture of everyday realism and sublimity in the
lives of Jews. Matthew Arnold, the most “Hebraic” of 19tcentury English writers, paid tribute to Hebrew culture in his
elegy “On Heine’s Grave” (New Poems, 1867), while Algernon
Charles Swinburne gave expression to great indignation in his
poem “On the Russian Persecution of the Jews” (1882).

Greene, there is a similar rendering of the dark image of the
Jew. Belloc, an anti-capitalist, held that the Jews and Protestants were the arch-enemies of civilization and evolved a belief in a “Jewish conspiracy” (The Jews, 1922). Greene revived
the medieval connection between Judas and the Devil in A
Gun for Sale (1936) and Orient Express (1933), and in Brighton
Rock (1938), where the Jewish gang-leader Colleoni – one of
the most sinister villains in English literature – leads the hero,
Pinkie, to damnation. Frankly antisemitic portraits can also
be found in the writings of D.H. Lawrence and Wyndham
Lewis. A more mild and benevolent portraiture emerges fromthe biblical dramas of James Bridie, Laurence Housman, andChristopher Fry. George Bernard Shaw brought back the JewDevil stage tradition in burlesque form in Man and Superman(1903); and various characters in Major Barbara (1905), Saint
Joan (1923), and The Doctor’s Dilemma (1906) express Shaw’s
not unkindly view of the Jew in modern society. An importantdevelopment in the 20t century was the attempt to abandon
the old stereotype and depict Jews in natural, human terms.
John Galsworthy took the lead in his novels and more particularly in his play Loyalties (1922). Here the Jew, Ferdinandde Levis, is the victim of a robbery at a country-house party.
The other guests band together to defend the thief because heis one of them, whereas the Jew is an alien. Galsworthy has
carefully purged his imagination of the kind of emotional attitudes that determined the reaction of Shakespeare and his
audience to the basically similar situation in The Merchant of
Venice, and the result is an objective study in social psychology. A similarly unemotional approach is to be found in James
Joyce’s Ulysses, where the central character, Leopold Bloom, isneither exactly hero nor anti-hero but something in between.
Less flamboyant Jewish characters appear in novels by E.M.
Forster, The Longest Journey (1907); and C.P. Snow. The latter’s
The Conscience of the Rich (1958) is devoted to the affairs of a
Jewish family who differ from the English upper class aroundthem only in an extra touch of gregariousness and more tenacious adherence to tradition.

THE 20TH CENTURY. English poets of the 20t century haveshown less interest in Jews. T.S. Eliot makes a return to themedieval stereotype of avaricious extortioner in his phrase:“My house is a decayed house,/and the jew squats on thewindow sill, the owner/spawned in some estaminet of Antwerp/…” (Gerontion and other references), although elsewhere he speaks with veneration of Nehemiah, the prophet
who “grieved for the broken city Jerusalem.” In Catholic writers such as Hilaire Belloc, G.K. Chesterton, and Graham

Palestine and Israel in English LiteratureEver since medieval times English writers have recorded impressions of their visits to the Holy Land or written imaginative works based on Jewish historical themes. One of theearliest books of this kind was the Voiage (1357–71) of the 14tcentury Anglo-French traveler Sir John Mandeville. Outstanding works over the centuries were Henry Maundrell’s A Journey from Aleppo to Jerusalem at Easter 1697 (1703); The Fallof Jerusalem (1820), a play by Henry Hart Milman, dean of
St. Paul’s, who also wrote a History of the Jews (1829); Eothen(1844), travel impressions by Alexander William Kinglake; The
Brook Kerith (1916), a novel by the Irish writer George Moore;and Oriental Encounters. Palestine and Syria 1894–1896 (1918)
by Marmaduke William Pickthall. Britain’s Mandate in Palestine, which led to a political confrontation with the yishuv,
and the State of Israel found wide reflection in English fiction,
generally of inferior merit. G.K. Chesterton, an antisemite

436

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

english literature
who condoned massacres of Jews during the First Crusade as“a form of democratic violence,” was nevertheless attracted
to the Zionist ideal of emancipation through physical toil, recording his impressions of a visit to the Holy Land in The New
Jerusalem (1920). A thinly disguised account of Jewish-British
relations in Ereẓ Israel is combined with an accurate description of Palestine under the Romans in W.P. Crozier’s The Letters of Pontius Pilate (1928). Some writers were intensely proZionist, others violently hostile and pro-Arab. Muriel Spark’s
The Mandelbaum Gate (1965) was a tale of divided Jerusalem
with an anti-Israel bias, but another non-Jewish novelist,
Lynne Reid Banks, who wrote An End to Running (1962; U.S.
ed., House of Hope) and Children at the Gate (1968), settled at
kibbutz Yasur. Of the many books about Palestine and Israel
written by English Jews outstanding was Arthur *Koestler’s
dramatic Thieves in the Night (1946).

his son, Francis Turner Palgrave, editor of the famous Golden
Treasury of English Verse (1861); and Sir Arthur Wing Pinero(1855–1934), the most successful dramatist of his time, who
was also of Jewish origin. Late writers included Stephen Hudson (Sydney Schiff); Naomi Jacob; Ada *Leverson; Benn Levy;
Lewis Melville; Leonard *Merrick; E.H.W. *Meyerstein; Siegfried *Sassoon; Humbert *Wolfe; and Leonard *Woolf.

The Jewish Contribution
Before the Expulsion of 1290, the Jews of England were culturally an integral part of medieval French Jewry, speaking
Norman French, and conducting their business affairs in Hebrew or Latin and their literary activities almost exclusively in
Hebrew. *Berechiah ben Natronai ha-Nakdan, the 12t–13tcentury author of Mishlei Shu’alim (“Fox Fables”), is probably
identical with Benedict le Poinctur (i.e., punctuator, Hebrew
Nakdan), who is known to have been living in Oxford in 1194.
Berechiah’s “Fox Fables” compiled from a variety of Jewish,
Oriental, and other medieval sources, were both popular andinfluential, partly determining the shape of later medieval
bestiaries. Their influence may also be seen in the Latin Gesta
Romanorum, first compiled in England (c. 1330; first printed
c. 1472). An important literary figure of the Elizabethan period, John Florio (1553?–1625), was descended from converted
Italian Jews. A friend of Ben Jonson and Sir Philip Sidney, heinfluenced Shakespeare, whose Hamlet and The Tempest echo
Florio’s pioneering translation of the Essays of Montaigne(1603). It was not until nearly a hundred years after the readmission of the Jews in 1665 that they began to play any significant part in English literary affairs. Moses *Mendes, thegrandson of a Marrano physician, was a well-known poetaster and minor playwright. His ballad-opera, The Double Disappointment (1746), was the first work written for the theaterby an English Jew. He also wrote The Battiad (1751), a satire,in collaboration with Dr. Isaac *Schomberg. Jael (Mendes)
Pye (d. 1782), a convert like Mendes, made a brief but significant entry into English literature with poems and a novel;
while another early poet, Emma (Lyon) Henry (1788–1870),
a staunch Jewess, received the patronage of the Prince Regent
in the early 19t century. Many of the Anglo-Jewish writers of
the 18t and 19t centuries were either remote from Jewish lifeor actually abandoned Judaism. They include Isaac *D’Israeli,
father of Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield; the half-Jew
John Leycester *Adolphus, the first person to deduce Sir Walter Scott’s authorship of the Waverley Novels; members of the*Palgrave dynasty, notably Sir Francis (Cohen) Palgrave and

JEWISH THEMES. From the early 19t century onward, many
Anglo-Jewish writers devoted a large part of their talent toJewish themes. Several of these committed authors were
women. The sisters Celia (Moss) Levetus (1819–1873) andMarion (Moss) Hartog (1821–1907), who ran a private schoolfor 40 years, together published a collection of poems, Early
Efforts (18381, 18392); a three-volume Romance of Jewish History (1840); Tales of Jewish History (1843); and a short-lived
Jewish Sabbath Journal (1855). Better known was Grace *Aguilar, a vigorous champion of Judaism, who wrote the first significant Anglo-Jewish novel, The Vale of Cedars (1850). Twoother women writers were Alice Lucas (1851–1935) and Nina
(Davis) Salaman (1877–1925), both of whom wrote poetry;
Nina Salaman also translated medieval Hebrew verse. Novels
on Jewish themes proliferated from the latter half of the 19t
century. Benjamin *Farjeon, a writer of North African Sephardi origin, really created this new genre with works such as
Solomon Isaacs (1877), Aaron the Jew (1894), and Pride of Race
(1900), which described the London-Jewish scene and especially the growing populace of the East End. This was the main
location for the more famous novels of Israel *Zangwill, who
remains the greatest single figure in England’s Jewish literary
history. Although Zangwill wrote many books on non-Jewish
themes, he is best remembered for his “ghetto” stories – Children of the Ghetto (1892), Ghetto Tragedies (1893), The King of
Schnorrers (1894), and Dreamers of the Ghetto (1899). At about
the same time, Jewish middle-class life was being faithfully described by three women novelists, Amy *Levy; Julia (Davis)*Frankau (“Frank Danby”); and Mrs. Alfred Sidgwick (Cecily
Ullman, 1855–1934), whose works include Scenes of Jewish Life
(1904), In Other Days (1915), and Refugee (1934). Their books
had little impact outside the Jewish community, but their common central theme – mixed marriage – became increasingly
popular. This was the case with the novelist G.B. *Stern, but
the most sentimental, and obsessive, use of the motif occurs
in the works of Louis *Golding, whose Magnolia Street (1932)
and “Doomington” novels enshrine this aspect of Jewish assimilation with an archetypal repetitiveness that suggests a
permanent solution of the “Jewish problem” through wholesale extra-marriage. The outstanding Jewish poet of the 20tcentury was Isaac *Rosenberg, whose feeling for the sufferings of the soldiers in the trenches of World War I was in part
nourished by the Bible. Izak *Goller, originally a preacher, wasa more intensely Jewish poet, whose passionate Zionist sympathies and outspoken manner brought him both fame andnotoriety during the 1930s. Other Jewish writers included S.L.
*Bensusan; the biographer and historian, Philip *Guedalla;

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6437

english literatureand M.J. Landa. A number of Jewish writers also became
eminent as literary scholars and critics. They include Sir Sidney *Lee; F.S. Boas; Sir Israel *Gollancz; Laurie *Magnus; V.
de Sola Pinto; Jacob Isaacs (d. 1973), first professor of English
at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem; David *Daiches; andGeorge Steiner. The left-wing publisher, author, and pacifist,
Victor *Gollancz, attempted to synthesize his conception of
Judaism with a liberalized Christianity. Joseph *Leftwich, J.M.
Cohen (d. 1989), and Jacob Sonntag (d. 1984) were prominent
editors, anthologists, and translators.

destructive, their aim being to strip Jewish life in England of its
complacency and hypocrisy. Other writers were more firmly
committed to Jewish values and ideals. They include the humorist Chaim Bermant; the novelists Gerda Charles, Lionel
Davidson, William Goldman (1910– ), Chaim Raphael, andBernice Rubens; and the Welsh-born poet Jeremy Robson(1939– ), who edited Letters to Israel (1969) and an Anthology
of Young British Poets (1968).
Another member of this group was the critic John Jacob
Gross (1935– ), assistant editor of Encounter. The Six-Day
War of June 1967 galvanized many Jewish writers in England
into a sudden awareness of a common destiny shared with
the Israelis in their hour of peril. This found expression in aforthright letter to the London Sunday Times (June 4) signed
by more than 30 Anglo-Jewish authors.

NEW IMPULSES. In the mid-20t century a new dimension
was given to the problem of Jewish existence both by theEuropean Holocaust and its aftermath and by the birth andconsolidation of the State of Israel. These momentous events,
shattering old illusions, in time created a new sense of tragedy
and peril, in which the Jew became the focus of a universal
situation. This feeling can be detected in several Anglo-Jewish writers, although none of them was as significant as such
U.S. authors as Saul *Bellow, Bernard *Malamud, and Philip*Roth. In poetry the outstanding names were Dannie *Abse,
Karen Gershon, Michael Hamburger, Emanuel *Litvinoff, Rudolf Nassauer, Jon *Silkin, and Nathaniel Tarn. A writer whose
novels, essays, and political and philosophical works commanded wide attention from the 1930s onward was the Hungarian-born Arthur Koestler. Like Koestler, Stephen Spender(1909–1995), a leading poet and critic of partly Jewish origin,
was a disillusioned leftist. His works include impressions ofIsrael, Learning Laughter (1952). Elias *Canetti was a refugee
playwright who continued to write in German, his works being translated into English. Harold *Pinter, Peter *Shaffer, andArnold *Wesker were leading playwrights of the post-WorldWar II era. In 2005 Pinter was awarded the Nobel Prize forliterature. Janina David (1930– ) described her childhood
experiences in pre-war Poland and the Warsaw ghetto in A
Square of Sky (1964); its sequel, A Touch of Earth (1966), tellsof her postwar move to Australia. The Quick and the Dead
(1969), a novel by Thomas Wiseman (1930– ), reflects earlymemories of Vienna during the 1930s and the Anschluss era.
A few writers attempted to demythologize the Jewish image
by presenting Jews as basically similar to their fellows. The
novelist Alexander Baron, the novelist and playwright Wolf
*Mankowitz, and Arnold Wesker all belong to this category,
although Mankowitz later reassessed his commitment to Judaism. Popular novelists included the Socialist member of parliament Maurice Edelman, whose book The Fratricides (1963)
has a Jewish doctor as its hero; and Henry Cecil (Judge Henry
Cecil Leon), who specialized in legal themes. From the late
1950s a “new wave” of Anglo-Jewish writers appeared following the publication of The Bankrupts (1958), a novel by Brian*Glanville harshly criticizing Jewish family life and social
forms. Works of similar inspiration were written by Dan *Jacobson, Frederic Raphael, and Bernard *Kops. Following thegeneral inclination to reject or debunk the inheritance of anolder generation – these writers were not, however, entirely

Later Developments
The trends which had characterized Anglo-Jewish literatureduring the 1960s continued to manifest themselves in the
1970s. New books were published by virtually all of the better-known writers, including the novelists Gerda *Charles,
Frederic *Raphael, Chaim *Raphael, Nadine *Gordimer, Bernard *Kops, Barnet *Litvinoff, Chaim *Bermant, Bernice*Rubens, the last of whom was awarded the Booker Prize for
Fiction in 1970 for The Elected Member (1970), the story of adrug addict and his Jewish family set against the backgroundof London’s East End.
One of the new trends in the years under review was a
growing closeness to the Hebrew tradition. Dan *Jacobson’s
The Rape of Tamar (1970) brought King David, his family,
and court to life in a searching and brilliant retelling of biblical narrative. His drama, The Caves of Adullam (1972), treatedthe David-Saul relationship no less interestingly. Later heroism
was described in David *Kossoff ’s Voices of Masada (1973), thestory of the siege as it might have been told by the two women
who, according to Josephus, were the only Jewish survivors. In
another historical novel, Another Time, Another Voice (1971),
Barnet Litvinoff deals with Shabbetai Ẓ evi, while against thebackground of present-day Israel Lionel *Davidson’s detective
story, Smith’s Gazelle (1971), deftly wove together kibbutz andBedouin and the Israel love for nature.
Davidson, who settled in Israel after the Six-Day War,in 1972 became the first writer in English to win the Shazar
Prize of the Israel Government for the encouragement of immigrant authors. Another English writer who settled in Israel
was Karen *Gershon, the German-born poet, whose poems
on Jerusalem were the heart of her volume of verse, Legacies
and Encounters, Poems 1966–1971 (1972). A cycle of the Jerusalem poems appeared in Israel with Hebrew translations facing each page.
The new, sometimes even personal, relation of AngloJewish writers to Israel is paralleled by a deeper involvementwith the Jewish past in England itself. Thus, Gerda Charles’
novel, The Destiny Waltz (1971), grew out of the life of Isaac

438

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Harold Harel Fisch]english literature*Rosenberg, the East End poet who died in World War I, while
Maurice *Edelman went further back to write Disraeli in Love
(1972), a portrait of the statesman in his youth. The largely interrelated aristocratic families that dominated the Anglo-Jewish community in the 19t century and even later were vividly
described in The Cousinhood (1971) by Chaim Bermant.
The nearer past continued to be reflected in literature,
Emanuel *Litvinoff ’s Journey through a Small Planet (1972)
depicting an East End childhood in the 1930s and Arnold*Wesker in his play, The Old Ones (1973), evoking ideologies
and eccentricities of an older East End generation that is now
vanishing. The second part of David *Daiches’ autobiography, A Third World (1971), describes the author’s years in the
United States, while Mist of Memory (1973) by the South African writer Bernard Sachs portrayed a Lithuanian childhood
and full, contemplative years in South Africa – its politics, racial conflicts, trade unionism, and Jewish attitudes.
Another book on South Africa, Dan Jacobson’s novel oninterracial marriage, Evidence of Love (1960), was translated
and published in the Soviet Union. Both Jacobson and Sachs,
like other South African Jewish writers, in recent years madetheir home in England. Similarly, Canadians like Norman
Levine and Mordecai *Richler, though continuing to write
about Canada, became resident in England, and Richler’s St.
Urbain’s Horseman (1971) sharply described expatriates in thefilm and television industry.
Starting in the 1980s Anglo-Jewish literature has undergone something of a transformation. Instead of specificallyEnglish concerns and forms of expression, many recent Anglo-Jewish novelists are influenced by the American Jewish
novel and incorporate European Jewish history and the contemporary State of Israel into their fiction. This marked lackof parochialism is reflected in novels, often first novels, published in the 1980s by Elaine *Feinstein, Howard *Jacobson,
Emanuel *Litvinoff, Simon Louvish, Bernice *Rubens, andClive *Sinclair.
In 1985, the London Times Literary Supplement indicateda serious general interest in Anglo-Jewish literature by organizing a symposium for English and American Jewish writers
on the role of Hebrew and Yiddish culture in the writer’s life
and work. In general, national British radio, television, andpress have devoted a significant amount of time to Anglo-Jewish literature which, in recent years, has included many individual profiles of Jewish novelists in England. Clive Sinclair
and Howard Jacobson, in particular, have achieved national
prominence with Sinclair, in 1983, designated one of the 20“Best of Young British Novelists” and Jacobson’s Peeping Tom(1984), his second novel, winning a special Guardian fiction
prize. Since 1984, the Institute of Jewish Affairs, the London-based research arm of the World Jewish Congress, hasorganized a regular Jewish writers’ circle which has brought
together many Anglo-Jewish writers for the first time. This
group has grown out of a colloquium in 1984 on Literatureand the Contemporary Jewish Experience which included theparticipation of the Israeli writer Aharon *Appelfeld and theliterary critic George *Steiner.
In contrast to Anglo-Jewish literature which includes
explicitly Jewish concerns, many Jewish writers in Englandcontinue to abstain from overt expression of their Jewishness
in a fictional context. Prominent examples, in these terms, include Anita *Brookner’s Hotel du Lac (1984), which won theBooker McConnel Prize for Fiction in 1984, Gabriel *Josopovici’s Conversations in Another Room (1984), and Russell Hoban’s Pilgermann (1983). Against this trend, however, Anita
Brookner’s Family and Friends (1985), for the first time in her
fiction, obliquely refers to the author’s European Jewish background and her The Latecomers (1988) makes explicit her grief
for a lost European past as well as her Central European Jewish antecedents. Gabriel Josipovici’s literary criticism reveals a
profound interest and knowledge of Jewish literature. Two of
Josipovici’s novels, The Big Glass (1991) and In a Hotel Garden(1993), are concerned, respectively, with a Hebraic understanding of art and the continued European dialogue with Jewish
history. Josipovici has also published his much acclaimed The
Book of God: A Response to the Bible (1988) which has had aconsiderable impact on his fiction. Josipovici has also written
the introduction to the English translation of Aharon Appelfeld’s The Retreat (1985).
A young Anglo-Jewish playwright, who has emerged in
the last decade, is Stephen Poliakoff, whose plays have been
regularly produced in both London and New York. Older playwrights, Bernard *Kops and Arnold *Wesker, continue to produce drama of interest, especially Bernard Kops’ Ezra (1980)
and Arnold Wesker’s The Merchant (1977). Between 1977 and1981 Harold *Pinter’s collected Plays were published to muchacclaim and Peter *Shaffer, the author of Amadeus (1980),
staged Yonadab (1985), a play based on Dan *Jacobson’s The
Rape of Tamar (1970), which played in a West End London
theater. Jacobson, who was born in South Africa and has lived
in England for nearly three decades, continues to produce fiction of high quality as demonstrated by his autobiographicalset of short stories, Time and Time Again (1985) and his novel
The God-Fearer. The poet Dannie *Abse has published A Strong
Dose of Myself (1983), the third volume of his autobiography,
and his Collected Poems: 1945–1976 appeared in 1977.
Much Anglo-Jewish literature continues to situate Jewish
characters in a specifically English context. In a comic tour
de force, Howard Jacobson contrasts Englishness and Jewishness in his popular campus novel, Coming From Behind (1983).
Jacobson’s Peeping Tom (1984) is a brilliant and lasting comictreatment of the same theme. His The Very Model of a Man(1992) and Roots Shmoots: Journeys among Jews (1993) are explorations of his Jewishness.
Frederic *Raphael’s Heaven and Earth (1985) examines
Anglo-Jewishness in the political context of an amoral English conservatism. A more conventional account of middle
class Jewish life in England – and its relationship to the Stateof Israel – is provided by Rosemary Friedman’s trilogy, Proofs

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6439[Shulamit Nardi]

english literatureof Affection (1982), Rose of Jericho (1984), and To Live in Peace(1986). Friedman’s fiction demonstrates that the family saga
continues to be a popular form of Anglo-Jewish self-expression. Chaim *Bermant’s The Patriarch: A Jewish Family Saga
(1981) is another example of this genre, as is Maisie Mosco’s
bestselling Almonds and Raisins trilogy (1979–81). Judith Summers’ first novel, Dear Sister (1985), is a woman-centered Jewish family saga.
While much Anglo-Jewish literature continues to be set
in an English milieu, many Jewish novelists have begun toreveal a fruitful interest in European Jewish history and thecontemporary State of Israel. Emanuel Litvinoff ’s Falls The
Shadow (1983), using the form of a detective novel, examines
the Jewishness of modern-day Israel and the relationship of
the Jewish State to the Holocaust. A more controversial account of these themes is found in George Steiner’s The Portage to San Cristobal of A.H. (1981). The 1982 West End stage
version of this novella excited a prolonged exchange of articles and letters in the London Times and the Jewish Chronicle.
Steiner also published an interesting work of fiction, Proofs
and Three Fables (1992). Other works of fiction by Jewish critics include Al Alvarez’s Day of Atonement (1991) and Harold
Pinter’s autobiographical novel The Dwarfs (1990 but mainly
written in the 1950s). Pinter, like Steven *Berkoff in his challenging plays, was deeply influenced by his poor London
East End Jewish background. Provocative fictional accountsof contemporary Israel are found in Simon Louvish’s novels,
The Therapy of Avram Blok (1985), The Death of Moishe-Ganel(1986), City of Blok (1988), The Last Trump of Avram Blok
(1990), and The Silencer (1991). Louvish, who lives London,
was raised in Jerusalem and served in the Six-Day War. His
fiction is an iconoclastic, deliberately grotesque, portrait of
the State of Israel. Clive Sinclair’s Blood Libels (1985), his second novel, also utilizes Israeli history, especially the Lebanon
War, and combines such history with a haunting imagination.
In fact, Sinclair epitomizes the explicitly Jewish self-assertionand maturity of a new generation of Anglo-Jewish writers thathas emerged in the 1980s. He describes himself as a Jewish
writer “in a national sense” and so situates his fiction in Eastern Europe, America, and Israel. In this way, he eschews theusual self-referring, parochial concerns of the Anglo-Jewish
novel. This is especially true in his collection of short stories,
Hearts of Gold (1979) – which won the Somerset MaughamAward in 1981 – and Bedbugs (1982). His later works are Cosmetic Effects (1989), Augustus Rex (1992), and Diaspora Blues:
A View of Israel (1987).
Elaine Feinstein is another Anglo-Jewish writer who,
over the last decade, has consistently produced fiction of thehighest literary excellence and has demonstrated a profoundengagement with European history. Her fiction, especiallyChildren of the Rose (1975), The Ecstasy of Dr. Miriam Gardner(1976), The Shadow Master (1978), The Survivors (1982), and
The Border (1984), all demonstrate the persistence of the pastin her characters’ lives. Apart from The Survivors, all of thesenovels have a continental European setting. That is, Feinstein’s

Bibliography: E.N. Calisch, The Jew in English Literature(1909), includes bibliography; D. Philipson, The Jew in English Fiction (1911); M.J. Landa, The Jew in Drama (1926; repr. 1969); H. Michelson, The Jew in Early English Literature (1926), includes bibliography; L. Magnus, in: E.R. Bevan and C. Singer (eds.), The Legacy ofIsrael (1927), 483–505; W.B. Selbie, ibid., 407–33; E.D. Coleman, The
Bible in English Drama (1931), a bibliography; idem, The Jew in English
Drama (1943; repr. 1970), a bibliography; H.R.S. van der Veen, Jewish
Characters in Eighteenth Century English Fiction and Drama (1935), includes bibliography; M.F. Modder, The Jew in the Literature of England(1939), includes bibliography; J. Trachtenberg, The Devil and the Jews
(1961), includes bibliography; J.L. Blau, The Christian Interpretation of
the Cabala in the Renaissance (1944); A.M. Hyamson, in: Anglo-Jewish Notabilities (1949), 4–73; J. Leftwich, in: Jewish Quarterly (Spring1953), 14–24; A. Baron, ibid. (Spring 1955); H. Fisch, The Dual Image(1959); idem, Jerusalem and Albion (1964), includes bibliographicalreferences; D. Daiches, in: L. Finkelstein (ed.), The Jews …, 2 (19603),
1452–71; E. Rosenberg, From Shylock to Svengali (1960), includes bibliography; G.K. Anderson, The Legend of the Wandering Jew (1965);
M. Roston, Biblical Drama in England (1968), includes bibliography;
D.J. DeLaura, Hebrew and Hellene in Victorian England (1969), includes bibliography; Shunami, Bibl, 248ff.

440

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

fiction has successfully drawn on European Jewish history in abid to understand her own sense of Jewishness. In recent years
this has been clearly focused in her autobiographical The Survivors, set in England, and her less overtly autobiographical
The Border which is set in Central Europe in 1938. The Border
received high critical acclaim. The novel, using the form of acollection of letters and diaries, enacts the irrevocable marchof history leading up to the outbreak of World War II. In juxtaposition to this historical backdrop, Feinstein’s rare lucidity
evokes her characters’ passionately differing sense of reality.
Bernice Rubens’ Brothers (1983) utilizes modern Jewish history
in more expansive terms than Feinstein, but, perhaps becauseof this, with less success.
The growing strength of British-Jewish writing is further indicated by a younger generation of Jewish novelists
which is now emerging. Work by them includes Jenny Diski’s Like Mother (1988), Will Self ’s Cock and Bull (1992), andJonathan Wilson’s Schoom (1993). When this writing is coupled with the plays of a number of young Jewish dramatists
such as Diane Samuels, Julia Pascall, and Gavin Kostick,then the future of British-Jewish literature looks particularly
healthy.
The last decade has demonstrated that there is a coincidence of interests between English literature in generaland the concerns of the Anglo-Jewish novel. In recent years,
much of the best English fiction looks to Asia, the Americas,
and continental Europe for its subject matter and sense ofhistory. It is not uncommon, therefore, for non-Jewish writers to incorporate Jewish history into their novels. With regard to the Holocaust, two of the most prominent examplesof this phenomena are Thomas Keneally’s Booker Prize winning Schindler’s Ark (1982) – based on the life of the righteous
gentile Oskar *Schindler – and D.M. Thomas’ controversial
The White Hotel (1981).
[Bryan Cheyette]enochENHAROD (Heb. ‫) ֵעין ֲחרֹד‬.
Ancient
Spring where Gideon and his people camped during his war
against the Midianites and the place where he selected the menfor his night ambush (Judg. 7:1). It is identified with a spring
on a northwestern spur of Mt. Gilboa, and may also be theunnamed fountain where Saul camped against the Philistines(I Sam. 29:1). From Byzantine times it was believed that thebattle between David and Goliath took place at En-Harod. The
Arabs thus called it Ain Jalud (“Spring of Goliath”), by whichname it became famous as the site of the Mongol defeat by theMamluk sultan Kotuz in 1260.
En-Harod is also an unidentified locality which was thehome of Shammah and Elika, two of David’s warriors (II Sam.
23:25; cf. I Chron. 11:27).

a furniture factory, medical and industrial recording equipment, and software). Tel Yosef and En-Harod maintained
the Bet Sturman Museum and Study Center containing collections and documents on the region’s nature, history, andsettlement history; nearby, a large open-air stage for art performances was set up. There was also a museum for contemporary art, Mishkan la-Ommanut (see *Museums, Israel). In
1968 En-Harod “Me’uḥ ad” had 760 inhabitants, and En-Harod“Iḥ ud” had 690. In the mid-1990s the population of En-Harod“Me’uḥ ad” was approximately 875, and the population of EnHarod “Iḥ ud” was approximately 720. At the end of 2002 thepopulation of En-Harod “Me’uḥ ad” was 809 and the population of En-Harod “Iḥ ud” was 559.

ModernEn-Harod is the name of two kibbutzim in the Harod Valley, one affiliated with Ha-Kibbutz ha-Me’uḥ ad and the otherwith Iḥ ud ha-Kevuẓ ot ve-ha-Kibbutzim. The original En-Harod was founded in 1921 at the foot of Mt. Gilboa near Harod
Spring by a pioneer group of *Gedud ha-Avodah. They set
up two tent camps and started draining the malarial swampsof the “Nuris Bloc” recently acquired by the *Jewish National
Fund. At En-Harod, the principles of the “large and growing
kibbutz” were worked out in its first years and laid down by
Shelomo *Lavi. At the same time, fierce discussions were held
between members accepting the Gedud ha-Avodah doctrineof a countrywide commune of kibbutzim and others who
demanded that every village constitute a separate economic
unit. The former concentrated at neighboring *Tel Yosef,
and the latter at En-Harod. When the Gedud declined, mostof its groups associated themselves with En-Harod, eventually forming Ha-Kibbutz ha-Me’uḥ ad. In 1929 the En-Harod
settlement was transferred to the northern rim of the valley, on the slope of the Ẓ eva’im (Qūmī) Ridge. In the 1930s,
the kibbutz quickly increased in membership, intensified its
farming, and opened manufacturing enterprises. Exposed tofrequent attacks during the 1936–39 Arab riots, special nightsquads of the Haganah were set up and trained at En-Harod,
under Orde *Wingate. In the Israeli War of Independence(1948), a Palmaḥ group from En-Harod dislodged the ArabLegion from its positions menacing the Harod Valley at Zirʿīn(Yizre’el) and al-Mazar on Mt. Gilboa. In the 1951–52 split
in the Kibbutz Me’uḥ ad movement, members of En-Harodwere about equally divided between Mapai and the *Aḥ dutAvodah faction of Mapam, causing the settlement to be split
between Iḥ ud ha-Kevuẓ ot ve-ha-Kibbutzim and Ha-Kibbutz
ha-Me’uḥ ad, the latter setting up a new kibbutz adjoining theveteran settlement in the northwest. Both kibbutzim developed highly intensive farming (beehives, dairy cattle, poultry,
fishery, fields crops, and orchards) and each had a numberof industrial enterprises (at En-Harod “Iḥ ud,” stainless steel
sanitary equipment, other metal products, a printing press,
and a guest house, and at En-Harod “Me’uḥ ad,” steel works,

ENNERY, JONAS D’ (1801–1863), French politician, geographer, and educationalist. Ennery, who was born in Nancy, wasprincipal of the school of the Jewish community in Strasbourg.
In 1849, despite the anti-Jewish disorders in Alsace, he waselected to the constituent assembly, where he sat among themembers of the “Mountain” (left wing). After Napoleon III’scoup d’état in 1852, Ennery was exiled to Belgium. His works
include Dictionnaire général de géographie universelle (4 vols.,
1839–41) and Prières d’un coeur israélite (1848).

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6441[Michael Avi-Yonah]

Website: www.einharodm.co.il (for Me’uḥ ad).
[Efraim Orni]

ENOCH (Heb. ‫) ֲחנוֹ ְך‬. (1) Son of Cain, father of Irad. The
world’s first city was named after Enoch (Gen. 4:17f.). It has
been suggested that the writer is punning on the root ḥ nk, “tofound,” “initiate.” (2) Son of Jared, father of Methuselah, seventh generation of the human race (Gen. 5:18–24; I Chron.
1:3). Sasson (in Bibliography) has suggested that as seventh in
the line of Adam, Enoch’s life of piety is in contrast with theseventh in the line of Cain, who is associated with bloodshed.
In comparison with the life-span of his ancestors and descendants, his life is short and corresponds in years with the number of days in the solar year. It is further said of him that he“walked with God; then he was no more for God took him”
(Gen. 5:23). This cryptic statement implies the existence ofsome fuller narrative about Enoch, now lost, perhaps connecting him with the sun god (see below). Legend has stepped in
to fill the gap. Some scholars have pointed to a similarity with
the Mesopotamian story of Enmeduranna, the seventh kingbefore the flood, who was very close to the sun-god to whom
his capital city was dedicated. Hess follows Borger (Bibliography) in suggesting that a better Mesopotamian counterpart ofEnoch would be Utuabzu, adviser to Enmeduranki. Utuabzu,
seventh in a list of sages before the Mesopotamian flood, like
Enoch ascended into heaven.
[Nahum M. Sarna / S. David Sperling (2nd ed.)]In the Apocrypha
In Jewish apocryphal literature of the Second Temple period
similar motifs to those of Enmeduranna are connected with
Enoch (seventh in Seth’s line); he too learned God’s mys-

enoch, ethiopic book ofteries and had access to the heavenly tablets. It is therefore
probable that the similarity between the later legends about
Enoch and the figure of the Babylonian legendary king canbe explained by the fact that Genesis preserves a partly expurgated narrative about Enoch and that some of the original mythological motifs continued to exist in oral tradition
until they reached their present form in Jewish pseudepigrapha and medieval legends and mystical literature. Enoch became a hero in Jewish apocalyptic literature and two Jewish
apocalyptic books are ascribed to him: the so-called Ethiopic
and Slavonic Books of Enoch. The figure of Enoch was especially significant in the spiritual movement from which the*Dead Sea Sect originated. Thus his story and his writings
are treated in the Book of *Jubilees, his prophecies are hinted
at in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, and he plays anactive role in the Genesis Apocryphon, one of the *Dead Sea
Scrolls. Cave 4 at Qumran yielded Aramaic fragments manyof which correspond to the apocalyptic I Enoch. The importance attached to Enoch in some Jewish circles in the Second
Temple period aroused the opposition of the more rationalistic
Jewish sages. Therefore in rabbinic literature Enoch is sometimes presented as evil and the biblical statement that he wastaken by God is simply explained as a reference to his death.
The first to claim that Enoch merely died was Ben Sira (Ecclus. 44:16; 49:14–16) – even Joseph, Shem, Seth, Enoch, andAdam had to die. It is interesting to note that all these biblicalpersonages (with the exception of Joseph, but note “The Prayer
of Joseph”) became heroes of Jewish, Gnostic, and Christian
mystical speculations. It is also important that while the Hebrew text of Ben Sira presents Enoch as a “sign of knowledge
to all generations” – a hint at his mystical wisdom – by thetime of the Greek translation (135 B.C.E.) Enoch had become“an example of repentance for all generations,” reflecting thelegend that there was repentance before the Flood. This legend, in a curious form, occurs even in Mormon holy scriptures (Moses 6:27–7:19).
[David Flusser]

stall him as king over the angels in heaven too. He ascended toheaven in a fiery chariot drawn by fiery chargers. When Enocharrived in heaven the angels exclaimed: “How comes a manborn of a woman amid the fire-consuming angels?” To which
God replied: “Be not offended, for all mankind denied Me and
My dominion and paid homage to the idols; I therefore transferred the Shekhinah [‘Divine Presence’] from earth to heaven,and this man Enoch is the elect of men.” God arrayed him ina magnificent garment and a luminous crown, opened to him
all the gates of wisdom, gave him the name “Metatron,” prince
and chief of all heavenly hosts, transformed his body into aflame, and engirdled him by storm, whirlwind, and thundering (Sefer ha-Yashar to Genesis, p. 11a–13a). Notwithstanding
these legends, third-century Palestinian rabbis deny the miraculous translation of Enoch, and state that he vacillated all
his life between righteousness and sinfulness, whereupon God
removed him from the world before he relapsed again intosin (Gen. R. 25:1). This derogatory evaluation of Enoch was,at least in part, a reaction against the use made by Christiansof the legend of Enoch’s ascension to heaven.
In Islam
A prophet named Idrīs is mentioned in the Koran in Suras 19:57–58 and 21:85. The commentators identify him with
Enoch, whom God “took” (Gen. 5:22–25), namely, that he did
not die. The Muslims shaped the character of Idrīs, the brotherof “Noah,” in keeping with Jewish aggadah, as already foundin Ben Sira, Josephus, and the books of the Pseudepigrapha,in various languages, which are attributed to Enoch. The
brother of “Noah” was well versed in books and was therefore named Idrīs (“the expounder of books”). Like the Jews,
the Muslims occasionally identify him with Elijah, as well aswith al-Khaḍ ir (see *Mūsā).
[Haïm Z’ew Hirschberg]

Bibliography: U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Bookof Genesis, 1 (1961), 263, 281–6; E.A. Speiser, in: The Anchor Bible,
Genesis (1964), 41–43; Ginzberg, Legends, 1 (1925), 125–40; 5 (1925),
156–64. IN APOCRYPHA AND AGGADAH: Ginzberg, Legends, 1 (1925),
125–40; 6 (1928), 157–65; N. Avigad and Y. Yadin, Genesis Apocryphon(1956), 16–19, 40; Y. Yadin, The Ben Sira Scroll from Massada (1965),
38; E.E. Urbach, Ḥ azal (1969), 295. IN ISLAM: Tha‘labī, Qiṣ aṣ (Cairo,
A.H. 1348), 32; A.J. Wensinck, in: EIS, 2 (1927), 449–50, S.V. Idrīs, incl.
bibl.; G. Weil, Biblische Legenden der Muselmaenner (1845), 62. Add.
Bibliography: R. Borger, in: JNES, 33 (1974), 183–96; J. Milik,
Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (1976); J. Sasson, in: ZAW, 90 (1978), 171–85; R. Hess, in: ABD II, 508; J. Fitzmyer,
The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 (20043); C. Rowland, in:
DDD, 301–5.

In the Aggadah
Enoch was among the nine righteous men who entered paradise without suffering the pangs of death (DEZ 1, end). “Heascended to heaven on God’s command, and was given thename *Metatron the Great Scribe” (Targ. Yer. to Gen. 5:4).
During his lifetime Enoch was the guardian of the “secret ofintercalation” and of the “miraculous rod” with which Moses
later performed the miracles in Egypt (Pd RE 7:40). He is thecentral figure in some late Midrashim, such as Sefer Ḥ anokh
and Ḥ ayyei Ḥ anokh (which are related to the legends foundin the various pseudepigraphic Books of Enoch and otherapocryphic works). Enoch lived in a secret place as a hidden
righteous man and was called by an angel to leave his retreat
to go to teach men to walk in the ways of God. He taught for
243 years, during which peace and prosperity reigned in theworld. He made a powerful impression on all he taught, including kings and princes, and they acclaimed him as theirking. As a reward for instructing mankind, God resolved to in-

ENOCH, ETHIOPIC BOOK OF (known as I Enoch; abbr.
I En.), one of the most important of the apocalyptic works,
dating from the period of the Second Temple. It is named after the biblical Enoch, son of Jared, about whom it is stated in
Genesis 5:24 that he “walked with God; then he was no more,for God took him,” which was understood to mean that heascended to heaven during his lifetime. The work consists ofdifferent sections, which are generally clearly indicated.

442

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

enoch, ethiopic book of
In its present form it is divided into five parts, consistingof some nine separate sections, as follows:(1) 1–5: An introduction, in which Enoch relates the goodin store for the “elect” after the final “day of judgment”; 6–11
describes Shamḥ azai and his cohorts, the chiefs of the watchers (cf. Dan. 4:10–14); they are “sons of God … the Nephilim”
of Genesis 6:4, who lust after the daughters of men andsire children (cf. the Greek gigantes), who consume the laborof others, and teach mankind the arts of magic and the art offashioning weapons of destruction. Uriel, one of the angelsof the “Heavenly Presence,” is sent by God to apprise Noahof the impending flood, destined to come upon the earth
because of this wickedness. The angel Gabriel is sent to destroy the children of the “watchers” and the angel Michael
to bind the “watchers” in *Sheol until the day of the last judgment; 12–36 continues the foregoing except for the fact that
here the leader of the Nephilim is called Azael, and Enochthe “righteous scribe” acts as the intermediary between themand God. It continues with Enoch’s journey through the universe, during which he is granted a view of all the elementsof creation (hills of darkness, rivers of fire, the abode of
the spirits, the place of the great future “judgment,” the garden of Eden, Gehenna, the sun, the stars, etc.) and among
them also “the seat of glory,” upon which sits “the great glory”(God).
(2) 37–71: This section deals with the “last day.” The Messiah, who is here called the “Elect One,” is envisioned as a preexistent being who has, from time immemorial, been “under
the wings of the Lord of the spirits” and who, on the last day
of judgment, is destined to act as the judge of all mortal beings (41). The ministering angels, who lift their voices in songin the morning, first greet the “Lord of spirits” (or the “ancientof days” of Dan. 7:9) and then the “Elect One.”(3) 72–82: The Book of the Courses of the Heavenly Luminaries. This book is entirely separate and distinct from thepreceding one. It gives a detailed description of the course of
the sun, of the moon and of the stars, of the falling of dew andof rain, of the recurring seasons of the year, etc. The nature of
the “true” calendar of 364 days per year, i.e., 52 weeks, is also
explained (by means of a description of the procession of thesun through the “gates” and “windows” of the heavens).
(4) 83–90: This part is similar in content to section (2).
In it are related, by means of dream-visions and symbols, thedeluge and the history of the children of Israel down to thebeginning of the Hasmonean era.
(5) 91–108, which may be subdivided as follows: (a)91–105: another survey of the history of man and of the children of Israel. History is divided into ten periods, seven ofwhich have already occurred (the creation, the flood, Abraham, the revelation at Sinai, the Temple, the destruction of
the Temple, the time of the election of “the righteous shoot”)
and three which belong to the future. In them the righteous
shall triumph, the Temple will be rebuilt, and the day of thelast judgment come; (b) 106–107: The Book of Noah, the storyof Noah’s birth, similar in content to the Genesis Apocryphon

and to the Book of Noah found at Qumran; (c) 108: Enoch’s
instructions to mankind.
The different parts of the work are not merely a compilation of various heterogeneous elements, but apparently also
reflect different periods in the life of the community in whichthese “books” arose. In its view of the role of Enoch and inits solar calendar it has affinities with the Book of *Jubilees(which mentions it – 4:17–23 et al. – and is dependent upon it),as well as with other apocalyptic literature (cf. the Testamentof Levi, 10:5; 14:1 et al.). These books are also familiar with the
Noah story, as apparently with chapters 80–93. On the other
hand chapters 37–71 reflect the views of esoteric circles. In the
Talmud, R. Akiva, who was among the sages who delved intosuch lore (ma’aseh merkavah; see Tosef., Ḥ ag. 2:4), expressedsimilar ideas concerning a preexistent Messiah who sits on aseat next to the “Divine Presence” (Shekhinah; Sanh. 38b; Ḥ ag.
14a), and similar ideas are found in the later “pseudepigraphic”
midrashic literature (ed. by A. Jellinek in his Beit ha-Midrash
and in PR 36–46). One passage in this section (67:6–8), which
speaks about mineral waters used medicinally by mighty andwicked monarchs, apparently alludes to Herod (cf. Jos., Ant.,
17:171) and hence dates from after his reign (or possibly thedays of the early *procurators). The belief in a Temple which
will descend from heaven (91–105) also stems from separatist
circles, such as those represented by the authors of the Dead
Sea Manual of *Discipline who did not consider the Second
Temple to be sacred and dissociated themselves from it. The
final chapter is both ideologically and linguistically close to
the *Dead Sea Scrolls, and the term “righteous shoot” is also
common in the writings of this sect.
The Book of Enoch had tremendous influence. From it,
or at any rate, through it the Manual of Discipline received thesolar calendar and it also served as an exemplar for the composition of the burgeoning apocalyptic literary genre. From it
too comes the concept of a preexistent Messiah, which influenced early Christianity and prepared the way for the belief
in the divinity of Jesus (see later). It was this influence which
was apparently responsible for the negative attitude of someof the talmudic sages of the third century C.E. who regarded
Enoch as a wicked and hypocritical figure (Gen. R. 25:1). Only
later, at the beginning of the Middle Ages, did the rabbis deal
with the mystical knowledge traditionally vouchsafed Enoch.
Some early Church Fathers (like Tertullian) considered thebook to be part of the canon. However, from the fourth century on, it gradually lost importance in the Western Church
and only in the Ethiopic Church is it still considered canonical. The Book of Enoch became known again in Europe onlyin the 18t century when James Bruce brought parts of it from
Ethiopia. In the 19t century, Dalman (who is also responsible
for the chapter divisions), and later Charles, disseminated itin the world of Western scholarship.
The original language of the Book of Enoch was, according to Joseph Halévy, Hebrew, but the fragments of the bookfound in Qumran are all in Aramaic. Charles’ hypothesis isthat the book consists of Hebrew and Aramaic portions in-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6443

enoch, slavonic book of

ENOCH, SLAVONIC BOOK OF (known as II Enoch; abbr.
II En.; also entitled the Book of the Secrets of Enoch, or several variations on this), apocryphal work translated in thetenth or 11t century from Greek into Slavonic. The dating isdeduced from the evidence of certain linguistic peculiarities.
The first complete edition of the work was published by A.
Popov in 1880. It was edited and studied by M. Sokolov (1899
and 1910) who made a special examination of the quotations
from Old Russian literature it contains. An edition and translation of the work into French was made by A. Vaillant (1952).
There are considerable differences between the two recensions(one long and one short) found in the manuscripts. Vaillant
and other scholars maintain that the short recension is closer
to the original text than the long one, which in their view contains many interpolations made by two revisers. Nonethelessthe long recension seems to contain some material belonging
to the original text omitted from the short recension.
The Slavonic Book of Enoch begins with *Enoch’s account of his journey on the wings of angels through the sevenheavens. This account, which contains astronomical information and descriptions of various classes of obedient and rebellious angels, recalls, despite considerable differences in detail,similar passages in the Ethiopic Book of *Enoch. In the seventh heaven Enoch sees from afar the Lord, who speaks to him
and orders the angel Vreveil to describe to him the workingsof heaven and earth, as well as disquisitions on various othertopics, and commands Enoch to record these in 360 books.
This is followed by an account of the creation given to Enoch
which is succeeded in turn by Enoch’s exhortations to hissons. These exhortations include moral admonitions, injunctions concerning sacrifices, a description of what Enoch has
seen in the heavens, and an eschatology. The tale continues
with Enoch being carried away by angels. His son Methuselah is ordained as a priest, offers animal sacrifices, and at theend of his life sees in a vision the Lord, who announces thedeluge and commands him to choose Nir, the second son of
Lamech (i.e., Noah’s brother), as his successor in the priestly
office. After the death of Methuselah, Nir offers animal sacrifices. After more than 200 years, when people have changed
for the worse, Sophonim, Nir’s wife, becomes pregnant in her
old age. Rebuked by her husband who believes her unfaithful,she dies. A child comes forth from her corpse. He has the distinctive signs of priesthood and is named Melchizedek. Whenthe time of the deluge approaches, the Lord informs Nir that
Melchizedek will be taken to Eden by the archangel Michael
and will be forever the priest of priests, or, as Nir puts it, thehead of the priests of the “other” people (those who will live
after the deluge).
In the long recension the Lord refers to the 13 priests
headed by Melchizedek’s son Nir who precede the Melchizedek known from the Bible and to 12 priests who follow thesecond Melchizedek; after them will come the great highpriest, the Word of God, who created all things visible andinvisible. This allusion to the Christian concept of the Christ
has no counterpart in the short recension. The latter, which
ends with the removal of the first Melchizedek, is possibly cut
short, and in this case the long recension may have preservedsome original materials.
Various hypotheses have been put forward on the originof the Slavonic Book of Enoch and the influences discernible
in it. There are unmistakable echoes of Christian doctrine in
the long recension, but only doubtful ones, or none at all, inthe short. If, as seems probable, the latter text is comparatively
free from interpolation, there does not appear to be any firm
ground for maintaining, as Vaillant does, that the work originated in a Christian milieu. It is possible that it reflects tendencies of one or even several Jewish groups; there are many
quotations from biblical texts and allusions to them and to
Ben Sira. It is reasonably likely that the original work, which ismore or less represented by the short recension, was an amalgam of two or more texts of differing provenance. A significant clue may be provided by the fact that in two passages – in
Enoch’s exhortations to his sons (Vaillant, p. 58–59) and in theaccount of the sacrifice offered by Methuselah (p. 66–67) – thetext makes it clear that the four legs of the sacrificial animals
should be tied together. A passage in the Babylonian Talmud(Tam. 31b) characterizes this way of tying sacrificial animals asa custom of the sectarians (minim). It is therefore a possibility that some portions of the Slavonic Book of Enoch, or thewhole of it, reflect the views of a Jewish sect which was heterodox in rabbinic eyes. In this connection, it may be asked if

444

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

discriminately combined. The book was translated into Greek
and from Greek into Ethiopic. Only part of the Greek translation is extant. The Book of Enoch is quoted in the Epistle ofJude (14–15) in the New Testament and its influence has been
discovered at many other points in the New Testament and in
the Church Fathers (cf. Charles, Apocrypha, 2 (1913), 180–5).
Of the Greek translation, chapters 1–32 were found in Egypt
in 1886–7 and were published by Bouriant in 1892. In 1930 the
University of Michigan purchased this manuscript, as wellas the manuscript of chapters 97:6–104, 106–107, which were
published by Bonner (The Last Chapters of Enoch in Greek,1937). The most complete Ethiopic version was published by
R.H. Charles as The Ethiopic Version of the Book of Enoch edited from 23 Mss. (1906). There are the following translationsof the Ethiopic text into modern languages: English, Charles,
Apocrypha, 2 (1913), 163–28; German, G. Beer, in: E. Kautsch(ed.), Apocryphen und Pseudepigraphen, 2 (1900), 236–310;
French, F. Martin, Le livre d’Hénoch (1906); Hebrew, A. Kahana, Ha-Sefarim ha-Ḥ iẓ onim, 1 (1936), 19–101.
Bibliography: J. Flemming and L. Radermacher, Das Buch
Henoch (1901); H.B. Swete, Old Testament in Greek (19124), 789–809;
P. Volz, Eschatologie der juedischen Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (1934), 16–25; H.H. Rowley, Relevance of Apocalyptic(1947), 54–60, incl. bibl.; idem, Jewish Apocalyptic and the Dead Sea
Scrolls (1957); J.T. Milik, in: Biblica, 32 (1951), 393–400; idem, in: RB,
65 (1958), 70–77; N. Avigad and Y. Yadin, Megillah Ḥ iẓ onit li-Vereshit(1957), 13–15, 31, 34 (Heb. section); Y.M. Grintz, Perakim be-Toledot
Bayit Sheni (1969), 105–42.
[Yehoshua M. Grintz]

enriques, paolo
the story of Melchizedek recounted in this work also belongs
to the lore of this sect.
Some portions of the Slavonic Book of Enoch show Iranian influences. A passage in the exhortations of Enoch (Vaillant, p. 56–57) referring to the souls of animals accusing man
certainly derives, as W. Otto noted, from the Zoroastrian
scriptures; its ultimate source may be found in the Avestic
Gathas (Yasna 29). The reference in the same passage to thehabitation assigned to the souls of the animals in the Great
Aeon may also reflect Zoroastrian views. It may be significant
that these passages immediately precede the sectarian passage
of sacrificial animals (Vaillant, p. 58–59). A passage in theexhortations of Enoch (p. 60–63) in which he refers to God
having established the division of time in the Aeon of Creationand to these divisions (the years, months, days, and hours)
disappearing in the eschatological Great Aeon is also reminiscent of Iranian doctrines on the creation of the Time of Long
Dominion (which has the ordinary divisions of time) andto its merging at the end with Infinite Time (which has none).
It has been claimed, with good reason, that the account of
the creation the Lord gives to Enoch (Vaillant, p. 28–31) also
contains some Iranian elements. The book also shows an
Egyptian influence. The Greek original of the Slavonic text
appears to have been full of Hebraisms; it may be supposedthat the author was familiar with the language of the Septuagint. However, in at least one case (Vaillant, p. 10) a postbiblical Hebrew expression, porkei ʿol, seems to have beentranslated.
Chronologically the Slavonic Book of Enoch comes after the Ethiopic Book of Enoch. A terminus a quo is suggested (though not established) by the hypothesis that theMishnah may include a reference to the sacrificial usages of asect within which at least some portions of this text may haveoriginated. There are some not wholly conclusive indications
that the Greek original of the work may have still existed in
the 13t century.
Bibliography: Charles, Apocrypha, 2 (1913), 425–69; G.N.
Bonwetsch, Die Buecher der Geheimnisse Hennochs (1922); R. Otto,
Reich Gottes und Menschensohn (1934), 160–4; G. Scholem, Ursprungund Anfaenge der Kabbala (1962), 62ff.; D. Winston, in: History of Religions, 5 (1965), 198f.; A. Rubinstein, in: JJS, 13 (1962), 1–21.
[Shlomo Pines]of the same title. The introduction mentions his commentaries on Psalms, Proverbs, and Esther; Berit Olam, homilies on
the Bible; and novellae on the Tur Oraḥ Ḥ ayyim. Some of his
responsa, together with those of his son Judah and his grandson, appear in Ḥ innukh Beit Yehudah (1708).
Bibliography: J. Perles, Geschichte der Juden in Posen (1865),
82, 83; J.E. Sokolow, Gan Peraḥ im (1890), 120.
[Jacob Hirsch Haberman]

ENOSH (Heb. ‫“ ; ֱאנוֹ ׁש‬man, mankind”), eldest son of *Seth andthe father of Kenan (Gen. 4:26; 5:6, 9; I Chron. 1:1–2). He lived
905 years (Gen. 5:11). It was in his day that the name YHWH
was first invoked (ibid. 4:26).
In the Aggadah
The generation of Enosh is the “counsel of the ungodly” ofPs. 1:1. Enosh and his contemporaries studied and practiced
the arts of divination and control of heavenly forces, thereby
making way for the generation of the flood (Zohar 1:56a),
and were also the first to practice idolatry (Sif. Deut. 43; seealso Shab. 118b). Four revolutions in nature occurred during
the days of Enosh: the mountains became barren; corpses
began to putrefy; the faces of men became apelike (rather
than Godlike); and demons lost their fear of men (Gen. R.
23:6).
Bibliography: Cassuto, in: EM, 1 (1965), 450; E.A. Speiser,
Genesis (1964), 37–38. IN THE AGGADAH: I. Ḥ asida, Ishei ha-Tanakh(1964), 73.

ENRIMMON (Heb. ‫) ֵעין ִר ּמוֹ ן‬, ancient town in the northern
Negev. Originally part of the territory of Simeon (Josh. 19:7), it
was absorbed by the tribe of Judah in the time of David (ibid.
15:32; I Chron. 4:32). It was resettled by Jews in the Persian period (Neh. 11:29). In the masoretic text of the Books of Joshua
and Chronicles, En-Rimmon appears as two separate cities(Ain and Rimmon) but as one city in the Book of Nehemiah
and the Septuagint. In the fourth century C.E. Eusebius refers
to it as a large Jewish village (Onom. 88:17; 146:25). The namemay be preserved in the Arabic Khirbat Umm al-Ramāmīn,about 8 mi. (13 km.) north of Beersheba.
Bibliography: Abel, Geog, 2 (1938), 318; Avi-Yonah, Geog,
114. Add. Bibliography: S. Ahituv, Joshua (1995), 303.
[Michael Avi-Yonah]

ENOCH BEN ABRAHAM (d. after 1662), talmudist andpreacher. In 1649, after having served as preacher in Cracow,
he left for Gnesen where he was appointed rabbi. He afterward became dayyan at Posen. As a result of the sufferingand poverty caused by the Chmielnicki rebellion (1648–49),
Enoch left Poland and settled at Oettingen (Germany) where
he was appointed rabbi, remaining there, probably until his
death. His works, published posthumously, are Vikku’aḥ Yosefve-ha-Shevatim (Amsterdam, 1680), an attempt to exonerate Joseph’s brothers; Reshit Bikkurim (1708), three sermons
on God’s existence, revelation, and reward and punishment,
published as part one of his grandson Enoch b. Judah’s book

ENRIQUES, PAOLO (1878–1932), Italian zoologist. Born at
Leghorn, he became director of the Institute of Zoology at
Padua in 1921 and remained there until his death. His zoological studies dealt with comparative physiology and protozoology. Among works of wider scope were his La teoria cellulare(1911), in which he attempted a synthesis of modern biological problems; Riproduzione nei protozoi (1924); and a seriesof monographs on genetics and evolution in which Enriques
attempted to reconcile Mendelian heredity with the Darwinian theory of evolution.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6445[Mordecai L. Gabriel]enríquez, isabelENRÍQUEZ (Henríques), ISABEL (fl. 1660), Spanish poet.
According to Miguel de *Barrios, she was “famous in the
Academies of Madrid for her rare talent.” In 1636 Isaac *Cardozo dedicated to her his Panegýrieo... del color verde. At somedate after this she fled to Amsterdam, where she openly professed Judaism. It was here that she was befriended by Barrios, who dedicated two poems to her in his Aplauso métrico(1673). In his Relación de los poetas, Barrios cites a décima ofhers and describes her as the author of a volume of verse. Together with Isabel *Correa, Isabel Enríquez is reputed to havebeen a member of Belmonte’s Academia de los Sitibundos in
Amsterdam.
Bibliography: M. de Barrios, Relación de los Poetas y Escriptores Españoles de la Nación Judayca (1683), 56; Kayserling, Bibl,
52; Brugmans-Frank, 455.
[Kenneth R. Scholberg]ENRÍQUEZ (Henriquez) BASURTO, DIEGO (b. 1621),*Marrano poet, son of Antonio Enríquez *Gomez. Probably
born in Spain, he lived with his father in Rouen, France, andlater moved to the Low Countries. Apparently while in Antwerp, Enríquez was the target of a vicious lampoon written
in 1664. Enríquez wrote a sonnet in praise of his father’s Siglopitagórico. A longer poem, El Triunpho de la Virtud y Paciencia de Job, dedicated to Anne of Austria, employs a variety ofverse forms and is divided into six “visions,” with intercalated
portions of the Psalms (Rouen, 1649).
Bibliography: Roth, Marranos, 246, 333; Kayserling, Bibl,
26; Barrera, Catálogo del teatro antiguo español (1860), 136; I.S. Revah, Spinoza et le Dr. Juan de Prado (1959), 24, 74–76.
[Kenneth R. Scholberg]

the rank of captain and receiving the decoration of Knight of
the Order of San Miguel. Together with his son, Diego Enríquez Basurto (who also became a well-known author), Enríquez Gómez left Spain in about 1636 and lived for a timein France, in Bordeaux and Rouen, where most of his books
were published. He later moved to Holland, where he reverted
openly to Judaism; he was symbolically punished in absentia
at an auto-da-fé in Seville on April 13, 1660. Enríquez Gómez
felt very bitter that he had to live away in a country where hismother tongue, in which he produced masterpieces, was not
spoken. For some unknown reason, he returned to Spain inaround 1649 and lived in Seville under a false name. He intended to continue to live as a Jew and had plans to move to
Naples. He continued to write using a pen name Fernando deZárato y Castronovo. For more than ten years he was able toremain incognito. His real identity was discovered because of
the drama he wrote. The Inquisition examined the backgroundof the playwright whose work aroused its suspicion. In 1660
he was burnt in effigy. He was arrested in 1661 and was throwninto prison where his life ended in 1663.
Enríquez Gómez was a lyric, dramatic, and epic poet,as well as a noted satirist. His major works include the Academias morales de las musas, dedicated to Anne of Austria(Bordeaux, 1642), and El siglo pitagórico y vida de don Gregorio Guadaña (Rouen, 1644). The latter, a novel in verse andprose, presents a series of 14 transformations of a soul in different bodies, satirizing various classes of society. Enríquez
Góez also wrote Luis dado de Dios a Luis y Ana (Paris, 1645),
dedicated to Louis XIII of France; Torre de Babilonia (Rouen,
1649); and a biblical epic about Samson, El Sansón nazareno(Rouen, 1656). In the prologue to this last work, Gómez refers
to his authorship of 22 plays. These are mainly concerned withthemes of honor, love, and friendship and half are based on
biblical subjects. In many of his works Enríquez Gómez verystrongly criticized the Inquisition. Enríquez Gómez composeda ballad dedicated to the martyr Lope de Vega (Juda el Creyente), who was burned at Valladolid on July 25, 1644.
Revah’s research has clarified many dark points in Gómez’s biography and introduced his literary creation to thewider academic and literary world.

ENRÍQUEZ (or Henríquez) GÓMEZ, ANTONIO (pseudonym of Enrique Enriquez de Paz; 1601–1663), Spanish playwright and poet. Born in Segovia Cuenca, he was the son of a
Portuguese Converso family that had been persecuted by theInquisition for several generations. From 1577 the family began to practice Judaism in secret. They kept the Sabbath andfestivals, observed some of the laws and customs pertaining tokashrut, and performed certain acts that were distinctly Jewish. His grandfather Diego de Mora was arrested for judaizingin 1588 and died in an Inquisition prison. Some members of
the family escaped to France where they openly practiced Judaism. His father Diego Enríquez de Mora was arrested andtried in 1624 and then left for France. Once his Christian wife
died, his father married a second wife, this time from a Converso family. Antonio lived in Cuenca, Seville, and Madrid.
Together with other Converso writers and poets, Antonio wasat the court of Felipe IV. Antonio, whose mother was an old
Christian, also married an old Christian but raised his children as Jews. His literary career was a great success. He wrote
about 40 plays and many prose and poetry pieces. For purely
racist reasons his literary work was almost totally ignored until recent times. His works bear clear testimony of his “Jewish”
identity. Gómez had a distinguished military career, rising to

Bibliography: Kayserling, Bibl, 49; J. Caro Baroja, Judíos enla España moderna y contemporánea, 3 (1961), index; H.V. Besso, Dramatic Literature of the Sephardic Jews of Amsterdam in the XVIIt and
XVIIIt Centuries (1947), index; C.A. de la Barrera y Leirado, Catálogo
bibliográfico y biográfico del teatro antiguo español (1860), 134–42;
Roth, Marranos, 246, 333; Revah, in: rej, 118 (1959–60), 50–51, 71–72;
idem, in: REJ, 131 (1962), 83–168; M. Gendreau-Massaloux, in: REJ,
136 (1977), 368–87; J. Antonio Cid, in: Homenaje a Julio Caro Baroja(1978), 271–300; L.R. Torgal, in: Biblos, 55 (1979), 197–232; J. Rauchwarger, in: REJ, 138 (1979), 69–87; A. Márquez, in: Nueva Revista deFilología Hispánica, 30 (1881), 513–33; G.F. Dille, in: Papers on Language and Literature, 14 (1978), 11–21; idem, Antonio Enríquez Gómez(1988); idem, in: Pe’amim, 46–47 (1991), 222–34; A. Márquez, Literatura e Inquisición en España (1478–1834) (1980), 113–20; T. Oelman,
in: Bulletin of Hispanic Studies, 60 (1983), 201–9; idem, Marrano Poetsof the Seventeenth Century: An Anthology of the Poetry of João Pinto
Delgado, Antonio Enríquez Gómez, and Miguel de Barrios (1982); C.H.

446

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

entebbe raid
Rose, in: The Spanish Inquisition and the Inquisitorial Mind (1987),
53–71; M. McGaha, in: Sefarad, 48 (1988), 59–92; idem, in: Bulletin of
Hispanic Studies, 69 (1992), 127–39; P.G. Martínez Domene and M.
Ángeles Pérez Sánchez, in: Letras de Deusto, 46 (1990), 65–80; C.L.
Wilke, in: REJ, 150 (1991), 203–8 [Review]; M. Harris, in: Bulletin of
the Comediantes, 43 (1991), 147–61; N. Kramer-Hellinx, in: Pe’amim,
46–47 (1991), 196–221.
[Kenneth R. Scholberg / Yom Tov Assis (2nd ed.)]ENROGEL (Heb. ‫) ֵעין רֹגֵ ל‬, a spring or well southeast of
Jerusalem on the border between the tribes of Judah andBenjamin, between En-Shemesh and the *Hinnom Valley(Josh. 15:7; 18:16). Jonathan and Ahimaaz, who acted as spies
and runners for David when he was fleeing from Absalom,
waited there for news from Jerusalem (II Sam. 17:17). Adonijah’s aborted attempt to succeed David as king took place at
En-Rogel (I Kings 1:9) and it is probably identical with the“dragon’s well” (Ein ha-Tannim) mentioned in Nehemiah 2:13.
En-Rogel has been identified with a well, 60 ft. (18 m.) deep,
called Bīr (Biʾr) Ayyūb (“Job’s Well”; perhaps a corruptionof “Joab’s well” [Ahituv]), situated at the convergence of the
Hinnom and *Kidron valleys, some 500 meters south of thecity of David outside the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem.
It sometimes overflows in rainy winters, justifying its definition as a spring. Alternatively, the well was dug on the site of
the ancient spring that had been stopped up.
Bibliography: Hecker, in: M. Avi-Yonah (ed.), Sefer Yerushalayim, 1 (1956), 199–200; H. Vincent, Jérusalem antique, 1 (1912),
134–8; idem, Jérusalem de l’Ancien Testament, 1 (1954), 284–8; G.A.
Smith, Jerusalem, 1 (1907), 108–11; G. Dalman, Jerusalem und sein
Gelaende (1930), 163–7; A.S. Marmardji, Textes géographiques arabes
sur la Palestine (1951), 14; J. Simons, Jerusalem in the Old Testament(1952), 158–63. Add. Bibliography: S. Ahituv, Joshua (1995), 246;
M. Cogan, I Kings (2000), 159.

sheim spent the last years of his life in Bayonne as a tutor in
the home of Abraham *Furtado. He bequeathed a quarter of
his estate, amounting to 12,000 francs, to the Jewish elementary school in Metz.
Bibliography: Steinschneider, Cat Bod, 972; Klausner, Sifrut, 1 (1952), 320–1. Add. Bibliography: P.A. Meyer, La communauté juive de Metz au XVIII siècle (1993).
[Jefim (Hayyim) Schirmann]

ENSISHEIM, town in Haut-Rhin department, Alsace, E.
France, about 19 mi. (30 km.) S. of *Colmar. R. *Meir ofRothenburg was held prisoner there from 1286. The first evidence that Jews were living in the town dates from 1291. They
were among the victims of the *Armleder persecutions in
1338. The community had hardly been reconstituted when
it suffered from the persecutions accompanying the *Black
Death in 1348–49. A few Jews again settled there from 1371.
The small community welcomed the Jews expelled from Kaysersberg and *Mulhouse at the beginning of the 16t century.
After an ordinance of 1547, only one Jewish family was allowed
to reside in Ensisheim and the surrounding localities, and thesynagogue was closed for worship. In 1689, some Jews wereagain admitted for a short while on payment of a high protection fee. It was not until 1824 that some Jews again settled
there. Only a few Jews were still living there in 1936. At an
unknown date there was a *blood libel in Ensisheim and theJews there were put on trial.
Bibliography: Germ Jud, 2 (1968), 211ff.; E. Scheid, Histoire des Juifs d’Alsace (1887), 78, 107, 118, 135; F.J. Merklen, Histoired’Ensisheim, 1 (1840), 185ff, 348; 2 (1840), 286 and passim; Z. Szajkowski, Franco-Judaica (1962), nos. 21, 1429.
[Bernhard Blumenkranz]

ENSHEIM, MOSES (also known as Brisac and Moses Metz;
1750–1839), mathematician and Hebrew versifier. Ensheim left
his native Metz in order to avoid having to become a rabbi,
and for many years led a wandering life. From 1782 to 1785
he was employed as a tutor in the home of Moses *Mendelssohn in Berlin. He then returned to Metz, where he gave private lessons in mathematics since, as a Jew, he was precluded
from teaching in the new central school in the city. He also
started working with the Hebrew journal Ha-Me’assef in which(vol. 6 (1790), 69–72) he published his Shalosh Ḥ idot, a satire
against billiards and card games, and two hymns: Al-ha-Va’ad
ha-Gadol asher bi-Medinat Ẓ arefat (6 (1790), 33–37), addressedto the National Assembly in Versailles; and La-Menaẓ e’aḥ Shir,a hymn on the occasion of the Metz civic fete of 1792. The latter was sung in the Metz synagogue to the tune of the Marseillaise. Ensheim was a friend of Abbé *Grégoire, and helped
him with the preparation of his essay on the Jews (1788). He
was also acquainted with several French mathematicians ofnote, and his Recherches sur les calculs différentiels et intégrals(1799) was highly regarded by Lagrange and Laplace. En-

ENTEBBE RAID. On Sunday, June 27, 1976, an Air France
jet plane en route from Tel Aviv to Paris with over 200 passengers on board, including 80 Israelis, was hijacked after it
took off from Athens where it had made an interim landing.
The hijackers claimed to belong to the Popular Front for the
Liberation of Palestine. The plane landed at Benghazi Airport
in Libya later the same day, and after refueling there (although
Libyan authorities denied this), it took off in the direction of
Amman and ultimately landed at Entebbe Airport near Kampala, Uganda, in complete darkness.
On Wednesday, June 30, the terrorists – after releasing
47 of the passengers, including elderly women, children, andthe sick – issued their demands for the release of 53 Palestinian terrorists imprisoned in various countries, 40 of them in
Israel, setting the following Thursday at noon as the deadline,
and threatening to kill all the remaining passengers and blow
up the plane if their demands were not met. Later, they extended the deadline for another 24 hours.
Meanwhile, on the previous two days the hijackers
released 148 passengers, most of them Jews who were not
Israelis, leaving 102 hostages, mostly Israelis, plus the crewof the airline.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6447[Michael Avi-Yonah]entin, Joel
On July 1, the Israeli government announced that it
would submit to the demands of the hijackers and officiallyasked France to negotiate on its behalf for the return of thehostages.
It later transpired, however, that from the moment thatthe hijack took place a rescue plan was drawn up, and on July
4, Israel and the whole world thrilled at the news of an attackby an Israeli commando unit at Entebbe, which effected therelease of the hostages. The operation was rightly describedas the most daring and incredible rescue mission in militaryhistory, taking place as it did, in a hostile country, 2,500 miles
distant and with minimal time for planning its complicateddetails. The operation, which had been kept a guarded secret,was under the command of Brigadier-General Dan Shomron and was carried out with giant American Hercules transport planes.
The rescuers landed at the airport with orders only toreturn fire directed at them and did so at Ugandan soldiers
who fired at them from the control tower. Storming the place
where the hostages had been housed, they shouted to themto keep their heads down, with the result that the rescue wasthus effected with a minimum of loss of life.
Three of the civilians lost their lives, two in the actual
operation and one succumbing to wounds in Nairobi Hospital. There was a single military casualty – Lt.-Col. Jonathan(“Yoni”) Netanyahu, commander of the strike force, the 30year-old son of Professor Ben-Zion Netanyahu. He was buried with full military honors in the Military Cemetery on Mt.
Herzl. Among those present were President Katzir, Prime
Minister Rabin, and Chief of Staff Mordecai Gur.
One hostage, Mrs. Dora Bloch, was left behind, since she
had earlier been taken to a hospital in Kampala and it transpired that she was later brutally murdered.
Kurt Waldheim, secretary-general of the UN, described
the rescue operation as a violation of Ugandan sovereignty
and claimed that the situation created by it was likely to haveserious international repercussions, especially as far as Africa
was concerned. (It was in fact condemned at a summit meeting of the Organization of African Unity.) This, however, wasthe only discordant note in a flood of congratulations whichpoured in, including one from President Ford – a message
which was declared to be “unprecedented,” since no Americanpresident had ever congratulated Israel on a military action.

ited the second volume of the literary almanac Yugend (1908)
and Der Yidisher Kemfer, the Labor Zionist weekly (1916–20).
He translated novels, plays, and stories into Yiddish and was afounder of Yiddish secular schools, the Jewish Teachers’ Seminary (1919), and the People’s Relief Committee during WorldWar I. He was active in the American Jewish Congress andthe Farband Labor Zionist Order. His Gezamlte Shriftn (“Collected Works”), edited by S. Shapiro, appeared posthumously
in New York in 1960.
Bibliography: Rejzen, Leksikon, 2 (1927), 780–7; Z. Zilbertsvayg, Leksikon fun Yidishn Teater (1934), 1577–79; E. Shulman,
Geshikhte fun der Yidisher Literatur in Amerike (1943), 136f.; LNYL,
7 (1968), 3–8. Add. Bibliography: R.R. Wisse, A Little Love in
Big Manhattan (1988).
[Elias Schulman / Marc Miller (2nd ed.)]ENTIN, JOEL (1875–1959), Yiddish editor, educator, andtranslator. Entin was born in Pohost, Russia, where he received
a traditional religious and secular education. He became active in Ḥ ibbat Zion and in 1890 moved to Moscow to work for
Bnei Zion. He arrived in New York in 1891 where he auditedclasses at Columbia University. Although he wrote chiefly in
Yiddish, his first publication was an English poem. With Jacob*Gordin he organized in 1896 the Fraye Yidishe Folksbine. Entin was a journalist and commentator on current events andliterature for the Yiddish daily Varhayt (1905–15). He co-ed-

ENTRE RÍOS, province in the Argentine Republic and one of
the most important centers of Jewish agricultural settlement.
In 2005 the Jewish population was estimated at 1,200 families, 550 of them in the capital city of Paraná. Entre Ríos has
been the focal point of Jewish settlement in Argentina since
the beginning of Jewish immigration to the country. The Jewish Colonization Association (ICA) first purchased land in theprovince in 1892 and the first settlers came during the same
year. Argentina’s national census of 1895 indicated that of the
6,085 people who declared their Jewish affiliation 3,880, or
about 64, lived in Entre Ríos. The amount of land in Entre
Ríos owned by the Jewish agricultural settlements continued toincrease until 1940, when it reached its peak of 571,988 acres.
On the perimeter of the agricultural settlements, Jewish
communities began to develop in the towns and later in distant principal cities. A 1909 survey found Jews in seven cities and towns and their number at that time was estimatedat 585 in contrast to 9,948 who lived in the Jewish agricultural settlements. Another poll, conducted in 1943, estimatedthe number of Jews in Entre Ríos at 20,803, of whom 9,266
were engaged in agriculture in the Jewish settlements, 4,695
lived in 17 adjacent villages, and the remainder – 6,842 persons – were settled in 76 towns, villages, and hamlets in theprovince. As a result of the Jewish agricultural colonizationin the province Entre Ríos has such Hebrew and Jewish place
names as Carmel, Baron Ginzburg, and Avigdor. Jews in Entre
Ríos have had local political importance, a rare circumstancewithin Argentinian Jewry as a whole. During the first yearsof settlement the Jewish colonies established in Colón, Uruguay, and Villaguay increased the population of these regions
by about 55. This relative numerical importance, however,
was not maintained. The settlements were arenas for Argentinian political struggles which had tragic consequences in
1916–17 when synagogues were destroyed and Torah scrolls
desecrated in the Clara colony. In 1921 the Jews of Entre Ríos
suffered violent antisemitism – camouflaged as anti-Communism – a phenomenon which increased particularly during the 1930s and 1940s.
The concentration of Jews in rural areas helped to pre-448

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Louis Isaac Rabinowitz (2nd ed.)]environmental sciencesserve Jewish life especially where Jews constituted a majority.
Jewish economic organizations – such as Sociedad Agrícola
Lucienville, which was possibly the first agricultural cooperative in Argentina, and the Fondo Comunal, among thelargest in the province – remained of economic importance.
Nevertheless, the diminishing number of Jewish agricultural
settlements and the general migration to Buenos Aires and its
environs have had severe consequences for the Jews of Entre
Ríos. The 1947 census recorded 11,876 Jews who declared their
Jewish affiliation, i.e., 4.9 of all avowed Jews in Argentina;
the 1960 census indicated the number had declined to 9,000.
According to data provided in 1968 by the Va’ad ha-Kehillot(Central Committee of Jewish Communities), the number ofJews had decreased to 8,000, of whom about 3,050 lived in
Paraná, the capital of the province. The same data refers tosome 30 congregations in the province, but only nine of them,with 442 students (141 in Paraná), maintained any kind of Jewish education and there were only five youth centers. Nevertheless, these congregations provide a framework for activities
and their membership in the regional branches of the Va’ad
ha-Kehillot and of the *DAIA brings them assistance in providing communal services and constitutes a mutual defense
against antisemitism. Other local and regional committees
allow the Jews of Entre Ríos to contribute to central welfare
projects in Buenos Aires – such as the Jewish hospital, and thenational and Israel funds.
Bibliography: H. Avni, “Mifalo ha-Hityashevuti shel haBaron Hirsch be-Argentinah” (Dissertation, Jerusalem, 1969), includes
English summary and bibliography; Jewish Colonization Association, Rapport … (1909).
[Haim Avni]

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES.
The Holy Blessed One took the first human, and passing before
all the trees of the Garden of Eden, said, “See my works, howfine and excellent they are! All that I created, I created for you.
Reflect on this, and do not corrupt or desolate my world; forif you do, there will be no one to repair it after you” (Midrash
Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7:13).

The philosophy of materialism and humanity’s right to dominate its environment has led to man’s rapid development.
This attitude further developed during the Middle Ages andthe Enlightenment in Western Europe on the basis of biblicalinterpretation. Western society embraced man’s dominanceof nature, and technological advances through the ages enabled people to overcome the environment and attain a higher
standard of living. Technological innovations, such as plowing, harvesting, forest clearing, and animal husbandry, helped
overcome natural obstacles and tame nature.
Ecological and environmental concern can be found in
Jewish sources from the Bible onward. In Genesis 2:15 man
is given stewardship of the earth – le-ovedah u-le-shomerah.
Man is to preserve the earth, to look after it, and to tend it. He
is not the owner, nor the master. The earth was not given to
man in absolute ownership to use (or abuse) as he saw fit; but
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6rather it was given to him to maintain and to preserve for his
benefit and for that of future generations. Some of the many
topics dealt with in Jewish sources include shemittah – the fallow year; bal tashḥ it – the prohibition of purposeless waste;felling of fruit-bearing trees; raising small cattle in Ereẓ Israel;
sanitary disposal of human waste; air pollution; water quality; noise; and many more. For a comprehensive discussionof this topic see *Ecology.
The Mishnah and Talmud elaborate and expound on
biblical passages that deal with nature and its preservation inorder to curtail environmental damage. The approach takenby the rabbis to limit the harmful effects of different environmental sources was to treat them not as absolutes but according to prevailing conditions, and this is still applicable today.
Injury to the environment included not only cases of proximate causation but also those in which conditions were created that might reasonably give rise to nuisance.
The Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life wasfounded in 1993 to promote environmental education, scholarship, advocacy, and action in the American Jewish community. COEJL is sponsored by a broad coalition of national
Jewish organizations and has organized regional affiliates
in communities across North America. COEJL is the Jewish
member of the National Religious Partnership for the Environment (www.coejl.org/about/).
Environmental studies (environmental sciences) is arelatively new field that gained recognition after the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring. It crosses the boundaries of traditional disciplines, challenging us to look at therelationship between humans and their environment froma variety of perspectives. It is closely related to ecology anddraws heavily on the physical sciences (chemistry and physics) as well as on biology and mathematics. Furthermore, due
to globalization the careful integration of natural and social
science data and information is vital to scientific research andsocietal decision-making related to a wide range of pressing
environmental issues.
Complex interactions in the air, on land, underground,and in rivers, bays, and oceans are intricately linked to one
another – and to our well-being. Below we shall briefly review
the contributions made to the various disciplines comprising
environmental sciences.
Atmospheric Sciences
Atmospheric sciences deal with environmental issues such asacid deposition, air pollution and quality, and stratosphericozone. One of its goals is to identify and quantify the natural and anthropogenic processes that regulate the chemicalcomposition of the troposphere and middle atmosphere andto assess future changes brought about by human activities.
They deal with topics as varied as the role of the biospherein producing and consuming trace gases; the importance ofthe chemical and photochemical processes occurring in different atmospheric environments; and the role of transport
processes connecting these environments (e.g., large-scale449

environmental sciences
advection, convection, stratosphere/troposphere exchanges,
and continental export).
By the mid-1980s there was undeniable evidence that ourplanet was getting hotter, a massive 10 shift in only 30 years,
so the idea of reduced solar radiation just did not fit and was
not widely accepted in the scientific community. This began tochange in 2001, when G. Stanhill and a colleague at the Volcani
Center in Bet Dagan, Israel, collected all the available evidence
together and proved that, on the average, records showed thatthe amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface hadgone down by between 0.23 and 0.32 each year from 1958 to
1992 (solar dimming).
Theoretical and experimental research in atmosphericradiative transfer and remote sensing of aerosol, their interaction with clouds and radiation, and impact on climate,with emphasis on biomass burning in the tropics was being
conducted by Yoram J. Kaufman at the Goddard Space Flight
Center. Joseph M. Prospero at the University of Miami was aspecialist in the global-scale properties of aerosols focusing
on the aerosol chemistry of the marine atmosphere and thebiogeochemical effects of the long-range atmospheric transport of materials from the continents to the ocean environment. He pioneered in the study of mineral aerosol (soil dust)transport, showing that huge quantities of dust were carriedby winds from arid regions to the oceans.
Richard Siegmund Lindzen at MIT was renowned for his
research in dynamic meteorology on topics such as the atmospheric transport of heat and momentum from the tropics tohigher latitudes. He developed models for the Earth’s climate
with specific concern for the stability of the ice caps, the sensitivity to increases in CO2, the origin of the 100,000 year cyclein glaciation, and the maintenance of regional variations inclimate. Alan Robock, at Rutgers University, was involved inmany aspects of climate change. He conducted both observational analyses and climate model simulations and his current
research focuses on soil moisture variations, the effects of volcanic eruptions on climate, detection and attribution of human effects on the climate system, and the impacts of climatechange on human activities. In the 1980s much of his work
addressed the problem of nuclear winter, the climatic effectsof nuclear war, demonstrating long-term (several-year) effects
with a computer model, disproving the dirty snow effect, anddiscovering observational evidence of surface cooling due toforest fire smoke plumes in the atmosphere.
Research on cloud physics and dynamics, atmosphericradiative transfer, atmospheric dynamics, and satellite remote sensing of the Earth’s climate and other planetary atmospheres was being conducted by Dr. Rossow of NASA. His
early work focused on the clouds and dynamics of the atmospheres of Venus and Jupiter and he served on the Science
Teams for the Pioneer Venus and Galileo (to Jupiter) space
missions. Eli Tziperman of Harvard University worked on
climate dynamics, trying to understand physical processes
that affect the Earth’s climate on time scales of a few years tomillions of years.

The first numerical model able to simulate El Niño and
the Southern Oscillation (ENSO), a pattern of interannual
climate variability centered in the tropical Pacific but with
global consequences, was devised by Mark Cane of Columbia University. In 1985 this model was used to make the firstphysically based forecasts of El Niño. Dr. Cane also worked
extensively on the impact of El Niño on human activity, especially agriculture.

450

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Oceanography
Oceanography is the science that studies the world’s oceans,its waters and depths, how they move and how they play apart in the whole of our planet. The sea is not just salty water,
but a living system that controls many aspects of this planet.
Limnology is the scientific study of the physical, geographical, chemical, and biological aspects of inland freshwater systems. The factors studied in such bodies of water as lakes, rivers, swamps, and reservoirs include productivity, interactions
among organisms and between organisms and their environment, characteristics of the water and of the water bottom,
and pollution problems. Structure, function, and long-termchanges in these water bodies are also of importance.
Global studies of freshwater lakes with emphasis on
biological, chemical, and physical interactions between thesurrounding watersheds and lakes are the fields of interestof Charles Goldman of UC Davis with particular emphasis
on eutrophication of lakes, nutrient limiting factors, the impact of climate and weather, and the use and importance oflong-term data sets in environmental research. The core research has been directed towards a better understanding oflake processes and measures to preserve the water quality oflakes.
The research efforts of Paul G. Falkowski of Rutgers University were directed towards understanding the co-evolutionof biological physical systems, evolution, paleoecology, photosynthesis, biophysics, biogeochemical cycles, and symbiosis.
The cycling of nutrients and energy transfer in the microbial
food chain, the dynamics of nutrient uptake by marine phytoplankton, the interaction of chemical-biological processes
at the microbial level, and the impact of physical-biologicalprocesses on marine primary productivity were the major interests of Joel Goldman, UC SC.
Daniel P. Schrag of Harvard University applied geochemistry to problems in paleoclimatology and oceanography on avariety of timescales. A large portion of his current research
effort used corals as recorders of information on past andpresent climates. Modern corals from the Pacific were being
used to reconstruct El Niño variability over the last few centuries, and to assess the reliability of coral records. He also
used geochemistry of corals to understand recent patterns ofocean circulation.
Understanding major biogeochemical cycles in the marine environment, as they operate today and in the past, werethe main research interests of Mark A. Altabet, University of
Massachusetts. He specialized in nitrogen cycling in the ma-environmental sciencesrine environment; nitrogen isotope biogeochemistry; particle fluxes in the open ocean; marine productivity; oceanic
paleochemistry and paleoproductivity. Much of this research
relates to the Earth’s carbon cycle and control of atmospheric
CO2 concentration. Related work involved studies of N2O
and carbon isotopes.

ing means to enhance microbial destruction of pollutants,
exploring bioremediation methodologies to promote the useof introduced microorganisms to rid natural environments of
toxicants, and unique problems arising because of persistenceof low concentrations of organic compounds.

Soil Microbiology
Soil microbiology deals with the improvement of knowledge
and understanding of the microbial processes involved in geochemical cycles (e.g., carbon and nitrogen cycles) and in thefactors contributing to the quality of our environment and ourfoods, in order to understand them and to eventually control
them. These objectives require improved knowledge of microbial populations and their activities. They also require improved knowledge of how terrestrial ecosystems work, using
integrated methods for research of the processes.
Over and above improved knowledge of soil micro-flora
and their activities, and more generally the biological functioning of soils, soil microbiology is concerned with the identification of the bio-indicators of soil quality, and the management of native micro-flora (sustainable agriculture) and/or
introduction of selected strains (microbial inoculation) inorder to improve soil quality (bio-remediation) and/or reduce the use of synthetic inputs (pesticides and nitrogen fertilizers) thus contributing to the improvement of food quality (residue reduction).
Selman Abraham *Waksman was born in the Ukrainein 1888 and immigrated to the United States in 1910. In 1915
he graduated from Rutgers University. His decision to enter
agriculture was guided by Jacob G. Lipman, a bacteriologist
who was dean of the College of Agriculture and himself animmigrant from Russia.
In 1939 Waksman and his colleagues undertook a systematic effort to identify soil organisms producing soluble
substances that might be useful in the control of infectious
diseases, what are now known as antibiotics. He developed
simple screening techniques and applied these to a variety ofsamples of soil and other natural materials. Within a decadeten antibiotics were isolated and characterized, three of themwith important clinical applications: actinomycin in 1940,
streptomycin (with A. Schatz) in 1944, and neomycin in 1949.
Eighteen antibiotics were discovered under his general direction. The many awards and honors that were showered on
Waksman after 1940 culminated in the Nobel Prize.
M. Alexander, of Cornell University, focused his researchin the areas of soil and environmental microbiology, bioavailability and aging of chemical pollutants, and microbial transformations that are of environmental or agricultural importance in natural environments. His research dealt with thebioavailability and biodegradation of a variety of toxic organic
chemicals and pesticides in soils, subsoils, groundwaters, andsurface waters. A variety of different issues are dealt with, including the biodegradation of sorbed chemicals, interaction
between species during transformations of chemicals, find-Hydrology
Hydrology is the study of all waters in and upon the Earth. It
includes groundwater, surface water, and rainfall. It embraces
the concept of hydrological cycle.
The large volume of research in the last several decades
has shown an increasing frequency of many chemical and microbial constituents that have not historically been considered
as contaminants being present in the environment on a global
scale. The sources of these emerging contaminants are frommunicipal, agricultural, and industrial wastewater sources.
Environmental hydrology aims to provide informationon these compounds for evaluation of their potential threat
to environmental and human health. To accomplish this goal
researchers need to develop analytical methods to measurechemicals and microorganisms in a variety of matrices (e.g.,water, sediment, waste); determine the environmental occurrence of these potential contaminants; characterize the myriadof sources and source pathways that determine contaminantrelease to the environment; define and quantify processes
that determine their transport and fate through the environment; and identify potential ecologic effects from exposure tothese chemicals or microorganisms. Environmental hydrology seeks to combine models of the atmosphere, land surface,or rivers, for example, into full-fledged simulated ecosystems.
These simulations are critical throughout the physical andnatural sciences.
Gedeon Dagan, Tel Aviv University, is a hydrologist
whose main interests are the theory of flow through porous
media; groundwater hydrology and water waves; and navalhydrodynamics. His research has led to the application of effective strategies for protecting and restoring groundwater,which constitutes 97 of the world’s useable freshwater.
He contributed greatly in aquifer characterization andmonitoring. This research is important because groundwater
protection is hindered by difficulties in observing and characterizing the subsurface. Therefore, effective strategies forprotecting and restoring groundwater require realistic predictions of the effects of different management options. He wasawarded the Stockholm Water Prize for having established
the basis of a new field within geohydrology, where contaminant spreading in the subsurface environment is determinedin such a way that it accounts for heterogeneity and for biochemical processes.
Jacob Bear is professor emeritus of the Technion-Israel
Institute of Technology. His teaching, research, and consulting
covered the areas of groundwater hydrology and hydraulics,
management of water resources, subsurface contamination
and remediation, and the general theory of transport phenomena in porous media.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6451

environmental sciences
Biological Plant Protection
Biological plant protection, or biological control, is concernedwith the identification, screening, release, and monitoring of
biological agents for long-term, cost-effective control of invading plant pests. Effective biological control is an essential element in the sustainable management of invading alien
pests. Main research areas in this field include studies on therole played by insects, spider mites, nematodes, and microorganisms in reduction of plant pests and improvement of theirstrains and application methods for biological and integrated
programs of plant protection. The goal is environmentally safe
control of pests of open-field, greenhouse, mushroom house,
and orchard cultures, as well as urban forest and park trees.
Ilan *Chet, president of the Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel, was a member of the UN Panel for Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology. His research dealt with the biological control of plant disease using environment-friendly
microorganisms, focusing on the basic, applied, and biotechnological aspects of this field. Prof. Chet was awarded theIsrael Prize (1996) and the Wolf Prize (1998).
Desertification and Afforestation
Desertification is a worldwide phenomenon. Land deterioration into desert-like conditions occurs in the world at the rateof 6 million hectares a year as the result both of climatic conditions and man’s destructive use of the soil: failure to arrest
this process endangers the vital infrastructure of a country.
Combating desertification is essential to ensuring the longterm productivity of inhabited lands in arid and semi-arid regions. Desertification occurs at the transition zones between
true deserts and cultivated lands. These transition zones havevery fragile, delicately balanced ecosystems. In these marginalareas, human activity may stress the ecosystem beyond its tolerance limit, resulting in degradation of the land.
JNF activities are aimed at arresting the spread of the desert and improving the ecology of the area. One of the central
questions troubling people concerned with the quality of life
is the maintenance of a reasonable level of environment preservation in these dense urban areas. The JNF deals with thisproblem through planting forests around urban settlements.
Through this afforestation work, Israel will be the only country
to have more trees at the conclusion of the century than at the
beginning! These forests enable the town dweller to have contact with nature, improve his quality of life, and create green
lungs which absorb pollutants and emit carbon dioxide.
Savanization is another strategy for halting the desertification process. In the desertification process, the ecologicalsystem is controlled by sparse vegetation of bushes and green
growth. In the savanization process the bushes are replacedwith trees and the inferior vegetation with herbaceous growth.
This involves sophisticated measures for collection of water,preservation of soil, planting of trees, and increasing naturalvegetation and animal life in the area. Forests contribute to soil
conservation, prevent soil erosion, act as a barrier against dust,
noise and air pollution, create shade and comfortable mini-

452

climates, halt desertification on the border of arid zones, andcontribute ecologically and globally to reducing the greenhouse effect by releasing oxygen into the atmosphere and absorbing carbon dioxide.
One of the most important agrotechnological innovations of modern times is probably the Israeli invention of drip
irrigation by Simcha Blass and his son (the father conceived
the idea, the son developed the dripper). Drip irrigation has
many advantages over other irrigation methods and is especially suited for arid and semi-arid regions.
Blass developed a drip irrigation system for greenhouse
use and in the 1960s began drip irrigation experiments in the
Negev Desert. Development in capillary tubes, self-filteringsystems, fertilizer injectors, and improved emitter bodies has
increased the usage of these systems at an exponential rate.
From 1974 to 1984, the worldwide acreage under these systems quadrupled.
Ecological responses to global climate change; the interactions between biodiversity, desertification, and climatechange; and the role of individual species in the provisionof ecosystem services are topics studied by Uriel Safriel. He
worked on projects carried out jointly by Israel, Jordan, and
the Palestine Authority, for example, as regional expert for
Israel on the “Initiative for Collaboration to Control Natural
Resource Degradation (Desertification) of Arid Lands in the
Middle East,” a joint project of Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Jordan, Egypt, and Tunisia, facilitated by the World Bank.
He was head of the delegation of Israel to the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Desertification.
Environmental Law
Environmental law uses sustainability as an organizing principle to develop new strategies for the protection of land, water,and biological resources by integrating environmental laws,
tax laws, development laws, and other tools. Environmental
law aims to solve environmental problems and promote sustainable societies through the use of law, to incorporate fundamental principles of ecology and justice into international law,
to strengthen national environmental law systems and support
public interest movements around the world, and to educate
and train public-interest-minded environmental lawyers.
Topics of concern in environmental law include climatechange, biodiversity and wildlife, biotechnology, sustainable
development, persistent organic pollutants, and human rights
and the environment.
Joel B. Eisen, director of the Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Center of Environmental Law, served as counsel to the U.S. Houseof Representatives. He taught courses on environmental law,urban environmental law, international environmental law,environmental dispute resolution, property, and energy law
and policy.
Robert J. Goldstein was director of environmental programs, Pace Law School. His publications include Environmental Ethics and Ecology: Green Wood in the Bundle of Sticks;
Environmental Ethics and Law; Environmental Ethics and Posi-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

environmental sciences

tive Law; Only Who Can Prevent Forest Fires?: Considering Environmental Context in Fire Suppression and Land Use; Putting
Environmental Law on the Map: A Spatial Approach to Environmental Law Using GIS and Forestry Law.
Howard Latin, of the Rutgers Law School, was involvedin environmental law, international environmental law, tort
law, and products liability law. Latin was an advisor to a threeyear Congressional Office of Technology assessment study
on “Rethinking Environmental Regulation.” He is among themost widely read scholars in the environmental law field andserved as a consultant for environmental groups advocating marine conservation and pollution control. He engaged
in political lobbying efforts to protect ocean wildlife in the
Bahamas, Western Australia, the Galapagos Islands, and theUnited States.
Dan Mandelker is one of the U.S.’s leading scholars andteachers in land use law. He was also a pioneer in the teaching of environmental law and state and local government law.
In environmental law, Mandelker is best known for his widelyused treatise, NEPA Law and Litigation.

nity and include nearly 2,000 cities worldwide with their own
local plans. They have also established programs for monitoring national progress on sustainable development indicators.
Within this framework, one of the most successful programs
which has been adopted by governments all over the world is
the Man and Biosphere program. Biosphere Reserves are areasof terrestrial and coastal ecosystems promoting solutions toreconcile the conservation of biodiversity with its sustainable
use. They are internationally recognized, nominated by national governments, and remain under sovereign jurisdictionof the states where they are located. The Israel National Commission for UNESCO has formed a MAB committee, thoughwith just one Biosphere Reserve in Israel so far, Mount Carmel, these issues are receiving broader attention.

Sustainable Development
From conferences at Stockholm in 1972, to Rio de Janeiro in1992, and finally to Johannesburg in 2002, the global community has embarked on a three-decade journey aimed atfurthering progress towards broad global sustainable development objectives. During the course of this 30-year period,a manifold range of sustainable development issues has been
discussed, debated, deliberated, and negotiated, serving as a
critical call for action of individuals, voluntary organizations,businesses, institutions, and governments.
Sustainable development is defined as “development thatmeets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland Report, 1987). For development to be sustainable it must
integrate environmental stewardship, economic development,
and the well-being of all people – not just for today but for
generations to come.
The Rio conference was also known as the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, or more
simply the Earth Summit, bringing together nearly 150 representatives of states including Israel who negotiated, signed,
and agreed to a global action plan for sustainable development which they called Agenda 21. In addition, four new international treaties – on climate change, biological diversity,
desertification, and high-seas fishing – were signed in the official sessions. Further, a United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development was established to monitor the implementation of these agreements and to act as a forum for theongoing negotiation of international policies on environmentand development.
Agenda 21 has been the basis for action by many national
and local governments. Many countries have set up national
advisory councils to promote dialogue between government,
environmentalists, the private sector, and the general commu-

ISRAEL’S COMMITMENT. Israel established environmental
institutions after the Stockholm conference in 1973 with theEnvironmental Protection Service as part of the Prime Minister’s Office, in 1976 within the Ministry of Interior, and finallyin December 1988 a full-fledged Ministry of Environment with
district and local offices. The program was initiated by Uri Marinov, while physical planning and development was guided byValerie Brachya as deputy director-general. In the mid-1990s
the Ministry of Environment, aided by the Mediterranean Action Plan of the United Nations Environment Program, initiated a strategy for sustainable development in Israel.
The Israeli government’s decision of August 4, 2002,
calls for the minister of environment to report to the government on the Johannesburg Summit and on ways to incorporate the conclusions of the conference in government policy.
As Agenda 21 calls for including environmental and development issues in all government decisions that have to do witheconomy, social policy, energy, agriculture, transportation,and commerce, it was decided that every government officewould prepare its own strategy for sustainable development.
Integrating environmental issues within policy decision-making calls for the gathering of information and using efficient
ways to evaluate dangers and profits for the environment.
In August 2004, the Ministry of Environment presented
the government with a report on the implementation of government decisions on sustainable development. The reportshows that all government offices began the process of assimilating sustainable development issues, with the Ministries ofFinance and Commerce first to present their strategies. Current guidelines and programs were being developed for ecotourism, educational programs for schools, and general strategies for sustainability.
Non-Government Organizations (NGO) concerned withenvironmental issues have played an important role in contributing to public awareness and pressure on the government to allocate more resources for these issues. Among these
are the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel (SPNI),
Friends of the Earth/Middle East, Adam Teva VaDin, the Heschel Center, and local initiatives like Sustainable Jerusalem.
There are a number of private foundations supporting issues

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6453

eötvös, baron józsef
related to environment, sustainability, and education. These
organizations continue to work together in promoting sustainable development policies in Israel, assisting in professional
knowledge and experience. The Knesset established a Commission for Future Generations, whose responsibility is thecoordination of programs at the parliamentary level.
University courses and research including sustainability are developing rapidly from the esoteric programs of the
1970s in Environmental Health at the Hebrew University to
exclusive degrees in environmental sciences at all the universities attached to a variety of subjects like economics, geography, and earth sciences.
ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT INJUDAISM. Essentially an agrarian society, certain concepts
in Judaism relate more specifically to sustainability. The commandment to plant fruit-bearing trees on entering the HolyLand relates to the consideration and investment that is madefor future generations. This is paralleled with the commandment of bal tashḥ it (“do not destroy”) used in the Bible withreference to the proper behavior with regard to trees during
wartime (only non-fruit-bearing trees may be chopped down).
The talmudic sages expanded this to forbid the destruction ordamaging of anything potentially useful to man.
Another set of laws that apply in the Holy Land are thoseconcerning sabbatical and jubilee years: shemittah and yovel.
Shemittah refers to the seventh year, when one must refrainfrom working the land in order to enrich the soil and prevent
exhaustion of the land. Through keeping this commandment
the fields rest for one year, and products that might be produced during that time are not used. Yovel refers to the fiftiethyear, adding the cancellation of debts to the shemittah regulations. It also involves the reversion of land to the original
tribal structure, thus preventing large-scale concentration ofland and looking after local and individual interests and maintaining sustainability.
Finally, urban laws fall under “doing good” and “preventing bad,” i.e., laws that instruct in the right way and those that
relate to tort. The city had defined borders and could be extended only through a decision of the Sanhedrin. Perhaps therebuilding of cities in the layered tel is the epitome of recycling urban land and preventing the deterioration of the immediate agricultural hinterland. The maintenance of publicmonuments was part of the joint responsibility of the public
and private domain.
See also *Conservation; *Ecology.

the Jews unconditionally, as well as of those who first required
the “betterment of the Jews” before they attained emancipation. Only emancipation without any prior conditions, Eötvös claimed, would improve the way of life of the Jews whose
defects he did not deny, and whose assimilation he advocatedin this as well as in his other writings. Eötvös was a memberof the revolutionary government (1848) as minister of public
instruction and religious affairs. After the failure of the revolution, he fled to Germany, from where he returned in 1851.
He retired from political life and was elected president of the
Hungarian Academy. With the formation of the independent
Hungarian government in 1867, he once more held the same
ministerial position and succeeded in having the bill on the
emancipation of the Jews passed during that year. Eötvös alsosought to organize the structure of Hungarian Jewry upon theprinciple of a unified community, without any intervention in
its internal affairs. To this end, he convened a national congress of the Jews of Hungary in 1868, but his project did notmaterialize. Eötvös was a talented writer of fiction and in his
fictional works also expressed his ideas concerning the Jews
(A falu jegyzöje, 1845; The Village Notary, 1850).
Bibliography: B. Heller, in: IMIT, 36 (1913), 7–55 (Hung.);J. Bánóczi, in: J. Eötvös, A zsidók emancipatiója (1922), 3–8; N. Katzburg, in: Bar-Ilan, Sefer ha-Shanah, 1 (1963), 282–301 (Heb.), 56–57(Eng. summary); idem, in: Aresheth, 4 (1966), 322–6 (Heb.); idem,
Antishemiyyut be-Hungaryah 1867–1914 (1969), 19–24; idem, in: R.L.
Braham (ed.), Hungarian Jewish Studies, 2 (1969), 1–33 (Eng.).
[Baruch Yaron]

EPERNAY, town in the Marne department, northern France,
approximately 19 mi. (about 30 km.) E. of Châlons-sur-Marne.
During the Middle Ages, the Jewish community there was sufficiently large to occupy three streets, the Rue Juiverie, Rue
Haute, and Basse Juiverie. On the eve of World War II, a small
community, which was to be cruelly tried during the persecutions, existed in Epernay. In 1969, the community numbered
fewer than 200.
Bibliography: Gross, Gal Jud, 66; H.H.B. Poterlet, Notice historique … d’Epernay (1837), 33–34; Z. Szajkowski, Analytical
Franco-Jewish Gazetteer (1966), 224.
[Bernhard Blumenkranz]°EÖTVÖS, BARON JÓZSEF (1813–1871), Hungarian statesman, author, and jurist; he fought for and brought in the legislation granting *emancipation to the Jews in Hungary. Eötvös became a member of the Hungarian diet in the Liberal
opposition. In 1840 he published his classic work A zsidók
emancipatiója (“Emancipation of the Jews”) where he refuted the arguments of those who rejected emancipation of

EPHESUS, Greek city on the W. coast of Asia Minor, at themouth of the River Cayster. Ephesus had an important Jewish
community in the first century and its beginning apparently
goes back to the early Hellenistic era. Information about it isfound chiefly in Josephus, but also in Philo, in inscriptions,and Acts. What is perhaps the earliest information about the
Jews of Ephesus appears in Josephus (Apion, 2:39) referring to*Antiochus II. Josephus also mentions a decree of the consul
Lentulus in 49 B.C.E. concerning the Jews. Ephesus played an
exceptionally important role in the history of early Christianity, and its main importance in Jewish history is in the opposition of the Jewish community to Paul’s missionary activity
there. Paul laid the foundation of the first Christian commu-

454

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Miriam Waldman, Zev Gerstl and Michael Turner (2nd ed.)]ephodEPHOD (Heb. ‫) ֵאפוֹ ד‬. The term ephod occurs several times
in the Bible, where it appears to describe different cultic objects. In Exodus 28 the ephod is a garment made of expensive
materials. In I Samuel 2:18; 22:18; II Samuel 6:14 the ephod is
made of linen (Heb. bad). In Judges 17:5; 18:14–20 the ephod is
mentioned along with a sculpted image (Heb pesel) of the kindoutlawed by the Decalogue. In Judges 8:24–27 Gideon makes
an ephod out of captured Midianite metals, which he sets up(wayaşşeg) in Oprah, which Israel “whored after,” i.e., worshipped. Another biblical form of the word ephod is ʾafuddah(Heb. ‫ ֲא ֻפדָּ ה‬: Ex. 28:8; 39:5; Isa. 30:22), to which the verb ʾafad(Ex. 29:5; Lev. 8:7), with the meaning “gird” or “adorn,” is related. In its broader sense in what appear to be early texts,
ephod includes the entire mantic instrument (e.g., I Sam. 2:28;
23:6, 9; 30:7; cf. I Sam. 21:10). It is possible that the robe wornby the priest (see below) from which the golden bells weresuspended may also be included in the term ephod. (The bells
were necessary to alert Yahweh that the priest, and not some
intruder, was entering the sanctuary so that the priest would
not be killed for entering the holy place (Ex. 28:31–35).) Biblical religion prohibited many forms of soothsaying and divination by means of auguries, but did permit, side by side withprophecy, the priestly ephod (see *Divination). Both prophecy
and the ephod were seen as a means of seeking the counselof God and of obtaining a revelation of His will. The technical term for consulting the ephod and the Urim and Thummim is “to come before the Lord” (Ex. 28:30; cf. Num. 27:21),
that is, either in the Tabernacle or before the ark (Judg. 20:27;
cf. Judg. 20:18, 23, 27; I Sam. 14:18, 41 et al.). Some biblicalreferences indicate that in ancient Israel use was made of anephod, together with *teraphim (Hos. 3:4) and a graven image, for approaching God (Judg. 17:4–5; 18:14, 17, 20; Isa. 30:22;
cf. Judg. 8:27). The Pentateuch contains no clear descriptionof the shape of the ephod, nor does the Hebrew root of theword furnish any additional clues. The Hebrew word seems
related to the Akkadian epattu, plural epadātu, which signifies
a costly garment in the Cappadocian tablets, and to Ugaritic
ʾipd (KTU 4. 707:13; 4. 780:1, 3, 4, 7 ); plural ’iptt (KTU 4. 707:11);
dual ’ipdm (KTU 1. 136:10) with the same meaning. The ephod
has an apparent analogue in Greek ependytēs (overgarment).
A similar word is found in Aquila’s translation of ephod. According to H. Thiersch (see bibliography), the ependytēs originated in Syria, spreading from there through Asia Minor andGreece. But while correct about the Oriental origin of theependytēs and its physical resemblance to the ephod, Tiersch
seems to have erred about the cultic use of the Greek garment.
It seems instead to have served as a luxury item for Orientalizing Greeks. (See Muller in Bibliography.) The pentateuchal
ephod was engraved with the names of the Twelve Tribes, apparently to signify the totality of the nation (Ex. 28:9–12). It is
not stated how the ephod was made in the days of the Judges(*Gideon: Judg. 8:27; *Micah: Judg. 17:5), nor the ephod at Shiloh (e.g., I Sam. 2:18; and Nob: ibid. 22:18), and that used inconnection with Saul’s campaign against the Philistines (ibid.
14:3). The Pentateuch contains a description of the ephod of
Aaron (Ex. 28). The most common occurrences refer to an upper garment, the ornamented vestment which the high priest
wore over the blue robe (“the robe of the ephod”). To this hebound the *breastplate together with the principal vehicle forenquiring of God, the *Urim and Thummim. All of these attestations are confined to Exodus 25, 28, 35, 39 and Leviticus
8 in settings that describe Aaron as a priest, with him and hissons wearing breeches (Ex. 28:42), an invention of the Persian
period, and must be dated to post-exilic times. According
to this description, the ephod was an embroidered work “ofgold, of blue, purple, and crimson yarns, and of fine twisted
linen, worked into designs.” To its two ends were attached
two straps which fastened over the shoulders, and on each of
the shoulder straps was set a shoham stone (identification uncertain), engraved with the names of the tribes of Israel. The
breastpiece (Heb. ḥ oshen ‫ )ח ׁ ֶֹשן‬was bound to the ephod at the
top by rings and chains and at the bottom by a cord of blue,
while in the middle it was encircled by “the decorated band”
which was also made “in the style of the ephod” and of thesame combination of gold thread and four yarns. The ephod
seems to have been a square, sleeveless garment, falling fromjust below the armpits to the heels (“like a sort of horsewoman’s surcoat,” according to Rashi (to Ex. 28:6)). According
to this view, it enveloped the entire body. According to thecommentary of R. Samuel ben Meir (to Ex. 28:7), however,
the ephod enclosed the body from the waist downward, theupper part of the body being covered by the breastpiece. Josephus (Ant., 3:162; Wars, 5:231–236) states that the ephod had
sleeves and resembled a type of waistcoat (“the epomis” of the
Greeks – used by the LXX in translating “ephod” of the Pentateuch); it was variegated and had “the middle of the breast
uncovered” for the insertion of the breastplate. The high priest
used the ephod along with the breastplate and the Urim andThummim as a means of divination. Lesser priests, as well as

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6455nity in Ephesus against the vehement opposition of the local Jews and the non-Jews who were worshipers of Artemis(Acts 19, and the Epistle to the Ephesians). Paul disputed his
critics in the hall of Tyrannus within the city (Acts 19:9), but
the whereabouts of this location have not been discovered
during excavations at the site. With the rise of Christianity
throughout the Roman Empire, Ephesus became one of themost important centers of the new religion. The third Ecumenical Council was held there in 431 C.E. With the politicalchange during the sixth and seventh centuries in Asia Minor,
Ephesus ceased to exist. Close to the ruins of Ephesus is themodern town of Selçuk.
Bibliography: Schuerer, Gesch, 3 (19094), 15f.; Juster, Juifs,
1 (1914), 190; E. Stein, Histoire du Bas-Empire (1949), 309f.; J. Klausner, Mi-Yeshu ad Paulus, 2 (19512), 87, 91–97. Add. Bibliography: C. Foss, Ephesus After Antiquity (1978); R.E. Oster, A Bibliography of Ancient Ephesus (1987); A. Bammer, Ephesos: Stadt an
Fluss und Meer (1988); E.C. Blake and A.C. Edmonds, Biblical Sites
in Turkey (1998).
[Abraham Schalit / Shimon Gibson (2nd ed.)]ephraim

Bibliography: Foote, in: JBL, 21 (1902), 1–47; Sellin, in: Orientalische Studien … Th. Noeldeke, 2 (1906), 699–717; idem, in: JPOS,
14 (1934), 185–94; 17 (1937), 236–51; idem, in: ZAW, 55 (1937), 296–8;
Elhorst, in: JBL, 30 (1910), 254–76; W.R. Arnold, Ephod and the Ark(1917); Budde, in: ZAW, 39 (1921), 1–47; J. Gabriel, Untersuchungen ueber das alttestamentliche Priestertum (1933), 44–70; H. Thiersch, Ependytes und Ephod (1936); J. Lewy, in: JAOS, 57 (1937), 436; de Vaux, Anc
Isr, 349–51; idem, in: RB, 47 (1938), 108–11 (Fr.); H.G. May, in: AJSLL,
56 (1939), 44ff.; W.F. Albright, in: BASOR, 83 (1941), 39ff.; idem, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (1968), 171, 174–7, 179; J. Morgenstern, The
Ark, the Ephod and the “Tent of Meeting” (1945); M. Haran, in: Tarbiz,
24 (1954/55), 380–91; idem, in: Sefer N.H. Tur-Sinai (1960), 36ff.; idem,
in: Scripta Hierosolymitana, 8 (1961), 279–84 (Eng.); Elliger, in: VT, 8(1958), 19–35 (Ger.); Kaufmann Y., Toledot, 1 (1960), 486–502. Add.
Bibliography: V. Muller, in: AJA, 42 (1938), 314–15; J. Durham,
Exodus (Word; 1987), 385–86; C. Meyers, in: ABD II, 550; M. Miller,
in: Hesperia, 58 (1989), 313–29; N. Sarna, JPS Torah Commentary Exodus (1991), 178–79; C. van Dam, The Urim and Thummim … (1997);
J. Tropper, Ugaritische Grammatik (2000), 183, 286.

M

A

N A

S

S

E

Shechem

H

Michmethath

JanoahArumahAphek
Zeredah

Jaffa

D A N

LebonahTimmath-Heres
Neballat

EPHRAIM

Hadid
Lod
Beth-Horon
the nether
Gimzo
Gezer

Adam

TappuahShilohGeba

JeshanahBaal-Hazor
OphrahBeth-El
RimmonBeth-Horon
the upper

Riv
er

n R.
Jarko

BENJAMIN

GA

D

Jordanothers engaged in sacred ministrations, Samuel (I Sam. 2:18),
and once even David (II Sam. 6:14) wore a simple ephod oflinen, apparently during sacred service or at special celebrations (I Sam. 22:18).
According to the Talmud, each thread of the ephod consisted of six blue strands, six of purple, six of scarlet, and sixof fine twisted linen, with a thread of gold in each twist of six
strands, making a total of 28 strands (Yoma 71b, 72a). The
names of the tribes were engraved on the onyx stones withthe shamir (Sot. 48b; Git. 68a). The ephod was one of theeight vestments worn by the high priest (Yoma 7:5; Maim.,
Yad, Kelei ha-Mikdash, ch. 8–10) and, together with the onyx
stones, was used in the Second Temple. The ephod was believed to atone for the sin of idolatry (Zev. 88b). Gideon was
said to have made an ephod because the name of his tribe,
Manasseh, was not included on the stones of the ephod (Yal.,
Judg. 64).

JerichoTerritory of the tribe of Ephraim.

the shrunken northern kingdom or their descendants (Isa.
7:5, 8; Jer. 31:17, 20; Hos. 5:3, 5, et al.). The origin of the name
Ephraim is not clear. According to Genesis 41:52, Joseph, in so
naming his son, made a wordplay based on the root ‫“( פרי‬tobe fruitful”). Most scholars consider this to be the correct
derivation, and hold that the name means “fertile land,” withthe addition of an old locative suffix – aim (-ayim). However,some view the name as a derivative of the post-biblical ‫ֲא ָפר‬(“a place of pasture”). In both theories the name is geographical, the tribe having been called after the region it occupied,“the land of Ephraim,” “the country of Ephraim” (Obad. 19),or “the hill country (Heb. har) of Ephraim.” Least likely is thesuggested connection with Akkadian eperu, “dust,” “region,”
cognate with Heb. ʿapar, that would have resulted in spelling
Ephraim with initial ayin.

The Name
From about 745 B.C.E. onward, the name Ephraim also served
as a popular alternative to Israel to designate the people of

The Land of Ephraim
This area comprises the hill country of central Palestine. In
this region there is no watershed plateau as in Judah, but acomplex of ridges, spurs, and valleys surrounding the central valley, el-Makhnah, which is apparently to be identified
with Michmethath (Josh. 16:6; 17:7). Shechem stands at thenorthwest extremity of this valley. On the east, two long spurs
descend to the Jordan plain: Qarn as-Sarṭabah (RH 2:4) and
Rās al-Kharrubueh. Wādi esh-shaʿīr, which falls into the Alexander River, continues northwest from the central plain of
Shechem. To the northeast is the plain of Sychar (al-ʿAskar),which is formed by Wādi Beidān falling into Wādi Fāri, which
in turn flows into the Jordan. The Shalem Plain, linked to the
Jordan Valley by Wādi Ifjīm, extends to the east. The plain ofMichmethath stretches southward until it reaches the Lebonah Ridge (Khān Lubbān), which hems it in on the south. The
hill country of Ephraim is one of the most fertile areas in Palestine and at present is planted with such fruit trees as vine,
olive, pomegranate, carob, etc. Prior to Israelite settlement, it
was wooded (Josh. 17:18), and during the monarchy, beasts ofprey still roamed there (II Kings 2:24). The coastal strip parallel to the hill country of Ephraim is extremely narrow; it isunsuitable for anchorage and ships found shelter in the river
estuaries (Alexander, Ḥ aderah; see Sharon in *Israel, Land

456

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Yehoshua M. Grintz / S. David Sperling (2nd ed.)]EPHRAIM (Heb. ‫) ֶא ְפ ָריִ ם‬, younger son of *Joseph, born to him
in Egypt by his wife *Asenath daughter of Poti-Phera (Gen.
41:50–52); the eponymous ancestor of one of the two tribes
descended from Joseph. Before his death, Jacob adopted both
Ephraim and his older brother *Manasseh as his sons on a parwith Reuben and Simeon, thereby ensuring that each would
become the ancestor of an entire Israelite tribe, rather thanof half a tribe (48:5, 16). He made Ephraim the recipient of agreater blessing than his older brother (48:13–20), thus giving
greater prominence and importance to the tribe of Ephraim.
The story is an etiological explanation of the prominence of
the Ephraimites in historical times. In contrast to the pentateuchal tradition, I Chr. 7:20–29 maintains that Ephraim
and his family remained in Canaan and says nothing about
Ephraim’s birth in Egypt.

ephraim
of: Geographical Survey). It is widely accepted that the listsof tribal territories in Joshua 13–19 reflect the situation before
the period of the monarchy. It is difficult, however, to determine the exact limits of the territory of Ephraim, since it is
only indicated as part of the wider unit, the house of Joseph(which included Manasseh), and the biblical data are variouslyinterpreted by scholars (see Yeivin, bibliography).
The Tribe
From the genealogical lists of the tribe of Ephraim (Num.
26:35ff.; I Chron. 7:20ff.), it is known that its families intermingled with other tribes, especially *Asher, *Benjamin, and*Judah. The central position of the Ephraimites’ area of settlement and their militant spirit led them to encroach upon
Manasseh, whose power declined with the passage of time.
After the migration of the *Danites (Judg. 18) to the north,and the defeat of the *Benjaminites (Judg. 19), the Ephraimites spread both south and southwest, coming into conflictand mingling with Judah in areas severed from the Jebusitesof *Jerusalem (see *Jebus) during the period of the Judges.
This explains why, in various biblical lists, certain families,
places, and areas are sometimes attributed to Judah, Benjamin, or Dan, and sometimes to Ephraim. According to the
Bible, the conquest of Canaan was led by *Joshua of the tribeof Ephraim. In the ensuing period of the Judges, the accountsof the disputes with *Gideon (Judg. 8) and *Jephthah (Judg. 12)
illustrate the pride of the Ephraimites, who claimed seniority
among the tribes and precedence over the fraternal tribe ofManasseh (cf. Gen. 48:13–20). This was doubtless due not only
to the political independence that they achieved in the periodof the Judges, but also to the location of the religious centerof *Shiloh in their territory. The military and political importance of the Ephraimites is reflected in some ancient biblicalpoems, such as the Song of Deborah (Judg. 5:14). Jacob’s blessing (Gen. 49) praises Joseph for his prowess and his hegemony
over the other tribes, but contains no reference to Joseph’s sons
Ephraim and Manasseh, perhaps because it dates from a time
when Joseph still counted as only one tribe in the league ofIsraelite tribes. In the blessing of Moses, however, the sons ofJoseph are referred to as “the myriads of Ephraim,” and “thethousands of Manasseh” (Deut. 33:17), which probably reflects
the later date, on the whole, of the pronouncements on thetribes in Deuteronomy 33, as compared with those in Genesis
49. The self-aggrandizement of the Ephraimites over the other
tribes and their tendency to isolation, inherent in such selfaggrandizement, ultimately proved fatal to themselves and to
the entire nation, since it brought about the end of the united
kingdom of David and Solomon and the diminution of thestate’s prestige. The man held responsible in the Bible for the
breakup was an Ephraimite – *Jeroboam son of Nebat, fromZeredah in the land of Ephraim (I Kings 11:26).

mentioning Ephraim before Manasseh (Gen. 48:14–20), wasinterpreted by the rabbis as an all-inclusive nullification ofManasseh’s prerogatives as the firstborn. Thus Ephraim was
granted precedence to Manasseh in the distribution of theHoly Land (Josh. 16:5); in the order of the banners during thewandering and camping in the desert (Num. 2:18, 20); and in
the consecration of the Tabernacle (Num. 7:48, 54). Likewise,
the descendants of Ephraim ruled before those of Manasseh,i.e., Joshua before Gideon, Jeroboam before Jehu (Gen. R. 97:5;
Num. R. 14:4). Jacob instructed Ephraim for 17 years, yet when
he came with Joseph, together with his brother Manasseh,
to receive Jacob’s blessings, Jacob did not recognize him, forupon seeing Jeroboam and Ahab as issuing from Ephraim,
the prophetic spirit left him. Only after Joseph’s prayer did
it return, whereupon seeing that Joshua too would descendfrom Ephraim, he blessed him, giving him precedence over
Manasseh (Tanḥ ., Va-Yeḥ i 6). R. Aḥ a in the name of R. Levi
explains Jeremiah 31:19 to mean that Jacob blessed Ephraim
thus: “You shall be the head of the tribes and the head of theacademies; and the best and most prominent of my children
shall be called after thy name” (Lev. R. 2:3). Moreover, oneof the two future Messiahs will originate from Ephraim; hewill prepare the way for the Messiah, son of David, and defeat Gog and Magog and the kingdom of Edom; according tosome sources he will be killed in battle (Targ. Yer. Ex. 40:11;
Suk. 52a). Ephraim’s standard was black and bore the emblem
of a bullock in accordance with Deuteronomy 33:17 (Num. R.
2:7). The tribe of Ephraim camped to the west, whence camesnow, hail, cold, and heat, since Ephraim had the strength towithstand them, as stated in Psalms 80:3 (Num. R. 2:10). The
archangel Raphael was appointed to assist at God’s throne toheal the breach wrought by Ephraim’s descendant, Jeroboam
the idol worshiper (ibid.). According to the Midrash, the tribeof Ephraim erred in their calculation of the termination of theEgyptian bondage and left the country 30 years before the dateordained for redemption. On their way to Canaan the Philistines waged war against them, killing 300,000 of their number. Their bones were heaped up along the road. In order thatthe children of Israel would not see these bleached bones andconsequently take fright and return to Egypt, God did not leadthem on the straight road from Egypt to the Land of Israel, but
led them by a circuitous route. According to the Palestinian
Targum (Ezek. 37) and the Talmud (Sanh. 92b) it was thesebones which were resuscitated by Ezekiel (in the “Vision of
the Dry Bones,” cf. Ezek.).
Bibliography: Abel, Geog, 1 (1933), 359; 2 (1938), 56, 81; S.
Yeivin, in: EM, 1 (1950), 505–12 (incl. bibl.); Aharoni, Land, 236–37;
Ginzberg, Legends, index. Add. Bibliography: S. Japhet, I &II Chronicles (1993), 178–87; S. Ahituv, Joshua (1995), 275–80.

In the Aggadah
The preference shown by Jacob toward Ephraim, in placing his
right hand on his head instead of on Manasseh’s and in twice

EPHRAIM, family mainly active in Berlin. Its first member
to settle there was Heine (Ḥ ayyim) Ephraim (1665–1748),born in Altona, who rose to be court jeweler and head of
the Berlin Jewish community (1726–32). His son was Veitel
Heine *Ephraim, most of whose great-grandsons embraced

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6457[Encyclopaedia Hebraica]

ephraim, Veitel Heine

EPHRAIM FAMILY

JOACHIMHEIMANN(JOACHIM
HEINRICH
EBERS)
1774–1848
WILHELMINE
MEINHARDTHEIMANN
VEITEL1753 –1821

MARCUS
HEINE
1692–1768

SARAH
JOCHANAN
d. 1808
EPHRAIMVEITEL
1729 –1803
1
GITTEL
MARCUSEPHRAIMc. 1726 –1774
2
LEAH KANNELKEFRAENKELDANIEL*ITZIGSERAPHINE
LIEPMANN
WULFF
1774–1832
MOSES
HEIMANN(MARTIN
EBERS)
1781–1826

DAVID
EPHRAIM(JOHANN
ANDREAS
SCHMIDT)
1762–1834

VEITEL
HEINE
1703 –1775

VEITELHEIMANN(VICTOREBERS)
1776–1848

REBEKAH
1763–1847

HENRIETTE
LIEPMAN
WULFF
1779 –1852
JULIUSSCHMIDTd. c. 1832
JETTE
FUERST

son
VEITELJOSEPH
d. 1807

HEINE
Ḥ AYYIMEPHRAIM
1665 –1748
JOSEPH
VEITEL
1730–1786
1JENTE
FUERSTc. 1736–1772
2
BELA
GUMPEL1745 –1811
3 daughters

JEANETTEFRIEDLAENDER(EBERTY)
HEIMANNJOSEPH(HERMANN
EBERTY)
1784–1856
BELA
MOSSON
1788–1831
7 daughters
ROSETTEd. 1786ZACHARIASVEITEL1736 –1779
ROSINESAMSONHEIMANNJOSEPHFRAENKEL
1748–1824
HEIMANNZACHARIASVEITEL
1760–1799

BENJAMIN
VEITEL
1742–1811
JANETTEPHILIPP
left Judaism

458

FELIX
EBERTY
1812–1884

2 daughters

ROESCHENEPHRAIMZACHARIASFRAENKEL
VEITEL(ZACHARIASFRIEBE)
1781–1842

Christianity and changed their names to Ebers; some of theirdescendants were ennobled. Veitel Heine’s grandson, David(1762–1834), married a daughter of Daniel *Itzig; following a financial scandal he fled to Vienna, embraced Catholicism, and changed his family name to Schmidt. Zacharias(1736–1779), son of Veitel Heine, showed marked business ability. His grandson Zacharias Fraenkel (1781–1842) was an
influential banker. As representative of the Berlin community,
he demanded conscription of the Jews in 1812.
Veitel Heine’s youngest son Benjamin (1742–1811) was abusinessman and government confidential agent. After varying success in questionable business transactions, he reorganized the family lace factory in Potsdam, opening a schoolfor his girl workers, which was highly commended. In 1779
he took on in his factory unemployed Jewish girls and womenfrom the recently annexed Polish territory. He successfully
averted the expulsion orders of Frederick William II by stressing the usefulness of his 700 to 1,500 workers to the state. In
Berlin, Benjamin maintained a leading salon, was the first
Jew to own an art collection, and had access to ruling circles,
having loaned the king large sums before his accession. In
1787 he was sent on a secret mission to Brussels to assure theanti-Austrian rebels of Prussian support. In 1790 the king entrusted him with the mission of contacting the French government to arrange a treaty, with a government post promised as his reward. His expenditure of large sums of his own
fortune in Paris aroused suspicions against him in Berlin; atthe same time Prussia changed her diplomatic course. Discredited and impoverished, Benjamin demanded recognition
and reimbursement. An advocate of close French-Prussianties, he was entrusted with minor diplomatic roles in negotiations with France. His pro-French attitude led to his arrest in
1806; he was later released by the victorious French. He diedin relative poverty.
Bibliography: H. Rachel et al., Berliner Grosskaufleute, 2(1938), index; H. Schnee, Die Hoffinanz und der moderne Staat, 1(1953), 145–68; J. Jacobson, Die Judenbuergerbuecher der Stadt Berlin 1809–1851 (1962), index; Kuehn, in: Deutsche Rundschau, 166(1916), 171–91; L. Geiger, Geschichte der Juden in Berlin, 1 (1871),
140–4; S. Stern, The Court Jew (1950), index; J. Meisl (ed.), Protokollbuch der juedischen Gemeinde Berlin (1723–1854) (Heb. andGer., 1962), 473; M. Stern, in: Juedische Familien-Forschung, 1 (1925),
6–10, 31–32, 82–86; B.V. Ephraim, Ueber meine Verhaftung (1907);
Gelber, in: mgwj, 71 (1927), 62–66; Jacobson, in: zgjd, 1 (1929),
152–62.
[Henry Wasserman]

EPHRAIM, VEITEL HEINE (1703–1775), court jeweler
and head of the Berlin community. From 1730 he regularly
attended the Leipzig fairs, and supplied jewels to the Prussian court and silver to the mint, strengthening his position
by furnishing loans to the crown prince. The wedding of twoorphans in his home in 1740 was attended by the court. In 1745
Ephraim was officially appointed court jeweler to the kingof Prussia. After the death of his father in 1748 Ephraim waselected head of the Berlin Jewish community, continuing in
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6ephraim ben Jacob Ha-Kohen
this office until his death. He proved a benevolent though despotic leader, enjoying the continued support of *Frederick II.
In 1743 Ephraim appointed his brother-in-law, David *Fraenkel, the teacher of Moses *Mendelssohn, rabbi of Berlin. He
also forced a personal enemy, Abraham Posner, a maskil, whowanted to shave off his beard in demonstration of his unorthodox convictions, to retain his beard. Ephraim built a schoolfor the children employed in his factories and an educationalfoundation bearing his name. During the Seven Years’ War(1756–63) Ephraim organized a consortium (including Daniel *Itzig and other financiers) for the mint farming rights inPrussia and the conquered territories, especially Saxony. The
consortium bought up all the precious metals and good coinage and issued a series of debased coins, which became known
as “Ephraimiten.” Through these government-authorized inflationary measures about one-sixth of Prussia’s war expenditures
were defrayed, but the general populace became impoverishedand Ephraim was attacked from the pulpit and in pamphlets.
Frederick II issued a formal discharge to Ephraim although refusing to have it made public. After the war Ephraim was active
in measures taken to improve the coinage. Having amassed
great wealth during the war, Ephraim invested it in building
a castle-type residence and in manufacturing ventures. He
leased the Potsdam orphanage factory for fine gold and silver
thread, over which he was granted a monopoly, and owned a
Brussels lace factory, employing 200 workers. He died one of
the richest men in Berlin.
Bibliography: H. Rachel et al., Berliner Grosskaufleute, 2(1938); H. Schnee, Die Hoffinanz und der moderne Staat, 1 (1953),
145–68; 5 (1965), 25, 26; H. Rachel, in: zgjd, 2 (1930), 188ff; L. Geiger,
Geschichte der Juden in Berlin, 1 (1871), 82, 84, 86f.; 2 (1871), 140ff.; M.
Stern, Beitraege zur Geschichte der Juden in Berlin (1909); idem, in:Juedische Familien-Forschung, 1 (1925), 6, 82; J. Jacobson, Die Judenbuergerbuecher der Stadt Berlin 1809–1851 (1962), index; S. Stern, The
Court Jew (1950), index.

EPHRAIM BEN ISAAC (of Regensburg; 1110–1175), tosafist, member of the bet din of Regensburg, and the greatest of
the paytanim (liturgical poets) of Germany. Among his teachers were *Isaac b. Asher ha-Levi and *Isaac b. Mordecai of Regensburg. He was held in great esteem by his contemporaries,
being referred to as “the great Rabbi Ephraim” and as “BenYakir” (an allusion to Jer. 31:20). His youth was spent inFrance, where he was among the first pupils of Jacob b. Meir
*Tam (Rabbenu Tam). Ephraim was uncompromising in his
pursuit of truth; his intransigence often brought him into
conflict with other scholars, even with Jacob Tam himself.
Once, after a particularly heated dispute with the rabbis of
Speyer, Rabbenu Tam answered him sharply: “From the day
I have known you, I have never heard you concede a point”(Sefer ha-Yashar, no. 64). Rabbenu Tam, however, appreciating Ephraim’s selfless motives, bore him no ill will, even referring to him affectionately as “my brother Rabbi Ephraim”(ibid., n. 80).
When the rabbis of Speyer complained to Rabbenu
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Tam that Ephraim was overly lenient, a literary controversy
arose, in which Ephraim’s letters to Rabbenu Tam evidenced
undeviating adherence to Jewish law and custom. Ephraim
remained in Speyer for a short while after the dispute, thenmoved on to Worms, and finally to Regensburg. Ephraim
is the author of Tosafot (cited in early works); a commentary
on Avot; and halakhic decisions. He also apparently wrote
Arba Panim (“Four Aspects”), a commentary to Seder Nezikin. Thirty-two of his piyyutim are extant. They reflect thesevere hardships which the Jews of Germany suffered in
the Regensburg massacre of 1137 and the Second Crusade(1146–47). Zunz regarded Ephraim’s poems as superior to
all other contemporary Hebrew poetry written in Germany.
They are distinctive in form and content, and powerful in
expression. Ephraim also employed the metric forms of Sephardi poetry and one of his seliḥ ot is in the Sephardi festival liturgy.
Bibliography: Zunz, Lit Poesie, 274–80; idem, Nachtrag zur
Literaturgeschichte … (1867), 16–17; Davidson, Oẓ ar, 4 (1933), 369, index; Germ Jud, 1 (1934), 289–90; V. Aptowitzer, Mavo le-Sefer Ravyah(1938), 321–3; A.M. Habermann, in: YMḥ SI, 4 (1938), 121–95; Urbach,Tosafot, 72–73, 170–7; Weinberg, in: Hadorom, 23 (1965/66), 31–53;
Ta-Shema, in: KS, 42 (1966/67), 507–8.
[Abraham Meir Habermann]

EPHRAIM BEN JACOB HAKOHEN (1616–1678), rabbinic
authority. Ephraim served as a judge in Vilna together with
*Shabbetai Kohen and Aaron Samuel *Koidanover in the bet
din of his teacher, Moses Ben Isaac Judah *Lima. During theSwedish War (1655), Ephraim fled from Vilna to Velke Mezerici in Moravia. From there he went to Prague, where heestablished a yeshivah. He then moved to Vienna, remaining there until 1666, when he was appointed head of the bet
din in Ofen (Buda). There he established a famous yeshivah
and corresponded with some of the most prominent rabbisof his time, including those of Turkey and Ereẓ Israel, among
them Moses *Galante and Moses ibn *Ḥ abib. Toward the endof his life he was invited to the rabbinate of the Ashkenazi
congregation of Jerusalem, a position which, 80 years earlier,
his grandfather R. Ephraim ha-Kohen had held. He died, however, before he could take up the position. Ephraim was one of
the great legal authorities of his generation. His decisions on
many questions, civil, domestic, and religious, helped influence Jewish life in several countries for a number of generations. His only published work is his responsa, Sha’ar Efrayimon the Shulḥ an Arukh, published by his son Aryeh Loeb
(Sulzbach, 1689). Other works have remained in manuscript.
Ephraim was the grandfather of Ẓ evi Hirsch *Ashkenazi, the“Ḥ akham Ẓ evi.”
Bibliography: D. Kaufmann, Die letzte Vertreibung derJuden aus Wien … (1889), 62; Even ha-Me’ir, 2 (1907), 27f., no. 148;
J.J. (L.) Greenwald (Grunwald), Sefer Toledot Ḥ akhmei Yisrael, Kolel
Toledot R. Efrayim ha-Kohen mi-Vilna (1924); Frumkin-Rivlin, 1(1929), 107f.; H. Gold (ed.), Juden und Judengemeinden Maehrens(1929), 227f.
[Aharon Fuerst]459

ephraim Ben Jacob of BonnEPHRAIM BEN JACOB OF BONN (b. 1132), liturgical poetand commentator. When his teacher Joel b. Isaac ha-Levi left
Bonn, Ephraim succeeded him as av bet din. He also taught
for some time in Mainz and Speyer. In 1197, he resided in
Bonn and Neuss, leaving the latter town only three days before its Jews were massacred. He appears to have died shortly
thereafter. Ephraim wrote the Sefer Zekhirah (“Book of Remembrance”) and dirges on the sufferings of the Jews during the Second Crusade. He also composed piyyutim for thefestivals, 27 of which (two in Aramaic) have been published.
His commentary on piyyutim still exists in manuscript; it contains many traditional details concerning the early liturgicalpoets, poems, and liturgical customs (Hamburg, Ms. no. 152).
The well-known legend describing the martyrdom of *Amnonof Mainz, as well as the legend concerning the early paytan
R. *Yannai, who out of jealousy of his pupil R. Eleazar *Kallir put a scorpion in his shoe, are attributed to him. He also
wrote tosafot and commentaries to the treatises of Eruvin, Ketubbot, and Avot, besides halakhic responsa and commentaries to benedictions and various customs. R. Ephraim is also
referred to in his hymns as “Shalom”; it was possibly an additional name. The meaning of the word ‫ ילִ יבייה‬added to hisname has not yet been clarified. It has been suggested that hehad a German name such as Geliebter (“beloved”) which wascommonly pronounced “yelība.”Bibliography: A.M. Habermann (ed.), Gezerot Ashkenaz veẒ arefat (1945), 115–36; Davidson, Oẓ ar, 4 (1933), 369, s.v. Efrayim miBona (b. Ya’akov); Zunz, Lit Poesie, 288–93; Germ Jud, 1 (1934), 49–50,
no. 6; V. Aptowitzer, Mavo le-Sefer Ravyah (1938), 319–21; Habermann,in: YMḥ SI, 7 (1958), 215–96; Baron, Social, index.
[Abraham Meir Habermann]

EPHRAIM BEN SHEMARIAH (c. 980–c. 1060), leaderof the Palestinian community in *Cairo during the first halfof the 11t century. Ephraim’s father, Shemariah, was born in*Gaza and later moved to *Egypt with his family. Ephraim
himself studied in the Palestinian yeshivah, where he received
the title ḥ aver (“scholar”) from the gaon Josiah. He was engaged in commerce, but in about 1020 became the rabbi of
the Palestinian community. Although he came into conflictwith an opposing faction from time to time, he held his position for more than 30 years. Ephraim supported the Jews in
Palestine and, especially, the Palestinian yeshivah. He was aclose friend of the gaon R. *Solomon b. Judah, with whom hecorresponded for many years.
Bibliography: S. Poznański, in: REJ, 48 (1904), 145–75; A.
Cowley, in: JQR, 19 (1906/07), 107–8; M. Schwab, in: REJ, 70 (1920),
63; Mann, Egypt, index; Mann, Texts, 1 (1931), 314; Hirschberg, Afrikah, 1 (1965), 131, 159–60, 175, 260.
[Eliyahu Ashtor]*Alfasi), “Ephraim the Elder,” etc. He lived in *Qalʿat Ḥ ammād(Algeria). Ephraim was an outstanding disciple of Alfasi, withwhom he discussed halakhic problems and Alfasi at times accepted his view. The “Mahadura Batra” (second recension of
the halakhot of Alfasi) contains Ephraim’s amendments. He
was the first to write a commentary on the halakhot of Alfasi,
and this is referred to in the works of rishonim under various
names: haggahot (“glosses”), hassagot (“critiques”), teshuvot(“responsa”), tosafot (“addenda”), and tashlum halakhot (“complement to the halakhot”). The work has not survived, but
quotations from it appear in the works of the rishonim, and asubstantial part of it, on Bava Kamma, was published in the
Temim De’im, no. 68, margin in the Romm Vilna (1882) edition of Alfasi. The quotations indicate that the book covered
the whole of the halakhot and possibly also the Mishnah oftractates which Alfasi did not include in his work. The bookconsists of supplements to the halakhot (“additional halakhot
omitted by Alfasi”), explanations of passages from the Gemara
which Alfasi quoted without comment, explanations of thetext itself, and refutations of Alfasi’s critics. It also contains
criticism of Alfasi, mainly where he disagrees with the decisions of the Babylonian geonim and North African scholars,
and with their customs. The criticisms are presented vigorously but respectfully. Sometimes, when an opinion attributed to Alfasi is not acceptable to Ephraim, he, like other admirers of Alfasi, questions the attribution. Ephraim’s purpose
was to secure universal acceptance for the halakhot; even his
criticisms were directed to this end, for by citing the viewsof earlier scholars which conflict with those of Alfasi, those
who disagreed with him could still use the work as a whole
as an authoritative code. Because the rishonim quoted mainly
the criticisms of Ephraim, it was thought that the whole work
was critical. Ephraim exercised an influence particularly on
the early scholars of Provence and Catalonia, such as *Abraham b. David of Posquiéres, *Zerahiah ha-Levi, *Jonathan haKohen of Lunel, *Isaac b. Abba Mari of Marseilles, and *Naḥ manides. Much of his teachings are contained in their works,
sometimes without attribution. In some cases his glosses in
the margins were incorporated in error by copyists into thetext of the halakhot itself. Solomon b. Parḥ on was one of
Ephraim’s pupils.
Bibliography: Benedikt, in: KS, 25 (1948/49), 164–9, 229–30;
26 (1949/50), 216, 322–38; 31 (1955 /56), 264; Ta-Shema, ibid., 42(1966/67), 507–8.
[Binyamin Zeev Benedikt]EPHRAIM IBN AVI ALRAGAN (late 11 and early 12t
centuries), North African halakhist. He is referred to in halakhic literature as “Rabbenu Ephraim,” “Ephraim of Kaleah,”“Ephraim the Sephardi,” “Ephraim, pupil of the Rif ” (i.e., Isaac

EPHRAIM SOLOMON BEN AARON OF LUNTSHITS(Leczyca; 1550–1619), rabbi and renowned preacher. He was
known as “Ephraim of Luntshits,” the popular pronunciation of Leczyca among Polish Jews. The name “Solomon” wasadded some time after 1601. In his youth Ephraim was sent
to study in the yeshivah of Solomon *Luria. At an early age
he had already gained a reputation as a preacher, in which
capacity he traveled to Lublin, Lemberg, Jaroslaw, and othertowns. It is not known whether he ever held a regular com-

460

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6ephronmunal post before he became head of a yeshivah in Lemberg when he was already past fifty. In 1604, he arrived in
Prague where he served as president of the rabbinical court
and head of the yeshivah, but he relinquished his rabbinicalpost in the last year of his life. As a preacher he was distinguished for his lucid and fascinating sermons. He addressed
the heads of the *Council of Four Lands when they met in
Lublin and was apparently on friendly terms with the leaders of that council on whose recommendation he was appointed rosh yeshivah in Lemberg. Ephraim’s sermons shedmuch light on the religious and communal life of the PolishJewish community of his time. He railed against the wealthy
members of the congregation whose passion for money andluxury caused them to withhold assistance from their needybrethren and he criticized their pretensions to spiritual andreligious status on the basis of their commercial success.
He said that wealth corrupts and destroys the character ofmen when they do not appreciate its purpose. At the sametime, he complained about the poor who wished to enjoy
the charity of the rich without making any effort to provide
for their needs. In addition, he attacked certain casuistic
methods of talmudic study (pilpul) which often neglected
the truth, and the desire for personal aggrandizement amongcommunal leaders.
Ephraim’s sermons were collected and published in various books: Ir Gibborim (Basle, 1580); Olelot Efrayim (Lublin,1590); Oraḥ le-Ḥ ayyim (ibid., 1595); Keli Yakar (ibid., 1602),
commentary on the Pentateuch in homiletic style that was
subsequently included in various editions of the rabbinical
Bible (Mikra’ot Gedolot); Siftei Da’at (Prague, 1610); Ammudei
Shesh (ibid., 1617); Petiḥ ot u-She’arim (Zolkiew, 1799). He also
compiled a book of sermons entitled Rivevot Efrayim, whichis occasionally mentioned in his other works. He composed
three seliḥ ot in connection with the invasion of Prague in 1611
by the army of the bishop of Passau.
Bibliography: M. Gruenwald, Rabbi Salomo Efraim Luntschitz (Ger., 1892); I. Bettan, Studies in Jewish Preaching (1939),
273–316; idem, in: HUCA, 8–9 (1931/32), 443–80; Halpern, Pinkas,
607, index; H.H. Ben-Sasson, Hagut ve-Hanhagah (1959), 263, index;
idem, in: Zion, 19 (1954), 142–66; H.R. Rabinowitz, Deyokena’ot shel
Darshanim (1967), 137–49; G. Klemperer, in: HJ, 12 (1950), 38ff.
[Abraham David]

EPHRATH (Heb. ‫) ֶא ְפ ָרת‬, an additional name for *Bethlehemof Judah: “Ephrath – the same is Bethlehem” (Gen. 35:19; 48:7;
LXX, Josh. 15:59b; cf. Micah 5:1). In the genealogical tables in
the Bible, which provide information on the distribution of
the clans and the places occupied by them, Ephrath appears
as the wife of Caleb and the mother of “Hur the first-born of
Ephrath, the father of Bethlehem” (I Chron. 2:19, 50; 4:4). The
various biblical references apparently indicate that in addition
to the Calebite clans, originating from the south, the Ephrathites, who possibly were of a different origin, also penetrated
into the Bethlehem district, and their influence there was sogreat that the chief city of the district was named for them.
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Jesse, David’s father, was called “Ephrathite” (I Sam. 17:12) andso were Naomi’s sons (Ruth 1:2).

[Moshe Kochavi]

EPHRATI, DAVID TEVELE BEN ABRAHAM (1849–1884),
talmudic scholar. Born in Merits (near Vilna), he showed exceptional talent as a child and at the age of 14 had already written his Daltot Zahav on the Shulḥ an Arukh Oraḥ Ḥ ayyim and
Yoreh De’ah. At 15, his articles and studies began to appear in
the periodical Ha-Levanon, and he continued to write regularly. At the age of 22 he wrote a halakhic work, Migdal David.
Ephrati was one of the most active leaders of the Ḥ ibbat Zion
movement, and was on intimate terms with Elijah *Guttmacher and Ẓ evi Hirsch *Kalischer. In 1873 he was sentenced
to a year’s imprisonment for his Zionist activities. He refused
invitations to rabbinic posts and, from 1868 lived alternately
in Mogilev and Gorodok, later moving to Vitebsk where heengaged in business. Toward the end of his life he moved to
Berlin, where he became friendly with Azriel *Hildesheimer.
He died in Frankfurt on the Main. Ephrati was also the authorof Toledot Anshei Shem (1875), biographical sketches of great
Jewish scholars, with an appendix, Divrei David, consisting of
homilies and novellae; this work is of considerable historicalimportance. Other works are Yad David (1880), halakhah andaggadah; Matta Efrati (1882), novellae and responsa; Kohelet
David ha-Efrati (1884), a commentary on Ecclesiastes; Sha’ar
ha-Zekenim (1884), a collection of manuscripts of early authorities with his own commentary, Mevo Efrati. Ephrati wasalso editor of a monthly periodical called Eẓ Ḥ ayyim. Manyof his works have remained unpublished.
Bibliography: Ha-Asif, 2 (1885), 754; Oẓ ar ha-Sifrut, 1 (1887),
129–32 (2nd pagination), contains an autobiography.
[Itzhak Alfassi]

EPHRON (Heb. ‫) ֶע ְפרוֹ ן‬.
(1) Mountain on the northern boundary between Judahand Benjamin 8 mi. (13 km.) west of Jerusalem between Nephtoah (Liftā) and *Balaah-Kiriath-Jearim (Tell Deir al-Azhar;
Josh. 15:9). Ephron probably constituted the mountainous area
extending from Har ha-Menuḥ ot to Qaryat al-ʿInab.
(2) A town in Transjordan captured by *Judah Maccabeeduring his retreat from Gilead in the direction of *Beth-Shean(I Macc. 5:46–52; II Macc. 12:27–29; Jos., Ant., 12:346). It appears in the account of the conquest of Ptolemaic Palestine
by *Antiochus III in 218 B.C.E. as Gephrous (Polybius, 5:70,
12). It is identified with al-Ṭ ayyiba, 7½ mi. (12 km.) northeast of Pella.
Bibliography: Aharoni, Land, index; Avi-Yonah, 176; C.
Steuernagel, Der Adschlun (1927), 447f.; Abel, in: RB, 32 (1923), 520.
[Michael Avi-Yonah]

EPHRON (Heb. ‫ ֶע ְפרֹן‬, ‫) ֶע ְפרוֹ ן‬, son of Zohar, from whom *Abraham purchased the cave of *Machpelah and the field east ofMamre (Gen. 23; 25:9; 49:29–30; 50:13). Abraham sought a461

ephron, Nora
burial site for Sarah, but as he was a “resident alien,” he did
not own land. He therefore sought to purchase the cave belonging to Ephron, who, after much bargaining, agreed to accept 400 shekels of silver. Ephron is described as a “Hittite,”though the form of his name and that of his father is West Semitic. While “Hittite” in the Bible may sometimes refer to Canaan’s pre-Israelite inhabitants (cf. Gen. 26:34 with Gen 27:46),
and not to the Hittites of Anatolia in the second millennium
B.C.E., the first millennium Arameo-Hittites were within theorbit of the biblical writers. Some scholars interpret the name
Ephron as being related to ʿofer (“gazelle”); S. Yeivin’s explanation that Ephron is not a personal name but an indicationthat the man was an ʿApiru (see *Habiru) of Hittite origin is
ingenious but unlikely.

liturgical music for soloists, choir, and organ, and arrangedḤ asidic dances and Israel songs. His main work is his Cantorial Anthology in five volumes (1929–57), a practical collection of older and recent works for all the synagogue servicesof the year, which also contains some of Ephros’ own compositions.
In 1976 the Gershon Ephros Cantorial Anthology Foundation was established for the purpose of continuing the publication of his Anthology, of which 6 volumes have now been
published. In 1979 the American Society for Jewish Music published an index to them. Two records of his liturgical songs
and songs for children have appeared.

Bibliography: S. Yeivin, in: Beth Mikra, 7 (1963), 44–45 andnote 281; E.A. Speiser, Genesis (The Anchor Bible, 1964), 172; N. Sarna,
Understanding Genesis (1967), 168ff. Add. Bibliography: J. van
Seters, in: VT, 22 (1972), 64–81; N. Sarna, Genesis (JPS; 1989), 396.

EPHRUSSI, BORIS (1901–1977), geneticist. Ephrussi wasborn in Moscow but moved to Paris after the 1917 Revolution, where he graduated in zoology (1922) and obtained his
doctorate in experimental embryology (1932) from the University of Paris. A Rockefeller fellowship with George Beadle at California Institute of Technology (1934) determined
Ephrussi’s career as a geneticist. The German occupation ofFrance forced him into exile in the United States, where heworked mainly at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. He became professor of genetics at the Sorbonne, Paris (1945), anddirector of the newly established Laboratory of Physiological
Genetics in Gif-sur-Yvette near Paris (1956). After a period ofmajor organizational difficulties, he moved to the U.S. as professor at Western Reserve University, Cleveland (1962), until
he returned to direct the same institute near Paris, now renamed the Center of Molecular Genetics, until 1972. Before
1945 Ephrussi was one of the few internationally recognizedFrench geneticists in France and he largely directed the reorganization of the field after World War II. His collaboration with
Beadle helped establish the concept that genes control cellular events. Subsequently he pursued the then highly contentious concept that cytoplasmic factors influenced by external
factors are genetically transmitted independently of conventional genes. The experimental validity of his work was subsequently vindicated by the discovery of mitochondrial DNA.
His many honors included election to the French Academyof Sciences (1978).

EPHRON, NORA (1941– ), U.S. writer, film director. Ephron was born on Manhattan’s Upper West Side, but her family moved to Beverly Hills by the time she turned three. Herparents, screenwriting duo Pheobe and Henry Ephron, wrote
such classics as Carousel (1956) and There’s No Business LikeShow Business (1954). They based their script Take Her, She’s
Mine on the letters their daughter wrote home while she wasattending Wellesley College. In 1962, after finishing school,
Ephron moved to New York City, launching a career in journalism. She worked for the New York Post and, later, for publications such as Esquire, the New York Times Magazine, andNew York Magazine. Her work is collected in such books as
Wallflower at the Orgy (1970), Crazy Salad (1975), and Scribble,
Scribble (1978). After a brief marriage to writer Dan Greenburg, Ephron married Carl *Bernstein, the journalist who,along with Bob Woodward, first brought the Watergate scandal to the country’s attention in the pages of the Washington Post. The marriage broke up while Ephron was pregnant
with their second son, Max, and the breakup became thebasis for her semiautobiographical novel, Heartburn. With
two young children to support, Ephron turned to her family
trade – screenwriting. Her scripts frequently focus on strong,
independent women struggling to achieve their ambitions.
Ephron wrote such films as Silkwood (1983), When Harry Met
Sally (1989), and Sleepless in Seattle (1993). She made her directorial debut with the comedy This is My Life (1992), which
she co-wrote with her sister Delia. She continued to write anddirect movies, including the box office smash You’ve Got Mail
(1998) and Bewitched (2005).

[Akiva Zimmerman (2nd ed.)][Michael Denman (2nd ed.)]EPHROS, GERSHON (1890–1978), ḥ azzan. Born in Poland,
he went to Palestine at 20, and studied under the musicologist A.Z. *Idelsohn, for whom he also conducted a choir. Laterhe immigrated to the U.S. where he received appointments
as ḥ azzan and taught singing in schools. Ephros composed°EPICTETUS (c. 100 C.E.), Greek Stoic philosopher, who
made several noncommittal observations on the Jews. Epictetus wrote no books; the sole source of his teachings is the Discourses of Arrian. Here (1:11, 12–13) it is related that Epictetus indicated the differences between the dietary conceptsof the Jews, Syrians, Egyptians, and Romans, noting theirincompatibility; and later (1:22, 4) he is reported as classifying these four peoples as in agreement on the substance ofthe principle of sanctification, though differing on details,
such as the eating of pork. A third passage (2:9, 19–22) showsthat Epictetus knew of the importance of ritual immersion
for proselytism. The Galileans mentioned by him (4:7, 6)462

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Casey Schwartz (2nd ed.)]episcopus judaeorum
cannot be identified with the Zealots; here, the more usualexplanation – that Epictetus was referring to Christians – ispreferable.
Bibliography: Reinach, Textes, 154–5.
[Menahem Stern]

EPICUREANISM, a philosophy of adjustment to the socialchanges after *Alexander the Great (336–323), founded by Epicurus, 342/1–270 B.C.E., “the most revered and the most reviled of all founders of thought in the Greco-Roman world”(De Witt). Recent scholarship sees in it a “bridge” to certain
rabbinic and Christian moods. Epicurus taught freedom fromfear and desire through knowledge as the natural and pleasurable life. He endorsed religious observance but denied earthly
involvement of the perfect gods and with it providence, presage, punishment, and penitential prayer. The transformationof Epicureanism into a competitive sect celebrating Epicurus as “savior” increased the already existing opposition to it.
Rhetorical literature falsely accused Epicurus of materialistic
hedonism. Complaints of Epicurean dogmatism, “beguilingspeech” (Col. 2:4), and compelling argumentation (of Avot
2:14 “…[know] what to answer the Epicurean”) are frequently
heard. Rabbinic condemnation reflects knowledge of GrecoRoman rhetoric, experiences with individuals and centers(Gadara, Gaza, Caesarea), and, possibly, the favoritism shown
to Epicureanism by *Antiochus Epiphanes and *Hadrian.
“Epicurean” became thus a byword for “deviance” – ranging
from disrespect to atheism – in Philo, Josephus, and rabbinism alike (see *Apikoros). An early unexpanded version of the“four who entered ‘Paradise’” (Ḥ ag. 14b) may once have signified Epicurus’ school (“the garden”), since it fits Akiva’s past,
Ben Azzai’s celibacy and many Epicurean sayings, Elisha b.
Avuyah’s heterodoxy, and Ben Zoma’s gnosticism (Epicureanism and Gnosticism were equated also by the Church Fathers). Akiva’s “mystical” admonition (Ḥ ag. 14b) could easily
have been a parody on the “apocalyptic”-enthusiastic style of
the Epicureans (parallel parody H. Usener, Epicurea, fragm.
364; Gen. R. 1:5, Theodor-Albeck, p. 2 mentions “nothingfrom nothing”; Mid. Ps. to 1:22 the “automatic” universe; cf.
Jos., Ant., 10:280).
Agreements, however, both in content and literary form,
between rabbinism and Epicureanism are striking: study for
its own sake (Vatican fragment 45 and Avot 6:1); removal of
doubt (Life 121b, Doctr. 22 and Avot 1:16); mortality and urgency (Vat. fr. 10 and Avot 2:15); acquisition of a companion(To Menoeceus, end, and Avot 1:6); diet of bread and water(Bailey, fr. 37 and Avot 6:4); satisfaction with one’s lot (Bailey,fr. 69–70 and Avot 4:1); and avoidance of public office (Bailey,fr. 85–87; Vat. fr. 58; Doctr. 7 and Avot 1:10–11; 2:3; etc.). Epicurus anticipated Judaism’s denial of astral divinity and rule.
With the general rise of the lower classes he accorded humandignity even to the prostitute, an evaluation continued in theMidrash (Sif. Num. 78; Gen. R. 85:8) and the Gospels (Matt.
1:3; 5, etc.). In Hellenism and Christianity, too, denunciationof Epicurus together with partial adoption of his ethics is freENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

quent. The centrality of the sage in post-Socratic ethics andrhetoric facilitated such developments.
Bibliography: C. Bailey, Epicurus (Greek and Eng., 1926);
N.W. De Witt, Epicurus and his Philosophy (1954); A.M.J. Festugiére,
Epicurus and his Gods (1956); S. Lieberman, in: A. Altmann (ed.),Biblical and Other Studies (1963), 123–41; Reallexikon fuer Antike und
Christentum, 5 (1962), 681–819, S.V. Epikur (contains bibliography).
[Henry Albert Fischel]

EPIRUS, province in N.W. Greece. Epirus was an independent despotate between c. 1214 and 1340. Under the first andstrongest of its despots, Theodore Ducas Angelus, the Jews (see*Durazzo, *Arta, *Ioannina) were subjected to a persecutionin which Jewish property was confiscated and Judaism probably prohibited. This was subsequently extended to Salonika,
captured by Theodore in 1224, and continued even after Salonika was retaken from Epirus in 1246. With the strengthening of the empire under *Michael VIII Palaeologus, parts of
Epirus reverted to the empire and the persecutions came toan end. His son Andronicus II Palaeologus placed the Jews
of Ioannina (Janina), the most important of the Epirote communities, under his direct protection and angered the Church
by favoring the Jews.
Bibliography: J. Starr, Romania (Eng., 1949), 20–23; J.
Mann, in: REJ, 82 (1926), 372–3; P. Charanis, in: Speculum, 22 (1947),
75–76.
[Andrew Sharf]

EPISCOPUS JUDAEORUM (Lat. “bishop of the Jews”), title
given by the Christian authorities in the Middle Ages to thehead of the Jewish community or its rabbi. The significanceof the title, which is much disputed, is sometimes clarified
when Hebrew and Latin forms are found side by side. In Germany the title is mentioned in the privilege granted to the Jews
of Worms in 1090, addressed to Salman the “Jews’ bishop,” adistinguished scholar. The “bishop” of the Jews in Worms,
later called the hegmon parnas, was the permanent chairman of the community board; the last man to hold the title,
Michael Gernstein, died in 1792. In Cologne the first “bishop”
of the Jews is mentioned from 1135 to 1159. His successors
were in office for long terms, although elections were held annually; some of them were rabbis. In Silesia, the “Jews’ bishop”
held the offices of rabbi, ritual slaughterer, cantor, and religious teacher in 1315. Found in England in the 12t century,
the term (Eveske in Anglo-French) was sometimes equivalent to the Hebrew kohen. It is therefore impossible tomaintain that in England it denoted an official rabbinicalposition.
Bibliography: Baron, Community, 1 (1942), index; R. Hoeniger and M. Stern (eds.), Das Judenschreinsbuch der Laurenzpfarre zu
Koeln, 1 (1888), nos. 234–40; J. Jacobs, Jews of Angevin England (1893),
202–4, 372–3; Aronius, Regesten, nos. 171, 581; H. Stokes, Studies in
Anglo-Jewish History (1913), 18–43; Roth, England, 94–95; H.G. Richardson, English Jewry under Angevin Kings (1960), 124–9.
[Isaac Levitats]463

epitaphs
EPITAPHS. Commemorative inscriptions marking the placeof burial were known at the time of the First Temple following the custom of the other Oriental nations, in particular
the Phoenicians. The most elaborate as yet discovered is arock-carved inscription over a burial cave in the Kidron Valley outside Jerusalem apparently referred to explicitly in Isaiah 22:15–16, indicating the grave of the royal steward Shebna:“This is (the sepulcher of) … yahu who is over the House.
There is no silver and no gold here but (his bones) and thebones of his slave-wife with him. Cursed be the man who will
open this.” In the Second Temple period, there grew up thepractice of burial in sarcophagi or secondary burial in *ossuaries: these generally bore at the most the names of the persons whose bones had been brought together in them. On theother hand, more elaborate inscriptions were placed over someburial places, such as the tomb of the priestly family of Benei*Hezir in the Kidron Valley. From the period of Roman-Byzantine domination, after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., many
epitaphs are preserved, brought together by J.B. Frey in thesecond volume of his Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum, thelargest number being from the *catacombs of *Bet She’arim in
Galilee. Normally these bear only the name of the deceased,
whether in Hebrew or in Greek: in two cases the epitaph is alengthy poem in Greek verses.
To the same period belong the very large number of epitaphs found in the Roman catacombs, collected with othersfrom Europe in Frey’s first volume. Of these, the great majority (approximately 75 percent) are in Greek: most of the remaining 25 percent are in Latin. Only a small minority include
any Hebrew, and these, mainly stereotyped phrases (“Peace”
or “Peace upon his resting place”). On the other hand, a verylarge number are distinguished by Jewish symbols such as
the seven-branched candelabrum, or menorah. The Roman
epitaphs are on the whole brief, giving little more detail than
the name of the deceased, sometimes with the addition of thecommunal position he held (e.g., grammateus, “secretary”; archon, “warden”); one of them includes a poem in Latin hexameters. Contemporary with and similar to the Roman Jewish
catacombs are some of *Venosa in south Italy. Here, however,there was a tendency for the epitaphs to be longer, more elaborate and more descriptive, as in the case of that of a girl of 14
who, it is related, in a remarkable inscription in curious Late
Latin, was the only child of her distinguished parents, wasconveyed to her grave amid universal lamentation, and wascommemorated by two rabbis and two messengers from theHoly Land (Frey, no. 611).
From Venosa and the neighboring region of south Italy aseries of *tombstones also have been preserved which demonstrate how, from about the year 800, Hebrew displaced Latin
and Greek in funerary epitaphs. These are now relatively long,mention Jewish schools and “scholars of the academy” (e.g.,
Nathan b. Ephraim of Venosa, who died in 846), and in one
case incorporate poetical passages from a funerary prayer. In
other lands of Europe (Greece, Gaul, Spain, Pannonia) epitaphs of the late classical period in Latin and Greek are simi-

larly preserved: the Mérida (Spain) inscription is trilingual,in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew.
In due course, however, as knowledge of Hebrew spreadand Latin came to be considered the language of the Church,
the use of Hebrew became universal. From the 11t century,
tombstones with epitaphs in Hebrew are preserved in Spain,
France, Germany, and elsewhere. These are generally at the
beginning very brief, containing little more than the nameof the deceased. Later they tend to become more elaborate.
The Spanish epitaphs of the 13t–14t century (collected by F.
Cantera), written sometimes on all sides of raised horizontal tombstones, are veritable literary documents. The French
medieval inscriptions are collected by M. Schwab. Similarcollections for some other countries remain a desideratum.
In Italy, from the 16t century, it became usual to incorporatein the epitaph a short poem in a stereotyped lilting meter: avery large number of those composed by R. Leone *Modenaof Venice have been published by A. Berliner and R. Pacifici.
Less literary, but historically of great importance, are the funerary inscriptions from such places as Prague (published by
S. Hock), Frankfurt on the Main (published by M. Horovitz),
Salonika (published by I.S. Emmanuel). No epitaphs are preserved from the Papal States in Italy or France (Avignon, Carpentras) during the age of the ghetto, when commemorative
inscriptions over the dead were sternly forbidden.
In the 17t century, the communities established in Western Europe by the ex-Marranos reintroduced the use of vernacular on tombstones, as instanced in the epitaphs from
Amsterdam (published by D. Henriques de Castro), Hamburg (collected by M. Gruenwald), Curaçao (published by I.S.
Emmanuel), Barbados (published by E.M. Shilstone), Jamaica(included by J.A.P.M. Andrade in his A record of the Jews in
Jamaica, 1941), New York (published by David de Sola Pool),
London, Venice, Leghorn, Bordeaux, Bayonne, etc. Many of
the Spanish epitaphs end with the valedictory abbreviation“SBAGDG” (Sua bendita alma goze de gloria, “May his blessedsoul enjoy glory”), or something similar. Sometimes these inscriptions are bilingual (Spanish/Portuguese, and Hebrew).
English (though not Dutch, German, etc., elsewhere) began
to appear already in the 17t century: in 1684 the epitaph of
the English court jeweler, Isaac Alvarez Nunes, in London,incorporates an English poem in Alexandrine couplets. The
cemeteries of the Ashkenazi communities on the other hand
did not as yet admit the vernacular. The inscriptions were here
now longer and more elaborate, sometimes incorporating
crude verses giving the name of the deceased in acrostic form.
The inscription in the case of a man was generally headed‫ פ״נ‬for ‫“( ּפֹה נִ ְק ַ ּבר‬here lies”), for a woman, ‫פ״ט‬, for ‫ּפֹה ְטמוּנָ ה‬(“here is interred”). At the close, the abbreviation ‫ תנצב״ה‬for‫“( ְּת ִהי נַ ְפ ׁשוֹ ְצרו ָּרה ְ ּב ְצרוֹ ר ַה ַח ִ ּיים‬May his soul be bound up in thebond of eternal life”; cf. I Sam. 25:29) was usual. This has remained the case down to the present time, and in recent times
is sometimes the only Hebrew element that remains.
In the course of the 19t century in most of the countriesof the Western world the vernacular began to encroach more

464

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

eppstein, paul
and more in epitaphs. At the beginning the secular name ofthe deceased alone figured together with the Hebrew; latera fairly lengthy vernacular (e.g., English) inscription paralleled and repeated the details of the Hebrew: in due course
often the Hebrew name alone figured, or sometimes not eventhis. In some cemeteries (e.g., in England) the use of some
Hebrew has been made obligatory; in others, belonging tostrongly Orthodox groups, no English whatsoever is allowed.
In Israel, the tendency is now for simple epitaphs in which
Hebrew alone figures.
Bibliography: Cantera-Millás, Inscripciones; M. Schwab,
Rapport sur les inscriptions hébraïques de la France (= Nouvelles Archives des Missions Scientifiques, 12 (1904), 143–402); A. Berliner, Luḥ ot
Avanim, hebraeische Grabinschriften in Italien, 1 (1881); R. Pacifici, Le
iscrizioni dell’antico cimetero ebraico a Venezia (1936); S. Hock, Die
Familien Prags (1892); M. Horovitz, Die Inschriften des alten Friedhofs … Frankfurt a. M. (1901); I.S. Emmanuel, Maẓ ẓ evot Saloniki(1963–68); D.H. de Castro, Keur van Grafsteenen … (1883); M. Gruenwald, Portugiesengraeber auf deutscher Erde (1902); I.S. Emmanuel,
Precious Stones of the Jews of Curaçao (1957); E.M. Shilstone, Monumental Inscriptions in the Burial Ground of the Jewish Synagogue at
Bridgetown, Barbados (1956); J.A.P.M. Andrade, A Record of the Jews
in Jamaica (1941); D. de Sola Pool, Portraits Etched in Stone (1952).
[Cecil Roth]EPPENSTEIN, SIMON (1864–1920), German rabbi andscholar. Eppenstein was born in Krotoszyn, Poland, andserved as rabbi at Briesen (West Prussia) 1889–1911, and thereafter was lecturer in Jewish history and Bible exegesis at the
Berlin Rabbinical Seminary. As an early supporter of religious
Zionism (Mizrachi), he conducted some of his lectures at the
Seminary in Hebrew.
Eppenstein’s main fields of study were the geonic period,on which he wrote Beitraege zur Geschichte und Literatur im
geonaeischen Zeitalter (1913), and medieval Bible exegesis,
such as publishing *Astruc’s Midrash ha-Torah (1899), Joseph*Kara’s commentaries on the Bible, as well as *Saadiah Gaon’s introduction to his commentary on the Psalms (publ. inFestschrift A. Harkavy). He also made Hebrew translations ofJoseph b. Judah ibn *Aknin’s Marpeh Nefashot (in Festschrift
N. Sokolow) and *Abraham b. Moses b. Maimon’s Kifāyat alʿĀbidin (in Festschrift J. Lewy). Eppenstein also wrote a biography of Maimonides (for W. *Bacher’s work on him), as well as
one on his son Abraham (in Jahres-Bericht des Rabbiner-Seminars zu Berlin fuer 1912/13). He also edited and annotated thefourth edition of the fifth volume of *Graetz’s Geschichte derJuden (1909) and the Festschrift D. Hoffmann (1914).

ment maintained an Orthodox way of life. After completing
his studies in a business academy, he entered the service of
the Neolog community of Budapest and as a result of his outstanding organizational and administrative ability became its
general secretary.
His abilities, however, found full scope following the antiJewish discrimination in Hungary, which began in 1938, andthe consequent impoverishment of the Jews of the country.
He undertook negotiations with the government and participated, initially as an observer, at the Evian Conference in 1938.
He established contact with the Jewish welfare organizationsof France and England, and in 1939 proceeded for that purpose – with Samuel Stern, chairman of the National Councilof Hungarian Communities (Neolog) – to Paris and London,
where he pleaded unsuccessfully with Lord Winterton, thechairman of the Inter-Government Commission for Refugees
in London, to include Hungarian Jewry in Germany and Austria among those granted priority in emigration.
As a result Eppler devoted himself energetically to the
problem of the rehabilitation of the Jews of Hungary, especially after the annexation to Hungary in 1939–40 of territory
which had belonged to it before World War I and contained
the largest Jewish population, and the arrival of Jewish refugees from Germany, Slovakia, and Poland. He established welfare organizations, educational and trade institutions, reopening schools which had been closed.
His greatest achievement was the Jewish Hospital whichgave employment to Jewish doctors whose qualifications, received outside Hungary, were not recognized. In opposition to
the leadership of the community he assisted in the hakhsharahof ḥ alutzim who intended on immigrating to Ereẓ Israel.
Eppler published a number of works on social service:
A budapesti zsidósàg szociàlis munkàja (“Social Work of theJews of Budapest,” 1937); A zsidósàg helyzete, kulturàlis és
szociàlis munkàja Europa tizenkét àllamàban (“The Positionof the Jews, Their Cultural and Social Activities in Twelve
European Countries,” 1938); A rabbik szerepe a hitközségiügyintézésben (“The Function of Rabbis in Communal Activities,” 1940); Zsidó segitöszervezetek (“Jewish Welfare Organizations,” 1942).
Eppler died a natural death in 1942.
Bibliography: P. Ujvari (ed.), Magyar Zsidó Lexikon (1929);
B. Vihar (ed.), Sàrga könyv (1946); F. Karsai, in: Evkonyv (1971/72),
162–180.
[Baruch Yaron]

EPPLER, SANDOR (1890–1942), Hungarian communal
worker. Eppler, the son of an Orthodox rabbi, was born in
Budapest and despite his association with the Neolog move-

EPPSTEIN, PAUL (1901–1944), sociologist and GermanJewish community leader, “elder” of *Theresienstadt. Eppstein, born in Mannheim, was lecturer in sociology at theuniversity there from 1926 until 1933. After the Kristallnacht
pogrom of November 1938, he was invited to England as asociology lecturer but refused to go. As a prominent Jewish
youth leader, organizer, and speaker he was one of the founders of the Reichsausschus der juedischen Jugend-Verbaende(National Board of Jewish Youth Organizations) and of the

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6465

Bibliography: X.N. Simchoni, in: Ha-Tekufah, 9 (1921),
488–90; A.B. Posner, in: Festschrift… J. Freimann (1937), 172–9 (incl.
bibl.); E. Ben-Reshef, in: S. Federbush (ed.), Ḥ okhmat Yisrael beMa’arav Eiropah, 1 (1958), 37–39; Kressel, Leksikon, 1 (1965), 134–5.
[Akiva Posner]epstein, abraham
Reichsvertretung der deutschen Juden; he was the head of its
welfare department, retaining the position when it became
the Nazi-imposed *Reichsvereinigung, until his deportation
to Theresienstadt in January 1943. Upon his arrival he was, on*Eichmann’s orders, nominated “Judenaeltester” (“Jewish Elder”) in place of Jacob *Edelstein. On September 27, 1944, he
was arrested by the *Gestapo, apparently for having helped toorganize clandestinely self-defense among the inmates, andimmediately shot.
Bibliography: J. Robinson, And the Crooked Shall be Made
Straight (1965), index; H.G. Adler, Theresienstadt, 1941–45 (Ger.,
19602); idem, Die Verheimlichte Wahrheit (1958); Juedische Sozialarbeit, 4 (1959), no. 3–4, 23–26 (Gedenkblatt fuer Dr. Paul Eppstein); S.
Kaznelson (ed.), Juden im deutschen Kulturbereich (19592), 693. Add.
Bibliography: E. Meixner-Wülker, Zwiespalt – Jugend zwischen
NS-Erziehung und – Verfolgung (1988); T. Simonsohn, Errinnerungen an Paul Eppsteinin: Theresienstädter Studien und Dokumente(1996), 127–29.
[Yehuda Reshef / Bjoern Siegel (2nd ed.)]EPSTEIN, ABRAHAM (1841–1918), rabbinic scholar andhistorian. Epstein was born in Staro-Konstantinov, Russia, toa wealthy family. Epstein leased some land near Kozmin in1865 and worked it himself for many years, trying to persuade
some of the local Jewish poor to do the same. During that period he developed an interest in natural sciences and built alaboratory, where he carried out various experiments. After
his father’s death Epstein left his farm and took over the family business. In 1861 he traveled to Western Europe, where hemet some of the leading figures in Jewish scholarship (S.J.L.
*Rapoport, Z. *Frankel, and M. *Sachs) who greatly stimulated his interest in Jewish studies. Gradually, he liquidated
his shares in the family business and devoted himself to research. In 1876 he settled in Vienna, where he pursued his
studies and contributed articles to learned Hebrew periodicals. Among Epstein’s Midrash and Targum studies are Kadmut ha-Tanḥ uma (1886), on the antiquity and origin of Midrash Tanḥ uma; and a critical edition of Eldad ha-Dani (1891)
with a comprehensive introduction, notes, and appendices,
including a note on *Beta Israel and their customs. On theFranco-German school he wrote “Der Gerschom Meor-haGolah zugeschriebene Talmud-Kommentar” (in Festschrift …
Steinschneider (1896), 115–43), an article which aroused muchinterest and revolutionized the study of pre-Rashi Talmud
commentaries; Schemaja, der Schueler und Sekretaer Raschis(1897); a critical edition of Ma’asei ha-Ge’onim (1901), a collection of responsa of the Franco-German school; and Das talmudische Lexikon Jechuse Tannaim we-Amoraim und Jehuda
b. Kalonimos aus Speier (1895). Epstein’s historical studies on
the same period include Juedische Altertuemer in Worms und
Speyer (1896) and Mishpaḥ at Lurie (1901). In the controversy
between Rapoport and I. *Weiss, Epstein defended the former in Divrei Bikkoret (1896). Epstein’s works manifest his
vast knowledge and painstaking research: he combined thebest of Eastern scholarship with Western method and is recognized as an outstanding scholar in his fields. A collection of466

some of his writings appeared under the title Mi-Kadmoniyyot
ha-Yehudim (1887), of which the second volume of Kitvei R.
Avraham Epstein (1950–57), edited by A.M. Habermann, is anenlarged version. An autobiographical sketch was published in
N. Sokolow, Sefer Zikkaron le-Sifrei Yisrael (1889, 162–6), andis reproduced in Kitvei R. Avraham Epstein (1, 1950, 14–19).
Epstein willed his large and valuable library to the Vienna
Jewish Theological Seminary.
Bibliography: V. Aptowitzer, in: AZDJ, 82 (1918), 246–7; S.
Poznański, in: ZHB, 21 (1918), 18–25 (includes bibliography); idem,
in: Ost und West, 18 (1918), 207–12; S. Federbush (ed.), Ḥ okhmat Yisrael be-Ma’arav Eiropah, 1 (1958), 40–46; Kressel, Leksikon, 1 (1965),
136–7.
[Zvi Avneri]

EPSTEIN, ABRAHAM (1880–1952), Hebrew literary critic.
Born in Slutsk, Russia, he started his teaching profession on
the faculty of the Hebrew Teachers’ Seminary in Odessa andtaught later at the Herzliah Hebrew Teachers’ Institute in New
York City, where he settled in 1925.
Epstein’s first creative works were published in Ha-Ẓ ofeh,
but he began his career as a literary critic with an essay in Ereẓ
(1918). Although he was impressionistic rather than analytical in his approach, Epstein was a sensitive and earnest critic.
Soferim (“Writers,” 1934), his first volume of criticism, deals
mainly with non-American Hebrew authors but it also discusses four Hebrew writers in America: Yitẓ hak Dov *Berkowitz, Benjamin *Silkiner, Shalom Dov Ber *Maximon, and Israel
Zev Frishberg. Mi-Karov u-me-Raḥ ok (“From Near and Far,”
1943) is devoted mostly to Hebrew literature in America, but
included are also critical essays on other leading Hebrew
writers. Some of the essays in the book are devoted to Yiddish literature in America and to the biblical books Song ofSongs and Ruth. Soferim Ivrim ba-Amerikah (2 vols., 1952) isa critical work on the major Hebrew poets and novelists in
the United States.
Bibliography: Hadoar, 32 (1952), 128; Waxman, Literature
4 (19602), 1076.
[Eisig Silberschlag]

EPSTEIN, ABRAHAM (1892–1942), U.S. economist and sociologist. Born in Russia, Epstein immigrated to the UnitedStates in 1910. He specialized in the problems of the aged andtheir economic maintenance, and became a leading advocateof publicly financed old age pensions. Through publications,research, legislative drafting, and political activity, Epstein
was instrumental in preparing the ground for the 1935 Social
Security Act, but remained critical of the principles adopted
by the federal legislation and their implementation. In 1939,
the federal government incorporated many of Epstein’s recommendations through major amendments. In 1927 Epsteinorganized the American Association for Old Age Security
which in 1933 became the American Association for Social Security. From 1934 to 1937 Epstein served as United States representative on the social insurance committee of the League
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

epstein, aryeh leib ben mordecai
of Nations’ International Labor Office, and as a consultant for
the Social Security Board. He also taught at Brooklyn College and New York University. Epstein’s major publications
include The Negro Migrant in Pittsburgh (1918), The Problem
of Old Age Pensions in Industry (1926), Facing Old Age (1922),
The Challenge of the Aged (1928), and Insecurity, a Challenge
to America (1938).
[Roy Lubove]

EPSTEIN, ABRAHAM MEIR BEN ARYEH LEIB, also
called Meir Harif (“sharpwitted”; 1726–1772), talmudist. Epstein was born in Grodno. He studied under his father, thekabbalist Aryeh Leib *Epstein, with whom he later also pursued halakhic studies. The results of their joint work appear in
the talmudic glosses Divrei Ḥ iddud. In 1750 he was appointed
rabbi of Lyskovo, and in 1752 of Nowy-Mysz. In the dispute
between *Eybeschuetz and *Emden on the use of amulets, Epstein, like his father, supported the former. He leaned toward*Ḥ asidism and received Israel of Plotsk, a pupil of *Dov Baerof Mezhirech, with great respect. The added name Abraham
was given to him during a serious illness in 1756. He was heldin great esteem by his contemporaries and was frequently
consulted on halakhic problems. He was the author of novellae to the Talmud and to Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah (Shevil
Nahar, Divrei Yedidim, Mahadura Batra); a collection of sermons, Vikku’aḥ Ger ve-Toshav; an ethical treatise in the formof a dialogue; responsa; glosses and novellae to the Shulḥ an
Arukh, Yoreh De’ah, together with contributions by his father.
Some of his novellae are contained in the works of his contemporaries. His ethical will was published as an appendix to the
Gevurot ha-Ari of Ephraim Mordecai Epstein (18882).
Bibliography: Ephraim Mordecai Epstein, Gevurot ha-Ari(18882), 27–29; Yahadut Lita, 3 (1967), 30.
[Samuel Abba Horodezky]

EPSTEIN, ALVIN (1925– ), U.S. actor. Born in the Bronx,
New York, Epstein acted with a U.S. Army company in Europe after World War II, then joined the French Mime Theaterand toured Europe. He joined the Habimah Theater, Israel, in
1953. He spent three years in Israel – the first one devoted tolearning Hebrew. During the following two years he played 11
roles, gaining invaluable experience working with many welltrained actors who had come from the Moscow Art Theater
School. He subsequently played in New York and on tour, hisroles including Lucky in Waiting for Godot, Feste in Twelfth
Night, the title role in Pirandello’s Henry IV, Shabelsky in Ivanov, and Lee Strasberg in Nobody Dies on Friday.
Epstein served as artistic director of the Guthrie Theater and, for almost 25 years, he was the associate director of
the Yale Repertory Theater. He also taught acting at the ART/MXAT Institute (Institute for Advanced Theater Training).
Epstein performed throughout the United States, staging
over 20 productions and performing in over 100. His Broadway
and off-Broadway credits include his debut with former fellow
student Marcel *Marceau, as well as roles in Orson Welles’ King
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Lear, The Threepenny Opera (co-starring with rock star Sting),
the world premiere of When the World Was Green (A Chef ’s Fable), and Tuesdays with Morrie. For 20 years Epstein and Martha Schlamme performed A Kurt Weill Cabaret on tour in the
U.S. and South America, with a year’s run on Broadway.
Epstein reprised the role of Lucky in the 1961 TV movie
version of Waiting for Godot. He also played in the TV series
The Doctors (1981) and appeared in the TV movie Doing Life
(1986). On the big screen, he had a role in Never Met Picasso(1996) and Alma Mater (2002). Epstein also lent his voice tothe films Everybody Rides the Carousel (1975) and Beauty andthe Beast (1991).
In 2004 he became involved with the Colleagues TheaterCompany in New York. Founded in 1996 by Catherine Wolf,
its aim is to “identify and develop performance opportunities
for the mature and seasoned actor and to provide training opportunities in theatrical craftsmanship for gifted high school
graduates from underserved communities.” Epstein appearedin the CTC’s productions of The Mad Woman of Chaillot; 24
Evenings of Wit and Wisdom; and Tasting Memories.
[Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]EPSTEIN, ARYEH LEIB BEN MORDECAI (1705–1775),
rabbi and kabbalist. Epstein was born in Grodno and was apupil of Isaac of Grodno, Poland, and Aryeh Leib b. Nathan ofSlutsk. After a brief period as a merchant he took up the position of preacher in Grodno and in 1741 became rabbi in Berestovitsa and Golynka. In 1745 he went to Koenigsberg, where
he developed an extensive educational system. He sided with
Jonathan *Eybeschuetz in the latter’s dispute with Jacob *Emden, sharply criticizing the bickering in rabbinical circles. Two
inquiries which he sent to Eybeschuetz in 1758 are extant, theone dealing with a halakhic matter, the other with the liturgy.
Epstein was responsible for the introduction of a number ofimportant takkanot in the Koenigsberg community and also
for the establishment of the Great Synagogue there.
His works include Or ha-Shanim, on the 613 commandments (Frankfurt on the Oder, 1754); Sefer ha-Pardes, consisting of novellae to tractate Shabbat; sermons; funeral orations;a treatise on positive and negative commandments called
Yalkut Sakhar va-Onesh, with an appendix entitled Kunteres
ha-Re’ayot on Shulḥ an Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥ ayyim (Koenigsberg,
1764); and Mishnat Gur-Aryeh, a commentary on Isaac *Luria’s
prayer book (published in part only, Koenigsberg, 1765). He
also published his responsa under the title Teshuvot Maharal(Morenu ha-Rav R. Aryeh Leib; ibid., 1769); wrote glosses to
the Talmud (together with his son Abraham Meir); glosses andnovellae to Shulḥ an Arukh, Yoreh De’ah, to which his son also
contributed (Vilna, 1883); and several other works.
Bibliography: J. Emden, Mitpaḥ at Sefarim (Lemberg, 1870),
119; D. Kahana, Toledot ha-Shabbeta’im ve-ha-Ḥ asidim, 2 (1914), 57;
S.A. Friedenstein, Ir Gibborim (1880), 41, 44ff., 47–50; E.M. Epstein,
Gevurot ha-Ari (18882); H.N. Maggid (Steinschneider), Ir Vilna(1900), 44; Sefer Yahadut Lita, 3 (1967), 30.
[Samuel Abba Horodezky]467

epstein, baruch ha-levi
EPSTEIN, BARUCH HALEVI (1860–1942), Russian talmudic scholar. Born in Bobruisk, Epstein received his earlyeducation from his father, R. Jehiel Michal *Epstein, author of
Arukh ha-Shulḥ an. In his youth he distinguished himself by
his unusual diligence and his phenomenal memory. He continued his studies under his uncle, Naphtali Ẓ evi Judah *Berlin, who, recognizing his outstanding abilities, devoted special
attention to him. Berlin later married Baruch’s sister. Epstein
declined offers to occupy rabbinical positions in such great
communities as Pinsk, Moscow, and Petrograd, preferring towork in a bank and to devote all his spare time to his studies.
His correspondence with many leading scholars brought him
wide recognition. Epstein is best known for his Torah Temimah, a compilation of quotations from the oral law arranged
according to the scriptural verses to which they refer and annotated by a brilliant commentary which attests to his vastand profound knowledge of Talmud.
Bibliography: B. Epstein, Mekor Barukh (1928); H. Seidman, Elleh Ezkerah, 1 (1956), 142–9; Sefer Yahadut Lita, 1 (1959), 293,
no. 5; 3 (1967), 31, under his father’s name; A.Z. Tarshish, R. Barukh
ha-Levi Epstein (1967).

direction, the Beatles began enjoying the greatest success thatany popular artists had ever achieved.
Epstein’s homosexuality, and his alleged infatuation with
Lennon, were the subject of many articles and books. It was
extensively rumored that in the Beatles’ song “Baby You’re A
Rich Man,” Lennon sang “Baby you’re a rich fag Jew” as a slur
against Epstein. The audible ambiguity of the recording fueled the rumor into a worldwide urban legend, though it wasnever authoritatively confirmed.
Epstein died of a drug overdose, likely from some sortof sleeping pills, at age 32. Once he died the Beatles became
embroiled in a tangle of conflicts, money squabbles, and personal jealousies, and their business affairs began to unravel.
Within three more years the group disbanded.
In addition to managing the Beatles, Epstein also managed Gerry & the Pacemakers, Billy J. Kramer & The Dakotas,
The Fourmost, and Cilla Black. He wrote an autobiography, A
Cellarful of Noise (1964).
[Elli Wohlgelernter (2nd ed.)]EPSTEIN, BRIAN SAMUEL (Shmuel; 1934–1967), British
impresario, one of history’s most successful show business entrepreneurs whose success in managing the Beatles changed
the world of music. Epstein was born on Yom Kippur to Harry(Tzvi) and Malka (“Queenie”) in Liverpool, where the family
owned a furniture store and where Epstein became managerof the store’s record department. When his father opened an
NEMS music store on Whitechapel Street, Brian was put incharge, becoming fully engrossed in the world of music andwriting a music column for Mersey Beat beginning August
3, 1961. The store was down the street and around the cornerfrom a basement nightclub called The Cavern, and it was there
on November 9, 1961, that Epstein first met and saw the Beatles
perform. Three weeks later he approached John Lennon andoffered to become the Beatles’ manager. Paul McCartney’s father – who had once bought a piano at the Epstein furniture
store – immediately approved, telling Paul that Epstein would
make a good manager. “He thought Jewish people were very
good with money,” McCartney said years later. “That was thecommon wisdom. He thought Brian would be very good for
us.… And he was right.… If anyone was the fifth Beatle, it
was Brian.”
Epstein immediately changed the Beatles’ appearance
from their unpolished, jeans and leather-jacket greaser look
to one of neatly tailored matching suits; and he ordered themnot to eat, smoke, or swear on stage and to bow to the audience
after each number. After getting rejected by all the major British record companies, Epstein landed the Beatles a recording
contract in June 1962 with EMI’s smallest labels, Parlophone,headed by Sir George Martin. Drummer Pete Best was fired
and replaced by Ringo Starr, and the elements for success were
now in place. Indeed, in little more than a year under Epstein’s

EPSTEIN, CHAIM FISCHEL (1874–1942), Orthodox rabbi.
Born in Taurogen, Lithuania, Epstein was recognized for hisbrilliance at an early age. After studying Talmud at the famed
Telshe Yeshiva, Epstein wrote his first book, Ḥ inukh le-Na’ar(a commentary on Aaron Ha-Levi’s Sefer ha-Ḥ inukh), at age
16. That same year, he entered the Volozhin yeshivah, studying under its famed leaders, Rabbi Naphtali Ẓ evi Judah *Berlin and Rabbi Ḥ ayyim *Soloveitchik. At only 18 years of age,
Epstein was ordained as a rabbi by Rabbi Soloveitchik andRabbi Shelomo Cohen of Vilna.
Notably, Epstein also studied secular subjects, which
many other Orthodox rabbis of his time did not, earning theequivalent of a high school diploma at a gymnasium in Shedlitz. Epstein also displayed an energetic interest in the fledgling Zionist movement. He wrote poetry about the Land of
Israel, was affiliated with the *Ḥ ibbat Zion movement, andattended a Zionist conference in Minsk in 1902. Eventually,
he became a founder of the Mizrachi movement of religious
Zionists, and continued to endorse Zionism after immigrating to the U.S.
At age 24 Epstein began a series of rabbinical positions,
including Grosowa (near Minsk) and Sainee, where he remained until the outbreak of World War I. Toward the end of
the war, Epstein was named chief rabbi of an Estonian Jewish
region. During this time, Epstein completed a Ph.D. degree
and taught Jewish philosophy at the local university.
Epstein declined invitations to serve congregations in
London and Liverpool, instead immigrating to the U.S. in 1923.
He served many communities, including in Bayonne, New
Jersey; Cleveland; Cincinnati; and Brooklyn. Like many of
his colleagues from Eastern Europe, he faced resistance from
more liberal lay leaders and congregants regarding standardsof Jewish practice, particularly kashrut. Yet Epstein’s reputation as a scholar assured that many rabbinical colleagues andlay leaders came to him to adjudicate matters of Jewish law.

468

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Mordechai Hacohen]Epstein, Gilbert
In 1923, he served as a rabbinical judge in a kashrut dispute
between two prominent Canadian rabbis. Epstein wrote several volumes of highly regarded responsa, including Teshuvah
Shelemah. A second volume addressing matters of American
concern was published in 1940 in the U.S.
Epstein lived his later years in St. Louis, serving as chief
rabbi of the United Orthodox community and head of thecity’s newly established Va’ad ha-Ir. He remained the leading
Orthodox rabbi in St. Louis until his death.
Bibliography: M. Sherman, Orthodox Judaism in America (1996).
[Michael Berenbaum (2nd ed.)]EPSTEIN, CHARLOTTE (1884–1938), U.S. swimmer andchampion of U.S. women’s participation in the Olympic
Games; known as the “Mother of Women’s Swimming in
America.” The daughter of Moritz H. and Sara Epstein, Charlotte was born in New York City and educated at the Ethical
Culture School. She became a court stenographer. Epstein,
who enjoyed swimming competitively, joined the recently
formed National Women’s Life-Saving League in 1911; in 1913,
she served as chair of the Athletic Branch of the National
Women’s Life-Saving League in which role she and colleagues
campaigned to reform gender constraints in aquatic sports
and to convince the Amateur Athletic Union (AAU) to allow
women to compete in Olympic aquatic events.
In October 1917 Epstein founded the New York City
Women’s Swimming Association (WSA), a non-profit club, toadvance the sport of women’s swimming. “Eppie,” as she was
known, launched the swimming careers of many Americanand Olympic swimming champions when she became teammanager of WSA, chairman of its Sports Committee and, in
1929, president. She successfully battled the U.S. Olympic
Committee to enable American female swimmers and divers
to compete in the 1920 Olympics in Antwerp, Belgium, thefirst time women participated in aquatic Olympic events. As
U.S. Olympic Women’s Swimming Team Manager in 1920,
1924, and 1932, Epstein’s WSA members won Olympic championships and set numerous world records. Epstein served aschair of the national AAU women’s swimming committee.
Eppie worked with Jewish organizations with suitableswimming pools. The WSA team of Olympians swam at theYoung Women’s Hebrew Association of New York for national
championship meets in the 1920s. In 1935 Epstein served aschair of the Swimming Committee of the Second MaccabiahGames where WSA swimmer Janice Lifson triumphed. In
1936 Epstein refused to attend the Berlin Olympic Games andwithdrew from the American Olympic Committee in protest
at U.S. participation in the “Nazi Olympics.” Epstein’s major
influence on swimming continued until her death. She was
inducted into the International Swimming Hall of Fame andthe International Jewish Sport Hall of Fame.

Women in Aquatic Sports,” in: The International Journal of the History of Sport, 21 (March 2004), 197–235; idem, “Epstein, Charlotte,”
in: P.E. Hyman and D. Dash Moore, Jewish Women in America: An
Historical Encyclopedia, vol. 1 (1997), 380–82.
[Linda J. Borish (2nd ed.)]EPSTEIN, CLAIRE (1911–2000), Israeli archaeologist, expert on the Chalcolithic culture of the Golan Heights. Born
in London, Epstein was the only daughter and oldest of threechildren of German immigrants, Olga and Mortimer Epstein.
Educated at the University of London in English and Italian
literature, Epstein became active in Zionist circles, studying
Hebrew and helping to found the local branch of the Habonim
youth movement. She also translated material from Hebrew
for the Peel Commission. In 1937 Epstein immigrated to British Mandate Palestine, settling in Tel Aviv where she worked
as liaison to the Mandate Government until 1942. Answering a call to help with the war effort, she joined the Women’s
Corps of the British army, serving four and a half years in
Egypt. Shortly after returning to Tel Aviv, Epstein became amember of the newly established kibbutz En Gev on the S.E.
shore of the Sea of Galilee. In 1955 Epstein joined kibbutz Ginnosar and remained one of its members for the rest of her life.
Epstein’s first digging experience was as a field supervisor on
the Tel Hazor under the direction of Yigael Yadin. It was onlyat the age of 50 that Epstein embarked on her formal studies
at the Institute of Archaeology of University College, London, eventually earning her Ph.D. under Kathleen Kenyon
in 1962 on the subject of “Palestinian Bichrome” pottery. Asa full-time archaeologist, working for the Israel Departmentof Antiquities (later the Israel Antiquities Authority), Epstein
conducted numerous surveys and excavations in Israel, notably the Golan emergency archaeological survey in 1967. Subsequently Epstein excavated numerous Chalcolithic sites on
the Golan Heights, and the results of her work were eventually
published in a monograph titled The Chalcolithic Culture of theGolan (1998). Epstein was the author of numerous articles on
the late prehistory of Israel, including excavation reports, andresearch papers, one of which was on her interpretation of thestratigraphy of the sacred area at Megiddo. Epstein was therecipient of numerous prizes: the Percy Schimmel Award, theprestigious Israel Prize, and the Irene Levy-Sala Award.
Bibliography: “Obituaries: Claire Epstein (1911–2000),” in:Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society, 18 (2000), 111–14.
[Eliot Braun (2nd ed.)]Bibliography: L.J. Borish, “‘The Cradle of American Champions, Women Champions … Swim Champions’: Charlotte Epstein, Gender and Jewish Identity, and the Physical Emancipation of

EPSTEIN, GILBERT (1927– ), U.S. Conservative rabbi. Epstein was born in New York City, educated at Yeshiva University (1948), and then moved to the Jewish TheologicalSeminary, where he was ordained in 1952. He then servedin congregations in the New York suburbs of Woodmere(1952–55) and Hewlitt (1955–61) before moving to the Conservative synagogue on Fifth Avenue. He was among the firstto lead teen tours to Israel and was the first director of Kefar
Silver’s summer camp in Israel (1962–64).

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6469

Epstein, Harry H.
In 1965 Epstein joined the *Rabbinical Assembly andheaded its Joint Commission on Rabbinic Placement, the very
sensitive job and highly political position of matching rabbis
with congregations, thus enabling young rabbis to advance,
successful rabbis to move to larger and ever larger congregations, and those whose careers have been difficult to find additional employment. It was a position that he handled withgrace and tact. His task was to deal with rabbis and congregations in times of crisis and transition. During the years ofmajor growth of the Conservative movement, the job was exceedingly demanding because there were so many positions to
fill. As the rate of expansion declined and the need for rabbis
settled down, his work became difficult in a different sense as
he had to redirect rabbis to positions where they could succeed. He helped Wolfe *Kelman and represented the Conservative Rabbinate in many national organizations including the
National Conference of Soviet Jewry, the New York Board of
Rabbis, and the Conference of Presidents of Major American
Jewish Organizations.
[Michael Berenbaum (2nd ed.)]EPSTEIN, HARRY H. (1903–2003), U.S. rabbi. Epstein wasborn in Plunge, Lithuania, and raised in New York and especially Chicago. He attended the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, where Bernard *Revel became a mentor. Epstein
continued his education at the famed Slobodka Yeshivah andits branch in Hebron, Palestine, both of which were headedby his uncle, Moses Mordecai *Epstein. He obtained traditional semikhah (ordination) from three rabbis, including
Abraham Isaac *Kook, later the first Ashkenazi chief rabbi of
Israel. He also obtained B.Ph. and M.A. degrees from Emory
University, a Ph.D. from the School of Law of the University
of Illinois, and a D.D. (honorus causa) from the Jewish Theological Seminary.
Epstein’s was a surprisingly eclectic education given thedominant influence of his traditionalist father, Ephraim, an
Orthodox rabbi who helped launch what became Chicago’s
Hebrew Theological College. The Slobodka Yeshivah wasnoted for the *Musar approach, which fostered modern Jewish character through piety and faith alongside talmudic study.
RIETS provided American Orthodox training but the remainder of his education, including public school in Chicago, wassecular. His background prepared him well for an evolving
East European-American Judaism and rabbinical career.
After a year filling a pulpit at Tulsa’s B’nai Emunah, Revel’s father-in-law’s congregation, where Epstein advised oilrich members on philanthropy, in 1928 he became the rabbi
at Ahavath Achim, the more affluent of Atlanta’s four Orthodox synagogues. Fluent in Yiddish and English, and mixing
learned Talmud classes for the old guard with early Friday
night services for their acculturating children, Epstein offered
a trans-generational, gradual accommodation to middle-class
Jewish life in America by becoming an exemplar of the Modern Orthodoxy championed by Joseph *Lookstein and Leo*Jung during the interwar years. Traditional observance was

470

coupled with modern education in a synagogue-center environment hosting a variety of activities. Epstein, who lost abrother in the 1929 Hebron massacre, also led his congregation
as an ardent Zionist. He headed regional Zionist efforts, participated in national conferences during World War II to aid
European Jewry, co-chaired Atlanta Jewish Federation campaigns with Reform Rabbi Jacob Rothschild after the war, andserved as a model for modern, traditional rabbis throughout
the South. Following national trends he drew his congregation
into the Conservative fold in 1954, something he later regretted when his successor, Arnold Goodman, allowed women
to read from the Torah and he realized that Orthodoxy could
have survived.
Epstein wrote Judaism and Progress: Sermons and Addresses (1934).
Bibliography: M.K. Bauman, Harry H. Epstein and the Rabbinate as Conduit for Change (1994); K.W. Stein, A History of Ahavath
Achim Synagogue, 1887–1987 (1987).
[Mark K. Bauman (2nd ed.)]EPSTEIN, ISAAC BEN MORDECAI (c. 1780–1857), talmudist and kabbalist. Epstein, who had already written halakhic works in his youth, attached himself against the will of
his grandfather to *Chabad Ḥ asidism, and thenceforth devoted himself to the study of Kabbalah and Chabad teaching,burning his previous halakhic writings. He felt that only *Shneur Zalman of Lyady, whose favorite pupil he became, wascapable of revealing the innermost secrets of the divine Law.
Epstein served as rabbi of Gomel. In his old age he himself
made his debut as a ẓ addik. In the handling of halakhic problems he took pains to write in an unpretentious and clear style.
He left ten studies on Chabad teaching including Ma’amar haShiflut ve-ha-Simḥ ah (1864) and Ma’amar Yeẓ i’at Miẓ rayim(1877); the others are in manuscript. He also wrote homilies
for the weekly portions of the Law and the festivals, some ofwhich were published with his Ma’amar Yeẓ i’at Miẓ rayim.
Bibliography: Bermann, in: Keneset ha-Gedolah, ed. by S.
Suwalski, 1 pt. 3 (1890), 18–22; I. Heilmann, Beit-Rabbi, 1 (1965, photogr. reprint of 1902), 136, 165–6, 174–5.
[Samuel Abba Horodezky]

EPSTEIN, ISIDORE (1894–1962), English rabbi and scholar.
Epstein was born in Kovno, Lithuania, and immigrated withhis parents first to France and then in 1911 to England. He later
studied in Hungarian yeshivot, particularly at Pressburg, andat London University until 1926. From 1921 to 1928 he served
as rabbi in Middlesborough. In 1928 Epstein began teaching
Semitics at Jews’ College where he was also librarian; in 1945
he became director of studies; and in 1948, principal. Epstein
expanded the activities of Jews’ College by introducing aḥ azzanut department, a rabbinical diploma class, and an institute for training teachers.
Epstein’s first publications were in history as reflected in
responsa: Responsa of Rabbi Solomon b. Adreth of Barcelona(1235–1310) as a Source of the History of Spain (1925) and The
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

epstein, sir jacob

Responsa of Rabbi Simon b. Zemah Duran as a Source of theHistory of the Jews in North Africa (1930); they were publishedtogether in their second editions as Studies in the Communal
Life of the Jews of Spain, as Reflected in the Responsa of Rabbi
Solomon ben Adreth and Rabbi Simeon ben Zemach Duran(1968). His Faith of Judaism (1954) is an important theological statement of the Orthodox position in the light of modern philosophy and science. While this work addressed itself
chiefly to the believing Jew, Epstein’s Judaism (1954), “a historical presentation,” spoke to the non-Jewish world. Epstein
contributed the article on Judaism to the Encyclopaedia Britannica (from the 1958 edition onward). He was the first Jewish scholar to be given this assignment and the first to present
Judaism in its entirety, not merely as a forerunner of Christianity. Articles on Jewish subjects in Chambers’ Encyclopedia,
too, were either written or edited by him (1950 and subsequent editions). Epstein’s major achievement in Jewish scholarship was supervising the English translation of the Babylonian Talmud (Soncino, 35 vols., 1935–52; 18 vols., 1961). This
monumental work made the Talmud accessible to the English-speaking world. Epstein also edited Moses Maimonides,
1135–1204; Anglo-Jewish Papers in Connection with the Eighth
Century of His Birth (1935) and coedited Essays in Honor of
the Very Rev. Dr. J.H. Hertz (1943); he had assisted *Hertz withmany of his publications. Apart from contributions to learned
periodicals and Festschriften, Epstein also published a varietyof theological and historical studies for educational purposes.
As a scholar, writer, and educator, Epstein played a significant
role in modern Anglo-Jewish scholarship.

glossie” (1915). In “She’elah Ne’lamah” (“The Obscure Question,” Ha-Shilo’aḥ , 17 (1907), 193–206), he discussed JewishArab relationships in Ereẓ Israel and urged Zionists to adopt
a more compromising attitude.
After World War I, Epstein returned to Ereẓ Israel where
he served for a short time as principal of the Lewinsky Teachers’ Seminary in Jaffa and then as supervisor of the schools
under the auspices of the Zionist movement. Upon resigning from his official duties, he devoted himself to the study ofHebrew linguistics, concentrating especially on problems ofphonetics. He coined many new words and phrases, particularly in pedagogy and psychology. Among his other books are
Hegyonei Lashon (1947) and Meḥ karim ba-Psikhologyah shel
ha-Lashon ve-ha-Ḥ innukh ha-Ivri (1947).
Bibliography: “Yiẓ ḥ ak Epstein,” in: Sifriyyat Rishonim, 8:1,
1943; Tidhar, 2 (1947), 822f.

EPSTEIN, IZHAC (1862–1943), Hebrew writer and linguist,and a pioneer in modern Hebrew education in Ereẓ Israel andin the Diaspora. The brother of the writer Zalman *Epstein,
he was born in Luban, Belorussia. In 1886 he (together withfive others) was sent to Palestine for training in agriculturalcolonies at the expense of Baron Edmond de Rothschild. After working for four years in Zikhron Ya’akov and Rosh Pinnah, he became a teacher. In 1891 he was appointed principalof a public school which had just been opened in Safed andlater taught in public schools in Metullah and Rosh Pinnah.
He studied at the University of Lausanne from 1902 to 1908and directed the Alliance school in Salonika from 1908 to 1915.
Influenced by the psychophysiological school of T.A. Ribot,
Epstein pioneered in the new method (the “natural” method)of teaching Hebrew. According to this system explanations
are made only in the language that is being taught. Epstein
expounded the new method in “Ivrit be-Ivrit” (Ha-Shilo’aḥ , 4(1898), 385–96), which was later published as an introduction
to his textbook of that name in 1900. The work had a fundamental influence on Hebrew teaching. The subject was also
treated by Epstein in his doctoral thesis “La Pensée et la Poly-EPSTEIN, SIR JACOB (1880–1959), English sculptor, considered one of the greatest sculptors of the 20t century, andprobably the most famous Anglo-Jewish artist of his time. He
was born on New York’s Lower East Side into a family of Polish
Jewish immigrants and studied at the Art Students League. His
first assignment came from the non-Jewish writer, Hutchins
Hapgood, who asked him to illustrate a book about the Jewish quarter of New York, The Spirit of the Ghetto (1902, reissued 1967). He used the fee to go to Paris, where he studied at
the Ecole des Beaux-Arts. In 1905 he went to London, whichbecame his home for the rest of his life; he was naturalized
in 1910. In 1907 he was commissioned to decorate the facadeof the British Medical Association in the Strand. His series of
18 figures, The Birth of Energy, shocked the British public because he had refused to disguise sexual characteristics, andbecause one figure was of a woman in advanced pregnancy.
The nationwide protest made him famous. Epstein remained
the subject of heated moral and aesthetic criticism almost to
the end of his career.
Epstein was an admirer of the prehistoric carvers, thearchaic Greek sculptors, the African, Polynesian, and preColumbian image-makers. In creating his works he drewon his vast knowledge of the sculpture of all places andperiods, yet always retained the powerful imprint of his own
style. His style passed through several successive phases.
The Birth of Energy was executed in a naturalistic classicaltradition. The Tomb of Oscar Wilde in Paris (1912) is in a very
different style. It consists of a strange figure with a humanface and swept-back wings reminiscent of the hieratic winged
bulls of Assyrian sculpture. The face is surmounted by acrown decorated with representations of the Seven Deadly
Sins.
Epstein’s only abstract sculptures were executed during
the years 1913–15. Rock Drill (1913) is a sculpture romanticizing the power of the machine; Venus I and Venus II are also
experiments in abstraction. In later years Epstein felt that abstract sculpture was of no value in itself, but that it had helped
him to develop his sense of form.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6471

Bibliography: H. Zeidman, in: S. Federbush (ed.), Ḥ okhmat
Yisrael be-Eiropah (1965), 18–26; C. Roth and R.P. Lehman, in: JHSET,
21 (1968), 327–36.
[Hirsch Jacob Zimmels]

epstein, jacob nahum
In the monumental works executed after World War I,
Epstein aroused hostile criticism by his expressionist distortion of form and by his treatment of sacred themes in a deliberately crude and primitive style. By this means he endeavored
to express elemental forces. Genesis (1931) is the solid, heavy
figure of a pregnant woman with a brooding head like an African mask. The dynamic, advancing figure of Adam (1939) iseven more “primitive.” Jacob and the Angel (1941) is more naturalistic. His sculptures on Christian themes also gave rise tocontroversy owing to his unorthodox treatment of traditional
subjects. In his day Epstein was probably the most controversial artist in Britain, arousing fierce hostility, often laced withovert or covert antisemitism, from conservatives, but also
great praise from many experts.
Throughout his life Epstein cast portraits in bronze, andmany critics believe that as a portraitist he was second only
to Rodin. Executed in a naturalistic, renaissance style, theseworks aimed at expressing the personality rather than themere physical features of the sitter. Characteristic of thesebronzes is the pitting and furrowing of the surface to suggest
the clay from which they were cast. Among the many eminent
figures Epstein portrayed were Albert Einstein, Chaim Weizmann, and Yehudi Menuhin. He was also an excellent draftsman; his drawings included illustrations of the Old Testament,
and a series inspired by Baudelaire’s Les Fleurs du Mal.
By the end of World War II Epstein had become acceptable to the British art establishment, and in 1954 he was
knighted. Although he had no organizational links with Judaism, he always recalled with great warmth his origins in
the New York ghetto, and never lost his broad Lower East
Side accent. He said in his memoirs (Let there be Sculpture,1942): “I imagine that the feeling I have for expressing a human point of view, giving human rather than abstract implications to my work, comes from these early formative years.” In
his late period, Epstein executed a number of religious works.
These are in a sense more conservative than his earlier works
and though elements of abstraction and distortion still exist they are no longer so dominant. They include Lazarus in
the chapel of New College, Oxford (1947), the Madonna andChild in Cavendish Square, London (1953), the Christ in Majesty (1957) at Llandaff Cathedral, and the St. Michael and theDevil (1959) at Coventry. After his death, 105 of his clay models were donated to the Israel Museum, Jerusalem, by Lady
Epstein. He wrote an autobiography, Let There Be Sculpture(1940), which he published in revised form in 1955 as Epstein:
An Autobiography.

EPSTEIN, JACOB NAHUM (1878–1952), Talmud scholar.
Born in Brest-Litovsk, Epstein studied at home with his father, at the Mir yeshivah, and at the universities in Vienna

and Berne, receiving his doctorate from the latter. In 1923 hebecame lecturer at the Hochschule fuer die Wissenschaft desJudentums in Berlin and in 1925 professor of talmudic philology at the newly founded Hebrew University. He formulated
the basis for a new approach to talmudic studies in which hetrained generations of scholars, and such outstanding individuals as S. Lieberman, G. Alon, S. Abramson, M. Margaliot, and E.Z. Melammed. On the occasion of his 70t birthday, pupils and fellow scholars presented him with a jubilee
volume. Early in his career Epstein devoted studies to booksof the Bible and the Elephantine papyri, but the major portion of his life’s work was dedicated to rabbinical literature,
particularly to the Mishnah text about which he wrote Mavo
le-Nusaḥ ha-Mishnah (2 vols., 1948). This work is considered to be the most authoritative study of the original text of
the Mishnah. The author displays great erudition and critical acumen in attempting to establish the correct version of
the Mishnah and its development. He clarifies many difficult
passages in the Mishnah and the Talmudim. Two works were
published posthumously, edited by E.Z. Melammed: Mevo’ot
le-Sifrut ha-Tanna’im (1957, containing an introduction to theMishnah and Tosefta, introductions to the 18 masekhtot of theMishnah, and an introduction to halakhic Midrashim) andMevo’ot le-Sifrut ha-Amora’im (1962, including introductions
to nine tractates of the Babylonian Talmud, an introduction
to the Jerusalem Talmud, and alternate versions of the latter,
down to the end of tractate Shabbat). These works, together
with the preliminary studies such as Dikduk Aramit Bavlit(“Babylonian Aramaic Grammar,” ed. by E.Z. Melammed,
1960), were actually preparatory to a critical edition of theMishnah text, which unfortunately remained an unfulfilled
dream. Epstein was also concerned with establishing a correct
version of the Jerusalem Talmud, a problem connected withthe relationship between the editio princeps and the Leiden
manuscript. He also initiated the ambitious plan of translating
the Babylonian Talmud into Hebrew, accompanied by variant
texts and a short commentary. Three tractates (Bava Kamma,
Bava Meẓ ia, and Bava Batra) were published (1952–60).
It was natural that other early rabbinic texts should similarly engage Epstein’s attention. He defined the Tosefta to be a
supplement to the Mishnah recording older materials, omitting controversies and traditions, and commenting on established (Mishnah) texts. He also wrote studies on the halakhic
Midrashim and prepared a new edition of the Mekhilta deR. Simeon ben Yoḥ ai (ed. by E.Z. Melammed, 1955) which, in
addition to being reconstructed from materials embodied insuch other works as D. Hoffmann’s edition of 1905, used fragments of this lost Midrash found in the Cairo Genizah.
In the field of geonic literature, Epstein edited the geonic commentary to the sixth order of the Mishnah (Tohorot,
1921–24; supplement, 1945), the introduction to which hadstudies on the *She’iltot of R. Aḥ a Gaon. He devoted otherstudies to such medieval talmudic commentators as Rashi
and his son-in-law and pupil, the early tosafist, Judah b. Nathan; Elijah b. Menahem of London; Yom Tov b. Abraham

472

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: R. Buckle, Jacob Epstein, Sculptor (1963).
Add. Bibliography: ODNB online; S. Gardiner, Epstein: Artist
Against the Establishment (1992); J. Rose, Daemons and Angels: A Lifeof Jacob Epstein (2002).
[Alfred Werner]epstein, jehiel michal ben abraham halevi
and others. His contribution to the modern study of rabbinical literature was of far-reaching importance. Epstein’s essays
and reviews appeared in many learned periodicals, and he wascofounder and coeditor of the quarterly Devir (1923–24), andedited the first 23 volumes of the quarterly Tarbiz (1930–52).
He was an active member of the Vaad ha-Lashon and presided
over several of its committees.
Bibliography: Sefer ha-Yovel… J.N. Epstein (= Tarbiz, 20,1950); S. Abramson, J.N. Epstein, Reshimah Bibliografit … ve-Toledot Ḥ ayyav (1942); M. Schwabe, et al., Le-Zikhro shel J.N. Epstein(1952); Loewinger, in: S. Federbush (ed.), Ḥ okhmat Yisra’el be-Ma’arav
Eiropah, 2 (1963), 49ff.

EPSTEIN, JEAN (1897–1953), French director. Epstein wasborn in Warsaw but lived and worked in France. As a young
man the experimental cinema attracted him, and he directed
his first film, Pasteur, when he was 25, thereafter working
largely in the realistic mode, using outdoor settings and everyday scenes in such films as La Belle Nivernaise and Finis
Terrae (1928), a documentary-style tale of Bannec island fishermen. In La Chute de la Maison Usher (1928) he created notable indoor atmospheric effects as well, introducing the useof slow motion. One of his last films was Les Feux de la Mer(1948). His sister MARIE EPSTEIN (1899–1995) worked withhim and also with Jean Benoît-Lévy, writing the screenplay
for and sharing direction of the classic La Maternelle (1933)
with Benoît-Lévy.
EPSTEIN, JEHIEL MICHAL BEN AARON ISAAC HALEVI (1829–1908), rabbi and halakhic authority. Epstein wasborn in Bobruisk, Belorussia. He studied in Volozhin under
R. Isaac of Volozhin from 1842. At first unwilling to enter the
rabbinate, he was persuaded to do so by the rabbi of his native town, R. Elijah Goldberg, who formally ordained him, andc. 1862 he was appointed to his first rabbinate in Novosybkov
where there were many *Chabad Ḥ asidim. During that period he visited R. Menahem Mendel of Lyubavich, author ofẒ emaḥ Ẓ edek, from whom he also received semikhah. In 1874
he was appointed rabbi of Novogrudok, Belorussia, where heremained until his death.
Epstein’s fame rests upon his Arukh ha-Shulḥ an, consisting of novellae and halakhic rulings on the four parts of the
Shulḥ an Arukh: Oraḥ Ḥ ayyim (1903–07), Yoreh De’ah (1894–98), Even ha-Ezer (1905–06), and Ḥ oshen Mishpat (1884–93).
In the introduction to the volume on Ḥ oshen Mishpat, Epstein
explains that just as Maimonides saw the need to compose theMishneh Torah and Joseph Caro the Shulḥ an Arukh, in order
to codify the halakhah in their times, there was now a needto bring the Shulḥ an Arukh up to date by giving the halakhic
rulings which had been promulgated by authorities subsequent to Caro, both in works devoted to that purpose and in
responsa. He said that “great anxiety and confusion” had resulted from those new rulings and his work was intended togive the final halakhic summation up to his day. Although in
its external arrangement the work follows the chapters of the
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Shulḥ an Arukh, in its internal arrangements he conforms tothat of the Mishneh Torah of Maimonides. According to Epstein the principal aim of the study of Torah is not dialectical and casuistic exercise, the “uprooting of mountains”; but
to arrive at a definite knowledge of the halakhah. He showeda marked tendency toward leniency in his rulings, and hegave expression to this tendency in a statement to Rabbi J.L.
*Maimon who obtained semikhah from him. “When any problem in connection with the prohibitions of the Torah comes
before you, you must first presume it is permitted, and only
after you have carefully studied the rishonim and can find no
possibility of leniency are you obliged to rule that it is forbidden” (Maimon, Sarei ha-Me’ah, p. 112).
The Arukh ha-Shulḥ an has become an authoritative
work. Like the Shulḥ an Arukh on which it is based, it deals
only with the laws which have a practical importance. After
Epstein completed it, however, he undertook the writing ofadditional works dealing with such laws as are not applicable at the present time, to which he gave the suggestive title
Arukh ha-Shulḥ an le-Atid (“Arukh ha-Shulḥ an for the Future”), which were published posthumously. They deal with
agricultural laws (Zera’im, 3 pts., 1938–46); Sanhedrin, Mamrim, Melakhim, Shekalim, and Kiddush ha-Ḥ odesh (1962); andKodashim (1969). In them he takes especial care to indicate
his sources, tracing the development of each law from its firstsource to its latest form. His son Baruch *Epstein gives an attractive picture of the manner in which his father would encourage candidates to the rabbinate. He would exhort themalways to consider the pros and cons before giving a halakhic
decision, and to show every consideration to the person putting the problem, so as not to confuse him.
Among his other works are Or la-Yesharim (1869), a commentary on the Sefer ha-Yashar of Jacob *Tam in which he defends Tam against the criticisms leveled against him by later
authorities. Only two of his responsa have been published (inthe Even Me’ir of M. Gordon, 1909).
Bibliography: B. Epstein, Mekor Barukh, 3 (1928), 1163–75;
H. Tchernowitz, Toledot ha-Posekim, 3 (1947), 299–305; J.L. Maimon(Fishman), Anashim shel Ẓ urah (1947), 133–79; S.Y. Zevin, Soferim
u-Sefarim (1959), 30–35; A.Z. Tarshish, R. Barukh ha-Levi Epstein(1967), 41–69.
[Yehoshua Horowitz]

EPSTEIN, JEHIEL MICHAL BEN ABRAHAM HALEVI(d. 1706), German rabbi and author. Epstein is principally
known for his Kiẓ ẓ ur Shelah (Fuerth, 1683, 1696) and for asiddur which he issued with a translation of the prayers, laws,
and customs in Yiddish, entitled Derekh Yesharah (Frankfurt,
1697). These he wrote largely for the benefit of Jews living in
isolated villages that were without the guidance of rabbis andteachers. Kiẓ ẓ ur Shelah, mainly an abbreviated version of Isaiah *Horowitz’ Shenei Luḥ ot ha-Berit (Shelah), also contains
glosses as well as new laws and customs which Epstein extracted from works appearing after the publication of Horowitz’ book. In addition, the author deals with Jewish educa-473

epstein, judithtion, its organization and syllabus. Criticizing the prevailingsystem, he proposed that the pupils be first taught the Bible
and the four sedarim of the Mishnah relevant to the times(an approach reminiscent of that of *Judah Loew b. Bezalel
of Prague) and only subsequently the Talmud and the codes.
He opposed the form of casuistry known as ḥ illukim on thebasis of its being largely forced. The proposed educational
reform could, he maintained, only be achieved through cooperation between the ḥ eder, the home, and the bet midrash.
Kiẓ ẓ ur Shelah was translated into Yiddish by Wolf Gershelsof Prague under the title of Eẓ Ḥ ayyim (Frankfurt, 1720), 39
editions of which have appeared. It is very doubtful whether
he had any associations with the Shabbatean movement, although he was suspected of it because of the wording of a certain passage in his siddur. He was also the author of Derekh
ha-Yashar la-Olam ha-Ba (Frankfurt, 1703), an ethical work
written in Yiddish, which language, he contended, had becomea religious and cultural necessity in Jewish life; since it had
acquired a sacred character, the gulf between it and Hebrew,
the holy tongue, was progressively diminishing. His works
provide an insight into the contemporary life of the smaller
Jewish communities of Germany.
Bibliography: M. Horovitz, Avnei Zikkaron (1901), 158; J.
Freimann, in: JJLG, 15 (1923), 37; B. Wachstein, ibid., 16 (1924), 169–71;
S. Noble, in: Yivo Bleter, 35 (1951), 121–38; H. Liberman, ibid., 36 (1952),
305–21; Zinberg, Sifrut, 4 (1958), 108–10, 257–9.
[Yehoshua Horowitz]

EPSTEIN, JUDITH (1895–1988), U.S. Hadassah leader. Epstein was born in Worcester, Massachusetts. She became involved in Jewish communal activity while at Hunter College,
from which she graduated in 1916. Epstein served Hadassah
in many capacities from 1928 when she was national secretary.
She was chairman of various national departments, including
membership and Zionist public relations, and was editor of
Hadassah Magazine. Named vice president in 1934, Epstein
served as national president of Hadassah during 1937–39 and
1943–47. From 1947 she was an honorary vice president. She
traveled to virtually every Jewish community in the country,
and for many years she played a prominent role at sessions of
the Zionist General Council in the United States and abroad.
Dedicated to the needs and the future of the Jewish state,
Epstein was largely responsible for funding the RothschildHadassah-University Hospital in Jerusalem.
During her lifetime, she was an ardent advocate foryoung women. In her name and to honor her legacy, the Judith
Epstein Memorial Award was created in 1991 to recognize theachievements of National Young Leaders Advisory Council(NYLAC) representatives, who are responsible for initiating activities and events that will bring visibility to Hadassah as wellas bringing other young women into the organization. Eachyear the award is presented to a young leader whose community project was the most successful in promoting Hadassah
in a meaningful way.
[Gladys Rosen / Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]474

EPSTEIN, JULIUS J. (1909–2000), AND PHILIP G. (1909–
1952), U.S. screenwriters. New York-born identical twins,
Julius and Philip Epstein graduated from Pennsylvania State
University in 1931. They had their first play, And Stars Remain,
produced by the Theatre Guild in 1936. After working separately for two years, they joined Warner Brothers and became
the best-known screenwriting team of the 1940s. Their films
included Daughters Courageous (1939), Four Wives (1939),
No Time for Comedy (1940), Casablanca (1942), The Bride
Came C.O.D. (1941), The Strawberry Blonde (1941), The Man
Who Came to Dinner (1941), Yankee Doodle Dandy (1942),
The Male Animal (1942), The Battle of Britain (1943), Arsenic
and Old Lace (1944), Mr. Skeffington (1944), Saturday’s Children (1946), Romance on the High Seas (1948), My FoolishHeart (1949), Take Care of My Little Girl (1951), Forever Female (1953), The Last Time I Saw Paris (1954), and The Brothers Karamazov (1958).
In 1943, the Epstein brothers won a Best Screenplay
Academy Award for Casablanca, which they had adaptedfrom an unproduced play with the forgettable title “Everybody Comes to Rick’s.”
After Philip’s death, Julius continued to work alone.
Among his screenplays were his Oscar-nominated Four
Daughters (1938), The Tender Trap (1955), The Reluctant Debutante (1958), Take a Giant Step (1959), Tall Story (1960), Lightin the Piazza (1962), Fanny (1964), Send Me No Flowers (1964),
Any Wednesday (1966), his Oscar-nominated Pete ’n’ Tillie(1972), Cross of Iron (1977), House Calls (1978), and his Oscarnominated Reuben, Reuben (1983).
In 1956 Julius won a Laurel Award for Screenwriting
Achievement. In 1998, some 15 years after he had retired, Julius received the Los Angeles Film Critics Association Career
Achievement Award.
[Jonathan Licht / Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]EPSTEIN, KALONYMUS KALMAN OF CRACOW(d. 1823), ḥ asidic ẓ addik. A disciple of *Elimelech of Lyzhansk
and *Jacob Isaac ha-Ḥ ozeh (“the Seer”) of Lublin, he became
noted for the ecstatic mode of prayer he adopted. In 1785 heorganized groups of Ḥ asidim in Cracow, and arranged minyanim where they prayed with devekut (“devotion”) employing pronounced bodily movements. They were strongly opposed by the Cracow community, this opposition resulting
in excommunications issued by Isaac Ha-Levi of Cracow andhis bet din in 1786 and 1787. Epstein, however, withstood his
opponents and actively propagated Ḥ asidism throughout
western Galicia. His main work, Ma’or va-Shemesh (Breslau,
1842), a commentary on the Pentateuch, is one of the fundamental works of Ḥ asidism, and includes information on theactivities and the personalities of ẓ addikim. It was publishedin many editions. His son, Aaron (d. 1883), succeeded Epstein
as the leading propagator of Ḥ asidism in western Galicia andfounded the first kloiz (ḥ asidic synagogue) in Cracow, called
after him R. Aaron’s kloiz. Another son, Joseph Baruch of
Neustadt (d. 1867), became known as a miracle worker. He
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

epstein, morris
was known as “the good Jew” of Neustadt, for the simplicity
of his life and conduct.
Bibliography: A. Markus, Ha-Ḥ asidut (1954), index; B.
Friedberg, Luḥ ot Zikkaron (1969), 39–45, 95; A. Bauminger, in: Sefer
Kraka (1959), 33; M.S. Geshuri, ibid., 167–8; L. Grossman, Shem uShe’erit (1943), 65; Dubnow, Ḥ asidut, 167–8, 450–2.

EPSTEIN, LESLIE (1938– ), U.S. writer. Born in Los Angeles
and having a father as well as an uncle who were screenwriters (Julius J. and Philip G. *Epstein), Leslie Epstein was no
outsider to Hollywood life: his San Remo Drive: A Novel from
Memory (2003) is a recounting of his childhood as well as its
repossession by the novel’s protagonist. Its writing must havebeen cathartic yet this act of purgation runs throughout muchof Epstein’s work, which deals with those who are powerless ordeluded or both, and who are presented to us in a tight narrative line that offers dark satire as a way of recounting the horrific. The King of the Jews (1986), a meditation upon the uses ofpower and self-deception, explores the nature of Trumpelman(based on Rumkowski, the ruler of the Lodz ghetto). Though
the book is a controversial one, Epstein being charged withtrivializing the Holocaust, the novel has also won much praisefor its strongly controlled tone that veers between pathos andcomedy. His most endearing character is Leib Goldkorn, a former Viennese musician, who undergoes a series of mishaps
yet whose reflections are by turns chilling, sweet, and astonished by the chaos and destruction that he sees. He threads
his way through The Steinway Quintet (1976), Goldkorn Tales(1985), and Ice Fire Water (1999).
Epstein attended Yale and Oxford and served as the director of the Creative Writing Program at Boston University
for over 20 years.

rize the wife to act as his agent for the purpose of a get. This
innovation was accepted by his colleagues but was abandonedby the Rabbinical Assembly because of the opposition of the
Orthodox rabbinate and of some members of the faculty of
the Jewish Theological Seminary.
[Benjamin Z. Kreitman]

EPSTEIN, MELECH (1889–1979), Yiddish journalist andeditor. Born in Ruzhany, Belorussia, Epstein received a traditional Jewish education but left home at the age of 13 andbecame involved in socialist activities in Russia and Poland.
In 1913 he immigrated to the U.S., where he joined the Communist Party in 1921. Epstein was one of the founders of the
Yiddish daily Morgn Frayhayt and its chief editor from 1925 to1928. He also served on the editorial board of the Communist
monthly Der Hamer. He left the Communist Party in 1939 inprotest against the Hitler-Stalin pact. Thereafter he contributed to the Forverts and Tsukunft as well as to the English-language Jewish press. He wrote Sacco un Vanzetti (“Sacco and
Vanzetti,” 1927), Sovyetn Farband Boyt Sotsyalizm (“The Soviet Union Builds Socialism,” 1935), and The Jew and Communism … in the Jewish Community, U.S.A., 1919–1941 (1959).
Bibliography: A. Rejzen, Leksikon, 2 (1927), 798–800;
LYNL, 7 (1968), 21–2; S. Bickel (ed.), Pinkes far der Forshung fun derYidisher Literatur un Prese, 1 (1965), 325, 327, 331–2; Sefer Yahadut
Lita, 3 (1967), 31. Add. Bibliography: B. Kohen (ed.), Leksikon
fun Yidish-Shraybers (1986), 419.
[Israel Ch. Biletzky / Lily O. Kahn (2nd ed.)]EPSTEIN, LOUIS M. (1887–1949), U.S. Conservative rabbi
and authority on Jewish marriage law. Epstein was born inAnyksciai, Lithuania. When his father, Rabbi Ezriel Epstein,
went to the United States to accept a pulpit, he left his son
behind to study at the yeshivah in Slobodka. He graduatedfrom Columbia University (1911) and was ordained at the
Jewish Theological Seminary in New York in 1913. He servedin various congregations in Dallas, Texas, and Toledo, Ohio,
before assuming the leadership of Beth Hamedrosh Hagdol in
Roxbury, Massachusetts, in 1918 and then becoming rabbi of
Kehilath Israel in Brookline, Massachusetts, where he served
for the remainder of his career. Epstein was president of the
Rabbinical Assembly (1922–25) and chairman of its committee
on Jewish Law (1936–40). Epstein wrote The Jewish Marriage
Contract (1927), Marriage Laws in the Bible and Talmud (1942),
and Sex Laws and Customs in Judaism (1948). His scholarly
attainments made him a leading figure in the Conservative
movement. He was instrumental in framing various proposals in Jewish law, the best known being a method of solving
the *agunah problem published in his Li-She’elat ha-Agunah(1940). Under Epstein’s proposal, the husband would autho-

EPSTEIN, MORRIS (1921–1973), U.S. author and editor.
Epstein was born in Newark, N.J., and studied at Yeshiva
University and Columbia, receiving his doctorate from New
York University in 1957. In his early years he wrote a numberof children’s books. In 1940 Epstein, together with Sigmund
Laufer and Ezekiel Schloss, established the bi-monthly youth
magazine World Over (1940–83) under the auspices of the Bureau of Jewish Education and published with the support of
the New York Jewish Board of Education. The 16-page English-language magazine served as a learning tool to challenge
Jewish youth and reinforce the ideas they learned at Hebrew
school and in the home, but with a non-academic bent. While
the three founders produced most of the text and artwork forthe magazine themselves, they also included stories and essays submitted from the U.S. and abroad. Epstein was also the
managing editor of the Jewish Education Magazine. He edited
and translated the tales of *Sindabar (Tales of Sendebar, 1967)
and in 1970 published a book on the Sefer *Minhagim, an illustrated collection of Jewish customs (Venice, 1593). In 1955
he joined Stern College for Women of Yeshiva University andwas appointed full professor and chairman of the English Department in 1966. He wrote radio plays, drama reviews, andscholarly essays, and broadcasted and lectured extensively.
Books by Epstein include My Holiday Story Book (1958),
A Pictorial Treasury of Jewish Holidays and Customs (1959), A
Picture Parade of Jewish History (1963), The New World OverENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

475[Lewis Fried (2nd ed.)]epstein, moses mordecai
Story Book: An Illustrated Anthology for Jewish Youth (1968),
More World Over Stories: An Illustrated Anthology for Jewish Youth (1968), and All about Jewish Holidays and Customs(1970).

[Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]EPSTEIN, MOSES MORDECAI (1866–1933), talmudist
and rosh yeshivah in Lithuania and Ereẓ Israel. Born in Bakst,
Moses studied in his youth at the Volozhin yeshivah where he
was known as the “illui (“prodigy”) of Bakst.” At Volozhin hesupported the Ḥ ovevei Zion group, founded by students of theyeshivah and in 1891 was a member of a Ḥ ovevei Zion delegation, which bought the land for the settlement of Ḥ aderah. In
1893 he was appointed head of the Keneset Israel yeshivah of
Slobodka, a position he filled until his death. During WorldWar I he wandered from town to town in Russia at the headof his yeshivah and after the war became one of the leadersof religious Jewry in Lithuania and a cofounder of its rabbinical council. In 1923 at the conference of the Agudat Israel
held in Vienna, he was elected a member of the Kenesiyyah
ha-Gedolah, the supreme body of the organization, and theMo’eẓ et Gedolei ha-Torah, its rabbinical council, establishedon that occasion. In 1924 he transferred most of the Keneset
Israel student body to their sister yeshivah in *Hebron, which
he had established. After the 1929 riots in Hebron in which
many of the students were killed, he moved the yeshivah toJerusalem. His method of studying Jewish law was to seek anunderstanding of the structure of individual laws as a means ofcomprehending the system of talmudic law in general. To thisend he made a special study of Maimonides, whose methodof halakhic commentary he sought to elucidate. In his teaching, likewise, he stressed the understanding of the underlying principles of individual laws more than expertise in wider
areas. Epstein’s method was adopted in numerous yeshivot.
A collection of his lectures, entitled Levush Mordekhai, waspublished in four volumes: on tractate Bava Kamma (1901);
on Bava Meẓ ia (1929); on the four parts of the Shulḥ an Arukh(1946); and on Yevamot and Gittin (1948).
Bibliography: S.J. Zevin, Ishim ve-Shitot (19582), 275–91.
[David Tamar]

EPSTEIN, PAUL SOPHUS (1883–1966), theoretical physicist. Epstein was born in Warsaw. After his studies in Russia
he went on to take a degree in optics in Germany. He left Russia in 1919 and lectured for two years at the Technische Hochschule in Zurich, Switzerland. In 1921 he went to the U.S. andbecame a professor at the California Institute of Technology
at Pasadena. Epstein’s scientific output was very impressive,and his studies covered wide fields which included applications of the quantum theory (in a series of papers in the Berlin periodical Zeitschrift fuer Physik), spectroscopy, radiationpressure, Stark effect, thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, theory of elasticity, and earth magnetism. In 1937 he published a
Textbook of Thermodynamics.
[Arthur Beer]

476

EPSTEIN, SEYMOUR (1917– ), U.S. author. Epstein’s novels, Pillar of Salt (1960), The Successor (1961), Leah (1964), andCaught in that Music (1967), and his collection of short stories,
A Penny for Charity (1965), are mostly about first-generation
immigrants no longer bound by traditional commitments.
Perhaps his most powerful novel, Looking for Fred Schmidt,
was published in 1973.
EPSTEIN, ZALMAN (1860–1936), Hebrew essayist andcritic. Epstein was born in Luban, Belorussia, and he received
his early education at the Volozhin yeshivah. At the age of 16
he moved to Odessa where he lived for 30 years. He servedon the central committee of Ḥ ovevei Zion from 1890 to 1900
in Odessa. Later Epstein lived in St. Petersburg, Warsaw, andMoscow, and settled in Palestine in 1925. In 1879 he began to
publish letters and articles in the Hebrew press, some under
the pen-names of “Shelomo ha-Elkoshi” and “Ben Azzai.” His
article, “The Spirit of Nationalism and its Results in Modern
Times,” which appeared in Ha-Meliẓ in 1882, brought him ameasure of recognition. He became a regular contributor to
Ha-Meliẓ and later to Ha-Ẓ efirah, Ha-Shilo’aḥ , and other journals, writing primarily about Jewish problems, particularly thesettlement of Palestine and Zionism. He contributed a series ofarticles in Yiddish to the St. Petersburg paper Der Tog. Epsteinalso commented on Hebrew and general literature, and published a number of poetic sketches, the best known of which
are the series Mi-Sefer ha-Zikhronot shel Shelomo ha-Elkoshi(“From Shelomo ha-Elkoshi’s Book of Reminiscences”). In his
article “Ha-Sefer ve-ha-Ḥ ayyim” (“Books and Life”), in: Lu’aḥAḥ i’asaf, 1 (1894), he called upon Hebrew writers not to concern themselves solely with Jewish problems. Epstein was aromantic who respected and admired Jewish traditions andsought to blend Judaism and humanism. He was the first to
publish articles in Hebrew on Dostoyevski, Tolstoy, and Turgenev (in Ha-Boker Or, Ben-Ammi, and Ha-Zeman). His style
was biblical and ornate. Only a few of his hundreds of articles
and sketches were collected in the two volumes of his work,
one of which appeared in St. Petersburg in 1905, the other in
Tel Aviv in 1938. His monograph Moshe Leib Lilienblum was
published in 1935.
Bibliography: Autobiographical note in the preface to J.
Fichmann (ed.), Kitvei Zalman Epstein (1938).
[Gedalyah Elkoshi]

EPSTEIN HALEVI, MOSES JEHIEL (1890–1971), rabbi
and admor. Epstein was born in Ozarow, Poland, where hereceived his rabbinic education. In 1913 he was appointed
rabbi there and in 1918 admor. Epstein immigrated to the
U.S. in 1927 and in 1953 came to Israel and settled in Tel
Aviv. He was a leader of Agudat Israel and a member of the
Mo’eẓ et Gedolei ha-Torah and also active in educational andcharity affairs. His works are Esh Dat (11 vols.) and Be’er Moshe.
He was awarded the Israel Prize for rabbinical literature in
1968.
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

erechER (Heb. ‫“ ; ַער‬watcher, watchful”), the name of two biblicalfigures. (1) The eldest son of Judah and the daughter of Shua,a Canaanite (Gen. 38:2–3). He married *Tamar but died childless because of his wickedness (Gen. 38:6–7; 46:12; Num. 26:19;
I Chron. 2:3). The nature of his offense is not specified. (2) The
son of Shelah, the grandson of Judah, and the father of Lecah(I Chron. 4:21).
Bibliography: W.F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (1968), 69–70, 233p.

°ERASMUS OF ROTTERDAM (Desiderius Erasmus
Roterodamus; 1469–1536), European humanist, theologian,
and writer. Netherlands-born Erasmus lived and worked in all
major countries of Europe and wrote only in Latin.
Erasmus’ view of Judaism as a religion was fully determined by traditions of the New Testament (especially by the
epistles ascribed to Paul) and of the Early Church (in the firstplace, Jerome, to a lesser extent, Augustine). An original aspectof this position is that he regularly used the words Judaismus,
Judaeus, etc., to stigmatize bad Christians, “for whom religion
consists of rituals and observations of corporeal things” (aletter of December 1504). In another writing, he says, “Judaism I call not Jewish impiety, but prescriptions about externalthings, such as food, fasting, clothes, which to a certain degree
resemble the rituals of the Jews” (Declarationes ad censuras
Lutetiae, 1532). In fact, the majority of Erasmus’ anti-Mosaic
attacks are directed against this “new Judaism.”
As far as the Jewish Bible (the Old Testament) is concerned, it is only natural that a Christian humanist professing“the philosophy of Christ” placed the New Testament higher
than the Old. But on many occasions he insisted on the importance for Christians of the Old Testament in its entirety
and, even more significantly, on the complete inadmissibilityof contrasting the two Testaments.
As a humanist (in the strict and specific sense of theword) Erasmus highly appreciated Hebrew and demanded
thorough knowledge of the original language of the Bible.
“Who does not master all three holy tongues [i.e., Hebrew,
Greek, and Latin], is not a theologian, but a violator of theholy Theology” (Adagiae, 1515). But Erasmus’ own knowledge
of Hebrew was rudimentary and he was completely dependent on other scholars’ commentaries and upon their direct,
personal help (in his New Testament commentaries and paraphrases of Psalms). Hence numerous mistakes, “anti-philological” interpretations (discrediting Erasmus’ general method),and even a kind of irritation against “ambiguities” of Hebrew
can be found in his writings.
Erasmus’ attitude toward Jewry of his day should be evaluated against a background of the universal hatred of Jews,
intolerance, and missionary zeal in the 15t and 16t centuries,
especially in Germany. This sinister background is often apparent, much more in private correspondence than in writings intended for print. In some of the latter we find remarksthat are comparatively moderate and reasonable. Thus, Erasmus thinks that the number of Jews, their force, and influence
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

are insignificant, and, consequently, they are of no danger toChristianity; that forced conversion of Jews is absolutely inadmissible, and even that Christian missionary activity among
Jews is perhaps useless; that the expulsion of Jews from Spainshould be condemned, and that the Marranos should betreated mercifully, etc. Such remarks spring organically fromthe deepest principles of Erasmus’ understanding of the world
and must be considered as really “erasmian.” But the “erasmian spirit,” expressing itself in a well-known line from a letter(January 30, 1523 (4)), “I have a temperament such that I could
love even a Jew, if only he were well-mannered and friendly,
and did not mouth blasphemy on Christ in my presence,” wasfar from always being uppermost. In fact, he never met a real
Jew all his life, never sought out such a meeting, and neverwrote anything especially devoted to Jews or Judaism. He was,in fact, indifferent to the living “remnant of Israel”; the fleshand-blood Jew was simply not within his field of vision. This
indifference, in a time of catastrophic sharpening of religious
and national fanaticism, could have been an initial step toward
true tolerance. Erasmus’ position could be qualified as asemitism; suggesting that he was an antisemite seems to be as unhistorical as claiming he was sympathetic toward Jews.
Bibliography: G. Kisch, Erasmus’ Stellung zu Juden andJudentum (1969)[Kisch considers Erasmus a rabid antisemite, equal
to Luther]; S. Markish, Erasmus and the Jews, with an Afterword by
Arthur A. Cohen (1986); G.B. Winkler, “Erasmus und die Juden,” in:Festschrift Franz Loidl zum 65 Geburstag (1970), 381–392; C. Augustijn,“Erasmus und die Juden,” in: Nederlands Archief voor Kerkengeschiedenis, 60:1 (1980), 22–38.
[Shimon Markish]°ERATOSTHENES OF CYRENE (c. 275–194 B.C.E.), polymath, author of Geographica, a first-rate geography much usedby *Strabo, who cites his description of Arabia (16:4, 2), commenting upon the occupations of the inhabitants (including
the Judeans), soil, flora, water supply, and distances. Strabo
elsewhere (16:2, 44) cites Eratosthenes’ theory that the region
around Edom was once a lake and that the land came into existence as a result of volcanic eruptions.
ERECH (Sum. Unug; Akk. Uruk; modern Warka in Iraq),city mentioned as one of the mainstays of the kingdom of*Nimrod (Gen. 10:10), and perhaps referred to in Ezra 4:9.
In ancient times Uruk lay on the bank of the Euphrates, approximately 40 mi. (65 km.) N.W. of Ur; the river has now
shifted far to the west, leaving the city in the desert. The site
was occupied in the fifth millennium B.C.E., and experienced
its first peak of prosperity in about 3300–3100 B.C.E., when it
was probably the largest religious center of Sumer, with large
temples and the earliest written documents so far known. The
legendary hero Gilgamesh was probably an historical king of
Uruk in about 2700 B.C.E. Uruk played a part in the rise of
the Neo-Sumerian kings of Ur, and was the seat of a dynasty
of West Semitic rulers shortly before the time of Hammurapi.
Thereafter, it was politically unimportant, but remained a seatof learning until Seleucid times. It was the cult center of Anu,

477

ereẒ israel
the sky god, and of Inanna-Ishtar, the goddess of love and war.
In 1912 the German Oriental Society began to excavate the site
and allowing for the interruptions caused by wars continued
until the end of the 20t century.
Add. Bibliography: J-C. Margueron, in: ABD II, 570–73;
CANE, 4, 2960 (index); M. Powell, in: JAOS, 117 (1997), 608; S. Dunham, in: JAOS, 119 (1999), 139.
[Richard S. Ellis]

EREẒ ISRAEL (Heb. ‫) ֶא ֶרץ יִ שְׂ ָר ֵאל‬, Hebrew name of Land of
Israel. The term Ereẓ Israel is biblical, although its meaning
varies, designating both the territory actually inhabited by the
Israelites (I Sam. 13:19) and the Northern Kingdom (II Kings
5:2). It was, however, only from the Second Temple period
onward that Ereẓ Israel became the current appellation of
the Promised Land. It was the official Hebrew designation of
the area governed by British mandate after World War I until
1948. For further details, see *Canaan, Land of; *Israel, Landof (Geographical Survey).
ERFURT, city in Thuringia, Germany. Jews are first mentioned
there in the 12t century. At first under the protection of theking, by the second half of the 12t century they had passed tothe jurisdiction of the archbishop of Mainz, who composed an*oath formula for them in German. In 1209 the king also relinquished his right to collect taxes from the Jews, which in 1212
was explicitly granted to the archbishop. In 1221 anti-Jewish riots broke out in Erfurt: the synagogue was burned down, and anumber of Jews were murdered while some threw themselves
into the flames. Among the martyrs was the paytan and cantor
Samuel b. Kalonymus. Nevertheless, the Jewish community of
Erfurt continued to exist and even to expand. After some timea new synagogue was built and well-known rabbis chose Erfurt
as their seat. Between 1286 and 1293 Asher b. *Jehiel probably
lived there, and at about the same time Kalonymus b. Eliezer
ha-Nakdan composed his Masorah Ketannah, still preserved inmanuscript in Erfurt. During the Middle Ages the Jews of Erfurt followed the Saxony prayer rite. The community’s Book of
Ritual is preserved at Jews’ College, London (Ms. 104, 4). At the
beginning of the 14t century protection over the Jews passed
to the municipality; this, however, was unable to save themfrom massacre during the Black *Death: at the beginning ofMarch 1349 over 100 Jews were murdered by the populace, andmany set fire to their homes and perished in the flames. Those
who survived were driven from the city. Among the martyrs
was Alexander Suslin ha-Kohen, author of Sefer ha-Aguddah.
Israel b. Joel *Susslin mentions the Erfurt martyrs in an elegy(Sefer ha-Dema’ot, 2, 126–7). The city council again permitted
Jews to settle within the city walls and build a new synagogue
in 1357. During the following century the Erfurt community became one of the largest and most important in Germany, someof the most celebrated rabbis officiating there. Meir b. Baruch*ha-Levi served there for some time; a disciple of his was Hillel of *Erfurt. In the middle of the 15t century Jacob b. Judah*Weil taught there. During this period, Erfurt Jews played an

478

important role in banking in Thuringia. In 1391 the king canceled all the debts owed by Christians to the Erfurt Jews andhanded them over to the municipality for 2,000 gulden; themunicipality claimed this sum from the Jews but promised
them to return part of the debts. Subsequently the Jews had
to pay a special tax to the king’s treasury. In 1418 they werecompelled to declare the amount of their property on oath, inthe synagogue, and the king collected new taxes from themon this basis. In 1451 and 1452 Nicolas of *Cusa and John of*Capistrano visited Erfurt. Their anti-Jewish sermons greatly
agitated the populace, and in 1453 the city council withdrew
protection from the Jews, who subsequently left Erfurt.
Around 1820 the Prussian authorities used the tombstones in the Jewish cemetery for the fortification of the city.
At that time Jews again began to settle in Erfurt, numberingsome 144 in 1840 when a new synagogue was dedicated. The
communal archives from 1855 to 1936 have been transferredto the Central Archives for the History of the Jewish People
in Jerusalem. The community numbered 546 in 1880 (1.03
of the total population); 795 in 1910 (0.72); and 831 in 1933(0.6). After the advent of the Nazis the majority left Erfurt,
263 remaining in 1939. The synagogue was burned down on
Nov. 9, 1938. The community was compelled to pay for thebenzene used for igniting the synagogue and for clearing theruins. The men were detained in the local school, where they
were mistreated, and subsequently deported to *Buchenwald.
Of the 188 Jews remaining in Erfurt in September 1941, 152
were deported to the East in four transports between May
1942 and January 1944.
A few Jews returned to Erfurt after the war, and there
were 40 in 1951. A new synagogue was opened in 1952, andthe community numbered 120 in 1961. As a result of the immigration of Jews from the former Soviet Union, the number ofcommunity members rose to 550 in 2003. One of the famous
manuscripts of the Tosefta was found in Erfurt after which itis named (S. Leibman, intr. Tosefta bi-Feshuto).
Bibliography: A. Jaraczewsky, Geschichte der Juden in Erfurt (1868); Wiener, in: MGWJ, 17 (1868), 313–17, 352–59, 385–95; Th.
Kronner, Festschrift zur Einweihung der neuen Synagoge in Erfurt(1884); Suessmann, in: MGADJ, 5 (1914), 1–126; Germ Jud, 1 (1963),
97–102; 2 (1968), 215–25; PKG; Baron, 9 (1965), 223–26. Add. Bibliography: E. Menzel, in: Beitraege zur Geschichte juedischen Lebens in Thueringen (1996), 117–132; O. Zucht, Die Geschichte der Judenin Erfurt … (2001).
[Zvi Avneri / Stefan Rohrbacher (2nd ed.)]ERGAS, JOSEPH BEN EMANUEL (1685–1730), rabbi, kabbalist, and author of books on halakhic and kabbalistic matters. Ergas, who was of Marrano descent, was born in Leghorn.
The headdress of a knight engraved on his tomb in Leghorn
perhaps indicates descent from a noble Spanish family. Samuelof Fez was his teacher of halakhah and *Benjamin ha-Kohen
Vitale of Reggio taught him Kabbalah. As a young man, he
traveled throughout Italy and preached public sermons, urging repentance. For a while he stayed in Pisa where he founded
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6erikson, erik homberger
a yeshivah, Neveh Shalom. Later, he was appointed rabbi in
Leghorn, and remained there until his death. Ergas becamefamous for his pamphlet Tokhaḥ at Megullah, the polemic
against the Shabbatean Nehemiah *Ḥ ayon, and an addition to
it called Ha-Ẓ ad Naḥ ash (London, 1715). His kabbalistic works
include Shomer Emunim (Amsterdam, 1736), in which he explains the principles of the Kabbalah in the form of a dialogue
between Shaltiel, who believes only in the revealed Torah, andJehoiada, the victor in this argument, who believes also in theesoteric aspect of the Torah; Shomer Emunim includes Mevo
Petaḥ im, an appendix to the former, a selection from *Luria’s
doctrine, and an introduction to the Kabbalah, and Minḥ atYosef, an ethical-religious anthology and the rules for the studyof the kabbalistic doctrines. A selection of his responsa waspublished by his disciple Malachi Ha-Kohen as Divrei Yosef(Leghorn, 1742). The publisher’s introduction mentions several
piyyutim written by Ergas. Ergas was an enthusiastic believerin the importance and sanctity of the Kabbalah in generaland of the *Zohar in particular, despite his view that marginal
annotations had been introduced into the proper text of theZohar. He opposed philosophy, which he considered alien to
Judaism and an invention of heretics. He opposed *Maimonides’ explanations of the stories of the Creation and the visions of Ezekiel in the spirit of Aristotle’s natural philosophy.
Ergas’ style is distinguished by its clarity.
Ergas’ Kabbalah evinces affinities with that of Moses
Ḥ ayyim *Luzzatto, and tension over this issue developed between the two kabbalists.
Bibliography: Joseph ben Emanuel Ergas, Shomer Emunim, ed. by S.A. Horodezky (repr. 1927), introd. Add. Bibliography: R. Goetschel, “La justification de la kabbale dans le ‘ShômerEmûnîm’ of Joseph Ergas (1685–1730),” in: U. Haxen, H. TrautnerKromann, and K.L. Goldschmidt Salamon (eds.), Jewish Studies ina New Europe; Proceedings of the Fifth Congress of Jewish Studies in
Copenhagen (1994), 269–81.
[Azriel Shochat]Novel – 14t–16t Centuries,” 1926); and Di Geshikhte fun derYidisher Literatur fun di Eltste Tsaytn biz der Haskole Tekufe(“History of Yiddish Literature – from the Beginning to the
Haskalah Period,” 1928). Erik’s work helped found the fieldof Old Yiddish studies. He also formulated the long-dominant but now disproven theory of Yiddish shpilmener (“troubadours”) who composed, or adapted from other languages,
the extant Old Yiddish epics. In 1929 Erik settled in the Soviet
Union. He lived in Minsk and Kiev and taught Yiddish literature at various Jewish institutions of higher learning. Increasingly, his works in this period were written from the official
party-line point of view and include a study of Sholem *Asch(1931); Etyudn tsu der Geshikhte fun der Haskole (“Studies inthe History of the Haskalah,” 1934); and Di Yidishe Literaturin XIX Yorhundert, vol. 1, coauthored with A. Rosenzweig (“AHistory of Yiddish Literature in the 19t century,” 1935). He alsoedited Di Komedies fun der Berliner Ufklerung (“The Comediesof the Berlin Haskalah,” 1933) and a selection of the works of
Solomon *Ettinger (1935). Upon the liquidation of the Institutefor Jewish Proletarian Culture of the Ukrainian Academy of
Science in May 1936, Erik was arrested and exiled to the Vietlosian prison camp in Siberia, where he died.
Bibliography: Rejzen, Leksikon, 2 (1927), 815–8; J. Shatzky,
in: J. Opatoshu and H. Leivick (eds.), Zamlbikher, 8 (1952), 41–54.
Add. Bibliography: LNYL, 7 (1968), 37–41; A.A. Greenbaum, Jewish Scholarship and Scholarly Institutions in Soviet Russia, 1918–1953(1978); C. Shmeruk, in: Studies in Yiddish Literature and Folklore, 7(1986) 1–36.
[Elias Schulman / Barry Trachtenberg (2nd ed.)]

ERIK, MAX (pseudonym of Zalmen Merkin; 1898–1937),
Yiddish literary critic and literary historian. Born in Sosnowiec (Poland), Erik was educated privately (among his tutors
was Ḥ ayyim Naḥ man *Bialik) and in a traditional ḥ eder. He
later studied at a Russian-language high school and at a Polish officers’ training school from which he graduated as a reserve officer. His uncle was Yitzkhak Peysekzon, a founder of
the Jewish Labor Bund. In 1922 he settled in Vilna where hetaught Yiddish and Polish literature in Yiddish-language highschools. Erik published his first essays in 1920 on neo-Romanism and Hugo Tsukerman in I.M. Weissenberg’s Yudishe Zamelbikher and then contributed studies, essays, and critical
articles to various Yiddish periodicals including Ringen, Literarishe Bleter, Bikher Velt, and the Vilner Tog. His first works
on Yiddish literature were Konstruktsiye Shtudiyen: tsu derKonstruktsye fun der Goldene Keyt (“Construction Studies:
On the Construction of the Golden Chain,” 1924), an analysisof the variants of I.L. *Peretz’s plays; Vegn Alt-Yidishn Roman
un Novele – 14ter–16ter Yorhundert (“On the Old Yiddish

ERIKSON, ERIK HOMBERGER (1902–1994), U.S. psychoanalyst. Born in Frankfurt, Germany, Erikson immigrated to
the U.S. in 1933. He taught and did research at Harvard, Yale,and the University of California until 1951, when he joined thesenior staff of the Austen Riggs Center at Stockbridge, Mass. In
1960 he was appointed professor of human development andpsychiatry at Harvard. Erikson’s research into the cultures of
the Yurok and Sioux Indians resulted in Childhood and Society(1950, 19632), in which he discussed childbearing methods andhuman development. In the same book he dealt with the evolution of identity and character, including the American andGerman, and with antisemitism and the role of Jews in changing culture. In Young Man Luther (1958), Erikson related thereformer’s adolescent crisis of identity (identity versus identity
diffusion) and the historical crisis of his age. He later clarified his concept of the synthesis of the ego through successive
identifications by the child with individuals, group ideals, andgoals. His Insight and Responsibility (1966) discusses the ethical implications of psychoanalytic insight and the responsibility of each generation to succeeding generations.
Other books by Erikson include Identity: Youth and Crisis(1968), Gandhi’s Truth on the Origins of Militant Nonviolence(1969), The Twentieth-century Sciences: Studies in the Biography of Ideas (1972), Dimensions of a New Identity (1974), Life
History and the Historical Moment (1975), Toys and Reasons:

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6479

erlanger
Stages in the Ritualization of Experience (1977), Adulthood: Essays (1978),Themes of Work and Love in Adulthood (1980), St.
George and the Dandelion: Forty Years of Practice As a Jungian Analyst (1982),Vital Involvement in Old Age: The Experience of Old Age in Our Time (1986), Identity and the Life Cycle(1988), The Life Cycle Completed (1995), and The Erik Erikson
Reader (2000).
For Gandhi’s Truth (1969), Erikson was awarded the Pulitzer Prize and National Book Award.
Erikson is labeled an ego-psychologist in that he built
on Freud’s early work on the ego, though with emphasis onsocial rather than sexual factors. He is best known for his
work in expanding Freud’s theory of stages. Often referred toas the “father of psychosocial development” and “the architect of identity,” and the man who coined the term “identity
crisis,” Erikson believed that development functions by what
he called the “epigenetic principle.” According to this principle, we develop through a predetermined unfolding of ourpersonalities in eight stages. Each person’s progress througheach stage is in part determined by his/her success, or lack ofit, in the previous stages. If one interferes with any stage ofthat natural order of development or does not manage a stage
well, one could develop maladaptations and malignancies aswell as jeopardize one’s future development.
Erikson also theorized about the interaction of generations, which he called “mutuality”: not only do parents influence their children’s development, as Freud suggested, but
children also influence their parents’ development, Erikson
contended.
Bibliography: E. Pumpian-Mindlin, in: F.G. Alexander etal. (eds.), Psychoanalytic Pioneers (1966), 524–33; H.W. Maier, Three
Theories of Child Development (1965), 12–74 (bibliography 297–300);
B. Kaplan (ed.), Studying Personality Cross-Culturally (1961), index.
Add. Bibliography: R. Evans, Dialogue with Erik Erikson (1967);
R. Coles, Erik H. Erikson, the Growth of his Work (1970); P. Roazen,
Erik H. Erikson: The Power and Limits of a Vision (1976); J.E. Wright,
Erikson, Identity and Religion (1982); F. Gross, Introducing Erik Erikson(1987); H. Zock, A Psychology of Ultimate Concern: Erik H. Erikson’sContribution to the Psychology of Religion (1990); R. Wallerstein and
L. Goldberger (eds.), Ideas and Identities: The Life and Work of Erik
Erikson (1999); K. Welchman, Erik Erikson (2000).
[Louis Miller / Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]ERLANGER (D’Erlanger), family of German bankers,
originating in Frankfurt. RAPHAEL ERLANGER (1806–1878)
learned banking with the Rothschilds and eventually established in Frankfurt his own bank, Erlanger and Sons, which
was mainly concerned with the formation of German provincial banks and existed until 1904. Raphael received titles
from the rulers of Portugal, Saxe-Meiningen, and Austria.
Three of his sons expanded the banking operations. VICTOR (1840–1894) managed the Vienna branch which went
into liquidation in the 1890s. FREDERIC-EMILE (1832–1911)
established the London house. LUDWIG (1836–1898) headed
the original bank in Frankfurt, which was absorbed by theDresdner Bank in 1904. In Paris and London the Erlangers

480

became part of Europe’s banking elite, although their attempt to float a Confederate loan during the American Civil
War miscarried.
Add. Bibliography: G. Mendelsohn, Die Familie Erlanger –Bankiers, Mäzene, Künstler (2005).
[Joachim O. Ronall]

ERLANGER, CAMILLE (1863–1919), composer. Born inParis of an Alsatian family, Erlanger studied composition at
the Paris Conservatoire with Delibes and Massenet, and received the Rome Prize in 1888 for his cantata Velléda. Erlanger
wrote nine operas. His first opera, Kermaria, produced in 1897
by the Opéra-Comique, made little impression. However, his
next attempt – Le Juif Polonais (1900), based on the story by
Erckman-Chatrian – was very popular and remained in theoperatic repertoire until 1933. His most popular opera wasan opéra-comique – Aphorodite (1906), adapted from PierreLouÿs’ novel and performed over 180 times in 20 years. Erlanger was particularly influenced by Weber, whom he greatly
admired, and to a much lesser extent by Wagner. Other operasof his are Bacchus triomphant (1909) and Hannele Mattern(1911). He also wrote the symphonic poem Maître et Serviteur, based on Tolstoy’s story, which remained in manuscript;
La Chasse fantastique (1893); Le fils de l’étoile (drame musical,
1904), and many songs.
Add. Bibliography: Grove online; C. Mendès, “Le Juif polonais,” Le journal (April 11, 1900); A. Bachelet, “Camille Erlanger,”in: Monde musical, v (1919).
[Israela Stein (2nd ed.)]ERLANGER, JOSEPH (1874–1965), U.S. physiologist andNobel Prize winner. Erlanger, who was born in San Francisco,graduated from Johns Hopkins University in 1899. From 1906
to 1910 he was professor of physiology at Wisconsin Medical
School and from 1910 held the chair of physiology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. He andHerbert Spencer Gasser received the 1944 Nobel Prize forphysiology and medicine, for their work on the functional
differentiation of nerves and on the influence of pulse pressure on kidney secretion. Erlanger made fundamental contributions to the knowledge of the cardiovascular and nervous
system and to methods of physiological investigation. He invented a graphic method for measuring blood pressure andstudied the mechanism of production of sounds used in measuring blood pressure by the auscultatory method. He studied
nerve action potentials by cathode ray oscillograph; induction
shocks as stimuli; traumatic shock and impulse initiation andconduction in the heart.
Bibliography: S.R. Kagan, Jewish Medicine (1952).
[Suessmann Muntner]

ERLANGER, MICHEL (1828–1892), French communal
worker. Son of the rabbi in Wissenbourg, Alsace, he had a
traditional Jewish education. Erlanger was among the founders of the *Alliance Israélite Universelle and a member of its
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Erlik, David
central committee. He helped Charles *Netter to establish the*Mikveh Israel agricultural school, and accompanied Baron
Edmond de *Rothschild’s representative, Albert *Cohn, on his
visits to Ereẓ Israel. Erlanger advised Rothschild on his philanthropic activities and acted as his liaison with the *Hibbat Zion
movement and colonists in Ereẓ Israel. He was vice presidentof the Jewish *Consistoire in Paris, a member of the board,and treasurer of the Société des Etudes Juives.
Bibliography: A. Druyanow (ed.), Ketavim le-ToledotḤ ibbat-Ẓ iyyon, 3 vols. (1919–32), index; Bulletin de l’Alliance Israélite
Universelle, 5:17 (1892), 10–15.
[Yehuda Slutsky]

ERLANGER, PHILIPPE (1903–1987), French writer andart critic, son of Camille *Erlanger and related on his mother’s side to the Comte de *Camondo. Born in Paris, Erlanger
wished to become a diplomat but worked principally at the
Ministry of Education, where for 40 years he headed the cultural-exchange office. In this position he organized hundredsof exhibitions and was one of the founders of the Cannes film
festival. Erlanger was also a prolific journalist and art critic(Les Peintres de la réalité, 1946; Les Gisants, 1947) and wrote
more than 30 books. He began as a novelist, but from the 1930s
his main work was biographical, falling midway between scientific historical research and literary psychological studies.
Among his subjects have been the French kings Charles VII(1945), Henri III (1933), Louis XIII (1946), Louis XIV (1961,1965), and their entourage: Diane de Poitiers, Henri II’s favorite (1955), the two antagonistic advisers of Louis XIII,
Cinq-Mars (1962) and Richelieu (3 vols., 1967–1970), Gaston d’Orléans, Louis XIV’s brother (1953), and the “Régent”
Philippe d’Orléans (1938), as well as Marguerite d’Anjou, queenof England (1932), the Duke of Buckingham (1951), and the
Borgia family (1934). The only contemporary subject of his biographies was Georges Clemenceau (1968). Erlanger received
many prizes and honors.
Bibliography: Biblio, 24 (June/July 1966), 6.

ERLICH, HENRYK (Wolf Hersh; 1882–1941), journalist;
leader of the *Bund in Poland. Erlich was born of a well-to-dofamily in Lublin; his father was a Ḥ asid who became a maskil
and a Ḥ ovev Zion. Having joined the Bund in 1903 while astudent at the University of Warsaw, Erlich was arrested several times for revolutionary activities and expelled from theuniversity. Later he graduated in law from the University of
St. Petersburg and became a member of the central committee of the Bund. After the 1917 revolution he was a leading figure in the Petrograd (Leningrad) Workers’ Soviet. In October 1918 he returned to Warsaw, becoming prominent in the
Bund, and editor of the party’s Yiddish daily Di Folkstsaytung.
He was a member of the Warsaw city council and the kehillah
board, and participated in numerous international socialist
congresses. On the German invasion of Poland in September
1939 Erlich left Warsaw with his family, and in October wasarrested by the Soviet authorities. With Victor *Alter he was
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

accused of active subversion and helping Polish intelligence,
and was condemned to death; the sentence was later commuted to ten years’ hard labor. In September 1941, following
the amnesty for all convicted Polish citizens in Soviet Russia,
Erlich and Alter were set free. After their release they wereapproached by Soviet representatives to join a Jewish antiFascist committee. However, in the early morning of Dec. 4,1941, they were again arrested in Kuibyshev. According to acommunication of Feb. 23, 1943, from Maxim *Litvinov, thenSoviet ambassador to the United States, addressed to William
Green, president of the American Federation of Labor, Erlichand Alter were executed shortly after their arrest “for hostile
activities, including appeals to the Soviet troops to stop bloodshed and immediately conclude peace with Germany.” The
executions aroused worldwide protests by Labor and Liberalorganizations. His wife, whom he married in 1911, was SOPHIA*DUBNOW-ERLICH (1885–1986), the daughter of the historian
Simon *Dubnow.
Bibliography: American Representation of General Jewish
Worker’s Union of Poland, The Case of Henryk Erlich and Victor Alter (1943); Chamberlain, in: New Leader (March 13, 1943); The Militant (March 20, 1943); Henryk Erlich und Victor Alter (Yid., 1951), includes bibl. 459–72. Add. Bibliography: H. Erlich, The Struggle
for Revolutionary Socialism (1934); G. Pickhan, “Gegen dem Strom,”
in: Der Algemeiner Juedische Arbeiterbund “Bund” in Polen 1918–1939(2001), index.
[Ezekiel Lifschutz]

ERLICH, VERA STEIN (1897–1980), Yugoslav social-cultural anthropologist and psychologist. Vera Erlich devoted
many years to the study of family relationships in rural areas. She managed to save her material on the eve of WorldWar II, and it eventually formed the basis of her book Porodica u transformaciji (1964; Family in Transition: A study of
300 Yugoslav villages, 1966). From 1945 to 1950 Vera Erlich
was a United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) psychiatric social worker with displaced persons in Italy. She then went to the United States, and for ten
years acted as lecturer in Slavic languages and literature anda research fellow in anthropology at Berkeley University. In
1960 she returned to Yugoslavia and became a professor in anthropology at the University of Zagreb. Her published works
include Savremeno dijete (“The Contemporary Child,” 1936)
and U društvu sa čovekom (“In the Company of Man,” 1968).
In her capacity of professional consultant, she was helpful tothe operations of UNRRA (the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration) and the IRO.
She was married to Dr. Benno Stein, a noted psychologist
of Zagreb, murdered in the Jasenovac death camp.
[Zdenko Lowenthal]

ERLIK, DAVID (1909–1995), Israeli physician, one of thefounders of modern surgery in Israel. Erlik was born in Pinsk,
Russia, in 1909. His family came to Palestine in 1924 and settled in Haifa. From 1928 to 1935 he studied medicine in Strasbourg, France. In 1936 Erlik was accepted for a residency in481

erman, johann peter adolf
Jerusalem’s Hadassah Hospital, where he spent the next dozen
years training in general surgical techniques. In 1948 he was
asked by Israel’s Ministry of Health to put together the surgical department at the abandoned British Mandatory Hospital in Haifa, by then renamed Rambam Hospital. As its chiefof surgery for over 30 years, Erlik was instrumental in making Rambam the major medical center in northern Israel, including the successful association between the Haifa Technion
and Rambam’s medical school, which opened its doors in
1969.
Erlik was a pioneer and innovator of surgical procedures
involving the blood vessels in the abdomen and kidneys. In
1966 he carried out the first kidney transplant in Israel, andunder his stewardship Rambam became the leading transplant center in the country. Erlik created a surgical standardof excellence with which he imbued the next generations ofsurgeons in Israel.
Erlik was awarded the Israel Prize in life sciences in1992.
Bibliography: M. Hashmonai, “David Erlik (1909–1995) –A Founder of Surgery in Modern Israel,” in: Digestive Surgery, 21(2004), 447–51.
[Ruth Rossing (2nd ed.)]ERMAN, JOHANN PETER ADOLF (1854–1937), German
Egyptologist, usually cited as Adolf Erman, or A. Erman. Erman studied at Leipzig and Berlin under Georg *Ebers, andthen became director of the Egyptian Section of the Berlin
Museum and professor of Egyptology (1884–1923). Primarilya philologist, his work established a solid foundation for all
subsequent philological study in ancient Egyptian. At the turnof the 20t century, under the auspices of the Prussian Academy of Science, he began work on the great dictionary of theEgyptian language, the Woerterbuch der aegyptischen Sprache(vol. 1, 1926). The second revised edition of his Neuaegyptische
Grammatik (19332), dictated from memory when he was virtually blind, still remains the standard grammar of Late Egyptian. In addition to numerous philological, technical works, hewrote popular books on Egyptian literature, culture, and art.
In an article “Eine aegyptische Quelle der Sprueche Salomos”(in Sitzungsberichte der Deutschen (Preussischen) Akademie
der Wissenschaften, 15 (1924), 86–93), Erman maintained the
direct relationship of Proverbs 22:17–24:22 to the Instructionof Amen-em-opet. This had considerable repercussions inbiblical studies, for scholars began to see the close, sometimes
direct, relationship of biblical wisdom literature to ancient
Near Eastern wisdom literature. Erman, himself a Protestant,
was of Jewish descent, and although not actively persecuted,
suffered indignity and humiliation under the Nazis until his
death in Berlin. His autobiography Mein Werden und mein
Wirken appeared in 1929.

ERNAKULAM (formerly Angicaymal), town in Kerala, India, about 5 mi. (8 km.) from *Cochin. A community of “blackJews” is known to have existed there since the 15t century.
Moses *Pereira de Paiva (1687) lists it as the second largest
Jewish settlement on the Malabar Coast after Cochin, with
150 families. In 1970 “Jew Street” contained two large synagogues, Theckoobagam (said to have been built in 1625) andKadvoobhagam (1150), formerly containing valuable liturgical objects; services were held in them alternately on the Sabbath and festivals. Two old cemeteries lie some distance fromthis street. In 1922, the elders of the synagogues wrote to the
British Zionist Federation expressing their desire to settle inPalestine. In recent years the community has declined, mainly
because of emigration to Israel. None of the Ernakulam synagogues function any more.
Bibliography: Bar-Giora, in: Sefunot, 2 (1958), 214–45;
Fischel, in: Herzl Yearbook, 4 (1961/62), 324–8. Add. Bibliography: J.B. Segal, A History of the Jews of Cochin (1993).
[Walter Joseph Fischel]°ERPENIUS (van Erpe), THOMAS (1584–1624), Dutch Orientalist. Erpenius traveled (1608–12) extensively through thelibraries of Europe, availing himself while at Venice of Jewish
instruction. In Leiden, where in 1613 he was appointed professor of Oriental languages (initially excluding but from 1619 on
including Hebrew), he ran an Oriental press. Erpenius’ own
work covers various Oriental languages, such as his Orationes tres de Linguarum Ebreae et Arabicae Dignitate (Leiden,
1621). His works include grammars of Hebrew (Leiden, 1621;
Geneva, 1627; Leiden, 1659); of Aramaic and Syriac (Amsterdam, 1628); the books of Samuel and Kings edited andtranslated into Hebrew and Latin; the Pentateuch in Arabic(Leiden, 1621); Psalms in Syriac (1628); and a treatise on the
punctuation of the divine name (Rostock, 1626). After Erpenius’ death his Oriental manuscripts were purchased and donated to Cambridge University (a.o. Hebrew Mss. Ee. 5.8–10,
Mm. 6.26.1–2).
Bibliography: Nouvelle Biographie Universelle, 13 (1815),
372–6, includes bibliography.
[Raphael Loewe]

Bibliography: Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 23 (1937),
81; 24 (1938), 231.

ERRERA, CARLO (1867–1936), Italian geographer andhistorian of exploration. Errera, who was born in Trieste,and originally trained as a geographer, became interested in
the Italian explorers and cartographers of the 15t and 16t
centuries, and produced numerous monographs on theiractivities. These detailed analyses were synthesized in L’Epoca
delle grandi scoperte geografiche (1902, 19263). An “Irredentist” with a particular interest in the Adriatic region, Errera
wrote a number of books and pamphlets on this subject.
He was vice president of the Italian National Research Council.

[Alan Richard Schulman and Michael Fox]

[Frank D. Grande]

482

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

erter, isaac

ERTER, ISAAC (1791–1851), Hebrew satirist of the Haskalah.
Born in Koniuszek near Przemysl, Erter, during the earlier
part of his life, lived in various places including Lvov, where
he, together with a group of young maskilim, was excommunicated in 1816 by Rabbi Jacob Ornstein; Budapest, where hestudied medicine (1825–29); and Brody, then an importantcommercial and cultural center for Galician Jewry, where hesettled in 1831 and remained for the rest of his life. In addition to his literary work, Erter was also active communallyamong Haskalah circles, showing special interest in the plans
for a reform of contemporary Jewish society. Toward the endof his life, he collaborated with his friend Y.H. *Schorr in theearly stages of the founding of He-Ḥ alutz, a Hebrew periodical dedicated to the study of Judaica in the spirit of religious
reform, and distinguished by a boldly critical treatment ofproblems relating to Jewish tradition.

Erter’s only book, Ha-Ẓ ofeh le-Veit Yisrael (“The Watchman of the House of Israel,” 1858), consists of five satires, allof which had been published separately (between 1823 and1851) with the addition of some personal correspondence
relevant to his literary career. Noteworthy among the satires
are the following: Ḥ asidut ve-Ḥ okhmah (“Ḥ asidism and Wisdom”), Tashlikh (the ceremony of symbolically casting one’s
sins into the water on Rosh Ha-Shanah), and Gilgul Nefesh(“Transmigration of the Soul”). Written in the form of epistles, several of the satires seem to have been modeled on thework of Lucian, the second-century Greek satirist, whose
writings were very popular in European Rationalist literature
and which Erter came to know in Wieland’s German translation. Lucian’s satiric and ironic treatment of Greek mythology
and of ignorant and boorish antiquity during its decline wasadapted by Erter in his fight against the traditionalist Jewish
society of his day. The recurring character – a type of “persona satirae” – “the watchman of the House of Israel,” has its
source in the prophet-castigator of Ezekiel 3:17 (whence also
the title); by virtue of the authority of the biblical figure, Erter’s watchman reviews the reality of Jewish society in Galicia
and Poland in the first half of the 19t century. In this narrative, written in an autobiographical manner, the “observer”
gathers evidence and confronts the reader with confessionsof figures belonging to an imaginary, fanciful world, confessions made in a dream state or after death. Having endowed
them with a keen rhetoric ability, Erter enables these figures
to explain their character and experience by ironic exaggeration, coupled with the idealistic pathos characteristic of the
Haskalah movement.
The subjects treated in the satires are the hypocrisy, ignorance, and superstition, which in Erter’s view characterize
the world of Ḥ asidism; the rabbis, who are accused of pedantry, pursuit of personal glory, and literary plagiarism; andthe leaders of the Jewish community, condemned for theircorruption. The irony is likewise directed, although to a lesser
extent, at the maskilim, who ignore the plight of their brethren, and at Erter’s colleagues, the physicians, who abuse theirprofession out of either ignorance or the pursuit of gain andglory. These facts are presented in an extremely satiric form
with Erter’s frequent use of not only conventional personifications of human qualities, in the tradition of satirical allegory,
but also demonic figures drawn from the Jewish legends, suchas angels, Samael, and reincarnated souls. The satirist pretends
to be an objective reporter of empirical facts who, in his experimental approach, employs such satiric devices as scales
which expose the true value of human qualities, nets whichcatch the sins of persons regarded by all as above reproach,and the cynical confessions of deceased sinners. He even has
recourse to the pseudo-magical devices of a miraculous shortening of a journey and instantaneous flight to distant places
so as to keep track of events in all areas of Jewish sojourn. The
number of observations made is basic to his method, for indescribing as many facets as possible of Jewish life which to

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6483

ERRERA, LÉO (1858–1905), Belgian botanist and Jewish
leader. Errera studied in Brussels, Strasbourg, and at the Botanical Institute of Wuerzburg. In 1884 he was appointed lecturer at the University of Brussels (professor, 1895), where hefounded the Botanical Institute in 1891. In 1898 he was electedto the Royal Academy of Belgium. Errera’s research included
discovery of glycogen as the reserve carbohydrate of fungi,
studies on the role of alkaloids in plants, and pioneer studies
on the physical laws governing the shape of cells. His collected
works were published in five volumes between 1908 and 1922.
Errera was prominent in local and international Jewish activities. He was connected with the Alliance Israélite Universelle
and he participated in many international conferences on
Jewish questions. In 1893 he published a pamphlet protesting
the persecution of Russian Jews, Les Juifs russes: extermination ou émancipation (English ed. 1894; German ed., together
with the author’s study on the Kishinev pogrom, 1903). His
brother was Paul Joseph *Errera.
Bibliography: Massart, in: Annuaire de la Société Royale
des Sciences naturelles et médicales de Bruxelles (1905); Fredericq
and Mossart, in: Annuaire de l’Académie Royale de Belgique (1908),
131–279; A. Errera, in: Commemoration Léo Errera, ed. by Université libre de Bruxelles (1960), 17–37 (includes bibliography); Pelseneer, in: Bulletin de la Société Royale de Botanique de Belgique, 92(1960), 269–70.

ERRERA, PAUL JOSEPH (1860–1922), Belgian jurist. Born
in Brussels, son of the banker Jacques Errera, Paul Errera became professor of constitutional law at Brussels, was rector of
the university from 1908 to 1911, and its administrative vicepresident in 1919. He was a member of the Royal Academy ofBelgium. Errera published several works on Belgian law, including Les Masuirs (1891), Les Warechaix (1894), and Traité deDroit publie belge (19182). He was active in Jewish affairs and amember of both the Jewish Colonization Association and thecentral committee of the Alliance Israélite Universelle.
[Rose Bieber]eruv

ERUV (pl. Eruvin; Heb. ‫) ֵערוּב‬, term applied to various symbolical acts which facilitate the accomplishment of otherwise
forbidden acts on the Sabbath and festivals. The literal meaning of eruv is “mixing” and it probably connotes the insertion of the forbidden into the sphere of the permissible (cf.
Maim., Yad, Eruvin, 1:6). Thus, though it is forbidden (biblically, according to some authorities, rabbinically, according
to others) to walk further than 2,000 cubits from one’s town
on the Sabbath or festivals, one may “mix” the forbidden andpermitted areas by establishing an eruv teḥ umim (boundaryeruv). This is accomplished by placing sufficient food for two
meals (also called eruv teḥ umim) less than 2,000 cubits fromthe town, thus establishing another “residence” from which
one can again walk the permissible distance in any direction.
This ordinance is evidently ancient since its existence is assumed in tannaitic sources (cf. Er. 3–5; Tosef. Er. 3–7; et al). It
is discussed extensively in the Talmud (cf. Er. 26b–61b; TJ, Er.
3–5) and by later authorities (e.g., Tur, Sh. Ar., Oḥ 408–16).
A similarly old statute (attributed to Solomon in Er. 21b)is that of eruv ḥ aẓ erot (domain eruv). While carrying between
private and public domains is forbidden on the Sabbath, therabbis also forbade carrying between two private domains.
For example, if several houses opened onto one courtyard, anobject could not be removed from one house to another, norfrom a house to the courtyard (the latter is considered private
property, owned by all the residents, if it is surrounded by awall at least ten handbreadths high). To facilitate such carrying, a loaf of bread (called eruv ḥ aẓ erot) owned by all theresidents is placed in one of the houses, thereby symbolicallycreating mutual ownership of all the dwellings. The houses
and courtyard are thereby “mixed” together into one private
domain. The sources indicate that eruv ḥ aẓ erot was alreadypracticed in the time of the Second Temple; the details areelaborated in rabbinic literature from tannaitic times (Er. 1:10;
2:6, et al.; see also Er. 17b; 61b–82a, et al.) down to the later
codes (cf. Tur, Sh. Ar., Oḥ 366–95).
To “mix” private and public domains in order that an individual may carry from one to the other or within the latter,an eruv is erected around a given settled district. According
to most early authorities, this eruv consists of a minimum offour poles at least ten handbreadths high, connected by otherpoles from top to top, forming the shape of a gate. The accepted practice among Jewish communities for generations
has been to erect such an eruv by connecting poles (of therequired height) with iron wires. A minority opinion among
the authorities, based on a disagreement of interpretation of atalmudic section (Er. 11a–b; cf. Tur, Sh. Ar., Oḥ 362), holds thatthe poles must also be no more than ten cubits apart.
No eruv, however, can permit carrying within what rabbinic law considers as falling under the biblical definition of
public domain (cf. Shab. 6b; Er. 6). According to most authorities, such a domain is defined as an area crossed by at least
600,000 people (the number of Jews who fled Egypt) every
day, and this definition is accepted in law. Since such publicdomains exist only in the largest cities, an eruv is effective inmost areas. Some consider the minority opinion, which finds
a biblically defined public domain in most settlements. Whileindividuals refrain from carrying in such areas, the authorities
admit that this practice is not required of everyone by law (cf.
Shab. 6b; Tos. to Shab., s.v. Kan; Tur, Sh. Ar., Oḥ 303, 345).]
According to rabbinical decree, in order to cook for the
Sabbath during a festival immediately preceding it, one must
establish an eruv tavshilin (cooking eruv). Before the festival,
bread and a cooked food (some feel the former is unnecessary)are put aside for the Sabbath. Since the preparation of foodfor the Sabbath begins before the festival, it may be continued
during the holidays. The preparation of food for the festival
and that for the Sabbath are thus “mixed.” The food prepared
before the holiday is “mixed” with that prepared within theday, and the use of both is permitted. The term eruv tavshilin
is applied both to the act of setting aside the food and to thefood itself. This practice also evidently dates from an early period, since a controversy is recorded between the schools of
Shammai and Hillel regarding one detail: Bet Shammai heldthat not one but two cooked dishes must be set aside. Eruv
tavshilin is made by every householder, although, in principle,
one man’s eruv (e.g., that of the rabbi) can dispense the whole
congregation or city. The making of the eruv is preceded by
the standard benediction “Blessed art Thou … Who hast sanc-

484

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

him seem disgraceful, Erter seeks to stress his accusations by
way of irony. Assuming an air of innocence, he is apparently
surprised and shocked at the various reports of deceit and ignorance which are conveyed to him by the characters which
inhabit the shadow of his sketches. His style is most important in the shaping of his satire. Using biblical phraseology
extensively, he highlights the disparity between the sublime
and the ideal in the original biblical source from which thatphraseology is drawn and the ugly and the ridiculous state of
the contemporary world which it describes. He also parodies
traditional legal sources and adapts for his purpose some traditional sayings and proverbs. His idiom reflects the elaborate
Hebrew style of the period and does not lack a certain rhetorical symmetry. A new edition of Ha-Ẓ ofeh le-Veit Yisrael
was published in 1996.
Bibliography: J. Chotzmen, in: JQR, 3 (1891), 106–119; idem,
Hebrew Humour and other Essays (1905), 127–39; M. Lovitch, in:
HUCA (1904), 224–34; M. Weissberg, in: MGWJ, 62 (1928), 184–92;
Waxman, Literature, 3 (19602), 187–94; S. Bernfeld, Sefer ha-Shanah,
2 (1935), 134–42; Klausner, Sifrut (19522), 321–49. Add. Bibliography: M. Peli, Darkhei ha-Sippur shel Erter ba-Satirah Gilglul Nefesh(1973); N. Orland, “Aufklaerung, Emanzipation und Zionismus,” in:Veröffentlichungen aus dem Institut Kirche und Judentum, 5 (1977),
36–41; J. Vilian, “Ḥ asidut ve-Ḥ okhmah le-Yiẓ ḥ ak Erter,” in: Dappim
le-Meḥ kar be-Sifrut, 5–6 (1989), 277–86; S. Werses, “Gilgul Nefesh shel
Erter be-Tirgumo le-Yiddish,” in: Ḥ uliot, 2 (1994), 29–49; S. Werses,“Tofa’ot shel Magiyah ve-Demonologiyah ba-Aspaklariyah ha-Satirit
shel Maskilei Galiẓ iya,” in: Meḥ karei Yerushalayim ba-Folklor ha-Yehudi, 17 (1995), 33–62; Y. Friedlander, Introduction to Ha-Ẓ ofeh leVeit Yisrael (1996).
[Samuel Werses]

eruvintified us with Thy commandments and hast commanded us
concerning the ordinance of the eruv” followed by an Aramaic
sentence to the effect that “by virtue of this eruv it is permitted to bake, to cook, and to kindle light as well as to provide
for our necessary wants on this festival day for the succeeding
Sabbath; for us and for all the Israelites living in this town.” Insome congregations it is customary to announce before theevening service of the festival that those who have forgotten
to make eruv tavshilin are dispensed by the rabbi’s eruv. In thePortuguese rite of Amsterdam the congregation was remindedby the ḥ azzan on the day preceding the eve of the festival of
the obligation to make eruv (Vosses tens obrigaçao de fazer Hirub). The rules regarding eruv tavshilin are discussed in the
Talmud (cf. Mishnah Beẓ ah 2:1; TB, Beẓ ah 16a–17b; TJ, Beẓ ah2:1) and the codes (Sh. Ar., Oḥ 527).

ERUVIN (Heb. ‫) ֵערו ִּבין‬, the second tractate of the order Mo’ed
in the Mishnah, Tosefta, and in both the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds. It deals with all aspects of the Sabbath eruv:
eruv of Sabbath boundaries, the eruv of courtyards, and theeruv of the partnership of alleys (see *Eruv). It is thus a continuation of the tractate Shabbat, and in fact, it appears thatoriginally the two tractates were one, but in view of its length(24 and 10 chapters) it was divided into two. This is evidenced
by the fact that the last chapter, the Mishnah of Eruvin, is akind of supplement to both Shabbat and Eruvin and deals withseveral details of the law of the Sabbath. The Tosefta of Eruvinalso concludes with a statement which applies to the Sabbath:“The halakhot of the Sabbath … are like mountains hanging
by a hair, having few biblical verses and many halakhot thathave nothing upon which they can be supported” (cf. Ḥ ag.
1:8). Eruvin contains traditions which relate to the realia of theSecond Temple period. Thus chapter 1:10 states that soldiers
proceeding to battle are exempted from four things: they are
permitted to collect wood for fuel from any place – and it is
not regarded as theft; they are exempt from washing hands before touching food; they do not have to tithe *demai produce;and they are permitted to carry things from tent to tent andfrom the tent into the camp without an eruv. Chapter 10:11–15
similarly gives a collection of halakhot regarding activities
generally forbidden because they conflict with the spirit of
Sabbath rest but permitted in the Temple. The chief sourcesof the Mishnah of Eruvin in its present form are, as usual, thepupils of Akiva-Meir, Judah, Yose, Simeon, and Eleazar. It issaid of Judah that wherever he teaches a Mishnah in Eruvin,the halakhah goes according to his teaching (Er. 81b).
The first two chapters deal with the alley and with domains of a semi-private nature (karmelit), where the sages
permitted carrying after minor modifications had been made.
Chapters three to five deal with the limits of travel on the Sab-bath and their extension by eruv. The next three chapters deal
with the eruv of courtyards and of entrances owned jointly,
and, as stated, chapter ten discusses various details of the halakhot of the Sabbath. According to Mishnah 6:1, if a Jew shares acourtyard with a non-Jew or with one who does not admit thevalidity of the eruv (such as a Samaritan or a Sadducee), he isthereby precluded from carrying articles from his house into
the common alley on the Sabbath. The effect of this law was
to limit joint residence with a gentile or sectarian in a building served by a common courtyard, or using the courtyard on
Sabbaths (cf. Er. 62b: “lest he learn from his actions”). In the
Jerusalem Talmud (Er. 7:9, 24c), however, Joshua b. Levi states:
Why are eruvin made in courtyards? For the sake of peace,i.e., the carrying of the food before the Sabbath into the houseof one of the neighbors for the eruv of courtyards promotes
peace among the neighbors. The Jerusalem Talmud goes on
to relate the case of a woman who was hated by her neighborand sent her eruv through her son. When the neighbor saw
the son she embraced and kissed him; on his return home hetold his mother, who said, “She loves me so much and I did
not know it,” and as a result they were reconciled.
The order of the chapters in the manuscripts differs fromthat in the printed text. In the Munich manuscript chapter five
precedes chapter three, and in the Oxford manuscript chapter four follows chapter two and chapter five follows six, but
the order of the Tosefta accords more with that of the printed
texts even though in many halakhot its order is different fromthat of the Mishnah. The Tosefta in the printed texts and in
the Vienna manuscript of Eruvin has eight chapters – in the
Erfurt manuscript (Zuckermandel’s edition) it is divided into
11 chapters – and supplements the topics dealt with in the
Mishnah. Worthy of note are the collection of halakhot inchapter 4 (3): 5–9 which discuss war on the Sabbath. If gentiles
come to attack Jewish cities, it is permitted to go out with arms
and desecrate the Sabbath; this applies only if they are bent on
hostilities which endanger lives, but if their purpose is only
to take spoil, it is forbidden. If, however, they move against
towns near the border, even if only to take chaff or stubble, itis permitted to go out against them with arms and desecrate
the Sabbath. In the Babylonian Talmud tractate Eruvin is considered one of the most difficult tractates, apparently becauseof the mathematical calculations (see, e.g., 14a–b or 76a–b) as
well as because of the difficulty in understanding the various
designs of the domains and their mutual relationship, despite
the fact that sketches are provided in order to illustrate them(starting with the later printed versions).
Many scholars conclude from the discussion in Eruvin
32b, where there occurs the phrase, “Did you embody it inyour Gemara?” that the amoraim already possessed a Gemara on the Mishnah which was methodically arranged (seethe epistle of Sherira Gaon, ed. by B.M. Levin (1921), 63; Halevi, Dorot, 3 (1923), 117, et al.). It can also be seen from Eruvin
72a–b that there was an early editing of various discussions
in the Talmud which preceded its final editing (see C. Albeck, Mavo la-Talmudim (1969), p. 578). Scattered throughout

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

485

Bibliography: S. Ganzfried, Code of Jewish Law, tr. by H.E.
Goldin, 2 (1928), 135–45; 3 (1928), 14–16; H. Tchernowitz, Tikkun
Shabbat (1900); N.Z. Nobel, Porat Yosef (1914); Eisenstein, Dinim,
326–8.
[Zvi Kaplan]erwitt, elliott
Eruvin are many aggadot and ethical dicta. One tells how “forthree years Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai disagreed, one school
saying, ‘the halakhah follows us,’ and the other, ‘the halakhahfollows us.’ A heavenly voice [*bat kol] was heard to say, ‘Both
are the words of the living God but the halakhah follows Bet
Hillel.’ Since, however, ‘both are the words of the living God,’why did Bet Hillel merit to have the halakhah established according to them – Because they were genial and modest, andtaught their own sayings and those of Bet Shammai. Furthermore, they put Bet Shammai’s words before their own.… This
teaches you that whosoever humbles himself the Holy One
exalts, and whosoever exalts himself, the Holy One humbles”(Er. 13b). The method of learning and memorizing in the academy of Rabban Gamaliel of Jabneh and of Simeon b. Gamaliel is reflected in an anachronistic aggadic baraita, quoted in
Eruvin 54b, that describes the “order of the Mishnah” which
Moses received from the Almighty and its teaching to the elders and the nation (cf. Epstein, Tanna’im, 187). Among themany apothegms to be found in Eruvin are the following: “Thenumerical value of the word yayin [“wine”] is 70 and that ofsod [“secret”] also 70, to teach that when wine enters, secrets
are divulged” (65a); “A man’s character can be recognized bythree things; by his cup [kos], by his purse [kis], and by hisanger [ka’as]; some say also by his mirth” (65b). In addition
to the many commentaries, editions, and translations available today, Abraham Goldberg has published a critical editionand commentary to Mishnah Eruvin, which discusses the historical levels in this tractate of the Mishnah, its relation to theTosefta, and many of the traditions and interpretations foundin the two Talmudim.
Bibliography: Epstein, Tanna’im, 300–22; C. Albeck (ed.),Shishah Sidrei Mishnah, 2 (1958), 77ff. Add. Bibliography: Goldberg, The Mishnah Treatise Eruvin (1986).
[Yitzhak Dov Gilat]

ERWITT, ELLIOTT (1928– ), U.S. photographer. Born inParis to Russian parents, Erwitt immigrated to the UnitedStates with them in 1939. The family settled in Los Angeles,
where Erwitt studied photography from 1942 to 1944 at Los
Angeles City College. He worked as a photographic assistant in
the U.S. Army before going to New York to study film. There,
his work gained the regard of three influential figures in photography: Edward *Steichen of the Museum of Modern Art;
Robert *Capa at Magnum, the photo agency; and Roy Stryker
at the Standard Oil Company photo library. Steichen included
several of Erwitt’s pictures in the Modern’s monumental 1955
“Family of Man” show, Stryker hired him as a staff photographer, and Capa promised a membership at Magnum after
Erwitt’s two-year army hitch. He remained with Magnum for
more than 50 years. Erwitt’s photography has often reflected
his sense of humor: a quiet sense of the ridiculous, sometimes punctuated with visual puns, sometimes with hilariously candid juxtapositions. Most of his images, in black andwhite, were candids, taken with a small Leica, which he carried constantly. Some familiar photographs included Richard486

M. Nixon and Nikita S. Khrushchev at the famous “kitchen
debate” in the Soviet Union; a bored-looking dog lifting his
leg during a political speech by Nelson A. Rockefeller; andJacqueline Kennedy in Arlington National Cemetery, clutching the flag that covered her husband’s coffin. Other memorable pictures are of unknown people at unknown places andtimes. The cover of one of his books, Personal Exposures, forexample, shows a photograph, taken at a beach in California in 1955, of a parked car whose side-view mirror reflects acouple kissing.
[Stewart Kampel (2nd ed.)]

ESARHADDON (Akk. Aššur-ah(a)-iddina, “Ashur has givenַ̆ ‫) ֵא ַס‬, king ofme a brother” (for the other siblings); Heb. ‫ר־חדּ וֹ ן‬
Assyria from 680 to 669 B.C.E., third ruler of the Sargonid
dynasty. Though a younger son, he was preferred for the succession because of the influence of his mother Naqiʿa-Zakutu.
His reign is characterized by three main policies. The first was
the reconciliation of Babylonia by the rebuilding of Babylon,
which his father Sennacherib had destroyed in 689 B.C.E. The
second was the maintenance of Assyrian rule and influencein the northern and eastern marches of the empire, especiallyin the face of the Scythian invasion of 679 B.C.E. and its consequences in the north, and the gradual political and military consolidation of the Medes on the Iranian plateau. With
some of the latter he concluded vassal treaties in 672 B.C.E. toensure the orderly succession of his son Ashurbanipal to thethrone. The terminology of these treaties bears comparison
in structure and detail with various parts of the contemporaneous Book of *Deuteronomy, especially the final sectionof curses in Deuteronomy 28:15ff. The third aspect of Assyrian imperial policy during the reign of Esarhaddon was the
response to the danger of increasing Egyptian influence andintrigue among the vassal states of Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine, involving punitive campaigns against insurgent citiesin 677 and 675 B.C.E. and an expedition to the Arabian desert in 676 B.C.E., and culminating in the defeat and conquestof Egypt in 671 B.C.E. Esarhaddon relates that he made 22
western vassals, including *Manasseh of Judah, drag beams
and timber for the construction of his palace in Nineveh andstone statues of protective deities (see Pritchard, Texts, 291).
This may be the historical nucleus of II Chronicles 33:11–12,
according to which Manasseh was taken in chains to Babylonia by the army officers of the king of Assyria but was later
allowed to return to his kingdom. But the political orientationof Judah in those years is obscure and Manasseh may havesteered a national course for a time. Assyrian cultural influence in Judah was strong in the reign of Esarhaddon, and according to Ezra 4:2 he continued the colonization of Samariawith foreign settlers.
Bibliography: CAH, 3 (1925), 79–80, 393; R. Borger, in: AFO
Beiheft, 9 (1956); D.J. Wiseman, in: Iraq, 20 (1958); D.R. Hillers, Treaty
Curses and the Old Testament Prophets (1964); M. Weinfeld, in: Biblica,
46 (1965), 417–27. Add. Bibliography: A.Grayson, in: ABD II, 574;
S. Parpola and K. Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6esau(SAA II; 1988); M. Luukko and G. van Buylaere, The Political Correspondence of Esarhaddon (SAA XVI; 2002); F. Reynolds, The Babylonian Correspondence of Esarhaddon (SAA 17; 2003).
[Aaron Shaffer]

ESAU (Heb. ‫ ; ֵעשָׂ ו‬meaning uncertain; see below), the firstborn
son of *Isaac and *Rebekah, the twin brother of *Jacob (Gen.
25:24–26). Esau is also called Edom (25:30) and is the ancestorof the Edomites (Gen. 36; Mal. 1:2–3; see *Edom). The Bible
does not describe Esau at great length; but he is featured as a
hairy man, “a skillful hunter, a man of the outdoors,” and thefavored son of Isaac, in sharp contrast to Jacob, a mild man,“smooth-skinned,” and the favored son of Rebekah (Gen.
25:25, 27–28; 27:11). According to the biblical narrative, while
Rebekah was pregnant with the twins, “the children struggled
in her womb” and in her anxiety Rebekah “went to inquire of
the Lord.” The oracle she received in reply describes, in fact,
not so much the relationship between Jacob and Esau as thatbetween the Israelites and the Edomites: each of the boys
would become the progenitor of a nation, and “One people[would] be mightier than the other, and the older would serve
the younger.” In a sense, the prophecy began to be fulfilledin the lifetime of the two ancestors, through two episodes inwhich Jacob gains the upper hand. First a starving Esau took
an oath whereby he agreed to relinquish his birthright to his
brother in exchange for a meal (25:29–34). The oath, it should
be noted, was as binding as a written document. The narrative at this point contrasts with pentateuchal law, which guarantees certain privileges to the firstborn (Deut. 21:15–17), andreflects an earlier state of affairs in which the transfer of thebirthright was possible. The socio-legal situation behind thisincident is clarified in the finds of *Nuzi (see *Patriarchs). The
second event which gives the struggle between the two brothers special significance is the loss by Esau of the patriarchal
blessing (Gen. 27). Jacob, following the advice of his mother,disguised himself as Esau and received the blessing promisedby Isaac to his brother. When Esau discovered the deception
and implored his father for a blessing, he was told, “See, yourabode shall enjoy the fat of the earth and the dew of heaven
above. Yet by your sword you shall live, and you shall serve
your brother; but when you grow restive, you shall break his
yoke from your neck.” This “blessing” contains echoes of theoracle which Rebekah had received, the supremacy of theyounger brother over the firstborn being emphasized in bothcases. However, at the end of Isaac’s blessing there is a hint of
Edom’s recovery of her independence in the days of Solomon(I Kings 11:21–22, 25) and Jehoram (II Kings 8:20–22). Incensed
by Jacob’s deception, Esau intended to kill Jacob once Isaac
was dead (Gen. 27:41). When Rebekah became aware of this,she advised Jacob to flee to her brother *Laban in *Haran,
where he stayed for 20 years. Meanwhile Esau, having taken
two wives from among the indigenous peoples of Canaan
and a third from among the daughters of his uncle, Ishmael(regarding their names, and the parentages of the Canaanite
ones, there are two different traditions: Gen. 26:34; 28:9; andENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Gen. 36:2), and having begotten children, migrated with all
his household and his belongings “to another land becauseof his brother Jacob. For their possessions were too manyand the land where they sojourned could not support thembecause of their livestock” (Gen. 36:6–7). Esau settled in theland of Seir, alongside the descendants of Seir the Horite, whowere already living there (36:20). When Jacob, on his way
home from Haran, had advanced into *Gilead as far south as*Penuel, he decided to try to appease his brother by sending
messengers with greetings. Esau set out to meet him with aband of 400 stalwarts; and when his messengers returned andmade this known to Jacob, he was frightened and sent aheadsome herds of livestock as gifts (32:4–22; 33:1–2). As it turned
out, however, Jacob’s fears proved to be unfounded; for Esau
came with 400 of his men to welcome his brother just southof the *Jabbok, greeted him with every sign of affection, andrefused to accept the gifts. He wished to escort Jacob and his
company southward through Transjordan to his home in Seir
where he would no doubt act the older, if not unkind, brother;but Jacob persuaded him to go ahead, and then proceeded
westward to the land of Canaan (33:4–16). In this incident as
in the sale of the birthright Esau is a good but simple fellow,
easily manipulated by his wily brother.
Three popular etymologies are connected with Esau. In
the description given of him at his birth – “red, like a hairy
mantle all over” (Gen. 25:25) – at most only the second partcan have anything to do with the name Esau (Heb. Esav, ʿEsaw),
which may be related to the Arabic root ġšw, “to cover.” Theredness, in contrast, can only explain his other name, Edom
(Heb. ‘Edom), connected with the word ʾadom (“red”). In verse
30, the same name is explained by his impatient plea, when hecame home hungry, for some of the “red stuff ” (i.e., lentils) that
Jacob was cooking. The red down (“hairy mantle,” Heb. ʾadderetseʿar) with which he is said to have been covered at birth may
originally have served to explain the name Seir (Heb. seʿir).
[Yuval Kamrat]

In the Aggadah
The personality of Esau is discussed in the aggadah from threedifferent aspects, the differentiation between which causes difficulties. He is discussed as the brother of Jacob, as identicalwith *Edom, and sometimes with *Rome, with whom Edom
was identified.
JACOB’S BROTHER. Esau’s relations with *Jacob were a favored theme for many homilies and aggadot. Generally theaggadah follows the biblical account, and so do the pseudepigraphic works of the Second Temple period (particularly
the Book of *Jubilees and the *Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs), but they aim at describing Esau as completely wicked.
However, there are also descriptions aimed at finding someredeeming features in him, such as the dictum of Simeon b.
Gamaliel: “All my days I attended upon my father but I did
not attain to one hundredth of the attention Esau gave his father, for I attended him in soiled garments and when I wentout to the market-place I went with clean clothes. When Esau,

487

escalona
however, attended his father, he waited upon him in regal garments, saying, ‘Father’s honor is to be respected only in regal
garments’” (Gen. R. 65:16). So too the homily: “And Esau saw
that the daughters of Canaan pleased not Isaac his father; so
Esau went unto Ishmael and took Mahalath [Gen. 28:8–9];
Joshua b. Levi said: he intended to mend his ways [Maḥ alat,root: “to forgive”] because the Holy One pardoned his iniquities” (Gen. R. 66:13). The aggadists also find some merit in his
relations with Jacob. Thus Simeon b. Yoḥ ai says: “It is a wellknown fact that Esau hated Jacob, yet at that moment his compassion was turned to him and he kissed him wholeheartedly”(Sif. Num. 69, cf. a similar saying of Simeon b. Eleazar in Gen.
R. 78:9). Here too, however, the opposite opinion is expressedthat he did not kiss him “with his whole heart” or that he even“intended to bite him” (ibid.). The homilies which portray the
wickedness of Esau are many and very diversified. He is said
to have committed the most heinous sins – idolatry, adultery,and bloodshed (Gen. R. 63:12) – and he was hypocritical, asking questions like “how does one tithe salt … how does one
tithe straw?” (Gen. R. 63:10).
ESAU AS EDOM. The identification of Esau with Edom (cf.
Gen. 36:1, 43) is often referred to in the Bible and is found in
all the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha of the Second Temple
period and naturally in talmudic and midrashic sources too.
*Amalek, the eternal enemy of Israel, is one of his descendants. Since the end of the Second Temple, the identificationof *Haman the Agagite (Esth. 3:1; 8:3, 5; 9:24) as “a descendantof the seed of Amalek” (an identification first found explicitly in Jos., Ant., 11:20, apparently on the basis of the connection between the name “Agagite” and *Agag, king of Amalek:
I Sam. 15:8–9, 20, 32–33, and cf. Num. 24:7) served as a fertile
source for many homilies connecting the stories of the Bookof Esther with Esau. Most of these homilies are naturally condemnatory, but there occur some with a slightly different tone,such as “R. Ḥ anina said, whoever says that the Holy One isindulgent will be punished. The truth is that He is patient
but ultimately claims His due; Jacob caused Esau to utter one
cry [Gen. 27:34], and where was he requited? In Shushan thecapital, as it is stated [Esth. 4:1] ‘and he cried with a loud anda bitter cry’” (Gen. R. 67:4).
ESAU AS ROME. The identification of Esau with Rome is notfound in the literature of the Second Temple period; attempts
at detecting it in the Ezra Apocalypse (IV Ezra 6:7–8 and in
Jos. Ant.) and in the Targum of *Onkelos to the Pentateuch
have no real basis. The identification appears first, apparently, in an aggadah of the period following the *Bar Kokhba
War (132–135 C.E.): “It has been taught: Judah b. Ilai said: My
teacher Baruch (or, “blessed be he” – see later) used to say‘The voice is the voice of Jacob, but the hands are the handsof Esau [Gen. 27:22]; the voice of Jacob cries out at what thehands of Esau did to him at Bethar’” (TJ, Ta’an. 4:8, 68d; Gen.
R. 65:21, et al. – “Baruch my teacher” may be a cryptic reference to *Akiva). The identification is also found in a conversation between Akiva and *Tinneius Rufus (Tanḥ . Terumah,

4883) and is common in the mouths of the scholars of the age
following the Hadrianic persecutions (Gen. R. 67:7 – Yose b.
Ḥ alafta; Tanh. B., Deut. supplement 5 (p.5) – Simeon b. Gamaliel). Thereafter it became very widespread (see the anonymous homily in Sif. Deut. 41, ed. Finkelstein, p. 85). In general
Esau is referred to in a derogatory vein but here too there are
exceptions such as: “For the three tears that Esau shed [Gen.
27:38], Israel suffered in three wars, as it says [Ps. 80:6]: Thouhast fed them with the bread of tears, and given them tears todrink in large measure” (shalish, ARN2 47, 130).
[Moshe David Herr]
Bibliography: C.H. Gordon, in: BA, 3 (1940), 5; R. de Vaux,
in: RB, 56 (1949), 22ff.; E.A. Speiser, in: JBL, 74 (1955), 252–56; idem, in:
IEJ, 17 (1957), 212–13; idem, Genesis (1964), 193–213, 258–61; V. Maag
in: Theologische Zeitschrift, 13 (1957), 418–29; H.L. Ginsberg, in: JBL,
80 (1961), 342; N.M. Sarna, Understanding Genesis (1966), 181–88; Y.
Heinemann, Darkhei ha-Aggadah (19542), index. Add. Bibliography: N. Sarna, Genesis (JPS; 1989), 177–82.

ESCALONA, town in Castile, central Spain. A Jewish community existed in Escalona during the Muslim period and remained in the town after the Christian conquest in 1083. The
rights of the Jews in Escalona were established by the fuero(“municipal charter”) of 1130. This gave them equal status with
Christians and Moors, although a Jew was not permitted toact as judge in Christian lawsuits. Jews in Escalona owned
vineyards and real estate throughout the existence of the settlement there. In the 1290 tax distribution among the Jewish
communities, the Jews of Escalona were not included specifically, probably due to their small number. The community wasdestroyed during the persecutions of 1391, but was renewed in
the 15t century, when it was fairly small. In 1453 real estate in
the city was given to R. Salamon, the physician of Countess
Juana Pimentel, in appreciation of his services. The list of thetaxes levied on the community is an important source of information, showing that it paid 1,000 maravedis in 1474, and
2,000 maravedis in 1482. The levy for the war against Granada
amounted to 38 gold castellanos in 1485. The community paid
5,040 maravedis in 1489, 6,570 maravedis in 1490, and 4,000
maravedis in 1491. From a source preserved in the municipal
archives we know that a Jewish quarter existed between 1477
and 1489. There is a reference to a Jewish slaughterhouse. Following the segregation of the Jews in 1483 the mosque of the
Muslims was included within the Jewish quarter. Thus thecommunity apparently continued to exist until the expulsionof the Jews from Spain in 1492. Don Isaac *Abrabanel had business interests in the town. There was a group of *Conversos
living in Escalona, and those suspected of secretly practicing
Judaism were tried by the Inquisition of Toledo.
Bibliography: Baer, Urkunden, index; Suárez Fernández,
Documentos, 67, 80, 405; Beinart, in: Tarbiz, 26 (1956/57), 77, 82;
Ashtor, Korot, 2 (1966), 143. Add. Bibliography: P. León Tello,
Judíos de Toledo, 1 (1979), 291–4; A. Malalana Ureña, Escalona medieval (1083–1400) (1987), 195–7; J.L. Lacave, Juderías y sinagogas,(1992), 314.
[Haim Beinart / Yom Tov Assis (2nd ed.)]

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6eschatology
ESCAPA, JOSEPH BEN SAUL (1570–1662), Turkish rabbi
and author. Escapa was the descendant of a family from Castile which settled in *Salonika. He served there as head of ayeshivah, and was a colleague of Ḥ ayyim *Shabbetai. From
about 1620 he was rabbi of the Salonikan community in
Smyrna, and in 1648 was appointed rabbi of all the congregations of the city. Under his leadership, the united Smyrna community became one of the most important in Turkey. Giftedwith administrative ability, he introduced regulations concerning the collection of taxes and the supervision of communal
affairs; these practices are followed to the present day by thecommunity of Smyrna and surrounding territory. Escapa’s enactments were collected by R. Joshua Judah and published in
his Avodat Massa (Salonika, 1846). Escapa was one of the mostvehement opponents of *Shabbetai Ẓ evi, who was his disciple
and whom he had ordained, and proclaimed it a religious duty
to put Shabbetai Ẓ evi to death. Escapa wrote a commentaryon the Shulḥ an Arukh, called Rosh Yosef, of which only sections – on Oraḥ Ḥ ayyim (Smyrna, 1657), and Ḥ oshen Mishpat(ibid., 1659) – were published. He also wrote responsa (Frankfurt on the Oder, 1709), and a work on *Maimonides which
has remained in manuscript.

Some scholars have sought to derive Israelite eschatological ideas from similar concepts of its ancient neighbors, Egypt
and Babylonia. At most, there may have been some borrowings from these sources by the Prophets in the secondary details of their descriptions dealing with the horrendous conditions of the eschatological period. More likely, the features forwhich there are early extra-Israelite parallels were concepts
common to the entire ancient Near East. Essentially, eschatology in Israel is an inner-Israelite development. Only in thevery later period, i.e., in Daniel and the so-called intertestamental literature of the Jews, can a certain amount of borrowing from Persian sources be shown as probable.
It is difficult to date several eschatological oracles. In certain cases where, for instance, reference is made in a pre-Exilic
prophet to Jerusalem as already destroyed and the people of
Judah as already in exile, it is legitimate to suggest that suchpassages are later insertions into the pre-Exilic Prophets. However, when such criteria are lacking, the supposition should
normally be that the eschatological oracles in question belong
to the pre-Exilic prophet to whom they are attributed.

Bibliography: J. Sasportas, Ẓ iẓ at Novel Ẓ evi, ed. by I. Tishbi(1954), 378, index; Conforte, Kore, 46a; Rosanes, Togarmah, 2 (1938),
208–10; Werses, in: Yavneh, 3 (1942), 101ff.; Scholem, Shabbetai Ẓ evi,
89–90, 113, 119–20, 140, 304–5.

For the sake of showing how eschatological ideas evolved inancient Israel, it is useful to consider the preprophetic period,
the early prophetic oracles, the later pre-Exilic Prophets, andthe Exilic and post-Exilic Prophets.

ESCHATOLOGY. In general, the term “eschatology” designates the doctrine concerning “the last things.” The word
“last” can be understood either absolutely as referring to theultimate destiny of mankind in general or of each individualman, or relatively as referring to the end of a certain period
in the history of mankind or of a nation that is followed byanother, entirely different, historical period.

The Bible has no word for the abstract idea of eschatology. It
does, however, have a term – ʾaḥ arit ha-yamim – that often haseschatological connotations, at least in the broad sense mentioned above. It means literally “the end of the days,” i.e., “theend of time.” Just as the cognate Akkadian term, ina aḥ rât ūmī(from the older ina aḥ riāt ūmī), often shortened to ina aḥ râti,means simply “in the future” or “for [all] the future,” so also
the Hebrew term be-ʾaḥ arit ha-yamim can sometimes mean
merely “in the future, in time to come,” without necessarily
having any eschatological connotation (thus, e.g., Deut. 4:30;
31:29; cf. ʾaḥ arit, “a future,” in Jer. 29:11; et al.). In the Prophets,
however, be-ʾaḥ arit ha-yamim generally has an eschatologicalconnotation (see below).
In the last few centuries before the destruction of theSecond Temple, a new term with a strictly eschatologicalmeaning in the absolute sense appears. This term, keẓ (qeẓ )ha-yamim, means literally “the term of the days” (Dan. 12:13b;
cf. the similar term, ʿet qeẓ “the time of the term,” Dan. 8:17;
11:35, 40; 12:4, 9).

Pre-Prophetic Period
In the age of the Patriarchs, of Moses and Joshua, and of theJudges, and in the first few centuries of the monarchy there islittle evidence of true eschatology. Yet the basis of later Israelite eschatology was really laid down in that early age. From
the time of Abraham on, those descendants of his who latercalled themselves bene Yisrael, “the Israelites,” venerated their
one and only God as a “living God,” i.e., as one who took an
active part in the history of His people. They were consciousof the fact that He had made them His “*chosen people.”
Since He was not only the special God of Israel but also thesole Lord of the entire world, Israelite religion combined acertain “particularism” as the “chosen people” with a certain
universalism, which looked forward to their God’s reign over
all mankind. They regarded Him as a just God, who would
reward or punish all men according to their morally good orevil lives. Because of His *covenant with His chosen people, He
proves Himself to be faithful and loyal to His promises (thusshowing His frequently praised ʾemet or ʾemunah, “faithfulness,” and ḥ esed, “mercy”); therefore in times of need He sends
His people “saviors,” such as Moses and Joshua, the various“Judges,” and especially David, the ideal mashi’aḥ , “anointed”(see *Messiah) king, who was promised an everlasting dynasty(II Sam. 7:11–16). The hope and expectation that this relationship between the God of Israel and His people would continue
in the future led to the genuine eschatology that is found in
the books of the so-called “writing” Prophets (as distinct fromsuch earlier prophets as Elijah and Elisha). The essential ori-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6489

introductionin the bible

eschatology
gin of Israel’s eschatology lay in Israel’s belief in its election by
God as the means by which He would establish His universal
reign over all mankind, combined with His promise to Israelof its own land, “the Promised Land,” “the land of Canaan,” asHis pledge guaranteeing this promise.
Early Pre-Exilic Prophets
Among all the prophets of Israel, only the recorded oracles ofAmos and Hosea were uttered before the destruction of theNorthern kingdom of Israel (722 b.c.e.).
AMOS. The prophetic activity of *Amos took place in approximately 750 b.c.e., during the brief period of peace and prosperity that both Israel and Judah enjoyed after Jeroboam II,
king of Israel (786–746), inflicted a decisive defeat (at an
uncertain date) on the Arameans of Damascus (II Kings
14:25–27). This prosperity led to various forms of social injustice, whereby the relatively small class of rich landowners
and government officials oppressed the poor, as well as to an
indulgence by many of the people of both kingdoms in the
degrading practices of their pagan neighbors. With divinely
inspired foresight, Amos knew that these evils would bringabout a time of crisis when the wrath of God would condemn to inevitable doom (Amos 1:3, 6, 9; et al.) not only the
pagan nations (1:3–2:3) but also Judah and especially Israel(2:4–6:14). The prophet based his prediction of Israel’s andJudah’s punishment on the much older concept of their election by God as His “Chosen People”: “You only have I knownof all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for
all your iniquities” (3:2).
In designating the time of God’s future punishment,
Amos was the first to call it “the *Day of the Lord” (yomYHWH), a term that was taken up, with further developments of the concept, by many of the later prophets (Isa. 13:6,
9; Ezek. 13:5; Joel 1:15; 2:1, 11; 3:4; 4:14; Obad. 15; Zeph. 1:7, 14;Mal. 3:23), with variations such as “the day of the Lord’s fury”(Zeph. 1:18), “that Day” (ha-yom ha-huʾ, Isa. 2:11; Zeph. 1:15), or
simply “the Day” (ha-yom, Mal. 3:19; cf. Ezek. 7:7). However,Amos did not invent the term; it is clear from his reference
to it that it was already in popular use. Its origin is obscure,and at first it may have had a military connotation, “the dayof the Lord’s victory over the enemies of His people” (cf. theexpression “the day of Midian” in Isa. 9:3, where, however, it
refers to Israel’s victory over the Midianites). In any case, atthe time of Amos the common people were using the term todesignate the time when their God would bring them complete victory over their enemies and thus lead them into the“light” of lasting peace and prosperity. The prophet turned
this expectation of theirs directly against them: “Woe to youthat desire the day of the Lord! Wherefore would you have theday of the Lord (YHWH)? It is darkness, not light.… No, theday of the Lord shall be darkness, not light, gloomy, devoid ofbrightness” (5:18, 20). In 8:9–10 Amos enlarges on this theme:“And on that day, says the Lord God, I will make the sun go
down at noon, and darken the earth in the clear day. And I
will turn your feasts into mourning and all your songs into

490

lamentation; I will bring sackcloth upon all loins, and baldness on every head; and I will make it like the mourning for
an only son, and the end of it like a bitter day.” While Amos
used the image of a midday eclipse of the sun merely in a figurative sense, the eschatological oracles of later prophets (e.g.,
Isa. 13:10) developed this image into vast cosmic disturbances,seemingly to be understood literally, that would accompany
the Day of the Lord.
Although for Amos the event initiating the new historical era would be primarily one of punishment and destruction, he includes, because he is aware of God’s fidelity to His
promises, the hope that for those who “seek the Lord” (5:4–6)“it may be that the Lord, the God of hosts, will be gracious to
the remnant of Joseph” (5:14–15). Here again there occurs theearliest use of a term, “the remnant” (she’erit; see *Remnant ofIsrael), that was reused and at times received a different connotation in later eschatological writings (Jer. 6:9; 31:7; Ezek.
9:8; et al.; sometimes also in the form sheʾar, Isa. 10:20–21; 11:11,
16; et al.). For Amos it designates those who will survive thedestruction of the Northern Kingdom.
In order that the Book of Amos might end on a morepositive note of hope, the last verses of the book (9:11–15),
concerning the restoration of Israel, were apparently added
by a post-Exilic editor. The later origin of this passage seems
probable because it presupposes that the Davidic dynasty hascome to an end and that the walls of Jerusalem have “breaches”
and the city is in “ruins” (9:11).
HOSEA. It is generally agreed that *Hosea, the only “writing”
prophet who was a native of the Northern Kingdom, was acontemporary of Amos, although apparently a younger one,for some of his oracles were probably delivered shortly before
the fall of Samaria, although none after that date (722 B.C.E.).
Like Amos, Hosea inveighed vigorously against the moral evils
in Israel. Yet his vehement threats of terrible punishments(Hos. 2:3–7, 16–25; 5:14; 10:14–15; 13:7–8; et al.) are mingledwith generous promises of forgiveness and future happiness(2:16–23; 6:1–3; 11:8–9; 12:6; 14:2–9; et al.); this is done withsuch sudden and confusing transitions that some scholars
regard the book as a rather haphazard collection of Hosea’s
short oracles strung together by some later editor in complete
disorder, while others see in this a reflection on the Lord’s partof the prophet’s own experience with his faithless wife (1:2–9;
3:1–3; cf. McKenzie, in CBQ, 17 (1955), 287–289).
If eschatology is understood in the broad sense of a dramatic change from one historical period to an entirely different one in the future, Hosea no doubt shows genuine eschatological concepts. Some of these, which are original with him,
played an important role in later eschatological writings. Such,for instance, is Hosea’s concept of renewal of God’s love for andcovenant with Israel as in the days following the Exodus from
Egypt (2:14–15; 11:1). The notable – and seminal – feature of thisnew covenant is that it has a built-in guarantee against Israel’s
ever giving cause for its dissolution as it did with the original
covenant. With the covenant, Israel will receive a new nature
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6eschatology
which will render it incapable of breaking it (Hos. 2:21–22; see
Jeremiah below). Another notable eschatological concept isthe view of a future in which Israel will never again be attacked
by human enemies from without and will live in peaceful harmony with all living creatures within its border.

ISAIAH. The authentic prophecies of *Isaiah, who was active
as a prophet from approximately 740 to at least 701 B.C.E., arefound in the first 39 chapters (“Proto-Isaiah”) of the long book(66 chapters) that is attributed to him; even in the first 39 chapters there are several sections, some rather long (e.g., the eschatologically important “Apocalypse of Isaiah” in 24:1–27:13),
that are later additions to the Book of Isaiah. These, as well as“Deutero-Isaiah” (40:1–55:13) and “Trito-Isaiah” (56:1–66:24) –the question of a Trito-Isaiah is still, however, disputed – will
be considered below for their eschatological import. Only
those oracles with eschatological bearing that are clearly or atleast probably from Isaiah or his disciples are treated here.
Isaiah lived at a time of national crisis for Judah: the Assyrians under Tiglath-Pileser III (745–727) ravaged and annexed Syria and most of the northern kingdom of Israel, andunder Shalmaneser V (727–722) and Sargon (722–705) subdued the rest of Israel and most of the Philistine plain; meanwhile the wicked Ahaz (735–715) and even the pious Hezekiah(715–687), kings of Judah, played the game of international
politics rather than trust in help from the Lord. Filled witha deep sense of God’s utter holiness by his call to prophesy,
Isaiah fulminated against idolatry and general wickedness in
Israel and Judah. Many of his vehement threats of the punishment that would come on “the Day of the Lord” have a genuine eschatological ring: they predict universal destruction, notonly for Israel and Judah, but also for the pagan nations, especially those who were the “rod of His wrath,” and these oracles
often have the overtones of cosmic disturbances that becamecharacteristic of later Jewish eschatology. Thus, for instance:“For the Lord of hosts has a day against all that is proud andlofty.… And the haughtiness of man shall be humbled, and the
pride of men shall be brought low; and the Lord alone will be
exalted on that day” (2:12, 17); “You will be visited by the Lordof hosts with thunder, and with earthquake, and great noise,with whirlwind and tempest, and the flame of a devouring fire.
And the multitude of all the nations that fight against Ariel …
shall be like a dream, a vision of the night” (29:6–7).
A recurring theme with eschatological implications in
Isaiah is that of the “remnant of Israel” (10:21–22; 11:11, 16;
14:30; 28:5; 37:32). To some extent this term implies a threat,as in Amos 5:15 (cf. “only a remnant” in Isa. 10:22), but usually it includes a consoling promise that at least a remnant of
the people will be left with whom the Lord will be pleased (cf.

“to recover the remnant of His people” in 11:11, and similarphrases in 4:3; 11:16; 28:5). There is no good reason for rejecting these passages as not authentic or for placing them in the
Exilic or post-Exilic period, since there is mention of a sonof the prophet with the symbolic name of Shear-Jashub (7:3),
which means “a remnant shall return.” (This, however, occurs
in a third person story about the prophet, and its historicity istherefore not technically assured; but see Isa. 6:11–13.)
A new theme in Isaiah is the prospect of a future ideal
king of Judah. This occurs in the so-called Immanuel passages, although, apart from its use as an exclamation in 8:8,
the name Immanuel, meaning “God is with us,” occurs onlyin 7:14, and the literary form of third person narrative, among
other things, raises doubts as to its historicity (see *Immanuel). When King Ahaz of Jerusalem is threatened with war bya coalition of the kings of Israel and Damascus if he does notenter into an anti-Assyrian league, Isaiah urges him to trust
solely in the Lord and gives him this sign: “Therefore the Lord
Himself will give you a sign: behold, a young woman shallconceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.…
Before the child knows how to refuse the evil, and choose thegood, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will bedeserted” (7:14, 16). Although the exact meaning of this passage is disputed, it is usually understood as referring directly
to Ahaz’ son and successor Hezekiah, who is here given thesymbolic name “God is with us.” Probably 9:5–6 is to be connected with this passage. Here, after singing of joyful peacefollowing a great victory that the Lord has wrought for His
people, the prophet continues: “For to us a child is born, to usa son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder;and his name will be called Pele-Joez-El-Gibbor-Abi-Ad-SarShalom [“Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace”]; of the increase of his government andof peace there be no end, upon the throne of David, and overhis kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice andwith righteousness from this time forth and for evermore. The
zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.” Finally, connected withthese two prophecies is that of 11:1–5: “There shall come fortha shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow forthout of his roots. And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him,
the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel
and might, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord.
And his delight shall be in the fear of the Lord. He shall notjudge by what his eyes see, or decide by what his ears hear; butwith righteousness he shall judge the poor, and decide withequity for the meek of the earth; and he shall smite the earth
with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips heshall slay the wicked. Righteousness shall be the girdle of his
waist and faithfulness the girdle of his loins.” These passages
are quoted here at length because in their description of the
future ideal king of Judah, they laid the foundation for theso-called Royal Messianism in the post-Exilic period, an important element in late Jewish eschatology. There is no solid
reason for denying the Isaian authorship of these prophecies;
even though the pre-Exilic prophets may not have held the

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6491

Later Pre-Exilic Prophets
In the second half of the eighth century B.C.E. two prophets,
Isaiah and Micah, were active in Judah, and some of their oracles are eschatological in the broad sense described above.
Similar eschatological oracles are found in Zephaniah, Nahum, and Jeremiah, who lived about a century later.

eschatology
kingship of Judah, as they knew it, in high esteem, they musthave been aware of the constant tradition based on Nathan’soracle concerning the perpetual endurance of the Davidic dynasty (II Sam. 7:12–16; Ps. 89:20–38; see *Messiah).
Like Hosea 2:20, 23–25, Isaiah describes the peace of the
Messianic age as a return to the happiness of the Garden of
Eden, where all creatures, wild beasts as well as men, would
live in tranquil harmony; “for the earth shall be full of theknowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea” (11:6–9).
MICAH. Contemporaneous with Isaiah, *Micah, a native ofMoresheth in Judah, apparently had a much shorter prophetic
ministry. Like Isaiah, he looked forward, in a broader eschatological sense, to an ideal ruler (the basis of Royal Messianism)
who would be of the Davidic dynasty, coming from David’s
native town of Beth-Lehem (5:1–3).
The theme of Mount Zion’s eventually becoming the religious center of all mankind, which is further developed inlater Jewish eschatology, is first enunciated in a prophecy thatis given, in almost identical words, in both Micah 4:1–4 andIsaiah 2:2–4. Some scholars hold that this prophecy is not original in either Micah or Isaiah, but that it was inserted in bothbooks from some common source by a later editor. Yet there
is no solid reason for assigning a post-Exilic date to it. Interestingly enough, in the post-Exilic book of Joel, where there
is a description of the eschatological war that will be waged
between the Lord and His pagan enemies, the classical wordsof the earlier oracle describing universal peace are turned into
the directly opposite sense: “Beat your plowshares into swords,
and your pruning-hooks into spears” (Joel 4:10).
ZEPHANIAH. The prophet *Zephaniah probably uttered his
oracles at about 640–603 B.C.E., in the first decade of the reignof King Josiah of Judah, a turbulent period when the idolatry and general wickedness of the people of Judah, combinedwith the political folly of Jerusalem’s leaders in favoring thedeclining power of Assyria, led him to believe that “the great
day of the Lord is near” (Zeph. 1:14). The bold imagery he usedin describing this terrible “day” had much influence on later
Jewish eschatological writings. After depicting the destructionof all the wicked on this day of doom (1:2–14), he cries out: “A
day of wrath is that day, a day of distress and anguish, a day ofruin and devastation, a day of darkness and gloom, a day ofclouds and thick darkness, a day of trumpet blast and battle
cry against the fortified cities and against the lofty battlements.
I will bring distress on men, so that they shall walk like theblind, because they have sinned against the Lord; their bloodshall be poured out like dust, and their flesh like dung. Neither
their silver nor their gold shall be able to deliver them on the
day of the wrath of the Lord. In the fire of his jealous wrath,
all the earth shall be consumed; for a full, yea, sudden end hewill make of all the inhabitants of the earth” (1:15–18).
In genuine prophetic tradition, Zephaniah ascribes tothe Lord phrases such as “the remnant of My people” and “thesurvivors of My nation” (2:9), adding “For I will leave in the
midst of you a people humble and lowly. They shall take ref-492

uge in the name of the Lord, those who are left in Israel; theyshall do no wrong and utter no lies, nor shall there be found intheir mouth a deceitful tongue. For they shall pasture and lie
down, and none shall make them afraid” (3:12–13). However,the final verses of the book (3:14–20) were probably added to
it in the Exile or in the post-Exilic period since they speak of
the gathering in of the scattered exiles of Zion.
NAHUM. Although the short Book of *Nahum, as such, consists essentially of a hymn of victory over the fall of Nineveh(612 B.C.E.), this hymn is introduced by an incomplete “alphabetic” psalm (Nah. 1:2–8), in which God’s wrath is portrayedin the vivid colors that are later employed in describing thecosmic disturbances accompanying the great and terrible Dayof the Lord.
JEREMIAH. In the broad sense of eschatology as the “end”
of a given historical period that would be followed by a very
different one, the Book of *Jeremiah, despite its seemingly
disturbed sequence of poetic oracles and prose narratives
combined with later scribal accretions, can be considered aspractically eschatological throughout. Jeremiah clearly foresaw that the kingdom of Judah was doomed, because most of
its people refused to give up their evil ways and their politicalleaders resisted the Babylonians whom God had sent to punish His people. One can almost speak of “realized eschatology” in Jeremiah, since for the prophet the doom was so imminent as to be felt as already present. Sixteen of his oracles
begin with the expression hinneh yamim baʾim (“Behold, thedays are coming when…”; 7:32; 9:24; 16:14; 19:6; et al.), which
for Jeremiah is almost the equivalent of the eschatologicalterm “at the end of days,” when the imminent and actual invasion of the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar (cf. 15:1–4;
34:8–22; 37:3–10; et al.) will take place.
Yet even when the situation looked utterly hopeless for
Judah, the prophet still believed that in God’s mercy a remnant would survive the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem(32:1–15), just as he had expected a reprieve for the remnant
left in the Northern Kingdom (3:11–18) and a restoration of
Judah’s exiles taken to Babylonia in the first deportation of 597
b.c.e. (24:1–10). Like Isaiah and Micah a century before histime, Jeremiah looked forward to the continuity of the Davidic dynasty in an ideal king of the future (23:5–6). (In thesymbolic name that the prophet gives to the new, ideal king,
YHWH ẓ idekenu (ẓ ideqenu) (Heb. ‫)יהוה ִצ ְד ֵקנ ּו‬, there is most
likely an intentional allusion – with obvious inversion – tothe name of the last, wicked king of Judah, Zedekiah (Heb.
‫) ִצ ְד ִק ָ ּיה ּו‬.) Moreover, Jeremiah, obviously inspired by Hosea
2:21–22, foresaw that Israel’s reestablishment would entail arenewal of the ancient Sinaitic covenant in such a way that
it would bring about a true change of heart, a new, interior
spirituality (31:31–34).
Exilic and Post-Exilic Prophets
During the Babylonian exile and in the centuries that followed the gradual return of the Jewish exiles to the land of
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6eschatology
Israel until the latest writings in the Bible, important developments took place in Jewish eschatological thought. Thiscan be seen especially in the writings of Ezekiel, the so-called
Deutero-Isaiah (Isa. 40:1–55:13), the so-called Trito-Isaiah(Isa. 56:1–66:24), Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, Joel, theso-called Deutero-Zechariah (Zech. 9:1–14:21), the author of
the so-called Apocalypse of Isaiah (Isa. 24:1–27:13), and finallyin the Book of Daniel.
EZEKIEL. Since it can rightly be said that the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.E. formed the climactic turning point, not only in the political history of ancient Israel but
also in its religious orientation, the prophet *Ezekiel is uniquein many ways, particularly as he prophesied before that destruction (although already in Babylonia), as well as during thefirst few decades of the Jewish exile in Babylonia, where he had
been taken in the first deportation of Jews by Nebuchadnezzar in 597 B.C.E. He shows a more intense sense than the older
prophets both of the imminence of God’s punitive judgmenton the pagan nations (Ezek. 25:1–32:32) and of the restorationof God’s chosen people to a holier state than before.
For Ezekiel, Judah’s restoration would be almost as miraculous as the resurrection of the dead to life, which is illustrated in his well-known vision of the valley filled with deadmen’s bones that took on flesh and came back to life (37:1–14).
Although the new religious life of Judah would be essentiallybased on a sincere inner conversion to the Lord (11:19–20;
36:26–27), it would be centered on an elaborately describedworship in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem; this holy city, with its
new symbolic name of “The-Lord-Is-There,” would be in thecenter of the new land of Israel, with six of the twelve tribes ofIsrael living in parallel geographic strips to the north of it, andthe other six in similar strips to the south (40:1–48:35).
Now that Judah no longer had its own king, Ezekiel kept
alive the ancient expectation of a continuance of the Davidic
dynasty – the basis of later messianism. However, for thisprophet, Judah’s future ruler as the Lord’s viceroy would havethe title of only “prince” (nasi, anciently “a tribal chief ”), not“king” (44:3; 45:17; et al). He would be a true shepherd of the
Lord’s flock (34:11–24). Chastened Israel, though now scattered throughout the world, would be the Lord’s means of establishing His reign over all the earth, and would thus fulfill
the promise He made to the Patriarchs (36:1–38). A diligent
elaborator of Jeremiah motifs, he conceived in his own way
the motif of a change in Israel’s nature – “a new heart and a
new spirit,” with variations (11:17–20; 16:60; 36:24–28) – which
would guarantee the new covenant against dissolution as in
the case of the first. However, he stresses in his inimitablemanner (36:20–23, 29–31) the principle first clearly enunciated in I Samuel 12:22, according to which God’s motive is
not compassion for undeserving Israel, but His own prestige, since His name, because it is associated with Israel, isdiscredited in the eyes of the nations by Israel’s misfortunes.
That is why, even after proving that he is able to restore Israel
to its land, He will further “prove Himself great and holy” in
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

the eyes of the nations (38:23) by demonstrating through Gog
and Magog that He is able to prevent their being subjugatedagain (39:22–29).
The fantastic word pictures drawn by Ezekiel, which heused directly only for describing eschatology in the broad
sense, e.g., that of *Gog and Magog who represented for theprophet the hostile pagan nations of his time (38:1–39:20),
were destined to find many echoes in later Jewish writers,
who reused them in depicting their eschatology in the strict
sense – the “end” of the world as men knew it.
DEUTERO-ISAIAH. The anonymous writer who composed
Isaiah 40:1–55:13 and to whom modern scholars have given
the name “Deutero-Isaiah” (the “Second Isaiah”) is generally
believed to have prophesied in the last years preceding theconquest of Babylon by the Persians under Cyrus the Greatin 539 B.C.E. Just as the prophet knew that the Lord had used
the pagan kings of Assyria and Babylon to punish His sinfulpeople according to the predictions of the earlier prophets (Isa.
1:21–31; Jer. 7:1–15; Ezek. 22:1–22), so he foresaw that the Lord
would use the pagan king of Persia as His “anointed one” (cf.
Isa. 44:28; 45:1 with Jer. 25:9; 27:6; 43:10) to liberate repentant
Judah from its captivity. The prophet’s preaching, therefore,
is almost entirely one of consolation for his afflicted fellow
exiles. From an eschatological viewpoint, Deutero-Isaiah isimportant for his clear perception of God’s plan in directing
man’s history on earth; the Lord alone prearranged this history from beginning to end (Isa. 41:22–23; 42:8–9; 46:8–13; etal.). The prophet treats this history of man on a cosmic scale;the restoration of Judah is to be a “new creation” for all mankind as well as for the Jews (41:17–20; 42:5–7; 43:1; 45:8). This
plan of God for the world’s salvation would be carried out by
the *Servant of the Lord (ʿeved YHWH), who both personifies
Israel (49:3) and has a mission for Israel (49:5–6); his sufferings atone for man’s sins, but his glorious exaltation brings
peace and salvation to the world (52:13–53:12). With DeuteroIsaiah there begins a more transcendent concept of eschatology; climactic events in history are viewed not so much as
the beginning of a new historical era brought about by human means, but rather as a transformation of the world on acosmic scale produced by God’s extraordinary intervention
in man’s history.
HAGGAI, ZECHARIAH, AND MALACHI. When Zerubbabel, the grandson of King Jehoiachin of Judah, was appointed
governor of the small Persian province of Judah, the prophets *Haggai and *Zechariah temporarily saw him as the one
who could continue the Davidic dynasty (Hag. 2:20–23; Zech.
4:6–7; 6:9–14 (emending “Joshua son of Jehozadak, the highpriest,” to “Zerubbabel” in v. 11; cf. “the Shoot” in 3:8)); thus
they kept alive the messianic expectation in Judah. Moreover,the strange type of symbolism that first appears in Zechariah 1:7–2:13 and 5:1–6:8, connected with the concept of anincredibly enlarged Jerusalem (Zech. 2:5–9), was later reechoed in the eschatological imagery of Daniel and the later
Jewish writers.

493

eschatology
The book that bears the title *Malachi (“my messenger”),
apparently borrowed from Malachi 3:1, was probably written
about the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (second half of the fifth
century B.C.E.). This prophet predicts that the Lord will cometo His temple preceded by His messenger, and will hold His
Day of Judgment against the wicked (Mal. 3:1–6). In what is
generally considered to be a later addition to the book, thismessenger is identified with “Elijah the prophet [coming]
before the great and terrible day of the Lord” (3:23). Since on
the basis of II Kings 2:11 it was commonly assumed that Elijah never died, a popular belief, later elaborated on in Jewish
writings, held that he would return to earth as the precursorof the *Messiah (cf. Matt. 11:14; 16:14; Mark 9:11–13; Luke 1:17;
John 1:21; et al.).
JOEL. A terrible plague of locusts (Joel 1:2–20) was seen by
the prophet *Joel, who probably prophesied between 400 and
350 B.C.E., to have eschatological significance in that it symbolized the forces hostile to God on “the day of the Lord…,
a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and thick darkness! Like blackness there is spread upon the mountains …”(2:1–17). Yet the Lord would be victorious over His enemies(4:1–16) and bring salvation and blessings to His chosen people (2:18–3:5). This is eschatology in the strict sense, involving cosmic disturbances as the initiation of the new, transcendent era (3:1–4).
In the verse in which Joel has God say: “I will gather all
the nations, and bring them down to the valley of Jehoshaphat,and I will enter into judgment with them there, on accountof My people and My heritage Israel…” (4:2), the term “valley of Jehoshaphat” has no geographic significance; it merelymeans “the place where the Lord judges.” Later tradition
identified it with the Kidron Valley to the east of Jerusalem,and consequently this valley and the Mount of Olives to theeast of it became a favorite burial place, where one would beat hand at the resurrection of the dead for general judgmenton the Last Day.
DEUTERO-ZECHARIAH. The last six chapters of the Book of
Zechariah (9:1–14:21) differ in so many respects from the firsteight chapters that many modern scholars attribute them toa later writer (or even to two later writers – one for 9:1–11:17,
and another for 12:1–14:21), who apparently lived some time
between Joel (c. 400–350 B.C.E.) and Ben Sira (c. 180 B.C.E.).
Rejoicing over the fall of Syria and the coastal cities of Palestine (9:1–8), perhaps as the victorious army of Alexander theGreat advanced toward Egypt in 332 B.C.E., the prophet saw
in their fall a sign of the imminent coming of the Messiah as
a prince of peace: “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion, shout
aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem; Lo, your king comes to you;triumphant and victorious is he, humble, and riding on an
ass …” (Zech. 9:9). In describing the new, transcendent era, theprophet develops the symbolic language of the older prophets,
especially that of Ezekiel, but it already has more of the fantastic imagery that is characteristic of *apocalyptic literature.
A theme that later receives further development is that of the494

sufferings that God’s people must still endure (14:1–2, 13–14a)
before “the Lord will become King over all the earth” (14:9).
TRITO-ISAIAH. Many scholars hold that the last 11 chapters of the Book of Isaiah (56:1–66:24) form a unit quite distinct from both Proto-Isaiah (1:1–39:8) and Deutero-Isaiah(40:1–55:13). This section probably consists of a collection ofwritings composed by different men at various times in the
post-Exilic period (even though 57:3–13a may possibly beof pre-Exilic origin). From an eschatological viewpoint, thepassages in Isaiah 60:1–62:12; 65:17–25; 66:7–17, depicting theglory of the new Jerusalem and the joy of all the earth, andthe passage in 66:18–21, describing the gathering of all the nations of the earth for God’s final judgment on mankind, areof particular importance. (On the bearing of the “unquenchable fire” (66:24), together with Jer. 7:30–8:3; 19:6; 31:40, forthe later eschatological concept of the eternal fire of Gehenna,
see below.)“APOCALYPSE OF ISAIAH.” Isaiah 24:1–27:13 is so different
from the rest of Isaiah that it seems to have been written bysome anonymous prophet distinct from all the other prophets whose prophecies have been gathered together in the large
compilation now known as the Book of Isaiah. The hymns ofpraise (24:14–16a), thanksgiving (25:1–12), and supplication(26:1–19) that are interspersed among the various propheciesof doom and blessing suggest that this section once formed asort of “liturgy.” Nowhere in the section is there any referenceor even allusion to an historical event that could be used fordating the composition. Yet in the descriptions of the devastation of the entire world (24:1–13), of the concomitant cosmic disturbances (24:19–23a), and the salvation of the “remnant” (26:20–21), the style and language are so similar to later
apocalyptic writings that this section is commonly called “theApocalypse of Isaiah,” and the date of its composition is generally placed not long before the composition of the genuinely apocalyptic chapters in the Book of Daniel. Concepts
that play a large role in the later apocalyptic writings, such as
the eschatological banquet (Isa. 25:6) and the resurrection of
the dead (26:19, perhaps to be understood here in the literal
sense as distinct from the symbolic resurrection of the dead,signifying national resurrection, in Ezek. 37:1–14) appear here
for the first time (see the Book of *Isaiah).
DANIEL. The first section of the Book of *Daniel is a compilation of six (or five, the first being merely introductory) aggadic stories about Daniel and his three companions, who arepresented as living in Babylon in the sixth century B.C.E., toward the end of the Neo-Babylonian empire and the beginningof the empire of the Medes and Persians (Dan. 1:1–6:29); thesecond section contains four visions or revelations (7:1–12:13)
that Daniel is said to have received and which foretell the history of the Near East from the time of Nebuchadnezzar, king ofBabylon (605–562 B.C.E.), to that of Antiochus IV Epiphanes,
king of Syria (175–164 B.C.E.). This compilation was made inits present form shortly before the death of Epiphanes, at a
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6eschatology
time when Judaism in Palestine was suffering a severe crisis
both from defection toward pagan Hellenism from within,and from violent persecution from without by Epiphanes tomake the Jews forsake their ancient religion.
The older aggadic stories were retold in the book for thesake of encouraging faithful Jews to withstand persecution; as
the Lord had come to the rescue of Daniel and his companions, so also would He intervene in the present crisis by putting an end to the pagan empires and establishing His reignover all the earth by means of His chosen people, for He is the
Lord of history, who “changes times and seasons; he removes
kings, and sets up kings” (2:21).
The second half of the book (7:1–12:13) contains the earliest preserved form of apocalyptic literature in the strict sense,a type of writing that was frequently imitated and developedby Jews at least until the destruction of the Second Temple.
This type of writing, in brief, purports to be a revelation(Greek apocalypsis, literally an “uncovering”) of the future, especially the final destiny of the world, which was given to someancient worthy centuries or even millennia earlier, but was left
“hidden” (Gr. apocryphon – hence many of these writings arecalled “*apocrypha”) until the present time of crisis.
Persian influence on the apocalyptic writings can be seen,
not only, e.g., in their more elaborate *angelology, but especially in their division of history into various distinct eras or“monarchies.” The Persians divided their history of the world
into three “monarchies”: the Assyrian, the Median, and thePersian. In the Hellenistic period a fourth “monarchy” wasadded – their own Greek “kingdom,” which as far as Palestine was concerned, consisted of the Ptolemaic dynasty in
Egypt and the Seleucid dynasty in Syria, with the capital at
Antioch. The Jews adapted this four-monarchy theory of history to their own situation by substituting the Babylonian empire (as better known to them) for the Assyrian empire, andby adding a fifth “kingdom” – the universal reign of God onearth, based on His chosen people, Israel. This last kingdom
would be “an everlasting kingdom” (3:33) – a concept that iseschatology in the strict sense. In Daniel this view of world
history is presented in two places: first, in the aggadic story of
Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the gigantic statue made of four
different materials (symbolizing the four successive pagan empires), that was smashed by a rock hewn without hands froma mountain, which itself “became a great mountain and filled
the whole earth,” the kingdom of God, “which shall never be
destroyed…, and it shall stand for ever” (2:31–45); secondly,in the apocalypse of chapter 7, where four beasts (each witha characteristic number to show the number of rulers) representing the four successive pagan empires are destroyed byGod, and in their place “one like a son of man” receives fromthe Lord “dominion, and glory, and kingdom, that all peoples,
nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is aneverlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed” (7:13–14).
In Daniel, the “one like a son of man” (a Semitism meaning simply “one like a human being”) is a symbol, as statedexplicitly, representing “the people of the saints of the Most
High” (7:27); that he “came with the clouds of heaven” (7:13),
i.e., had his origin from God, is said primarily to contrast him
with the four great beasts that “came up from the sea” (7:3),
i.e., from the realms of chaos (cf. Gen. 1:2). However, as will
be shown below, this purely symbolic figure of “one like a sonof man” was soon regarded as a real person, the Messiah.
Daniel contains the first unequivocal affirmation of abelief in the eschatological resurrection of the dead: “There
shall be a time of trouble…; and at that time your people shallbe delivered, every one whose name shall be found written
in the book. And many of those who sleep in the dust of theearth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shameand everlasting contempt” (12:1–2). This does not necessarily
imply a universal resurrection of all mankind at “the end of
the world”; the expression “many of those” hardly means “allmen, numerous as they are.” But it does offer a solution to
the age-old problem of divine retribution, why the just suffer
and the wicked seem to prosper in this life. The Book of Job
struggled in vain with this problem; yet even the well-known
passage in Job 19:25–27, where the text itself is not clear, seems
merely to have the sufferer reassert his firm belief that God
would some day vindicate Job’s righteousness. Belief in theresurrection of the dead may have been adumbrated in the“Apocalypse of Isaiah” (Isa. 26:19; see above) and in the pious
hope of the Psalmist (Ps. 73:23–26), yet it appears in Daniel
12:1–2 with startling suddenness. Perhaps there is some influence here from the Zoroastrian religion of the Persians, which
had such a belief. However, the occasion for the expression ofthis belief in Israel was apparently due to Israel’s conviction,on the one hand, of God’s justice in rewarding the good, andon the other hand the martyrdom of so many innocent Jews
in Antiochus Epiphanes’ persecution.
Another important trait in the eschatology of Daniel isthe attempt by the author of the apocalypse contained in chapter 9 to show that “the end” was to come in the near future; hedoes this by interpreting the 70 years of exile that had been
foretold by Jeremiah (Jer. 25:11; 29:10) to mean 70 weeks ofyears or 490 years, and to argue from this by his own strange
chronology that only three and a half years still remained before the end would come. The author may well have been thecompiler of the entire book, for the references to the remaining three and a half years before “the end” in the other apocalypses (7:25b; 8:14; 12:7) seem to be insertions made by him.
Later on, additions were made to the book in 12:11 and 12:12,
in order to lengthen the period of waiting when the earlier
predictions failed to be fulfilled.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6495

in the intertestamental literature
Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha
Certain Jewish writings that were composed after the completion of the latest book of the Hebrew Bible (probably Daniel,
c. 165 B.C.E.) and before the completion of the books of the
New Testament are commonly referred to as the “intertestamental literature.” With the exception of some fragments thateschatology
have been found at *Qumran, these writings have been preserved in Greek (or in secondary translations made from theGreek), although most of them were originally written not in
Greek but in Hebrew or Aramaic. None of these books is included in the Jewish or Protestant canon; but seven of them,which are found in the *Septuagint, are included in the Bibleof Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians. These sevenbooks – Tobit, Judith, Baruch, I and II Maccabees, the Wisdom of Ben Sira, and the Wisdom of Solomon – are called“deuterocanonical” (i.e., belonging to the “second canon”) by
the Catholics; Protestants call them “the *Apocrypha,” and therest, “the Pseudepigrapha.” Some of these books – the Ethiopic
and the Slavonic Books of Enoch, the Apocalypse of Ezra, theSyriac and the Greek Apocalypses of Baruch, the Jewish Sibylline Oracles, etc. – are primarily apocalyptic and of prime
importance for the eschatological concepts of the period inquestion. However, even the pseudohistorical writings (Jubilees, Life of Adam and Eve, Ascension of Isaiah, etc.) and themoral-didactic writings (Wisdom of Solomon, Testaments of
the Twelve Patriarchs, Psalms of Solomon, etc.) provide muchinformation concerning eschatological ideas of the Jews in thelast two centuries before, and the first century after, the destruction of the Second Temple. Almost all the intertestamental writings have come down in copies or translations madeby Christian scribes, who often interpolated new passages
containing Christian concepts into the older original Jewish
compositions. However, it is generally not difficult to discern
which passages are Christian interpolations.
MESSIANISM. Although Jewish eschatology, including thatof the intertestamental literature, was always theocentric, i.e.,
concerned basically with the ultimate triumph of God andHis justice, it combined this with certain preliminary events
that would precede the establishment of God’s universal reignover all mankind on “the Day of the Lord.” Chief among thesepreliminary events would be the reign of the *Messiah (I En.
45:3; 105:2; 28:29; 13:32–35; 14:9). Not only from the intertestamental writings but also from Josephus (Wars, 2:6, 12; Ant.,
13:9) and the New Testament (Matt. 23:23–24; etc.), it is clearthat in the last two centuries before the destruction of the Second Temple and even in the succeeding generations, e.g., at
the time of the revolt of Bar Kokhba (132–135 c.e.), belief in
the imminent coming of the Messiah was widespread in Judaism. During that period more than one contender arose toclaim the title of Messiah (cf. Acts 5:36; 12:38). The intertestamental literature naturally reflects this belief, but not always
in a uniform fashion.
Some of these writings speak of certain personages who
would precede the coming of the Messiah. On the basis ofDeuteronomy 18:15 (“A prophet will the Lord thy God raise up
into thee…, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken”), someof the apocalyptic writers of this period predicted that a special prophet, or even Moses himself, would come to prepare
the way for the Messiah. Jeremiah, “a friend of his brethren,
who prays much for his people and for the holy city” (II Macc.

496

15:14) and highly respected by the Jews of the period, wassometimes identified with this precursor of the Messiah. However, the chief candidate for the office of the precursor of the
Messiah was the prophet Elijah, in keeping with the oracle ofMalachi 3:23–24; by his miracles and his preaching he would
reform the people and make them ready to receive the Messiah (cf. e.g., Ecclus. 48:10–11).
Reckoning Eschatological Times. In imitation of the attempts
made in Daniel to calculate the time remaining before “the endof time” (cf. Ass. Mos. 1:18; IV Ezra 3:14), the apocalyptic writers of the intertestamental period devised various methods
for reckoning “the times of the Messiah,” Yemot ha-Mashiaḥ .
Jubilees, for instance, divided the history of the world into agreat number of “jubilees” (period of 50 years each) in order toestablish when “the end” would come. Other writings divided
the history of the world into 12 periods of 400 years apiece(IV Ezra 14:11; Test. Patr., Abraham A 19, B 7; Life of Adam andEve 42). Some reckoned by millennia and maintained that thereign of the Messiah itself would last for a thousand years, referring to “the Messianic millennium,” a period of peace andhappiness on earth before the final Day of the Lord.
Birth Pangs of the Messiah. In general, the intertestamental
literature depicts the period preceding the coming of the Messiah as one of terrible distress: plagues and famine, floods andearthquakes, wars and revolutions, accompanied by such cosmic disturbances as the darkening of the sun and the moonand the falling of the stars from the sky. In part, these ideas
were derived from contemporary events, such as the dispersion and persecutions suffered by the people of Israel, and inpart from the descriptions of the Day of the Lord found in
the writings of the earlier prophets. The purpose of these terrifying pictures was to encourage the faithful in Israel to bear
their afflictions patiently as God’s will for them, for only when
the cup of evil was filled to the brim would the Messiah cometo bring salvation. These sufferings, therefore, are commonly
called “the pangs of the Messiah,” ḥ evlo shel Mashiaḥ , meaning that Israel, like a mother, was to bring forth the Messiah
in the pangs of childbirth.
On the basis of Ezekiel 38:1–39:20, the pre-messianic
wars are presented as the Lord’s fight against Gog and Magog, symbols of the powers of evil in the world. The leader ofthese evil forces bears such names as Satan, Belial (or Beliar),
Maste Din (or Mastema), and (in the Greek versions) the
Anti-Christ. However, it should be noted that this pre-messianic warfare is to be understood primarily as a spiritual, nota military, one; and the Lord’s use of Israel in establishing His
reign over all mankind is not intended to imply an Israelite
political empire.
Son of Man. Besides such titles as “savior” and “redeemer,”which are given to the expected Messiah in the intertestamental writings, a special title is given to him in the (Ethiopic)
Book of Enoch (I En.; written shortly after Daniel) and in the
Apocalypse of *Ezra (IV Ezra; written c. 30 years after the de-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6eschatology
struction of the Second Temple), that of the “son of man.” This
title is clearly borrowed from Daniel 7:13. Although in Daniel
the term is purely symbolic (see above), the intertestamental books use it in reference to an actual person, the Messiah.
According to these writings, the “son of man,” who stands “atthe throne of God” in heaven, existed “before the sun and thestars were created” (I En. 46:1–3); he will bring salvation at
the end of the ages, when he will be enthroned as king of theworld (IV Ezra 13:26).
4th WORLD TO COME. The apocalyptic writings after Daniel(though in this book the terms themselves are not used) divide
the time after God’s great eschatological interventions as “this(present) time” (olam ha-zeh) and “the time to come” (olamha-ba, lit. “the coming time”; cf. I En. 23:1; IV Ezra 7:30, 43;
Test. Patr., Abraham 19, B 7). It is only in the latter period – theeschatological period in the strict sense – that full retribution
for good and evil is meted out by God to every man.
Retribution. Israel always had firm faith in the Lord’s justice,in His rewarding the good and punishing the wicked. However, in Israel there was a definite development of this concept in two important points: (1) from collective responsibility
and retribution to individual responsibility and retribution,and (2) from full retribution in man’s mortal life to full retribution only “in the world to come (*olam ha-ba),” i.e., after
man’s death.
Although even in the oldest periods of biblical theology
Israel often expressed the belief that God rewards and punishes each man according to his own deeds (cf. e.g., I Sam.
26:23), as can be seen in the numerous cases of divine punishment meted out to individual sinners (Cain, Lot’s wife,
Miriam, Er and Onan, etc.) and as frequently stressed in thewisdom literature, in pre-Exilic Israel the emphasis was placed
primarily on collective retribution; the whole group (family,
tribe, nation) was responsible for the deeds of its members.
It was Ezekiel in particular who shifted the concept of divine
retribution from a collective to an individual one (cf. especially Ezek. 18; Jer. 31:29–30 is probably a later addition, borrowed from Ezek. 18:2–3). However, the principle that every
man is rewarded or punished in this life for his good or evil
deeds seemed to be contradicted by ordinary experience; andthe problem of why the innocent suffer and the wicked prosper in this life, as presented especially in *Job, appeared to be
an insoluble mystery, best left to God’s wisdom.

Lord; others maintain that only the just will rise to life, since
the condemnation that the wicked receive at God’s tribunal
can scarcely be called “life” (so apparently even in Dan. 12:2).
Moreover, some of the apocalyptic writings (e.g., II En. 66:5)
speak of two resurrections: the first only of the just, at the
beginning of the Messianic millennium; the second of thewicked, at the final Day of the Lord, which is for the wickeda “second death.”
A special concept of a future life immediately after deathis seemingly found in the Wisdom of *Solomon, a Greek composition (c. 75 B.C.E.) by an Alexandrian Jew, who was influenced by the Greek philosophical concept of the immortalityof the human soul (cf. Wisd. 3:1–9). Yet the author of this work
really follows the common Hebrew concept of life as truly human only when man’s body and soul are united.
In the last two centuries before the destruction of the Second Temple the *Pharisees believed in the resurrection of thedead, whereas the *Sadducees did not (Jos., Ant., 18:14; Wars,
2:14; cf. also Mark 12:18; Acts 23:8).
Until the last two centuries before the destruction of theSecond Temple the Jews retained the ancient Israelite concept
of *Sheol, the dark abode in the nether world of all the dead,good and bad alike (thus still Ben Sira: e.g., Ecclus. 14:16; 28:21;
51:6, 9). However, when the concept of individual retribution
after death developed in Judaism during this period, the concept of Sheol underwent various changes in the different intertestamental writings. According to some of these writings
there are various levels in Sheol (e.g., six: iv Ezra 7:36–37), sothat even before the resurrection of the dead the wicked aretormented in various degrees in Sheol’s lower levels, whereas
the good enjoy bliss in its highest level. According to otherwritings Sheol is replaced by *Gehinnom (Gehenna), the place
where the damned are in torment, whereas the just, either immediately after death or only at the resurrection, have the delights of an eschatological *Garden of Eden or Paradise.

Resurrection of the Dead. A solution to this problem was
finally found in the belief of the resurrection of the dead(teḥ iyyat ha-metim), i.e., in the notion that the dead would
come back to life, both in body and in soul, on the Day of theLord. The earliest clear expression of this belief is in Daniel
12:12, and subsequently it was often expressed by many writers of the intertestamental literature (II Macc. 7:9, 11, 14, 23;
12:43; 14:46; Jub. 23:30; Test. Patr., Men. 98:10; IV Ezra 7:29–33;
etc.). Some of these writings speak of all men, good and bad
alike, rising from the dead for judgment on the Day of theGehenna. The word “Gehenna” is the Greek form of the Aramaic Gehinnom for the Hebrew Ge (Bene) Hinnom (“the Valley of (the sons of) Hinnom”), the ravine in the south of ancient Jerusalem (Josh. 15:8; 18:16). Since it had been defiled
by being the site of the Topheth worship of Molech (II Kings
23:10; Jer. 32:35; etc.), Jeremiah cursed the place and predicted
that, at the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem, this valley
would be filled with the corpses of the city’s inhabitants, tobe burned there and rot like “dung upon the face of the earth”(Jer. 7:32–8:3; 19:6; 31:40). Trito-Isaiah (Isa. 66:24) clearly alludes to these sayings in Jeremiah, even though he does not
use the word “Gehenna,” when he speaks of the eschatological punishments of the wicked: “And they shall go forth, andlook upon the carcasses of the men that have rebelled against
me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire bequenched; and they shall be an abhorrence unto all flesh.”
The intertestamental writings add further gruesome details to the torments suffered by the wicked in this fiery pit,
where their bodies burn eternally, although, incongruously,

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6497eschatology
they are, at the same time, rotting away with worms and maggots (cf. iv Ezra 7:36; I En. 27:2; 48:9; 54:1; 90:26–27; 103:8; Ass.
Mos. 10:19; ii Bar. 85:12–13).
Eschatological Paradise. The term “paradise” is from the Greek
word that the Septuagint uses to translate the Hebrew term,
Gan Eden (“the Garden of Eden”). Since the earlier prophets had depicted, in figurative terms, the eschatological blissof “the new earth” as a return to the original peace and joyof the Garden of Eden before Adam’s sin (cf. Isa. 11:6–9; 51:3;
Ezek. 36:35), the intertestamental writers call the place where
the righteous are to enjoy endless bliss “the Garden of Eden”(IV Ezra 4:7; 7:36, 123; 8:52; II En. 42:3; 65:10). It is not identical with “heaven” as God’s abode. But just as Gehenna is pictured as having several levels, one lower than the other, so theeschatological paradise has at least three levels (I En. 8), one
higher than the other, the uppermost being nearest to God’s
abode in heaven. As in the case of Gehenna, so also in regard
to the eschatological paradise there is inconsistency in thesewritings concerning the time when the just enter this placeof paradisiacal bliss, whether immediately after death, or onlyat the resurrection.
One of the features of the eschatological paradise, at least
during the “messianic millennium,” is the participation in themessianic banquet (based on Isa. 25:6; cf. the Qumran literature below, and Matt. 8:11). A special privilege at this banquet
in the world to come is to be seated at the side of Abraham(Test. Patr., Abraham 20; cf. Luke 16:26; the poor man Lazarus in “Abraham’s bosom”).
Dead Sea Scrolls
The writings composed by the *Essene community that lived
at Qumran from approximately 150 B.C.E. to 68 or 70 C.E.,
generally called “the *Dead Sea Scrolls,” can from a merely
chronological viewpoint be classified with the intertestamental literature; yet, because of their unique importance for revealing the specifically Essene concepts of eschatology, they
are here given separate treatment.

They were convinced that they were living “at the end of theera of wickedness” (CD 6:10, 14; 12:23; 14:19), which was soon
to be followed by “the era of (divine) favor” (1QH 15:5). They
believed that they were living in the “last days” foretold long
ago by the ancient prophets; and, therefore, they held that
their anonymous founder, whom they called the Moreh Ẓ edek
“Teacher of Righteousness” (probably to be understood as “theright teacher,” i.e., the one who explained the Torah correctly),
had been raised up by God “to make known to the later generations what He would do in the last generation” (CD 11:12).
Their pesher (“commentary”) on Habakkuk 2:1–2 says: “Its interpretation concerns the Teacher of Righteousness, to whom
God made known all the secrets of the words of His servants
the prophets” (1Q pH ab 7:4–5). The Qumran community apparently expected “the end” to come 40 years after the death oftheir founder (CD 20:14–15), during which period the wickedin Israel would be destroyed by God (CD 20:15–16). However,when the members of the community were disappointed in
the nonfulfillment of this expectation, they admitted that only
God knows when the end will come. So the writer of the pesher
on Habakkuk 2:3a says: “Its interpretation is that the final end
may be prolonged, indeed longer than anything of which theprophets spoke, for the secrets (or mysteries) of God are forwondrous fulfillment” (1Q pH ab 7:7–8). The interpreter, therefore, says on Habakkuk 2:3b: “Its meaning concerns the menof truth, who carry out the Law (Torah) and do not let theirhands grow too weak to serve the truth, despite the final end
being long drawn out; for all the limits set by God will comein their due time, as He has set for them in His mysterious
wisdom” (1Q pH ab 7:10–14).

IMMINENCE OF THE END OF DAYS. The presumably Essene
community of Jews that had its headquarters at the site now
known as Khirbat Qumrān, near the northwestern shore of
the Dead Sea, was very concerned with eschatology. Its life
was organized by austere rules, especially by an exact observance of the various precepts of the Torah, particularly thoseconcerning ritual purity, so that this would hasten the coming
Day of the Lord and, at the same time, make the members of
the community ready to stand at God’s awesome tribunal onthat day. They lived in the barren Desert of Judah, not merely
because they had fled from Jerusalem and its Temple on account of what they considered the illegitimacy of the Hasmonean high priests and their successors who were appointed by
the conquering Romans, but more particularly because they
thus sought to carry out literally the command (originally intended merely in a metaphorical sense) of Isaiah 40:3: “Clear
ye in the wilderness the way of the Lord” (cf. 1QS 8:12–14; 9:19).

ESCHATOLOGICAL WAR. Before “the end” there will be, according to the Qumranites, a great eschatological war, waged
not only against the powers of evil but also against all wicked
men, not excluding the wicked of Israel. In fact, the Qumranites placed in the latter class all the Jews who did not belong totheir community. They alone were “the remnant of Israel” (CD
1:4–5), God’s “chosen ones” (1QM 8:6). They called themselves“the Sons of Light”; all others were “the Sons of Darkness.”
This ethical dualism, perhaps influenced by Persian thought(though not foreign to the older Hebrew Scriptures), is typical of Qumran theology: “He [God] created man to rule theworld, and He set for him two spirits by which he would walk
until the appointed time of His visitation; these are the spiritsof truth and perversity” (1QS 3:17–19).
The eschatological war, besides being referred to in other
Qumran writings, is described at great length and in great detail in a fairly well-preserved scroll of 19 columns to which thetitle “The War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness” has been given. This document is a strange mixture ofsound military tactics combined with idealistic warfare, inwhich God and His angels fight on the side of the Sons of Lightagainst Belial (Satan) and his evil spirits, who come to the aidof the Sons of Darkness. The good fight is waged also against
Gog and Magog (cf. Ezek. 38:1–39:20), here merely symbols of

498

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6eschatology
the powers of evil. It seems, therefore, that this eschatological
war is to be viewed as waged on a transcendental plane, despite
the elaborate rules based on mundane battles; the Essenes of
Qumran, like their predecessors the Hassideans of Hasmonean times (cf. I Macc. 7:13–17; and perhaps Dan. 11:34), were
not militarists. They trusted more in the power of God thanin the force of arms. In the end God would be victorious, andthen the messianic age would begin.
MESSIANISM. The “Teacher of Righteousness” did not regard
himself, nor did his disciples regard him, as a Messiah. In fact,
there is little messianism in the earliest Qumran documents.
However, when the 40 years had elapsed after the death oftheir founder and “the end” had not yet come, the Qumran
writers speak more often of the ultimate salvation that would
come with the appearance of the Messiah: “the coming of theprophet and the Messiahs (meshiḥ e – note the plural) of Aaron
and Israel” (1QS 9:11; cf. 4QTestimonia).
For the Jews of that time the Hebrew term, ha-Mashi’aḥ ,“The Messiah” (lit. “the Anointed One”), did not have thesame connotations that its Greek translation, Christos, had for
Christians. From certain other passages, in the Qumran writings it appears quite certain that this community, which was
fundamentally a priestly one, expected an especially anointed
high priest (“the Messiah of Aaron”) as well as an especiallyanointed lay ruler (“the Messiah of Israel”). It should be notedthat in the Cairo Damascus Document (CD 7:20) the royal
Messiah is not called a “king,” but a “prince” (nasi, in keepingwith Ezek. 34:24; 37:25; etc.). The concept of two Messiahs, one
royal and one priestly, probably goes back to Zechariah 4:14:“These are the two anointed ones that stand by the Lord of
the whole earth” (said of Zerubbabel of the Davidic line andof the priest Joshua). On the presence and precedence of theroyal Messiah and the priestly Messiah at the eschatological“messianic banquet,” see below.
It is not clear what the Qumranites meant by the“prophet” who precedes these two Messiahs. He may be the“prophet like Moses” foretold in Deuteronomy 18:15, 18, since
the Qumranites believed they were living or were to live under a “new covenant” (CD 8:35 – the term, no doubt, borrowed
from Jer. 31:31); or he may be Elijah (on the basis of Mal. 3:23),
in whom the Qumranites were interested.
FUTURE LIFE. Although the Qumran community possessed
and, therefore, apparently prized several of the books of theso-called intertestamental literature mentioned above – Jubilees, Enoch, Testaments of Levi and Naphtali, etc. – its own
compositions, at least as far as now known, betray relatively
little concern with the future world after death. They do not
use the terms, “this world,” and “the coming world,” to designate the present and the future eras. There is no explicit mention of the resurrection of the bodies of their deceased members, but neither is there any denial of such a belief. Perhaps
it was taken for granted, or it was left as one of God’s mysteries about which they should not speculate. However, they do

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

say the righteous “will share the lot of God’s Holy Ones,” i.e.,
the angels (1QH 11:11–12), and they are to enjoy “everlasting”
bliss (see below).
The Qumran writings often speak of “the end” (Keẓ ), i.e.,of the present era (1QS 3:23; 4:18, 25; CD 4:9–10; 20:15; 1Q pH ab
7:2; etc.). The end will be preceded by the “pangs” of the premessianic era (1QH passim), by cosmic storms (1QH 3:13–16),
and by a cosmic conflagration (1QH 3:29–31; cf. 1QM 14:17).
At “an appointed time of decisive judgment” (mo’ed mishpatneḥ erashah: 1QS 4:20) God will judge both angels and men(1QH 7:28–29), for in the present era there are both good andevil spirits (1QS 3:20–22).
RETRIBUTION. Whereas the writings of the Qumran community do not mention either a “Gehenna” for the wicked ora “Garden of Eden” for the just in the afterlife, they do, apparently, speak of the punishment of the wicked as an everlasting death, and reward of the just as an eternity of bliss: “Thedoors of the Pit will be closed upon those who are pregnant
with wickedness, and the bars of eternity upon all the spirits of worthlessness” (1QH 3:18). “But the reward of all those
who walk in it [the way of truth] will be a healing remedy andabundant well-being in a long life and a fruitfulness of seed,
together with all the blessings of eternity and everlasting blissin life forever, and a crown of glory with a recompense of majesty in light everlasting” (1QS 4:6–8).
NEW TEMPLE. Because of God’s promise of “new heavens
and a new earth” (Isa. 65:17), the apocalyptic writings sometimes speak of a new Jerusalem with its new temple as coming down from heaven to the earth. Since the Qumran community was basically a priestly one, it was naturally interested
in a new temple for the messianic age of bliss on earth. Eventhe so-called War Scroll gives instructions on how the priests
and levites are to function in the new temple (1QM 2:1–6). But,
surprisingly, the new temple of the Qumranites is not thoughtof as coming down ready-made from heaven, but as built bythemselves according to a new plan revealed by God.
The *Temple Scroll, like the Torah, is written as if dictatedby God to Moses. Besides giving various precepts concerning
ritual purity, festivals, sacrifices, etc., it presents detailed prescriptions for the construction of the new temple and its surrounding courts. The resulting construction differs from all theprevious temples – of Solomon, of Zerubbabel, and of Herod,
and even from the idealistic temple of Ezekiel 40:1–42:20.
To understand the relationship between this proposed
man-made temple and “the house that He [God] will makefor you at the end of days,” as mentioned in certain Qumranpesharim, one must remember that the Qumran community
lived a quasi-sacramental life: their cultic acts both prepared
for, and symbolized, the full reality that would come to passin the messianic age. This is likewise the case in regard to theso-called messianic banquet at Qumran.
MESSIANIC BANQUET. The midday and evening meals at
Qumran were cultic acts. Those who were ritually unclean499

eschatology
or who were penalized for various faults could not be present at them. The Davidic Messiah and the Priest (or Aaronic
Messiah) are depicted as already present at these repasts,
even though this would not be actually true until “the endof days.”
The protocol of these eschatological meals is describedin 1QSa 2:11–22: “This is the (order of the) seating of ‘the Menof the Name who are invited to the Feast’ (a phrase based on
Num. 16:2, but with Qumranite interpretation) for the councilof the community, if … [?] the Messiah with them. The priest
shall come in at the head of the whole assembly of Israel, andall the ancestral leaders of the Aaronide priests…; and theyshall take their seats, each one according to his rank. After
that, the Messiah of Israel shall come in; and the head of thethousands of Israel shall take their seats, each one according
to his rank.” The text then continues with instructions on theblessing of the bread and wine by the priest, who is the firstto partake of them, followed by the Messiah of Israel, and finally by “all the assembly of the community.” This rite is tobe observed when at least ten men are present. One striking
element in this ritual is the precedence given to the priestly
Messiah over the royal (lay) Messiah – which would be expected in such a sacerdotally oriented community. Anotherimportant feature is that this ceremony is to be observed evenwhen only a minyan is present. This ritual meal, therefore, isboth a foreshadowing and a quasi-sacramental anticipationof the great eschatological messianic banquet that is often
referred to in other religious writings of the period (e.g., the
New Testament).
From its earliest beginnings in God’s promises to the patriarchs until the dispersion of the Jews after the destructionof the Second Temple, Israel always kept alive its eschatological hopes and expectations, based both on a belief in God’s
justice and on an optimism that, with God’s help, good would
ultimately triumph over evil in the world.
[Louis F. Hartman]in the talmudic period
The eschatology of the Talmud and the Midrash is based uponthat of the Bible and is very similar to that of the Apocrypha.
A distinction is generally made between “the days of the Messiah” and “the world to come.” The former is regarded as thetransition stage to the world to come, and various periods are
mentioned for it: 40, 70 (“those generations”), 365 (“as thedays of the solar year”), and 400 years (Sanh. 99a; Sif. Deut.
310) as in Esdras (IV Ezra). A late baraita states that this world
will exist for “6,000 years, of which the first 2,000 will be aperiod of desolation, 2,000 of Torah, and the last 2,000 themessianic era” (Sanh. 97a–b; Av. Zar. 9a). There is also aview that “4,291 years after the creation, the world will beorphaned”; when there will break out “the war of the greatsea-monsters” (almost certainly referring to the civil warsof the Roman Empire during the period of its decline andfall), “the war of Gog and Magog,” etc.; “And the Holy One
Blessed Be He will renew his world only after 7,000 years”

500(Sanh. 97b). Not only the year of redemption but even thevery month and day was fixed by those “who calculated theend” (ibid.) – the 14t day of Nisan, according to R. Joshua(Mekh., Pisḥ a 14) whose view is accepted in preference tothat of R. Eliezer.
Since, however, these calculations did not prove true, thescholars proceeded to enumerate among “the seven things
hidden from men” “when the Davidic dynasty will return,and when the guilty kingdom will fall” (Pes. 54b; Mekh., VaYassa 5). Moreover the Messiah was included among the “three
things that will come unawares” (Sanh. 97a). When Jonathanb. Uzziel wanted to reveal the “messianic end” in his translation of the Hagiographa “a heavenly voice was heard to say‘enough!’” (Meg. 3a). There is an even more striking saying
from a period later than that of the early tannaim: “May thebones of those who calculate the end rot. For they say: Since
the time has arrived and he has not come, he will never come”(Sanh. 97b). At a still later period it was enunciated that:“All the calculated times have gone and everything depends
upon repentance and good deeds” (ibid.). Moreover the children of Israel were even placed under an oath “not to makeknown the end, and not forcibly to hasten the advent of theend” (Ket. 111a).
[Joseph Gedaliah Klausner]in kabbalah
Introduction
Apart from basic ideas concerning reward and punishment,
life after death, the *Messiah, redemption, and resurrection,
there is hardly a commonly held belief among the Jews regarding eschatological details. This lacuna provided an obvious opportunity for free play for the imaginative, the visionary, and the superstitious, and so became the field in which
the kabbalists left their mark: for they dealt extensively withjust these concepts. It is understandable that with such scope
they could never arrive at a decision which was acceptable
to all, and thus various trends developed. From fairly simple
beginnings, eschatological teaching developed in the *Zohar,
and in the kabbalistic works which followed it, and it had
many ramifications.
Life after DeathOf great importance here are the views of *Naḥ manides in
Sha’ar ha-Gemul on the Zohar, and of the Lurianic school as
they are crystallized in the great summary of Aaron Berechiahb. Moses of Modena, Ma’avar Yabbok. Generally speaking,they stress, after the time of Naḥ manides, the differing fatesof the three parts of the soul, which are separated from one
another after death. The nefesh (the lowest part) remains below
by the grave, and suffers punishment for transgressions after
the first judgment, which is called ḥ ibbut ha-kever (“punishment of the grave”) or din ha-kever (“judgment of the grave”).
The ru’aḥ is also punished for its sins, but after 12 months, itenters the earthly Garden of Eden, or “the Garden of Eden
below.” The neshamah returns to its source in “the Garden of
Eden above”; for, according to the Zohar, the neshamah is not
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6eschatology
liable to sin, and punishment falls only upon the nefesh andthe ru’aḥ (although other opinions exist in early Kabbalah).
In certain cases the nefashot ascend to the category of ruḥ ot,
and ruḥ ot to the category of neshamot. The ẓ eror ha-ḥ ayyim(“the bond of life”), in which the neshamot are stored, is interpreted in various ways. It is the concealed Eden, prepared
for the delight of the neshamot; it is the “treasury” beneath thethrone of glory in which the neshamot are stored until the resurrection; or it is one of the sefirot, or even their totality, into
which the neshamah is gathered when it is in communion andbound up with God. There are a large number of descriptions
in kabbalistic literature of the details and the various degrees
of punishment in the abodes of Gehinnom, and of pleasure in
the Garden of Eden and its various standards. They dealt withthe problem of how the ruḥ ot or the neshamot could have any
experience without physical faculties; what kind of garment
the ruḥ ot wore, and the method of their survival. (According to some, the garment of the ruḥ ot was woven of the commandments and good deeds, and was called ḥ aluka de-rabbanan (“the garment of the rabbis”).) Naḥ manides called thedomain of pleasure after death olam ha-neshamot (“the worldof souls”), and distinguished it absolutely from the olam haba (“the world to come”), which would be after the resurrection. This distinction was generally accepted by the Kabbalah.
In the “world of souls,” the neshamot are not incorporated
into the Divine, but preserve their individual existence. The
idea of punishment in Gehinnom (which was envisaged asa subtle spiritual fire which burned and purified the souls)
conflicted to no uncertain way with the idea of atonement
through transmigration (*Gilgul). There was no settled opinion on the question of which sin was punished by Gehinnom,
and which by transmigration. One can only say that with thedevelopment of the Kabbalah transmigration took on an evermore important role in this context. Both the Garden of Eden
and Gehinnom were beyond this world, or on the borders ofit, whereas the theory of transmigration ensured reward andpunishment in large measure in this world. Kabbalists soughtvarious compromises between these two paths, but they came
to no agreed solution. Attempts were also made to remove
the whole subject of Gehinnom from its literal sense and tointerpret it either according to the view of *Maimonides, or
metaphorically as referring to transmigration. The eschatology of the Kabbalah, and particularly that of the Zohar, wasgreatly influenced by the idea of the preexistence of souls. The
existence of the soul in “the world of souls” is nothing morethan its return to its original existence before its descent into
the body.
The Messiah and Redemption
The Messiah receives a special emanation from the sefirahmalkhut (“kingship”), the last of the sefirot. However, there
is no trace of the concept of the divinity of the Messiah. The
picture of the personal Messiah is pale and shadowy and does
not add much to the descriptions of him in the Midrashim ofredemption which were composed before the growth of the

Kabbalah. In the Zohar, there are a few new elements. According to the Zohar, the Messiah dwells in the Garden of
Eden in a special palace, called kan ẓ ippor (“the bird’s nest”),
and he will first be revealed in Upper Galilee. Some believedthat the soul of the Messiah had not suffered transmigration,
but was “new,” while others contended that it was the soul of
Adam (the first man) which had previously transmigrated toKing David. The letters of Adam (alef, dalet, mem) refer toAdam, David, and the Messiah – a notarikon found from theend of the 13t century. There is possibly some Christian influence here because, according to Paul, Adam, the first man,corresponds to Jesus, “the last man” (Rom. 5:17). Descriptions of redemption in the Zohar follow in the footsteps of
the Midrashim with the addition of some points and certainchanges in theme. The redemption will be a miracle, and allthat accompanies it miraculous (the stars sparkling and falling,
the wars of the end of time, the fall of the Pope, who is called
symbolically in the Zohar “the priest of On”). The idea of thepangs of redemption is greatly stressed, and the condition of
Israel on the eve of redemption is pictured in terms whichreflect the historical conditions of the 13t century. Descriptions of the redemption became more numerous at times ofcrisis, and particularly after the expulsion from Spain. However, in the later Kabbalah (Moses of *Cordovero and Isaac*Luria), their importance declined. On the other hand, themystical basis of redemption was emphasized – the basis thatdeveloped from the time of Naḥ manides and his school andwhich centered on the midrashic view that redemption would
be a return to that perfection which was sullied by the sin of
Adam and Eve. It would not be something entirely new, but arestoration, or a renewal. Creation at the time of redemption
would assume the form that was intended from the beginningby the eternal intellect. Only at the redemption would there
be a revelation of the original nature of Creation which has
become obscured or impaired in this world. Hence, the extreme utopian character of these ideas. In the Divine realm,
the state of redemption is expressed as the end of the “exile of
the Shekhinah,” the restoration of the divine unity throughout
all areas of existence. (“In that day the Lord shall be One, andHis name One” – hence the view that the true unity of God
will be revealed only in the time to come, while during theyears of exile it is as if sin had rendered His unity imperfect.)
At the time of redemption there will be a continuous union ofking and queen, or of the sefirot Tiferet and Shekhinah; that is
to say that there will be an unceasing stream of Divine influence through all worlds, and this will bind them eternally together. The hidden secrets of the Torah will be revealed, andthe Kabbalah will be the literal sense of the Torah. The messianic age will last approximately a thousand years, but many
believed that these years would not be identical with humanyears, for the planets and the stars would move more slowly,
so that time would be prolonged (this view was particularly
current in the circle of the Sefer ha-*Temunah (“Book of the
Image”), and it has origins in the Apocryphal books). It is
obvious, on the basis of these theories, that the kabbalists be-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6501

eschatology
lieved that the natural order would change in the messianicera (unlike the view of Maimonides). As to the problem ofwhether the redemption would be a miracle or the logical result of a process already immanent, kabbalistic opinion was
divided. After the expulsion from Spain, the view gradually
prevailed that the appearance of the Messiah would be a symbolic event. Redemption depended on the deeds of Israel, andon the fulfillment of its historic destiny. The coming of the redeemer would testify to the completion of the “restoration,”
but would not cause it.
Resurrection at the End of the WorldThe Kabbalah does not cast any doubt on the physical resurrection of the dead, which will take place at the end of thedays of redemption, “on the great day of judgment.” The novel
expositions of the kabbalists revolved round the question of
the fate of those who were to be resurrected. Naḥ manides
taught that after a normal physical life the resurrected body
would be purified, and be clothed in malakhut (“the garmentsof the angels”), and, thereby, pass into the future spiritual
world, which would come into being after the destruction ofthis world; and this new world would appear after the resurrection. In the world to come the souls and their “spiritualized” bodies would be gathered together in the ranks of thesefirot, in the true “bond of life.” According to Naḥ manides,
the souls, even in this state, would preserve their individual
identity. But afterward other views emerged. The author of theZohar speaks of “holy bodies” after the resurrection, but does
not state his specific view of their future except by allusion.
One widespread view identified the world to come with thesefirah Binah and its manifestations. After the life of pleasureexperienced by the resurrected, this world would be destroyed,
and some say that it would return to chaos (“waste and void”)
in order to be recreated in a new form. Perhaps the world tocome would be the creation of another link in the chain of“creations” or shemitot (“sabbaticals”; according to the viewof the author of Sefer ha-Temunah) or even the creation of a
spiritual existence through which all existing things ascend toreach the world of the sefirot, and return to their primeval being, or their “higher source.” In the “Great Jubilee,” after 50,000
years, everything will return to the bosom of the sefirah Binah,
which is also called the “mother of the world.” Even the othersefirot, through which God guides creation, will be destroyed
with the destruction of creation. In contrast to the teachingof the author of Sefer ha-Temunah concerning the creation ofworlds according to a fixed cycle (*Baḥ ya ben Asher speaksof 18,000 jubilees), most of the kabbalists maintained that
there would be only one creation, and, correspondingly, only
one eternal “world to come.” The contradiction of having two
judgments on man’s fate, one after death, and the other after
resurrection, one of which would appear to be superfluous,caused some kabbalists to restrict the great Day of Judgmentto the nations of the world, while the souls of Israel, in theirview, would be judged immediately after death.
[Gershom Scholem]

502

in islamIntroduction
From the beginning of Muhammad’s prophetic career, he wasimpressed with eschatological ideas about the descriptions of
the occurrences which were to take place on the last day. Contending that the “insured children of Abraham [the Jews]” did
not feel the crushing terror of God’s last judgment, J. Wellhausen concluded that Muhammad must have been greatly influenced by Christian eschatological ideas, especially the descriptions of the punishment of the sinners as they were spread in
Arabia by monks and hermits who lived in the deserts of the
Arabian peninsula. However after a thorough examination ofKoranic material, T. Andrae concluded that Wellhausen’s assumption has no foundation in the Koran. No decisive judgment can be made as to which religion – Judaism or Christianity – was more influential in Muhammad’s formulation ofan eschatology. In any event, it may be added that the sameideas are to be found in the poems of Jews in Arabia, andthe works of the *ḥ anīfs and contemporary pagan poets. The
texts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls show that these ideas
were familiar to Jewish circles in pre-Christian times. Thus, it
is probable that the beliefs about resurrection, the last judgment, paradise, and hell were current in Arabia among Jews,
Christians, and Arabs alike. It is therefore not astonishing that
Koranic eschatological descriptions and beliefs have parallels
in the Apocrypha, the aggadah, and the apocalypses.
The Day of Judgment
On many occasions Muhammad repeats the descriptions ofyawm al-qiyāma (“the day of resurrection”), an expression
which occurs 70 times (e.g., 2:79, 107; 16:125; 58:19; 75:1–35),
and al-sāʿa (“the hour”), 40 times (e.g., 6:31, 40; 79:42). He alsouses many other names for that day, e.g., yawm al-ḥ isāb (“dayof reckoning”; 38:15, 25, 53), and describes it in many different
fashions. On that day all men come back to life to be judged(28:85; 77:13–14); it will be a day of great calamity, when everyone will try to flee, so that “the leg shall be bared” (68:42; i.e.,
the loins will be girded for flight); on that day the trumpets (ofresurrection) shall be blown (6:73). According to Sura 69:13,“the trumpet shall be blown with one blast,” but Sura 39:68
states that the trumpet shall be blown twice: at the first sound“those who are in the heavens and in the earth shall swoon,
save whom God pleases. Then it shall be blown again and,lo! they shall stand up and look on.” This āya (“verse”) was ofgreat importance for later descriptions of the last judgment:
the sound of the trumpet will be followed by an earthquake(78:18); all this will occur “as the twinkling of an eye, or nigher
still!” (16:79); at the second sound all the dead will return tolife and gather at the al-maḥ shar (“the gathering place”). Later
Muslim tradition states that this gathering will take place inJerusalem (see below): Allah will come to the judgment witha host of angels; the scales will be set up for the exact weighing of the good deeds (7:7–8) and “no soul shall be wronged atall” (21:48); the books of the deeds of every individual will be
opened and the reckoning made (10:62; 80:11–15; 89:7–12); AlENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6eschatology
lah himself will judge or every sinner will bear witness against
himself (17:14–15; 36:65; 69:19, 25–27; 89:13, 23); the ṣ irāṭ (37:23),
the way to hell, will lead the sinners to their place of punishment. The prevailing opinion in the Koran is that intercession (shafāʿa) will not avail the sinner (2:45, 255; 74:49; cf. Ps.
49:8) because man must face his Judge alone. Nevertheless,the Judge, Allah, the Merciful, can allow intercession (2:256;
19:90). According to the *ḥ adīth Muhammad can intercede forthe believers and his intercession will be helpful.
Retribution
Descriptions of the last day are related to those dealing withthe lot of the sinners and the righteous: on that “overwhelming day” the sinners shall be “humble, laboring, toiling – shall
broil upon a burning fire; shall be given to drink from a boiling spring! no food shall they have save from the foul thorn,which shall not fatten nor avail against hunger! [But the faithful] shall be comfortable … in a lofty garden wherein theyshall hear no foolish word; wherein is a flowing fountain;
wherein are couches raised on high, and goblets set down,
and cushions arranged, and carpets spread” (88:1–16; cf. also
67:7–8). In some suras the bright and large-eyed virgin maids(the houri) are mentioned. They take part in the banquets arranged in paradise and some are wedded to the pious (e.g.,
44:54; 55:70–74; 56:15–22).
Muhammad was greatly concerned with the concept ofhell (jahannam; Heb. gei-hinnom, cf. Josh. 15:8; 18:16), but his
descriptions of it are not clearly defined. Jahannam is seen as
something mobile, possibly a monster which swallows thesinners (cf. 67:8; 89:23–24). Muhammad’s conception of paradise (usually called janna (“garden”), but twice named firdaws
or jannat al-firdaws, 18:107; 23:11) is much clearer, and is of avery material nature. Later Muslim traditionalists and theologians found in his descriptions many difficulties which had
to be elaborated, explained, and adapted to philosophical andethical trends.

be the first to be resurrected. According to Islamic tradition,
many Muslim mystics, saints, and heroes were buried near
the Temple Mount or on the Mount of Olives, evidently sothat they, too, might be among the first to rise on the day ofresurrection. A special place in eschatological descriptions
is reserved for the Dajjāl, Allah’s enemy (the *Armilus of theJewish legend and the *Antichrist of Christianity), and for
the War of Yājūj and Mājūj (*Gog and Magog). These legends
embody many reminiscences of Jewish and Christian stories.
The Dajjāl will wage war and conquer the entire world, except three cities – Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem; the battlesof the Dajjāl will be similar to the battles of Yājūj, which will
be fought in the neighborhood of Jerusalem. In eschatological descriptions, Muslim writers created many new legends.
Though devoting a great deal of space to this subject, theKoran never mentions any definite place. Tradition filled thegap by assigning the locale to Jerusalem and its surroundings.
Books are extant – outstanding among them are the Kitāb alZuhd (“Book of Asceticism”) and the Kitāb Aḥ wāl al-Qiyāma(“Book of the Phases of Resurrection”) – which mainly consistof descriptions of the resurrection: the angel Isrāfīl will soundthree trumpet blasts, whereupon all mankind will assemble at
the gathering place on the Mount of Olives. Gabriel will moveparadise to the right side of Allah’s Throne and hell to the left
side. Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad will stand to
the right of the scales of justice; the angel Raḍ wān will open
the gates of paradise and the angel Malik will open the gatesof hell. The bridge (ṣ irāṭ ) which all men must cross is longand slippery and narrower than a hair, sharper than a sword,and blacker than night; it has seven arches, and on each archmen are questioned about their deeds. Particularly interesting – in view of parallels in later midrashic literature – are thefour mountains associated with the day of resurrection: Khalīl(i.e., Hebron), Lebanon, Ṭ ūr (the Mount of Olives), and Jūdī
(Ararat), each of which will shine like a white pearl, with incomparable splendor, between heaven and earth. They will
stand at the four corners of the Temple. With the exception of
those concerning the ṣ irāṭ , which seems to be of Persian origin, these legends are based on Jewish or Christian conceptions (e.g., I En. 26–27; Av. Zar. 2b).

Resurrection
Among the signs of the resurrection the ḥ adīth mentions theappearance of the Dajjāl – the arch foe of the true Believers –and the descent of ʿĪsa (Jesus Christ) at the “hour” (cf. Sura
43:61). Later eschatological descriptions assign a special roleto the Temple Mount, the Valley of Hinnom, and the Mountof Olives. According to ʿAbdallah ibn Salām, a Jew from Medina who embraced Islam after Muhammad’s arrival in thatcity, the ṣ irāṭ – the narrow bridge over the Valley of Hinnom
which all creatures must cross on judgment day – extends between the Mount of Olives and the Temple area (where theLord will take His stand on that day); according to the basic
writings of Islam it is a real bridge, which a Muslim is required
to believe in. A certain area of the Mount of Olives is calledsāhira, where men will assemble at the hour of resurrection –its soil is white and no blood has ever been shed on it. Obviously, these places are particularly suitable as burial places ofprophets, as they relieve them of the necessity of performing
the “subterranean journey” to Jerusalem and enable them to

Bibliography: General: J. Klausner, The Messianic Idea in
Israel (1956); A.H. Silver, A History of Messianic Speculation in Israel(19592). In the Bible: L. Černý, The Day of Yahweh and Some Relevant Problems (1948); C. Steuernagel, in: Festschrift fuer Alfred Bertholet (1950), 479–87; G.A.F. Knight, in: Scottish Journal of Theology,
4 (1951), 355–62; T.C. Vriezen, in: VT Supplement 1 (1953), 199–229;
idem, An Outline of Old Testament Theology (1958), index; G.W. Buchanan, in: jnes, 20 (1961), 188–93; G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology (1962), index; R.H. Charles, Eschatology (1963); W. Eichrodt,
Theology of the Old Testament (1964), index; H.P. Mueller, in: VT, 14(1964), 276–93; O. Ploeger, Theocracy and Eschatology (1968); Scholem, Mysticism, index. In the Talmud: G.F. Moore, Judaism in theFirst Centuries of the Christian Era, 2 (1927), 275–395; A. Kohut, in:zdmg 21 (1867), 552ff.; R.H. Charles, A Critical History of the Doctrineof a Future Life… (1899); W. Bousset, Der Antichrist in der Ueberlief-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6503[Haïm Z’ew Hirschberg]

eschelbacher, josepherung des Judentums (1895). In the intertestamental LITERATURE: D.S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic(1964), with very good bibliography; B. Vawter, in: cbq, 22 (1960),
33–46; S. Mowinkel, He That Cometh: The Messianic Concept in the
Old Testament and Later Judaism (1956); J. Bloch, On the Apocalyptic in Judaism (1952). In the Dead Sea Scrolls: H. Ringgren, The
Faith of Qumran (1963); E.F. Sutcliffe, The Monks of Qumran (1960),
83–90; R.E. Brown, in: CBQ, 19 (1957), 53–82; P. Grelot, in: Revuede Qumran, 1 (1958–59), 113–31; A.M. Habermann, Megillot Midbar
Yehudah (1959). IN Islam: Tor Andrae, Der Ursprung des Islams und
das Christentum (1926), 83ff.; J. Wellhausen, Reste arabischen Heidentums (18972), 240; K. Ahrens, Muhammed als Religionsstifter (1935),
23, 59; J.W. Hirschberg, Der Dīwān des as-Samauʾal ibn Ādija (1931),
10, 19, 24, 48, 54–56, 58–59; idem, Juedische und christliche Lehren…
(1939), 73–78, 139–62; idem, Yisrael be-Arav (1946), 208–14, 240–1;
idem, in: Rocznik Orientalistyczny, 17 (1952), 342–8; M. Wolff, Muhammedanische Eschatologie (1872; containing K. Ahwāl al-Quiyama);
R. Leszynsky, Mohammedanische Traditionen vom juengsten Gericht(1909; containing K. al Zuhd); J. Horovitz, Das koranische Paradies(1923); A. Eichler, Die Dschinn, Teufel und Engel im Koran (1928); I.
Goldziher, Muhammedanische Studien, 2 (1890), 308ff.

ESCHELBACHER, JOSEPH (1848–1916), author and rabbi
in Bruchsal, Baden (1870–1900), and Berlin. His main work,
Das Judentum und das Wesen des Christentums, was written
in answer to Adolf von Harnack; others include a biographyof Jehiel Michael Sachs and a work on the attitude to the Jews
revealed by contemporary Protestant theology. His son MAX(1880–1964), rabbi in Bruchsal, Freiburg, and Duesseldorf(1913–39), published comparative studies on Jewish law anda book on the Duesseldorf community. In 1939 he escaped toEngland, where he remained until his death.
ESCUDERO, LORENZO (d. apparently in 1682), convert to
Judaism and polemist. He was born in Córdoba (Spain) to Old
Christian parents. He left his wife in Seville when he was 40
years old and apparently married an English woman who converted later on to Judaism. Later, he went to Amsterdam, studied Judaism, and in due course was converted, being known
henceforth as Abraham Israel Peregrino (i.e., “the convert”)
or Abraham Guer (Ger) de Cordova. After the Portuguese
community in Amsterdam refused to convert him, he applied
to the Ashkenazi community, which agreed to do so. He wascircumcised in 1658. Subsequently, the Portuguese community changed its attitude towards the new convert. Althougha skilled fencer and able musician, he spent the rest of his life
in penury. Perhaps he served as shamash in the Portuguese
synagogue. After his conversion, he was invited to the wedding of Emperor Leopold and Marguarita Maria in Brussels,
despite the prohibition of Philip IV, Margarita’s father, of Jews
to dwell in his Flemish territory. It is astonishing that a convert
to Judaism was invited to Spanish-ruled Flanders. Attempts inBrussels to bring him back to Christianity failed. He adopted avery daring attitude towards Christian lay and religious leaders and he challenged Alonso de Cepeda to participate in thedebate with Isaac Orobio de Castro. He lived in London from1655 to 1659, when he was denounced to the Lisbon Inquisi-504

tion. Abraham Guer was converted out of conviction, but hewas not the author of Fortaleza del Judaismo y confusion delestraño as suggested by some scholars, including Cecil Roth(prob. Amsterdam, c. 1680), of which manuscript translations
exist in Italian and in Hebrew (under the title Ẓ eri’aḥ Bet El).
According to his own testimony he was attracted to Judaism
under the influence of the Dominican Fray Luis de Granada,
whose spiritualism and attack against Christian “physicalritual” attracted both old and new Christians. Copia da vida
do bemaventurado Abraham Pelengrino (sic; formerly in the
D. Henriques de Castro collection, no. 534), contrary to what
Roth wrote, was written by another convert, Manuel Cardosode Macedo, who also took the name Abraham Peregrino, whodied in 1652. Daniel Levi (Miguel) de *Barrios wrote a sonnet
in his honor. Escudero was not an isolated case of a Jewish
convert in 17t-century Amsterdam.
Bibliography: G.B. de’ Rossi, Bibliotheca Judaica Antichristiana (1800), 5–7, 128; P. de Azevedo, in: Academia das Sciencias deLisboa, Boletim da segumeha classe, 9 (1915), 464; L. Wolf, Jews in The
Canary Islands (1926), 203n; A. Marx, in: Studies in Jewish Bibliography in Memory of A.S. Freidus (1929), 259, 264; I.S. Revah, Spinoza etle Dr Juan de Prado (1959), 31n. Add. Bibliography: Y. Kaplan, in:Proceedings of the 7t WCJS, vol. 4 (1981), 87–101 (Heb. section).
[Cecil Roth / Yom Tov Assis (2nd ed.)]ESHEL, YITZḤ AK (1912– ), ḥ azzan. Yitzḥ ak Eshel wasborn in Debrecen, Hungary. He studied in a ḥ eder and in yeshivot, among them the Ḥ atam Sofer Yeshivah in Bratislava(Pressburg). At the age of 19 he was appointed chief cantor in
Munich, where he also continued to practice music and studied in the Conservatory. He served as cantor in Manchesterand in his birthplace, Debrecen. In 1938 he was appointed
cantor in the famous Nozyck Synagogue in Warsaw, but
because of the antisemitic atmosphere he decided not to
accept the position. In 1949 he immigrated to Israel where
he became the cantor in the Great Synagogue in Ramat Gan.
He became known throughout the country, officiating atprayer services and appearing in concerts in different partsof the country. He served as chief cantor of the Beth-El Synagogue in Tel Aviv, and in 1956 for a year was chief cantor of
the Shomrei Hadass congregation in Antwerp. He moved to
the United States and was appointed chief cantor of the Po’ale
Zedeck Synagogue in Pittsburgh. When he returned to Israelin 1961 he was chief cantor of the central Hekhal Meir Synagogue in Tel Aviv, where he served until 1970. He foundeda choir, which was led by the English-born director, Martin White. From 1970 he appeared in various synagogues in
Israel and in the Diaspora and trained many young cantors.
Yitzḥ ak Eshel has produced records of cantorial music andYiddish songs. He is considered one of the creative cantors,
while his original compositions are written in a traditional
spirit. He published articles on cantorial music and otherJewish music in the journal of the Sha’arey Zedek Synagogue
in Pittsburgh.
[Akiva Zimmerman]

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

eshkol, levi
ESHET Ḥ AYIL (Heb. ‫“ ; ֵא ׁ ֶשת ַחיִ ל‬a woman of valor”), opening
words praising the virtuous woman in Proverbs 31:10–31. This
poem enumerates the qualities of the ideal wife in a sequential alphabetic acrostic of 22 verses, one for each of the lettersof the Hebrew alphabet. She is lauded as provident, economically successful, working hard for husband and household,and charitable to the needy. She possesses optimism, faces life
with confidence, and speaks in wisdom and kindness. Her efforts enable her husband to function as a prominent communal leader, “As he sits among the elders of the land.” The
conclusion of the passage celebrates a woman’s domestic andspiritual strengths: “Grace is deceitful, and beauty is vain, Buta woman that fears the Lord, she shall be praised … and let
her works praise her in the (city) gates.”
In many Jewish families the song is recited or chanted on
Friday evenings before the Kiddush. This custom originated inkabbalistic circles and initially referred to the Shekhinah (“Divine presence”) as the mystical mother and wife. Later this devotion became a domestic ceremony in which the family paid
homage to its wife and mother. Other sources maintain that
Eshet Ḥ ayil refers to the Sabbath or the Torah. In some places
this song was chanted at Jewish weddings. Its verses have often been used as inscriptions on tombstones of the pious; inSephardi rituals the first verse is recited before the *Ashkavah(“laying to rest”) prayer at women’s funerals.
Derashot to some of the singular verses of Eshet Ḥ ayil appear in tannaitic, talmudic, and midrashic literature. Several
smaller Midrashim expound the poem in sequence, a genre
which has assumed the rubric Midreshei Eshet Ḥ ayil. Someof these Midrashim interpret the entire poem as referring toSarah. One such text appears in Tanḥ uma, Ḥ ayei Sarah 4. Two
additional versions, which interpret the poem until the verse“Her husband is prominent in the gates” (Prov. 31:23), appear
in Tanḥ uma, ed. Buber, Ḥ ayei Sarah 3, pp. 116–18, and in Aggadat Bereshit, ed. Buber (Cracow, 1893), ch. 34, pp. 66–69.
Several Midreshei Eshet Ḥ ayil interpret each of the verses ofEshet Ḥ ayil as referring to a different biblical female personality.
The earliest surviving manuscript of Midrash Eshet Ḥ ayil
was copied in 1270. This text, which was erroneously appended
to the end of Midrash Proverbs, is actually an independent
Midrash. It contains derashot to the first 20 verses only. The
women in the first eight verses, all mentioned in the Pentateuch, are presented in chronological order: the wife of Noah,
Sarah, Rebekah, Leah, Rachel, Bithiah the daughter of Pharaoh, Jocheved, and Miriam. The remaining women appear in
non-chronological order. With the exception of Elisheba, thewomen mentioned in the latter group appear in the Prophets
and Hagiographa. A critical edition of this Midrash has been
prepared by Y. Levine (Midreshei Eshet Ḥ ayil, pp. 1–151).
Several Genizah fragments of Midrash Eshet Ḥ ayil survive. One such text was published by L. Ginzberg (Ginzei
Schechter, 1 (1928), 163–68). Other versions have been annotated by Y. Levine (Midreshei Eshet Ḥ ayil, pp. 254–83) and
M.B. Lerner (Sefer Zikaron le-Tirzah Lifshitz). Additionally,four Yemenite editions of Midrash Eshet Ḥ ayil containing derashot to the entire poem exist in their entirety. The version
in Midrash ha-Gadol, by R. David ha-Adani, refers to theverse beginning “And the lifespan of Sarah” (Gen. 23:1) (ed.
Margulies, pp. 368–74). Another edition, based on Midrashha-Gadol, appears in Midrash ha-Ḥ efeẓ , by R. Zechariah haRofeh (Midrash ha-Ḥ efeẓ al Ḥ amishah Ḥ umshei Torah, Bereishit–Shemot, Jerusalem, 1991, Gen. 23:1–2, pp. 163–64). An
additional edition is attributed to R. Moses Albalidah and was
published by Z.M. Rabinowitz in Mi-Ẓ efunot Yehudei Teiman(1962), pp. 209–22. However, this ascription is questionable(Midreshei Eshet Ḥ ayil, p. 244).
The Eshet Ḥ ayil poem also served as the basis for many
post-medieval derashot, in which traditional sources concerning women, primarily talmudic and midrashic, were expounded. This external form was particularly prevalent andcommon among Sephardi rabbis as eulogies for women. Contemporary Jewish feminists have sought to reclaim this poem
and have offered new insights and interpretations.

ESHKOL (Shkolnik), LEVI (1895–1969), Israeli statesman
and third prime minister of Israel, member of the Second to
Sixth Knessets. Eshkol was born in Oratova, in the Kiev district in the Ukraine, into a prosperous ḥ asidic family. As achild he studied at a ḥ eder and with private tutors up to theage of 16, when he entered the Hebrew high school in Vilna.
Eshkol joined the Ẓ e’irei Zion movement in Vilna. He settled
in Ereẓ Israel in 1913 and began his career as an agricultural
worker and watchman. He was one of the founders of a workers’ commune called Ha-Avodah in Petaḥ Tikvah, which thenmoved to a plot of land near Kalandia, north of Jerusalem,and from there to Rishon le-Zion. In 1918–20 he served in the*Jewish Legion, and after World War I was one of the founders of kevuẓ at *Deganyah Bet, soon becoming its treasurerand economic planner, securing funds for its developmentfrom central labor and Zionist institutions. In later years hebecame active in initiating and managing various institutions
within the framework of the *Histadrut. In 1921 he served on
the Defense Committee of the Histadrut, and in 1922, whileon a mission to Europe to acquire arms, he was arrested anddetained for several weeks by the Vienna police for allegedly
purchasing arms illegally. Eshkol was one of the first leadersof the yishuv to recognize the importance of securing an adequate supply of water for agricultural development, and was
one of the founders of the *Mekorot Water Company, which

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6505

Bibliography: A. Bardack, “Praising the Work of Valiant
Women: A Feminist Endorsement of Eshet Hayil,” in: D. Orenstein(ed.), Lifecycles, 1 (1994), 136–40, 395, 415; Y. Levine, “Eshet Ḥ ayil
(Mishlei 31:10–31) ba-Pulḥ an ha-Yehudi,” in: Beit Mikra, 31:4 (1986),
339–47; Y. Levine Katz, “Midreshei Eshet Ḥ ayil,” Dissertation, Bar-Ilan
University (1993); M.B. Lerner, “Keta Ḥ adash mi-Midrash Eshet Ḥ ayilu-Tehilato shel Ma’amar Yud-Bet Nashim,” in: Sefer Zikaron le-Tirzah
Lifshitz (2005); S. Valler, “Who is eset hayil in Rabbinic Literature?”
in: A. Brenner (ed.), A Feminist Companion to Wisdom Literature (TheFeminist Companion to the Bible, 9) (1995), 85–97.
[Yael Levine (2nd ed.)]eshkol, levi
he directed in the years 1937–51. In 1934 he was also one of
the initiators and implementers of the *Haavarah project fortransferring Jewish capital from Nazi Germany to Palestinein the form of capital goods and was sent to Berlin to oversee
the arrangement. In 1940 he became a member of the National
Command of the Haganah, where he was in charge of financesand played a major role in organizing illicit arms manufacturing activities. In 1942–45 Eshkol served as secretary of *Mapai,
and in 1944–48 secretary of the Workers’ Council of Tel Aviv.
In 1947, he was among those in charge of registration in theyishuv for national military service in anticipation of the approaching armed struggle. He was simultaneously a memberof the Negev Committee, which prepared the defense of the
Negev settlements.
Eshkol was a member of the Jewish Agency Executive,
its treasurer in the years 1949–51, and head of the Settlement
Department in the years 1948–63, simultaneously holding
ministerial posts in the governments of David *Ben-Gurion
and Moshe *Sharett. As head of the Settlement Department
he oversaw the establishment of 371 new settlements and the
expansion of an additional 60.
In 1948–49 Eshkol served as director general of the Ministry of Defense (he was referred to as deputy minister), helping Ben-Gurion set up and organize the ministry. He waselected to the Second Knesset in 1951, serving as minister ofagriculture and development in 1951–52. In 1952 he replaced
Eliezer *Kaplan, who had passed away, as minister of finance, aposition he held until replacing Ben-Gurion as prime ministerin 1963, overseeing the implementation of the New Economic
Plan introduced by Kaplan and reaping the economic benefits of the Restitution Agreement signed with West Germany
in September 1952 – three months after he became ministerof finance. Under his direction the Israeli economy entered
two decades of rapid economic growth, with GDP rising by
an average of 10 percent annually. In 1953–55, Eshkol headed
Israel’s delegation in negotiations with President Eisenhower’s special envoy, Eric Johnston, on the allocation of water
resources between Israel and its neighbors. After the Arabs
rejected the Johnston Plan that emerged from these negotiations, Israel embarked on the construction of the National
Water Carrier, involving the channeling of water from the Jordan River to the Negev, which Eshkol strongly supported. In
1954, when Ben-Gurion temporarily retired to Sedeh Boker,
he designated Eshkol as his successor, but the Mapai institutions elected Moshe Sharett, and Eshkol continued to serveas minister of finance.
In 1960 Eshkol was a member of the cabinet committee that exonerated Pinḥ as *Lavon from responsibility in the
Lavon Affair, but several months later he supported Lavon’sdismissal from his post as secretary-general of the Histadrut.
In the following years Eshkol used all his patience, equanimity, and skill to resolve the crisis as amicably as possible.
When in 1963 Ben-Gurion was finally obliged to resign as aresult of the crisis, it was Eshkol who was chosen to succeed
him as prime minister and minister of defense. Despite pres-sure by Ben-Gurion, after becoming prime minister Eshkol
refused to reopen the Lavon Affair. This refusal, plus Eshkol’s
success in getting Mapai and *Aḥ dut ha-Avodah-Po’alei Zion
to form a single list – the Alignment – in the elections to the
Sixth Knesset in 1965, finally caused Ben-Gurion and his supporters in Mapai to leave the party and form *Rafi, which ran
independently.
Soon after becoming prime minister Eshkol reversed
Ben-Gurion’s policy and agreed to bring the remains of Ze’ev*Jabotinsky for burial in Israel. Eshkol was the first Israeli
prime minister to visit the United States, at the invitation of
U.S. president Lyndon *Johnson, and during his premiership the U.S. started selling Israel significant quantities ofarms, though until the Six-Day War France remained its main
source of arms. It was also Eshkol who decided to establish
formal diplomatic relations with West Germany in 1965. His
attempts to improve relations with the Soviet Union failed,
and these relations were broken by the latter in the aftermathof the Six-Day War.
The National Water Carrier was inaugurated about a year
after Eshkol became prime minister. The Arabs responded byinitiating a project to divert the headwaters of the Jordan andrepeatedly shelling settlements in northern Israel. In November 1964, Eshkol approved air operations (for the first timesince the *Sinai Campaign) against Syrian artillery positions
and the Arab diversion works. In the following two and a halfyears the security situation became increasingly tense, andthe IDF undertook numerous operations in reaction to Syrian
and Jordanian attacks and to acts of sabotage by infiltrators. A
further deterioration took place in May 1967, when President
Gamal Abdel *Nasser closed the Straits of Tiran to shipping
bound for Eilat, called for the withdrawal of UN peacekeeping
forces from the Gaza Strip, and started to amass troops in the
Sinai Peninsula. Eshkol’s policy was to try to avert war at any
cost, but when all his efforts failed he approved preemptive action by the IDF. On the eve of the outbreak of the war, and due
to growing public pressure, he invited Rafi and *Gaḥ al to join
a government of national unity, and handed over the defense
portfolio to Moshe *Dayan, even though he had wanted toappoint Yigal *Allon to the post. After the war Eshkol did not
object to Israel’s returning most captured territories in returnfor a comprehensive peace, and in December 1967 accepted
Security Council Resolution 242, which spoke of Israeli withdrawal from territories in return for recognition of its right tolive in peace within secure and recognized borders. However,the Arab Summit at Khartoum in 1968 rejected any prospectof negotiations with Israel. Eshkol paid a second visit to theUnited States in January 1968 when President Johnson agreed
to upgrade U.S. arms sales to Israel.
In the aftermath of the Six-Day War Eshkol actively supported the establishment of the Israel Labor Party, throughthe merging of Mapai, Aḥ dut ha-Avodah-Po’alei Zion, andRafi. The Labor Party was established in January 1968, andLevi Eshkol stood at its head until his sudden death in February 1969.

506

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

eskelesBibliography: H. Laufbahn, Levi Eshkol (Heb., 1965); T.
Prittie, Eshkol the Man and the Nation (1969); H.M. Christman (ed.),The State Papers of Levi Eshkol (1969); Y. Shapiro, Levi Eshkol: BeMa’a lot ha-Sheliḥ ut (1969); S. Perla, Levi Eshkol: Unifier of a Nation(1970); D. Giladi, Levi Eshkol – Kevarnit ha-Hityashvut ha-Hamonit
1948–1952 (1993); A.Gluska, Ha-Imut bein ha-Mateh ha-Kelali uvein Memshelet Eshkol bi-Tekufat ha-Hamtanah (2001); A. Lamfrumand H. Zoref, Levi Eshkol: Rosh ha-Memshalah ha-Shelishi: Mivḥ arTe’udot mi-Pirkei Ḥ ayyav 1895–1969 (2002); Y. Goldstein, Eshkol: Biografiyah (2003).
[Susan Hattis Rolef (2nd ed.)]

ESHTAOL (Heb. ‫) ֶא ׁ ְש ָּתאוֹ ל‬, biblical town in the Judean
Shephelah, in the territory of the tribe of Dan, usually mentioned together with nearby Zorah (Josh. 15:33; 19:41). The
Danites set out on their march to Laish from these towns(Judg. 18:2) and somewhere between were the tombs of Samson and his father Manoah (Judg. 13:25; 16:31). The aggadah describes the two towns as mountains facing each other (Sot. 9b).
In the fourth century C.E. Eusebius mentions a village called
Eshtaol in the Eleutheropolis (Bet Guvrin) district, 10 mi.
(16 km.) north of the city; its location is not clear (Onom.
88:12–14). Estori ha-Parḥ i (14t century) was the first to identify Eshtaol with Ishwaʿ, north of Zorah and 16½ mi. (27 km.)west of Jerusalem (Kaftor va-Feraḥ , 302). The ancient city wasperhaps located at Tell Abu-al-Qābūs, on the hill above the village of Ishwaʿ, where remains of the Iron Age have been found.
In the War of Independence (1948), the village (pop. 600) was
taken during the building of the “Burma road” to Jerusalem;
it had been abandoned by its inhabitants.

century C.E. it was still a large Jewish village in the district of
Bet Guvrin (Eleutheropolis; Onom. 26:11; 82:20). The site is
occupied by the Arab village of al-Samūʿ where many fragments of synagogue ornamentation, such as reliefs of candelabra, have been found. Remains of an ancient synagogue were
uncovered by excavations conducted by L.A. Mayer and A.
Reifenberg in 1935–36.
On November 13, 1966, the Israeli army attacked theArab village – then in Jordan with a population of about
2,500 Muslims – which was serving as the base of terrorist
raiders who had committed a number of outrages in Israeli
territory. The village fell into Israeli hands as a result of
the *Six-Day War in 1967. Excavations by Z. Yeivin in 1969–70
led to the discovery of a mosaic pavement with an Aramaic
inscription at the synagogue site. The synagogue differs inplan and details from the type common in Galilee in the thirdand fourth centuries C.E. It measures 40 ft. (12 m.) by 65 ft.
(20 m.). Iron Age jewelry and ingots were found beneath thefloor.
Bibliography: Mayer and Reifenberg, in: BJPES, 9 (1941–42),
41–44; 10 (1942–43), 10–11; idem, in: JPOS, 19 (1939), 314–26. Add.
Bibliography: A. Negev and S. Gibson, Archaelological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land (20012), S.V.
[Michael Avi-Yonah]

ESHTEMOA (Heb. ‫ ֶא ׁ ְש ְּתמ ַֹע‬,‫ ֶא ׁ ְש ְּתמ ַֹה‬,‫) ֶא ׁ ְש ְּתמוֹ ַע‬, levitical cityin the territory of Judah, south of Hebron (Josh. 15:50; 21:14;
I Sam. 30:28; I Chron. 6:42) that belonged to the family of Caleb (I Chron. 4:17, 19). According to Eusebius, in the fourth

ESKELES, family in Vienna. The name is derived from Elkesh, i.e., Olkusz, town in Krakow province. The first noted
member, Gabriel ben Judah Loew Eskeles (d. 1718), wasborn in Cracow. A pupil of Samuel *Koidanover, he became
rabbi of Olkusz in 1684. The rabbinate of Prague was offeredto him in 1683 but it is not clear if he accepted it. He became
rabbi of Metz in 1695, and in 1708/9 Landesrabbiner (“chief
rabbi”) of Moravia and head of the yeshivah in Nikolsburg(Mikulov), sharing his office with David *Oppenheim. In 1712
he banned the kabbalist and Shabbatean Nehemiah *Ḥ ayon.
Gabriel left unpublished novellae on the Talmud tractates
Shabbat and Megillah, a commentary on Avot, and a collection of responsa (now lost), known mainly from quotationsin Meir *Eisenstadt’s Panim Me’irot.
His son Issachar Berush (Bernard Gabriel, 1692–1753)
married a daughter of Samson *Wertheimer, and, as written
on his tombstone, “wrapped in a gold-trimmed cloak” became rabbi of Kremsier (Kromeriz) at the age of 18. As he absented himself frequently on business, he appointed a substitute rabbi. In 1717 he is mentioned as rabbi of Mainz. Around
1719 he settled in Vienna as court purveyor (see *Court Jews),
supplying arms and other commodities. He succeeded his father as chief rabbi of Moravia and in 1725 followed Samson
Wertheimer as chief rabbi of Hungary, administering bothoffices from Vienna. When consulted by the Moravian authorities in 1727, he suggested that they enforce the precept
forbidding Jews from shaving with a razor, and advocateddistinctive dress for Jews except for traveling. He translated
into German the Moravian takkanot (published in 1880 by
Gerson Wolf) for the Austrian government. His novellae on

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6507[Michael Avi-Yonah]

The name Eshtaol was renewed when a moshav, affiliatedwith Tenu’at ha-Moshavim, was founded by newcomers from
Yemen, at the site of Ishwaʿ in the Judean Foothills north of
Beth-Shemesh. Initially this was a work village whose settlers
were employed at reclaiming the terrain for farming. Gradually, the main branches – deciduous fruit orchards, vineyards,
garden crops, etc. – were developed. Near the village a forest
tree nursery of the Jewish National Fund offered further employment to the settlers who also worked in nearby forests,
e.g. the President’s Forest commemorating Chaim *Weizmann, which served as a recreation ground. The crossroads
near Eshtaol bears the name Ẓ omet Shimshon (“Samson Junction”). In 1968, Eshtaol numbered 320 inhabitants, rising to
480 in the mid-1990s and 702 in 2002 as the moshav underwent expansion.
[Efraim Orni]
Bibliography: J. Garstang, Joshua, Judges (1931), 375; Montgomery, in: JBL, 54 (1935), 61; Malky, in: JPOS, 20 (1946), 43ff.; Aharoni, Land, index; Avi-Yonah, Geog, 111.

espinosa, edouard

GABRIEL b. JUDAH LOEW
ESKELESd. 1718
chief rabbi of Moravia

ISSACHAR BERUSH(BERNARD GABRIEL)
1692–1753
chief rabbi of Moravia 1718
chief rabbi of Hungary 1725

LEA
(ELEANORE)

Left Judaism

FLIESSDENIS(DANIEL)
1803–1876

ESKELES FAMILYSAMSON*WERTHEIMER
1658–1724

Ḥ AVVAHREBEKAHd. 1749DANIEL *ITZIG
1723–1799
BERNHARDvon ESKELES
1753 –1839
bankerWILHELMINA(Baroness
BRENTANOCIMAROLLI)CECILY
WULFF
1759–1818

MARIANNE

Graf ofWimptenn

tractate Berakḥ ot remain unpublished. Using his influence atcourt, he supported Diego *d’Aguilar’s efforts to prevent the
expulsion of the Jews from Moravia in 1742, and from Pragueand Bohemia in 1744–45. Four days before his death, he established the Eskeles-Stiftung (see below).
Issachar’s son Bernhard (1753–1839), born after his
father’s death, became one of the outstanding financiersin Austria at the beginning of the 19t century. After an unsuccessful start in Amsterdam, where he lost his father’s legacy(over 400,000 florins), he returned in 1774 to Vienna, married Cecily Wulff (née *Itzig), and went into partnership withher brother-in-law Nathan von *Arnstein. Following the riseof his banking house and his uncovering of a banking forgery (1795), he was entrusted with government financial tasks
and his advice was sought by *Joseph II and *Francis I. He
founded the Austrian National Bank in 1816, and, competingwith Salomon Mayer *Rothschild, promoted railway construction. Ennobled in 1797, he became a baron in 1822. It is
assumed that he was the author of an anonymous exposé ofthe Jewish situation used by Joseph II for his Toleranzpatent.
In 1815, he was one of the signatories of a petition for Jewish rights (see *Austria). The only Austrian Jew invited to the
Napoleonic *Sanhedrin in 1806, he informed the police outof loyalty to Austria. In an obituary (AZJ, 1839, 518–9) he was
attacked for failing to make sufficient use of his influence
and wealth for the benefit of the Jews. Bernhard’s wife Cecily (1759–1818), a daughter of Daniel Itzig, made their housea meeting place for high society (see *Salons), mainly during the Congress of *Vienna. Her parties rivaled those of hersister Fanny von *Arnstein. *Goethe made her acquaintanceat Carlsbad. Bernhard and Cecily’s children were baptized in
1824. Denis (Daniel) inherited the firm, which went bankrupt in 1859, as a result of his connection with the French
Crédit Mobilier. Issachar’s elder daughter Lea (Eleanore) was
involved in a Prussian spy scandal. Because of this Valentin
Guenther (with whom she had had two children), who had

508

played an important part in the formulation of the Toleranzpatent, was banished from court. In later years Goethe corresponded with her.
The Eskeles-Stiftung
Issachar established a foundation for Torah teaching to children and providing dowries for poor brides. Endowed with
50,000 florins, the foundation was one of the largest in the
Hapsburg empire. When in 1782 the government orderedthat it should be used for the newly founded Normalschulen(see *Austria, education) Bernhard sued the government, andit was agreed that the foundation should be used for its
original aims as well as for the new ones. As its income had
decreased considerably, Bernhard doubled the capital in 1811.
In 1839 he altered the statute, adding a donation for five Moravian university-trained rabbis and ten students. The latter
were required to be of Jewish faith when granted the scholarship, but they were not to lose it if they were baptized. Of
the two trustees one was to be a member of the Eskeles family of any religion, who was to propose the second, a Moravian resident of Jewish religion, who could be replaced if hewere baptized. The foundation’s committee still existed in
Brno in the 1930s.
Bibliography: Wiener, in: Illustrierte Monatshefte fuer die
gesamten Interessen des Judenthums, 1 (1865), 387–94; W. Mueller,
Urkundliche Beitraege… (1903), 68–92; B. Wachstein, Die Inschriften
des alten Judenfriedhofes in Wien, 2 (1917), 350–70; H. Gold (ed.),Die Juden und Judengemeinden Maehrens in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart (1929), index; Michael, Or, no. 657; M. Grunwald, Vienna(1936), index; H. Spiel, Fanny von Arnstein (1962), index; H. Schnee,
Die Hoffinanz und der moderne Staat, 4 (1963), 331; M. Friedman, in:Sefunot, 10 (1966), 508, 532–5; K. Grunwald, in: YLBI, 12 (1967), 168;
L. Singer, in: jggjČ, 5 (1933), 295–7; T. Jakabovits, in JGGJ, 5 (1933),
79–136 passim.
[Meir Lamed]

ESPINOSA, EDOUARD (1872–1950), British ballet dancer
and teacher. Espinosa belonged to a renowned family of dancers and teachers, originally of Sephardi extraction. His father Léon E. (1825–1904) studied at the Paris Opera school,
danced at the Théâtre de la Porte-Saint-Martin, and toured the
U.S. before joining the Bolshoi Ballet in Moscow as premierdanseur de contrast. He settled in London in 1872, where heopened a school. Edouard was born in London and trainedby his father. He danced under Henry Irving at Lyceum Theatre, London (1891–96) and for a season (1893) under Charles*Frohman, New York. From 1896 to 1939 he was ballet master at Covent Garden and other London theaters, producing
dances for numerous shows, including Chu Chin Chow (1916),
Maid of the Mountains (1917), and The Last Waltz (1922). He
was one of the founders of the Royal Academy of Dancing
in 1920 and of the British Ballet Company in 1930. After his
death the latter was directed by his son Eduard Kelly Espinosa(d. 1991) and daughter Ivette (d. 1992). He also wrote manuals
on dance technique.
[Amnon Shiloah (2nd ed.)]

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6essenESPINOZA, ENRIQUE (pseudonym of Samuel Glusberg;
1898–1987), Argentine author, publisher, and, journalist. His
pseudonym combines the names of Henrich Heine and Baruch Spinoza. Born in Kishinev, Espinoza arrived in Argentina at the age of seven. He founded and edited the literary
reviews Cuadernos Americanos (1919) and Babel (1921–51), firstin Buenos Aires and later in Santiago de Chile, where he settled in 1935 for health and political reasons, and also founded
the Babel publishing house, which launched books by new
Argentinian writers. In 1945 he conducted a symposium on“the Jewish Question” among prominent Latin American intellectuals, published in Babel 26. He was co-founder and first
secretary of the Argentine Writers’ Association, and a member of avant-garde movements in literature and the arts. His
short stories and articles deal with Jewish identity, immigration, antisemitism, and the Holocaust, as well as ethical anduniversal social issues. His contemporaries saw him as the perfect intellectual blend of cosmopolitanism and Jewishness. His
best-known stories appeared in La levita gris: cuentos judíos deambiente porteño (1924); and Ruth y Noemí (1934). His essays
were collected in De un lado y otro (1956), Heine, el ángel y elleón (1953), and Spinoza, ángel y paloma (1978).
Bibliography: R. Gardiol, Argentina’s Jewish Short Story
Writers (1986); N. Lindstrom, Jewish Issues in Argentine Literature(1989); D.B. Lockhart, Jewish Writers of Latin America. A Dictionary (1997).
[Florinda Goldberg (2nd ed.)]

ESRA, organization founded January 26, 1884, with its headquarters in Berlin and its major objective to support Jewish
agricultural settlers in Ereẓ Israel and Syria without the traditional *Ḥ alukkah system. At the end of 1886 a group of young
Berlin Jews produced a manifesto prompted by the movementof Russian Jews to Ereẓ Israel to establish agricultural settlements, proclaiming: “These Russian Jews, who have been continually tortured and persecuted, were able to initiate this excellent project out of their intense need. Shall German Jewry,
which enjoys the full protection of an impartial government,
stand idly by and merely watch their efforts? We, who have
had intellectual hegemony since the days of Mendelssohn,stand ashamed before Russian Jewry.” The founding assembly of the Verein zur Unterstuetzung ackerbautreibender
Juden in Palaestina und Syrien (“Association for the Supportof Jewish Farmers in Palestine and Syria”) took place in Berlin in 1884. Its early leaders were Willy *Bambus and Hirsch*Hildesheimer, the son of Rabbi Esriel Hildesheimer, who
coopted the Orthodox camp into the organization. At its
peak, the leaders of the organization included Otto *Warburg
and Eugen *Mittwoch. The association, which had branches
throughout Germany, published the newspapers Serubabel
and *Selbstemanzipation, pamphlets about agricultural settlement by Bambus, and the periodical, Zion. In 1891, theassociation succeeded in forming an umbrella organization
for all European associations supporting settlement in Ereẓ
Israel. Esra supported individual settlers in almost all agriculENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

tural villages, devoting special attention to the Qastina settlement (later Be’er Toviyyah), the Benei Yehudah colony in theGolan, Yemenite immigrants, and educational projects. When
political Zionism gained momentum, the association emphasized the value of practical settlement in Palestine, while
opposing Zionist political activity. Even at the end of WorldWar I, it stated firmly that despite the “Charter” (i.e, the Balfour Declaration, to which they would not refer by name),supreme value must still be attached to settlement, without
which there is no real basis for “national rights.” Since theZionist organization now began its large-scale settlement
projects (inter alia, in the Jezreel Valley), the activities of
Esra became superfluous. The association disappeared in theearly 1920s.
Bibliography: Esra, Festschrift zum 25-jaehrigen Jubilaeum(1909); 35 Jahre Verein Esra (1919). Add. Bibliography: J. Reinharz, “The Esra Verein and Jewish Colonization in Palestine,” in:
LBIYB, 24 (1979), 261–90.
[Getzel Kressel / Bjoern Siegel (2nd ed.)]ESSELIN, ALTER (Artur Eselin; pseudonym of Ore Serebrenik; 1889–1974), Yiddish poet. Born in Chernigov, Ukraine,
Esselin immigrated to the U.S. at the age of 16, worked as acarpenter in various cities, and settled in 1925 in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin. His first poems appeared in 1919 in local Yiddish
newspapers (Der Veg, Detroit; Kundes, New York). In a few
years, he received significant literary recognition. His poetry
volumes, Knoytn (“Candlewicks,” 1927), Unter der Last (“Under the Yoke,” 1936), and Lider fun a Midbernik (“Poems of a
Hermit,” 1954), are marked by their sadness. He often laments
his lonely vigil far from Yiddish centers and voices his pride
that he earns his living with saw and hammer. Death is a frequent theme, and in a poetic epitaph he describes himself as
a poet who poisoned himself with songs in which honey andarsenic were mixed. A selection of his poems, translated into
English, with an introduction by his son, Joseph Esselin, appeared in 1968.
Bibliography: Y. Bronshteyn, Fun Eygn Hoyz (1963), 267–74.
Add. Bibliography: LNYL, 7 (1968), 9–10.
[Sol Liptzin / Eliezer Niborski (2nd ed.)]ESSEN (in Jewish sources: ‫)עסא‬, city in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. Jews are first mentioned there in the 13t
century. During the *Black Death (1349) they were expelledfrom the city, but subsequently allowed to return. Jews are
mentioned in a list of taxpayers of 1399. Between 1545 and 1578
there were no Jews in Essen. The first municipal law concerning the trades open to Jews was passed in 1598. Jurisdiction
over Essen Jewry was disputed between the monastery and themunicipality during the period 1662 to 1686. Although there
were only seven Jews living in Essen in 1652 and 13 in 1791, a
synagogue was built there in 1683 and a cemetery consecrated
in 1716. Several Jewish physicians were living in Essen in thisperiod. With the city’s expansion in the mid-19t century the
number of Jews rose from 19 in 1805 to 750 in 1869.

509

essenes
There were approximately 5,000 Jewish residents in 1930
and 4,500 (0.7 of the total population) in 1933. Jewish businesses were Aryanized and Jewish workers, no matter how
prominent, were fired, including Benno Schmidt who invented
stainless steel and was dismissed by Krupp and Company. The
synagogue built in 1913 was desecrated by the Nazis in 1938.
Seven hundred Jewish men aged 16–60 were arrested anddeported to Dachau. Among the Jews not arrested were Ingo
Freed and his father; Freed went on to serve as the architectof the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. By May
17, 1939, 1,636 Jews remained in Essen. Those who had not already left were deported between 1941 and 1943. Deportationscommenced when 247 Jews were sent to Lodz on October 27,
1941; 121 were sent to Minsk in November; an unknown number were deported to Riga in December; and in April 1942,
355 were sent to Izbica and from there presumably to Belzec.
According to ration cards issued in 1942, there were 527 Jews
left in May who were confined to the Holbeckshof camp in
Essen-Steele and from there were deported to concentration
camps. Two hundred ninety-four were sent to Theresienstadt
on July 21. In April 1944, 39 Jews still lived in Essen, mostly
people in mixed marriages. In the fall the Jewish population
grew as an acute labor shortage at Krupp led to the arrival of
520 young Jews. Many later died in Bergen-Belsen. About 100
survivors returned after the war. A community was again established in Essen after the war and a synagogue was opened
in 1959. There were 170 Jews living in Essen in 1970 (0.03 ofthe total population) and 130 in 1989. As a result of the immigration of Jews from the Former Soviet Union, their number
rose to 667 in 2003.
Bibliography: S. Samuel, Geschichte der Juden in Stadt
und Stift Essen … 1291–1802 (1905); Baron, 14 (1969), 209ff.; idem,
Geschichte der Juden in Stadt und Synagogenbezirk Essen 1802–1913(1913); Germ Jud, 2 (1968), 227; H.J. Steinberg, Widerstand und Verfolgung in Essen 1933–1945 (1969). Add. Bibliography: M. Zimmermann, Juedisches Leben in Essen 1800–1933 (1993).
[Azriel Shochat]

ESSENES, a religious communalistic Jewish sect or association in the latter half of the Second Temple period, fromthe second century B.C.E. to the end of the first century C.E.
Contemporary or near-contemporary descriptions are foundin *Philo (Every Good Man is Free, Hypothetica), *Josephus(Antiquities and War, including references to individual Essenes), and Pliny the Elder (Natural History). Brief referencesfrom later authors are in Hegesippus (2nd century, who merely
lists them, with other Jewish sects), Hippolytus (2nd–3rd century B.C.E., who seems dependent on neither Josephus nor
Philo), and Synesius (4t–5t century C.E., apparently based on
Pliny). Epiphanius (4t century C.E.) refers to both Essenoi (asa Samaritan sect) and Ossaioi/Ossenoi, whom he locates near
the Dead Sea. The information in these sources is not always
consistent. Josephus, who (improbably) claims to have beena member of the Essenes for a while, is probably less idealistic or fanciful than either Philo or Pliny, though he is relying

510

on more than one source himself, while the latter preserve
some probably reliable information. Josephus names them as
one of his three main Jewish parties (hairesis), and according
to Philo, they numbered about 4,000. According to both authors, their members lived in monastic communities; Josephus states that some married and some did not, while Philo
is unclear, stating that they had children but did not “takewomen.” Pliny says they lived “without women … or money”
but seems to consider them as living in one place only, “above
En-Gedi.” The *Dead Sea Scrolls are widely regarded as belonging to the Essenes and if so they extend our knowledgeof them considerably. There is no reference to the Essenes in
the rabbinic literature, or in the New Testament, though it
has frequently been suggested that *John the Baptist was influenced by Essenism since he lived, preached, and baptized
beside the Jordan River only a few miles from Qumran. Some
New Testament scholars also believe that the early Church
may have incorporated Essene elements into its structure. Thevery existence of a pre-Christian Jewish quasi-monastic (andcelibate) community is important for the understanding ofsubsequent Christian ascetic practices. A gateway and nearby
district near Mt. Zion in Jerusalem has been excavated andplausibly identified as an Essene quarter (Pixner, following asuggestion from Yadin), but no absolute proof exists. Qumran is widely identified as an Essene settlement (see below);
two other possible Essene locations have been proposed near
the Dead Sea at Ain al-Ghuweir (by P. Bar-Adon) and above
En-Gedi (by Y. Hirschfeld).
Their origins are unclear. They seem to have emerged
as a distinct party, along with Sadducees and Pharisees, inthe wake of the Hasmonean revolt, though all three probably have earlier roots. Some scholars regard both the Essenes
and Pharisees as originating from the ḥ asidim mentioned
in connection with the Maccabean revolt; but the different
halakhah and calendar, as well as strong criticism of apparently Pharisaic beliefs and practices, make this unlikely. It has
also been suggested (Murphy-O’Connor) that they had immigrated from Babylonia at about this time or, alternatively(García Martínez), that they arose out of the Palestinian Jewish “apocalyptic movement.”
The Essenes and the Dead Sea Scrolls
The Qumran scrolls have generally been interpreted as belonging to the Essenes, and their descriptions of sectariancommunities cohere well with the classical sources, especiallyonce the difference between the descriptions of the Damascus
Document and the Community Rule is observed, since thesedifferences can partly explain the discrepancies in the classical sources as well as control our interpretation of them. Thus,
for instance, Josephus’ account fits rather well with the many
settlements (called “camps” and “cities”) of the “Damascus”
community, and with the existence of marrying and non-marrying orders, with the lengthy initiation procedures, attitudes
towards women, limited participation in the Temple cult, andstrict adherence to Torah and Sabbath; while Pliny seems to alENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6esseneslude to the yaḥ ad described in the Community Rule, which isrepresented as a single and entirely celibate community – most
likely that living at Qumran. Although the interpretation of
the Qumran settlement is currently controversial, the site has
generally been regarded as according well with the accounts ofEssene lifestyle reported in the ancient sources, and this settlement has been understood either as a headquarters or a retreat
center for the wider movement (Stegemann), or the home ofa group that split off from the main body under the leadership of a figure named in the Qumran scrolls as the “Teacherof Righteousness.” This figure is unnamed in the scrolls, but
has been variously identified with known Essene figures mentioned by Josephus, in particular “Judah the Essene.”
Meaning and Origin of the Name
There is a wide diversity of opinion as to the etymology of thename “Essene.” Greek writers refer to them by names of which
the most common are ʾΕσσηνοί and ʾΕσσαῖοι. The English“Essene” comes from the first form through the Latin. Philo
invariably uses the second, and explains the name with reference to the Greek hosioi, while *Josephus uses both forms.
Among the numerous theories that have been proposed are
the following: (1) the most popular is a derivation from ‫חסידים‬(ḥ asidim, “pious”), a name used in I and II Maccabees of thoseespecially loyal to the Torah (there are also references in rabbinic literature). Alternatively, the basis may be the Aramaic
form ‫חסיא‬, the plural of ‫“( חסא‬pious”) (the same derivation,
but from Syriac, has also been proposed); (2) from Aramaic‫אסא‬, “heal,” based on Josephus’s account of their interest in
medicinal herbs and the possible connection between Essenes and Therapeutae made by Philo. (Whether the Therapeutae should be regarded as linked to the Essenes, rather
than just compared by Philo, is dubious); (3) from ‫ חשאים‬or‫“( חשאין‬the silent ones”), based on a passage from the Mishnah
which mentions two rooms in the Temple of Jerusalem, one
called the “chamber of utensils,” and the other, the “chamberof ‫( ”חשאים‬chamber of “secrets” in H. Danby’s translation). In
the chamber of ‫חשאים‬, the “sin-fearing ones” used to depose
their gifts “in secret” and impoverished gentlefolk could help
themselves to these gifts, equally in secret. This is now discarded, though it possibly fits with Josephus’ statement that
the Essenes sent offerings to the Temple, but offered sacrifices“by themselves” (εϕ’ αύτων). Less probable are (4) from Heb.
‫ עשׂ ים‬or ‫“ עשׂ ין‬doers (of Torah”); (5) from ‫חשן‬ׁ “breastplate”:
Josephus uses essen to refer to this item, and it also figures in
the liturgy of the Qumran “Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice”;
and (6) from the celibate priestly Essenas who ministered to
Artemis at Ephesus (reported by Pausanius).

frequent washing to maintain ritual purity (Josephus says
they avoided oil, which was often used for cleaning the body).
They had a rigorous and lengthy system of initiation. Unlike
the Pharisees and Sadducees, they lived a segregated lifestylewith very limited contact with those outside. On the evidenceof the Dead Sea Scrolls, they deemed themselves the only true
Israel and regarded the religious observances of other Israelites, and especially in the Temple, as corrupt. On all thesegrounds they qualify to be called a “sect.” Like the Pharisees,
they stressed the need for personal piety and separation fromthe impurities of daily life, imposing on themselves leviticalrules of purity: but while the Essenes (so Josephus) believedin the immortality of the soul, they rejected the Pharisaic doctrine of bodily resurrection. It has recently been proposed thatthe halakhah of the Scrolls is similar to that ascribed to Sadducees in the rabbinic literature.
The Essenes laid a strong emphasis on scrupulous obedience to the Torah, as they interpreted it. They emphasized
observance of the Sabbath and the observance of festivals on
the appropriate days, according to their own 364-day calendar, based on the solar year – which may explain Josephus’statement that they prayed towards the sun every morning.
According to Josephus, they then worked through the greaterpart of the morning, then having gathered they girded themselves in white linen garments, and bathed in cold water (Jos.,
War, 2:129). They had their midday meal together, with a grace
recited by a priest before and after the meal. The meal, eaten
in a state of purity, seems to have played a very important rolein sustaining the corporate identity of the sect. After working until the evening, they again ate together, in total silence.
In all its activities, each Essene community was governed byrank and learning; the leaders directed the procedure, andnamed the persons to officiate. The Essenes zealously studied the sacred books and had an interest in medicinal herbs.
They abstained from oaths, and blasphemy against God waspunishable by death.

Rites, Practices, and Doctrines
By critically combining the evidence of the Qumran scrolls
and the classical sources, the following description can be offered. The Essenes lived frugal, usually celibate, lives, supporting themselves by manual labor, generally agricultural,and practicing common ownership. They were also devoted
to study of the Torah in its minutest details and performed

Initiation and Organization
New members of the community were recruited by adopting candidates after a probationary period. Those wishing toenter had to wait before being given the emblems – a belt, awhite garment, and a hatchet for digging holes in the earth(whenever they wished to relieve themselves; ibid., 2:127; 148).
Then they were allowed to follow their routine and receive“more purifying washings for holiness” but were not yet permitted to take part in the common meals. After a probationary period of two more years the new member was admitted
to the society, but not until he had taken oaths to observe therules. Some form of communal ownership of goods was allowed, apparently more complete in the yaḥ ad, which, as thename (“union”) implies, may have seen itself as a corporate
unit, whose holiness depended on the individual holiness of
all its members who worked, ate, and studied in communion.
The Damascus Document describes a looser social structure,with an “overseer” (mevakker) in charge of each “camp” andENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6511

Essex County
ideology: corporate activity is less intense, but also subject tosimilar disciplinary rules. The settlements of married members were organized on the basis of individual households,
with wives and children included in the sect automatically.
This community also had dealings with non-Jews and owned
slaves, though detailed accounts of such aspects are not provided. While the classical sources say little about priestly leadership, the Scrolls accord a very important role to the priesthood in matters of law and of course liturgy; how far they were
responsible for the wider governance of the sect is unclear.
Essene participation in wider Jewish affairs is hard toassess. Apart from the mention of individual Essenes, however, Josephus states that they participated bravely in the war
against Rome, and the discovery at Masada of some manuscripts that may have originated at Qumran, together with evidence of the Roman destruction of Qumran in about 68 B.C.E.
and the many copies of a “War Rule” in the caves, in which
the Romans appear as a thinly disguised enemy, support thisclaim. After the end of this war, the Essenes seem either tohave disappeared or fled or dispersed: but the existence ofcopies of the Damascus Document in the Cairo Genizah may
suggest that some of their traditions continued and influenced,
among others, the *Karaites.
Add. Bibliography: G. Vermes and M.D. Goodman, The
Essenes According to the Classical Sources (1989); T.S. Beall, Josephus’Description of the Essenes illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls (1988);
P. Bar-Adon, “Another Settlement of the Judean Desert Sect at En
e-Ghuweir on the Dead Sea,” in: Bulletin of the American School of
Archaeological Research, 227:1–26 (1977); Y. Hirschfeld, Qumran inContext: Reassessing the Archaeological Evidence (2004); J. MurphyO’Connor, “The Essenes and Their History,” in: Revue Biblique, 81:
215–44 (1974); J. Kampen, “A Reconsideration of the Name ‘Essene’,”in: HUCA, 57 (1986), 61–81; S. Goranson, “Essenes. Etymology from‘sh’,” in: Revue de Qumrân, 11 (1984), 483–98; “Posidonius, Strabo
and Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa as Sources on Essenes,” in: JJS, 45(1994), 295–98; A.H. Jones, Essenes (1985); R. Bergmeier, Die Essener-Berichte des Flavius Josephus (1993); F. García Martínez and J.
Trebolle Barrera, The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls (1995); B. Pixner,“Jerusalem’s Essene Gateway: Where the Community Lived in Jesus’Time,” in: Biblical Archaeology Review, 23:3 (1997), 22–31, 64–66; H.
Stegemann, The Library of Qumran: On the Essenes, Qumran, John
the Baptist, and Jesus (1998).
[Menahem Mansoor / Philip Davies (2nd ed.)]their stay in the area, the growth of Newark’s Jewish community is attributed to the arrival of German Jews in the 1840s.
Conventional wisdom has it that the first recorded Jewish settler in Newark was Louis Trier in 1844. Trier had six children,among them Abraham, who in 1845 became the first Jewish
child to be officially registered as born in Newark.
Prince Street and the Third Ward
Of the many memories associated with Jewish Newark, noneengenders more enthusiasm than stories about life on Prince
Street and the six blocks of Yiddish-speaking neighborhoods
that bordered and surrounded Prince Street. This was Newark’s Third Ward. The boundaries at the eastern end wereHigh Street (now Martin Luther King Boulevard) from Clinton Avenue to Springfield Avenue. The western boundaries
were Belmont Avenue (now Irving Turner Boulevard) from
Clinton Avenue to South Orange Avenue. This is where Newark’s Jews, some 50,000 of them by 1911, lived and worked.
First there were peddlers who came to the area, then camethe pushcarts, followed by Jewish merchants who opened
storefronts on Prince Street. Prince Street was described as“Baghdad on the Passaic” by one of the founders of the Jewish Historical Society of MetroWest, Saul Schwarz. Residents
kept to the neighborhood. For entertainment, old and young
attended Yiddish plays and operettas at Elving’s Metropolitan
Theater (1922–44). This first generation of Jewish immigrants
also maintained memberships in mutual benefit and burial
societies. For German Jews there was the KUV, Kranken Untersteutzung Verein, or Chronic Benefits Society, and for East
European Jews, these societies, or “landsmanschaften,” helped
ease their adjustment to life in America. Two of the most popular occupations at this time were that of the saloonkeeper andthe pharmacist. For sons of Jewish immigrants, boxing wasa way to make a living. The starting place for Newark’s Jewish fighters was the High Street YMHA. Noted amateurs were
Newark’s only Jewish mayor, Meyer Ellenstein, and Newark’s
bagel king Sonny Amster. Professional boxing sites were Laurel Garden or the Newark Veledrome. Newark’s Jewish boxers
were also recruited into an organization designed to counter
pro-Nazi activities in the Newark area in 1933 and were called“The Minutemen.”

Early History
The Jewish history of Essex County is rooted in the city of
Newark. Records indicate that a small number of Sephardi
Jews were among the earliest Jewish settlers in the Newark
area, but, with few records and no synagogues to document

Synagogues
By 1855, the number of Jewish families living in Newark was
estimated at 200. The steady increase of Jewish families had
already manifested itself when, in 1848, as many as 60 families
joined the newly incorporated “Jewish Religious Congregation B’nai Jeshurun.” This was Newark’s first synagogue and
New Jersey’s oldest Reform congregation. Isaac Schwarz wasits first rabbi. Newark’s second oldest congregation, Temple
B’nai Abraham, founded in 1855, was followed by Congregation Oheb Shalom in 1860. Oheb Shalom was one of the sevencharter members of the *United Synagogue of America. These
synagogues continue to host large congregations but are now
located in the Essex County towns of Short Hills, Livingston,and South Orange respectively. In its heyday, however, New-

512

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

ESSEX COUNTY, county in New Jersey, U.S. Located innorthern New Jersey, Essex County has an area of 127 sq. miles(330 sq. km.) and in 2005 was the second largest county in
New Jersey by population. Essex County is part of the United
Jewish Communities of MetroWest, which encompasses Essex, *Morris, Sussex, and northern *Union counties and servesa Jewish population of approximately 120,000.

Essex County
ark was home to as many as 43 synagogues. After numerous
mergers and relocations, Essex County is currently home to 27
synagogues. There is one neighborhood synagogue with member services still located in downtown Newark, Ahavas Sholom, and one continuously operating synagogue, Mount Sinai
Congregation, located at the Ivy Hill Apartments in suburban
Newark. Of the many distinguished rabbis that served thegreater Newark community, one in particular earned national
and international recognition. Rabbi Dr. Joachim *Prinz, who
fled Nazi Germany, became chief rabbi of Temple B’nai Abraham in 1939. Prinz used his pulpit to rally support for America’s civil rights movement and counted civil rights leader, Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr., as one of his close friends.
Business, Industry, and Philanthropy
Louis *Bamberger and Felix Fuld established what became,by 1920, the nation’s fourth largest department store, L. Bamberger and Company. Bamberger and Fuld were Essex County’s, and possibly New Jersey’s, greatest philanthropists of all
time. The two men were the largest donors for Newark’s BethIsrael Hospital, the YM-YWHA building on High Street, thebuilding that houses the world-renowned Newark Museum,and the lasting legacy of an annual cherry blossom festival(more cherry trees than Washington, D.C.) at Branch Brook
Park courtesy of Carrie Bamberger Fuld. Bamberger and Fuld
donated some $18 million dollars to found the world famous
Institute for Advanced Study located in Princeton, New Jersey, which offered world renowned scientist, Albert *Einstein,a position as the first head of its mathematics department.
Einstein’s connection to Newark’s Jewish community is well
documented.
Newark’s Jews owned manufacturing businesses in industries such as leather, trunk, and harness manufacturing aswell as jewelry manufacturing. Prominent industries such as
Louis Aronson’s Ronson Lighter Company and A. HollanderSons, which grew into the largest fur dressing and dyeing operation in the world, earned Newark the name “workshopof the nation.” New Jersey’s premier supermarkets, Kings,
ShopRite, Pathmark, and Wakefern Food Corporation were
founded by members of the MetroWest community following
World War II. Jewish businessmen with family roots in Newark continue to play a role in the renaissance of Newark. Jewish landmarks from the past are finding new uses.
Charitable Institutions
The collective accomplishments of Newark’s Jewry include thefounding and funding of Newark’s Jewish hospital, Beth Israel
Hospital (1901), which merged into St. Barnabas Healthcare
System in 1996, and whose profits from the sale of the hospital are managed by the Jewish community as the Healthcare
Foundation of New Jersey, and New Jersey’s first Jewish home
for the aged, Daughters of Israel Geriatric Center, founded in
1906, and located in West Orange. The first YM-YWHA was located on Newark’s High Street in 1924. MetroWest now maintains two “Y” buildings, one in West Orange and the other at
its Whippany Campus in Morris County. The community’s
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6social service agencies are distributed around the greater MetroWest area.
Educational Institutions
A congregational Hebrew school was established at B’nai Jeshurun in 1863; the Plaut Free Memorial Hebrew School followed in 1888. A talmud torah was established in 1899 in a store
on Newark’s Broome Street. Michael Stavistsky spearheaded
the movement to establish the JEA, or Jewish Education Association, in 1937. Not well known is the Bet Yeled Jewish Folk
School organized in 1950. The first major day school, Yeshivaof Newark, merged with the talmud torah, and was renamed
the Hebrew Academy of Essex County in 1943; it subsequently
merged with the Hebrew Youth Institute, and was renamed
the Hebrew Youth Academy in 1962. Currently, it is the Joseph Kushner Hebrew Academy located in Livingston. Two
individuals, Professor Nathan Winter and Horace Bier, were
responsible for most of the Solomon Schechter Day Schoolsfounded in New Jersey.
The newspaper-of-record, the Jewish News, began publishing in 1947. This paper is now the New Jersey Jewish News,and has the distinction of being the nation’s second largest
Jewish newspaper.
Shift to the Suburbs
In 1948, Newark was home to as many as 65,000 Jewish residents with an additional 21,000 Jews living in its suburbs. In
the decades after World War II, there was a large-scale movement to the suburbs to towns such as South Orange, West
Orange, Livingston, and more recently, Millburn-Short Hills.
Flight was intensified by the Newark riots of 1967 and paralleled similar movements by Jewish communities elsewhere
into the suburbs. In the mid-1990s the Jewish population of
Essex County, including Newark, numbered approximately
76,200. The Jewish population of Livingston was approximately 12,600, and the Jewish population of West Orange wasapproximately 16,900.
Mergers of Institutions and Agencies
In 1923, an agreement to merge 13 Jewish agencies resulted
in Essex County’s Conference of Jewish Charities. The Essex
County Council of Jewish Agencies was formed in 1936. The
Jewish Community Council of Essex County, established in
1944, went one step further and incorporated the community’s welfare services, fundraising, and community relations
programs within one central federation. The 1973 merger oftowns in the greater Summit area with the Jewish Community Council of Essex County reflected the movement of Jews
west to towns in Morris County. The last significant merger
occurred in 1983 between the Jewish Community Federationof Metropolitan New Jersey (Essex County) and the Jewish
Federation of Morris and Sussex to create the United Jewish
Communities of MetroWest.
MetroWest in Footlights
Essex County’s greatest contributions to Jewish life in America
are in the broad field of entertainment. Theater owner Mor-513

esslingen
ris Schlesinger is credited with discovering singer/film star
Al *Jolson; Dore *Schary, executive producer at MGM studios,
produced as many as 350 movies and also wrote the Pulitzer Prize-winning play Sunrise at Campobello; Essex County
claims world-famous comedian Joseph Levitch, a.k.a. Jerry*Lewis; composer Jerome *Kern attended Barringer HighSchool; Broadway producer Burton Shevelove produced A
Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum; choreographer Dean Collins gave us the steps to the West Coast Swing;
there was children’s poet Ilo Orleans; Beat Generation poet
Allen *Ginsberg; and Newark’s Jewish neighborhoods, momand pop merchants, synagogues, rabbis, and institutions havebeen immortalized on the pages of American literature by
Pulitzer Prize-winning author and Weequahic High School
graduate Philip *Roth, who depicts Newark time and again
in his novels.

169–184. Add. Bibliography: H. Hoerburger, Judenvertreibungen im Spaetmittelalter (1981); J. Hahn, Juedisches Leben in Esslingen (1994).

[Linda Forgosh (2nd ed.)]Bibliography: M. Kayserling, Geschichte der Juden in Portugal (1867), 291f.; Kayserling, Bibl, 115; J.L. D’Azevedo, Historia dos
Christaõs Novos Portugueses (1921), index; J. Mendes dos Remedios,
Os Judeus em Portugal, 2 (1928), 302–10.

ESSLINGEN, city in Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany. The
sum levied on Esslingen Jewry in the tax list of 1241 indicatesthat it was one of the largest communities in Swabia, comprising more than 10 of the town’s population. In the 13t century
the community owned a synagogue, a drinking (or dance) hall,and a cemetery. The “Jews’ Street” is first mentioned in 1308,
but Jewish residence was not confined to it. Jews were allowed
to join the guild on payment; the main Jewish occupation was
moneylending. When attacked during the *Black Death persecutions in 1349, the Jews in Esslingen set fire to their synagogue; some committed suicide and others fled. However, in1366 Jews are again mentioned in Esslingen. There were 14 in
1387, 21 in 1391. Esslingen Jewry loaned 84 hellers to the city in1384; a Jew named Saecklin lent money to Duke Leopold III
of Austria some time before 1385. By 1439 there were no Jews
left in Esslingen. In the 16t century several Jews were admitted for short periods at high rents and taxes. However, thecity expelled this group in 1543. Later it admitted two Jewish
physicians. In 1806 Frederick I of Wuerttemberg allowed fiveJewish families to settle in Esslingen, who founded a hardware
factory and organized a community. A synagogue was built
in 1817–19, a Jewish elementary school opened in 1825, andan orphanage was established in 1842. The Jewish population
numbered 88 in 1823; 101 in 1831; 160 in 1860; 145 (1 of thetotal) in 1892; and 128 in 1930. During the Nazi regime the interior of the synagogue was destroyed (1938) and the building
later used as a center for training Hitler youth. The last 34 Jews
remaining in Esslingen were deported in 1941–42, including
some of the children of the orphanage and the headmaster.
There were 12 Jews living in Esslingen in 1965. After 1992 Jews
from the Former Soviet Union settled in Esslingen. About 230
Jews who belonged to the Jewish community in Stuttgart were
living in and around Esslingen in 2004.

ESTE, JOÃO BAPTISTA DE (17t century), Italian-Portuguese convert to Catholicism and anti-Jewish polemist. Born
in Ferrara, he was baptized in Évora and became a consultant
in Jewish matters to the Portuguese Inquisition. His works
include a “Dialogue Between a Pupil and his Catechizing
Teacher, Resolving All the Doubts that the Obstinate Jews are
Wont to Make Against the Catholic Faith, with Cogent Arguments both from the Holy Prophets and from their Own
Rabbis” (Dialogo entre discipulo e Mestre catechizante, Lisbon,
1621, 1674), and a “Summary of All the Festivals, Holidays, andCeremonies, both from the Written Law and from their Talmud and Other Rabbis” (unpublished).

[Martin A. Cohen]

Bibliography: Germ. Jud, 2, S.V.; P. Sauer, Die juedischen
Gemeinden in Wuerttemberg und Hohenzollern (1966), 173–78, incl.
bibliog.; FJW, 341; R. Overdick, Die rechtliche und wirtschaftliche
Stellung der Juden in Suedwestdeutschland (1965), 69–92, 144–150,

ESTELLA (Stella), city in northern Spain. The Jewish community there was one of the most important in the kingdomof Navarre, the third after Tudela and Pamplona. The earliest information concerning the settlement dates from the
11t century. The Jews lived in the citadel and in the adjacentunwalled area. Because of the privileges granted to the Jews
there, the city attracted other Jews from many parts of Spain
during the 12t century. The growth of the Jewish community in Estella was also due to the city’s location on the routeof the pilgrims to Santiago. There were Jews from Andalusia
who fled from the Almoravid invaders and Jews from France
who were attracted to the city. These included the poet Moses*Ibn Ezra, who was warned by *Judah Halevi against residing in so remote a town, which he compared to living among
wolves, bears, and lions. In 1144 King García Ramirez transferred the synagogue to the bishop of Pamplona to be converted into a church. A fuero (“municipal charter”) granted
to Estella in 1164 contained a series of articles regulating relations between Jews and Gentiles. A responsum of Solomonb. Abraham *Adret (4:268) deals with problems of the sewage
and the water conduit in the Jewish quarter. In 1265 there were
29 Jewish householders in Estella paying land tax and rent to
the king. Following the death of Carlos IV in 1328 the Jews ofEstella were particularly hard hit by anti-Jewish rioters. Many
were killed. The Jewish quarter in Estella was destroyed andmost of its inhabitants perished in 1328 during the French invasion, as recorded by *Menahem b. Aaron ibn Zeraḥ in his
introduction to his code Ẓ eidah la-Derekh. The community
began to revive in the second half of the 14t century. There
were 85 Jewish families in Estella in 1366. In 1365 Charles II appointed Judah b. Samuel ha-Levi of Estella to act as high commissioner for the crown for collecting the money in services
and taxes owed by Jews and in 1390 sent him on a diplomatic

514

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

esthermission. Jews of Estella engaged in tax farming throughout
the 15t century. The city opened its doors to the exiles from
Aragon and Castile but the Jews in Estella suffered the samefate, with the rest of those of Navarre, in 1498.

in Yiddish and Polish Literature (1985); E. Taitz, S. Henry, and C.I.
Tallan (eds.), The JPS Guide to Jewish Women: 600 B.C.E.–1900 C.E.
(2003), 84.
[Emily Taitz (2nd ed.)]Bibliography: M. Kayserling, Geschichte Portugal, 1 (1861),
index; Baer, Spain, index; Baer, Urkunden, index; Cantera-Millás,
Inscripciones, 291–2. Add. Bibliography: J. Carrasco Pérez, in:
MEAH, 30:2 (1981), 109–20; idem, in: En la España medieval, 2–3; Estudios en memoria del Profesor D. Salvador de Moxó, vol. I (1982),
275–95; B. Leroy, in: Archives Juives, 17:1 (1981), 1–6.

ESTERMANN, IMMANUEL (1900–1973), U.S. physicist. Estermann, born in Berlin, was educated and worked at Hamburg University until 1933 when he immigrated to the U.S.A.
For the next 20 years he was professor at the Carnegie Institute of Technology, and a consultant on the Manhattan(atomic bomb) Project. From 1951 he was with the Office ofNaval Research, and in 1959 became its scientific director in
London. From 1964 onward he had a visiting professorship at
the Technion in Haifa. Estermann’s main fields of work wereon molecular beams, low temperatures, solid state physics,
and semiconductors. Among his books was Recent Researchin Molecular Beams (1959). He edited Methods of Experimental Physics (vol. 1, 1959) and coedited Advances in Atomic andMolecular Physics (3 vols., 1965–68).

[Haim Beinart / Yom Tov Assis (2nd ed.)]ESTERKE, Jewish woman from the village of Opoczno, Poland, said to have been a mistress of the Polish King *Casimir the Great (1310–1370). Reports claim that her outstanding beauty caught the king’s eye while he was passing throughher town. Her two sons, Pelka and Niemera, were given grantsof land from their father and were raised as Christians. The
names of her daughter (or daughters) were never recorded,
but with the king’s approval, they supposedly remained Jewish. Alternate endings to Esterke’s story include the king’s severing his relationship with her; Esterke’s death while they arestill together; and Esterke’s suicide either immediately after
the king’s death or several years later. Although a house in
Opoczno was designated as her family home, and her grave
was believed to be in Lobzow Park, near Cracow, there is no
historical basis for any of the Esterke legends, and there is no
mention of her either in court documents or in Jewish sources.
Written mention of Esterke appears in the late 15t century ina history by Polish cleric Jan Dlugosz (1415–1480). The first
Jewish source to mention Esterke is Ẓ emaḥ David by David
Gans, written in 1595. Gans believed in the historicity of thereport and gave a Christian source for it. The relationship ofEsterke and Casimir, with its obvious parallel to the Book of
Esther, was appealing; the theme was used by Jewish writers
as late as the 19t century. Versions of Esterke’s story in Polishantisemitic literature attempted to undermine customary Jewish privileges granted to Jews by King *Boleslav V (1221–1279)
and continued by King Casimir, suggesting that they were
promulgated to please a lover rather than for the good of thenation. A 16t-century priest alluded to Esterke in his bookJewish Cruelties, claiming that her “gentle words induced him[Casimir] to devise by scheme this loathsome law under thename of the Prince Boleslav.…” Such negative allusions to Esterke continued in Christian writings until the 19t century;
the belief that this Jewish woman actively interceded for her
people gave Casimir the nickname “the Polish Ahasuarus.”
Despite confirmations by modern historians that Esterke isbest regarded as an example of a literary trope of the seductive Jewish woman, popular from the early Middle Ages, anddespite the fact that her name was used to further antisemiticclaims, her sentimental appeal persists among Jews.

[Samuel Aaron Miller]

ESTEVENS, DAVID (born before 1670–died after 1715), Jewish artist of Spanish (Marrano) origin. He lived in Denmark,studying in Copenhagen under the French artist Jacquesd’Agar; he also spent some time in England. His best-known
work is a portrait executed in London of Rabbi David *Nieto
which was afterward engraved by James McArdell (1727). He
may also have been the artist of the well-known portrait ofẒ evi Hirsch *Ashkenazi (the Ḥ akham Ẓ evi).
Bibliography: F. Landsberger, in: HUCA, 16 (1941), 387–8.
[Cecil Roth]Bibliography: E. Aizenberg, “Una Judia Muy Fermosa: The
Jewess as Sex Object in Medieval Spanish Literature and Lore,” in: La
Corónica, 12 (Spring 1984), 187–94; Ch. Shmeruk, The Esterke Story

ESTHER (Heb. ‫) ֶא ְס ֵּתר‬, daughter of Abihail, an exile at *Susa,
and heroine of the Book of Esther. The name Esther is probably from Old Persian star (well attested in the later Persian
dialects), with the same meaning as English “star.” She is once
called Hadassah (Esth. 2:7), a testimony to the practice of Jews
having double names, as do the heroes in *Daniel. She wasorphaned as a child, and her cousin *Mordecai adopted her
and brought her up.
When Queen *Vashti fell into disgrace because of her disobedience to King *Ahasuerus, Esther was among the beautiful virgins chosen to be presented to the king (1:19–2:8). Ahasuerus was struck by her beauty, and made her queen insteadof Vashti (2:17). Esther, however, did not reveal the fact that
she was a Jew.
Later, when *Haman, the prime minister, persuaded the
king to issue an edict of extermination of all the Jews of theempire, Esther, on Mordecai’s advice, endangered her own
life by appearing before the king without being invited, in order to intercede for her people (4:16–17). Seeing that the kingwas well disposed toward her, she invited him and Haman toa private banquet, during which she did not reveal her desire,
however, but invited them to another banquet, thus misleading Haman by making him think that he was in the queen’s

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6515

esthergood graces. Her real intention, however, was to take revenge
on him. During the second banquet, Queen Esther revealed
her origin to the king, begged for her life and the life of her
people, and named her enemy (7:3–6). Angry with Haman,
Ahasuerus went into the palace garden. Haman, in great fear,
remained to plead for his life from the queen. While imploring, he fell on Esther’s couch and was found in this compromising situation on the king’s return. He was immediately
condemned to be hanged on the gallows he had prepared for
Mordecai. The king complied with Esther’s request, and theedict of destruction was changed into permission given to theJews to avenge themselves on their enemies.
See also *Scroll of Esther.
In the Aggadah
Esther was a descendant of King Saul. Her father died soon after her conception and her mother when she was born (Meg.
13a), and she was brought up by Mordecai as his daughter. Herreal name was Hadassah, but she was called Esther by nonJews, this being the Persian name for Venus (ibid.). Esther was
one of the four most beautiful women in the world (ibid. 15a),though some say that she was of sallow complexion but endowed with great charm. Like the myrtle (Heb. hadassah) she
was of ideal height, neither too short nor too tall (ibid. 13a).
All who beheld her were struck by her beauty: she was more
beautiful than either Median or Persian women (Esth. R. 6:9).
In addition, everyone took her to be one of his own people(Meg. 13a). Before Esther was made queen, Ahasuerus would
compare women who entered with a statue of Vashti that stoodnear his bed. After his marriage the statue was replaced by oneof Esther (Midrash Abba Guryon, Parashah 2). When Esther
became queen she refused to disclose her lineage to Ahasuerus though she claimed that like him she was of royal descent.
She also criticized him for killing Vashti and for following thebrutish advice of the Persian and Median nobles, pointing outthat the earlier kings (Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar) had
followed the counsel of prophets (Daniel). At her suggestion
he sought out Mordecai whose advice he requested on how
to induce Esther to reveal her ancestry, complaining that neither giving banquets and reducing taxation in her honor nor
showering gifts upon her had been of any avail. Mordecai suggested that maidens be again assembled as if the king wished
to remarry and that Esther, aroused by jealousy, would comply
with his wishes. But this too was in vain (Meg. 13a).
Mordecai was appointed to the king’s gate, the same appointment that Hananiah and his companions had received
from Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 2:49). His task was to informAhasuerus of any conspiracy against him. Bigthan and Teresh,
who had previously kept the gate, became incensed, saying:“The king has removed two officials and replaced them bythis single barbarian.” To prove the superiority of their guardianship over that of the Jew, they decided to kill the king.
Not realizing that Mordecai as a member of the Sanhedrinknew 70 languages, they conversed together in their native
Tarsean. In Mordecai’s name Esther informed the king, who516

ordered the two to be hanged. All affairs of state were enteredinto the king’s chronicles and whenever the king wanted tobe reminded of past events they would be read out to him.
The information given by Mordecai was written in the book,and this was the beginning of Haman’s downfall (Esth. 6).
This was why the sages said: “whoever repeats something in
the name of one who said it brings redemption to the world”(Perek Kinyan Torah = Avot 6:6 in the prayer book version;
Esth. R. 6:13; Meg. 15a; Pd RE 50). The three days appointed by
Esther as fast days (Esth. 4:16) were the 13t, 14t, and 15t ofNisan. Mordecai sent back word complaining that these days
included the first day of Passover! To which she replied: “Jewish elder! Without an Israel, why should there be Passover?”Mordecai understood and canceled the Passover festivity, replacing it with a fast (Esth. R. 8:6). Esther’s motive in inviting Haman to the banquet was that he should not discoverthat she was Jewish, and that the Jews should not say: “Wehave a sister in the king’s palace,” and so neglect to pray for
God’s mercy. She also thought that by being friendly to Haman she would rouse the king’s jealousy to such an extent
that he would kill both of them (Meg. 15b). Haman thoughtthat Esther prepared the banquet in his honor, little realizingthat she had set a trap for him (Mid. Prov. 9:2). With the revocation of the evil decree, Esther sent to the sages and asked
them to perpetuate her name by the reading of the book of
Esther and by the institution of a feast. When they answeredthat this would incite the ill-will of the nations, she replied: “I
am already recorded in the chronicles of the kings of Mediaand Persia (Meg. 7a).”[Elimelech Epstein Halevy]

In the Arts
Of all the biblical heroines Esther has enjoyed greatest popularity among writers, artists, and musicians, representing
feminine modesty, courage, and self-sacrifice. From the Renaissance era onward she figured in a vast array of dramas,
including many Jewish plays intended for presentation on the*Purim festival. Two early works on this theme were La Representatione della Reina Hester (c. 1500), an Italian verse mystery that went through several editions during the 16t century,and the last of the 43 plays of the French Mistére du Viel Testament, a work of the later Middle Ages. These were followedby the German Meistersinger Hans Sachs’ Esther (1530) andan English verse play, A New Enterlude of Godly Queene Hester, published anonymously in 1561. The latter, which entirely
omitted the character of Vashti and muted the role of Mordecai, contained marked political undertones reflecting populardissatisfaction with King Henry VIII and his ministers of state.
A work of the same period was Solomon *Usque’s Esther, firststaged in Venice in 1558. This Portuguese play, later revised
by Leone *Modena, was remarkably successful and attracted
many non-Jews to its performances.
The subject gave rise to a series of dramatic interpretations in France, beginning with the Huguenot playwright Antoine de Montchrétien’s three verse tragedies, Esther (1585),
Vashti (1589), and Aman (1601). During the 17t century a
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

estherdrama, Esther (1644), was written by Pierre Du Ryer and along epic poem of the same name (1673) by Jean Desmarets
de Saint-Sorlin, both in the austere religious manner of theperiod. The major French literary treatment of the theme
was *Racine’s epic tragedy Esther (1689), written for presentation at the Saint-Cyr girls’ school supervised by Madamede Maintenon, the morganatic wife of Louis XIV, and first
performed with choruses by J.-B. Moreau. Esther herself, amodel of Christian womanly virtues, evidently represented
the sponsor, while Vasthi (Vashti) represented the king’s former mistress, Madame de Montespan, heightening the political implications of the play. Other 17t-century works on thesubject include Aman y Mardoqueo o la reina Ester, a play by
the Spanish New Christian Felipe *Godínez; the refugee Portuguese Marrano João *Pinto Delgado’s Poema de la Reyna
Ester (Rouen, 1627), part of a volume dedicated to CardinalRichelieu; Mardochée Astruc’s Judeo-Provençal Tragediou dela Reine Esther; and Isaac Cohen de *Lara’s Comedia famosade Aman y Mordochay (1699).
Interest in the theme was maintained during the 18t20t centuries, beginning with Manuel Joseph Martin’s La Soberbia castigada. Historia … de Esther y Mardocheo (1781). A
Yiddish play, Esther, oder di belonte Tugend (1827, 18543), waswritten by J. Herz, and Hebrew adaptations of Racine’s classic
drama made by S.J.L. *Rapoport (in She’erit Judah, 1827) and,in complete form, by Meir Ha-Levi *Letteris (Shelom Esther,
1843). The virtues of the Jewish heroine were emphasized in
the Austrian dramatist Franz Grillparzer’s unfinished play Esther (1848), and other treatments included J.A. Vaillant’s Romanian Legenda lui Aman ṣ i Mardoheu (1868), Joseph Shabbetai Farḥ i’s Italian Alegria di Purim (1875), and the U.S. writerFrank C. Bliss’ verse drama Queen Esther (1881). Almost the
only biblical play to escape censorship in 19t-century England
was Esther the Royal Jewess: or the Death of Haman, a lavishly
produced melodrama by Elisabeth Polack, which was staged
in London in 1835. There have been numerous plays about
Esther from the early 20t century onward: Esther, princessed’Israël (1912) by André Dumas and S.C. Leconte; H. Pereira*Mendes’ Esther and Harbonah (1917); Max *Brod’s Esther(1918); John Masefield’s Esther (1922), a pastiche of Racine; andother works of the same name by Felix *Braun (1925), Sammy*Gronemann (1926), and the U.S. dramatist Sonia V. Daugherty (1929). Three other modern treatments are Izak *Goller’s
fantasy A Purim-Night’s Dream (1931) and James Bridie’s What
Say They? (1939); and a rare biblical novel on the subject, Maria Poggel-Degenhardt’s Koenigin Vasthi; Roman aus der Zeit
Esthers (1928). Most successful were the satiric Megilla-Lieder of the Yiddish poet Itzik *Manger adapted for the stagein Israel in 1965.
In art the Book of Esther is represented in the cycle ofpaintings from the third-century synagogue at *Dura-Europos and also in the ninth-century mural in the basilica of San
Clemente in Rome. The scenes depicted at Dura-Europos were
Esther and Ahasuerus enthroned and Mordecai riding in triumph on a regal white horse. They could be seen clearly fromthe women’s benches, and it has been suggested that they wereplaced there because women normally came to synagogue toattend the reading of the Scroll of Esther which, according
to *Joshua bar Levi (Meg. 4a), they were obliged to hear. In
medieval Christian iconography, Esther was associated withthe cult of the Virgin Mary. Her intercession with Ahasuerus
on behalf of the Jews was interpreted as a prefiguration of theVirgin’s mediation on behalf of mankind. After the Middle
Ages the story of Esther was treated in a less symbolic manner and was used instead as a storehouse of picturesque episodes. The story was sometimes presented in a narrative cycleof varying length or in individual episodes. Examples of thecycle form may be found on an arch over the north portal of
the Chartres Cathedral (13t century), a 17t-century Belgian
tapestry in the cathedral of Saragosa, and an 18t-century setof Gobelin tapestries. Popular single subjects were the toiletof Esther, the triumph of Mordecai, and the punishment ofHaman. Renaissance artists such as Botticelli, Filippino Lippi,
Mantegna, Tintoretto, and Paolo Veronese painted subjects
from the Book of Esther. Botticelli (or Filippino Lippi) decorated two marriage-caskets (1428) with scenes from the biblical story, including the long misinterpreted figure La Derelitta, now supposed to represent Mordecai lamenting before
the palace at Shushan. The Venetian painters Tintoretto andVeronese treated the Esther story as an occasion for pomp andpageantry, Tintoretto painting the Swooning of Esther (1545), a
subject later treated by Poussin. The Book of Esther was also
popular with 17t-century artists in the Netherlands. Rubens
and Jan Steen painted Esther Before Ahasuerus, and Jan Steen
also executed a spirited, almost farcical, Wrath of Ahasuerus(1660). Rembrandt painted Mordecai pleading with Esther(1655), Ahasuerus and Haman at Esther’s Feast (1660), andHaman in Disgrace (1660). A charming Toilet of Esther was
executed by Théodore Chassériau in 1841.
An early musical treatment of the subject is a 14t-century
motet for three voices, Quoniam novi probatur, in which Haman, or someone whose fate he symbolizes, voices his complaint (see C. Parrish, The Notation of Mediaeval Music (1957),
138–40). Palestrina wrote a five-voiced motet, Quid habes
Hester? (publ. 1575), the text of which is the dialogue between
Esther and Ahasuerus in the apocryphal additions to Esther(15:9–14). From the late 17t century onward the Esther story
attracted the attention of many serious composers. Some 17tand early 18t-century works were A. Stradella’s oratorio Ester, liberatrice dell’ popolo ebreo (c. 1670); M.-A. Charpentier’s
quasi-oratorio Historia Esther (date unknown); G. Legrenzi’s
oratorio Gli sponsali d’Ester (1676); J.-B. Moreau’s choruses
for Racine’s Esther; A. Lotti’s oratorio L ’umilità coronata in
Esther (1712); and A. Caldara’s oratorio Ester (1723). Handel’smasque Haman and Mordecai, with a text by John Arbuthnotand (probably) Alexander Pope based on Racine’s drama, wasfirst performed at the Duke of Chandos’ palace near Edgwarein 1720, and was Handel’s first English composition in oratorio
form. Worked into a full oratorio 12 years later, with additional
words by Samuel Humphreys, it had a triumphant recep-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6517

esthertion at the King’s Theater in London in 1732. The libretto wastranslated into Hebrew by the Venetian rabbi Jacob Raphael
Saraval (1707–1782), and two copies of it – with the scenic indications in English and Italian respectively – are in the Ets
Haim Library, Amsterdam; no evidence of a performance has
yet been discovered (see Adler, Prat Mus, 1 (1966), 123–4, 212).
One of the few works on the subject in the second half of the
18t century was K. Ditters von Dittersdorf ’s oratorio La liberatrice del popolo giudaico nella Persia o sia l’Esther (1773).
The 19t century saw a few operatic variants of the story,
such as Guidi’s Ester d’Engaddi, set by A. Peri (1843) and G.
Pacini (1847), while Eugen d’Albert wrote an overture to Grillparzer’s Esther (1888). For performances of Racine’s play at
the Comédie Française during this period the choruses werecomposed by several undistinguished musicians; later contributions include those by Reynaldo *Hahn (1905) and Marcel
Samuel-Rousseau (1912). The most notable modern work on
the subject is Darius *Milhaud’s opera Esther de Carpentras,
which dramatized the staging of an old Provençal Purim playwith the threat posed by a conversionist bishop of Carpentras.
Esther, an opera by Jan Meyerowitz with text by Langston
Hughes, was written in 1956. Meyerowitz also wrote a choral
work, Midrash Esther (premiere, 1957).
The music of the Jewish Purim plays has not survived
in notation, except for a few songs collected by 20t-century folklorists from surviving practitioners. Some Yiddish
and Hebrew poems of the early 18t century were publishedwith the indication “to be sung to the tune of Haman in theAḥ ashverosh play” (see Idelsohn, Music, 437), but this tune
has not yet been recovered. However, the tradition is evident
in Isaac Offenbach’s play Koenigin Esther (manuscript dated
1833, at the Jewish Institute of Religion, New York), which includes some “couplets” and in which the court jester seems amore important figure than the biblical personages. Hermann
Cohn’s five-act parody Der Barbier von Schuschan (1894) was
an imitation of P. Cornelius’ Barbier von Bagdad; Abraham*Goldfaden’s Kenig Akhashverosh (c. 1885) produced no memorable tune; and M. Gelbart wrote Akhashverosh, a Purim
play in New York (1916). For the production of K.J. *Silman’s
Megillat Esther by the *Ohel theater, the music was written by
Y. *Admon (Gorochow). The music for the production of Itzik
Manger’s Di Megille was written by Dov Seltzer in a “revival
style” reminiscent of the East European Jewish song traditionin general and of the Yiddish theater tradition in particular.
Nahum *Nardi’s songs to Levin *Kipnis’ kindergarten Purim
play Misḥ ak Purim, written in the early 1930s, have become
Israel folksongs.
See also *Purim-Shpil.

baum (ed.), Lexikon der christlichen Ikonographie, 1 (1968), 683–7; F.
Rosenberg, in: Festschrift… Adolf Tobler (1905), 335–54; P. Goodman,
Purim Anthology (1960).

ESTHER (pseudonym of Malkah Lifschitz, whose names bymarriage were Frumkin and Wichmann; 1880–1943), communist leader, writer, and educator, born in Minsk; one of themost original women in the Jewish labor movement. She acquired a wide Jewish knowledge in childhood, including Hebrew and Bible studies, and studied in St. Petersburg and Berlin. From 1896 Esther was active in Social Democrat circles in
Minsk influenced by A. *Liessin, and from 1901 in the *Bund.
She edited Bundist periodicals after the 1905 revolution. A
representative of the extreme Yiddishists at the *Czernowitz
Yiddish Conference, Esther was one of the main promotersin the Bund of Jewish education in Yiddish. She published
two books on the subject in Yiddish: “On the Question of theJewish National School” (1910) and “What Kind of National
School Do We Need” (1917). She was imprisoned several times
for revolutionary activities and went to Switzerland, where
she became a member of the foreign committee of the Bund.
After the 1917 February Revolution, she became a memberof the central committee of the Bund, and was elected to the
Minsk municipal and community councils. She took an active part in founding a network of Yiddish schools, courses
for teachers, and other educational institutions. At first violently opposed to the Bolsheviks, she later became a leader ofthe Kombund, and in May 1921 voted for the self-liquidationof the Bund and joined the Communist Party. From 1921 to1930 she was a member of the education department of the*Yevsektsiya. With M. *Litvakov she brought out a Yiddish
edition of Lenin’s writings in eight volumes, and wrote a biography of Lenin in Yiddish (3 eds., 1925–26). She also edited
the Moscow Yiddish daily, Emes. She was rector of the Jewish
section of the “Communist University of the National Minorities of the West” (KUNMZ) from 1925 to 1936. In January 1938
she was arrested and imprisoned but refused to admit to thefalse charges proffered against her. In August 1940 she wassentenced to eight years in detention and died in the detention camp in Karaganda.
Bibliography: S. Schwarz, The Jews in the Soviet Union(1951), index; LNYL, 1 (1956), 141–3.
[Moshe Mishkinsky / Shmuel Spector (2nd ed.)]Bibliography: BIBLE: See bibliography to *Scroll of Esther. IN THE AGGADAH: Ginzberg, Legends, index. IN THE ARTS: R.
Schwartz, Esther im deutschen und neulateinischen Drama des Reformations-Zeitalters (1894); E. Wind, in: Journal of the Warburg Institute, 4 (1940), 114–7; M. Roston, Biblical Drama in England From theMiddle Ages to the Present Day (1968), 72–74; L. Réau, Iconographie del’art chrétien, 2, pt. 1 (1956), 335–42, includes bibliography; E. Kirsch-

ESTHER, ADDITIONS TO THE BOOK OF. The Bookof Esther in the Septuagint, followed by the Old Latin version, contains six passages comprising 107 verses that are notfound in the Hebrew text. In the fourth century C.E., *Jerome,
when compiling the Latin Vulgate Bible, removed all these
additions and grouped them as an appendix at the end of theBook of Esther. Although Jerome had provided notes to indicate where each addition belonged within the canonical book,subsequent scribes sometimes neglected to copy the explanatory notes, resulting in a meaningless combination of separate
portions. The confusion was compounded in the 13t century

518

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

esther rabbah
when Stephen Langton, having divided the text of the Vulgate
into chapters, numbered the chapters of the canonical and theapocryphal portions of Esther consecutively. Rearranged intheir proper order and with chapter and verse numbering according to Jerome’s sequence, the six additions are as follows:
A (11:2–12:6), Mordecai saves King Artaxerxes’ life; B (13:1–7),
the edict of Artaxerxes ordering the massacre of the Jews; C(13:8–14:19), the prayers of Mordecai and Esther; D (15:1–6),
Esther risks her life to appeal to the king; E (16:1–24), Artaxerxes’ second edict, denouncing Haman and supporting theJews; F (10:4–11:1), the interpretation of Mordecai’s dream.
These additions belong within the sequence of the canonicaltext as follows: A before 1:1; B after 3:13; C and D after 4:17; E
after 7:12; F after 10:3.
The author (or authors) of the additions is unknown,
but probably at least some of them were composed by Lysimachus, an Alexandrian Jew who lived in Jerusalem andwho translated the canonical Hebrew text of Esther into
Greek about 114 B.C.E. (11:1). Although the name of God does
not appear in the canonical Book of Esther, all but one of
the additions contain it. Likewise, although prayer is not
mentioned in the canonical text, addition C includes two
devout prayers. Thus it appears that one of the purposes ofthe expansions is to introduce into the book certain religious
elements that are conspicuously absent from the Hebrew
narrative. Occasionally the additions contradict statementsin the canonical text. For example, according to the Hebrew,
Mordecai discovered the plot against the king sometime after
the seventh year of the reign of Ahasuerus (Esther 2:16–21),
whereas addition A suggests that this occurred in the second
year of the king’s reign; in 16:10 Haman is called a Macedonian, whereas in Esther 3:1 he is called the Agagite (= Amalekite); and in 13:6 the date set for the massacre of the Jews is
the fourteenth of Adar, whereas in Esther 3:13 it is the thirteenth of Adar.

“Regarding the fasting and the crying” (Esth. 9:31). Comparing
it with other public fasts he declares, “Whereas the other fasts
are postponed to the following day if they would otherwise fallon the Sabbath the Fast of Esther is anticipated to the Thursday, since fasting here must precede the celebration” (Maim.,
Yad, Ta’anit 5:5). An earlier tradition of fasting in connection
with Purim is preserved in the Talmud (Sof. 14:4), which specifically excludes fasting on the 13t of Adar, “because of Nicanor and his men.” This is in accordance with the prohibitionof Megillat Ta’anit against fasting on those days on which the
Maccabean victories over *Nicanor and their other enemies
were celebrated. Elsewhere tractate Soferim asserts: “Our Rabbis in the West [i.e., Ereẓ Israel] are accustomed to fast at intervals after Purim [i.e., on the three subsequent days: Monday, Thursday, and Monday] in commemoration of the threedays fasted by Esther and Mordecai and those who joined
them” (Sof. 21:1). Although *Jacob b. Asher’s Tur (Oḥ 686)
refers to this ancient custom, there is no historical indicationof its preservation. It was probably falling into desuetude atthe very time that the tractate Soferim was being edited, as
the contemporaneous composition of the She’iltot indicates.
In his gloss on the reference to the fast in the Shulḥ an Arukh(Oḥ 686:2), Isserles considers the Fast of Esther as less obligatory than other statutory public fasts. He allows concessions
to nursing mothers and pregnant women, and even to thosewith an eye-ache. He advocates, nevertheless, its continued
observance. Special seliḥ ot are recited in addition to thoseof a regular fast-day, and the fast-day portion of the Torah isread (Ex. 32:11–14; 34:1–10). The day is especially observed by
Persian Jews. The afternoon Taḥ anun is omitted in anticipation of Purim joy.

Bibliography: Schuerer, Gesch, 3 (1909), 449–52; J.A.F.
Gregg, in: Charles, Apocrypha, 1 (1913), 665–84; R.H. Pfeiffer, History
of New Testament Times, with an Introduction to the Apocrypha (1949),
304–12; B.M. Metzger, Introduction to the Apocrypha (1957), 55–63.

[Isaac Newman][Bruce M. Metzger]

ESTHER, FAST OF (Heb. ‫ ַּת ֲענִ ית ֶא ְס ֵּתר‬, Ta’anit Esther), theday before *Purim on which it is customary to fast (unlessthat day falls on the Sabbath; see below). The She’iltot of R.
Aḥ a of Shabḥ a (eighth century; ed. by S.K. Mirsky, 3 (1964),
222, no. 69) has the earliest record of the custom of fasting on
the 13t of Adar. It quotes the declaration of R. Samuel b. Isaac(Meg. 2a), “The 13t day of Adar is the time for public gathering,” and refers to the words of Esther (9:18) “The other Jews
in the king’s provinces gathered together and stood up forthemselves on the 13th day of the month of Adar”; explainingthat the purpose of the gathering was for public prayer andfasting (cf. *Asher b. Jehiel on Meg. 2a, who quotes R. Tam ina similar vein). Maimonides accepts the custom of public fasting on this day finding his scriptural authority in the words
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: Eisenstein, Dinim, 440–1; Schwarz, in: Festschrift… Simonsen (1923), 188–205; N.S. Doniach, Purim or the Feastof Esther (1933), 65–67; Hilevitz, in: Sinai, 64 (1969), 215–42; Pearl,
Guide to the Minor Festivals and Fasts (1963), 73–76.

ESTHER RABBAH (Heb. ‫) ֶא ְס ֵּתר ַר ָ ּבה‬, Midrash Aggadah on
the *Scroll of Esther. In the editio princeps (Constantinople,
1517?) the work is referred to as “Midrash *Ahasuerus” while inthe second edition (Pesaro, 1519) it is called “Midrash Megillat
Esther” and the title “Ahasueros.” On the origin of the name“Esther Rabbah,” see *Ruth Rabbah.
The Structure
In the editio princeps, Esther Rabbah is divided into six sections. However, subsequent editions have ten, the last section
being subdivided into five smaller ones. In fact, the work consists of two different Midrashim: Esther Rabbah 1 (sections
1–6) and Esther Rabbah 2 (sections 7–10).
Esther Rabbah 1This is an exegetical Midrash which expounds the first two
chapters of the Scroll of Esther verse by verse. The sections
are introduced by proems of the classical type characteristic ofamoraic Midrashim, opening with an extraneous verse which519

estonia
is interpreted and then connected with that expounded at the
beginning of the section. There are 16 proems, the majority
in the name of an amora, the rest anonymous. Most of themcommence with a verse from the Prophets or the Hagiographa,only a small number with one from the Pentateuch. Section
2 concludes with a message of consolation. The language of
Esther Rabbah 1, like that of the Jerusalem Talmud, is mishnaic Hebrew with an admixture of Galilean *Aramaic and aliberal sprinkling of Greek words. The work, which contains
much original tannaitic and early amoraic material, quotes
Aquila’s translation, and draws upon tannaitic literature, theJerusalem Talmud, *Genesis Rabbah, and *Leviticus Rabbah,
but was apparently unaware of the Aramaic translation of
the Scroll of Esther, some passages of which are even cited asstatements of amoraim. The Babylonian *Talmud is also not
utilized. On the other hand, *Targum Sheni, *Ecclesiastes Rabbah, *Midrash Tehillim, Midrash Abba Guryon, and Midrash
Panim Aḥ erim to Esther, Version 2 (see smaller *Midrashim)
all draw upon Esther Rabbah 1. It is thus apparently an amoraic Midrash, redacted in Ereẓ Israel not later than the beginning of the sixth century C.E.

Editions
Esther Rabbah was first published at Pesaro in 1519 together
with Midrashim on the other four scrolls, which, however,are completely unrelated to it. This edition has often been reprinted. There is as yet no critical edition of the work basedon manuscripts. An English translation by Maurice Simon
appeared in the Soncino Midrash (1939).
Bibliography: Zunz-Albeck, Derashot, 128–30, 423–5; B.
Lerner, “The First edition of ‘Midrash Hamesh hamegillot…”, Yad
leHeiman: Studies in Hebrew culture in Memory of A.M. Haberman(ed. Z. Malachi), Lydda, 1984, pp. 289–311 (Hebrew); J. Tabory, “TheDivision of Midrash Esther Rabbah,” Teuda, 11 (1996), pp. 191–204(Hebrew); idem, “The Proems to the Seventh Chapter of Esther Rabbah and Midrash Abba Guryon,” Mehkerei Yerushalayim be-sifrut
Ivrit, 15 (1997), pp. 171–182 (Hebrew).
[Moshe David Herr]

Esther Rabbah 2This, likewise an exegetical Midrash, covers Esther 3:1–8:15, butwith many omissions. Its few proems are not of the classicaltype in that they do not conclude with the verse expoundedat the beginning of the section. It quotes the Septuagint Additions to the Scroll of Esther: Mordecai’s dream about the two
sea monsters (8:5); the prayers of Mordecai and Esther (8:7);
and the conversation of Esther and Ahasuerus (9:1). It borrowed these additions as well as other aggadot from *Josippon (chap. 4). Alongside later material, however, it also contains older homilies. Early medieval scholars cite expositions
from part of a Midrash on Esther parallel to Esther Rabbah 2,
which, however, do not occur in the present text. The redactors of Ecclesiastes Rabbah, Midrash Tehillim, *Midrash Samuel, and *Genesis Rabbati were unacquainted with Esther Rabbah 2. All these Midrashim, as well as Midrash Abba Guryon,
drew upon an earlier midrashic work on Esther 3ff. which apparently constituted the original second part of Esther Rabbah 1. On the other hand, Midrash Panim Aḥ erim to Esther,
Version 1, *Yalkut Shimoni, and perhaps also *Midrash LekaḥTov, draw upon Esther Rabbah 2. All this would seem tomake Esther Rabbah 2 a composite work containing remnants of the original second part of Esther Rabbah 1 with later
additions in the style and language of the later aggadic works(see *Midrash). Esther Rabbah 2, which contains valuable information on anti-Jewish manifestations in the late Roman
empire, was redacted about the 11t century. After it was attached to Esther Rabbah 1 the original second half of the latter was lost.
Esther Rabbah is thus composed of two different Midrashim which were apparently combined by a copyist in the
12t or 13t century C.E. The earliest extant manuscripts datefrom the beginning of the 15t century C.E.

ESTONIA (Est. Esti), independent state from the 1990s, after the breakup of the Soviet Union, bordering on the gulfs ofFinland and Riga. Estonia was an independent republic from1918 to 1940. From 1940 to the dissolution of the U.S.S.R., withan interval of German occupation (1941–44), Estonia was a
Soviet Socialist Republic. Until 1918 part of Russia (Estland
and the northern part of Livland), the area of Estonia was
not included in the Pale of Settlement. In 1897 some 4,000
Jews lived on this territory, including about 1,200 in *Tallinn(then Revel). The nucleus of this community was founded by
Jewish soldiers after their demobilization from the army ofCzar Nicholas I (see *Cantonists), who established a Jewish
cemetery in the town in 1856. There were approximately 1,800
Jews living in the university town of *Tartu (known among
Jews by its German name Dorpat), about 480 in Narva (thenbelonging to the district of St. Petersburg), and about 400 in
Pärnu, on the Gulf of Riga. (See Map: Jews in Estonia.) Jews
took part in the struggle for Estonian independence. In independent Estonia, the Jews numbered 4,566 in 1922 and 4,381 in
1934 (about 0.4 of the total population), of whom 2,203 lived
in Tallinn, the capital, and 920 in Tartu; 923 (57.4 of those
supporting families) were occupied in commerce, 484 (30.1)in industry and crafts, 159 (9.9) in the liberal professions, 26(1.6) were house owners, and 16 (1.0) were religious officials. About 642 of the total were employees (officials and laborers) and the remainder were self-employed.
Estonia was the only country in Eastern Europe to fulfill its obligations toward its national minorities according to
the concepts of the Minorities Treaties (see *Minority Rights),
even though it had refused to become a signatory. The law onnational-cultural autonomy was confirmed by the Estonian
parliament on Feb. 5, 1925, and four minorities – Russian, German, Swedish, and Jewish – were accordingly recognized. The
Jewish autonomous institutions, headed by a Cultural Council, were established in 1926. However, only 75 of Estonian
Jewry (about 3,252 persons in 1939) registered with the Jewish minority list; the remainder ranged themselves with othernationalities, in particular Russian. The first Cultural Council
was composed of 12 Zionist representatives, nine Yiddishists,

520

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

estonia

Leningrad
Narva

Tallinn

R.

C

BA

L

TI

SEA

E S T O N I A

L

Riga

A

T

V

I

A

S.

Valga Voru

U.

Tartu

Nymme

S.

Parnu

Major Jewish communities in Estonia, 1918–1940.

and six Independents. Subsequently the Zionists gained instrength, and by 1939 held 20 of the Council’s 27 seats. Aftera severe struggle within the Council on the issue whether the
language of instruction in Jewish schools should be Hebrew
or Yiddish, the supporters of Hebrew finally prevailed, andmost of the Jewish schools were affiliated to the Hebrew Tarbut
educational network, including the two secondary schools of
Tallinn and Tartu. About 75 of the Jewish children attended
Jewish schools. A chair for Hebrew language and literature
was established at the University of Tartu. There were three
Jewish cooperative banks in Tallinn, Tartu, and Narva, with a
total of 625 members in 1935. Estonian Jewry attained important national achievements, but because of its small numbers
remained culturally dependent on the neighboring Jewish
populations of Latvia and Lithuania. During the 1930s, a Fascist movement was formed in Estonia which launched an antisemitic propaganda campaign. The hardening anti-Jewish attitude was reflected in the decrease of the number of students
at the University of Tartu, from 188 in 1926 to 96 in 1934.
After the annexation of Estonia to the Soviet Union in
1940, the Jewish institutions were liquidated and the politicaland social organizations disbanded. On the eve of the German invasion of the Soviet Union, some 500 communal leaders and affluent members of the congregation were arrested
and deported to the Russian interior. Due to the efforts of theSoviet army to halt the German advance on Leningrad, theconquest of Estonia took about two months. Tallinn was not
occupied until Sept. 3, 1941, and about 3,000 Estonian Jews
succeeded in escaping to the Russian interior. All the Jews remaining in the zone of German occupation were murderedby the end of 1941 by the Einsatzkommando 1a with the active
help of Estonian nationalist Omakaitse units. On October 12
all men aged 16 and above, about 440, were murdered, and in
the last weeks of 1941 the others were liquidated – in all, 936
Jews according to the report of Einsatzgruppe A, from January 1942. This left Estonia “judenfrei,” a fact which was reported in the Wannsee Conference at the same time. In 1942and early 1943 about 3,000 Jews, mainly from Germany, were
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6sent to the extermination camp in Kalevi Liiva. By May 1943
Heinrich *Himmler had ordered the cessation of mass shooting and the erection of forced labor camps. The main campin Estonia was Vaivara, commanded by Hans Aumeier (sentenced and executed in 1947). About 20,000 Jewish prisoners,
mainly from Vilna and Kaunas (Kovno), passed through its
gates to labor camps at Klooga, Lagedi, Ereda, and others. The
inmates were employed in mining slate and building fortifications. The successful advance of the Soviet army led to theevacuation of the camps to Tallinn and from there to *Stutthof
from where a “death march” of 10,000 took place along theBaltic coast. Other camps were also liquidated (2,400 killed
at Klooga and 426 at Lagedi). On Sept. 22, 1944, Estonia was
finally liberated. The Germans attempted to burn the bodiesof their victims to conceal their crimes.
After the war, Jews from all parts of Russia gathered in
Estonia. The Jewish population numbered 5,436 in 1959 (0.5
of the total) of whom 1,350 (25) declared Yiddish as theirmother tongue, about 400 Estonian, and the remainder Russian; 3,714 Jews (1.3 of the total population) lived in Tallinn.
As in the rest of the Soviet Union, there was no organized Jewish life in the Estonian S.S.R.
[Yehuda Slutsky / Shmuel Spector (2nd ed.)]

Revival of Jewish Life
There were an estimated 3,200 Jews in Estonia at the end of
1993 and 1,800 in 2001.
Jewish communal life was renewed in 1988 with the creation of the Jewish Cultural Society in Tallinn, the first of its
kind in the Soviet Union. The Society organized concerts
and lectures, and a Jewish school going up to the ninth grade
was opened in 1990. Jewish culture clubs were also started in
Tartu, Narva, and Kohtla-Järve. Other organizations followed,
like the Maccabi sports club and the Jewish Veterans Union.
Courses in Hebrew were offered. The Jewish Community wasestablished in 1992 as a voluntary umbrella organization; its
charter was approved on April 11, 1992. The community published a Jewish newspaper, Hashakhar (“Dawn”), and the radio
program “Shalom Aleichem” was broadcast monthly. A synagogue was also reopened, attended mostly by the elderly.
In November 1993, an Estonian translation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, giving no details of the publisher,
appeared in Tallinn bookshops. After the protests of the Jewish community and the Estonia-Israel Friendship Society, thebook was withdrawn by the bookshop owners. However, inAugust 1994 the nationalist weekly Eesti published an article
by Juri Lina, an Estonian émigré in Sweden, claiming that theProtocols were authentic and demanding to lift restrictions on
their publication.
A more serious danger for the future of the small Jewish
community in the country lay in the activities of Russian extremists in Estonia. An antigovernment demonstration, organized by ethnic Russians in Narva (North East) in December
1993, displayed anti-Jewish placards; two parties which arecounterparts to Zhirinovsky’s LDPR in Russia – the harshly

521

estori ha-parḥ iantisemitic Ruskii Sobor Estonii [Russian Council of Estonia]
and Liberal Demokraatiik Partei, led by Piotr Rozhok – continued to operate.
Another potentially dangerous phenomenon in Estonia
was the continuing romanticization of the Estonian military
units which, during World War II, fought together with Nazi
troops, some of them in the SS; many of them were guilty ofmurderous acts against Jews.
Bibliography: K. Jokton, Di Geshikhte fun di Yidn in Estland(1927); N. Geuss, Zur Geschichte der Juden in Eesti, 2 vols. (1933–37);
idem, Bibliografie fun Yidishe Druk-Oysgabn in Esti (1937); Yahadut
Latviyyah (1953), 310–1; Ershter Yidisher Kultur Kongres, Paris (1937),
65–66, 196–200; I. Garr, in: Algemeyne Yidishe Entsiklopedie, 6 (1963),
395–401; M. Dworzecki, Maḥ anot ha-Yehudim be-Estonyah (1970),
with Eng. summ.; U. Schmelz and S. DellaPergola, in: AJYB, 1995, 478;
Supplement to the Monthly Bulletin of Statistics, 2, 1995, Jerusalem; Antisemitism World Report 1994, London: Institute of Jewish Affairs, 139;
Antisemitism World Report 1995, London: Institute of Jewish Affairs,
112–113; Mezhdunarodnaia Evreiskaia Gazeta (MEG), 1993. Add. Bibliography: PK. Website: www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org.

ESTORI (Isaac ben Moses) HAPARḤ I (1280–1355?), first
topographer of Ereẓ Israel. The family was originally from
Florenza, Andalusia, Spain – hence, the name ha-Parḥ i, a Hebrew translation of the Spanish flor (“flower”). In the introduction to his main work Estori refers to himself as Ish Tori(“Man of Tours”) in Touraine, France. It appears that he wasborn in Provence. He studied in Montpellier with his relative
Jacob b. Makhir *Ibn Tibbon and with *Asher b. Jehiel. He
obtained a broad general education, including the study of
medicine as well. When the Jews were expelled from France
in 1306, Estori went to Perpignan and Barcelona and then to
Toledo. He stopped in Cairo in 1313 on his way to Ereẓ Israel.
He studied with Baruch Ashkenazi in Jerusalem but left because of the negative attitude to Maimonides among the scholars of the city. Estori then settled in Beisan (Beth-Shean),
where he was respected as a physician. He continued to earn
his livelihood as a physician wherever he went. From Beisan
he traveled throughout the land investigating ancient sites.
He spent two years studying the Galilee and five years, otherparts of the country. In Beisan he wrote Sefer Kaftor va-Feraḥ(Venice, 1549), which was completed in 1322. In this book hedelineated the names of the towns and villages in the land.
He also presented a complete discussion of the topographic
principle that applied to the land. The book, based upon firsthand visits to the sites, is rich in information. The book gives
the borders of Ereẓ Israel as presented in the Bible and in the
halakhah. It describes Jerusalem and the various regions of
the country and presents a list of the biblical, talmudic, andArabic names of the sites. Most of the 180 identifications ofancient sites that he made were correct. He was the first person
to identify the sites of *Usha, *Modi’in, *Bethar, and others.
His ruling that the biblical and talmudic names of villages andrivers are preserved in the Arabic, with only slight changes,
is accepted by modern scholarship. Especially important is
his study of ancient coins, which he compared with contem-

522

porary coins. He also compared the weights and measuresof the Bible and the Talmud with contemporary weights andmeasures. He investigated plants, noting their Arabic names
and attempting to determine their Hebrew names according
to the Mishnah and Talmud. He also described the appearance of Jewish dress in Ereẓ Israel and in those countries of
the Diaspora with which he was acquainted. He discovered
the ruins of an ancient synagogue in Beisan and also described
the remnants of an ancient synagogue in Hukok. He also provides information about the different religions and religious
sects: Muslims, Christians, Jews, *Samaritans (whom he calls
Sadducees), and Karaites. He gives valuable information on
the Jewish settlements in Israel during his time. He mentions 11 Jewish communities, three of which were in Transjordan. A.M. *Luncz published a critical edition of Kaftor vaFeraḥ (Jerusalem, 1897), in which he mentions a number ofother books that Estori wrote, though most of them are notextant. Estori’s books include a translation of the book of
medicine De Remediis by the physician Armengaud (Eremenganus) of Montpellier; a translation of the book Hakabusim
containing articles and notes on medical matters, probably
collected by the physician Elijah b. Judah; an exposition ofsome chapters from the Canon of Avicenna; Battei ha-Nefesh, words of admonition and moral rebuke; Shoshannat
ha-Melekh, on the humanities and the sciences in the Talmud; and Sha’ar ha-Shamayim, expositions and novellae on
the Talmud.
Bibliography: Steinschneider, Uebersetzungen, 778, 835;
A.M. Luncz (ed.), Lu’aḥ Ereẓ Yisrael, 3 (1897), 108–30; idem, in: HaMe’ammer, 3 (1919), 69–76; Gruenhut, in: ZDPV, 31 (1908), 281–96;
Klein, in: HHY, 7 (1923), 103–32; S. Klein, Toledot ha-Yishuv ha-Yehudi
be-Ereẓ Yisrael (19522), 156–61; A. Yaari, Masot Ereẓ Yisrael (1946),
98–105; Zinberg, Sifrut, 2 (1960), 133, 415; J. Braslavski (Braslavi), LeḤ eker Arẓ enu (1954), 263–8; idem, in: Bikat Beit She’an (1962), 80–95;
Mirsky, in: Torah she-be-al-Peh, 8 (1966), 51–59.
[Jacob Elbaum]

ESTRAIKH, GENNADY (1952– ), Yiddish scholar, writer,and journalist. Born in Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine, into a Yiddishspeaking family from a Jewish agricultural colony, he received
his first degree in electronics and lived in Moscow (1976–91).
In 1979 his family’s application for an exit visa to Israel was
rejected. In 1981 he joined the Jewish Historical and Ethnographical Commission, an independent scholarly body thatsought to revive Jewish scholarship in the Soviet Union. From1985 he regularly published short stories about contemporary
Jewish life and essays on Jewish culture in the Moscow Yiddish monthly Sovetish Heymland, which he joined in 1988 as
managing editor. His collection of stories Di Royte Balke (“TheRed Ravine,” 1988) and two editions of Kratkiĭ Idish-Russish
Slovar’ (“Concise Yiddish-Russian Dictionary,” 1989/1990)
appeared as supplements to that journal. In 1991 he moved to
Oxford to pursue a doctorate, resulting in the book Soviet Yiddish: Language Planning and Linguistic Development (1999).
In 1994–2002 he edited the Yiddish literary monthly Di Pen,
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6ethanworked at the Oxford Institute for Yiddish Studies, and taught
Yiddish language and culture at London University’s Schoolof Oriental and African Studies. In 2003 he was appointed
visiting professor of Yiddish studies at New York University.
He is a regular columnist for the New York weekly Forverts(also under the pseudonyms G. Yakobi and Yakov London).
He has published numerous scholarly articles on 20t century
Yiddish culture in English and Yiddish. Other books include
Moskver Purim-Shpiln (“Moscow Purim Plays,” 1993), Intensive Yiddish (1996), and In Harness: Yiddish Writers’ RomanceWith Communism (2005).
[Mikhail Krutikov (2nd ed.)]ESTROSA (or Istrumsa), DANIEL (1582?–1653), Salonikan
rabbi and halakhist. Estrosa was born in Salonika and studied
under Isaac Franco and Mordecai *Kalai. He was apparently
appointed as head of the famous yeshivah of the community
known as “Portugala Yaḥ ya” during the latter years of Kalai’s
life. Among his pupils were David *Conforte, Gershon b.
Abraham Motal, and Gabriel Esperanza. He died in Salonika
during a plague. The only one of Estrosa’s works publishedunder his own name is Magen Gibborim (Salonika, 1754),
responsa. It contains valuable glosses on the readings of
Maimonides’ Yad and of Jacob b. Asher’s Tur. Other known
works by him are included in the publications of others:
his Kunteres Shemot ha-Gittin in the Yerekh Avraham, pt.
1 (Salonika, 1815), 1a–4b, of his grandson, Ḥ ayyim Abraham Estrosa, who also included his grandfather’s novellae on
chapter three of tractate Avodah Zarah in his Ben Avraham(Salonika, 1826); glosses on the Tur, Ḥ oshen Mishpat, in the
Doresh Mishpat (Salonika, 1655) of Solomon b. Samuel Florentin; and his halakhic decisions in the works of his colleagues
and disciples.
Bibliography: Conforte, Kore, s.v.; Rosanes, Togarmah,
3 (1938), 178; I.S. Emmanuel, Gedolei Saloniki le-Dorotam, 1 (1936),
309–11, no. 467; idem, Maẓ ẓ evot Saloniki, 1 (1963), 313f., no. 717.

ESZTERGOM (Ger. Gran), city in N. Hungary, on the Danube; it had the oldest Jewish community in Hungary. This ismentioned for the first time during the 11t century, when
Kalonymus b. Shabbetai lived in Esztergom; he is known
for the severe legal decision which he pronounced against
two merchants of Regensburg who arrived in Esztergom after the beginning of the Sabbath (Zedekiah Anav, Shibbolei
ha-Leket, Hilkhot Shabbat, para. 60; see also Rashi to Beẓ ah24b). The community lived in a closed Jewish quarter under
the protection of the archbishop, granted by him in 1294, andthe royal court, and had grown to 1,000 persons before theexpulsion of the Jews from Esztergom in 1526. Jews resettled
in Esztergom during the 18t century, and numbered 870 in
1850, 1,540 in 1910, 1,300 in 1930, and 450 in 1941, attached toa labor camp in 1942 along with thousands of other Jews. On
June 13–16, 1944, they were deported to Auschwitz via Farkan.
Only 52 survivors returned and there were only ten Jews living in Esztergom in 1970.
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: F. Knauz and L.C. Dedek, Monumenta Ecclesiae Strigoniensis, 3 vols. (1874–1924); V.E. László, in: R.L. Braham(ed.), Hungarian Jewish Studies, 2 (1969), 137–82.
[Encyclopaedia Hebraica]

ETAM (Heb. ‫יטם‬ָ ‫) ֵע‬.
(1) The cleft in the rock where 3,000 men of Judah cameto speak with Samson after he had slaughtered the Philistines(Judg. 15:8, 11). Some scholars identify it with ʿIrāq Ismāʿīn,2½ mi. (4 km.) southeast of Zorah.
(2) A village in the northern Negev, mentioned together
with En-Rimmon (I Chron. 4:32) and identified with theprominent Tell Beit Mirsim, where remains of the Israelite
period, including walls, have been found.
(3) A city in the territory of Judah, located in the Bethlehem district according to a Septuagint addition to Joshua
15:59. It was fortified by Rehoboam together with Bethlehemand Tekoa (II Chron. 11:6). Josephus relates that it was one ofSolomon’s pleasure resorts and describes it as “delightful for,and abounding in, parks and flowing streams” (Ant., 8:186).
It is most likely to be identified with Khirbat al-Ḥ ūḥ , a largetell with Iron Age remains, near Ein-Atan in the vicinity of thePools of Solomon. According to the Talmud, the waters of its
spring were brought to the Temple (TJ, Yoma 3:8, 41a), probably a reference to the aqueduct built by Pilate to catch thewaters of the spring of Etam (Jos., Wars, 2:175; Ant., 18:60). A
Kefar Etam is mentioned in the Mishnah (Yev. 12:6).
Bibliography: Kraus, in: ZDPV, 72 (1956), 152–62; Aharoni,
Land, index; Press, Ereẓ , 4 (19552), S.V.
[Michael Avi-Yonah]

ÉTAMPES (Heb. ‫)איטנפש‬, town in the Seine et Oise department, S. of Paris. At the time of the expulsion of 1182, King
Philip Augustus gave the synagogue to the canons of Étampes
to be converted into the collegiate church of Sainte-Croix (destroyed during the Revolution). There is still a rue de la Juiverie in Étampes, near the Place de l’Hôtel de Ville. One housein this square is still called the “synagogue,” a name also given
to the vast cellar (since filled in) under 39 and 41, rue SteCroix. Local tradition holds that Jews took refuge in the cellars of the quarter to escape persecutions and expulsions andthat they buried their treasures there. Until 1182, R. Nathan b.
Meshulam, great-grandfather of Joseph b. Nathan *Official,author of Yosef ha-Mekanne, lived in Étampes.
Bibliography: Gross, Gal Jud, 44–45; B. Fleureau, Les antiquitez… d’Etampes (1683), 380f.; M. de Mont-Rond, Essais historiques sur… Etampes (1836), 1, 136ff.; M. Legrand, Etampes pittoresque (1897), passim.
[Bernhard Blumenkranz]

ETHAN (Heb. ‫יתן‬ָ ‫“ ; ֵא‬permanent, enduring”? or “one consecrated [to a temple]”?). The Bible ostensibly mentions four individuals named Ethan: (1) Ethan the Ezrahite, a sage (alongwith *Heman, Calcol, and Darda, “sons of Mahol”) whom
Solomon surpassed in wisdom (I Kings 5:11). Psalm 89 is as-523

ethbaal
cribed to him. (2) A son of Zerah son of Judah (I Chron. 2:6,
8). His brothers are Zimri, Heman, Calcol, and “Dara.” (3) A
levite Temple musician in the time of David, colleague of thelevites Heman and Asaph (I Chron. 6:29; 15:17, 19; in somelists Ethan’s name is replaced by Jeduthun (ibid. 16:41; 25:1–2;
II Chron. 5:12; 35:15). (4) An ancestor of Asaph (I Chron. 6:27).
In view of their common association with Heman, Calcol, andDar(d)a, the first two Ethans are undoubtedly identical. The
descent from Judah alleged in I Chronicles 2 probably represents a (pre-Chronicles) midrashic attempt to explain the epithet “Ezrahite” on the basis of the name of Zerah, Judah’s son.
The epithet is usually understood today to mean a member ordescendant of the native pre-Israelite population of Palestine.
(ʾEzraḥ may be a loan from Akkadian um/nzarhu, “homeborn”
̆(Deller apud Cogan in Bibliography).) Ethan (and Heman, cf.
Ps. 88:1) was thus descended from the latter. Since both Ethan
and Heman are credited with psalms, it is hard not to identify
them with the musicians of the same names in David’s time((3), above; note, too, that the epithet applied to Heman, Calcol, and Darda in I Kings 5:11, “sons of Mahol,” is interpreted
by W.F. Albright as “members of an orchestral guild”). As “Ezrahites” they may thus have been among the several non-Israelites holding prominent positions in David’s time. The levite ancestry ascribed to them in Chronicles is typical of thatbook’s treatment of cultic personnel (cf. the levite lineage it
gives the Ephraimite Samuel, I Chron. 6:13; contrast I Sam. 1:1).
Thus the first three Ethans appear to be one: one of the eponymous ancestors (cf. I Chron. 6:18ff.) of the guilds of Temple
musicians (cf. to Calcol the Temple musician named Krkr on
one of the 14–12t centuries B.C.E. ivories from Megiddo; in
Pritchard, Texts, 263), living (according to Chron.) in the timeof David, and of pre-Israelite Palestinian ancestry. His wisdom
apparently was his psalmodic skill.

city Auza (ibid.). (2) Son of *Hiram (Ahiram), a tenth-century
B.C.E. king of Byblos (Pritchard, Texts, 2, 504; ibid., 3, 661).
(3) An eighth-century king of Tyre who paid tribute to Tiglath-Pileser III ca. 740 B.C.E., whose existence was unknown
before 1972. (4) A king of Sidon installed by Sennacherib in
701 as a replacement for the rebellious Lulli. (5) A sixth-century B.C.E. king of Tyre (Jos., Apion, 1:156).
Bibliography: Z.S. Harris, A Grammar of the Phoenician
Language (1936), 85; J.A. Montgomery, The Book of Kings (ICC, 1951),
286; J.M. Grintz, in: EM, 1 (1965), 790–1 (includes bibl.). Add. Bibliography: B. Peckham, in: ABD V, 349–57; H. Katzenstein, in:
ABD VI, 686–90; J. Friedrich, W. Röllig, and M. Guzzo, PhönizischPunische Grammatik (1999), 13; H. Tadmor, The Inscriptions of TiglathPileser III King of Assyria (1994), 266–67; M. Cogan, I Kings (2000),
421; COS II, 181–83, 287, 302–3.
[Jeffrey Howard Tigay / S. David Sperling (2nd ed.)]°ETHERIDGE, JOHN WESLEY (1804–1866), English student of Judaica. Etheridge, who was a Methodist minister,held no academic position. His published works deal withboth the Syriac Bible and the Targum, of which he did English translations of Onkelos and Pseudo-Jonathan to the Pentateuch, The Targum of Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel on
the Pentateuch (2 vols., 1862, 1865). He also published Horae
Aramaicae: Outlines of the Semitic Language (London, 1843)
and in 1856 a survey of Jewish learning entitled Jerusalem andTiberias: Sora and Cordova. As a pioneering introduction to
the various departments of Jewish learning, the work is notwithout significance.
Add. Bibliography: ODNB online.
[Raphael Loewe]

ETHBAAL (Heb. ‫“ ; ֶא ְת ַ ּב ַעל‬Baal is with him” – pronounced
Ittoba’al?), a name borne by several kings of city-states in thearea that classical sources call *Phoenicia, corresponding
in the main to present-day Lebanon and Northwest Israel.
Akkadian transcriptions indicate that the initial alef of Itobaal
might be elided in pronunciation. (1) King of Tyre and Sidon,
ca. 887–856 B.C.E., father of Jezebel (I Kings 16:31; Jos., Ant.,
8:317). According to Menander of Ephesus, the historian of
Phoenicia quoted by Josephus, Ethbaal (Ithobalos) was a priest
of Astarte (as is attested of later kings of Sidon), who became
king by murdering his predecessor, and ruled for 32 years (Jos.,
Apion, 1:123). A year-long drought in his reign (identified by
Josephus as that in Ahab’s reign, cf. I Kings 17) ended, according to Menander, when Ethbaal “made supplications to thegods, whereupon a heavy thunderstorm broke out” (Jos., Ant.,
8:324). He founded the Phoenician city Botrys and the Libyan

ETHICAL CULTURE, an American nontheistic movement
based on a humanist ideology. From the time of its establishment in 1876, the Ethical Culture movement has appealed toa relatively well-educated, middle- and upper-class, socially
idealistic public. Originally and until about 1945, the people
attracted to this movement were residents of major urban centers: New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, St. Louis. Felix *Adler(1851–1933), the leading figure of the first half century of the
movement, was deeply influenced in his idealism by both
the American transcendentalist Ralph Waldo Emerson and
the German transcendentalist Immanuel Kant. Adler’s personal variation of Kant’s ethic was developed into a “religionof duty,” purportedly neutral on theological and metaphysical questions.
Among the comparatively small number of followers ofAdler (never more than about 5,000), Jews of German background were prominent in New York City; outside of New
York, Germans of Christian background outnumbered theJews. Again, as the social service activities of the New Yorkgroup entered the Lower East Side, some of the young Jews ofEastern European backgrounds joined the movement; nothingcomparable occurred in other urban centers. Thus it is possible to describe the New York Society for Ethical Culture as

524

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: Albright, Arch Rel, 126–7, 205; W.F. Albright,
Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (1968), 217–8; Maisler (Mazar), in:EM, 1 (1950), 276–7 (incl. bibl.); Sarna, in: JBL (1955), 272ff. Add. Bibliography: M. Cogan, I Kings (2000), 222.
[Jeffrey Howard Tigay]

ethical literaturelargely an offshoot of German Reform Judaism, while describing the other Ethical Culture societies as largely offshoots ofliberal German Protestantism.
The later philosophical orientation of the Ethical Culture
movement was influenced by American humanistic and naturalistic ideas, and its audience became increasingly a Jewish
and non-Jewish suburban public. The suburban societies havealso served as compromise religious “homes” for couples of
mixed background.
In keeping with the movement’s mandate to affirm theimportance of working to make people’s lives and the world
at large more humane, the American Ethical Union takes positions on specific issues at delegated national assemblies andmeetings, striving to apply its ideals to current concerns. Local
Ethical Societies engage in a wide range of service, humanitarian, and social change projects. An affiliate of the AEU, the National Service Conference, works with other non-governmental organizations at the United Nations and within the AEU on
ethical peace-building and other programs. The Washington
Ethical Action Office works toward achieving its selected goals
by activities such as lobbying and disseminating information
through the Washington Ethical Action Report.
Since 1990, some of the resolutions passed by the American Ethical Union include opposing capital punishment,
seeking a peaceful solution to the Middle East conflict by ensuring a Palestinian state and a secure Israel, supporting thelegalization of gay marriages, and advocating free choice regarding abortion.
On the international front, the International Humanistand Ethical Union has special consultative status with the UN,
general consultative status at UNICEF and the Council of Europe, and maintains operational relations with UNESCO.
Succeeding Adler, David Algernon *Black led the movement into the 1980s.
Bibliography: American Ethical Union, Ethical Religion(1940); D.S. Muzzey, Ethical Religion (1943); idem, Ethical Imperatives (1946); H. Neumann, Spokesman for Ethical Religion (1951); H.
Radest, Toward Common Ground: The Story of the Ethical Societies
in the United States (1969). Add. Bibliography: C. Neuhaus, A
Lively Connection: Intimate Encounters with the Ethical Movement in
America (1978); H. Friess, Felix Adler & Ethical Culture: Memories &Studies (1981); E. Ericson (ed.), The Humanist Way: An Introduction
to Ethical Humanist Religion (1988); H. Radest, Can We Teach Ethics?
(1989); H. Radest, Felix Adler: An Ethical Culture (1998).
[Joseph L. Blau / Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]ETHICAL LITERATURE (Heb. ‫ ִס ְפרוּת ַה ּמו ָּסר‬, sifrut ha-musar). There is no specific ethical literature as such in the biblical and talmudic period insofar as a systematic formulationof Jewish *ethics is concerned. Even the Wisdom *literatureof the Bible, though entirely ethical in content, does not aim
at giving a systematic exposition of this science of morals andhuman duties, but confines itself to apothegms and unconnected moral sayings. The same is true of the tractate *Avot,
the only wholly ethical tractate of the Mishnah, which consists largely of the favorite ethical maxims of individual rabbis,
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

and later works, such as *Derekh Ereẓ and *Kallah. The ethicalprinciples and concepts of Judaism are scattered throughout
the vast area of rabbinic literature and it was only in the Middle Ages that this data was used as the basis of ethical works
and from this time ethical literature becomes a specific genreof Jewish literature.
The term “ethical literature,” applied to a type of Hebrew literature, has two different meanings. Both refer to an
important part of Hebrew literature in medieval and earlymodern times, but while one denotes a literary form which
encompasses a group of works closely resembling each otherstructurally, the other denotes a literary purpose expressed invarious literary forms. Traditional authors generally use theterm in the first sense, while the latter sense is preferred bymodern scholars.
Literary Form
“CLASSICAL” ETHICAL LITERATURE. These writings arein book form and aim at instructing the Jew in religious andmoral behavior. Structurally, the books are uniform: each is
divided according to the component parts of the ideal righteous way of life; the material is treated methodically – analyzing, explaining, and demonstrating how to achieve eachmoral virtue (usually treated in a separate chapter or section)in the author’s ethical system.
The first major work in “classical” ethical literature, Ḥ ovot
ha-Levavot, by Baḥ ya b. Joseph ibn *Paquda (written in the
11t century), postulates ten religious and moral virtues, eachforming the subject of a separate chapter. In Ma’alot ha-Middot, Jehiel b. Jekuthiel *Anav of Rome expounds 24 ethicalprinciples of perfect moral conduct (positive and negative –the latter to be avoided). Baḥ ya b. Asher, one of the mostprominent kabbalists in Spain, lists and analyzes the components of moral perfection in alphabetical order in Kad haKemaḥ , while Moses Ḥ ayyim *Luzzatto’s major ethical work
Mesillat Yesharim, constructed in the tradition of the baraita
of R. *Phinehas b. Jair, enumerates the main steps to perfection and holiness. Writings falling into this structural category
form the main body of the traditional ethical literature.
ETHICAL MONOGRAPHS. Closely following the formalistic
pattern of “classical” ethical literature, ethical monographs
concentrate on one particular stage in the journey to religious perfection. The first major work of this kind was the
Sha’arei Teshuvah by *Jonah b. Abraham Gerondi. In this work
the author analyzes every situation and problem that might
possibly confront a repentant sinner and advises him how topurge himself completely of the effects of sin. Jonah Gerondi
paved the way for what was to become one of the major literary forms in medieval Hebrew literature.
Literary Purpose
The second meaning of the term ethical literature includes,
besides the two categories mentioned (the classical ethicalwriting and the ethical monograph), nine literary forms,
which, though structurally very different, have the same ob-525ethical literature
jective – to posit ethical and religious principles. The search
for moral and spiritual perfection is the purpose of ethical literature just as practical observance of mitzvot is the purposeof halakhic literature.
HOMILETIC LITERATURE. Hebrew medieval *homiletic literature is didactic and, in this sense, does not differ from “classical” ethical writings. The difference between the two is in
their methods. Homiletic literature forms the bulk of ethicalliterature and for centuries influenced Jewish life more thanany of the other ethical literary writings. Except for halakhic
literature, no other type of Hebrew literature has achieved sucha variety in content and form, has inspired authors over sucha long period, and has reached such wide audiences.
ETHICAL WILLS. Developed in Germany, France, and Spainfrom the 11t to the 13t centuries, writers have used this literary form until modern times. *Ethical “wills” usually refer toshort, concise works in which the main principles of moral
behavior are expounded and which are written in the formof a father’s last words to his children. Frequently, the “will”
is nothing but a literary cliché, and quite often was applied toshort ethical works not really intended as “wills.” Many of theworks in this category are pseudepigraphic and are later compilations attributed to early scholars.
ETHICAL LETTERS. This form includes actual letters in which
the writer instructs either his son or another person, who was
far away, to live a moral life; and short ethical treatises, called“a letter” (“iggeret”), which is also the conventional name applied to any short work. *Naḥ manides’ letters to his sons belong to the first category, whereas the work “Iggeret ha-Musar”
by R. Shem Tov *Falaquera is typical of the second.

Gerondi, and later Ẓ eidah la-Derekh by *Menahem b. Aaron
ibn Zeraḥ , but it was still popular, mainly in Eastern Europe,in the 17t and 18t centuries.
EULOGIES. This type of ethical literature belongs to homiletics because eulogies – written obituaries at least – were considered homilies. Eulogies are usually didactic with the virtuesof the mourned dead serving as emulative qualities. Hundreds
were printed, either as separate booklets or forming parts ofa more general homiletic work.
COLLECTIONS OF ETHICAL FABLES AND EPIGRAMS. The
first collections were influenced by Arabic works; sometimes
these compilations were translations from the Arabic (e.g.,
Musrei ha-Pilosofim, attributed to Isḥ aq ibn Hunayn or *Mivhar ha-Peninim, attributed to R. Solomon b. Judah ibn *Gabirol, or *Kalila and Dimna).
ETHICAL POETRY. Ethical treatises were sometimes written
in verse. Structurally, many of them follow biblical examples,
especially the Proverbs, and list the commandments in poetical form. One of the earliest works in this literary form, Shirei
Musar Haskel (1505), was attributed to *Hai Gaon. Some of
the maqāma literature should also be included (Beḥ inat Olamby *Jedaiah ha-Penini, and Iggeret ha-Musar and Sefer Mevakkesh by Falaquera).

HANHAGOT LITERATURE. Unlike the genres describedabove, which usually strive to teach the most basic and essential principles of ethical behavior, hanhagot literature concentrates on small practical details and not on general spiritualfundaments. The objective – to instruct the individual in theminutest details of daily behavior – makes use both of halakhic laws and of ethical principles. Hanhagot literature began to develop in the 13t-century Sefer ha-Yirah by R. Jonah

INTERPRETATIONS OF THE BOOK OF PROVERBS AND OF
THE TRACTATE AVOT. The Book of Proverbs and Avot,
mainly concerned with ethics, formed the basis of many medieval ethical writings. The interpretation served as a vehicle
for the author’s own concepts of Jewish ethics. Popular in medieval literature, these commentaries were usually regarded
as independent works of ethics, and not part of the literatureof exegesis and interpretation.
The objective of all these literary forms is to give workable and practical answers to the moral problems of the times.
Their answers however were derived from theological considerations which lie outside the scope of ethical literature. Conceptually, ethical literature is not original in any of the disciplines it draws upon: theology, anthropology, philosophy, or
psychology. The new concepts which originated in theological and theosophical literature were adapted to everyday religious life by ethical literature. It expressed them in different
literary forms to make them acceptable to the public at large
and it is thus, in form rather than in content, that ethical literature was original. Forms of expression usually do not interest theological innovators who mainly address themselvesto the intellectual elite of the community, but a writer of an
ethical work cannot disregard them. Since his main objective
is to influence the life and religious behavior of the community
as a whole, the ethical writer cannot afford to address only asegment of the public; consequently structural considerations
play an important role.
Two unrelated processes have thus shaped the history of
ethical literature: (a) the development of the literary forms as
such; (b) the general development of Jewish religious thought

526

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

MORALISTIC STORYBOOKS. One of the earliest literary forms
used by writers of ethical literature, the first moralistic storybook, *Midrash Aseret ha-Dibberot, a collection of moralistic
tales in the form of exempla and short homilies, was probably written in the geonic period. Structurally, the work is aseries of stories which exemplify the way to achieve complete
devotion to each one of the Ten Commandments. *Nissim
b. Jacob b. Nissim ibn Shahin’s Sefer ha-Ma’asiyyot (“Book of
Tales”), better known as Ḥ ibbur Yafeh me-ha-Yeshu’ah, is also
an early work (11t century) expressed in this form. Originally
written in Arabic, it was translated into Hebrew and as suchinfluenced later Jewish writers. After the 15t century, moralistic-storybook writing became more common in Yiddish literature than in Hebrew.

ethical literatureon which ethical literature drew for its content and which it
popularized. The merger of these two processes is the reason
why ethical literature tends to be more conservative, less radical and innovative, than the theological movements in which
the concepts it used originated. This phenomenon is apparent at every stage of the history of ethical literature, excluding
perhaps the first period in Spain (see below). Ethical literature, in adapting new ideas, couched them in traditional literary genres for which it drew on aggadic lore. All the ethicalwriters used the aggadic form. The fusion of the old and thenew, in form and content, made ethical literature the catalytic
agent that preserved the new ideas and introduced them into
the bloodstream of Judaism. Ethical literature modified themore radical implications of these concepts, and made them
acceptable to the traditional community at large.
Since the ideas that ethical literature propounded originated with the ideological and theological movements in medieval Judaism, its history also reflects the development ofthese movements. Consequently there are four types of Hebrew medieval ethical literature: philosophical, rabbinic, Ashkenazi-ḥ asidic (see *Hasidei Ashkenaz), and kabbalistic; thelast greatly influenced modern ḥ asidic ethical literature. Thesetestify to four distinct ideological movements. The development of each of these types will be briefly studied.
Philosophical-Ethical Literature
The beginnings of Jewish ethical literature in the Middle
Ages are rooted in the development of Jewish philosophy ofthat period. The last chapter of Emunot ve-De’ot by SaadiahGaon (ninth century), which is on human behavior, may be
regarded as the first Jewish medieval work in ethics. Distinct
from the body of the book, both because of its form and because of its contents, it seems to be a separate work on ethics.
The philosophical basis of Saadiah’s ethical concepts did not
develop out of earlier Jewish thought, and this might be thereason why this part of his work did not have a lasting influence on later Jewish ethical writings. Tikkun Middot ha-Nefesh(11t century) by Solomon ibn Gabirol suffered a similar fate,probably because the ethical system developed in the work
was also alien to Jewish thought and did not fit into the accepted morals and ethics of the talmudic aggadah. Ibn Gabirol
tried to show that the fusion of the four essential elements inmedieval thought and the five senses formed the bases of all
human characteristics.
Both works are written in Arabic, and both were translated (early 12t century) into Hebrew by R. Judah ibn Tibbon.
They are an attempt at introducing a “pure ethic” into Jewish
philosophy – a direct application of alien philosophical ideas
to the field of Jewish ethics, without either blending them with,or using, the wealth of random ethical material already existing in Jewish tradition. In Sefer ha-Ma’asiyyot, a book of ethics which appeared at about the same time (11t century), also
written in Arabic, but which was early translated into Hebrew,
the author, R. Nissim b. Jacob b. Nissim ibn Shahin, used the
opposite approach to that of Saadiah Gaon’s and Ibn Gabirol’s.

He collected ethical stories and sayings from the Talmud towhich he added medieval tales and concepts scarcely using
philosophical ideas and applying no ethical system. It cameto be widely used and accepted in its Hebrew version by all
later writers of the ethical tale.
These works were precursory to the body of Jewish philosophical writings and it was Ḥ ovot ha-Levavot of Baḥ ya ibn
Paquda, one of the most penetrating works in medieval literature, which gave impetus to this literature. The first medieval Jewish work to evolve an ethical system rooted in Jewish
thought, it tried to come to grips with the fundamental spiritual problems that troubled the medieval Jewish mind. Whilethe influence of contemporary medieval philosophy can easily
be detected, especially in the first section which is a philosophical treatise on the unity of God, Baḥ ya ibn Paquda also culledfrom such sources as biblical and rabbinic literatures, and Arabic proverbs, tales, and epigrams to create what is primarily an
ethical guide. The most influential single Jewish work in ethics
in a period of over 600 years, its impact may be partly attributed to the author’s profound and fundamental treatment ofwhat was probably the most challenging question to Judaism
at the time – the inner quality of religious life.
All major medieval ethical works came to grapple withthis basic and crucial problem which essentially grew out of anage that had adopted the Platonic concept of matter and spirit
being antagonistic elements and consequently creating a rift
within man. The ethical and spiritual teachings in the Talmud
had come to be relegated to a secondary position and Judaism
thus came to be seen as a materialistic religion, based on practical deeds and actions, and not on spiritual attitudes which,to the medieval scholars, seemed the essence of religious life.
Jewish moralists were therefore confronted with the problem
of reconciling the contemporary Jewish concept of religious
life which was practically orientated and consequently seen
as inferior, with the new ideas which saw religion almost exclusively in a spiritual light. While this question was also considered from a purely philosophical point of view, and thus
formed the basis of many medieval philosophical writings, itmost needed to be answered in the sphere of morals and ethics
to which the community at large turned for guidance.
The conflict was resolved in ethical literature througha reinterpretation of the ancient Jewish heritage in which
its spiritual values were stressed in the light of the moral
and ethical concepts of the age. Nowhere was the problem
more sharply and clearly stated than in the introduction toḤ ovot ha-Levavot. Baḥ ya ibn Paquda’s ethical system, except
for minor changes and variations, was generally accepted byphilosophical-ethical literature. He stressed: (a) the idea ofkavvanah – any ritual act as such does not represent spiritual fulfillment, unless it is performed with the right kavvanah (awareness and intention); the deed becomes a means in
the fulfillment of a religious duty. Religious value thus alsocame to be attached to the spiritual attitude of the doer, andnot to the deed alone; (b) a whole system of purely spiritualcommandments – the ḥ ovot ha-levavot, which gave the title

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6527

ethical literature
to the work. Spiritual commandments, according to Baḥ ya
ibn Paquda, are those that are completely detached from any
physical act, and they, therefore, do not include the traditionally “spiritual” religious acts of prayer and study, because themouth or the eyes (physical organs) are required in their performance. These commandments he set out as: reaffirmationof God’s unity, recognition of His workings in the world, divine worship, trust in God, sincerity of purpose, humanity, repentance, self-examination, asceticism, and the love of God.
With variations in emphasis, this double or triple system of commandments (practical commandments, kavvanah,
and ḥ ovot ha-levavot) is found in other philosophical-ethicalwritings: Hegyon ha-Nefesh by *Abraham b. Ḥ iyya ha-Nasiof Barcelona, in which the spiritual meaning of repentanceis described; Yesod Mora in which Abraham *Ibn Ezra gave aspiritual foundation to the commandments; and especially inthe works of *Maimonides. The latter, sometimes orientatedtoward “purely philosophical ethics” as in Shemonah Perakim,
are also invested with philosophical and spiritual-moral commandments which complement the practical laws, as in Sefer
ha-Madda of the Mishneh Torah. These works ushered in a new
period in ethical literature: writings were now in Hebrew andthe need to establish a link between the new philosophicalethical ideas, directed toward the spiritualization and immanence of religious life, and the older more traditional Jewish
concepts, became more pronounced. For the Jewish philosophers it had been easier to express “pure philosophy” in Arabic
rather than in Hebrew. Henceforth however, even philosophers
based their ethical works on biblical passages and talmudic
sayings, and thus integrated more closely the ancient Jewish
ethical teachings with the new philosophical-ethical ideas.
The relationship between moral perfection and maximum religious fulfillment was one of the main problems that
confronted Hebrew philosophers. Maximum fulfillment wasusually understood as philosophical contemplation, which
had nothing to do with social life and ethical behavior. Was
ethics, therefore, to be considered only as a means toward attaining this religious fulfillment, or was ethics an end in itself?
Maimonides’ writings contain both contradictory concepts;
in most places Maimonides subordinates ethics to philosophy
but there are places where he sees ethical behavior as the best
possible approach to God which man can achieve. Most of
the followers of Maimonides tended to see ethics as a means
and not as a religious end, e.g., Shem Tov Falaquera’s Sefer haMa’alot. This approach to ethics possibly contributed to thefact that philosophical-ethical literature after the 13t century
ceased to be a vehicle of expression of the ethician.
The search for the inner religious quality of life had foundexpression in ethical literature before Maimonides, but especially after him philosophers tried to give rational and spiritualreasons for the practical commandments. The commandments
were thus considered only seemingly materialistic, and theirtrue essence was seen as spiritual. During the 13t century Jewish thought used allegorization as a means to reveal the hidden spiritual meaning of the commandments and the Torah,thus breaking with the Maimonidean rationale. Malmad haTalmidim, by Jacob b. Abba Mari b. Samson *Anatoli, and thepolemic and exegetic writings of Zerahiah b. Isaac b. Shealtiel *Gracian (Ḥ en) demonstrate this trend. This development
within philosophical-ethical literature was later blamed for theconversion of so many Jews during the Spanish persecutionsof the late 14t and the 15t centuries: the contention of theseJews had been that if the true meaning of the commandments
was a hidden spiritual one, why sacrifice one’s life in order topreserve the outer meaningless, material shell?

528

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Rabbinic-Ethical Literature
The rise of rabbinic-ethical literature, especially in 13t-century Spain, Provence, and Italy, came as a reaction to such
trends and was a revolt against Jewish philosophy influenced
by Aristotelian concepts. Rabbinic-ethical literature was receptive to organized ethical thought; its aim, however, was toshow that a moral system was already existent in the aggadah
and in the Talmud. Jonah Gerondi, one of the first Hebrew
ethicians, dedicated his major ethical work Sha’arei Teshuvah(“The Gates of Repentance”) to the problem of repentance,much as Abraham b. Hiyya had done a hundred years earlier.
According to him, a systematic arrangement of the old talmudic sayings together with a suitable exegetical commentary
would present a complete and satisfactory system. Jonah andthe other writers of this literature tried especially to emphasize the spiritual dicta found in older Jewish tradition, thus
minimizing and possibly reconciling the antithesis between
medieval beliefs and this older tradition.
It is significant that many of the writers of rabbinic-ethical literature were kabbalists, though they did not reveal their
mystic ideas in their popular ethical works. Naḥ manides’ ethical treatise, Sha’ar ha-Gemul, discusses the various categoriesof the just and the wicked and their retribution in the world
to come. Baḥ ya b. Asher wrote a very popular rabbinic-ethicalwork, Kad ha-Kemaḥ , in which, following the rabbinic-spiritualistic method, he enumerates alphabetically and studies
different ethical problems. These and other ethicians (somemodern scholars even maintain that Jonah Gerondi had beena kabbalist) presented the public with a rabbinic-ethical system, while in their closed mystical circles they resolved theantithesis between the spirituality of religion and the material
aspect of the Torah through mystic speculation.
There were, however, some rabbinic-ethical writers who
merely tried to compile and systematize the different talmudic-ethical writings. Thus, most of Ma’alot ha-Middot by Jehielb. Jekuthiel Anav is a collection of talmudic and midrashic sayings arranged according to theme and content. The objectiveof later works, e.g., the two versions of Menorat ha-Ma’or, one
by Israel *Al-Nakawa b. Joseph of Toledo, the other by Isaac*Aboab, was similar. Rabbinic-ethical literature, therefore,
did not try to innovate, but to apply traditional Jewish ethics
to the medieval world. In the process, it even revived someof the old forms of aggadic literature which came to serve as
vehicles of expression.

ethical literature
Ashkenazi-Ḥ asidic Literature
The creative verve of the Ḥ asidei Ashkenaz movement in Germany expressed itself in a body of ethical writings (see Sefer*Ḥ asidim (first published 1538, Bologna), *Judah b. Samuelhe-Ḥ asid of Regensburg, *Samuel b. Kalonymus he-Ḥ asidof Speyer, and *Eleazar b. Judah b. Kalonymus of Worms)
that deviate in character from the philosophical-ethical literature and rabbinic-ethical literature of the time. (The former, however, had already reached its zenith when Ashkenaziḥ asidic literature started to develop, while the latter began at
the same time.) While Sefer Ḥ asidim, a work of major scope,
epitomizes Ashkenazi-ḥ asidic literature, writings of lesser
range and reputation are equally representative, e.g., the introductory chapters to the halakhic work Sefer ha-Roke’aḥ by*Eleazar of Worms and the ethical works Sefer ha-Gan (1899)
by Isaac b. Eliezer and Sefer Ḥ asidim Katan (1866) by Moses
b. Eleazar ha-Kohen (14t and 15t centuries) are almost exclusively based on Ashkenazi-ḥ asidic moral teachings. The problems which faced the Ashkenazi ethician, essentially the sameas those that confronted the Hebrew thinkers of Spain, Italy,
and Provence, were approached differently and were expressed
neither in the variety of forms nor given the systematic treatment of the philosophical-ethical and rabbinic-ethical literatures of the south. The teachings of Greco-Arabic philosophy
had not reached and therefore had not influenced the Jewish
communities in Germany and in northern France. Thus while
medieval European thinkers were essentially confronted by
the same challenge, their response grew out of their immediate cultural environment.
Ashkenazi-ḥ asidic literature is basically less abstract (lessconsideration is given to principles and fundamentals andmore attention is paid to actual situations and concrete problems) than the literatures of the south. Structurally, the two
types of literary writings also differ widely. Sefer Ḥ asidim is notpatterned on the methodical division of Ḥ ovot ha-Levavot. It iscomprised of 2,000 short random passages in which every situation and every phase of moral and religious life is discussed.
Thus Ashkenazi-ethical thinking was much more concernedwith the specific problems to which local historical conditions
gave rise than were their southern counterparts.
The approach of the Ḥ asidei Ashkenaz to the conceptof the spiritual essence of religious and moral behavior andtheir interpretation of the practical commandments of theold teachings became the classical solution to all such questions in rabbinic literature. They contended that all commandments and ethical demands made upon man by God are a test
in order to examine man’s devotion to his creator. The religious value of certain deeds therefore does not lie in the actual performance but in the spiritual and religious effort that
constitutes the action, e.g., a rich man who paid the ransom
for a captured Jew and released him does not attain the spiritual height of the poor man who, with much effort, collected
the ransom from many people, but upon paying the money
found that the Jew had already been released. It is not the deedalone that counts, but the effort and devotion which God ex-pects of man in following His will. Thus the reasons for (andeven the meaning of) the commandments become negligible
and even irrelevant: God in His infinite wisdom chose certain
deeds by which to try man; they could be any deeds. Whatis important is that God’s will was revealed through certain
commandments and through certain ethical standards; it is
not for man to ask why.
Ashkenazi Ḥ asidim thus arrived at a certain scale of religious and ethical values and of commandments which ranged
from the most difficult and trying precepts to acts which everybody could easily perform; the latter were therefore considered secondary. The religious value in the study of thetalmudic tractate Mo’ed Katan, which deals with death andmourning, is higher than that of the study of other tractates.
The more a commandment contradicts average human desires and instincts, the more religious value is attached to it.
Thus, the greatest sacrifice that man can possibly make – todie for *kiddush ha-Shem (be martyred in the sanctificationof God’s name) – is man’s supreme religious fulfillment. Thisview, prevalent during the times of the *Crusades, was able totake root in an age when thousands of Jews in Germany andnorthern France died for kiddush ha-Shem.
The Ashkenazi-ḥ asidic movement thus gave new relevance and new spiritual meaning even to the simplest andmost practical of the religious and moral commandments. A
more radical principle which also directly affected a whole pattern of behavior was the distinction made between din Torah(the “earthly law”) and din shamayim (the “heavenly law”).
Strict observance of the Torah precepts does not necessarily lead to the highest religious fulfillment; for this a higher
moral law – din shamayim, the law of conscience – is necessary. According to the Torah, a thief is a thief; but according
to din shamayim a clear distinction must be made between
a man who steals bread out of hunger and a rich man who
steals in order to further enrich himself. This does not meanthat the laws of the Torah should be abandoned; a pious man
however should try to transcend them and follow a higher
spiritual and moral law.
During the 12t and 13t centuries, when Ashkenaziḥ asidic theology and ethics flourished, Jewish life and thoughtof southern and northern Europe were clearly distinct: they
were almost two separate cultures. The 13t century saw theslow bridging of the gulf – Ashkenazi ideas spread to southern Europe where they influenced rabbinic-ethical writers,
and after the expulsion from Spain in 1492, Ashkenazi-ḥ asidic
ethics were a bulwark on which Judaism drew, to reorientate
itself ideologically after the great tragedy.
Creativity in philosophical-ethical thought came to an
end with the expulsion from Spain, mainly because philosophy was seen as a contributory factor to the conversion of
hundreds of thousands of Spanish Jews. Writers like Josephb. Ḥ ayyim *Jabez and Isaac Abrabanel clearly denounced current Jewish philosophical thinking. It was a time when Judaism seemed to have fallen into a theological void – the oldbeliefs were shattered by the tragedy, and for a time nothing,

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6529

ethical literature

Kabbalistic-Ethical Literature
The early European kabbalists usually tended to confine themselves to their closed circles and did not want to turn the
Kabbalah into a popular literature. The center of kabbalistic
learning established in Safed during the 16t century, however,created a body of moral writings which were directed toward
the Jewish community at large and which started the 300-year
period of kabbalistic-ethical literature.
This literature drew on earlier kabbalistic works, especially the *Zohar, as well as on Ashkenazi-ḥ asidic ethics andrabbinic-ethical thought. Using the Kabbalah and its mysticalsystem as a basis, kabbalistic-ethical teachings were formulated along the same strong systematic lines. Central to kabbalistic-ethical literature are two closely related concepts: (1) an
ethical dogma in which the commandments are conceived
symbolically; (2) the idea that the temporal world reflects the
eternal world and vice versa and that there is an interdependence between the performance of deeds on this earth andprocesses in the divine mystical world. The symbolic approachto the commandments demanded of man to adhere to themwith all his might because they reflect divine mystical actions.
Through the idea of reflective worlds, man’s deeds formed partof the divine drama, and enabled man by means of his action
to influence the mystical powers. Moses b. Jacob *Cordovero’s
Tomer Devorah, one of the first kabbalistic ethical works of thisperiod, is a detailed guide to moral behavior and how suchconduct could and should reflect divine essences and satisfy
divine requirements. His pupil and follower, *Elijah b. Moses
de Vidas, the author of Reshit Ḥ okhmah, developed the ideathat man’s moral deeds are reflected in the heavenly struggle
between good and evil. The *Kabbalah of Isaac *Luria, whichdeveloped in the last part of the 16t century, strengthened thisconcept by stressing even more man’s responsibility in the war
raging in the mystical spheres.
The kabbalistic-ethical literature, which, from the 17t
century onward continued to develop in Eastern Europe,
was based almost exclusively on Lurianic teachings. It emphasized more strongly the power of Satan and the consequences that sin has in the divine world. Works like Ẓ evi
Hirsch *Koidonover’s Kav ha-Yashar, which was very popular,used kabbalistic-Lurianic teachings to warn the reader against
the havoc which sin might wreak on the sinner as such, andon the world as a whole.
Kabbalistic theosophy firmly rooted this literature insystematic mystical reasoning and gave it a theological struc-ture. The actual teachings, the positive and negative precepts,
did not, however (with a few exceptions, like the custom of
tikkun, see *Kabbalah), originate with the kabbalist but were
culled from older ethical literature: rabbinic and Ashkenaziḥ asidic.
The Shabbatean movement, which deeply influenced
all of Judaism in the second half of the 17t century, did
not use ethical literature as a vehicle of expression (see *Shabbetai Zevi). Despite the ethical work Tikkunei Teshuvah (published by I. Tishby) by *Nathan of Gaza, most of the Shabbatean literature was theosophical in nature. Some of the
Shabbateans who wrote popular ethical works tended to conceal their theological views and only occasional allusions canbe found.
During the 18t century two converging trends in Jewish
thought – kabbalism and messianism – gave rise to the kabbalistic-ethical works of Moses Ḥ ayyim *Luzzatto: Mesillat
Yesharim, Da’at Tevunot, and Derekh ha-Shem. The controversy that raged around Luzzatto, one of the major ethiciansin Jewish literature, forced him to conceal the kabbalistic elements in his works through the use of pseudo-philosophicallanguage and terms. His works, which became popular toward
the end of the century, are read to this day.
Ḥ asidic literature of the late 18t century and throughout the 19t century is almost exclusively ethical. Most of it iscomprised of homilies in which moral behavior is strongly
stressed; some of the writings, however, are purely ethicalin nature, e.g., Sefer ha-Middot by R. *Naḥ man of Bratslav
or Tanya by R. *Shneur Zalman of Lyady. The collectionsof ḥ asidic stories and fables are usually didactic and havean ethical theme. The Mitnaggedim, opponents of Ḥ asidism,
also based their teachings on Lurianic ethical literature.
From their ranks sprang the *Musar movement which tried
to introduce the study of major ethical works into the yeshivot and for whom moral behavior became the greatest religious fulfillment man could aspire to. Haskalah literature
at the end of the 18t and the beginning of the 19t centuries
also used the traditions of ethical literature in its didactic endeavors.
Hebrew ethical literature, a diversified corpus of writings,
is characterized by an underlying unity which cuts across not
only the divergent ideological movements out of which theliterature grew and which it represents, but also subsumes
the various vehicles of expression used by ethicians. Hebrew
ethical writers were primarily concerned with a number of
elemental universal problems. The solutions they presented,
while reflecting the various ideologies, are basically a responseto the most crucial point at hand – man and the human condition, his position in the cosmos, and his attitude to the waysof God. They thus transcended the specific dogma to which
they adhered and considered the dilemma of man in its universal aspects. Fundamental to this literature are such questions as: the ill fate suffered by the just and the success enjoyedby the wicked in this life; the ways of divine judgment; God’s
knowledge and active management of the temporal world;

530

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6at least nothing systematic and of embracing scope, seemed
to replace philosophical thinking. A new theological outlook,the *Kabbalah, which came to form the largest body of ethical writings in Jewish literature, finally gave literary expression to Jewish life and its aspirations in the aftermath of theexpulsion. Ashkenazi-ḥ asidic ethical thought had been only atemporary moral and spiritual support to the Jews of southern
Europe and it was integrated into the *Kabbalah which began
to develop during the 16t century.

ethics
why the wicked were created; freedom of choice in ethicaland religious matters and the boundaries of that freedom; themeaning of sin and in what relation does the repentant sinnerstand to the just who has never sinned; the relation between
fear of God motivated by the thought of retributive justiceand fear of God aroused by God’s greatness; the relationshipbetween the worship of God through fear and the worship of
God through love; the meaning of devekut (communion withGod) and the ways to achieve it; the essence of kavvanah andits place in ethical life; the right attitude to Gentiles; the fateof the just and the wicked after death; the essence of the soul;existence after the resurrection; social behavior in and toward
the family; and similar questions which transcend time andspace to create one unifying body of literary writings. Someof the answers are dictated by the special character and inclinations of the writer more so than by the movement to which
he belonged.
Unlike the philosopher and theologian, the ethician is
faced with concrete situations, actual people; his responses
are therefore more pragmatic and less dogmatic – he tackles
the questions practically and in human terms. Ethical literature thus, through the uniqueness of this aspect of its character – the specific moral confrontation with man’s universal
dilemma – has carved out for itself an independent place inHebrew literature and it is not merely another branch of theological literature.
Form as much as content was a unifying factor in the
corpus of ethical writings that classified it into a literature.
Ethicians were obliged to use different literary means in orderthat their works might be accepted by a wide and sometimes
uneducated public. This unavoidable emphasis on form, andnot only on content, placed ethical literature into a separate
category and set it apart from the other branches of religious
thinking. The constant use of fables, stories, epigrams, jokes,
and hagiography as vehicles of expression created a distinct
literature which was read not only for didactic purposes but
also to be enjoyed. The literary and didactic role played by literature during the Middle Ages is comparable to that of fiction in modern times.
Bibliography: S.D. Breslauer, Contemporary Jewish Ethics: A
Bibliographical Survey (1985); S.D. Breslauer, Modern Jewish Morality:
A Bibliographical Survey (1986); I. Bettan, Studies in Jewish Preaching(1939); Werblowsky, in: Annual of Jewish Studies, 1 (1964), 95–139; L.
Roth (ed.), Likkut ha-De’ot ve-ha-Middot… (19462); I. Heinemann,Ta’amei ha-Mitzvot be-Sifrut Yisrael, 1 (1959); idem, in HUCA, 23 pt.
1 (1950/51), 611–43; I. Tishby, Mishnat ha-Zohar, 2 (1961), 247–362,
581–606, 655–761; idem, Mivḥ ar Sifrut ha-Musar (in press); G. Scholem, On Kabbalah and its Symbolism (1965), passim; idem, Von der
mystischen Gestalt der Gottheit (1962), passim; G. Vajda, La Théologie
ascétique de Baḥ ya Ibn Paquda (1947); idem, L’amour de Dieu dansla théologie juive du Moyen Age (1957); Dan, in: Molad, 22 (1964),
82–84; S. Shalem, Rabbi Moshe Alsheikh (1966); I. Abrahams (ed.),Hebrew Ethical Wills, 2 vols. (1948), includes bibl.; Waxman, Literature, 1 (19602), 355–71, 459–62; 2 (19602), 271–300, 643–49; 3 (19602),
640–704; 4 (19602) sects. 121–7, and index.
[Joseph Dan]ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

ETHICS.

in the bible
There is no abstract, comprehensive concept in the Bible
which parallels the modern concept of “ethics.” The term musar designates “ethics” in later Hebrew, but in the Bible it indicates merely the educational function fulfilled by the father(Prov. 1:8) and is close in meaning to “rebuke.” In the Bible ethical demands are considered an essential part of the demands
God places upon man. This close connection between the ethical and religious realms (although the two are not completely
identified) is one of the principal characteristics of the Bible;
hence, the central position of ethics throughout the Bible. Accordingly, the Bible had a decisive influence upon the moldingof ethics in European culture in general, both directly and indirectly through the ethical teachings in apocryphal literature(see *Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha) and the New Testament
which are based on biblical ethics.
Social Ethics
The command to refrain from harming one’s fellow man andto avoid doing evil to the weak is fundamental to biblical ethics. Most of the ethical commands specified in the Bible belong to this category: due justice (Ex. 23:1–2; Deut. 16:18–20);
avoidance of bribery (e.g., Ex. 23:8), robbery, and oppression (Ex. 22:20; Deut. 24:14); defense of the *widow and the*orphan; compassionate behavior toward the *slave; and theprohibition of gossip. Added to these were the commands tosustain the poor (Deut. 15:7–11), feed the hungry, and clothe
the naked (Isa. 58:7; Ezek. 18:7). The radical but logical conclusion derived from this is that man is obliged to suppress
his desires and feed even his enemy (Prov. 25:21), return his
enemy’s lost property, and help him raise his ass which is
prostrate under its burden (Ex. 23:4–5). Biblical ethics, which
cautions man to love and respect his fellow man, reaches its
highest level in the commandment: “You shall not hate yourkinsman in your heart, reprove your neighbor,” which concludes with “Love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord”(Lev. 19:17–18). The principle aim of this commandment, as ofothers, is the avoidance of unfounded hatred which destroys
the life of the society.
The general trend of social ethics was summed up by theprophets who said: “Hate evil and love good and establish justice in the gate” (Amos 5:15); and similarly: “He has told you,
O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you
but to do justice and love kindness, and to walk humbly withyour God” (Micah 6:8). These passages and their like not only
summarize the teaching of ethics, but also place it at the centerof the Israelite faith. A summation of biblical ethical teachings
is contained in the well-known saying of Hillel: “What is hateful to you do not do unto another” (Shab. 31a).
The Ethical Perfection of the Individual
Unlike the ethical system of Greek philosophy, which seeks
to define the various virtues (who is courageous, generous, orjust, etc.), the Bible demands of every human being that heperform the good deed, and behave virtuously toward his fel-531

ethics
low man, and is not concerned with abstract definitions. This
attitude is almost explicitly expressed in Jeremiah 9:22–23: “Letnot the wise man glory in his wisdom, let not the strong man
glory in his strength, let not the rich man glory in his riches.
Only in this should one glory: in his earnest devotion to me.
For I am the Lord who exercises kindness, justice, and equity
in the world; for in these I delight – declares the Lord.” From
this it follows that doing what is right and just is the essenceof biblical ethics. The personal ethical ideal is the ẓ addik (thegood man; see *Righteousness). Ezekiel defines him in detail for the purpose of explaining the doctrine of reward and*punishment, and his definition is nothing but an enumeration of the deeds performed by the good man and of thosefrom which he refrains (Ezek. 18:5–9). The essence of all ofthese acts is the proper relationship between man and man,except for one commandment, to shun idolatry, which is solely
a duty of man to God. A similar definition of the good man
appears in Isaiah 33:15 and in Psalm 15. Added to the ideal of
the righteous man in Psalms is the Godfearing man who finds
happiness in the teachings of God and in the worship of Him
and who shuns the life devoid of ethical earnestness (e.g., Ps.
1). The personal ethical ideal received further expression in
the character of *Abraham, who was credited with several especially fine and noble qualities. He was complaisant in his
relationship with Lot, hospitable, compassionate toward theevil inhabitants of Sodom, humble and generous in his dealings with the people of Heth, and he refused to profit fromthe booty of the war with Amraphel.
Distinguishing Feature of Social Ethics in the Bible
The lofty level of biblical ethics which is evident in the command to love one’s neighbor, in the character of Abraham,and in the first Psalm, is peculiar to the Bible, and it is difficult to find its like in any other source; however, the general
ethical commandments in the Bible, which are based on theprinciple of refraining from harming others, are a matter ofgeneral human concern and constitute the fundamentals of
ethics. Some characteristic features of biblical ethics, such as
due justice and the rights of the widow and the orphan, areprevalent in the ancient Near East (see below). Therefore thegeneralization that the Bible is unique among religious works
in the content of its ethical teachings cannot be made. However, the Bible does differ from every other religious or ethical work in the importance which it assigns to the simple andfundamental ethical demand. The other nations of the ancient
Near East reveal their ethical sense in compositions that are
marginal to their culture: in a few proverbs dispersed throughout the wisdom literature, in prologues to collections of laws,
in various specific laws, and in confessions (see below). The
connection between ethical teachings and primary cultural
creations – the images of the gods, the cult, the major corpus
of law – is weak. The ethical aspirations of these cultures are
sometimes, but not always, expressed in their religion and social organization, while the Bible places the ethical demand at
the focus of the religion and the national culture. The ethical532

demand is of primary concern to the prophets, who state explicitly that this is the essence of their religious teaching. Basic
sections of biblical law – the Ten Commandments, Leviticus
19, the blessings and curses of Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal
(Deut. 27:15–26) – contain many important ethical commandments. Biblical law itself testifies to its ethical aim: “Or what
great nation has laws and norms as just (ẓ addikim) as all thisTeaching…” (Deut. 4:8). While the wisdom literature of Israel
is similar to that of the neighboring cultures, it is distinctivein the greater stress it places upon ethical education (see below). The assumption that God is – or should be – just, and thequestion of reward and punishment which follows from thatassumption, are the bases of the religious experiences foundin Psalms, Job, and some prophetic passages. The opinion ofHillel the Elder that the ethical demand is the essence of the
Torah may be questioned, for it can hardly be said to be theonly pillar of the biblical faith. However, there is certainly aclear tendency in the Bible to place the ethical demand at thefocus of the faith, even if it does share it with other concerns
such as monotheism (see biblical view of *God).
Biblical ethics teachings, though clear and forceful, arenot extraordinary in content, for the Bible requires nothingother than the proper behavior which is necessary for the existence of society. Biblical ethics does not demand, as do certain other systems of ethics (Christianity, Buddhism, and evensome systems in later Judaism), that man withdraw completely
or even partially from everyday life to attain perfection. Asceticism, which views the normal human situation as the rootof evil, is foreign to the Bible and to the cultures of the Near
East in general. The Bible approves of life as it is, and, accordingly, makes its ethical demand compatible with social reality.
However, the degree of justice which it is possible to achieve
within the bounds of reality is demanded with a clear forcefulness which allows for no compromise. This makes the Bible
more radical than most ethical systems. The ethical teachingsof the Bible, like the Bible generally, are addressed first andforemost to Israel. But some biblical passages extend the ethical demand to encompass all mankind, such as the *Noachide
laws (Gen. 9:1–7), the story of Sodom (Gen. 19:20ff.), or the
rebuke of Amos against the neighboring kingdoms for theircruelty (Amos 1:3–2:3). The setting of the Book of Job is also
outside the Israelite realm.
Sexual Ethics
What has been said up to here applies only to social ethics, inview of the fact that in the realm of sexual morality the biblical outlook differs from that of neighboring cultures. The
Bible abhors any sexual perversion such as *homosexuality
or copulation with animals, prescribing severe punishmentsfor offenders (Lev. 18:22–23; 20:13, 15–16). The adulteress sins
not only against her husband, but also against God (e.g., Ex.
20:14; Lev. 20:10; Mal. 3:5). Fornication is generally frowned
upon, severely condemned by *Hosea, and legally punishable by death in some cases (Lev. 21:9; Deut. 22:21). The otherpeoples of the ancient Near East did not treat these offenses

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

ethics
with such severity. They regarded *adultery as essentially an
infringement upon the rights of the husband – damage done
to his property, like robbery or theft – and not as an abominable act sinful to God. Society was reconciled to prostitution,although a certain stigma was attached to it. Therefore Babylonian law, for example, defines the legal status of the various
types of prostitution and treats it as it treats other phenomena
in society (e.g., Code of Hammurapi, 145, 181, in: Pritchard,
Texts, 172, 174; Middle Assyrian Laws, 40, in: ibid., 183). Thereis little opposition to sexual perversions: homosexuality is
numbered among the sins in the Egyptian “Book of the Dead”(see below); Hittite law punishes copulation only with certain
animals, and even these not very severely (see below). This
opposition, which is occasionally expressed, does not declarethese acts to be an outright abomination. Fornication andmore serious sexual offenses are ascribed to the gods in *mythology, and possibly played a role in the cult (see Kedeshah).
Therefore, it is clear that the biblical stand on these matters is
unique. The biblical sexual ethic was imposed by Christianity on most of the civilized world in theory if not in practice
but in the ancient world it was unique to Israel.
Ethical Teaching in the Bible
MEANS OF INSTRUCTION. The orientation of biblical ethics
is uniform in content, but is expressed in different ways, according to the viewpoint of the particular book of the Bible.
The strongest and most radical expression of the goal of biblical ethics is found in the rebukes of the prophets, who chastise
the people relentlessly for ethical transgressions and demand
ethical perfection (especially in the realm of social ethics)
without compromise. But their rebukes do not really constitute instruction, for they do not always teach one how to behave in particular situations.
Biblical law is concerned with providing ethical instruction in particular acts. The legal sections of the Torah explicitly
and in detail forbid various offenses such as murder, robbery,
and bribery, and explicitly demand support of the poor, loveof one’s neighbor, and the like (see below).
Both prophecy and law demand of man in the name of
God that he behave properly. Their ethical outlook is a fundamental element in their demand that man do God’s will,
and therefore is not practical utilitarianism, even though theyteach the doctrine of reward and punishment. This ethical attitude is given added depth in the Psalms, where it becomesa matter of religious feeling that throbs in the heart of therighteous man who seeks closeness with his God (see Ps. 1;
15, especially verses 2, 4, 24:4; 34:13–15). The Book of Job alsostresses the commandment of righteousness to which the individual is subject, but from another aspect. Job is not content
to protest that he did not commit transgressions of robbery,
oppression, or bribery, but asserts that he actually observed
positive ethical commandments and was strict with himself
beyond the requirements of the law. For example, he claims
he did much to support those in need of his help: “Because I
delivered the poor who cried, and the fatherless who had none

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

to help him. The blessing of the destitutes came upon me, andI gladdened the heart of the widow” (Job 29:12–13). Job 31 contains a series of oaths concerning his righteousness, all beginning with ʾim, “if,” which is often equivalent to “I swear”: “(Iswear) I have not rejected the cause of my man servant …”(verse 13); “(I swear) I have not made gold my trust …” (verse
24). Job is careful to be above suspicion not only in social ethics, but also in sexual ethics, for he claims: “If I have been enticed by a woman, and have lain in wait at the door of anotherman, may my wife be used by another …” (31:9–10).
The ethical teachings in all the biblical books so far surveyed are considered an essential element of God’s demandsof man. In this respect, the attitude of *Proverbs is different.
Most of the proverbs aim at proving to man that it is worthwhile for him to follow the good path from the considerationof simple worldly wisdom. For example, Proverbs does notdeclare that adultery is prohibited but points out the dangers
in it (6:24–35). In a similar vein are the following verses: “Donot slander a servant to his master, lest he curse you, and you
be made to feel your guilt” (Prov. 30:10), and “If your enemy
is hungry, give him bread to eat … for you will heap coals offire on his head, and the Lord will reward you” (25:21–22). Although there is also a reference to God here, man is placed at
the center of ethical instruction. This approach is more practical and utilitarian than the approach of the Bible in general,due to the practical educational orientation of the Book ofProverbs. While Proverbs belongs to the category of general
wisdom literature which was prevalent in the ancient Near
East, it nevertheless differs from other works of this type in
the prominence it gives to ethical instruction; in Proverbs it
is of prime importance, while in the wisdom literature of thepeoples of the ancient Near East, it is of secondary importance.
There are two reasons for this: first, Proverbs aims at the education of the young citizen while the works of Ahikar andEgyptian didactic literature place more emphasis on the training of the official; second, Israelite wisdom literature identified
the righteous man with the sage on the one hand, and the evil
man with the fool on the other (e.g., Prov. 10:21, 23).
*Ecclesiastes, in those sections that deviate from stereotyped wisdom literature, casts doubt on the benefit of wisdom
in general, and on the simple utilitarian ethical instruction
contained in Proverbs. He knows that “there is not one good
man on earth who does what is best (i.e., leads to the mostdesirable results, 6:12) and does not err” (7:20). In his despair
he says: “don’t overdo goodness …” (7:16–18).
ETHICAL INSTRUCTION IN THE BIBLICAL NARRATIVE. Narrative is the one literary form in the Bible which is not entirely
infused with an ethical orientation. In biblical narratives ethical instruction is presented indirectly in the form of words ofpraise for noble deeds, and even this praise is, for the mostpart, not explicit. Deeds which are represented as noble include Joseph’s fleeing from adultery (Gen. 39:7–18), the mercy
shown by David in not killing Saul (I Sam. 24; 26:3–25), andthe story of Rizpah, daughter of Aiah (II Sam. 21:10). Abraham533

ethics
is the only biblical character who can truly be described as an
ethical model. The other heroes in biblical narrative (Judah,Joseph, Moses, Caleb, Joshua), although blessed with finequalities, are not described as models of ethical perfection.
The Bible portrays their shortcomings clearly (though implicitly; Isaac’s weakness of character, Jacob’s cunning, the sins ofSaul and David) and does not make the slightest attempt towhitewash the ethical defects of its heroes. However, it is therule in biblical narrative that appropriate punishment follows
specific transgressions: Jacob, who bought the birthright bydeception, is himself deceived by Laban; David is punishedfor his sin with Bath-Sheba, and so on. Yet these features are
not especially emphasized and thus do not give biblical narrative a prominent ethical orientation. It has been said thatbiblical narrative takes no clear moral stance, but rather rejoices in the success of its heroes even when they act immorally (Jacob, when he bought the birthright; Rachel, when shestole the household idols; Jael, when she killed Sisera). It is truethat the main intent of biblical narrative is to make known thegreatness of God, whose acts are the only ones that are perfect.
Thus the narrator can afford to see human beings as they are.
He does not force himself to moralize overmuch, or to makehis heroes model men, but introduces the ethical aspect only
where it suits the story. Thus in the narrator’s attitude to hisheroes one observes a kind of tolerant, knowledgeable understanding of human nature: it is this which makes most biblicalstories great, both as literature and as ethics.

4:8). Accordingly ethical and social reasons were attached toseveral laws, such as the commandment for the Sabbath: “Sothat your male and female slave may rest as you do. Remember that you were a slave …” (Deut. 5:14–15). This tendency isrevealed in laws whose purpose was to defend the weak andto limit the power of the oppressor, such as the laws governing
the Hebrew slave (Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12) or the relatively lenientpunishment of the thief. Yet it must be remembered that law
is based not only on the abstract viewpoint of the legislator,
but also on the needs of the society according to its particular
structure and customs. Therefore an evaluation of biblical law
is incomplete if only the ethical aspect is considered; however,the discussion of the aim of law is not essential to the definition of biblical ethics.
ethical instruction among thepeoples of the ancient near east

LAW AND ETHICS. The Bible does not make a formal distinction between those commandments which could be classified as ethical, those which are concerned with ritual (circumcision, sacrifices, the prohibition against eating blood),
and those which deal with common legal matters. Scholarship is obligated to differentiate between these categories andto see where the ethical aim appears. The ethical aim can be
distinguished by recognizing the difference between the basic, general commandment “Thou shalt not murder” and thelaws concerning the punishment of the murderer (e.g., Num.
35). Thus ethical commandments, in the strict sense, are laws
without sanctions, to be obeyed but not enforced, e.g., thecommandments of gleanings, the forgotten sheaf, and thecorner of the field (Lev. 19:9–10, see *Leket, Shikhḥ ah, andPe’ah); the prohibition against harming the orphan and thewidow (e.g., Ex. 22:21–23); the prohibition against delaying
payment of wages (Lev. 19:13). Aside from the clearly ethical commandments, there is a general tendency in biblicallaw to emphasize the aspiration for justice which is the basis
for every law. To be sure, every law is based upon the ethicalviewpoint of the legislator and attempts, through the power ofpractical regulations, to enforce the ethics accepted by the existing society; however, biblical law aspires to this end clearlyand consistently, as for example, “Justice, justice shall you
pursue” (as the summary of practical regulations concerning
the establishment of courts, Deut. 16:18–20), the laws of the
Bible are defined explicitly as “just laws and statutes” (Deut.

Egypt
The Egyptian attitude toward ethics is expressed in literaryworks of different types. Among these works it is worth noting
the books of proverbs (wisdom literature) which teach practical wisdom and proper behavior and include basic ethicalprinciples such as not to covet, rob, or trespass, to be diligent
in the performance of justice, and the like. Along with theseprinciples, the books of proverbs include advice on practicalknowledge which goes beyond the foundations of pure ethics;
there is even the impression that the Egyptian sages advised
their students to act justly because in this way they would
succeed and achieve their goals, and not because justice isan ethical principle in its own right. According to Frankfort,
however, this impression is the product of insufficient understanding of the Egyptian world view.
Another type of literature similar to wisdom literature inits ethical orientation and termed “ideal biography” by scholars is seen in the compositions which were engraved on thewalls of tombstones and monuments to the dead. In them,the deceased tells what he did and how he conducted himself
throughout his life, as for example: “I spoke the truth, I acted
honestly … I judged both sides to the satisfaction of both. I
rescued, with all my power, the weak from the strong. I gave
bread to the hungry, and clothing to the poor, etc.”
Another aspect of Egyptian ethics is revealed in the collection of writings called the “Book of the Dead.” This is acollection of documents from various ancient sources, whose
purpose is to assure the passage of the dead into eternal life.
It contains statements which the deceased must make when
he stands in judgment upon entering the world of the dead,such as: “I did not do evil to any man … I did not revile thename of the god, I did not slander the servant in front of his
master … I did not murder, I did not cause a death … I did not
sin by homosexuality, etc.” (ch. 125). The deceased announcesthat he did not commit ethical offenses or transgressions of
the cult, without distinguishing between the two. The list isarranged in a stereotyped manner, but it does contain certain

534

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

ethics
ethical principles. On the other hand, the negative confession
is close in purpose to a magical incantation, a kind of amulet
which is helpful to every man after death even if he was not
righteous during his life.
There is yet another basic concept in Egyptian culture
which has, without doubt, ethical significance, namely, theconcept of maʿat which means truth, justice, honesty, or properorder. It is said that the gods live in maʿat; the king who sets
aright the order of the country and establishes just rules is setting maʿat upon its foundation; the way of an honest man –and especially the way of an official who must judge a justcase – is maʿat; and also the order according to which nature
behaves is maʿat.
It is difficult to discuss the meaning of the Egyptian doctrine of ethics, because the Egyptian world view in general isbeyond reach; the reason being, in Bonnet’s opinion, that theEgyptian ethics was not specifically related to the teachingsand practices of the religion. Ethical qualities are not characteristic of the gods, and there are cases where Egyptian religion expresses a viewpoint which is not ethical. In Frankfort’s
opinion, one should not claim that the Egyptians did not havea highly developed ethical doctrine, but one should deal withwhat is particular to their outlook. The Egyptian saw his world
as secure and orderly and nature as behaving always according to maʿat. The duty of man is to act according to the same
secure and eternal law, to be congenial, not to be ambitious
and bad-tempered, and to enjoy the good things in life without anxiety. The Egyptian does not know the fear of sin because his god does not demand that he observe positive andnegative precepts. Instead, he helps those who generally behave according to maʿat, and corrects the sinner by means ofpunishment. According to Frankfort, the confession of thedead is not characteristic of the Egyptian ethical outlook; itoriginates in fear in the face of death, but does not directly affect the way of life.

magico-cultic aspect is more important than the ethical aspect (see *Atonement). A type of ethical instruction is also
included in the plentiful “omen” literature. Among the collections of omens of all types, which usually have no ethicalcontent, are also omens which contain ethical teachings suchas: “if one renders good, good will be rendered to him.” Thegods are, to a certain extent, considered to be the guardians of
ethics and the dispensers of retribution to the evil. However,there is also a Babylonian document which expresses man’s
despair over the lack of justice in the rule of the gods. The author of this document clearly sees how society oppresses thejust, the honest, and the poor and praises the wicked man
who succeeds. Mesopotamian myth shows that the gods ofSumer and Akkad were not ethical. The religious Babylonian
believed that man was created so that the gods could benefit
from his labor, and was not certain that the rule of the gods
was just and beneficent. The fear of sin was well-known tohim, but the sin itself – if he sinned, how he sinned, when hesinned – was hidden from him.
Documents devoted to ethical instruction have not beenpreserved from the remaining civilizations of the ancient Near
East, but there is some indirect information on this subject.
For example, in *Ugarit it was the king’s duty to pursue justicefor the widow and to protect the weak (II Keret, 46:50; cf. also
II Aqhat, v. 7–8). In Hittite law (188), punishment was decreed
for copulation with some animals (Pritchard, Texts, 196), andin this legal collection, as well as several other Mesopotamian
ones, there were laws concerning incest.
[Jacob Licht]

in later jewish thought

Mesopotamia
The Sumerian legislator king Lipit-Ishtar announces in the
prologue and epilogue of his law code that he acted lawfully
and justly during his kingship and diligently guarded the freedom of the people of Sumer and Akkad, and insured that thefather helped his sons and the sons their father. Hammurapi
too, in the prologue to his law code, states that he ruled justly
in his land, suppressed wickedness and evil, and prevented
the strong from oppressing the weak; in his epilogue he commands that justice be done to the orphan and the widow sothat the oppressed will find salvation in his just laws and will
bless him before the gods. Thus, there was an ethical basis tolaw in Sumer and Akkad. Babylonian wisdom literature is not
as abundant as that of Egypt, but the extant literature contains
ethical instructions such as not to requite evil to one’s enemy,
not to gossip, and the like; there is also a warning not to marrya prostitute because she will not be faithful to her husband.
In atonement rites, which were intended to save the sick andatone for injuries likely to be done to one’s fellow man, the

The Jewish religion has essentially an ethical character. From
its biblical origins to its present stage of development, theethical element has always been central to the Jewish religion,
both as a principle and as a goal. However the intimate connection between religion and ethics was differently interpreted
in different periods of Jewish thought. At least two principal
trends can be distinguished, the first identifying Jewish ethics with moderation (the middle way), the second insistingon the extreme demands of an absolute ethic. Many thinkers
emphasize that Judaism transcends the ethical framework ofreligion, thereby assuming a metaethical character. Examplesof this trend are divine demands, made in prophetic revelations, which seem to conflict with moral norms, and the existence of human suffering.
In talmudic literature, legislative concerns are never thelast word. Not only does the aggadah, by means of moral lessons, complete and temper the autonomy of the halakhah, andnot only is the tractate Avot an anthology of moral thought;
but, more obviously, in every conflict between the legal rigidity of the law and the criteria of ethics, the latter hold sway.
Fear of God is superior to wisdom; actions surpass ideas;
man is called upon to take a stand in favor not of reason butof the good. Ethics appear not as speculative principles but in

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6535

ethics
terms of human experience; the talmudic sages are presented
as moral exemplars and the ideal of holiness is identified witha scrupulously honest and pure life.
Medieval and modern literature testify to the dual tendency to formulate an ethic which is both theoretical andpractical. Some medieval Jewish philosophers developed
systematic formulations of Jewish ethical ideas, as for example *Saadiah Gaon and Solomon ibn *Gabirol, whose Tikkun
Middot ha-Nefesh is unusual in that it expounds an autonomous ethic which has no connection with religious doctrine.
*Maimonides’ Shemonah Perakim is a classical work of Jewish ethics which shows similarities to the Ethics of Aristotle.
There is scarcely a Jewish philosopher or exegete of the Middle
Ages who does not devote at least some portion of his work
to showing that the body of Jewish thought and its biblical or
talmudic sources revolved around ethics. This trend continues to modern times when Jewish philosophers, since Moses*Mendelssohn, place ethics at the center of their descriptionof the universe. For example, Moritz *Lazarus and Elijah *Benamozegh, in the 19t century, give this tendency a classicalexpression, one composing a standard work entitled Die Ethik
des Judentums (“Ethics of Judaism”), the other by comparing
Jewish and Christian ethics (Morale juive et morale chrétienne).
It would be out of place to mention *Spinoza in this connection, for while his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus shows Jewish
influences, the same is not true of his Ethics.
In addition to the literature mentioned there are a number of works which are important for the development of
medieval and modern Jewish ethics because they reflect anindividual or collective experience. The Kabbalah and othermystical currents contributed greatly to the emergence of
these works. Examples of this type of literature are *Baḥ ya ibn
Paquda’s Ḥ ovot ha-Levavot, the Sefer Ḥ asidim (see *Ethical Literature), and M.Ḥ . *Luzzatto’s Mesillat Yesharim. These works
have become very popular and have been adopted by suchopposing Jewish circles as the *Ḥ asidim and *Mitnaggedim.
In the 19t century, under the influence of R. Israel *Lipkin(Salanter), the *Musar movement reintroduced the primacyof ethics into the highly intellectual talmudic academies.

of moderation in Jewish ethics. Consequently, they were opposed to ethical extremism such as that of Christianity, andthis view became a commonplace in Jewish apologetics.
Nevertheless, the notion of moderation is not the only
facet of Jewish ethics. The biblical books of Job and Ecclesiastes strongly criticize the middle way. In the Book of Job especially, where the middle way is recommended by the friendsof Job, this approach is ultimately rejected by God. The Talmud goes further in its declaration that the attitude of moderation is the attitude of Sodom: “He that says, ‘What is mineis mine and what is thine is thine’ – this is the middle way,
and some say that this is the way of Sodom” (Avot 5:13). It is
not surprising, therefore, that the Talmud praises well-known
sages who, going beyond the strict letter of the law (li-fenim
mi-shurat ha-din), gave their entire fortune to the poor (R.
Yeshevav), practiced celibacy (Ben Azzai), spent many hoursof the day and night in prayer (R. Ḥ anina b. Dosa), and, altogether, seemed generally to conform to the monastic idealsof the *Essenes. Asceticism is central to the works of Baḥ ya
and Luzzatto, the Sefer ha-Ḥ asidism, and, in a way even to 18t
century Ḥ asidism. It is true that in this mystical movement,
whose influence is still being felt today, asceticism was transformed into joy, but the ethic of this joy was as extreme andabsolute as was the ascetic ethic.
It would therefore be incorrect to associate Jewish ethics
with a uniform and moderate attitude. This attitude, which isoften presented as a contrast to Christian ethics, is actually only
one aspect of Jewish ethics. The other aspect, with its extreme
and absolute demands, is equally typical of Jewish thought.

The Middle Way and the Absolute
The intimate connection between religion and ethics was interpreted differently in different periods of Jewish life andthought. At least two principal tendencies can be distinguished. In line with the ideal set down in Proverbs and various Psalms, and also in the Jewish Hellenistic writings and Palestinian teachings in the rabbinic period, Jewish ethics strives
for moderation. It condemns excess, obviously in the sense ofevil but also in the sense of good, and condemns equally greed
and waste, debauchery and abstinence, pleasure and asceticism, impiety and bigotry. Maimonides developed this identification of Jewish ethics with the middle way (Shemonah
Perakim; Yad, De’ot) though, at times, he tends toward a more
ascetic position. The majority of medieval and modern Jewish
philosophers follow Maimonides’ general view and the theme

The Ethical and the MetaethicalBy the implications of certain of its teachings, Judaism goesbeyond the limits of the ethical, and enters the domain of themetaethical, “beyond good and evil.” Already in the Bible,
the concept of holiness is affirmed much more often as a category which transcends ethical considerations, rather than as
an ethical postulate. The transcendence of God elevates holiness above the moral equity guaranteed by the Covenant. The
well-known verse of Isaiah, “For My thoughts are not yourthoughts, neither are your ways My ways” (55:8), is often employed by medieval and modern Jewish thinkers as a key forinterpreting certain problems which escaped all ethical definition, most notably the problems of freedom and suffering.
How should one accept, from the point of view of ethics,
the unusual conduct of certain prophets (Hosea’s association
with a prostitute; the nudity of Isaiah; the celibacy of Jeremiah)?
Unless they resorted to allegorical exegesis, the biblical commentators were forced to admit, and they did so willingly, that
there operated here a certain arbitrary divine will which transcended ethical categories. Maimonides expounded this theme
in stating that God remains the supreme arbiter of the gift ofprophecy. Prophecy is not intrinsically bound to ethical qualities. Of course, only an ethical person can become a prophet,but the man of the highest ethical qualities cannot become aprophet without God’s charismatic and transcendent will.

536

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

ethiopia
Similarly, the midrashic interpretations of the sacrifice of
Isaac, of the dramas of Saul or of Job, are much closer to theexistentialist point of view of Kierkegaard or of Kafka than tothe systems of Maimonides or of Kant. The conflict between
Saul and David was not a matter of ethics but of good or bad
fortune. Abraham, ultimately, should have disobeyed the divine command to sacrifice his son, which was inspired more
by Satan than by God. Job was perfectly innocent, and his inexplicable sufferings could generate nothing but tears. These,and similar themes, which are scattered throughout talmudic and ḥ asidic literature, were often taken up by the Jewish
existentialists of the 20t century such as Martin *Buber andFranz *Rosenzweig. They culminate in the doctrine of radical insecurity, whose sources one may find in the Bible, butwhich finds a more cohesive expression in a talmudic formulation: Kulei hai ve-ulai (“All this and perhaps?”). Even while
the most apparently perfect conditions can be gathered together to weigh the balance in favor of good or evil, there yetremains a coefficient of uncertainty which is beyond good andevil. It is possible that events will follow the ethical expectations. It is also possible, however, that these expectations will
not be fulfilled. It is true that this disorder is interpreted as avoluntary (and temporary) weakness of God which permits
man to exercise his will. Thus, this metaethical Jewish view
remains ultimately ethical and never leads to a passive pessimism. The divine transcendence does not disturb the ethicalequilibrium except in order to call upon man to reestablish,
together with God, an equilibrium which has been disrupted.
The metaethical is the price for the inalienable moral essenceof the Covenant.
[Andre Neher]

Bibliography: Bibliographies and Encyclopaedias:
N. Amsel, Jewish Encyclopedia of Moral and Ethical Issues (1994);
S.D. Breslauer, Contemporary Jewish Ethics: A Bibliographical Survey (1985); S.D. Breslauer, Modern Jewish Morality: A Bibliographical Survey (1986). In the Bible: F. Wagner, Geschichte des Sittlichkeitsbegriffs (1928–36); A. Weiser, Religion und Sittlichkeit der Genesis(1928); W.I. Baumgartner, Israelitische und altorientalische Weisheit(1933), 4–7, 24–30; F.R. Kraus, in: ZA, 43 (1936), 77–113; Kaufmann Y.,
Toledot, 1 (1937), 27ff., 31ff., 431–3; 2 (1945), 68–70, 557–628; J. Hempel, Das Ethos des Alten Testaments (1938); H. Duesberg, Les scribes
inspirés, 1 (1938), 92–126, 481–500; H. Frankfort, Ancient Egyptian
Religion (1948), 56–80; N.W. Porteous, in: H.H. Rowley (ed.), Studies in Old Testament Prophecy (1950), 143–56; E. Neufeld, The Hittite
Laws (1951), 53; A. Gelin, Morale et l’Ancient Testament (1952), 71–92;
H. Kruse, in: Verbum Domini, 30 (1952), 3–13, 65–80, 143–53; H. Bonnet, Reallexikon der aegyptischen Religionsgeschichte (1952); W.G.
Lambert, in: Ex Oriente Lux, 15 (1957–58), 184–96; idem, Babylonian
Wisdom Literature (1960); S.E. Loewenstamm, in: Sefer S. Dim (1958),
124–5; idem, in: BM, 13 (1962), 55–59; E. Jacob, in; VT Supplement, 7(1960), 39–51; E. Hammershaimb, ibid., 73–101; M. Greenberg, in: Y.
Kaufmann Jubilee Volume (1960), 5–28. In Later Jewish Thought:
M. Lazarus, Ethics of Judaism (1900); G.F. Moore, Judaism, 2 (1927,
repr. 1958), 79–111; C.G. Montefiore and H. Loewe, Rabbinic Anthology (1963), 490–9; Guttmann, Philosophies, index; M. Kadushin,
Worship and Ethics (1964); S. Bernfeld, Foundations of Jewish Ethics(1967); B. Herring, Jewish Ethics and Halakhah for Our Times: Sources

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

and Commentary, 2 vol. (1984–89); L. Finkelstein (ed.), The Jews, 2(19603), 1010–42; M.J. Routtenberg, in: F.E. Johnson (ed.), Patterns of
Ethics in America Today (1960), 7–27.

ETHIOPIA (Abyssinia), Christian kingdom in N.E. Africa.
Under Egyptian rule from 2000 B.C.E. to about 1000 B.C.E.,
Ethiopia (Heb. Kush) appears alongside Egypt in the Bible,
sharing its prophesied doom (e.g., Isa. 20:3); Tirhakah, thepharaoh, is mentioned as king of Ethiopia during the Assyrian conquest of the Northern kingdom (II Kings 19:9 andIsa. 37:9). The wealth of Ethiopia and Seba are also cited (Isa.
43:3; 45:14). However, Ethiopia figures most prominently as
an example of a remote place, cf. Amos 9:7, where God rebukes Israel saying, “Are you not like the Ethiopians to me, O
people of Israel?” Independent of Egypt, Ethiopia was ruledby a dynasty of Arabian origin which invaded the country inthe second century B.C.E., ruled from the city of Axum, anddetermined the Semitic quality of the customs and languageof the Hamitic people. The kings at Axum called themselves
negus-nagast (“king of kings”). They traced their descent toMenelik whom they claimed to have been the son of King Solomon and the queen of Sheba. This legend finds expression in
the classic Ethiopian chronicle of the 14t century C.E., the Kebra Negast (“Glory of Kings”). Among other stories, the latterdescribes Solomon’s seduction of and contract with the queenof Sheba, whose son brought Judaic customs and civil law toEthiopia. The Holy Ark was also conveyed to Ethiopia to be
returned to Zion only when Christ would reappear in Jerusalem and the Ethiopian Christians would reign triumphantin the Holy City. Indeed, the Coptic Monophysite Christianity accepted by the Ethiopians, probably in the fifth century,
retained certain Jewish elements derived from the contact andinfluence of local Jews or from early Christianity itself. It isalso possible that they were influenced by South Arabian Jews
in pre-Islamic times. In the eighth century, the capital of the
kingdom was moved from Axum as a result of Muslim expansion into Ethiopia. The Christian kings of the Zague dynasty
who strove to restore their hegemony from the 13t century
claimed descent from Solomon and maintained that the Ethiopian aristocracy was taken from Jerusalem to Axum. The lionof Judah has remained the symbol of the emperor of Ethiopia.
The literary language of Ethiopia is Ge’ez, a Semitic tongue,
which was replaced by Amharic. All holy works are written inGe’ez, including the Bible (probably translated from Greek or
Syriac) and the only complete extant versions of the apocryphal books of Enoch and Jubilees, which were translated fromthe lost Greek and included in the canon. During the Middle
Ages, most works were translated from Arabic, including the
major Jewish history, Josippon, called in Ge’ez, Zena Ayhud(“History of the Jews”), and other Jewish chronicles and religious works gleaned from Arabic sources.
Ethiopian Church in Jerusalem
The Ethiopian Church is one of the oldest churches in the
Holy Land. An Ethiopian convert is mentioned in the Acts of537

ethiopia
the Apostles (8:27–28) and Ethiopian monks and pilgrims arereferred to in early pilgrim records. In 1172, in the crusader
kingdom of Jerusalem, they possessed altars in the holy places,in the vicinity of which they had established monasteries. Under the Muslim rulers, after the downfall of the crusader kingdom, the Ethiopians obtained more extensive rights. They are
mentioned in connection with the Church of the Tomb of theVirgin, and the chapel of St. Mary of Egypt (14t century), andas having chapels in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher (15t
century). Toward the end of the 17t century, however, unable
to meet the exactions of the Turkish pashas, they lost most of
their holdings in the Holy Sepulcher. From an early date until
the beginning of the 19t century, the Ethiopians had important rights in the Deir el-Sultan Monastery near the Holy Sepulcher, which have since been claimed by the Coptic Church.
The Ethiopians were left with hovels on the roof of the chapelof St. Helena which is part of the church of the Holy Sepulcher.
In the New City of Jerusalem there is an Ethiopian church withan adjoining monastery. There are also two monasteries in the
Old City and one on the western bank of the Jordan River.
Relations with Israel
Direct contacts between Ethiopia and the yishuv started in
1936, when Emperor Haile Selassie, his family, and officers
found refuge in Jerusalem after the Italian conquest of Ethiopia. The emperor lived there for about one year, but numerous
Ethiopian notables spent the whole period of their exile in Palestine. During World War II, a number of Jewish soldiers from
Palestine served with the British forces in the reconquest of
Ethiopia, both under the command of Orde *Wingate, whose
personal ADC during the Ethiopian campaign was a Palestinian Jewish officer, and in the regular East-African Command,
particularly in the commando units that fought in Eritrea. After his return to Addis Ababa the emperor called a number
of Palestinian Jews to serve in various capacities within the
Ethiopian government. The first beginnings of economic ties
between the two countries also developed at that time. Palestinian-manufactured goods reached Ethiopia, and some Jewish experts worked in Ethiopia.
From 1948
Ethiopia abstained in the crucial UN vote on Nov. 29, 1947
on the partition of Palestine, in view of her cautious line of
neutrality in most of her dealings with the problems of the
Middle East. In 1948 Ethiopia extended only de facto recognition to Israel; however, it continued to maintain its consulate general in West Jerusalem, thereby maintaining close contacts with Israel. In 1955, when an Israeli mission took part inHaile Selassie’s Silver Jubilee celebrations in Addis Ababa, an
agreement was reached to establish an Israeli consulate general in Addis Ababa, which began to function in the summerof 1956. In September 1961 Ethiopia extended de jure recognition to Israel and diplomatic relations at ambassadorial level
were established.
In international forums, Ethiopia maintained her traditional neutrality in the Arab-Israel conflict; repeatedly refused538

to join anti-Israel initiatives; and tried to urge reconciliation,negotiations, and peace, often in the face of an opposite standadopted by the Afro-Asian and nonaligned groups in which
Ethiopia became an ever more active member. The formal
relations between the two countries steadily normalized andbilateral relations began to reflect the relatively close geographical proximity of the two countries. Numerous personalities of both countries paid mutual official and semi-official
visits. In 1960 the Empress Menem went on a pilgrimage toJerusalem. In the same year the Israel minister of agriculture,
Moshe *Dayan, paid an official visit to Ethiopia. Israel’s foreign minister, Golda Meir, visited Addis Ababa in 1962, andher successor Abba *Eban visited there. It was particularly ineconomic and technical cooperation, however, that mutualties found expression.
With the opening of the Straits of Tiran to unhampered
Israel shipping and the recognition of the Gulf of Akaba as aninternational waterway following the Sinai Campaign of 1956,
Eilat and Massawa, and later on also Assab and Djibouti, became major ports of call for the ships of both nations. With theintroduction of more modern ships, the time required for thetrip from Eilat to Massawa steadily decreased, so that by 1970
this run was made in just over 48 hours. In 1970 a regular air
link between Lydda and Addis Ababa was inaugurated by El
Al Airlines, cutting flying time between Israel and Ethiopia tojust over three hours. Commerce between the two countries
developed steadily, with Israel selling mainly manufactured
goods and buying primary products from Ethiopia. Economic
cooperation between the two countries started early in the
1950s with the establishment of an Israeli meat-packing plantin Asmara, but it received particular impetus in the 1960s. A
large Ethiopian-Israel cotton farm exists in the Awash Valley,an Ethiopian-Israel pharmaceutical plant in Addis Ababa, anda number of other enterprises. During the 1960s Israeli experts
served in various fields in Ethiopia, from public transportation through fishing and agriculture to Ethiopian geologicalsurveys. Numerous Ethiopian students studied in various institutions in Israel in widely diverse fields, e.g., agriculture
and communications.
Cultural ties occupy a special place in the relations between the two countries, particularly those between the institutions of higher learning. In 1959 the Haifa Technion enteredinto close relations with the Engineering College in Addis
Ababa, which later became part of the Haile Selassie I University, in which Israeli professors subsequently served. In 1970
an agreement was reached between the Haile Selassie I University and the Hebrew University for the joint developmentof a microbiology institute in Addis Ababa. Close collaboration existed also in medicine, town planning, water development, and related fields.
[Hanan Bar-On]

Starting in the 1960s Israel was a major supplier of military
aid to Ethiopia, which continued even after Ethiopia broke
off diplomatic relations with Israel in 1973 in the wake of the
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

etiquette
Yom Kippur War and also after the Marxist Mengistru regime replaced Haile Selassie in 1974. From the 1980s such assistance was linked to Ethiopia’s agreement to allow Ethiopian
Jews, the so-called Falashas (see *Beta Israel), to immigrate
to Israel, a condition that was fulfilled in two dramatic airlifts
in 1984 and 1991. Diplomatic relations were renewed in 1989
at embassy level.
Bibliography: I. Ben-Zvi, The Exiled and the Redeemed(1967); index, also S.V. Falashas; A.Z. Aescoly, in: Tarbiz, 5 (1934),
341–9; E.W. Budge (tr.), Kebra Negast, Queen of Sheba and Her Only
Son… (1932); idem, A History of Ethiopia, Nubia and Abyssinia (1938);
E. Littmann, Legend of the Queen of Sheba in the Tradition of Axum
(Bibliotheca Abbisinica no. 1, 1904); R. Pankhurst, An Introduction
to the Ethiopian Economic History (1961); J. Harden, An Introduction
to Ethiopic Christian Literature (1926); Colbi, Christianity in the HolyLand (1969), 107–108, 139, 156–57.

ETHNARCH (Gr. ὲθνάρχος), title given to John *Hyrcanus IIand his sons by official decree of Julius Caesar in 47 B.C.E. in
addition to the office of high priest (Jos., Ant., 14:192ff.). The
meaning of ethnarch – head of the people – excluded the title
or the rights of a king, and Josephus comments that whereas“Pompey restored the high priesthood to Hyrcanus and permitted him to have the leadership of the nation,” he nevertheless “forbade him to wear a diadem” (ibid., 20:244). This distinction is apparent again in the description by Josephus of theappointment of Herod’s son Archelaus. Augustus “appointed
Archelaus not king indeed, but ethnarch of half of the territory that had been subject to Herod, and promised to reward
him with the title of king if he really proved able to act in thatcapacity” (ibid., 17:317).
The title ethnarch was also used to designate the headof the Jewish community at Alexandria. Strabo, quoted by
Josephus (ibid., 14:117), describes the Alexandrian ethnarch
as one “who governs the people and adjudicates suits and supervises contracts and ordinances, just as if he were the headof a sovereign state.” Philo, however, relates that Augustus replaced that ethnarch with a gerousia or Council of Elders (InFlaccum, 74ff.). Certain scholars have attempted to identify theterm Σαραμέλ in I Maccabees 14:28 with ethnarch (see *Asaramel). The term ethnarch was not confined to Jewish rulers.
Thus there is mention of an ethnarch at Damascus under the
king Aretas (II Cor. 11:32).
Bibliography: Schuerer, Hist, 107ff.; Schuerer, Gesch, 3(19094), 76–78; A. Schalit, Koenig Herodes (1969), 224ff.; Baron,
Community, index.
[Isaiah Gafni]

ETIQUETTE (Heb. ‫־א ֶרץ‬ֶ ‫דֶּ ֶר ְך‬, derekh ereẓ ), the proper conduct of man at home and in society. The sages demanded of
the Jew, particularly the scholar, good manners in all his activities. The rules of *derekh ereẓ are assembled in the tractates Avot, Derekh Ereẓ Rabbah, and Derekh Ereẓ Zuta, and arescattered throughout the Talmud and the Midrashim. A substantial number of them are set forth in Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot De’ot.
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

The rules of etiquette covered every aspect of man’s conduct, including the most seemingly insignificant. Only a few
of the most important rules are given here.
SpeechA man should speak pleasantly with everyone (Yoma 86a) and,
Maimonides adds: “When speaking he should neither shout
nor scream nor raise his voice excessively.” When he meets his
fellow he should be the first to extend greetings. As an example
the Talmud cites the instance of Johanan b. Zakkai, whom no
one ever preceded in extending greeting (Ber. 17a). Since, inthe heat of argument, a man is liable to interrupt his fellow andstubbornly assert his own opinion, even after being convincedthat the other is right, the sages laid down rules for the conduct of an argument: not to speak before one who is greaterin wisdom, nor to interrupt the speech of another, not to be
hasty in answering, to ask only relevant questions and to answer appropriately, to speak on the first point first and on thelast point last, to say “I have not heard” when he has no tradition to that effect, to acknowledge the truth (Avot 5:7).
Walking
A scholar should not carry himself stiffly, with his neck outstretched… nor walk mincingly as do women and haughty
people… nor run in a public place like a madman, nor bend
his body as if he is a hunchback, but he should look downward,
as when standing in prayer, and walk in the street like a man
going about his business (Maim., Yad, De’ot 5:8).
Clothing
The Talmud regularizes expenditure on food and clothing by
the principle: A man should always spend on food less thanhis means allow, and clothe himself in accordance with hismeans (Ḥ ul. 84b). The sages were most particular that theirclothing should be becoming and clean, even to the extent
of declaring that any scholar upon whose garment a stain isfound is worthy of death (Shab. 114a). Maimonides applies
the doctrine of the Golden Mean to clothing: “He should notwear clothes, of gold and purple, for instance, fit for a king,and at which everyone stares, nor clothes worn by the poorthat put to shame those wearing them, but he should wearmodest dress” (De’ot 5:9).
Eating and Drinking
In eating and drinking, too, he should not indulge in extremes,
but content himself with the minimum necessary for health.
He should eat only in his own home, at his table, but not in
the market place, for “he who eats in the market place is likea dog” (Kid. 40b). A scholar should not eat standing, nor lickhis fingers, for this is the way of gluttons (DEZ 5). Gulping one’s
drink in a single draught is a sign of greediness (Beẓ ah 25b).
One should not drink out of a cup and then give it to his fellow, for not all people are alike, and sensitive people are particular about this (Tosef., Ber. 5:9).
Treatment of Wife and Children
The rabbis were extremely particular about conduct in thefamily circle. The responsibility for this was placed primarily539

etrogon the husband and father, to whom they gave the following
directives: “A man should always observe the honor due to his
wife, because blessings rest on a man’s home only on accountof his wife.” “A man should always be careful not to wrong his
wife (with words), for being given to tears, she is easily hurt.”
He should consult his wife in all matters affecting the home:
If your wife is short, bend down and listen to her words (BM59a). They enjoined the head of the household to be indulgent,
not to take offense, and not to terrorize his household, so as
to avoid quarrels (Ta’an. 20b; Git. 6b).

ETROG (Heb. ‫) ֶא ְתרוֹ ג‬, citrus fruit among the Four Species
used on Sukkot. The Bible describes what is usually rendered
as “the fruit of a goodly tree” (peri eẓ hadar; Lev. 23:40), traditionally interpreted as being the etrog (Citrus medica). The
word etrog, the name by which this fruit is known in talmudic literature, derives, according to one view, from the Persian torong, according to another, from the Sanskrit suranga,meaning “beautifully colored.” Some maintain that the etrog
tree, along with its name, reached Ereẓ Israel only during theSecond Temple period, even as it was brought to Greece fromits native land, India, only after the campaigns of Alexander
the Great. Others contend that “the fruit of a goodly tree” isto be identified with the Pinus or Cedrus, called dar in Sanskrit; others say that what is meant is simply any beautiful(hadur) fruit. There is evidence that the etrog was known inancient Egypt; its use as one of the Four Species on Sukkot wasprobably responsible for its wider cultivation in Ereẓ Israel inolden days, for neighboring countries set no great store uponits fruit, which is not particularly good. Indeed, even during
the Hasmonean period, which abounds in evidence of its cultivation in Ereẓ Israel, the etrog was not grown in Italy andis not mentioned by Pliny (23–79 C.E.) among the productsof that country.
The etrog was formerly unique among the fruit treesof Ereẓ Israel in requiring constant irrigation for its growth,whereas the others were only occasionally irrigated, and then
only to increase their yield of fruit. This fact is adduced among
the various proofs that “the fruit of a goodly tree” (peri eẓhadar) is to be identified with the etrog, eẓ hadar being interpreted as eẓ hiddur, that is, the tree which requires water. Since
the etrog was the only *citrus known in Ereẓ Israel in the mishnaic and talmudic period, the question of the permissibilityof an etrog from a grafted tree for the performance of the religious rite did not arise until comparatively recent times.
The etrog was a conspicuous ornamental motif among
Jews during the Second Temple period, appearing on coinsof Simeon and other Hasmoneans, and it is often depicted on
the walls of synagogues and in mosaics. When Alexander Yannai once acted contrary to the halakhah in the Temple, “all thepeople pelted him with their etrogim” (Suk. 4:9; Tosef., ibid.
3:16; Jos., Ant., 13:372). In the mishnaic and talmudic period,
when the etrog was widely cultivated in Ereẓ Israel, it was comparatively cheap, a large etrog selling for two perutot (Me’il.
6:4). An especially beautiful etrog, which was in great demand for the festival, cost very much more, at times as muchas the price of three meals (TJ, Suk. 3:12, 54a). There were periods (for example during the Hadrianic persecutions) whenetrogim had to be brought from far-flung places in Ereẓ Israel(Tosef., Dem. 3:14). Various uses were made of the etrog; its
thick skin was eaten either pickled in vinegar or boiled to apulp (Suk. 36b; Ma’as. 1:4), and a perfume was extracted fromits peel (Suk. 37b), which was also highly valued as an antidote
against snake-bite (Shab. 109b).
Today, the etrog is not extensively cultivated in the world,
and is grown primarily for the citronate that is extracted
from its peel. There are many strains of etrog. In Israel thesmall strain is predominant; the large strain was brought
to the country by the Yemenites (cf. Suk. 36b, about a large
etrog which was carried on the shoulder). In addition to thesour etrog, there is also the sweet strain (cf. Shab. 109b). With
the increase in the species of the genus citrus, the etrog wascrossed with other citrus plants, which probably accounts forthe present difficulty of growing an etrog which has not been
grafted on a lemon or hushḥ ash stock, the ungrafted variety
being vulnerable to pests and diseases, and its pittam (theprotuberance, the pistil) usually being atrophied. Whereas
in ancient times the pittam was a conspicuous mark of theetrog’s excellence, there are those today who are particularly
anxious to obtain only an ungrafted etrog, which usually has

540

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Personal Relations
Most controversies are due to the tendency to ascribe bad motives to the words and actions of others. As a result the sages
urged: “Let the honor of your neighbor be as dear to you as
your own” (Avot 2:10), and “Love all men and honor them,and forgo your will for that of your neighbor” (DEZ 1). Goodand worthy intentions may fail if they are implemented at thewrong moment. Hence, the rabbis counseled: “Do not pacify
your fellow in the hour of his anger; nor comfort him when his
dead one lies before him” (Avot 4:18). One should not present
oneself to one’s friend, or even to the members of his household, at an inconvenient time: “Do not enter your own housesuddenly, and all the more, your neighbor’s house” (Pes. 112a)counseled Akiva. The concern of the rabbis in this matter isreflected in the statement, “Let all men learn good manners
from the Omnipresent, who stood at the entrance to Eden andcalled out to Adam, as it says, ‘The Lord God called to Adam,saying, “Where art thou”’” (DER 5). Many modern and medieval ethical works praise Derekh Ereẓ , adherence to its precepts, and, at the same time, stress the duty of other strictures
to those mentioned in the Talmud.
Bibliography: Krauss, Tal Arch, 3 (1912), 2ff.; A. Kohn, in:
Ben-Chananja, 2 (1859), 66–67, 167–8, 210–1, 258–64 (Ger.); J. Friedmann, Der gesellschaftliche Verkehr und die Umgangsformen in talmudischer Zeit (1914); M. Higger, Massekhtot Ze’irot (1929), 1–7; idem,
Massekhtot Derekh Ereẓ (1935), 11–18 (English section); A. Cohen,
Everyman’s Talmud (1932), 168–266; C.G. Montefiore and H. Loewe,
A Rabbinical Anthology (1938), 451–523; G. Friedlander, Laws andCustoms of Israel (1927), passim.
[Abraham Arzi]

Ettelson, Harry William
no pittam. There are several distinguishing signs by which
the grafted and the ungrafted etrog can be distinguished. The
skin of the latter is generally rougher than that of the former,
and, according to some halakhic authorities, the seed of thelatter lies longitudinally within the fruit, and that of the former, latitudinally. Until the end of the 19t century the centerfor the cultivation of etrogim was the island of *Corfu, from
where they were exported to Jewish communities in Europe.
Later these began to use the etrogim of Ereẓ Israel. Today the
etrog groves in Israel supply local needs and also export many
etrogim abroad.

in Seoul, Korea. In 1968, Etrog designed the Canadian filmaward statuette (called “the Etrog” until 1980, when it was renamed the “Genie”).
In recognition of his contributions to contemporaryart, Etrog was named a Member of the Order of Canada in
1995 and a Chevalier dans l’Ordre des Arts et des Lettres by
France in 1996.

Bibliography: V. Loret, Le cédratier dans l’antiquité (1891);
Loew, Flora, 3 (1924), 285ff.; S. Tolkowski, in: JPOS, 8 (1928), 17–23; J.
Feliks, Olam ha-Ẓ ome’aḥ ha-Mikra’i (1957), 66–70.

[Joyce Zemans (2nd ed.)]Bibliography: T.A. Heinrich, The Painted Constructions
1952–1960 of Sorel Etrog (1968); C. Ragghianti, Sorel Etrog Sculptures
Engravings Lithographs Documents (1968); P. Restany, Sorel Etrog(2001); W. Withrow, Sorel Etrog (1967).

ETROG, SOREL (1933– ), sculptor, painter, poet, filmmaker.
Etrog was born in Jassy, Romania. In 1950, he immigrated withhis family to Israel. He studied at the Israel Institute of Painting and Sculpture in Tel Aviv (1953–55). From 1955 to 1958, he
was a member of the Ein Hod artists’ colony. Etrog held his
first solo show in Tel Aviv (1958). Awarded a scholarship to
the Brooklyn Museum Art School/Institute, he studied in New
York in 1958–59 and established a studio there.
In the summer of 1959, Etrog was invited to work in
Canada by prominent art collector Samuel Zacks. That year,
he held a solo exhibition at Toronto’s Gallery Moos and in1963 he moved permanently to Toronto. From 1964 to 1984
he worked in his studios in both Toronto and Florence, Italy.
Etrog was one of three artists representing Canada at the 1966
Venice Biennale, where his reputation as a leading contemporary sculptor was confirmed.
Etrog is best known for his large public sculptures whichrange from the biomorphic to monumental bronze and steel
structures. Marshall McLuhan described his “hinge” and “link”
work as a drama of dialogue and interchange that reflects the“transformation of the old machine and its consumer products into new vital images of primal art and perception.” Etrog
also began as a painter in Israel. His “painted constructions”
investigate the interdependency of painting and relief. He also
realized a significant body of drawings, including studies andlarge-scale works on paper and canvas. His art is a process of
exploration into the nature of human consciousness and thehuman condition. A poet himself, Etrog worked collaboratively with writers such as McLuhan, Claudio Aveline, SamuelBeckett, and Eugene *Ionesco.
The subject of numerous exhibitions, Etrog’s art is widelyrepresented in major museums and collections around theworld, including the Tate Museum, London; the Museumof Modern Art, New York; the Guggenheim Museum, New
York; the Hirshhorn Museum, Washington, D.C.; the Israel
Museum, Jerusalem; the Kroeller-Mueller Museum, Otterlo;
the Musée d’Arte Moderne, Paris; and the National Gallery ofCanada, Ottawa. Among his many public and private commissions is Powersoul, which he created for the 1988 Olympics

ETTELSON, HARRY WILLIAM (1883–1975), U.S. Reform
rabbi. Ettelson was born in Mobile, Alabama, and received
his B.A. with Phi Beta Kappa honors from the University ofCincinnati in 1900, at the age of 17. He was ordained at Hebrew Union College, where he was valedictorian of his class,in 1904. Ettelson earned his M.A. from the University of Chicago while serving as rabbi of Temple Achduth Vesholom in
Fort Wayne, Indiana (1904–10), and his Ph.D. from Yale University in 1916 while serving as rabbi of Congregation BethIsrael in Hartford, Connecticut (1911–19). He served as a Navychaplain at Pelham Bay Training Station during World War I,
then became rabbi of Temple Rodeph Shalom in Philadelphia(1919–24), where he also served as president of the Philadelphia Board of Jewish Ministers, vice chancellor of the Jewish
Chautauqua Society, and a member of the editorial board of
the Jewish Publication Society.
In 1925, he moved to Memphis to assume the pulpit ofCongregation Children of Israel (later, Temple Israel), where
he remained until his death, serving his final 21 years as rabbi
emeritus. He was both a religious and civic leader in Memphis, where he was founder and first president of the CrossCut Club, an organization of Memphis clergymen of all faiths
that formed the nucleus of that city’s chapter of the *National
Conference of Christians and Jews (NCCJ). He also instituted
several citywide interfaith initiatives, including Peace Heroes
Day; Good Will and Brotherhood Day (later expanded by the
NCCJ to Brotherhood Week); and non-sectarian Union Civic
Thanksgiving Day services.
Ettelson’s reputation as both a scholar and an orator
reached its zenith in 1932, when he engaged in a public debate on religion with Clarence Darrow, the noted attorney of
Scopes trial fame, who traveled around the country debating clergymen. Although there was no official decision as toa winner, according to the Memphis Press-Scimitar, “by andlarge, the majority sided with Dr. Ettelson’s masterly approach”
to the question, “Is Religion Necessary?” That same year, his
congregation awarded him the Joseph Newberger Memorial Cup, in recognition of his service to the Memphis Jewish
community. In 1940, Southwestern University awarded him
an honorary doctorate.
As chairman of the CCAR-UAHC Joint Commission on
Information on Judaism in the 1940s, Ettelson developed the

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6541[Jehuda Feliks]

ettenberg, sylvia cutler“Popular Studies in Judaism” program. He also served as president of the Hebrew Union College Alumni Association and
was a member of the HUC Board of Governors as well as of
the Executive Board of the Central Conference of American
Rabbis (1912). A frequent contributor to Jewish literary periodicals and a translator of poetry into Hebrew and Yiddish,he also wrote the book, The Integrity of I Maccabees (1925),
and published a translation of the epigrams of Shem Tov ben
Joseph *Falaquera, a 13t-century Jewish scholar and physician from Spain.
Bibliography: Journal of the 87t Annual Convention of theCentral Conference of American Rabbis (1976).
[Bezalel Gordon (2nd ed.)]ETTENBERG, SYLVIA CUTLER (1917– ), U.S. Jewish educator, particularly within the Conservative movement. Born
in Brooklyn, she received a B.A. from Brooklyn College and a
Bachelor of Pedagogy from the Jewish Theological Seminaryof America (JTS). In 1940 she married Moshe Ettenberg, anengineering professor; the couple had two children.
Although her career was spent almost exclusively at the
Jewish Theological Seminary of America, her influence wasfelt in a wide range of institutions and settings. Ettenberg, thefirst female senior administrator at JTS, played a leading role insome of the most important and innovative projects of Conservative Jewish education. She was directly involved in thefounding of the Seminary’s supplementary high school (theProzdor) in 1951, the creation of the Melton Research Centerin 1959, and the eventual establishment of the William Davidson Graduate School of Jewish Education in 1996. She workedon the creation of a joint undergraduate degree program between JTS and Columbia University and helped supervise theDepartment of Jewish Education at the Seminary as it developed its M.A. and doctoral programs.
Arguably, her most notable achievement was Camp Ramah, a summer educational camping program that grew into
an international network of camps. Ramah was first launchedin Wisconsin in 1947 by a group of community leaders from
Chicago. But it was Ettenberg and Moshe Davis who brought
Ramah inside the world of JTS itself, creating an infrastructure
for the camping system that developed over time and nurtured
the powerful educational vision embodied in the camps. The
Ramah camps had a profound impact on Jewish education andprovided a large percentage of the future academic, lay, andprofessional leadership of Conservative Judaism.
Ettenberg received an honorary doctorate from JTS, theBehrman House Books – Jewish Educators Assembly lifetime
achievement award, and the Samuel Rothberg Prize in Jewish
education from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
[Barry W. Holtz (2nd ed.)]ETTENDORF, township in the Bas-Rhin department, France.
Two Jewish families were recorded in the town in 1449. In 1784
the Jewish population of Ettendorf reached its peak of 124, butfrom the Revolution, it steadily declined; there were 37 Jews

542

there in 1868 and only one family in 1926. The Ettendorf community, though small, possessed two important institutions,which also served about 20 other communities in Lower Alsace: a cemetery opened during the late 15t century and a talmudical school established in the middle of the 18t century.
Bibliography: D. Fischer, Ein geschichtlicher Blick auf… Ettendorf (1868); U. Ginsburg, in: Souvenir et Science, 2:1 (1931), 14ff.
[Bernhard Blumenkranz]

ETTING, pioneer Jewish family in Baltimore, Maryland.
ELIJAH ETTING (1724–1778), progenitor of the family in the
U.S., arrived in the U.S. from Germany in 1758, settling in York,
Pennsylvania, where he became an important Indian trader.
After his death his widow, SHINAH (née Solomon), moved
to Baltimore with five of her seven children. Her two sons
Reuben and Solomon also settled there eventually. REUBENETTING (1762–1848), Maryland political figure, was born inYork, Pa. During a period when Jews still lived in Maryland
by license rather than by right, Reuben assumed the duties ofa full citizen in 1798 when a war between the United Statesand France seemed imminent and became captain of a militia company. Reuben was long involved in politics as a Jeffersonian Republican and was appointed U.S. marshal for
Maryland in 1801 by President Jefferson. He was thus the first
Jew in Maryland to hold public office, a quarter of a century
before the Jews gained civic equality in the state. SOLOMONETTING (1764–1847), businessman, political figure, and Jewish civic rights leader, also born in York, Pa., became a shoḥ etat the age of 18, the first American Jew to serve in this capacity. At first a hardware storekeeper, Solomon subsequently became a banker, a shipper, a founder of the Baltimore and Ohio
Railroad, and an important businessman. He was prominent
in the Baltimore Republican Society, a Jeffersonian politicalclub. He was a leader in the defense of Baltimore against the
British in the War of 1812, during which his 18-year-old son
Samuel was wounded in the battle at nearby Fort McHenry.
Etting was a “manager” of the Maryland State Colonization
Society, which sought to promote the resettlement of blacks
in Africa. Etting was active in the Baltimore German Society
and served as its vice president from 1820 to 1840. Although
he was not involved in any Jewish organization in Baltimore,
he supported the synagogue of his youth, Mikveh Israel, in
Philadelphia. In 1801 he purchased land for a Jewish cemetery in Baltimore. He also led in the struggle for Jewish civic
rights, opposing the Maryland law requiring of officeholdersa Christian oath. As early as 1797 he appealed to the State Legislature on behalf of a “sect of people called Jews, deprived ofinvaluable rights of citizenship and praying to be placed on thesame footing as other good citizens.” This petition initiated athree-decade struggle, which ended successfully in 1826. Soon
thereafter, Etting served as a Baltimore councilman. Solomon
Etting’s second wife was the daughter of the prominent leader
Barnard *Gratz.
Bibliography: Rosenbloom, Biog Dict, 35–36; AJHS, 2(1894), 33–44; 17 (1909), 81–88; 34 (1937), 66–69; Baroway, in: Mary-ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

ettinger, mordecai ze’ev ben isaac aaron segal
land Historical Magazine, 15 (1920), 1–20; E.M. Altfeld, Jews Struggle for Religious and Civil Liberty in Maryland (1924), index; A.J.M.
Pedley (ed.), Manuscript Collections of the Maryland Historical Society (1968), index.
[Isaac M. Fein]

ETTINGER, family noted for its scholars and community
leaders, originally from *Oettingen, Bavaria, from which thename derives. It is probably related to families named Oettingen or Ettingen: members of its East European branch wereprominent in Jewish life in modern times. First of note wasḤ ayyim Judah Leib Ettinger who in 1717 moved from Holesov (Holleschau), Moravia, to head a yeshivah in Lemberg,
Poland. His brother, JOSEPH, served as a preacher in Glogau,
Silesia, and wrote commentaries on the Torah, Edut bi-Yehosef(Sulzbach, 1741). Ḥ ayyim’s son AARON (1720–1769), rabbi in
Jaworow and Rzeszow, fought the spread of Ḥ asidism in Galicia. Well-known in the 19t century were Mordecai Ze’ev *Ettinger and his brother-in-law, Joseph Saul ha-Levi *Nathanson. Mordecai’s son, Isaac Aaron Ettinger (1827–1891), served
as rabbi in Przemysl and Lemberg. With BARUCH MORDECAI,
rabbi of *Bobruisk in *Belorussia for about 50 years until hesettled in Ereẓ Israel in 1851, the family assumed a leading position in *Chabad ḥ asidic circles; Baruch Mordecai was a close
disciple of *Shneur Zalman of Lyady. In the 20t century manymembers of the family, such as Akiva *Ettinger, took a prominent part in the economic and cultural life of East European
Jewry and Ereẓ Israel. SAMUEL ETTINGER (1919–1988), who
was born in Kiev, became professor of Jewish history at the
Hebrew University, Jerusalem. He wrote Toledot Yisrael ba-Et
ha-Ḥ adashah (“Jewish History in Modern Times,” 1970) andedited a volume of essays by H. Graetz in Hebrew (Darkhei
ha-Historiyah ha-Yehudit, 1969).
Bibliography: S. Buber, Anshei Shem (1895), 25, 67–69,
123–4, 151–2; Ch. N. Dembitzer, Kelilat Yofi, 1 (1960), 116–27, 146–9;
J. Slutzky (ed.), Sefer Bobruisk (1967), 269. Add. Bibliography:“Devarim le-Zikhroh shel Shemuel Ettinger,” in: Zion, 53:4 (1988),
423–40.
[Yehuda Slutsky]of the outbreak of war he went to The Hague, where the Jewish National Fund had its temporary head office. There hewrote a programmatic booklet, Jewish Colonization in Palestine: Methods, Plans and Capital (19162, published in English,
German, and Russian).
During the negotiations over the *Balfour Declaration,
Ettinger was invited by Chaim *Weizmann to London as adviser on settlement matters, and composed a comprehensive
memorandum, Palestine after the War: Proposals for Administration and Development (1918). Ettinger settled in Palestinein 1918, serving as director of the agricultural settlement department of the Zionist Organization until 1924. In 1919, after
the purchase of land for *Kiryat Anavim on the rocky Judean
hills, he founded the village which became a model for hill
settlements. His most important achievement involved thevast settlement project of the Jezreel Valley during 1921–24.
From 1924 to 1932 Ettinger played a prominent role on behalfof the Jewish National Fund in the purchase of land and thedrafting and implementation of settlement (the kevuẓ ah, kibbutz, and moshav) and aided their development on a mixed
farming basis with emphasis on dairy farming and orchards.
He also introduced new afforestation methods. From 1932 until his death Ettinger was adviser to the agricultural Yakhin
Company of the Histadrut.
Ettinger wrote many articles on agriculture in Ereẓ Israel.
His booklets include Nahalal (1924), Emek Yizre’el (1926), andHa-Karmel (1931). His memoirs are titled Im Ḥ akla’im Yehudim ba-Tefuẓ ot (“With Jewish Farmers in the Diaspora,” 1942),
and Im Ḥ akla’im Ivriyyim be-Arẓ enu (“With Hebrew Farmers
in our Country,” 1945).
Bibliography: A. Bein, Return to the Soil (1952), index.
[Alexander Bein]

ETTINGER, AKIVA JACOB (1872–1945), agricultural expert; founder and administrator of Jewish settlements in Ereẓ
Israel. Ettinger, born in Vitebsk, Belorussia, came from a distinguished family (his mother was descended from R. Akiva*Eger). He studied agriculture at the University of St. Petersburg and in West European countries. Representing the *Jewish Colonization Association (ICA), he took part in 1898 in
an investigation of the situation of Jewish farmers in southern Russia, and was then asked to establish a Jewish model
farm in Bessarabia. In 1911 he served as agricultural adviser
to ICA in South America. Ettinger, together with *Aḥ ad HaAm, was sent to Ereẓ Israel in 1902 by the *Odessa Committeeof Ḥ ovevei Zion to investigate the state of the Jewish settlements. In 1914 he was asked by the Zionist Organization and
the Jewish National Fund to serve as adviser and inspector
for Jewish agricultural settlement in Ereẓ Israel, but because

ETTINGER, MORDECAI ZE’EV BEN ISAAC AARONSEGAL (1804–1863), Polish rabbinical scholar, and scion ofa long line of rabbis (see *Ettinger family). He studied under
Naphtali Hirsch Sohastov, rabbi of Lemberg, and under his
own uncle, Jacob *Ornstein. Although renowned for his great
scholarship, he never occupied a rabbinical position, his considerable personal fortune rendering him independent. In 1857
he was chosen rabbi of Cracow and its environs and indicatedhis acceptance but changed his mind. He served as “nasi ofthe Holy Land” of the Austrian kolel, an honorable position
always given to the greatest of the rabbis. In this capacity he
did much to help consolidate the position of the Jewish community in Ereẓ Israel. He studied together with his brotherin-law, Joseph Saul ha-Levi *Nathanson, many joint works
resulting from their 25 years of collaboration.
First and foremost of them was Mefareshei ha-Yam (Lemberg, 1827), novellae and elucidation appended to the Yam haTalmud on the tractate Bava Kamma, by their uncle, Moses
Joshua Heshel Ornstein of Tarnogrod; at the end of this work
is included their halakhic correspondence with such contemporaries as Moses *Sofer, Mordecai *Banet, and Akiva *Eger.
Their remaining joint works to be noted are Me’irat Einayim

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6543

ettinger, shmuel

ETTINGER, SHMUEL (1919–1988), Israeli historian. Born in
Kiev, U.S.S.R., Ettinger immigrated to Ereẓ Israel in 1936 andstudied at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where he received his doctorate in 1956 for his study “The Jewish Colonization of the Ukraine, 1569–1648.” In 1952, while still a research
student, he joined the teaching staff of the Hebrew University,and in 1965 he became professor of modern Jewish history. He
was a visiting professor at Oxford University in 1969–70.
Ettinger’s major fields of research include Russian Jewish
history (from its beginnings until the Soviet era), the attitudeof 17t- and 18t-century European thought toward Judaism
and Jews, modern Jewish historiography, and the roots anddevelopment of modern antisemitism.
His research on the Muscovite state and its attitude toward the Jews and on the Jewish settlement in the Ukraine
constituted a basic contribution to the critical study of thehistory of the Jews in Russia. In his study of the ḥ asidic movement and its historical influence he emphasized the role ofthe ḥ asidic leadership as a powerful formative factor in thecontinued existence of Jewish autonomy under the centralist
regimes of Russia and Austria after the partitions of Poland.
The importance of his methodical contribution to the study ofthe origins of modern antisemitism lies in his unmasking theinherent nature of the critical, and even antagonistic attitude
toward Judaism in the major trends of modern European social thought: from the English deism and French rationalismof the 17t and 18t centuries to the romanticism, nationalism,
social Darwinism, and even liberalism and socialism of the
19t century. As a representative of the Jerusalem school ofJewish studies, Ettinger emphasized a conceptual framework
revolving around the unity and continuity of Jewish history.
Within this framework he regarded the centrality of the redemptive principle as an historical motive force even in its
secular manifestations, especially in the social and national
radicalism of modern Jewish history. His research method,in which he regarded himself as continuing along the path of
B.Z. Dinur and Y. Baer, was characterized by the tension between a broad teleological view of Jewish history and its central tendencies, and a rare command of critical investigative
methods directed toward detailed elements of historical reality in a wide variety of areas.
Ettinger’s studies were published mainly in the journals
Zion, He-Avar, Molad, Gesher, Scripta Hierosolymitana, Cahiers d’Histoire Mondiale, and the publications of the Israel
Historical Society. He published two works of a general nature
on modern Jewish history: a volume of his university lectures,
Toledot Am Yisrael mi-Yemei ha-Absolutism ad La-Hakamat
Medinat Yisrael (“History of the Jewish People from the Era ofAbsolutism until the Establishment of the State of Israel,” lastedition 1968), and Toledot Am Yisrael ba-Zeman he-Ḥ adash(“History of the Jewish People in Modern Times,” 1969), thelatter being the third volume of a series on Jewish history byteachers of the Hebrew University. The latter volume is aimed
at a broader reading public and deals in greater detail with theperiod from the 1880s until after the Six-Day War. During the
1960s, a parallel series in Russian was prepared and publishedunder his editorship (Ocherki po Istorii Yevreiskogo Naroda,
last edition 1972). He also published a volume of theoreticalessays, excerpts from the diary and correspondence of the historian Graetz (Ẓ vi Graetz, Darkhei ha-Historiah ha-Yehudit,1969), and a history textbook for Israeli high schools.
Ettinger served on the editorial board of Zion, the journal for Jewish history (editorial secretary 1955–59, and editor
from 1960) and on the executive board of the Israeli Historical Society and the Central Archives for the History of theJewish People. He was among the initiators and directors ofmany research projects, among them the Center for Eastern
European Jewish Studies, which he headed.
Closely related to his scientific work was his intensive
public activity, devoted mainly to two areas: the educational
system of Israel, at every level, and the national awakening of544

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6(Vilna, 1839), a work in seven sections on the inspection ofanimals’ lungs; Magen Gibborim, 1 (Lemberg, 1834), 2 (Zolkieve, 1839); two commentaries on the first 235 chapters of the
Shulḥ an Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥ ayyim; glosses to and emendationsof the glosses of Mordecai *Jaffe on the Talmud (publishedin the Romm Vilna edition of the Talmud); Ma’aseh Alfas (inthe Romm Vilna edition of Alfasi), glosses on the halakhot
of Isaac Alfasi and the Mordecai; Ner Ma’aravi. a commentary on the Jerusalem Talmud which includes references under the title Ein Mishpat and glosses thereto entitled Gilyon
ha-Shas (published in the Piotrkow 1859–60 edition of theJerusalem Talmud).
This fruitful partnership ended in 1859, Ettinger having
published in Solomon *Kluger of Brod’s booklet Moda’ah leVeit Yisrael (1859), which contained a ban against machinebaked maẓ ẓ ot, whereupon Nathanson published a contrary
opinion in a booklet called Bittul Moda’ah (1859). After therift with his brother-in-law, Ettinger devoted himself to study
together with his son Isaac Aaron (Ma’amar Mordekhai, no.
58), and decided to publish responsa and novellae independently. To this period belong his important responsa Ma’amar
Mordekhai (1852), which deal to a great extent with the lawsof *agunah. A collection of his responsa, Shevet Aḥ im, has remained in manuscript.
His most famous son was ISAAC AARON (1827–1891) who
served as rabbi in Przemysl and in 1888 succeeded Ẓ evi Hirsch
Ornstein as rabbi of Lemberg, remaining there until his death.
Like his father, he at first refused all rabbinical offers, including
the rabbinate of Przemysl, and like him also served as “nasi ofthe Holy Land.” His novellae were published together with hisfather’s Ma’amar Mordekhai, and his responsa are found in his
Maharya ha-Levi (2 vols., 1893), as well as in various works ofcontemporary rabbis.
Bibliography: S. Buber, Anshei Shem (1895), 151f.; I.T. Eisenstadt and S. Wiener, Da’at Kedoshim (1897–98), 178; H.N. Dembitzer,
Kelilat Yofi, 1 (1888), 146a–49b, 156a–b; L. Ginzberg, Perushim veḤ iddushim ba-Yerushalmi, 1 (1941), LXI (Eng. introd.); EG.
[Itzhak Alfassi]

ettlingen
the Jews in Soviet Russia and their spiritual and social integration in Israel.

[Otto Dov Kulka]

ETTINGER, SOLOMON (Shloyme; 1803–1856), Yiddish
poet and dramatist. Born in Warsaw, orphaned, and thenraised in Leczna by his paternal uncle, Ettinger moved toZamosc after marrying Golda, the daughter of magnate Judah
Leib Wolf, where he was influenced by the Haskalah. He studied pharmacy and medicine in Lemberg (Lvov) – where hediscovered the writer in himself – and practiced medicine,
despite difficulties with certification in Poland. Although heknew both Hebrew and German, he chose to write in Yiddish, attempting to create his own literary style. The influence of Lessing, Buerger, and other German writers can betraced in his works, and he was also influenced by the Yiddish comedies of Isaac *Euchel and Aaron *Wolfsohn-Halle.
Ettinger wrote satirical and witty ballads, epigrams, poems,
and dramas. His fables (mesholim) reflect an influence by the
Maggid of Dubno (see Jacob ben Wolf *Kranz), who left his
imprint on Zamosc with this genre in the early 19t century.
Ettinger concentrated on individual problems rather thanon the contemporary ones with which Haskalah literature
generally concerned itself. He influenced not only Abraham*Goldfaden but also Sholem Yankev *Abramovitsh and later
writers. In his play, Serkele, he portrays an ambitious woman
who pursues wealth and power and gives a vivid picture of
the local environment and customs. He starkly outlines the
foibles and passions of the fledgling urban Jewish bourgeoisie, foreshadowing his great heir in this genre, Isaac Bashevis *Singer. He also wrote two unfinished plays: Der Feter fun
Amerika (“The American Uncle”) and Di Freylekhe Yungelayt(“The Jolly Young People”).
Because of censorship, the only piece to appear in his
lifetime was a short Hebrew poem (1837); but some of his fables and poems were posthumously published. His son, W.
Ettinger, a well-known Russian publisher, brought out his
Mesholim in St. Petersburg (1889, 18902). The definitive edition of his works, Ale Ksovim fun Dr. Shloyme Ettinger (“Collected Works of Dr. Shloyme Ettinger”), in two volumes, edited by Max Weinreich, was published in Vilna in 1925; andhis Geklibene Verk (“Selected Works”), edited by Max Erik,appeared in Kiev in 1935. In 1957 another selection, Oysgeklibene Shriften edited by S. Rollanski (Rozhansky), was published in Buenos Aires.

Frankfurt, where he received his doctorate in Islamic studies
in 1931, from which time he devoted himself to the study of,
and research into, Islamic art. In 1934 he immigrated to theUnited States. His extensive contributions to Islamic art werein academic teaching, museum activities, and scholarly publications. From 1934 to 1937 he was research associate of theAmerican Institute of Persian Art and Archaeology and from1938 to 1949 he taught Islamic art at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. In 1944, he also began to work in the Near
Eastern Section of the Freer Gallery of Art at the Smithsonian Institution, where he acted as head curator from 1961 to
1967. Continuing to combine university and museum work,
he taught at the Institute of Fine Arts at New York University
from 1961, was appointed Hagop Kevorkian Professor of Islamic Art in 1967, and consultative chairman of the Islamic
Department of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New Yorkin 1969, at the same time acting as trustee of various galleries and museums, such as the Phillips Gallery and the Textile
Museum, Washington, and was the main promoter of the L.A.
Mayer Memorial Institute, dedicated to Islamic art, opened in1974 in Jerusalem.
He was the author of numerous scholarly publications,covering a very wide range of subjects, but particularly studies dedicated to Islamic painting. These are again extremely
varied with much attention paid to Persian, Turkish, Muslim, Indian, and of course Arab, painting. They include studies in Muslim iconography – The Unicorn (1950), Paintingsof the Sultans and Emperors of India in American Collections(1961), Persian Paintings in the Bernard Berenson Collection(1961), and Arab Painting (1962). He initiated and organizedmany exhibitions which dealt with problems of Islamic art for
which he compiled the catalogs. He was the editor of Ars Islamica, the first periodical dedicated to Islamic arts (1938–50);
he then became a member of the editorial board of Ars Orientalis (1954–67), as well as of Artibus Asiae; he was co-editorof Kunst des Orients.
[Miriam Rosen-Ayalon]

ETTINGHAUSEN, RICHARD (1906–1979), historian of Islamic art. Ettinghausen was born in Germany and studied in

ETTLINGEN, town in Baden, Germany. The Jews living thereat the time of the *Black Death, 1348–49, suffered from persecution. At assemblies of the regional Estates held in 1588,
1589, and 1591, the representatives of Ettlingen pressed for the
expulsion of the Jews from the city. There were two Jewish
families living in Ettlingen in 1683. In 1729 a “protected” Jew,
Mayer (originally from Malsch), had to leave his home near
the castle and was permitted to build a house of medium sizenear the town square. The Jews of Ettlingen paid a protection
tax of 16 florins in the 18t century, which was reduced to 8
florins in 1812. A prayer hall was opened in 1812 and a synagogue in 1849; it was replaced by a building in Renaissancestyle in 1889. The community numbered 33 in 1825 and 70 in
1900. In 1933 there were 48 Jews in the city, joined later by 31
from other locales. About two-thirds emigrated or left forother German cities during the Nazi era and the rest weredeported. On Nov. 10, 1939, the synagogue was demolished.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6545

Bibliography: J. Leftwich, The Golden Peacock (1961), 693f.;
Bloch, in: Journal of Jewish Bibliography, 1 (1938), 21f.; Rejzen, Leksikon, 2 (1927), 725–39; M. Weinreich, Bilder fun der Yidisher Literatur-Geshikhte (1928), 280–91; S. Niger, Yiddish Literature in the Past
Two Hundred Years 3 (1952), 174–6; I. Zinberg, Geshikhte fun der Literatur bay Yidn, 8:2 (1937), 233–48.
[Elias Schulman / Jack S. Berger (2nd ed.)]ettlinger, jacob
R. Jacob *Ettlinger and other Jews bearing the name probably
originated from Ettlingen.
Bibliography: Fuehrer durch die juedische Wohlfahrtspflege(1932/33), 348; Germ Jud, 2 (1968), 232–3; F.M. Hundsnurscher and G.
Taddey, Die juedischen Gemeinden in Baden (1967), index.

ETTLINGER, JACOB (1798–1871), German rabbi and champion of neo-Orthodoxy. After receiving preliminary instruction from his father, Aaron Ettlinger, Klausrabbiner, a local
rabbi in Karlsruhe, Jacob continued his studies under threeeminent rabbis: Asher Wallerstein, Abraham Bing, and Wolf
Hamburger. He was one of the first Jews admitted to the University of Wuerzburg, but was forced to leave because of anantisemitic outbreak. In 1826, he was appointed Kreisrabbiner(“district rabbi”) for the districts of Ladenburg and Ingolstadt and settled in Mannheim, where he founded a yeshivahthat attracted numerous students including Samson Raphael*Hirsch. Ten years later, he was appointed chief rabbi of Altona, a post which he retained until his death. The yeshivah
which he established in that city was attended by Israel (Azriel) *Hildesheimer.
An unswerving traditionalist, Ettlinger reacted to theconference of Reform rabbis in Brunswick (1844) by rallying
many of his colleagues in protest against what they considered
the gravest threat to Judaism’s future. A notable result of thismove was Ettlinger’s decision to publish works reflecting thestand of Jewish Orthodoxy, among them his pamphlet, Shelomei Emunei Yisrael, and Der Zionswaechter, a journal of traditionalist thought, with a Hebrew supplement, Shomer Ẓ iyyon
ha-Ne’eman, edited by S.J. Enoch (1845). He was the last rabbi
to preside over the Altona bet din before its jurisdiction in civil
matters was revoked by the Danish authorities in 1863. In thefollowing year, Denmark ceded Altona with Schleswig-Holstein to Prussia and Ettlinger made such a favorable impression on the Prussian king, William, during his visit to Altona
in 1865, that the rights previously enjoyed by the Jewish community under the Danes were reconfirmed by royal decree.
An outstanding halakhist, Ettlinger published the following
works (all printed at Altona, unless otherwise indicated): Bikkurei Ya’akov, on the laws concerning the festival of Tabernacles (1836; 2nd ed. with the addition Tosefot Bikkurim, 1858);
Arukh la-Ner, glosses on various talmudic treatises (on Yevamot 1850; 2nd ed. Piotrkow 1914; on Makkot and Keritot 1855;
on Sukkah 1858; on Niddah 1864; on Rosh ha-Shanah and Sanhedrin, Warsaw, 1873); Binyan Ẓ iyyon, responsa (1868), and its
sequel, She’elot u-Teshuvot Binyan Ẓ iyyon ha-Hadashot (Vilna,
1874); Minḥ at Ani, homilies (1874; 2nd ed. Frankfurt, 1924) anda number of sermons in German. A collection of his articles
and addresses was published by L.M. Bamberger (Schildberg,
1899). Through Hirsch and Hildesheimer, Ettlinger exerted anincalculable influence on the course of neo-Orthodoxy in Germany. His great modesty is reflected in his will which stipulates
that only the barest details be inscribed on his tombstone.

ETTLINGER, MARION (1949– ), U.S. photographer.
Ettlinger, the daughter of German Jews who fled the Nazis in
December 1938, grew up in Queens, N.Y., and was educated at
Cooper Union in Manhattan, where she studied painting. She
discovered photography then but it was not until 1983, when
she got an assignment from Esquire magazine, that she foundher calling and her career. Esquire, celebrating its 50t birthday,
asked Ettlinger to photograph authors who had contributed toa special issue of the magazine. Her photograph of the writer
Truman Capote, in striking profile, proved memorable, andin more than 20 years Ettlinger photographed more than 600
authors for book jackets. She worked exclusively in black andwhite, using only natural light. More than 200 of her author
photos were collected in Author Photo: Portraits, 1983–2002,
a coffee-table volume that includes well-known writers aswell as her own image. Previously, authors often tended toappear on the covers of their books in relaxed, un-self-conscious moods and settings. But Ettlinger made portraits for thebook jackets, the authors posed and orchestrated as objects intheir own right, and her name entered the language as a verb.
To be “Ettlingered,” according to an article in the New YorkTimes, means to have imparted to you an aura of distinction
and renown. Publishers considered these photos as assets to
help sell their books.
[Stewart Kampel (2nd ed.)]Bibliography: A. Posner and E. Freimann, in: L. Jung (ed.),
Guardians of our Heritage (1958).
[Shlomo Eidelberg]

ETZIONI, AMITAI WERNER (1929– ), sociologist. Etzioni was born in Cologne, West Germany, but immigrated at
an early age to Ereẓ Israel, studying at the Hebrew University
and later at the University of California at Berkeley, where
he received his doctorate in sociology in 1958. He was on thefaculty of Columbia University from 1958, and chairman ofthe department of sociology from 1969. From 1979 to 1980 heserved as senior adviser to the White House and in the latter year was University Professor at George Washington University. In 1987–89, he served as the Thomas Henry Carroll
Ford Foundation Professor at the Harvard Business School.
In 1989–90 he was the founding president of the International
Society for the Advancement of Socio-Economics, and in 1990
he founded the Communitarian Network, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to shoring up the moral, social, and political foundations of society. He was the editor of
The Responsive Community: Rights and Responsibilities, the organization’s quarterly journal, from 1991 to 2004. Etzioni also
served as the president of the American Sociological Association in 1994–95. His primary areas of interest are political sociology and organizational analysis. Etzioni is a member of the
Science Information Council of the National Science Foundation and a member of the Social Problems Research Committee of the National Institute of Mental Health, as well asa consultant to many organizations, including the President’s
Advisory Committee on Campus Unrest and Change.
He contributed over 80 articles to various professional
journals and books and wrote numerous books, of which themost important is The Active Society: A Theory of Societal and546

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

eugenius
Political Processes (1968). Among the others are A Diary of a
Commando Soldier (1952), The Moon-Doogle: Domestic andInternational Implications of the Space Race (1964), Political
Unification: A Comparative Study of Leaders and Forces (1965),
Demonstration Democracy (1971), The Moral Dimension: Toward a New Economics (1988), The Spirit of Community (1993),
The New Golden Rule (1996), The Limits of Privacy (1999), The
Monochrome Society (2001), My Brother’s Keeper: A Memoir
and a Message (2003), and From Empire to Community: A New
Approach to International Relations (2004).
Etzioni has been the recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship and the William Mosher Award for the most distinguished academic article in the Public Administration Review
in 1967. In 2001 he was named one of the top 100 American
intellectuals. At the same year he was awarded the John P. McGovern Award in Behavioral Sciences as well as the Officer’s
Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany. He was also the recipient of the Seventh James Wilbur
Award for Extraordinary Contributions to the Appreciation
and Advancement of Human Values by the Conference on
Value Inquiry as well as the Sociological Practice Association’s
Outstanding Contribution Award.

respects to imitate Montesquieu’s Persian Letters. In 1797 hepublished in Breslau a pamphlet (German in Hebrew characters) entitled Ist nach dem juedischen Gesetze das Uebernachten der Todten wirklieh verboten? To combat the influence of
the Orthodox, Euchel wrote (about 1792) a satirical comedy
in colloquial Yiddish, called Reb Henekh, Oder Vos Tut Men
Damit. No copies are extant of this edition, which apparently
was published after Euchel’s death. A new edition in Gothic
characters (Reb Henoch; oder Was thut men damit) appearedin Berlin in 1846; and in 1933, Z. Rejzen republished it in his
Arkhiv far der Geshikhte fun Yidishen Teater un Drama, fromthe manuscript preserved in the Rosenthaliana library in
Amsterdam. The play, sharply satirical, especially in the portrayal of the Orthodox, reflects the relations between Jews
and non-Jews in Prussia during the period of the struggle foremancipation.
Bibliography: Klausner, Sifrut, 1 (19522), 131–43; M. Erik,
Di Komedies fun der Berliner Oyfklerung (1933), 42–61; J.L. Landau,
Short Lectures on Modern Hebrew Literature (19382), index; N. Slouschz, Renascence of Hebrew Literature (1909), 41.
[Gedalyah Elkoshi]

EUCHEL, ISAAC ABRAHAM (1756–1804), Hebrew author,
Bible commentator, and one of the leaders of the *Haskalahin Germany. Born in Copenhagen, Euchel, having received a
traditional education, moved in 1773 to Koenigsberg, where
he earned his living as a tutor in the home of the wealthy*Friedlaender family. In 1781 he attended Kant’s lectures at
the University of Koenigsberg. He was recommended for alectureship in Hebrew at the university but was rejected because he was Jewish. In 1787, Euchel moved to Berlin, where
he managed the printing press of the Juedische Freischule(Ḥ innukh Ne’arim School). Later he worked as a bookkeeper
for a commercial firm.
Euchel’s literary and communal activity began in 1782
(in Koenigsberg) with the publication of his pamphlet Sefat
Emet, in which he called for the establishment of a school in
Koenigsberg, based on the principles of the Enlightenment.
In 1782 he was one of the founders of Ḥ evrat Doreshei LeshonEver (The Society of Advocates of the Hebrew Language),which started to publish Ha-Me’assef, and, with Menahem
Mendel Breslau, published Naḥ al ha-Besor, the prospectus of
Ha-Me’assef. He served as one of the editors of Ha-Me’assef aslong as he was in Koenigsberg (till 1790), and published several articles in that periodical, including the first monographon Moses Mendelssohn, entitled Toledot Rabbenu he-Ḥ akham
Moshe ben Menaḥ em (published in book form in Berlin, 1789).
He also prepared a free translation of the prayer book into
German (1786) and wrote a commentary on Proverbs, with aGerman translation in Hebrew characters (Berlin, 1790). In
addition, he is credited with the authorship of Iggerot Meshullam Ben Uriyyah ha-Eshtemo’i which started to appear in HaMe’assef in the autumn of 1789, and which seemed in some

°EUGENIUS, name of four popes. They include the following:
EUGENIUS III (1145–53). At the time of Eugenius’ solemn
entry into Rome in 1145, the Jews of the city formed part ofthe procession which welcomed him. Probably as a result of
the anti-Jewish persecutions following the preaching of theSecond Crusade, Eugenius renewed the Sicut Judaeis, Pope
Calixtus II’s bull of protection for the Jews (see papal *bulls).
In doing this, he may have acted on the advice of *Bernard of
Clairvaux, his former teacher, with whom he maintained close
relations. In one of a series of letters to Pope Eugenius written
between 1149 and 1152, Bernard pointed out that the concernof the pope should also go out to the Jews.
EUGENIUS IV (1431–47). The greater part of his reign wasespecially favorable for the Jews. In 1432, soon after his ascentto the papal throne, Eugenius IV ratified the privileges of theJewish communities of Lombardy, the Marches, and Sardinia.
He retained his predecessor’s Jewish personal physician, Elia di
Sabato, and in 1433 confirmed his freedom of the city and hissalary. On Feb. 6, 1434, he assured the German Jewish communities of his protection, particularly against attempts at forced
conversion, any interference with the practice of their religion,and desecration of their cemeteries. Eugenius ordered the layand ecclesiastical authorities to assist the Jewish communities
in the payment of their taxes.
The change in his attitude probably followed on the deliberations of the Council of Basle (1431–37), which also adopted a severe attitude toward Christian heresies. In order not
to appear dilatory in his strictness toward the Jews, in 1442
Eugenius forbade Christians in Leon and Castile to have any
relationships with them as maids or menservants. The Jews
were forbidden to erect any new synagogues, to lend money
on interest, and to work on Sundays and Christian holidays;

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

547[Jacob Jay Lindenthal]euhemerus
they were to be excluded from public office and could not testify against Christians. The provisions of this bull were soon
extended to Italy, where the Jews were also prohibited fromstudying any book but the Pentateuch. As a result many Jews
left the Papal States, taking refuge especially in Mantua, where
the ruler, Giovanni Francesco Gonzaga, offered them fairly
liberal conditions. After large sums of money had changed
hands, the restrictive measures were rescinded in December
1443. From then on, Eugenius once more extended his protection to the Jews. Only a few days before his death, he issued abull against forced baptisms in Spain.
Bibliography: Vogelstein-Rieger, 1 (1895), 222–3; 2 (1896),
9–13; Milano, Italia, 154–6; Roth, Italy, 162–4 and passim; J. Gill, Eugenius IV (Eng., 1961); M.A. Dimier, in: Dictionnaire d’histoire et degéographie ecclesiastiques, 15 (1963), 1349ff.; S. Grayzel, Church and
the Jews… (19662), 76.
[Bernhard Blumenkranz]°EUHEMERUS (fourth century B.C.E.), writer. In his Hiera
Anagraphe (“Sacred History”), Euhemerus suggested thatthe gods had originally been benefactors of mankind who
were subsequently worshipped because of their great deeds.
Josephus cites him as establishing the antiquity of the Jews
(Apion, 1:216).
EULAU, HEINZ (1915–2004), U.S. political scientist. Born in
Offenbach, Germany, Eulau went to the U.S. as a young man in
1935. He earned his bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees
in political science from the University of California-Berkeley from 1937 to 1941. During 1946–47 he was assistant editorof the New Republic and then taught at Antioch College. He
worked in the Library of Congress in Washington and later inthe Department of Justice, and in 1958 became professor of political science at Stanford University and served as chair from1969–74 and 1981–84. Eulau was one of the leading exponentsof the behaviorist trend in American political science, whichattempted to transform the study of political science into ascientifically oriented discipline based on empirical research
and a wide interdisciplinary frame of reference. A path-breaking scholar in the field of legislative research, he specialized in
the theory and practice of political representation and electoral behavior. The behavioral movement, which he brought
to Stanford, introduced psychology and sociology to study thelinkages between political institutions and citizens. He wasalso instrumental in creating a new field of research focusing
on the systematic quantitative analysis of citizens’ attitudes
and choices. His thesis was set out in his work The Behavioral
Persuasion in Politics (1963), which followed Political Behavior(1956) and Legislative Behavior (1959), both of which he co-authored with J.C. Wahlke. In 1961 he became general editor of
the International Yearbook of Political Behavior Research andwas also associate editor for political science of the International Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences (1968).
Eulau was president of the American Political Science
Association from 1971 to 1972. In 1976, he helped found Leg-548

islative Studies Quarterly, a journal published at the Universityof Iowa. He retired from Stanford in 1986 but remained active
as the William Bennett Munro Professor Emeritus of Political
Science. He also wrote The Legislative System (1962), Class andParty in the Eisenhower Years (1962), Lawyers in Politics (1964),
Political Science (1969), Labyrinths of Democracy (with K. Prewitt, 1973), Technology and Civility (1977), The Politics of Representation (1978), Politics, Self and Society (1986), and MicroMacro Dilemmas in Political Science (1996). In 1998, he took alight-hearted swipe at university life in The Politics of Academic
Culture: Foibles, Fables and Facts, and in 2001 co-authored afamily history, The Mishpokhe from Eulau-Jilove.
In 1986, the American Political Science Association established the Heinz Eulau Award to honor his contributions
to political science. In 2002, the Heinz Eulau Political Behavior Fellowship was established by the Stanford Institute for
the Quantitative Study of Society. In 1999 he was awarded
the Warren E. Miller Award for meritorious service to thesocial sciences, one of the country’s highest honors in the social sciences.
His wife, CLEO MISHKIN EULAU (1923–2004), died
five days after her husband. She was the Stanford University
adjunct clinical professor in the department of psychiatry
and behavioral sciences. In 1994, the Cleo Eulau Center was
founded as a service and study center dedicated to developing innovative solutions to helping at-risk children and teens.
In 2002, she was the first woman and first non-psychiatrist toreceive the Lifetime Achievement Award from Stanford’s department of psychiatry.
[Edwin Emanuel Gutmann / Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]EULENBURG, ERNST (1847–1926), music publisher. The
Musikverlag Eulenburg, founded by Eulenburg in Leipzig in
1874, at first published mainly educational literature, but was
gradually extended to include scores and especially miniaturescores of orchestral and chamber music. His son KURT transferred the firm to London in 1939. He enlarged the numberof miniature scores and also increased the output of modernmusic. In 1957 the shares of the Eulenburg Edition were takenover by Schott of London.
EULENBURG, ISAAC BEN ABRAHAM MOSES ISRAEL(d. 1657), rabbi and author, also known as Isaac Przybyslawa.
Isaac’s father, who died in 1605, was the cantor and scribe of
the old synagogue of Cracow. Isaac studied under Joel *Sirkes
and from 1640 to 1647 served as dayyan and preacher in Cracow. Moses Jekuthiel Kaufman, in Leḥ em ha-Panim, quotes
one of his halakhic decisions given during his stay in Cracow.
In 1648 Isaac became rabbi of Lissa and, finally, of Leipnik(Moravia), where he died. He is incorrectly held by some tohave occupied a rabbinical position in Brest-Litovsk (Brisk),
Lithuania, and in Nikolsburg. Eulenburg’s novellae on the
Shulḥ an Arukh, Even ha-Ezer and Ḥ oshen Mishpat, a workon marriage and divorce, and his responsa, have remainedin manuscript. He is sometimes identified with the “Isaac
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6euphemism and dysphemism
ha-Darshan” frequently referred to by Michael Jospes in his
Birkat ha-Mayim (1861), and has also been identified by several scholars (Zunz and Landshut) with Isaac b. Abraham
Moses Israel, the author of a seliḥ ah bewailing the massacreof the Jews of Podolia and Ukraine in 1648–49. Lewin, however, maintains the author to have been a rabbi of Posen whobore the same name.
Bibliography: Landshuth, Ammudet, xiii–xv, no. 7; H.N.
Dembitzer, Kelilat Yofi, 2 (1893), 97b; S. Buber, Anshei Shem (1895),
114, no. 271; Wettstein, in: Sefer ha-Yovel… N. Sokolow (1904), 297f.,
no. 21; L. Lewin, Geschichte der Juden in Lissa (1904), 173f., 372f. (no.
18), 378.
[Itzhak Alfassi]

EUNUCH. The Hebrew word sārīs (Heb. ‫) ָס ִריס‬, a loanword
from Akkadian, has two meanings in the Bible: the first andmost common is “eunuch” (e.g. II Kings 8:6; 9:32; 20:18 (= Isa.
39:7); Isa. 56:3–5; and Jer. 39:7) (ʾīš sārīs and all the instances in
the Book of Esther (2:3 passim)); and second, a government
official or officer, not necessarily a eunuch (I Sam. 8:14–15;
I Kings 22:9). Inasmuch as eunuchs in some cultures were
married, it is not impossible that Potiphar (Gen. 37:36; 39:1)
was a eunuch, which could account for the notorious actionsof his wife (Tadmor, apud Zevit in Bibliography). Daniel andhis companions, though not specifically called “eunuchs,” aresupervised by the chief of the eunuchs (Dan. 1:3, 7, 10, 18),
in apparent fulfillment of the prophecy (II Kgs. 20:18 = Isa.
39:7) that some of Hezekiah’s offspring would be eunuchs in
the palace of the king of Babylonia. As was the case in Assyria (see Grayson in Bibliography, 98), eunuchs could rise
to high positions, as shown by the place they occupy in thelist in Jeremiah 29:2, where the hierarchical order of the captives is given as the king, his mother, the sarisim, the sarim(“leaders”), and the craftsmen (but cf. II Kings 24:12, 15). The
Akkadian ša rēši, elliptical for ša rēš šarri izuzzū, “the one who
stands by the head of the king,” was pronounced sa rēsi in Middle and Late Assyrian, resulting in the Hebrew and Aramaic
forms with samekh. There are clear attestations of Akkadianša rēši in the meaning “eunuch.” In court circles the ša rēši issometimes opposed to ša ziqni, “the one of the beard.” Middle
Assyrian royal ordinances regulating women’s quarters prescribed examination of the ša rēši to assure his status of eunuch, and subsequent castration if he failed the examination.
Being turned into a ša rēši (ana ša rēšēn turrû) was a punishment for adultery in the Middle Assyrian laws (A15) and forsodomy (A20). There are attestations of ša rēši that do not demand the sense “eunuch” (See CAD R, 289–97) and that is true
for the Hebrew loan as well. The law excluding eunuchs fromthe Israelite community (Deut. 23:2) describes the eunuch as
the one with crushed testicles (the normal form of childhood
castration) rather than by the ambivalent term sārīs. II Kings
18:17 mentions Rab-saris (mistakenly treated by the Hebrew
writer as a proper name) together with other high-ranking
officials in the Assyrian kingdom. The reference to Rab-saris in Jeremiah 39:3, 13 testifies to the existence of this class in
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

the Neo-Babylonian kingdom as well. The date of a bilingual
Akkadian-Aramaic inscription from Nineveh is indicated by
the limmu (i.e., eponym) of a rab ša rēši. Since the office oflimmu was held only by high officials, it is evident that the office of Rab-saris was of high rank. Isaiah 56:3–5, comforts
the eunuchs who keep the Sabbath and observe the covenant;they are promised “a yad, either a memorial stele (Talmon) ora share (Japhet) in the temple precincts, and a name, better
than sons and daughters.”
Bibliography: M. Springling, in: AJSLL, 49 (1932), 53–54; E.
Weidner, in: AFO, 17 (1955–56), 264–5; H.G. Gueterbock, in: Oriens, 10(1957), 361; A. Goetze, in: Journal of Cuneiform Studies, 13 (1959), 66;
M. and H. Tadmor, in: BIES, 31 (1967), 77–78. Add. Bibliography:
S. Talmon, in: H. Beinart and S. Loewenstamm (eds.), Studies …Cassuto, 1987, 137–41; S. Japhet, in: MAARAV, 8 (FS Gevirtz; 1992), 65–80;
M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (1988), 112; A.K. Grayson, in: M.
Dietrich and O. Loretz (eds.), Von Alten Orient zum Alten Testament
FS von Soden (1995), 85–97; H. Tadmor, in: Z. Zevit et al. (eds.), Solving Riddles …Studies J.C. Greenfield (1995), 317–25; idem, in: S. Parpola and R. Whiting (eds.), Papers XLVII Recontre AssyriologiqueInternationale (2002), 1–9; R. Mattila, The King’s Magnates (2000),
61–76, 163–64; N. Fox, In the Service of the King (2000), 196–203; P.
Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew (2000), 123–25;
COS 2, 355.
[S. David Sperling (2nd ed.)]EUPHEMISM AND DYSPHEMISM.
Euphemism
Euphemism is the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive
word or term for one that is indelicate, blasphemous, or taboo.
Various types of euphemisms are found in the Bible, including(1) avoidance of direct implication of the speaker – “Should
you gouge out these men’s eyes” rather than “our eyes” (Num.
16:14; similarly, I Sam. 29:4); (2) avoidance of direct implication in an oath – “God do so to the enemies of David” rather
than “my enemies,” David being the speaker (I Sam. 25:22; similarly, I Sam. 20:16); (3) avoidance of the expression “to die”:
several different euphemistic expressions are employed, e.g.,(a) “I am about to go the way of all the earth” (I Kings 2:2);(b) “I shall go the way whence I shall not return” (Job 16:22);(c) “Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, for God
took him” (Gen. 5:24; cf. II Kings 2:3); and (d) “They shall sleepa perpetual sleep and not wake” (Jer. 51:39, 57); (4) avoidanceof “cursing” (or rather, “blaspheming”) God: the Hebrew verb
barakh ‫“( ברך‬bless” or “praise”) is employed (I Kings 21:10, 13;
Job 1:5, 11; 2:5, 9), or, instead of the verb, the object is changed
from “YHWH” to “the enemies of YHWH” (II Sam. 12:14); and(5) avoidance of indelicate and offensive expressions: (a) the
expression “to cover one’s legs” (Heb. hasekh raglayim) is substituted for “to defecate” (Judg. 3:24; I Sam. 24:3); “the breadhe eats” (Gen. 39:6) for “the woman with whom he has sexual
relations” (cf. Prov. 30:20); (b) the following are changed by
the keri (qeri) of the masoretic text: the verb shagal (“to rape”)
to shakhav (Deut. 28:30; Isa. 13:16; Jer. 3:2; Zech. 14:2); ʿafolim(“hemorrhoids”) to teḥ orim (Deut. 28:27; I Sam. 5:6, 9, 12; 6:4,
5); ḥ are(ʿe)hem (“their excrement”) to ẓ o’atam (II Kings 18:27;

549

euphemism and dysphemism
Isa. 36:12; cf. also II Kings 10:27 where Le-maḥ ara’ot is read lemoẓ a’ot); and sheineihem (“their urine”) to memei ragleihem(II Kings 18:27; Isa. 36:12).
Lists of euphemistic expressions in the Bible are foundin early tannaitic collections of halakhic Midrash. Eleven examples are given in the Mekhilta (Shirah 6) and seven in the
Sifrei (Num. 84). The technical term employed is kinnah hakatuv, “Scripture used a euphemistic expression.” Later collections of Midrash (Tanḥ . Be-Shalah 16; Gen. R. 49:7; Ex.
R. 13:1) employed the phrase *tikkun soferim (“emendationof the scribes”) and record additional examples of this phenomenon. Though the difference in terminology reflects two
different schools of thought, namely those holding that the
Bible itself originally employed euphemistic expressions andthose holding that the change was first made by the soferim,
both agree that the changes were made in deference to thehonor of the Lord (Lieberman). Examples of one such list
follow: (1) “Abraham remained standing before the Lord” for“The Lord remained standing before Abraham” (Gen. 18:22);(2) “For his sons were blaspheming themselves” for “blaspheming God” (I Sam. 3:13); (3) “But my people have changed
their glory for that which does not profit” for “My glory” (Jer.
2:11); (4) “Are you not from everlasting, O Lord my God, myHoly One? We shall not die” for “You shall not die” (Hab.
1:12); and (5) “For he who touches you touches the apple ofhis eye” for “my eye” (Zech. 2:12). Another kind of substitution resulting from religious scruples is found in the changeof the vocalization of the verb ra’ah (‫“ ;ראה‬to see”) from theactive to the passive, “to be seen” (Luzzatto). It is used whenreferring to the three appointed times during the year that the
Israelite was obliged to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in order “to see,” i.e., to be in the presence of God (e.g., Ex. 23:15;
34:20, 23; Deut. 16:16).

the name of the “judge” Jerubbaal (Gideon; Judg. 6:32) later
appears as Jerubbesheth (II Sam. 11:21)); (4) the vocalizationof “Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Sidonites” may be a dysphemism alluding to boshet, “shame” (e.g., I Kings 11:5, 33), Ashtoreth for Ashtereth (cf. Gr. Astarte).
A. Geiger thought the same was true of the pointing of*Molech, the god of the Ammonites (e.g., I Kings 11:7), butsince O. Eissfeldt’s study of this term, the word molekh, which
may have originally meant “vow” or “sacrifice,” and its pointing, which may be original to a West Semitic dialect, have been
subject to debate. Some scholars have also assumed a similar
pointing for the Hebrew word, tofet, tefet (cf. Gr. Thappeth,
Thapheth, Tapheth). The substitution of the place name BethAven (“house of iniquity”) for Beth-El (“house of God”; Hos.
4:15; 5:8) is also a kind of dysphemism which was employedbecause of the idolatrous worship in that place.
[Shalom M. Paul]

Dysphemism
Dysphemism is the substitution of an offensive or disparaging term for an inoffensive one. The biblical examples pertain
to idolatry: (1) ʾElil (“idol”), whose etymology is uncertain (itmay be the diminutive of ʾel (“god”) or derived from ʾal (“nonentity”)), means worthlessness, nothingness (e.g., Jer. 14:14;
Job 13:4); (2) shikkuẓ (“abomination”) is found in the expression, “Chemosh, the abomination of Moab and Molech, theabomination of the Ammonites” (I Kings 11:7; cf. also II Kings
23:13; cf. also the dysphemistic use of shikkuẓ meshomem(“abomination of desolation”; e.g., Dan. 11:31)). The plurals
shikkuzim (e.g., Deut. 29:16; II Kings 23:24) and gillulim (literally, “dung-pellets”; “fetishes”; e.g., Lev. 26:30), and toʿevah(“abomination”; e.g., II Kings 23:13, “Milcom, the abomination of the Ammonites”), are comparable terms; (3) the word
boshet (“shame”) is substituted for baʿal (“lord”; originally atitle for the God of Israel, but later interpreted as the name of
the Canaanite god, Baal, in several personal names: the namesof Saul’s son, Eshbaal (I Chron. 8:33; 9:39), and grandson (Jonathan’s son), Merib-Baal (I Chron. 8:34; 9:40), are changed to
Ish-Bosheth (II Sam. 2:8) and Mephibosheth (II Sam. 4:4);

In the Talmud
Euphemisms are extensively used in the Talmud and Midrash.
The recourse to them is based upon various considerations.
The first is the insistence on the need for pure and refined
speech and the avoidance of all gross and vulgar expressions.
This is explicitly stated in the Talmud: “One should not uttera gross expression” and examples are given of the manner inwhich the Bible itself employs circumlocutions to avoid theuse of the word “unclean.” Actual examples are given: two disciples of Rav were discussing how the discourse in the academy had exhausted them. One of them said that he was as exhausted as a pig (“davar aḥ er,” see later), while the other said
“as a kid.” Rav refused to speak to the former. Similarly it isstated that Hillel foretold of Johanan b. Zakkai (or Judah haNasi of R. Johanan) that he would be an outstanding teacher
in Israel because, instead of saying, as his colleague did, “wemay gather olives in uncleanness,” he said “we may not gather
olives in cleanness,” and the forecast was fulfilled (Pes. 3b).
The rabbis even regard the use of the phrase “eating bread” inGenesis 39:6 (Gen. R. 86:6) and in Exodus 2:20 (Tanḥ . 1:11) asa euphemism for sexual intercourse (that they are probably
right with regard to the former seems clear from a comparison between Gen. 39:6 and 9).
This delicacy is particularly evident in the euphemisms
used for the privy parts of the body and their functions. The
male genital organ is referred to as “the organ” (ever: BM 84a)and the female as “that place” (Nid. 20a). The toilet is called“the house of water” (Meg. 3:2) or “the house of the chair”(Tam. 1:1; Ber. 25a). Urine is called “the water of the feet” (Ker.
6a) or “the jet” (silon: Ber. 25a) and defecation “having needof his apertures” (Git. 70a) or “turning aside” (ponim: Toh.
10:2; nifneh: Ber. 62a). Sexual intercourse is “the usage of thebed” (tashmish ha-mittah: Yoma 8:1) or simply tashmish (Ket.
65b) and so on.
A special euphemism is the use of the phrase davar aḥ er(“another thing”) for anything repulsive. It is generally used
for the *pig, but is variously employed also for leprosy (Pes.

550

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6euphrates
76b, 112b), sexual intercourse (Ber. 8b), immorality (Ket. 7:5),
and idolatry (Men. 13:10; Shab. 17b).
The second reason for euphemisms is in order to avoid
phrases which would wound susceptibilities. The most common euphemism in this category is the phrase sagi nahor(“with excess of light,” cf. T. Gray on Milton’s blindness “butblasted with excess of light”) for a blind man (Ber. 56a; TJ,
Pe’ah 8:9, 21b) and in fact it is regarded as so characteristicthat a euphemism is called “sagi nahor language” (TJ, Pe’ah
5:5, 19a; Lev. R. 34:13). Various euphemisms such as “departed”(niftar: BB 16b), “his soul rested” (naḥ nafsho: MK 25a/b; Ket.,104a), and “left life for the living” (shavak ḥ ayyim le-kol ḥ ai)
are used for death, and a cemetery is called “the house of life”(cf. Eccles. 12:5).
The third reason is based on the injunction “a man should
not open his mouth to Satan” (Ber. 19a), i.e., one should notinvite misfortune by ominous statements. The rabbis detectsuch a euphemism in the use of the third person “and it [thepeople of Israel] shall go up from the land” (Ex. 1:10). According to the Talmud Pharaoh actually meant to say “and we shall[be forced to] go up from the land,” and they will possess it,“but it is like a man who curses himself and hangs the curseon someone else” (Sot. 11a). To this category belongs the use of
the phrase “the enemies of Israel” for Israel when it speaks ofcalamity overtaking the Jewish people (Suk. 29a; Lev. R. 25:1)
or “the enemies of the Sages” (Ta’an. 7a) and the forecast ofcalamities is couched in the words “and every trouble whichshall not come on Israel” (Pes. 117a).
Dysphemisms or cacophysms are usually employed withregard to idolatry and idolatrous sites and practices. The Talmud (Av. Zar. 2a) discusses whether the word ed used forthe heathen festival (Av. Zar. 1:1) should be written correctlywith an ayyin (“testimony”) or with an alef (“calamity”) – adysphemism. Idolatrous worship is called tumah (“uncleanness”: Tosef. Av. Zar. 7:2), the festive day “a day of repulsion”(yom nibbul: Gen. R. 87:7), and the verse “ye shall destroy theirname” (Deut. 12:3) is interpreted as meaning that a dysphemistic name is to be given for its correct one: “where its nameis Bet Galya [“the house of revelation”] it should be called Bet
Karya [“the house of concealment”]; where its name is Ein Kol[“the all-seeing eye”] it should be called Ein Koẓ [“the eye ofa thorn”]” (Av. Zar. 46a). It should, however, be pointed outthat the rabbis are not always consistent in their avoidance of
unpleasant expressions (cf. Lieberman).
During the Middle Ages and until recent times dysphemisms became common in Yiddish when referring to the nonJewish equivalents of Jewish ceremonies and institutions. They
usually took the form of a disparaging, assonantal word. Thusa non-Jewish wedding (ḥ atunnah, Yid. khasene) was contemptuously referred to as a “hashlereh’” a word without meaning,
and for bet tefillah (“a house of prayer”), bet tiflah (“a houseof abomination”) was used. Those phrases, however, belong
to the common and even vulgar vernacular.
For euphemisms to avoid using the Divine Name see*Names of God. To those given there may be added a peculiar
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

one which became current in the Middle Ages, the Kiveyakhol(“as though to say”).
Bibliography: IN THE BIBLE: A. Geiger, Ha-Mikra ve-Targumav (1959), 172ff., 193ff., 199ff.; O. Eissfeldt, Molk als Opferbegriff(1935); S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (1950), 28–37; T.
Noeldeke, Neue Beitraege zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft (1910),
87ff.; H.C. Brichto, The Problem of ‘Curse’ in the Hebrew Bible (1963),
160ff., 170–2 (examples in Arabic). IN THE TALMUD: S. Lieberman,
Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (1950), 34; E.Z. Melammed, in: Sefer Zikkaron… Benjamin de Vries (1968), 119ff. Add. Bibliography: B.
Landsberger, “Das ‘gute Wort’,” in: MAOG, 4 (1929), 294–321; M. Held,in: H. Beinart (ed.), Studies in Bible …Cassuto (1987), 104–14; D. Marcus, in: JANES, 11 (1979), 81–84; idem, JAOS, 103 (1980), 307–10; A.
Cooper, in: JJS, 32 (1981), 56–64: M. Pope, ABD I, 720–25; G. Rendsburg, in: VT, 45 (1995), 513–23; S. Storch, Euphemismen in der Hebräischen Bibel (2000).
[Louis Isaac Rabinowitz]

EUPHRATES (Heb. ‫ ; ּ ְפ ָרת‬Dead Sea Scrolls Pwrt; from Akk.
Purattu and Sumerian Buranun), the longest river (c. 1,700 mi.,2,700 km.) in Western Asia. In texts from the third millennium B.C.E. from Mari the river occurs as a deity. From its
sources in northeast Turkey the river takes a southerly course
into northern Syria, where it turns southeast and flows into
the Persian Gulf after joining the *Tigris. According to Genesis 2:14, the Euphrates was one of the four branches of theriver which rises in Eden to water the *garden of Eden. The
Euphrates – also called “The River” or “The Great River”(see below) – forms the northern boundary of the ideal land
promised to Israel (Gen. 15:18; Deut. 11:24; Josh. 1:4). The riveris also referred to in Jeremiah 51:60–64, when Jeremiah instructed Seraiah upon reaching Babylon to read the prophecies of Jeremiah, bind them with a stone, and cast them into
the Euphrates as a sign of the imminent destruction of thatcity. The Greek name *Mesopotamia, like the Hebrew AramNaharaim (“Aram of the [Two] Rivers”; e.g., Gen. 24:10), originally designated only the northwest corner of Mesopotamia
which is bordered by the Euphrates on the north, west, andsouth. Later, however, the name was interpreted as the land
between the Tigris and the Euphrates, i.e., Assyria and Babylonia. Since Mesopotamia is poor in rainfall, its inhabitants havealways had to depend on the two rivers for irrigation. Water
was brought to the individual fields through an elaborate system of canals. Naturally, a great many cities were built on ornear the banks of the Euphrates; among the best known are
Carchemish, Mari, Babylon, Erech, and Ur, known from biblical and cuneiform sources, and Pumbedita, Nehardea, Mata
Meḥ asya, and Sura, known from the Babylonian Talmud.
[Raphael Kutscher]

The term “beyond the river” (ever ha-nahar) denotes
the region along the Euphrates, but the exact region referred
to changes according to the geographical viewpoint or to theemerging geopolitical and administrative situation. The term“beyond the river” in Joshua 24:2–3 refers to the region east of
the Euphrates, the place of origin of the patriarchs. In contrast,
in I Kings 5:4 it describes the empire of Solomon from a view-551

eupolemus
point east of the Euphrates: from Tiphsah (missing in Septuagint and probably a gloss; Greek Thapsakos; modern Dibseh,on the western bend of the Euphrates) to Gaza. The area thus
described is designated in Assyrian royal inscriptions and documents by the term eber nāri, i.e., Hebrew ever ha-nahar. This
term in its wider geographical connotation is identical withthe geopolitical Hebrew term. Thus Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, includes in the expression “the kings of northern Syria
and eber nāri” the kings of Tyre, Judah, Edom, Moab, Gaza,
Ashkelon, Ekron, Byblos, Arvad, Samsimuruna, Ammon, andAshdod, and he sums them up as: “12 kings of the sea coast”(I.J. Gelb et al., The Assyrian Dictionary, 4 (1958), 8).
In Sumerian and Old Babylonian documents, the Euphrates River was already a geographical demarcation. In the
Old Babylonian *Mari documents, two West Semitic terms describe the regions on either side of the river: aharātum (“thĕ
far land”) and aqdamātum (“the near land”). The first is perhaps “west,” and the second “east.” At the time of the Persian
Empire, a later, second official term for the area was Athurā(Assyria), but the original official-geographical term prevailedin Neo- and Late Babylonian documents and in contemporary
Hebrew and Aramaic sources (Ezra 8:36 (Heb.); Ezra 4:10, 11(Aram. ʿabar naharah)). The Perath mentioned in Jeremiah
13:4–7 is not the river Euphrates, but most probably Parah (cf.
Josh. 18:23), near Anathoth (today ʿAin Farah).

EUPOLEMUS (Gr. ʾΕνπόλεμος), first significant Greco-Jewish historian. His name, the time when he lived, and the content of the remaining fragments of his work combine to makeit likely that he is identical with Eupolemus, son of John, sonof Hakkoz, who in 161–60 B.C.E. brought back from Rome apromise of assistance for *Judah Maccabee (I Macc. 8:17–32).
His father John is mentioned as having gained concessions
for Jerusalem from Antiochus III after the Seleucid conquestof Coele-Syria (II Macc. 4:11). Six passages from Eupolemus’
writings survive in the works of Eusebius and Clement of Alexandria, who found them in the monograph On the Jews
by *Alexander Polyhistor (85–35 B.C.E.). Because of its Samaritan bias and its incompatibility with other remnants, it
is customary to label the fragment dealing with Abraham as
Pseudo-Eupolemus.
Eupolemus entitled his book On the Kings of Judah. Another title, On the Prophecy of Elijah, is either a subtitle or achapter of the former. Eupolemus’ history covered the period
from Moses (perhaps from the creation) to his own day. He
reckoned 5,149 years from Adam to the fifth year of Demetrius

Soter (158–157 B.C.E.), evidently the year in which he completed his chronicle (Clement, Stromata 1. 141, 4).
Fragment 1, though brief, was extensively quoted, because it summed up the Jewish and, later, the Christian response to Greek philosophy and science: “Moses was the firstwise man, the first who imparted the alphabet to the Jews;
the Phoenicians received it from the Jews, and the Greeks
from the Phoenicians; also laws were first written by Moses
for the Jews.”
Fragment 2 is the longest single remnant of a Greco-Jewish text prior to *Philo. The reigns of Joshua, Samuel, and Sauland his son (sic) David are all mentioned briefly. The text becomes more detailed in its description of David’s campaign.
Eupolemus was a priest himself, and it is natural that he shouldhave chosen as his central theme the Temple of Jerusalem. Anangel hovered above to show David the site of the future Temple, which he himself was forbidden to build. When Solomon
became king at the age of 12, he ordered the client-kings, Vaphres of Egypt and Suron (Hiram) of Tyre, to supply him withlabor, and each sent 80,000 men. The exchange of letters between the kings concocted by Eupolemus is reproduced verbatim. Eupolemus’ account of the dimensions of the Temple
and its furnishings is, as a rule, inconsistent with that of the
Septuagint and the Hebrew Bible. Also, Eupolemus’ Temple,
the gold surplus of which was sent to Suron, is more gilded
than the traditional one (see *Theophilus). Solomon died at
the age of 52, after transferring the tabernacle’s furnishingsfrom Shiloh with great pomp (cf. LXX, I Kings 2:12; SOR 14).
In the last fragment, the authenticity of which is sometimes
erroneously questioned, Eupolemus describes the conquest of
Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, assisted by the Median king,Astibares, and an allied force of 300,000 men. The invasion
followed Jeremiah’s discovery that the king was worshipping
the golden Baal. The Temple and its furnishings were shippedto Babylon. However, the prophet salvaged the tablets of theLaw (II Macc. 2:1ff.).
Eupolemus’ history was not a mere restatement of thebiblical version. He changed or invented the names of men
and locations and dealt freely with other facts. He continued
the chronicler’s method of rewriting the past in the light ofthe contemporary scene. Thus he contributes a scarecrow to
Solomon’s Temple and gives the dimensions of that Temple assimilar to those of the Second Temple, which was standing in
his day. The Mosaic account of the Tabernacle is a significant
element in Eupolemus’ description of the Temple. Though his
Greek vocabulary is narrow and his syntax atrocious, Eupolemus’ texts are valuable as the only confirmed remnants of the
Greek used in Jerusalem.
He was indebted to the Septuagint for the Hexateuch, butthere is no evidence (contrary to Freudenthal) that Eupolemus made use of the Greek versions of Kings and Chronicles.
Technical terms transliterated in the Septuagint are renderedby Eupolemus into Greek. He is the first Jewish historian whoborrowed from nonbiblical sources. He drew upon Herodotus,
Ctesias, and Greco-Phoenician and Greco-Egyptian histori-

552

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Pinhas Artzi]
Bibliography: J. Obermeyer, Die Landschaft Babylonien…
(1929), 52–61; E.Y. Kutscher, in: Scripta Hierosolymitana, 4 (1957), 12;
J.J. Finkelstein, in: JNES, 21 (1962), 73–92; The Oxford Atlas (1963),
map 56–57; EB, 8 (1967), 825–7. Add. Bibliography: W. Holladay,
Jeremiah I (Heremeneia; 1986), 396; M. Stolper, in: JNES, 48 (1989),
283–305; K. van der Toorn, in: DDD, 314–16; J. Hull, in: ABD VI, 572;
S.D. Sperling, in: G. Knoppers and J. McConville (eds.), Reconsidering
Israel and Judah (2000), 244–45; P. Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander(2002), index, 1165, S.V. Ebir Nāri.

europa planans. There is no evidence that Eupolemus directly influenced
Josephus or the rabbinic literature, though parallels, such as
the age of Solomon and the king’s request for Egyptian workers, need an explanation. In contrast to Eupolemus’ devotion
to Jerusalem and its Temple, Pseudo-Eupolemus follows a
syncretistic Samaritan tradition. According to him, the Towerof Babel was built by the giants who had escaped the flood.
Abraham was born in the Babylonian city of Camarina, calledby some Urie. This patriarch surpassed all men in nobility
and wisdom. He taught astronomy and astrology, first to the
Phoenicians, and later to the Egyptians, tipping the balancein favor of the Phoenicians, who were later bested by the invading Armenians. He was then entertained by Melchizedek,
the king and priest of the Temple of “Argarizin,” which may
be translated as “Mount of Most High.” He mentions the visit
Abraham’s wife made to the Egyptian king, and mentions the
miracle of the king being unable to have intercourse with her(cf. Genesis Apocryphon 20:17). After his wife was restored
to him, Abraham lived in Heliopolis, where he instructed
the Egyptian priests. The discovery of the sciences and astrology is attributed to Enoch, who, according to PseudoEupolemus, was identical with the Greek Atlas. He identifies the Babylonian Belus with Noah, and the father of Ham
with Kronos.
A passage dealing with Abraham, attributed by Alexander Polyhistor to an anonymous writer (Eusebius, Praeparatio
Evangelica, 9:18, 2), is now ascribed by Freudenthal and Jacoby
to Pseudo-Eupolemus on the basis of similarity of content.
Walter, however, questions the identification. The apparent
pro-Seleucid and anti-Egyptian bias of Pseudo-Eupolemus,
the link with the Enochite texts, such as the Book of Enoch,
Jubilees, and Genesis Apocryphon, and the fact that the passage is evidently criticized in Sibylline Oracles (3:218ff.) suggests a pre-Maccabean dating for Pseudo-Eupolemus. If thisdating is warranted, Pseudo-Eupolemus would then be theoldest syncretic presentation of a biblical text.

EUROPA PLAN, code name for a large scale rescue plan toexchange European Jews for money, developed in the autumn
of 1942 by the “Working Group” in Slovakia, an unusual alliance between Zionists and ultra-Orthodox Jews headed by aZionist and a woman, Gisi *Fleishmann, at the suggestion of
Rabbi Michael *Weissmandel, the ultra-Orthodox leader who
was the son-in-law of the spiritual leader of Slovakian Jewry,
Rabbi Samuel David Halevi Ungar, the rabbi of Nitra, and acousin of Fleishmann. Between March 26 and the end of July
1942 some 50,000 Jews had been deported to Poland. Another
7,000–8,000 Jews had escaped to Hungary, which was an in-

dication that the Jews had internalized their peril even before
they had become aware of the *Final Solution. At Weissmandel’s initiative but with the group’s support an offer was madeto Dieter *Wisliceny, Eichmann’s emissary to Slovakia, to ransom Jews for money and an initial bribe, whose sum total isstill a matter of historical dispute but was between $20,000
and $55,000, was accepted. Soon thereafter the deportationof Slovakian Jews was halted. The Working Group believedthat the bribe had brought the deportations to a halt and thatlarger sums would indeed save a larger number of Jews. They
had few options and this desperate action was perceived tobe effective. It certainly had the sanction of Jewish tradition
with its detailed teachings regarding the redemption of captives. In his posthumous memoirs edited by his brother anddisciples Weissmandel bitterly criticizes the Jewish leadershipin the West for not being forthcoming with the required sumsof money and for their unwillingness to support such unusual,nonlegal actions. It was part of his attack against the Zionists
and against assimilated, Westernized, secularized Jews. However, no evidence has been uncovered that link the bribe to
the halt in deportations. Contemporary historians agree thatinternal Slovakian concerns over the impact of the deportation of Jews on the economy was the reason for halting thedeportations. Even the Vatican had protested, which had additional impact, since Jozef Tiso, the president of Slovakia, wasa priest. Wisliceny was a secondary official and could not havestopped the deportations on his own accord. It is known that
Wisliceny, who received an advance payment from the Working Group, forwarded $20,000 to the WVHA (Main Economy
Administration Office of the SS). The negotiations dragged on
until August 1943 with Himmler’s consent, perhaps as a wayof feeling out Jewish power, but then broke off on Himmler’sorder (according to Wisliceny). Why did Germany consent
to the halt in deportations? From the German perspective,
Slovakia was an ally of Germany and the Slovakian Jews werecomparatively small in number and could be dealt with after
the massive deportations from Poland were completed. Indeed, they were deported to Auschwitz in 1944.
The financial means, fixed at $2–3 million, were to be provided by Jewish organizations in the free world, and mainlyby the *American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (JDC).
Saly Mayer, the JDC representative in Geneva, proposed to deposit the money in blocked accounts in Switzerland until theend of the war, according to the transfer regulations of theAllied countries, because the Joint was unwilling to break the
Allied transfer regulations and to send money directly to theenemy, which clearly would have jeopardized its legal standing
in the United States. The Germans were well aware of the difficulties that the Jews had in raising the promised sums though
the Jews did not know that the Germans were informed about
their communications with Switzerland. It is assumed thatthe main idea behind the apparent German willingness to
discuss the plan lay in Nazi counterpropaganda. The Europa Plan served later as a basis for the negotiations between*Eichmann and the “Relief and Rescue Committee” headed by

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6553

Bibliography: FRAGMENTS: F. Jacoby, Fragmente dergriechischen Historiker, 3c, 2 (1958), 671–9, nos. 723–4; Eusebius,
Praeparatio Evangelica, 9:17; 9:30–34; 9:39. COMMENTARIES: J. Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien (1874–75), 82–130; Wacholder, in: HUCA,
34 (1963), 83–113; Pauly-Wissowa, 11 (1907), 1227–29, no. 11; Walter,
in: Klio, 43–45 (1965), 282–90.
[Ben Zion Wacholder]europeRezsö *Kasztner in Budapest in the summer of 1944 and theso-called offer of one million Jews for 10,000 trucks.

Antiquity
The earliest contacts of the ancient Hebrews with Europe andEuropeans were probably through the Greek traders who werefamiliar figures all over the eastern Mediterranean littoral as
early as the eighth century B.C.E. It must however be borne inmind that the Hebrews were settled mainly in the uplands ofEreẓ Israel away from the coastal area, while the Greeks wereat this time almost as much Asiatics as Europeans geographically. It was probably at the time of the First Exile after the fallof Jerusalem in 586 B.C.E. that Jews first penetrated into Europe. The Hebrew prophets, for instance Isaiah, speak morethan once of the future redemption of the Jewish exiles fromthe “isles of the sea,” by which presumably the Greek coastlands were implied, and it is likely enough that at this period
Greek slave dealers purchased Jewish captives for sale on theirdomestic markets. Although their absorption in the Persian
Empire confirmed the Asiatic nature of the Jewish people
for a long period, that empire’s expansionist ambitions westward to some extent opened it and its Jewish population toWestern and European ideas and influences. After the returnfrom Exile, Greek influences on the trading cities of the Palestinian littoral were becoming strong, and some later booksof the Bible (e.g., Ecclesiastes) seem to show a distinct Hellenic coloring. It was, however, the conquests by *Alexander
the Great in the fourth century B.C.E. that definitely changed
the character of this area. Hitherto, Ereẓ Israel had been partof the Near Eastern Afro-Asiatic nexus, looking to, and influenced by, Syria, Assyria, and Babylonia to the north, the Arabian tribes to the east, and Egypt to the south. Alexander theGreat broke down as it were the barrier that had hitherto divided this region from Europe. Henceforth, Ereẓ Israel looked
west, not east, and, with the surrounding area, was part of theEuropean nexus and sphere of influence, more or less sharply
divided from Asia and the Asiatic powers. Insofar as it continued to be affected by the neighboring land areas, it was bythose (Syria, Egypt) that had largely succumbed to Greek influences and could now be regarded almost as extensions ofEurope. Although great masses of Jews remained under Partho-Persian rule in *Mesopotamia, the most important settlement outside Ereẓ Israel was in Greek-speaking *Alexandria,
which had constant and intimate contacts with the centers ofEuropean life. It was here in fact in the ensuing period that
the Jews produced their great Hellenistic literature, reachingits climax in *Philo and constituting their first literary expression in the language of European culture. From certain pointsof view, the *Hasmonean revolt in the second century B.C.E.
could be considered a reaction against the tendency that has
been described – an attempt to stem the inroads of European
culture and to reassert Asiatic values. However, its success was
only temporary. The Hasmonean monarchs, while asserting
political independence, ultimately succumbed to some extent to European cultural influences. The Roman conquest of
63 B.C.E. brought Ereẓ Israel and its population – still the largest and most creative part of the Jewish people – under European rule and within the European cultural orbit. It is hardly
an exaggeration to say that from now on, down to the Arabconquest in 640, Ereẓ Israel and its population constituted in
effect part of Europe; and the European influences on the Jewish population there – and hence on Judaism itself – became
increasingly strong.
Meanwhile the actual Jewish settlement in Europe was
growing. From the third century B.C.E. Jews are mentioned
in inscriptions, etc., on the mainland of *Greece. The early
Hasmonean rulers had entered into diplomatic relations with
*Rome, necessitating the dispatch of envoys thither, and there
is a somewhat obscure reference to the expulsion of Jewish religious propagandists thence in 139 B.C.E. Thereafter, the warsof the Romans in Asia Minor and their conquest of Ereẓ Israel
inevitably resulted in the arrival on the Roman slave market of
Jewish captives (many of whom would win their freedom orelse be ransomed by their coreligionists), while the capital of
the empire inevitably attracted visitors, emissaries, and merchants. Rabbinic sources, the New Testament, and *Josephus
all confirm the impression of a solid Jewish community there
in the first century C.E., the subsequent importance of which
is attested by several series of *catacombs and hundreds of inscriptions. As early as 59 B.C.E. *Cicero, in his oration in defense of Flaccus who had raided the Jewish temple offeringsin the Greek islands, could assert that the Jews were present
at the trial in Rome in such numbers as to overawe the court.
Jews were also present at this period in many other places
throughout *Italy, especially along the trade routes leading to
the ports commanding trade with the East. The existence ofJewish settlements all over the Roman Empire in its heyday
is recorded in Gaul (see *France), *Spain, Pannonia, even in
the Rhineland (see *Germany), and it is probable that there
was no Roman province without a Jewish settlement, even if
no definite evidence is preserved. The total number involved
was far from insignificant. The Jewish population of Rome has
been estimated (with some exaggeration) at as many as 50,000,
and it has been asserted that they constituted something like
one-tenth of the population of the empire as a whole. The Jews
of Europe, by the time of the breakup of the Roman Empire,
were probably to be reckoned at some hundreds of thousands.
On the other hand, their cultural significance was slight. They
made barely the slightest contribution to rabbinic or Hebrew
culture in the talmudic age, nor is any work of this period extant in Latin which is certainly of Jewish authorship.

554

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: L. Rothkirchen, Ḥ urban Yahadut Slovakia(1961), includes Eng. summary, passim; O.J. Neumann, Be-Ẓ el ha-Mavet (1958), 160–5; M.D. Weissmandel, Min ha-Meẓ ar (1960), passim;
A. Weissberg, Desperate Mission: Joel Brand’s Story (1958) passim; N.
Levin, The Holocaust (1968), 535–40; Y. Bauer, Jews for Sale: Nazi Jewish Negotiations 1933–45 (1994); S. Aronson, “The ‘Europa Plan,’ ” in:W. Laqueur (ed.), Yale Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (2001).
[Michael Berenbaum (2nd ed.)]EUROPE.

europe
Rise of Christianity and Islam
Under the Roman Empire, to the fourth century, the positionof the Jews was on the whole good. Although looked down
upon, both because of the “superstitions” to which they adhered and their lowly economic status, their religion was tolerated, and from 212 they enjoyed Roman citizenship with all
its advantages and responsibilities along with the other freeinhabitants of the empire. With the Christianization of theempire, however, their position deteriorated, though at firstsocially more than juridically, the ground being prepared fortheir systematic degradation which was to become the rule in
Christian Europe in the Middle Ages. The Barbarian invasions
probably affected the Jews, as a mainly urban element, morethan the rest of the population, so that it seems their numbers
were drastically reduced in this period. Moreover, the new rulers, once they adopted Christianity – especially in its Catholicform – were unable to preserve the delicate balance between
sufferance and intolerance that had been achieved under theearlier Christian emperors – all the more so since this period
witnessed the periodical triumph of religious fanaticism in the*Byzantine Empire, setting a baneful example to the rest of theWestern world. Restrictions were imposed by the Church at
an early date; from 305 successive *Church Councils repeatedly reissued discriminatory legislation. Hence the period between the fifth and eighth centuries was punctuated all over
Europe by religious riots, coercion, compulsory baptisms, andwidespread expulsions, culminating in the great disaster to theJewish community of Spain under the Visigoths, about which
we are particularly well informed. The Jewish population ofWestern Europe was now, it seems, reduced to relative unimportance, except perhaps in some parts of Italy.
Conditions changed for the better in the eighth century.
The Arab conquests opened up Spain to new colonization
which seems to have attained significant proportions – at first,
it is true, in a quasi-Asiatic cultural setting – but this was destined to be temporary, waning with the Reconquest and the
expansion of the Christian kingdoms. Simultaneously, andapparently with the sedulous encouragement of the Carolingian rulers in France, Italy, and Germany, Jewish merchants
and traders (typified in the *Radanites who had their base in
the Rhone delta) became active in Western, then in Central
Europe, establishing a fresh nexus of Jewish communities orreinforcing the old. In Eastern Europe – an outlet for theirexports of the manufactured products of the West, a sourceof their purchases of raw materials and slaves – they presumably joined up with older Jewish settlements that had spread
northward from the Black Sea and Crimea or along the Danube valley. This period moreover coincided with that of thenear-extinction of the old settlement in Ereẓ Israel and thedrastic dwindling of that of Mesopotamia and the neighboring
lands, due in part to political and in part to economic causes.
The result was that in this period, approximately between 800
and 1050, there took place either a mass transference of theJewish population from East to West, or else a phenomenal
expansion of the one and dwindling of the other which hadmuch the same effect. From the 11t century, in any case, thecenter of Jewry and of Jewish intellectual life was transferred
to Europe, where it was to remain for nearly 1,000 years. The
new settlers were moreover of a different type in many respects from the old. They (especially those of Northern Europe) might be termed “Talmud Jews” who guided their lives
in every respect according to the detailed prescriptions that
had become evolved recently in Ereẓ Israel and especially
Mesopotamia, and considered that the study of the Talmud
was the greatest of religious duties and of personal pleasures.
Hence, when the great talmudic academies of Mesopotamia
decayed in the 11t century, those of Northern Europe – especially France and the Rhineland – were ready to take theirplace; and the former rabbinic traditions were perpetuatedthere for centuries. In the south of Europe, particularly in
Spain, a somewhat different intellectual tradition prevailed,
literature, belles lettres, philosophy, and poetry attaining newheights. At the same time, the position of the Jews, straddlingthe Latin-Christian and the Arab-Islamic cultures, qualified
them in a unique degree to perform the function of middlemen in intellectual as well as economic activities; and whileon the one hand they participated in the scientific and philosophical activities of the Islamic world, on the other they wereto a great extent responsible for the transference of the superb
fruits of these activities to the 12t-century Christian world,and so helped to bring about the Latin renaissance and therevival of learning in Europe.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6555

Medieval Position
It is possible to exaggerate the well-being of the Jews in Europe in the Dark Ages, but there can be no question as to thegreat and tragic difference that resulted from the *Crusades.
Hitherto, attacks on the Jews had been sporadic and occasional, but from the onslaught on the Jewish communities inFrance and the Rhineland in 1096 they became commonplace
during any period of religious excitement or incitement; notonly when the Christian forces marched against the infidels
or heretics, but when such preposterous charges as that of
the *blood libel (from 1141) or of the desecration of the *Host(after 1215) were brought up against the Jews. The stimulus
given to European trade by the Crusades and the expansionof the Italian trading republics undermined the position of
the Jewish international merchants. As a result of this, combined with the fact that at this period the Church’s attack on
the practice of usury reached its climax, the Jews of Northern Europe especially were now driven into the profession of*moneylending – encouraged and protected by their rulers,
whose systematic and rapacious system of taxation converted
this into a primary source of revenue for themselves. On theother hand, the profession of moneylending, besides affording ample leisure for the talmudic study that had become theall-pervading passion of Northern European Jewry, endowed
them temporarily, in the intervals of spoliation, with a remarkable degree of economic well-being, so that the Jews of France,
Germany, and *England in the Middle Ages constituted one ofeuropethe most affluent nonnobiliary societies of the contemporary
world. Thus, economic resentment was now added to the everincreasing religious hatred. It was under the influence of thisatmosphere that the fourth *Lateran Council of 1215 codified
and reenacted the former anti-Jewish discriminatory legislation with innovations such as the enforcement of the wearing
by the Jews of a distinctive humiliating *badge to distinguishthem from other men. This henceforth remained a standardof conduct, to be enforced whenever the spirit of reaction triumphed. Such an attitude was increasingly intensified by theconstant activity of the Christian mendicant orders, especiallythe *Dominicans, founded at this period precisely to combat
heresy and unbelief. It was partly due to their influence that
the Jews were expelled from England in 1290 and from France
in 1306, their now diminished utility to the royal treasury being outweighed by the immediate profit of a single confiscatory measure. The Jews were absent from England henceforth
until well after the end of the Middle Ages, and feeble attempts
at reestablishment in France were unsuccessful.
Most of the refugees from these countries probably foundtheir way ultimately to Germany, where political fragmentation prevented any similar wholesale measure, although theoutbreaks of massacre, particularly at the time of the *Black
Death of 1348–49, far outdid in scale and horror anything elseof the sort known in medieval Jewish history. Hence it was
only a feeble remnant that maintained the Jewish connection
here unbroken. On the other hand, the greater security, andopportunities for profitable activity in an economically undeveloped area, drew Jews (as well as non-Jews) at this timeto *Poland, now struggling for revival after the devastation
wrought by Tatar invasions of the 13t century. With the closeof the Middle Ages this country became the essential bulwarkof Jewish life in Europe, perpetuating the intellectual traditions of France and the Rhineland, still maintaining the colloquial German of their ancestors as their *Yiddish vernacular, and developing in the *Council of the [Four] Lands andthe sister-bodies autonomous institutions hardly paralleledelsewhere in Diaspora history. Poland therefore became thecenter of “*Ashkenazi” Jewry, i.e., those of (Franco-) German origin.
Meanwhile, the condition of the Jews of Spain too, after
reaching unprecedented heights of culture as well as of political influence even under the Christian kings, began to deteriorate owing to the constant propaganda of the friars. A wave of
massacres in 1391 initiated the problem of the *Conversos or*Marranos or *New Christians, which inexorably led in due
course to the establishment of the *Inquisition in 1484, andthe Expulsion from Spain in 1492 and from *Portugal (leaving
behind however a compact body of Marranos) in 1497. The
refugees made their way in great numbers eastward, where
they revived the flagging communities that had survived from
Byzantine times. Turkey-in-Europe (see *Ottoman Empire;apart from Turkey-in-Asia, where the same occurred) thus
became the great center of *Sephardi (or Spanish and Portuguese) Jewry, as Poland was of Ashkenazi Jewry, and thecommunities in *Constantinople, *Salonika, and other places
preserved the ancient traditions of Spanish-speaking Jewry
in islands of western Mediterranean culture transplanted toEastern Europe.

556

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Renaissance and Counter-Reformation
In the first half of the 16t century, the Italian mainland (theJews had been expelled from *Sicily and *Sardinia, with therest of the Aragonese dominions, in 1492) had witnessed aremarkable development in Jewish cultural life and activity,in the spirit of the Renaissance. But this was changed by theCounter-Reformation. The Jews were expelled from the Kingdom of *Naples by its Spanish rulers in 1542; the old anti-Jewish code with new extensions was rigidly enforced in northern Italy (especially the papal dominions) from 1555 onward,
accompanied by the institution of the *ghetto and heartlessenforcement of the ghetto system henceforth invariable in
Catholic Europe. Although Jewish communities continued toexist in the famous ghettos of *Rome, *Venice, *Mantua, etc.,
which, though not numerically large, played a great part in
Jewish cultural life, a considerable proportion of Italian Jewry(especially from the center and south of the peninsula) was
now absorbed in the Sephardi communities of the Near East.
It is important, however, to note that these newly reestablishedcenters, under Muslim rule, whether or not in the geographical bounds of Europe, were henceforth basically European inculture, outlook, and language: segments as it were of medieval Europe embedded fossilwise in Asiatic or African soil.
The Renaissance and the accompanying movements established for centuries the predominance of Europe in theworld politically, culturally, and scientifically. It hence confirmed the predominance of European Jewry over its coreligionists in other continents, most paradoxically, precisely at
the time when most of Europe rejected, ejected, and excluded
the Jews. Though European Jewry had led in every aspect ofJewish creativity since the beginning of the millennium, there
had been solid collaboration hitherto from elements in othercontinents; from now on, the lead of Europe was overwhelmingly great, and so far as Jewish life in the other continents wasconcerned it was on the whole as protractions of European
Jewish life. The development of *printing confirmed and accentuated this cultural hegemony. For four and a half centuries
at least, almost all Hebrew printing was done in Europe – with
the inevitable result that the European Hebrew texts in particular were accepted as classical, and new works by European
Jewish scholars became universally accepted while others ofperhaps equal merit might remain in manuscript and almost
unknown in wider circles.
The culmination of the age of degradation was accompanied, however, by the glimmer of a new dawn. Marranos
mainly from Portugal rather than Spain, settling at this period
in Northern Europe for the sake of business more than freedom of conscience, ventured little by little to throw off the disguise of Christianity. By the end of the 16t century, a numberof new Jewish communities, hovering as yet on the borders ofeuropeclandestinity, began to establish themselves in this area, wherefor generations no Jews had been known; and by the middleof the 17t century there were at *Amsterdam, *Hamburg, andother cities (a little later in *London also) open Jewish communities of a new “modern” type, socially assimilated to theworld around them.
In Eastern Europe, by this time, the Jews had become
involved in the hatreds that had been engendered between
the Roman Catholic Poles and their persecuted Greek Catholic subjects in the *Ukraine. In consequence, when the latter rose in revolt under the Cossack hetman *Chmielnicki in
1648–49, Jews as well as Poles suffered, the Jews even morethan the Poles, the ensuing wave of massacres ending the daysof tranquility that had hitherto been the rule there. Henceforth, the tide of emigration set in the reverse direction, fromeast to west, the communities of Germany, and thereafter ofWestern Europe, being considerably reinforced. This was intensified as generations passed and the condition of Polish
Jewry constantly deteriorated. Conversely, at this period theemergence in Germany after the Peace of Westphalia (1648)of competing states and would-be resplendent courts gave
opportunities such as had never existed before for lucra-/PSXBZ  *SFMBOE   

4XFEFO   /FUIFSMBOET    

1PSUVHBM  3VTTJB(FSNBOZ    "VTUSP)VOHBSZ
3PNBOJB       
*UBMZ

4QBJO
 

      

3VTTJBO1PMBOE#FMHJVN      -VYFNCPVSH 
4XJU[FSMBOE'SBODF 
  

Emancipation
Thus by the end of the 18t century a new type of Jew had
emerged in Western Europe. After the outbreak of the French
Revolution it was hence inevitable that the new doctrine ofLiberty, Equality, and Fraternity should be applied, at firstreluctantly, to the Jews as well – that is, that they should begiven the same rights, receive the same treatment, and havethe same duties as other men. Or, to put it another way, they
were now formally recognized as Europeans, differentiatedfrom other Europeans by adherence to another faith. These
new doctrines were moreover imposed by or imitated fromthe French almost all over the continent of Europe where Jews
were to be found. A reaction followed the fall of Napoleon in
1815; but henceforth Jewish political equality was part of theliberal creed, and it was accepted almost everywhere by the%FONBSL   #SJUBJO   tive activities for Jewish factors and *Court Jews, new Jewish
communities often developing around them. Thus here too a
new type of socially assimilated Jew began to emerge in the
17t century, culminating in the 18t in the remarkable figureof Moses *Mendelssohn, almost the first Jew to play a role ofreal importance in European cultural life.

 
    4FSCJB   5VSLFZ(SFFDF     5PUBM+FXJTIQPQVMBUJPOPG&VSPQFJO  
5PUBMQPQVMBUJPOPG&VSPQFJO 


Jewish population of Europe, 1880. Jewish figures based on American Jewish Yearbook.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6557

europe/PSXBZ   *SFMBOE   

#SJUBJO/FUIFSMBOET   'JOMBOE   4XFEFO   %FONBSL    
     

4XJU[FSMBOE 
  1PMBOE$[FDIPTMPWBLJB 
  )VOHBSZ"VTUSJB 
  1PSUVHBM   

4QBJO
 

          (FSNBOZ#FMHJVN       -VYFNCPVSH 'SBODF 

6443

*UBMZ
   (JCSBMUBS 

3PNBOJB      :VHPTMBWJB   #VMHBSJB "MCBOJB    (SFFDF 
  5VSLFZ   

.BMUB


 

5PUBM+FXJTIQPQVMBUJPOPG&VSPQFJO  
5PUBM1PQVMBUJPOPG&VSPQFJO  

Population in 1939, before the outbreak of World War II. Jewish figures based on American Jewish Yearbook.

third quarter of the 19t century (the crucial year may be fixedat 1870), Jewish *emancipation being henceforth the rule. Jews
now began to play a role of increasing importance in European
cultural, literary, scientific, social, and even political activity.
At the same time, Jewish *assimilation became accelerated,both in the extreme form of conversion to the dominant faith,and in the more loyal form of the representation of Judaism
simply as a divergent European religion – that is, *Reform Judaism, in all its branches and aspects (including *neo-Orthodoxy). The development of a Hebrew secular literature along
European models (*Haskalah) and of vernacular literature on
Hebrew scholarly themes (Wissenschaft des Judentums) wereother aspects of this same tendency.
There was however one area where this new attitude did
not apply, and the exception was numerically more important, and in its way more significant, than the rule. In *Russia (where there was no important Jewish settlement until theannexation of those areas of the old Polish kingdom which
had the largest Jewish population) these were years not ofprogress but (with rare intervals) of reaction, and in 1881 awave of massacres (*pogroms) began on a scale and of a typewhich recalled the Middle Ages, to be followed by economic

and social restrictions of unprecedented scope (the *“MayLaws”). A wave of emigration (see *migration) followed on avast scale. This entirely changed the face of European Jewry
within very few years. It greatly reinforced the Jewish communities of Western Europe, in particular that of England,and even changed their character. But far more important
than this was the transatlantic migration. Emigration largely
from Germany in the first three-quarters of the 19t century
had relieved the pressure of population in that country and at
the same time greatly developed the Jewish community in the*United States of America. Now, within a few years, as a resultof immigration from Eastern Europe, it was to be reinforced
in fantastic proportions. The results were all-important. For
eight centuries after approximately the year 1000, the essential
center of Jewish life and creativity had been in Europe. Outside the European area there had been only relatively unimportant offshoots, and this applied in particular to Ashkenazi
Jewry. After the 1880s the United States was to be the second,and in due course the first, center of Jewish life in the world,from the point of view of population, and the relative roleof European Jewry correspondingly diminished. From theearly Victorian era the Western European Jewish communi-

558

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

europeties had taken the lead in political and charitable activities onbehalf of their depressed coreligionists elsewhere. From now
on, their preponderance waned, passing in an increasing degree to America. The process of emigration was paralleled in*Romania and *Galicia (then under Austrian rule). Between
1880 and 1914, about two million Jews from Eastern Europe
transferred themselves to the New World. It is true that natural increase kept the total population level actually unchanged,
but had it not been for the emigration it would have continued to rise enormously.
During this period, the ancient Sephardi communities ofthe Mediterranean area had been affected by quasi-lethargy.
Although under the rule of Turkey and the Balkan successor
states their material and political condition was on the whole
not adverse, the spirit of creativity that had been so marked in
Spain had now passed from them almost entirely.

Judaism. On the other hand, the removal of the traditional
residence restrictions, which had hitherto confined the Jews
to the *Pale of Settlement, implied that henceforth they werespread more evenly throughout the vast Russian territories,
in Asia as well as Europe. Although the rights of the Jews in
the Succession States, which were severed mainly from Russia (especially Poland with a very large Jewish population),were nominally guaranteed by the Versailles treaties, the actuality fell short of this. The ensuing period was hence one ofstrain and perplexity, and emigration continued – though on
a smaller scale than hitherto. Owing to restrictions in North
America it was now largely directed to South America, andin part to Ereẓ Israel, as a result of the *Balfour Declaration
which was specifically intended to help solve the problems ofEuropean Jewry.
Rise of Antisemitism and Nazism
In Germany, the dazzling progress of persons of Jewish extraction after Emancipation had given rise at the close of the 19t
century to the new racial *antisemitism. For a long while thishad remained an annoyance rather than a menace, although
in France the *Dreyfus case from 1894 to 1896 had caused amajor political convulsion and convinced Theodor *Herzl that

World War I
World War I marked the beginning of a cataclysm in European Jewish life. The revolutions of 1917 brought the Russian
Jews emancipation, but at the same time ushered in the Bolshevik regime which in the long run severed the mass of Russian Jews from their coreligionists abroad, and indeed from/PSXBZ   *SFMBOE   4XFEFO   &TUPOJB%FONBSL#SJUBJO      -BUWJB 
-JUIVBOJB   /FUIFSMBOET       )VOHBSZ"VTUSJB   

*UBMZ
4QBJO
 
      

1PMBOE

4XJU[FSMBOE   6443   $[FDIPTMPWBLJB#FMHJVN (FSNBOZ  -VYFNCPVSH   'SBODF  

1PSUVHBM   'JOMBOE      

3PNBOJB      :VHPTMBWJB   "MCBOJB  #VMHBSJB   (SFFDF   5VSLFZ   

5PUBM+FXJTIQPQVMBUJPOPG&VSPQFJO  
5PUBMQPQVMBUJPOPG&VSPQFJO  

Population after World War II. Jewish figures based on American Jewish Yearbook.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6559

european community, the/PSXBZ   *SFMBOE   'JOMBOE   4XFEFO 
  &TUPOJB   #SJUBJO-JUIVBOJB   /FUIFSMBOET   'SBODF     

1PSUVHBM  

1PMBOE   (FSNBOZ
 
#FMHJVN  -VYFNCPVSH     
4XJU[FSMBOE   

4QBJO
   $[FDI
3FQVCMJD    )VOHBSZ"VTUSJB      *UBMZ#PTOJB)FS[FHPWJOB 
      $SPBUJB  (JCSBMUBS 

5PUBM+FXJTIQPQVMBUJPOPG&VSPQFJO  
5PUBM1PQVMBUJPOPG&VSPQFJO  

3VTTJB-BUWJB   %FONBSL    
  #FMBSVT   6LSBJOF   

3PNBOJB 
  #VMHBSJB   (SFFDF   .PMEPWB   5VSLFZ   

.BMUB

 Population 2003. Jewish figures based on American Jewish Yearbook.

the solution to the Jewish problem must be sought outside thesetting of European life. The German defeat in World War I
and the physical as well as moral distress that ensued gave theantisemitic movement in that country an enormous impetus, and it became a cardinal principle of the Nazi Party (see*National Socialism) which attained power in 1933. The persecution that ensued drove very large numbers of Jews from
Germany and *Austria into exile, to other parts of Europe, toEreẓ Israel, and to other continents. This, however, proved
to be only a beginning. During World War II, in the courseof which the German armies overran almost all those partsof continental Europe in which Jewish communities existed,a systematic campaign of extermination was carried out. By
the conclusion of hostilities in 1945, some 6,000,000 had perished in the *Holocaust out of the 9,000,000 who had lived
in Europe in 1933, apart from the hundreds of thousands who
had gone into exile; most of the greatest Jewish communitiesof the Continent – *Vienna, *Berlin, *Warsaw, *Lodz – hadbeen annihilated. Many lands – including *Poland, *Yugoslavia, *Czechoslovakia, and even *Holland, as well as Germany
and Austria – had become almost empty of Jews, most of thehandful of survivors preferring to leave the blood-soaked soil.

The great talmudic academies of Eastern Europe had been destroyed, as well as the center of Sephardi culture in the Balkans. Moreover, the Russian Jewish remnant seemed to be cut
off from Jewish life even more completely than before, henceforth having no creative role to play.
The proportion of European Jewry in the world Jewish
population declined in the course of half a century from 87.2
in 1880 to 58.05 in 1939, and then to 30 in 1968 and 12
in 2003. After approximately a thousand years, the European
dominance in Jewish life has ended. It has on the one handreverted to the ancestral soil in Asia; on the other, been transferred to the New World beyond the Atlantic Ocean.
For bibliography see *History, and individual countries
and communities.

560

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Cecil Roth]EUROPEAN COMMUNITY, THE.
The Beginning of the European Economic Community
After World War II, Europe was suffering from the wide destruction caused by the war and the deep separation between
two different camps: one which had struggled for freedom
and the other which had tried to subdue Europe under Nazieuropean community, theIsrael and the EEC
The French scholar Dominique Moisy divides the relations between Israel and Western Europe into three periods: the first
20 years, in the 1950s and 1960s when “Israel was perceived

by Europeans as a courageous and small pioneer state symbolized by the kibbutz”; “the virtual ostracism of the 1970s
and the turn of the decade, when Israel was seen mainly as anambitious imperialist power bent on expansion”; and the new
third phase “characterized by a more neutral and less emotional approach to Israel.”
The ink of the signatures on the Treaty of Rome was not
yet dry when the Israeli government tried to establish contacts with the Community. It submitted a memorandum to
the Commission of the EEC in Brussels on October 30, 1958,
and a year later Israel was the third country to seek the accreditation of an ambassador as Chief of the Israeli Mission
to the EEC, the ECSC, and Euratom. On June 20, 1960, David
Ben-Gurion, the Israeli prime minister, met at Val Duchesse
in Brussels with Prof. Hallstein, president of the Commission,
and with Mr. Rey, member of the Commission in charge of external relations. Ben-Gurion expressed the wish of the Israeli
government to sign an association agreement with the EEC.
The Commission submitted a detailed questionnaire to
Israel and the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs answered ina memorandum of September 27, 1960, explaining that it wasseeking an Association Agreement with the EEC according to
Article 238 of the Treaty of Rome; this would entail the creation of a customs union and would lead to the establishmentof the clauses for Israeli participation in the framework of theCommon Agricultural Policy envisaged by the EEC, as well as
the harmonization of the economic and social policies.
During the following years the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs developed extensive diplomatic activity at theCommission in Brussels and in each of the six capitals of
the member states as well as in the European Parliament in
Strasbourg.
On July 7, 1961, the diplomatic representatives of Israel
brought to the attention of the governments in each of thesix member countries an identical Note Verbale in which it
asked for the opening of negotiations with the EEC on all theoutstanding problems without defining beforehand their possible solution.
The Council of Ministers of the EEC decided on July 28,
1961, to invite the Commission to start a study of the relations
between Israel and the EEC. Again the Israeli government, in amemorandum of November 24, 1961 to the Commission, expressed its wish to reach a global and preferential agreement,
reiterating the same point of view in a note of February 1962
to the six governments. The first parliamentary delegation of
the political groups of the European Parliament, headed by
Alain Poher, arrived in Israel in February 1962.
In April 1962 the Council of Ministers of the EEC decided
to open exploratory talks with Israel, which started in Brussels in May 1962; following these talks the Council of Ministers
decided on September 24, 1962, to open negotiations between
the EEC and Israel “in order to seek solutions to problems ofcommercial relations between Israel and the Community.”
These negotiations started in Brussels on September 26, 1962;
the head of the Israel delegation was Mr. Levi Eshkol, then

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6561

dictatorship and coldly organized the massacre of six million Jews.
Winston Churchill, who had been British prime minister during the war, launched an appeal for European unity on
September 19, 1946, in Zurich. The first concrete example ofEuropean economic integration was the customs union among
Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg, called “Benelux”
which started on January 1, 1948.
U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall was ready topromise American aid for the reconstruction of Europe, on
condition that European countries would pool their efforts
and would agree among themselves on the distribution ofAmerican aid. Thus in 1948 was established the first post-war
European organization, the OEEC (Organization for European
Economic Cooperation). Many other organizations were created, and like NATO, the Atlantic Alliance, in 1949, the Councilof Europe in 1949, an instrument of inter-governmental cooperation with no transfer of national sovereignty.
Robert Schuman, the French minister for foreign affairs,
declared on May 9, 1950:
The contribution which an organized and active Europe canmake to civilization is indispensable for the maintenance ofpeaceful relations. Because Europe was not united, we have
had war. The uniting of the European nations requires that theage-old opposition between France and Germany be eliminated. The action to be taken must first of all concern Franceand Germany.

On April 19, 1951, six countries (Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands) signed the Treaty establishing the European Coal andSteel Community (ECSC). It was thought that by pooling coaland steel, two of the most important raw materials for heavy
industry, new military conflicts could be avoided and industrialization could be promoted. This sectorial approach verysoon proved itself too narrow, and it was decided to make abold step forward to full economic integration; on March 25,
1957, the six countries signed the Rome Treaty establishing theEuropean Economic Community (EEC), which entered into
force on January 1, 1958.
The creation of a vast common market was the first objective with the aim of reaching higher living standards, full
employment, and economic expansion. After some years ofa transitional period goods were to flow freely among the six
member states thanks to the gradual disappearance of tariffs; acommon agricultural policy was established as well. The Commission in Brussels was to coordinate the work and prepare
specific proposals to be submitted to the Council of Ministers
which alone had the power of decision, thus keeping it in thehands of the member countries; the Commission would thenhave to implement the decisions taken by the Council.

european community, theminister of finance, while M. Jean Rey, member of the Commission, headed the delegation of the EEC.
Israeli representatives explained the repercussions of theCommon Agricultural Policy on third-party countries andput forward some original proposals like the idea of “trafic
de perfectionnement passif ” according to which European
raw material included in an Israeli industrial product and reexported to the EEC should not be subject to the payment ofcustom duties.
The negotiations were held in three subsequent meetingsin Brussels, on November 1962, June 1963, and March–April
1964; they reached a first non-preferential commercial agreement.
The Israeli government had to decide whether to accept
this first agreement, limited as it was in its scope, or reject itin order to obtain a larger agreement more suitable to the solution of Israeli foreign trade problems. It was decided to sign
the first agreement while at the same time endeavoring to enlarge it. Ambassador Amiel Najar said during the last phaseof the negotiations:
Even if all the considerations which I have expressed bring us
necessarily and logically to the need for a global agreement between the European Community and Israel, my Government
responding to the friendly advice and suggestions made to it invarious capitals, has accepted the request of the EEC to follow
what is called a pragmatic way.

Thus the commercial agreement was signed in Brussels by
Golda Meir, minister of foreign affairs, on June 4, 1964; it allowed a temporary and partial suspension of the Common
External Tariff (CET) on about 20 products of interest to Israel
and the removal of quantitative restrictions. Since it was not a
preferential agreement, the reduction had to be “erga omnes,”i.e., for all members of GATT (the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade); since Israel was not a major supplier to the
EEC for any item, it was very difficult to find products which
could benefit Israel without causing an excessive loss to the
EEC. Generally it was granted a 20 reduction, reaching 40
for grapefruits, 35 for avocados, and 10 only for grapefruit
juice; moreover an acceleration of national tariffs to the CET
was decided for some other products, providing a concessionof temporary and decreasing value since CET had to be progressively implemented anyway.
The economic value of this commercial agreement wasvery limited, yet it was the first institutional link with the
EEC, establishing a joint committee, and had attached to it
an important protocol according to which if the EEC were to
give any new concession on oranges to any third country in
the future, a review of the commercial agreement with Israel
would become possible.
This was a very important principle since it was understood that even without naming the North African countries,
they were the first ones to be considered. The North Africancountries enjoyed a privileged status in the Rome Treaty as
previous French colonies, and it was of great importance to562

avoid the discrimination of Israel vis-à-vis these countries,
especially Morocco, in the trade of oranges, a major Israeli
export at that time to Europe.
The European Parliament was of great help in that period because even if it had no competence, it gave moral support to the Israeli demands; before the Parliament M. Rey
said on January 24, 1964 that the commercial agreement
would permit the various problems not yet settled in its framework to be reexamined periodically with the Israeli friends;“we will strive thus progressively to strengthen it and enlarge it.”A report was submitted by M. Blaisse in the name of theCommission for the external trade of the EP in 1964, in favorof “a first agreement giving satisfaction to both parties.” An
official delegation of the European Parliament came to Israelin November 1964 headed by President Duvieusart. The following year, 1965, Mr. G.L. Moro presented a provisional report proposing a resolution, later approved by the EP, in which
Article 1 read:
Reaffirms that only the association of Israel to the European
Community, according to Article 238 of the Treaty establishing the EEC, will allow the complete satisfactions of the reciprocal interest.

Thus the principle of an association was reaffirmed by theEP, while Israeli representatives stressed in the meetings ofthe Mixed Commission in April 1965 and in June 1966 thata global agreement remained the aim of the Israeli government. This goal was stressed in a formal diplomatic note anda memorandum on October 4, 1966, to the Commission and
the Governments of the Six in which a demand was put forward to substitute the commercial agreement expiring on
July 1, 1967, by an association agreement. In this memorandum it was said inter alia:
Be it in the domain of commercial exchanges and industrialorganization, in that of international cooperation or in that ofscience and technology, if Europe of the Six would conclude
a large association agreement with Israel, it would find in it aloyal and efficient partner.

The Council of Ministers invited the Commission in December 1966 to start exploratory talks with Israel on the problems raised in this note; thus for the first time the Council
was authorizing the Commission to discuss a new agreementwith Israel.
In June 1967 the Six-Day War started and on June 7, while
the Israeli people were engaged in a struggle for their security, the Commission decided to recommend to the Councilof Ministers the conclusion of an Association Agreement with
Israel, taking into account the special links existing between
Europe and Israel. Undoubtedly this was a decision of great
political importance even if it could not be implemented without the consent of the Six at the Council.
A special Committee of the Permanent Representativesof the Six in Brussels envisaged in January 1968 either a pref-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

european community, theerential agreement with Israel for all industrial products atzero custom duty, or a more limited preferential agreement
including most industrial products and a reduction of custom
duties of 25 to 60 or only an acceleration of the custom
reductions due in the framework of the “Kennedy Round,”the GATT multilateral negotiation. It seems that at the time
only the Federal Republic of Germany and the Netherlands
supported the first solution, while Italy, Belgium, and Luxembourg preferred the second and France was against any kindof preferential agreement. In October 1968 the Commission
stated again that a preferential agreement was the most suitable means to solve the problem of Israel in its relations with
the EEC.
The stand of the member states was divided; in March
1968 the government of the Netherlands declared that theCommunity should treat in a uniform way all the states ofthe Mediterranean and therefore they could not accept a preferential agreement with Spain and the North African countries while refusing Israel the same chance. On December 10,
1968, Mr. Luns, then Netherlands minister of foreign affairs,
declared:
The Netherlands can not accept the fact that no progress was
accomplished with Israel while important decisions were taken
for other Mediterranean countries such as Morocco, Tunisia,
Spain.

At the Council meeting of January 27, 1969, Mr. Lahr said that
it was necessary to establish a double link in the concessions to
be made to the Mediterranean countries: a link in timing concerning the simultaneous conclusion of the agreements and alink concerning the content of these agreements. The idea ofparallelism between Israel and the North African countries
was raised again in February 1969 at the European Parliament
in a resolution in which the Commission was asked to prepare
at the same time the association agreements with Tunisia andMorocco and the agreement with Israel.
France, according to the press, in May 1969 still refused
to consider a preferential agreement with Israel because of thepolitical situation prevailing in the Middle East. This meant
simply that the protests of the Arab states against any further
preference to Israel were carefully heard in Paris.
Israel on its side was interested in stronger ties with the
EEC both for political and economic reasons; Western Europe was an important market for its exports since its agricultural products were suited to the countries of a continental temperate climate, while its industrial products weremost suited for sophisticated countries with a high standardof living. An association would entail a structural change in
Israeli industry, probably imposing the closure of the least efficient factories, but the process would enhance productivity
and would therefore be a healthy one. One could also hopethat the association would encourage European investmentsin the Israeli economy, which had a level of import of goods
similar to that of other Mediterranean countries with a population ten times bigger.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

On September 1, 1969, the Commission applied a reduction of 40 on the custom duty on oranges; however, the system of reference prices remained unchanged.
France, probably anxious to make progress with theNorth African countries, changed its stand and at the meeting of the Council of Ministers of July 22, 1969, Foreign Minister Schuman stated that whoever was in favor of a preferential agreement with Israel must at the same time accept thesame principle for any Arab country asking for it as well. Thisidea was accepted by the other members of the Community
and the way was open for a decision. On October 17, 1969,
the Council issued the mandate for the negotiations “within
the general framework of its Mediterranean policy and in expectation of a balanced development in its relations with thecountries of the region.”
Finally a preferential agreement with Israel was signed
on June 29, 1970, in Luxembourg; on the same day a similar
treaty was signed with Spain: the Netherlands would have opposed the signature of an agreement with Spain, because of
the Franco regime, and made it conditional on a simultaneous signature with Israel.
An association under Article 238 was refused to Israel
mainly on political grounds, but a new interpretation wasgiven to Article 113, on which also this agreement was based,in order to give it a preferential nature. Under the clause of
the agreement, which entered into force on October 1, 1970,
with a duration of five years, more than 850 Israeli industrial
products exported to the EEC benefited from a reduction incustom duties which progressively reached 50. Some sensitive products were put on a special list and given a smaller
reduction or a quota ceiling (cotton fabrics); other Israeli
products were totally excluded. It was then that the important principle of some reciprocal treatment was establishedby Israel for goods originating in the EEC; these goods weredivided in four categories and a reduction of between 30
and 10 was granted by Israel. The value of custom reduction given by Israel was equal to 40 of that granted by the
EEC to Israel.
Israeli agricultural products were granted a 40 reduction in customs duties for citrus, bananas, and avocados;a 30 reduction for fresh vegetables and 40 on fruit preserves. No modification was introduced in the system of reference price.
Some Arab states opposed the conclusion of the newagreement with Israel fearing that it would weaken the Arabboycott; the secretariat of the Arab League sent a memorandum to the Commission threatening to impose a boycott on
the EEC members. There was also a hint that Arab oil producers would reconsider their policy if Israel were to be linked
to the Community.
The Enlargement of the Community
The accession of Great Britain, Denmark, and Ireland to theCommunity on January 1, 1973, created a completely new
situation that could deeply affect the Israeli economy. Israel563

european community, thewas worried mainly by the changes that would occur in GreatBritain because of the great weight of this country in Israeli
exports (especially of agricultural products) as well as thefact that the British would raise their custom duties up to thelevel of CET. The British market had been for years traditionally the most important outlet for Israeli fresh oranges andcitrus juices; the British government had a very liberal policy
on food imports since its agriculture could not supply morethan a small part of local consumption. Entering the Community meant a major change for Great Britain since the Community had a huge surplus of food and the EC would impose
the Common Agricultural Policy. Custom duties on fresh oranges and orange juice, for example, would rise steeply; Morocco and Tunisia would enjoy a 4 reduction and therefore
there was a danger of diversion of trade in favor of the orangesof these countries against Israeli fruit. Plywood and bromine
were among the Israeli industrial products that would haveto pay higher custom duties because of the British adhesion
to the EEC.

On November 6 and 7, 1972, the Community Council of Ministers set out the guidelines of the global approach which was
to include all the countries of the Mediterranean plus Jordan,
with the aim of creating free-trade areas progressively covering also the main agricultural products, as well as organizing
financial cooperation for some countries.
On January 30, 1973, a protocol was signed by the Community with Israel and a formal promise was given that a new
agreement should be negotiated and would enter into force
before January 1974, when the first adjustment to CET was due
to take place in Great Britain.
The Council gave a first mandate to the Commission
on June 25/26, 1973, but it was not possible to respect the timetable and to complete the package deal with Israel, Spain, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, and Malta before the end of the year.
At the very last moment the British government decided uni-laterally to apply a “standstill,” not raising duties on imports
from the six Mediterranean countries. The danger of a negative repercussion on the Israeli economy deriving from the
British adhesion was thus temporarily avoided.
A wide range of opinions appeared once more among
the member states of the Community. France gave all its support to Spain and the North African countries and stressed
its friendship for the Arab countries. Italy was torn between
the necessity of paying for most of the concessions to be madeon agricultural products of other Mediterranean countries, often in competition with its own, and the desire to play fully
its role of a Mediterranean power. Germany, the main commercial partner of the Mediterranean countries, had a moral
obligation to Israel and the will to reach an understanding
with the Arab states, while generally helping in removing
obstacles in the way of the Israeli agreement. In the Benelux
countries the business community was eager for closer links
with Spain, while public opinion and Parliaments were against
Spain for political reasons and in favor of closer links with
Israel. A compromise was found enabling each member state
to foster its political and economic goals in accordance with
its sympathies and interests. In order to avoid United States’
opposition to the Mediterranean policy, Great Britain asked
and obtained the assurance that no reverse preferences should
be given by the southern Mediterranean countries, with the
exception of Israel, to the EEC.
After a first round of negotiations, the Commission sent
back its proposals to the Council, accepting most of the Israeli
requests, in order to obtain a “supplementary mandate.” TheCouncil met again and in its session of July 22/23, 1974, gave
the general guidelines for a new mandate.
In December 1974 a new round of negotiations led, after
a non-stop meeting from 3 p.m. till 7:25 a.m. next morning,
to an agreed text of the new treaty establishing a free tradearea for industrial products. The new agreement was signed
in Brussels on May 11, 1975, by Foreign Minister Yigal Allonfor Israel and by the Irish foreign minister, Garrett Fitzgerald,
for the EEC. The agreement, which came into force on July 1,
1975, has no time limit and is therefore still in force; it is ofa much wider scope than the two previous ones as it establishes a free trade area although limited to industrial products; Israel gave full reciprocity but with a delay of some years.
Thus, while the EEC completed tariff dismantling on Israeli
goods already on July 1, 1977, the gradual implementation of
the same dismantling by Israel on EEC goods was completed
on January 1, 1989, simultaneously to goods originating in the
United States thanks to the Free Trade Agreement between
Israel and that country.
The Israeli industrialist could now look at the whole
Community as its potential market and should be able toproduce on a much bigger scale well above the needs of theIsraeli domestic market. On the other hand the competition
with European goods was now felt inside Israel itself and this
implied the need to reach higher productivity, better quality,
and in general a more competitive product.

564

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

The Mediterranean Policy
On February 9, 1971, the European Parliament adopted aresolution inviting the member states to draw up a common
policy towards the Mediterranean countries. At the meetingof the EEC Council of Ministers on June 26–27, 1972, Maurice
Schuman, French foreign minister, presented a completely
new idea: that a “global solution for manufactured products”
be found to solve most of the problems of Spain, Israel, andother Mediterranean countries.
The official Israeli reaction to the French proposal wasstated by Foreign Minister Abba Eban in a press conference
given on August 7, 1972:
I was asked about an idea, proposed by M. Schuman, of a Mediterranean free-trade area including Israel. I think it is a positiveidea. It responds to Israel’s desire to be associated with a large
market and a large community into which its exports would
have free entry. We must understand, and our industrialists too,that reciprocity is involved. We would have to open our market,
which is a large one for Europe, much more widely…

european community, thePolitical Cooperation
The first aim of the EEC was political although at first it was easier to build the economic side; in November 1970 the foreign
ministers of the Six discussed for the first time in Munich a
common stand on Middle Eastern problems. Immediately after
the Yom Kippur War of October 1973, an oil boycott was declared by OAPEC, the Arab Oil Producers Organization, against
the Netherlands and Denmark. This provoked the Declarationof the Nine of November 6, 1973, a kind of total surrender tothe Arabs in which four principles were established as the basis
for the common European policy: the inadmissibility of acquisition of territories by force; the necessity for Israel to end theterritorial occupation in place since 1967; the respect for suzerainty, territorial integrity, and independence of every stateof the region and their rights to live in peace within secure andrecognized borders; the recognition that due account should
be taken of the legitimate rights of the Palestinians.
The beginning of the Euro-Arab dialogue at the endof December 1973 in Copenhagen and its subsequent evolution was a factor for a change to a growingly pro-Arab stand.
The Declaration of the Nine in Venice was given on June
13, 1980, after the historic meeting of President Anwar Sadat
with Prime Minister Menachem Begin in Jerusalem andthe subsequent signature of the Peace Treaty between Israel
and Egypt in 1979. In December 1979 the Soviet Union invaded
Afghanistan. Some believe that the strategic aim of Europe
was to use the outraged feelings of Third World countries regarding the invasion in order to reinforce the European presence in the Islamic world. To this purpose the price of supporting the Arab thesis, the PLO, and the right to self-determinationof the Palestinians did not seem too high. According to the
Venice declaration of June 13, 1980, the countries of the European Community would be ready to participate in “a systemof concrete and obligatory guaranties including in the field”(Art. 5), the Palestinian people should be able “to exercise fully
its right to self-determination” (Art. 6), the PLO “must be associated with the negotiations” (Art. 7), the Jewish settlementsin the administered territories are considered to be illegal and“a grave obstacle to the peace process” (Art. 9), Israel should
put an end to its territorial occupation (Art. 9). Israel did notagree to the text and the spirit of the Venice declaration which
ignored the Camp David peace treaty between Israel and Egypt
and was considered to be unbalanced and pro-Arab.
The Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 brought the relations with the states of the EEC to their lowest ebb; the Ten at
Luxembourg in their declaration of June 29, 1982, maintained“their vigorous condemnation of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon,” demanded “an immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces,”and “a simultaneous withdrawal of the Palestinian forces inWest Beirut” and admonished that:
Israel will not obtain the security to which it has a right byusing force and creating “faits accomplis” but it can find thissecurity by satisfying the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people, who should have the opportunity to exercise theirright to self-determination with all that this implies.

The Council of Ministers also decided to suspend the signatureof the second Financial Protocol already initialed. Israel waseven accused by Mr. Pisani, member of the EC Commission, tohave blocked European humanitarian aid to Lebanon – which
had never been sent in the first place.
At the beginning of September 1982 the massacre at Sabra and Shatila provoked the “profound shock and revulsion”
of the Ten; they also welcomed the American initiative contained in President Reagan’s speech of September 1, 1982, andunderlined “the importance of the statement adopted by Arabheads of state and governments at Fez on September 9” calling“for a similar expression of a will of peace on the part of Israel”(Declaration of the Ten of September 20, 1982).
At the European Council of Stuttgart (June 17–19, 1983)
the Ten, under the presidency of Germany, took a positive
view of the Israeli-Lebanese Peace Treaty and decided to resume normal relations with Israel allowing for the signatureof the second financial protocol and the meeting of the Council of Cooperation. In the Dublin summit of December 3–4,
1984, the Ten reiterated that the PLO must be associated withnegotiations but refrained from any new Middle Eastern initiative. Bettino Craxi was the first European prime ministerto go and meet Yasser Arafat, in Tunisia on December 7, 1984.
The Ten had mixed feelings about American initiatives; they
considered Arafat as a moderate who could be convinced tostate publicly the abandonment of terror; they felt that if Arafat disappeared any successor might be much more radical.
The huge economic interest of many European companies in
the Arab countries seemed best assured by intimate contact
with Arafat.
In the year 1985 two events showed how wide the gap between the Europeans and Israel had remained: the Israeli raid
on the PLO headquarters near Tunis on October 1, and the hijacking of the Italian boat Achille Lauro some days later. The
first was compared by an Italian minister to the Nazi killingof innocent hostages, among them Jews, by the Nazis in Fosse
Ardeatine near Rome in March 1944; the second gave rise in
the Italian media to the idea that Israel could avoid Palestinian
terrorism if it only agreed to make concessions to the PLO.
The Israeli prime minister, Shimon Peres, launched apeace plan at the General Assembly of the United Nations in
New York in October 1985, with the idea of an international
conference that would accompany direct negotiations among
the parties. Peres presented an Israeli scheme for peace at theCouncil of Cooperation in Brussels in January 1987. The declaration of the Twelve of February 23, 1987, reasserted that anegotiated solution in the Middle East should be based on
the Venice Declaration; the Twelve were in favor of an international conference under the auspices of the United Nations
and they expressed the wish “to see an improvement in theliving conditions of the inhabitants of the occupied territories.”
The entrance of Spain and Portugal into the European
Community on January 1, 1986, worried Israeli farmers because 70 of their total production is exported and about

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6565

european community, the70 of total agricultural exports go to the EC countries; theirexports could be endangered by preferential treatment given
to Spain, their main competitor.
At a very early stage, in 1982, the Israeli Mission in Brussels voiced its concerns about the possible negative repercussions of the entry of Spain; the EC decided that traditional currents of trade should be allowed to continue unhampered. In
this spirit a protocol was signed on December 8, 1986, that was
aimed at solving some of the problems of Israeli agricultural
exports during the transitional period of the Spanish accession. At the end of July 1987 the additional protocols of adaptation between Israel, Spain, and Portugal were initialed.
A problem which gave rise to some tension between
Israel and the EC Commission was the sudden decision by
the Council of Ministers to unilaterally grant the same preferences enjoyed by Israeli products entering the EC to Palestinian products originating in the territories. The decision was
published on December 31, 1986; the Israeli authorities felt that
the Twelve had more in mind to help the Palestinian entity
evolve into a state than merely economic matters.
After months of negotiations Israel accepted the EC decision for the direct export of agricultural products from theWest Bank and Gaza Strip to the EC. Subsequently the Council of Ministers approved on December 15, 1987, the signatureof three additional protocols, including one on Israeli agricultural exports, which was long overdue, since it had to give
Israel some defense against damages caused by the Spanish adhesion of January 1, 1986. The European Parliament, in an unprecedented move, decided on March 9, 1988, not to approve
the ratification of the Protocols because of Israeli repression of
the Intifada and the obstruction of Palestinian exports, which
had been settled by then. This was a de facto political sanction
using economic means; eventually the European Parliament
ratified the three protocols on October 12, 1988.
On December 30, 1989, there was a demonstration in
Jerusalem organized by the Peace Now movement. Excessive
force was used by the Israeli police and on January 18, 1990,
the European Parliament condemned “the brutal interventionof the Israeli police during the demonstration” and recalled aprevious resolution concerning the closing down of Palestinian universities. The EP called on the Commission “to freeze
immediately budget heading 7394 allocated to scientific cooperation with Israel.” The EC Commission on February 7 quickly
complied with this resolution and suspended the scientific cooperation; it took more than a year to restore those joint projects unilaterally brought to an end by the Commission.
Financial aid to the Palestinians started in 1982 with asmall sum of 3 million ECU yearly; in the year 1991 after the
Gulf War, an emergency aid of 60 millions ECU was decided
upon but again the Commission made it conditional on thenomination of its representative for the distribution of thisaid in the territories: a request considered by the Israelis to
be political.
In a meeting which took place in Paris in June 1991 between Foreign Minister David Levy and the European “troika”

a wide agreement was reached: Israel would be admitted to
the European Economic Space, the Community would participate in the future Peace Conference on the Middle East,and the Commission would appoint its representative to theterritories. No timetable or technical details were given andthe entrance of Israel to the European Economic Space wasnever implemented.

566

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Sergio I. Minerbi]

Later Developments
Relations between Israel and the European Union (EU) are
now formally governed by the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, established through the EU-Israel Association Agreement
and the regional dimension of the Barcelona Process.
Israel was keen on becoming a part of the Barcelona Process, initiated in 1995, between the EU and 12 Mediterranean
partners. This initiative was conceived by the EU mainly witha view to the Maghreb countries. These countries, which had
historical ties with France, were sending thousands of emigrants to Europe. The EU felt that raising the standard of lifein the Maghreb countries and creating new jobs would bringless pressure to immigrate to the EU. The situation was radically different for Israel.
Ten years later, the achievements of the Barcelona Process are rather modest. Mediterranean countries need to create 5 million jobs a year, a target which seems impossible toattain. The EU also hoped that through the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership it would have a say in the Middle East
peace process.
The major development which took place since the early
1990s in the relations between Israel and the EU has been thesignature of the Association Agreement, which was signedon November 20, 1995, and replaced the earlier Cooperation Agreement of 1975. The Association Agreement went
into force on June 1, 2000, following ratification by the 15
Member State Parliaments, the European Parliament, andthe Knesset.
The principles outlined in the treaty were not always fully
implemented. According to the treaty, regional cooperation
should be encouraged, a regular political dialogue should beestablished, as well as a dialogue on scientific, technological,
and cultural matters. The regular political dialogue has takenplace on rare occasions, probably because the EU was constantly taking sides in the ongoing conflict between Israel and
the Palestinians, in favor of the latter.
The situation has been rather better in the field of economic cooperation. In trade relations, the EU is Israel’s
major trading partner, with about 40 of Israeli imports coming from the EU and about 33 of Israeli exports directedto the EU. In the year 2004, total imports from the EU reached$16,813 million, while total exports reached $10,721 million. The figures excluding diamonds are respectively $7,611
million for the imports and $7,435 million for the exports.
One could jump to the conclusion that the huge deficit ofabout $4 billion a year is due mainly to the trade in diamonds.

european community, theCooperation has been the best in the field of science andtechnology. Israel is highly advanced in technological innovation, especially in the electronics industry and biotechnology.
Many achievements in the electronics industry are due to fallout from military research.
On March 8, 1999, the Agreement for Scientific andTechnical Cooperation between the European Communityand Israel went into force. Thus Israel has been fully associated with the 5t Framework Programme (FP5) for Community RTD (1999–2002). Later, Israel became fully associatedin the 6t Framework Programme (2002–06) as of December 16, 2002.
With the access granted to Israel to the Framework Programme for Community RTD, the financial flow was reversed.
Instead of the about $20 million a year received by Israeli bodies from the EU, $36.6 million were paid by Israel as its participation fee. Israel’s share is calculated on the basis of thepercentage of its GNP compared to the total GNP of all contributing countries. Israel’s status of “Associated Country” requires financial participation in the FP budget, which reachedEuro 150 million for FP5 and Euro 192 million for FP6. In return Israeli organizations, which take part in selected joint EUIsrael projects, can receive a financial contribution from theCommission consisting of the reimbursement of some of thecosts incurred. The Israeli contributions are very substantial
in comparison with the total expenditure of the Israeli government in support of industrial-scientific research.
The main advantage of working with European bodies is
to share risks and costs. On the other hand, about 40 percentof the groups working in the framework program do not envisage any product at all. In September 2003, there were 623
joint research projects associating Israeli groups to the FP5;
out of them, 143 were under Israeli coordination. Total estimated European funds to Israeli research reached Euro 163
million in FP5.
At the end of September 2000, the Palestinians started
a new Intifada. Five years later, in September 2005, the Palestinians counted more than 3,000 victims, while the Israelis
lost more than 1,000 people, mainly civilians. The Palestinians perpetrated many terrorist actions, but obtained nopolitical results, notwithstanding the support they received
from the EU.
On April 30, 2003, the U.S. State Department released thetext of the “roadmap” to a permanent solution to the IsraeliPalestinian conflict. The roadmap specifies the steps for thetwo parties to take to reach a settlement, and a timeline for doing so, under the auspices of the Quartet – the United States,
the European Union, the United Nations, and Russia.
On June 4, 2003, a meeting took place at Aqaba, with
President George Bush, King Abdullah of Jordan, Israeli Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon, and Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas. In his statement Prime Minister Ariel Sharonreferred to the possibility of establishing a Palestinian state
within temporary borders, if the conditions for this were met.
The Palestinian state will, inter alia, be completely demilita-

rized. This state will be the home of the Palestinian diaspora;no Palestinian refugees will be permitted to enter the territory of the State of Israel.
On May 1, 2004, the EU was enlarged to 25 Member
States and established a new “European Neighborhood Policy” designed to offer its neighbors greater political, security, economic, and cultural cooperation. Policy negotiations
with partner countries are meant to bring upon an agreed
Action Plan.
On the political level, the discrepancies between theEuropean stand and Israeli policy were most intense during
the year 2004 and, sometimes, Israel felt that the Europeans
went further than criticizing a policy, but were casting doubt
on the legitimacy of the existence of the State of Israel. The
European Council of March 25–6, 2004 declared:

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

567

The European Council expressed its deep concern at the situation in the Middle East … following in particular the extra-judicial killing of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. While having
repeatedly condemned terrorist atrocities against Israelis andrecognized Israel’s right to protect its citizens against terrorist
attacks, the European Union has consistently opposed extra-judicial killings, which are contrary to international law.

In July 2004, Javier Solana, the chief representative for foreign
policy and security of EU, met Prime Minister Ariel Sharon,
who said: “Israel is interested in integrating the international
community, mainly Europe, in the peace process with the Palestinians, but without a radical modification of the European
stand, mainly regarding the security of Israel and its need ofdefending itself, it will be very difficult to do so.” Solana saidon this occasion: “The EU has a role in Middle East peacetalks, like it or not.”The EU asked Israel to dismantle its security fence, tofreeze the settlements in the territories, to stop extrajudicial
executions (“targeted killings”), to guarantee human rights
and better living conditions for the Palestinians.
The EU is one of the main contributors of financial aid
to the Palestinian Authority and Israel has expressed doubtsthat a part of its disbursement is not being used for terrorist
activities. The European Anti-Fraud Office, OLAF, made aninvestigation, but did not find enough proof to substantiate
the accusation, while at the same time it did not exclude thepossibility altogether.
Among the possible causes of the negative stand takenby the EU the following may be indicated: the success of Palestinian propaganda depicting Israel as a demon comparable
to the Nazis; the success of the Intifada in influencing public opinion, especially through television; the enormous economic interests of most of the European countries in the Arabcountries and their desire to go on selling them huge quantities of arms.
After the death of Yasser Arafat, chairman of the PLO, in
November 2004, a new Palestinian leadership agreed to andimplemented a kind of truce. Israel, for its part, decided unilaterally to dismantle all 21 of its settlements in the Gaza Strip(*Gush Katif) and from four more settlements in northerneusebius pamphili
Samaria. Disengagement from the Gaza Strip was completed
on September 12, 2005.
The Action Plan with Israel was concluded on December
13, 2004. It allows the possibility for Israel to participate progressively in key aspects of EU policies and programs, to upgrade the scope and intensity of political cooperation, to encourage Israeli legislation as a means to open the EU internalmarket to Israel, and to achieve greater liberalization of trade,
services, and agriculture. The Action Plan identifies, inter alia,
as priorities cooperation in the Middle East conflict and otherareas, counter-terrorism, non-proliferation of weapons ofmass destruction, human rights, improved dialogue between
cultures and religions, migration issues, the fight against organized crime and human trafficking and police and judicial
cooperation, transport, energy, environment, science andtechnology, and people-to-people contacts.
On September 15, 2005, Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan
Shalom met in New York with Benita Ferrero-Waldner, theEuropean Commissioner for External Relations and European
Neighborhood Policy. She said:

1 June 2000 The Association Agreement entered into force
8 March 1999 Agreement for Scientific and Technical Co-operation between the EC and Israel, entered into force
16 December 2002 Israel associated to the 6t Framework
Programme
13 December 2004 Action Plan with Israel concluded[Sergio I. Minerbi (2nd ed.)]Main Agreements between Israel and the EEC
4 June 1964 Commercial Agreement
29 June 1970 (Preferential) Agreement
11 May 1975 Agreement (Industrial Free Trade Area); Kitvei
Amana, n. 882.
8 February 1977 Additional Protocol to the Agreement (onScientific Cooperation); Kitvei Amana, n. 924.
18 March 1981 Second Additional Protocol to the Agreement(relating to Greece); Kitvei Amana, n. 965.
24 June 1983 Second Financial Protocol, Kitvei Amana, n.
966.
18 December 1984 Third Additional Protocol to the Agreement, Kitvei Amana, n. 986.
15 December 1987 Fourth Additional Agreement to the Agreement (relating to Portugal and Spain), Official Journal of
the European Communities, L 327 of 30.11.1988.
15 December 1987 Third Financial Protocol, Ibidem.
20 November 1995 Signature of the Association Agreement°EUSEBIUS PAMPHILI (c. 260–339 C.E.), Church Father and archbishop of Caesarea. Eusebius was born in Caesarea Maritima, where he was a pupil of the priest Pamphilus (c. 240–309), who had studied with Origen. Eusebius wasappointed bishop in c. 313. He was associated with imperial
court circles and was a devoted admirer of the emperor *Constantine. A scholar in a wide range of fields, Eusebius was aprolific writer on exegesis, history, apologetics, and dogmatics. Especially important is his Chronicle, a summary of world
history based partly on the Bible. Historia Ecclesiastica is a
study of Church history in ten volumes (completed in 324)
up to the time of the victory of Christianity under Constantine. Important for Church history is his small work on theChristian martyrs of Palestine. He also wrote a biography ofConstantine, a panegyric to the emperor who built the firstchurches in Palestine (notably those at Bethlehem and at Golgotha in Jerusalem).
Eusebius’ theological position is reflected in his two
great works:(1) Praeparatio Evangelica (“Preparation for Christianity”), in which he proves the Greek views on religion to bebaseless, Judaism alone providing the proper foundation for
the establishment of religion;(2) Demonstratio Evangelica (“Proof of the Truth ofChristianity”), in which he severely criticizes Judaism for
failing to perceive that the revelation of God in the Bible wasmerely a prelude to “the glad tidings [the gospel] of the kingdom of God” and that only in the New Testament do these“glad tidings” appear.
The Onomasticon of Eusebius, written between 313 andearly 325, contains more than 1,000 place-names mentioned
in the Bible and gospels which he arranged alphabetically bybooks of the Bible, following the Septuagint spelling of thenames. The primary aim was for it to be used as a sourcebook
to facilitate the reading of the Old Testament with the topography of the Holy Land as its backdrop. At the time of Eusebius, the proper veneration of the places associated with Jesus
had still not been fully established and so he would not have
deemed it necessary to list such sites in his Onomasticon. One
assumes that when Eusebius wrote in Greek “one can see thisplace to this very day…,” it meant that he had actually visitedthe place himself, or that he acquired some reliable first-handinformation about it. He was particularly good when it cameto places in the hill country and along the coast, but less reliable about far-flung places. There is also information in his
work about provinces and administrative districts, about theethnic makeup of settlements, topography and holy places,

568

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

I have also reiterated to Minister Shalom that disengagement
has to bring tangible and immediate improvement to the livesof ordinary Palestinians. It has to offer hope to both sides.
We are working closely with James Wolfensohn, the Quartet
Special Envoy, on ways to revitalize the Palestinian economy.
We have offered our help and support to resolve crucial issues such as border crossing, customs and links between WestBank and Gaza.

The Israeli authorities have been very satisfied with the new
Action Plan, which extends cooperation to new fields. But it isdoubtful that the Israelis really understand that this increased
cooperation has a price: to accept the involvement of the EU
in the peace process with the Palestinians. Vice Prime Minister Shimon Peres said that eventually a larger Europe will
incorporate the Middle East. Then, Israel will certainly ask to
be included in the economic network of Europe.

euthanasia
and references to roads. The distances, taken from Romanroad maps (e.g., the Peutinger Map) and stated in Roman
miles, help determine urban boundaries and the course of
highways, and they also provide information on the physicalgeography of the country. Eusebius also consulted the writings of Josephus. He reports that in his time Jews, Christians,and pagans coexisted in the country, with a large number ofJewish villages in his day but only four Christian ones. The
Onomasticon was also a major source of inspiration for the*Madaba mosaic map of the Holy Land, which is dated to thesecond half of the sixth century. The mosaicist in some caseseven copied Eusebius’ mistakes. While this was not in any way
a comprehensive listing of all the places in the Bible – a featEusebius may very well have intended but never succeeded to
do – his work serves as an important source of informationon the country in the early fourth century.
In c. 420 the Onomasticon was translated into Latin by
Jerome who made several additions reflecting the changes
that had meanwhile occurred. Extracts from the Syriac version appeared in 1924. Klostermann’s edition from 1904 Das
Onomastikon der biblischen Ortsnamen was until recently
the version most frequently referred to by scholars. A translation into Hebrew was made by Ezra Zion Melamed in 1933and published with a commentary in Tarbiz (reprinted as aseparate publication in 1966). A translation into English wasmade by G.S.P. Freeman-Grenville (2003).
Bibliography: J.P. Migne (ed.), Patrologia Graeca, vols.
XIX–XXIV (complete works); R. Laqueur, Eusebius als Historiker
seiner Zeit (1929); H. Berkhof, Die Theologie des Eusebius (1939); 4(1932/33), 78–96, 248–84; Thomsen, in: ZDPV, 26 (1903), 97ff. Add.
Bibliography: D.S. Wallace-Hadrill, Eusebius of Caesarea (1960);
R.M. Grant, Eusebius as Church Historian (1980); T.D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (1981); E.Z. Melamed, “Onomasticon,” in: Encyclopedia Biblica (1955), 151–54; E.Z. Melamed (transl. with notes),
The Onomastikon of Eusebius (1966); D. Groh, “The Onomasticon of
Eusebius and the Rise of Christian Palestine,” in: Studia Patristica, 18(1985), 23–31; L. Di Segni, “The ‘Onomasticon’ of Eusebius and theMadaba Map,” in: M. Piccirillo and E. Alliata (eds.), The Madaba Map
Centenary, 1897–1997 (1999), 115–20; G.P. Grenville, R.L. Chapman,
and J.E. Taylor, Palestine in the Fourth Century. The Onomasticon by
Eusebius of Caesarea (2003).

of it is of equally infinite value, and the relief from sufferingcannot be purchased at the cost of life itself, whatever otherconcessions Jewish law may make or urge for the mitigationof pain. Hence, “a patient on his deathbed is considered as aliving person in every respect … and it is forbidden to cause
him to die quickly … or to move him from his place (lest thishasten his death);… and whoever closes his eyes with the onset of death is regarded as shedding blood” (Sh. Ar., YD 339:1
and gloss). Indeed, killing any innocent person, “whether heis healthy or about to die from natural causes,” is legally codified as murder (Maim. Yad, Roẓ e’aḥ 2:7). Some recent rabbinical responsa, however, are inclined to sanction the cessationof “heroic” methods to prolong a lingering life without hopeof recovery. The withdrawal of treatment under such circumstances might be justified on the basis of the permission to remove from a dying person an extraneous impediment, such as“a clattering noise or salt on his tongue, delaying the departureof his soul” (Sh. Ar., loc. cit., gloss).
The otherwise uncompromising opposition to euthanasia no doubt springs from the life-affirming attitude of Judaism in which, nationally as well as individually, life in misery
is to be preferred to death with glory or dignity, a sentiment
which stirred the Psalmist to exclaim gratefully: “The Lordhath chastened me sore; but He hath not given me over unto
death” (Ps. 118:18). For the same reason, martyrdom is permitted only in the most exceptional circumstances; to lay down
one’s life, even for the fulfillment of divine laws, when such
sacrifice is not required by law, is regarded as a mortal offense(Maim. Yad, Yesodei ha-Torah 5:4).
[Immanuel Jakobovits]

EUTHANASIA, term denoting “the action of inducing gentle and easy death,” first used by the British moral historian
W.E.H. Lecky in 1869. Among advocates of this measure toterminate the life of sufferers from incurable or painful disease
are many earlier philosophers, Christian as well as pagan, including Plato in his Republic (3:405ff.) and Sir Thomas Morein his Utopia (2:7). The precise Hebrew equivalent for euthanasia, mitah yafah (“pleasant death”), occurs several times in the
Talmud, though always in connection with the duty to reduce
to a minimum the anguish of capital criminals before their
execution (e.g., Sanh. 45a), and never in the sense of deliberately hastening the end of persons dying from natural causes.
In the Jewish view, life being of infinite worth, any fraction

In Nazi Germany
Euthanasia was also a euphemism used by the Nazi regime
for the murder of the disabled, a group of human beings defamed as “life unworthy of life.” Although Adolf Hitler andhis associates talked about “mercy death” their aim was not
to shorten the lives of persons with painful terminal diseases
but to kill those they considered inferior, who could otherwise
have lived for many years.
The belief that mentally and physically disabled humanbeings should be excluded from a nation’s gene pool was astaple argument of the international eugenic movement, inGermany known as racial hygiene, and had led to widespreadsterilization of the disabled in various countries, including theUnited States. The Nazis incorporated the goals of the eugenicists into their racial world view, and on July 14, 1933, only fourand a half months after Hitler became chancellor, the German
government enacted the Law for the Prevention of Offspringwith Hereditary Diseases, the so-called sterilization law mandating the compulsory sterilization of the disabled. This law
led to the sterilization of three to four hundred thousand disabled German nationals, representing about 0.5 percent of theGerman population.
The attack on patients with disabilities in state hospitals
and nursing homes during the 1930s had involved sterilization

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6569[Michael Avi-Yonah / Shimon Gibson (2nd ed.)]euthanasia
and a reduced standard of care. But this was only the beginning. In 1935 Adolf Hitler told Gerhard Wagner, the Reich physicians’ leader, that once war began he would implement thekilling of the disabled. As Germany unleashed World War II
and Nazi policy became more radical, the regime crossed theline separating traditional eugenic policies from killing operations. Although this radical decision had been initiated by thepolitical leadership, the scientific and medical community did
not oppose it, because the idea had circulated since at least
1920, the year the jurist Karl Binding and the psychiatrist Alfred Hoche published The Authorization for the Destructionof Life Unworthy of Life.
The first Nazi killing operation was directed against institutionalized disabled patients. It started with the killing of
infants and young children born with mental or physical disabilities. Hitler appointed Dr. Karl Brandt, his escorting physician, and Philipp Bouhler, who headed the Chancellery of
the Fuehrer (Kanzlei des Fuehrers, or K d F), to direct the killing
operation, and they in turn designated Viktor Brack, chief of
Office II in the K d F, as the person to implement the Fuehrer’s
order. The so-called children’s euthanasia was top-secret andwas carried out in various hospitals. There the children wereplaced in so-called special children’s wards; they were killedwith an overdose of common barbiturates, and sometimes
also through starvation diets.
In September 1939, the killing operation was expanded
to include adults. Hitler first appointed Leonardo Conti, statesecretary for health in the Reich Ministry of Interior, to direct
adult euthanasia, telling him in the presence of Hans Heinrich
Lammers and Martin Bormann “that he considered it appropriate that life unfit for living of severely insane patients should
be ended by intervention that would result in death.” Conti
accepted the assignment, but he did not remain in charge
long; within a few weeks, Hitler replaced him, turning once
again to Brandt and Bouhler as his plenipotentiaries, so that
Brack and the K d F could administer adult euthanasia alongside that for children. To avoid implicating the Chancellery,
the staff administering the euthanasia killings moved from theK d F into a confiscated Jewish villa at Tiergarten Street number 4 and euthanasia was thus soon known as Operation T4,
or simply as T4.
The method used to kill the children could not be used
to kill the far larger number of adults. To accomplish its task,
T4 therefore constructed killing centers, including gas chambers and crematoria, and developed a killing technique to select, transport, and “process” the victims. And always the killers robbed the corpses of their victims, taking gold teeth andbridge work to enrich the state as well as internal organs toenrich “scientific research.” For this purpose, T4 established
six killing centers – Brandenburg, Grafeneck, Hartheim, Sonnenstein, Bernburg, and Hadamar – but only four were everoperational at the same time. To hide the killings, T4 used subterfuge to fool the relatives; the killing centers camouflaged
as hospitals wrote letters of condolence and issued fraudulent
death certificates.

In their 1920 book, Binding and Hoche had argued
that euthanasia could only function if the act of this kindof mercy death would be decriminalized, so that physicians
would not have to fear prosecution under the murder statute,paragraph 212 of the German penal code, which remainedin force throughout the Nazi period. Since Hitler absolutely
refused to consider promulgating a euthanasia law, the Kd F
decided to ask Hitler for written orders, so that they could
convince physicians to collaborate. In October 1939, Hitler
finally signed a document, more an authorization than anorder, that had been prepared by the K d F. But to emphasizethat war would not only alter the international status of theReich but also herald “domestic purification,” he predated it
to September 1, 1939, the day World War II began. Preparedon Hitler’s personal stationery, as if mass murder was his “private affair,” but never promulgated or published in any legal
gazette, this authorization did not actually have the force oflaw, but served, nevertheless, as the “legal” basis for the killing operation.
The imposed secrecy did not prevent news of the murder of the disabled to reach the general population. The unrestof victims’ relatives posed a danger to the regime, and in August 1941 Hitler therefore ordered a stop to the gassing of
the disabled. This order did not, however, end the killing of
the disabled; only their gassing in killing centers stopped.
Children’s euthanasia continued without interruption; adults
were murdered in regular hospitals spread throughout theReich. The T4 killing centers also continued to operate forseveral years; they were used to kill concentration camp inmates under a killing enterprise known as Operation 14 f13.
The Austrian killing center Hartheim near Linz continued inoperation until late in 1944 for the killings under 14f13 andlater for the murder of prisoners from the nearby Mauthausen concentration camp. Furthermore, a selected number of
T4 male staff members were dispatched to Lublin to operate
the killing centers of Operation Reinhard: Belzec, Sobibor,and Treblinka. One of those was the Austrian physician Irmfried Eberl, medical director of the T4 killing centers in Brandenburg and Bernburg, who served as the first commandantof Treblinka.
After the war, the perpetrators argued that Jews were
never killed in Operation T4, since they did not “deserve”
mercy death, and this was believed at the Nuremberg andlater trials. But this was not true. Jewish institutionalized disabled patients were included alongside non-Jewish victims
from the beginning. In the spring of 1940, however, a decision was made on the highest level to kill Jewish patients as agroup. They were concentrated in a number of central institutions, and killed in the closest killing center. But for
the Jews there were no letters of condolence; the Jews were
supposed to disappear without a trace. In the end, however, T4 did issue fraudulent death certificates long after thevictims had been killed; this permitted T4 to extort money
for weeks, even months, for upkeep of the already murdered
Jewish patients. To accomplish this, T4 claimed the patients

570

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Evans, Jane
had been deported to a non-existent hospital in Cholm in Poland, and issued fraudulent death certificates with that nonexistent address.
[Henry Friedlander (2nd ed.)]Bibliography: I. Jakobovits, Jewish Medical Ethics (19592),
123–5; idem, Journal of a Rabbi (19672), 165f. (= Essays… I. Brodie(1967), 195, Eng. pt.). Add. Bibliography: L. Alexander, “Medical Science under Dictatorship,” in: New England Journal of Medicine, 241:2 (1949), 39–47; G.E. Allen, “The Eugenics Record Officeat Cold Spring Harbor, 1910–1940: An Essay in Institutional History,” in: Osiris, 2d ser., 2 (1986), 225–64; G. Aly, “Medizin gegen Unbrauchbare,” in: Beiträge zur nationalsozialistischen Gesundheits- undSozialpolitik, 1 (1985), 9–74; idem, “Der saubere und der schmutzige
Fortschritt,” in: Beiträge zur nationalsozialistischen Gesundheits- undSozialpolitik, 2 (1985), 9–78; I. Arndt and W. Scheffler, “Organisierter Massenmord an Juden in nationalsozialistischen Vernichtungslagern,” in: Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 24 (1976), 105–35; G.
Bock, Zwangssterilisation im Nationalsozialismus: Studien zur Rassenpolitik und Frauenpolitik (1986); M. Burleigh, Death and Deliverance: “Euthanasia” in Germany, c. 1900–1945 (1995); P. Chroust(ed.), Friedrich Mennecke, Innenansichten eines medizinischen Täters
im Nationalsozialismus. Eine Edition seiner Briefe, 1935–1947, 2 vols.
paginated throughout (1987); K. Doerner, “Nationalsozialismus undLebensvernichtung,” in: Vierteljahrshefte fuer Zeitgeschichte, 15 (1967),
121–52; H. Friedlander, The Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution (1995); S.J. Gould, The Mismeasure of Man(1981); M.H. Kater, Doctors Under Hitler (1989); F.K. Kaul, Nazimordaktion T4: Ein Bericht ueber die erste industriemässig durchgeführte
Mordaktion des Naziregimes (1973); E. Klee, “Euthanasie” im NS-Staat:
Die “Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens” (1983); D.J. Kevles, In theName of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity (1985);
S. Kühl, The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German National Socialism (1994); R.J. Lifton, The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide (1986); A. Mitscherlichand F. Mielke (eds.), Medizin ohne Menschlichkeit: Dokumente desNuernberger Aerzteprozesses (1960); B. Mueller-Hill, Murderous Science: Elimination by Scientific Selection of Jews, Gypsies, and Others,
Germany, 1933–1945, trans. G.R. Fraser (1988); K. Nowak, “Euthanasie” und Sterilisierung im “Dritten Reich” (19802); A. Platen-Hallermund, Die Tötung Geisteskranker in Deutschland: Aus der deutschenAerztekommission beim amerikanischen Militaergericht (1948); A.
Rueckerl, NS-Vernichtungslager im Spiegel deutscher Strafprozesse(1977); H.W. Schmuhl, Rassenhygiene, Nationalsozialismus, Euthanasie: Von der Verhütung zur Vernichtung “lebensunwerten Lebens,”
1890–1945 (1987); G. Sereny, Into that Darkness: From Mercy Killingto Mass Murder (1974); S.F. Weiss, “The Race Hygiene Movement inGermany,” in: Osiris, 2d ser., 3 (1987), 193–236.

°EUTROPIUS (fourth century C.E.), author of a compendium of Roman history. He mentions *Pompey’s Judean campaign in 63 B.C.E. and the subjugation of the Jews by *Vespasian (Breviarium, 6:14, 16; 7:19).
[Jacob Petroff]

After graduating from the University of North Carolina in 1958, he took a law degree at Yale University in 1963.
He worked in various branches of government, state and national, as a speechwriter for President Lyndon Johnson, andas a White House assistant.
In 1973, he published The Provincials: A Personal Historyof Jews in the South. The book provided an insight into the
Jewry of the southern United States, which had never beenstudied in depth previously. One of Evans’ most revealing statistics was that more than 45 Jews held mayorships and otherleading government positions in southern communities. The
book generated a new field of study of southern Jewry.
Turning his focus to philanthropy, in 1977 Evans became
the first president of the Revson Foundation, the charitable organization started by Charles Revson, the founder of Revlon.
He guided the foundation in four specific areas: urban affairs,with special emphasis on New York City; education; bio-medical research policy; and Jewish philanthropy and education.
In the Jewish field, the foundation made a number of significant gifts. The first major grant helped to underwrite theten-part television series Civilization and the Jews, narrated
by Abba Eban. A second gift made possible the productionof Sesame Street in Hebrew by Israel Education Television. A
further large gift was allocated to the Jewish Museum, New
York, for its remodeling and expansion to provide an electronics education center on all aspects of Judaism.
In 1988 Evans published a biography of the Civil War
secretary of state Judah P. Benjamin: The Jewish Confederate.
Evans mined previously untapped sources and demonstrated
aspects of Benjamin’s personality that reflected the continuing
strain of his Judaism even though the well-known southerner
did not practice his faith. In 1993 he published a collection of
essays entitled The Lonely Days Were Sundays: Reflections ofa Jewish Southerner.
Evans retired from the Revson Foundation in 2003. In
2004 the foundation honored its president emeritus with asubstantial financial gift to the Carolina Center for Jewish
Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill toestablish a program in Evans’ name to support outreach activities on campus and in communities across North Carolina.
The center, which was established at UNC’s College of Arts andSciences in 2003, engages in teaching and research to explore
Jewish history, culture, and religion in the United States andabroad. Involved with the center for Jewish studies since its
inception, Evans serves as chairman of the advisory board.
Often referred to as “the poet laureate of southern Jews,”
Evans has served as the voice, as well as the heart and soul, of
both his fellow southerners and fellow Americans.
[David Geffen / Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]EVANS, ELI (1936– ), U.S. administrator and Jewish historian. Evans was born in Durham, North Carolina, where hisfather served six terms as mayor from 1950 to 1962. His grandmother founded the first southern chapter of the Hadassahorganization in the pre-World War I period.

EVANS, JANE (1907–2004), U.S. Jewish communal leader.
Born in New York City, Evans was raised as a Reform Jew in
Brooklyn, beginning her lifelong affiliation with the Reformmovement. She received her B.A. from Xavier University inCincinnati and moved to St. Louis in 1928 where she began to

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6571

evans, robertwork as a designer and taught at the local YM/YWHA. She wasrecruited from there to become the executive director of the
National Federation of Temple Sisterhoods for the *Union ofAmerican Hebrew Congregations in 1951. She developed its
program on Jewish education and on world peace and throughthe *World Union of Progressive Judaism expanded the workof the NFTS overseas. She brought the energy and leadershipof the NFTS to the Jewish Braille Institute, whose board she
had joined in 1933, only two years after it was founded. Under her leadership the Jewish Braille Institute provided resources to the Jewish blind in 40 countries. She eventuallybecame president of the JBI in 1979, three years after her retirement from the UAHC, until 1993 when at the spry age of
86 she stepped down.
A woman of great intellect, integrity, and energy, Evanstaught at the New School for Social Research in New York anddevoted herself to Jewish and philanthropic causes throughout
her long and active life. Widely known as a distinguished national leader, a religious pacifist, and an advocate for humanrights, she was a founder and former president of the Jewish
Peace Fellowship and former president of the National Peace
Conference. She was awarded the Abraham Joshua HeschelAward for peace work in the Jewish tradition. She served on
the Commission on Displaced Persons of the American Jewish Conference after World War II.

amored of actress Ali MacGraw; the couple married in 1969,and had a son, Joshua, before divorcing in 1972 (she left him
for Steve McQueen whom she had met on the set of the Evans production The Getaway). Evans left Paramount to produce his own films, most notably Chinatown (1974), Marathon
Man (1976), Black Sunday (1977), and Urban Cowboy (1980).
Drug abuse, drug charges, and other scandals as well as two
box-office bombs, The Cotton Club (1984) and The Two Jakes(1990), sunk his career. Broke but unbowed, Evans wrote his
memoir The Kid Stays in the Picture in 1994, which became abestseller and a cult favorite audio classic, later adopted by the
Library of Congress. Evans was rewarded by a renewed deal
at Paramount Studios. In 2003, he provided the voice for an
animated cartoon, Kid Notorious, based on his exploits. Laterfilm projects include producing the film How to Lose a Guy
in 10 Days (2003).
[Adam Wills (2nd ed.)]EVANS, ROBERT (1930– ), U.S. film producer and actor.
Born Robert Shapera in New York, Evans decided to become
an actor in elementary school, and at 12 was cast in Radio Mystery Theater as a Nazi colonel. At 14 he was a regular talenton the radio program Let’s Pretend. He changed his name toEvans in middle school, and began to find roles on television.
He ventured out to Hollywood, but returned home to work in
his brother’s women’s clothing company, Evan Picone. By 25
he was a millionaire, and at 26 he was rediscovered at a Beverly Hills hotel swimming pool and cast in the Lon Chaney biopic The Man of a Thousand Faces (1957) as studio head Irving*Thalberg opposite James Cagney. When the actors, writer,and director disliked working with him on his next film, theadaptation of Earnest Hemingway’s The Sun Also Rises (1957),
20t Century Fox producer Darryl *Zanuck paid a visit to the
Mexican set and said, “The kid stays in the picture. And anybody who doesn’t like it can quit!” Evans was inspired by Zanuck’s power and decided he wanted to become a producer. He
was hired by 20t Century Fox but left Fox before ever making
a picture. Tycoon Charles Bludhorn made Evans an offer hecouldn’t refuse, putting him in charge of Paramount Pictures.
Under his leadership, Paramount had a string of hits: The Odd
Couple (1968), Rosemary’s Baby (1968), Goodbye, Columbus(1969), Love Story (1970), and The Godfather (1972), which
won the Academy Award for best picture. Evans became en-

EVE (Heb. ‫ ַח ָ ּוה‬, Ḥ avvah), the first woman, wife of *Adam, andmother of the human race. After Adam had reviewed and assigned names to the animals, but had not found a suitablemate among them, God put him to sleep, removed one of his
ribs, and formed it into a woman. Adam immediately recognized this being as an integral part of himself, his own bone
and flesh, and called her “Woman” (Heb. ‘ishah) because she
was taken “from Man” (Heb. ‘ish). (Unlike the two English
words, the Hebrew ones are completely unrelated etymologically, despite their outward resemblance.) For this reason, aman leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife so that
two become one (Gen. 2:23–24).
It was the woman whom the serpent induced to eat theforbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil,and she in turn gave some to her husband to eat. It broughtthem intellectual maturity (some say also sexual awareness,but this was more likely born with the first recognition ofphysical kinship; see above), and earned for the woman thepain of childbirth and subjection to her husband, and for theman drudgery. After this incident, Adam named his wife Eve
Ḥ avvah because she was “the Mother of all Living” (Gen. 3:20),
an epithet with strong mythical overtones suggesting that Eve
was originally a goddess who was demythologized by the biblical writer. The Greek translates the name as Zōē (“life”), in
keeping with the wordplay. Rabbinic exegesis, however, connected the name with Aramaic ḥ ewyā (“serpent”), and observed that the serpent was her undoing and that she was her
husband’s “serpent.” This etymology has been revived in recent times by the connection of the name with a ḥ wt, probably Hawwat, a Phoenician deity attested in a stela from Carthage in North Africa, and on urns from Cagliari in Italy.
That she was a serpent-goddess is based only on the Aramaic
etymology.
In biblical Hebrew (Job 18:12) şēlāʿ is an epithet meaning “wife.” Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib or side (Heb. şēlāʿ)provides the epithet with an etiology. The Sumerian Paradise
Myth of Enki and Ninhursag provides another possible side-

572

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: K.M. Olitzsky, L.J. Sussman, and M.H. Stern,
Reform Judaism in America: A Biographical Dictionary and Sourcebook (1993).
[Michael Berenbaum (2nd ed.)]̆evenari, michael
light on the role of the rib in the biblical story. When Enki
had a pain in his rib, Ninhursag caused the goddess Nin-ti,̆“Lady of the Rib,” to be born from him. The Sumerian logogram ti means both “rib” and “life,” and it may be that the
Mesopotamian “Rib Lady” lies behind the rib/life motif in
the biblical story.
Eve gave birth to Cain and Abel (Gen. 4:1–2), and after
Abel was murdered, she gave birth to Seth as a replacement(Gen. 4:25). The etiology of women’s sexual subjugation totheir husbands (Gen 4:16) is extended in the New Testament.
According to I Tim. 2:14, the story of Eve’s creation after Adamand the fact that she, not he, was deceived justify female subjection to men and their exclusion from speaking roles in
the church. Although nothing further is related of Eve in the
Bible, her figure continues to generate an enormous amountof feminist and theological literature.
[Marvin H. Pope / S. David Sperling (2nd ed.)]In the Aggadah
Eve was created from the 13t rib on Adam’s right side (Targ.
Jon., Gen. 2:21) after Adam’s first wife, *Lilith, left him. God
chose not to create her from Adam’s head, lest she be swellheaded; nor from his eye, lest she be a flirt; nor from his ear,lest she be an eavesdropper; nor from his mouth, lest she bea gossip; nor from his heart, lest she be prone to jealousy; norfrom his hand, lest she be thievish; nor from his foot, lest she
be a gadabout (Gen. R. 18:2). As soon as Adam beheld Eve,
who was exceedingly beautiful (BB 58a), he embraced andkissed her. He called her Ishah (‫)אישה‬, and himself Ish (‫)איש‬,the addition of the letter yod to his name and the letter he tohers indicating that as long as they walked in a godly path,the Divine Name (Yod-He) would protect them against all
harm. However, if they went astray, His Name would be withdrawn, and there would remain only esh (‫אש‬, “fire”), which
would consume them. Ten resplendent bridal canopies, studded with gems, pearls, and gold, were erected for Eve by God,
who Himself gave her away in marriage and pronounced theblessings, while angels danced and beat timbrels and stoodguard over the bridal chamber (P d RE 12).
*Samael (Satan), prompted by jealousy, chose the serpentto mislead Eve (Pd RE 13). According to another tradition, theserpent itself wished to lead Eve to sin since it desired her (Sot.
9b; Shab. 196a). The serpent approached Eve rather than Adam
since it knew that women are more readily persuaded (ARN1
1:4). Initially, Eve hesitated to eat the fruit itself, and only did
so after touching the tree and discovering that no harm befellher (Yal., Gen. 26). Immediately she saw the Angel of Deathbefore her. Expecting her end to be imminent, she resolved
to make Adam also eat of the forbidden fruit lest he take another wife after her death (Pd RE 13). Nine curses and death
were pronounced on Eve in consequence of her disobedience(Pd RE 1). Eve conceived and bore Cain and Abel, according
to one view, on the day of her expulsion from Eden (Gen. R.
22:2). Afterward Adam and Eve lived apart for 130 years (Er.
18b). After they were reunited, she bore Seth (Gen. R. 23:5).
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

When Eve died, she was interred beside Adam in the cave of
Machpelah in Hebron (P d RE 20).
In Christian Tradition
The New Testament mentions the deception of Eve as a warning to Christians (II Cor. 11:3), and stresses Adam’s precedencein support of the view that women ought to be submissive andfind their fulfillment in childbearing (I Tim. 2:11–15; cf. I Cor.
11:8–12). While Eve does not figure as a type in the New Testament, Paul’s doctrine of the “New Adam” (i.e., Jesus) and his
implicit comparison of Eve and the Church (Eph. 5:22–23) anticipate the development of later Christian typology according
to which the creation of Eve from Adam’s rib represents the
emergence of the Church from the open wound in the side ofJesus upon the cross.
Justin, Irenaeus, and other Church Fathers comparedand contrasted Eve, the first woman, and Mary, the motherof Jesus. Mary is seen as “new Eve,” a title which Paul assigned
to the Church collectively. The disobedience and the infidelityof the first (who, like Mary, was married and a virgin at thetime of sin) is contrasted with and followed by the obedienceand faith of the second. Eve is thus restored to wholeness inthe Virgin Mary as Adam is in Jesus. Protestants, in their opposition to the Catholic veneration of Mary, did not develop
this typology (see *Adam in Christianity).
In IslamEve (Ar. Ḥ awwāʾ), the name of Adam’s wife, is not mentioned
expressly in the Koran; she is called the “spouse” in the tale oftheir sinning against Allah, having been influenced by Iblīs,
the Satan (7:18, 20:115). Nevertheless, this name is found in
three poems of the old-Arabic poetry, one of *Umayya ibn
Abī-al-Ṣ alt and two of ʿAdī ibn Zayd, a Christian living in thetimes of Muhammad. (The third poem is suspected to be afalsification.)
For Eve in the arts, see *Adam, In the Arts.
[Haïm Z’ew Hirschberg]
Bibliography: H. Gressmann, in: ARW, 10 (1907), 358ff.; S.
Reinach, in: RHR, 78 (1918), 185ff.; A.H. Krappe, in: Gaster Anniversary Volume (1936), 312–22; T.C. Vriezen, Onderzoek naar de Paradijsvoorstelling (1937); S.N. Kramer, Enki and Ninhursag (1945); idem,
History Begins at Sumer (1958), 195–6; J. Heller, in: Archiv Orientalni,
26 (1958), 636–58 (Ger.). IN THE AGGADAH: Ginzberg, Legends,
index. IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION: New Catholic Encyclopedia, 5(1967), 655–7; Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, 5 (1913), 1640–55;
Dubarle, in: Recherches de Science Religieuse, 39 (1951), 49–64. IN ISLAM: J. Horovitz, Koranische Untersuchungen (1926), 108–9; Hirschberg, in: Rocznik Orientalistyczny, 9 (1933), 22–36; J. Eisenberg and
G. Vajda, in: EIS2 (1966). Add. Bibliography: KAI II, 102–3; E.
Pagels, Adam, Eve and the Serpent (1988); H. Wallace, in: ABD II,
666–67; N. Wyatt, in: DDD, 316–17.

EVENARI, MICHAEL (originally Walter Schwarz; 1904–
1989), Israel botanist. Born in France, Evenari went to Ereẓ
Israel in 1933, having carried out plant research in universities in France, Czechoslovakia, and Germany. He joined the
Hebrew University in 1934. During World War II he served in573

even ha-to’im
the Jewish Brigade and after returning to civilian life, lectured
at several U.S. and South American universities. From 1952 to1957 Evenari was dean of the faculty of science at the Hebrew
University and headed the botany department as professor ofplant physiology. He served as vice president of the Hebrew
University from 1953 to 1959. Evenari’s main fields of researchwere the study of the influence of red and infra-red light on thegermination of seeds, and the determination of the food valueof algae for livestock and their large-scale cultivation. With agrant from the Rockefeller Foundation, Evenari carried out
research on the methods used by *Nabateans, Romans, andByzantines to maintain a thriving agricultural existence in thenorthern Negev in spite of the low annual rainfall of the area.
He set up experimental farms at *Shivta and *Avedat based onarchaeological findings in the area. Evenari served on several
UNESCO bodies, dealing with arid zone development.
EVEN HATO’IM (Heb. ‫ ֶא ֶבן ַה ּטוֹ ִעים‬or ‫) ַה ּט ַֹען‬, a stone in Jerusalem, It is mentioned once in the Mishnah (Ta’an. 3:8) in thestory of *Onias (Ḥ oni) the circle drawer. When asked to praythat the rains cease, he answered: “Go and see if the even hato’im has been washed away,” indicating that just as it was impossible for it to be washed away so was it impossible to pray
for the rain to cease. This picturesque reply is reminiscent of
one in the Jerusalem Talmud showing that praying for the
cessation of rain is unnecessary (Ta’an. 3:11, 67a). An anonymous Aramaic passage in the Jerusalem Talmud (Ta’anit 3:11,
66d) interprets the even ha-to’im as a place where “one wholost an item would receive it from there, and one who foundan item would bring it to there.” A similar tradition is reflected
in a baraita found in the Babylonian Talmud (BM 28b) which
mentions the even ha-to’an in connection with the return oflost property during the Second Temple period. People who
had lost or found objects in Jerusalem and on the road to thecapital met by the side of this stone: “The one stood and announced his find and the other submitted evidence of ownership and received it.” According to these traditions, the nameis to be interpreted as “the stone for those wandering,” i.e., insearch of someone or something. The reading even ha-to’an(“the claimant’s stone”) is faulty (Dik. Sof., ibid.), and any conclusions deriving from it are therefore invalid.

Strings (1979); Espressioni Musicali for choir a cappella (1981);
Cardioyada for brass quintet (1981); Musikinesis for symphonyorchestra (1983).

[Ury Eppstein (2nd ed.)]EVEN SHEMUEL (Kaufmann), JUDAH (1886–1976), Israel
educator, lexicographer, and writer. Even Shemuel was born inBalta, Ukraine, and received a yeshivah education. He studiedin various countries and his thesis at Dropsie College, Philadelphia, “Rabbi Yomtov Lipman Muelhausen…” (1927), contained his edition of *Muelhausen’s Sefer ha-Eshkol. From 1913
he was active in the Zionist Labor movement in Montreal,
Canada, and became the first principal of its teachers training
college. As a contributor to Ha-Toren and the Zukunft and alecturer on Jewish philosophy and sociology, he gained a reputation as a spiritual guide of the movement. He also tried toreconcile the Hebraists with the Yiddishists.
Even Shemuel settled in Palestine in 1926 at the invitation of the Devir publishing house to edit, with Ḥ .N. *Bialik,
I. *Efros, and B. *Silkiner, an English-Hebrew dictionary (1929;29t and revised repr. 1963). He continued his cultural activities
in the Histadrut and became the first general secretary of the
Friends of the Hebrew University. When the *Va’ad Le’ummi
established a cultural division, Even Shemuel was appointed
its head, remaining there until 1947. He received the Israel
Prize in Jewish studies in 1973.
His principal scholarly work is a vocalized edition of
Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed in Samuel ibn Tibbon’sHebrew translation (3 vols., 1935–60), with introductions, extensive commentary, and notes. A one-volume edition of thewhole work with a short introduction appeared in 1946. Even
Shemuel also published Midreshei Ge’ullah (1943, 19542), an
anthology of messianic and apocalyptic literature from theconclusion of the Talmud to the 13t century. He edited various volumes in fields of Jewish scholarship.
Bibliography: Kressel, Leksikon, 1 (1965), 14–15; P. Birnbaum, in: Hadoar, 47 (1968), 587–9.

EVENOR, MARY (1939–1989), Israeli composer. Even-Or
studied at the Music Teachers’ Seminary in Tel Aviv in 1959,
the Oranim Seminary in 1960–62, and with Yehezkel *Braun.
She studied law at Tel Aviv University and music in 1976–80 at
the Rubin Academy of Music in Tel Aviv and Tel Aviv University. Even-Or was a member of the Israel Composers’ League
from 1980; from 1981 she was a member of ACUM and of theInternational Association of Women Composers. Her works
include Dances for flute, clarinet, violin, bass, and percussion(1961); Dreams for flute, clarinet, and guitar (1977); Music for

EVEN SHETIYYAH (Heb. ‫) ֶא ֶבן ׁ ְש ִת ָ ּיה‬, tannaitic term which
was understood in two ways in talmudic times: “the rock fromwhich the world was woven, and “the foundation rock.” Bothmeanings presuppose the belief that the world was createdfrom the rock which, placed at the center of the world in the
Holy of Holies (Devir) of the Temple in Jerusalem, constitutes
the focal point of the world. The Holy Ark was placed uponthis rock, and during the Second Temple period the high priest
rested the fire-pan on it when he entered the Holy of Holieson the Day of Atonement. The Mishnah (Yoma 5:2) statesthat the rock had been at the site of the Devir since “the timeof the early prophets” (i.e., David and Solomon); that it was
three finger breadths higher than the ground; and that it wascalled shetiyyah. However, R. *Yose b. Halafta (Tosef., Yoma
3:6) explains the term as having cosmogonic significance andthe subsequent Midrash is based on this view. The Mishnah
clearly dates the placing of the stone to the time of the Temple’s

574

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: Krauss, Tal Arch, 362; Sepp, in: ZDPV, 2(1879), 48–51.
[Jacob Eliahu Ephrathi]

even yiẒ Ḥ ak
construction and ignores the mythological dimension; othertannaitic views similarly deny that the creation was initiatedat Zion (Yoma 54b). The mishnaic source may have antedated
the cosmogonic belief; it may have postdated it and rejected
it; or it may have assumed that it was the cosmogenetic rockthat was brought to the Temple site. The later Midrash statesthat the entire Temple was founded upon the rock, and thatthe stone was possessed of magical properties.
The relationship of the even shetiyyah to the rock presently housed under the Dome of the Rock (the “Mosque ofOmar”) built on the Temple Mount is not fully clear. Muslim
tradition identifies the two, and this is the view most widely
held today. The major difficulty here is the size: the rockhoused in the Dome of the Rock measures approximately 58 by
51 feet, an area larger than the entire Holy of Holies in which
the even shetiyyah was found. The later Midrash does state,
though, that the entire Temple was based on this rock, which,it implies, merely broke through in the Holy of Holies. In medieval times it was thought that the ground around the rockhad been worn away by violence and the erosion of centuries,
revealing it in its present magnitude (cf. Radbaz, Responsa,
2 (1882), nos. 639, 691). A second theory states that the rockunder the Dome is not the even shetiyyah but the foundationrock of the great altar of holocausts; the cave under the rockwould then have served to collect ashes and other sacrificial
refuse. In that case, the Holy of Holies would have stood to
the west of the present Dome of the Rock, which presents architectural and topographical difficulties.
Bibliography: Ginzberg, Legends, 5 (1925), 14–16; H. Albeck, Shishah Sidrei Mishnah, 2 (1958), 469; S. Lieberman, Tosefta
ki-Feshutah, 4 (1962), 772–3; de Vaux, Anc Isr, 318–9; H.H. Rowley,
Worship in the Bible (1967), 76n. (bibl.); D. Noy, in: G. Elkoshi et al.
(eds.), Ve-li-Yrushalayim (1968), 360–94.
[Gerald Y. Blidstein]

EVENSHOSHAN, AVRAHAM (1906–1984), Hebrew educator, writer, and editor. His father, Chaim David Rosenstein(1871–1934), was an educator and Zionist leader, who was imprisoned by the Soviet government for his activities. Avraham
was born in Minsk, and went to Palestine in 1925. He served
as teacher and principal in a number of schools, and from1954 until 1968 was director of the Bet ha-Kerem Teachers
Institute in Jerusalem. His first literary efforts appeared in achildren’s magazine (Ittonenu) which he helped edit (1932–36).
Subsequently he published stories, poems, and plays for children, and translated children’s books into Hebrew. He is best
known for a monumental Hebrew dictionary which he compiled, Millon Ḥ adash Menukkad u-Mezuyyar (“New Vocalized and Illustrated Dictionary”), which originally appearedin five volumes and a supplementary volume (1947–58); aseven-volume edition subsequently appeared, which is now
also available in other formats. His Concordance to the Bible
listing and explaining the words and expressions of the Bible
appeared between 1977 and 1979. Even-Shoshan was awarded
the Israel Prize in 1978 and the Bialik Prize in 1981. His brother
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Shelomo even-Shoshan (1910– ) was one of the foundersof kibbutz Sedeh Naḥ um. He contributed poems, stories, andarticles to the labor press and from 1944 was one of the editors at the Kibbutz ha-Me’uḥ ad publishing house. His books
include an appreciation of Yiẓ ḥ ak *Katzenelson and translations from Soviet Russian literature.
[Getzel Kressel]

EVENTOV, YAKIR (Drago Steiner; 1901–1984), journalist
and historian.
Born in Koprivnica, Yugoslavia, he lived and worked in
Zagreb until his immigration to Palestine. A Zionist activist from his youth in the Ha-Po’el ha-Ẓ a’ir branch in Yugoslavia, he edited the Zionist weekly Židov and an “Anthology of Hebrew Literature,” to which he contributed his own
translations.
Arriving in Palestine in 1934, he spent a year in kibbutz Merḥ avyah; the next year he joined the staff of the Haifa
Electric Corporation and worked there until his retirement.
He devoted all his spare time to the study of Jewish history,
producing with the assistance of C. *Rotem a volume entitled“History of the Jews in Yugoslavia” (1979), the first work in
Hebrew on the subject.
With his wife, Ethel, he initiated in 1955, and directedfrom his home in Haifa, an archival collection of documents
and materials on Jewish life in all parts of Yugoslavia. It wascalled the Museum and Historical Section of the Associationof Immigrants from Yugoslavia. After the Eventovs’ death,the collection was renamed in their honor the Eventov Archives, and in 1986 it was transferred to Jerusalem, where it
became part of the Central Archives for the History of theJewish People.
[Zvi Loker (2nd ed.)]EVEN YEHUDAH (Heb. ‫) ֶא ֶבן יְ הו ָּדה‬, rural settlement in central Israel, 4⅓ mi. (7 km.) southeast of Netanyah. The settlement area consists of 3.2 sq. mi. (8.3 sq. km.). It was founded in1932 by the members of the *Benei Binyamin movement. Twoneighboring villages, Be’er Gannim and Tel Ẓ ur, later mergedwith it. In 1950 it received municipal council status. The youth
village Hadassim was also included in its boundaries. Citrus
orchards constituted the principal branch of its economy. In
the early 1970s the settlement began to decline. However, after the Yom Kippur War there was an influx of new residents,
so that the population grew from 4,000 in 1968 to 8,480 in
2002, with income much higher than the national average. It
is named after Eliezer *Ben-Yehuda.
Website: www.even-yehuda.mumi.il.
[Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]EVEN YIẒ Ḥ AK (Heb. ‫) ֶא ֶבן יִ ְצ ָחק‬, kibbutz in Israel, in the
Manasseh Hills of Samaria, affiliated with Iḥ ud ha-Kibbutzim,
founded on March 11, 1945, by pioneers from Germany, manyof whom had been hiding in Holland under Nazi occupationfrom 1940. They were joined by Jews from other countries.

575

ever hadani
Farming was based on field crops, fruit, and livestock. The
kibbutz owned two factories: a plastics plant in partnershipwith Kibbutz Mishmar ha-Emek, and a biochemical plant. In
2002 the population was 393. The settlement, named after theSouth African Zionist Isaac Ochberg, is generally known as“Gal Ed” (Monument”), a memorial to the settlers’ comrades
who perished in the Holocaust.
Website: www.megido.org.il.

[Efraim Orni]

EVER HADANI (pseudonym of Aharon Feldman; 1899–
1972), Hebrew writer. Born near Pinsk, he immigrated to Palestine in 1913, and after serving with the Jewish Legion during
World War I, lived in the kibbutzim Maḥ anayim and Kefar Giladi. He edited agricultural publications and from 1948 worked
in the Israel Ministry of Agriculture. Apart from his publications in many newspapers, he wrote several novels, includingẒ erif ha-Eẓ (“The Wood Hut,” 1930), an early romantic novel
about Israel’s pioneers, and the trilogy Nahalolim (“Brambles,”1935); but the bulk of his writing was devoted to the history ofJewish settlement in Galilee and Samaria. Among his dozen
books on this subject are Ha-Shomer (1931) and Ḥ akla’ut veHityashevut be-Yisrael (1958). His collected works appearedin seven volumes (1968).
Bibliography: J. Ovray (Ovasi), Ma’amarim u-Reshimot(1947), 251–8; S. Ginzburg, Be-Massekhet ha-Sifrut (1945), 251–8.
[Getzel Kressel]

EVER MIN HAHAI (Heb. ‫“ ; ֵא ֶבר ִמן ַה ַחי‬a limb from a living
animal”), designation of the biblical injunction against removal of a limb or of a piece of flesh from a living animal andits consumption. Deuteronomy 12:23 states “and thou shalt
not eat the life with the flesh.” The prohibition forms part of
the Jewish *dietary laws and is one of the seven NoachianLaws (derived from Gen. 9:4), which, according to rabbinic
view, are incumbent on non-Jews as well (Sanh. 56a–b; seealso Ḥ ul. 101b–102a; Maim., Yad, Ma’akhalot Asurot 5:1–15;
Sh. Ar., YD 62).

reaction from American isolationist and anti-immigration
forces. Thomas Jenkins, one of those who wanted to restrict
immigration, accused the president of going “on a visionary
excursion into the warm fields of altruism. He forgets thecold winds of poverty and penury that are sweeping over the
one third of our people who are ill clothed, ill housed, ill fed.”
American Jews and their allies were pressing the admissionof greater numbers of immigrants. Restrictionist forces kept
reminding the president of the Depression, of the domestic
agenda, and of the need to put America first. Roosevelt sought
to balance both concerns, to assuage but also not to provoke.
Walking such a political tightrope hampered any effort to pressure the international community. Internationally, Romania
flatly refused to attend; it wanted to get rid of its Jews, not toimport new ones, and Switzerland spurned an invitation tohost the conference.
The very invitation to the conference gave an indicationof its reluctance to act. Attending countries were assured that“no country would be expected to receive more immigrants
than were permitted under existing laws.” Nor would any government be expected to subsidize refugees: all new programs
would have to be funded by private agencies. American isolationists were assuaged by the understanding that U.S. quota
system for immigrants would not be touched. Britain was toldthat Palestine would not be on the agenda. Two days after
Roosevelt’s announcement of the Evian Conference, Hitler issued a characteristic statement:
I can only hope that the other world which has such deep sympathy for these criminals [Jews] will at least be generous enoughto convert this sympathy into practical aid. We on our part are
ready to put all these criminals at the disposal of these countries, for all I care, even on luxury ships.

EVIAN CONFERENCE, conference of 32 nations convened
but not attended by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on
July 6–14, 1938, at the Hôtel Royal in Evian on the French sideof Lake Geneva to consider the plight of refugees – the euphemistic way of referring to the Jewish question. The conference
was convened against the backdrop of the German incorporation of Austria in March 1938, which sparked a massive exodus of Jews to any country willing to receive them. Convening
the conference was the first American government initiative
regarding refugees.
The Evian Conference was conceived by President Roosevelt as a grand gesture in response to mounting pressure in
the United States to do something about the refugee problem. The call for the conference was greeted warmly by theAmerican Jewish community but it also triggered a hostile

The United States delegation was not headed by the president or the vice president, nor by Secretary of State Cordell
Hull or Undersecretary Summer Welles. Instead, Roosevelt
nominated Myron C. Taylor, a businessman who was one of
his close friends. Great Britain also sent a special delegation.
The other nations used their diplomats in the region. Foreign
leaders got the message. The French premier told his British
counterpart that the American president was acting to soothe
public opinion. Under these circumstances, little was expectedor accomplished.
For nine days the delegates met at the Hôtel Royal,along with representatives of 39 private relief agencies, 21 ofthem Jewish. The world press gave the event extensive coverage.
Delegates from each country rose in turn to profess their
sympathy with the plight of the refugees. They also offeredplausible excuses for declining to open their countries’ doors.
Britain had no room on its small island and refused to open
Palestine to Jewish refugees. The United States spoke abstractly
about “political” refugees, using the euphemism to glide overthe fact that most of the refugees were Jewish. It would fill its
quota, but do no more.

576

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: ET, 1 (1947), 48–51; Eisenstein, Dinim, 7.

evidence
The Australian delegate was more candid. “We don’t havea racial problem and we don’t want to import one,” he said.
For Canada, still in the midst of the Depression, “none was
too many.” Canada would, however, accept farmers – small
comfort for the urbanized Jews seeking to leave Germany.
Colombia’s delegate could not resign himself to believe “thattwo thousand years of Christian civilization must lead to thisterrible catastrophe.” In any case, his country could offer nothing. The Venezuelan delegate was reluctant to disturb the “demographic equilibrium” of his country. No Jewish merchants,
peddlers, or intellectuals were wanted in Venezuela.
Holland and Denmark were ready to extend temporary asylum to a few refugees. Only the Dominican Republic
made a generous offer to receive Jews. In the end, however,few came. Even though an inter-governmental group wasestablished at Evian to coordinate policy, the tidal wave ofrefugees soon overwhelmed the few offers of assistance. The
German Foreign Office viewed the conference with considerable interest and sensed in it a vindication of its own attitudes toward the Jews:
Since in many countries it was recently regarded as wholly incomprehensible why Germany did not wish to preserve in its
population an element like the Jews … it appears astoundingthat countries seem in no way anxious to make use of these elements themselves now that the opportunity offers.

At that point in time, the announced policy of Nazi Germany
was the emigration – forced or otherwise – of the Jews. The
Evian Conference demonstrated that forced emigration would
not work since no country – or groups of countries – werewilling to receive the Jews in numbers adequate to make Germany “judenrein.” As events unfolded, the Jewish problem became more acute but four months later when the events of theNovember pogrom of *Kristallnacht triggered a tidal wave ofJewish emigration and over the course of the next two years
as Germany invaded country after country, more and more
Jews came under its control and the problem of what to dowith the Jews became ever more acute, ever less solvable bymeans of emigration.
Bibliography: H. Feingold, The Politics of Compromise: The
Roosevelt Administration and the Holocaust (1970); H. Feingold, Bearing Witness, How America and Its Jews Responded to the Holocaust(1995); D. Wyman, The Abandonment of the Jews (1984); D. Wyman,
Paper Walls: America and the Refugee Crisis (1985).
[Michael Berenbaum (2nd ed.)]EVIDENCE.
Non-Evidentiary Proceedings in Biblical Law
The revelation of divine law is found not only in legislation but
also in adjudication in particular cases (cf. Lev. 24:12–13; Num.
15:32–34; 27:1–8; Deut. 1:17), whether through Moses or judges
or priests (Ex. 28:30; Num. 27:21; Deut. 17:9–12; 21:5; 33:8–10),
and God requires no evidence: He is all knowing and His decision is infallible (cf. Gen. 31:50). That adjudications without
evidence continued to survive in judicial, nondivine proceedENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

ings is demonstrated by the report of the trial held by King
Solomon between the two women each claiming the samechild (I Kings 3:24–25) and by contemporaneous trial reports
from other civilizations. Judges appear to have devised theirown tests of credibility.
Evidentiary Proceedings in Biblical Law
The existence and availability of human witnesses and othermodes of proof seem from earliest times to have been part of
judicial proceedings (cf. Ex. 22:9, 12). Witnesses appear to havetestified to the facts prior to God being asked to pronounce
the law (Num. 15:32–35); and eventually it came about that aperson “able to testify, as one who has either seen or knownof the matter,” was guilty of an offense if he failed to come forward and testify (Lev. 5:1).
Evidence in Criminal Cases
PROOF OF GUILT. Biblical law had already established thatin criminal cases the evidence of at least two witnesses is asine qua non of any conviction and punishment (Deut. 17:6;
19:15). This rule appears to have applied both in judicial and inpriestly adjudications (cf. Deut. 19:17), and was interpreted asprescribing a minimum burden of proof, from which no later
legal development could in any way derogate.
Post-biblical law thus concentrated on devising measures
to assure the greatest possible reliability of witnesses’ testimony: they were cautioned by the court that they would be
rigorously cross-examined, that they must not rely on hearsay or on opinions, and that they must be conscious of theirgrave responsibility – since a human life was at stake (Sanh.
4:5). They were in fact subjected to cross-examination by the
court – each witness separately – and their evidence would
not be accepted unless their respective testimonies were foundto be consistent with each other in all relevant particulars(Sanh. 5:1–4; Maim. Yad, Sanh. 12:1–3; for particulars of thecross-examination of witnesses and their qualifications, see*Witness).
The further rule was evolved that it was not sufficient for
witnesses to testify to the commission of the offense by theaccused: they also had to testify that the accused had been
warned by them beforehand against committing that particular offense (hatra’ah) – that is, that the accused knew that incommitting the act he was violating the law (Tosef. Sanh. 11, 1;
Sanh. 8b; et al.). Elaborate rules were laid down for the identification of the accused by the witnesses, and where the court
was not satisfied beyond any doubt as to such identification,
the accused was discharged even before the witnesses were examined on the merits of the case (Maim. ibid.). According tosome scholars, he was also thus discharged where the victimof the offense had not been identified by the witnesses to thesatisfaction of the court (see Leḥ em Mishneh, ibid.).
EVIDENCE IN DEFENSE. Whereas a witness testifying in acriminal case was not allowed to raise a point in defense of oragainst the accused (Maim. Yad, Edut 5:8) – a witness being
disqualified from performing the function of a judge – when577

evidencethe evidence of the prosecuting witnesses had been found admissible and prima facie conclusive, public announcements
had to be made inviting any person able to raise a point in favor (zekhut) of the accused, to come forward and speak (Sanh.
6:1). While the charge against the accused could be proved
only by the viva voce evidence of witnesses, any shred of evidence from which a defense could be inferred would be usedin his favor (Rashi, Sanh. 42b). For this purpose, a favorable
point is not necessarily a rebuttal of the testimony of the prosecuting witnesses, but merely any fact or circumstance likely
to arouse in the mind of the court a doubt as to the guilt of
the accused; hence such points did not automatically result inan acquittal, but they were sufficient justification for the caseto be remitted to the court for reconsideration – even four orfive times. There is no explicit presumption of innocence inJewish law; the requirements of proof of guilt are, however, so
stringent and rigorous, and the possibilities of establishing avalid defense so wide and flexible, that a conviction is much
more difficult and an acquittal much easier to obtain than under a rebuttable presumption of innocence.
POST-TALMUDIC LAW. In talmudic law the standards of
proof required, even in criminal cases, were largely reduced
where the jurisdiction rested on considerations of the “emergency” (hora’at sha’ah; see *Extraordinary Remedies). After thevirtual cessation of jurisdiction in capital cases (see *Capital
Punishment), and particularly in post-talmudic law, all criminal jurisdiction rested on considerations of “emergency” towhich the provisions relating to the dispensation from thenormal rules of evidence and procedure were held to apply.
The rules of evidence prevailing in the Sanhedrin were held
inapplicable in the courts of the Diaspora, when they werecalled upon to enforce public order by the imposition of *fines
or *flogging (Resp. Rashba, vol. 4, no. 311).

(*ḥ azakah) of the rightful possession by the defendant of thechose in action – i.e., the thing (or money) claimed (ḥ ezkat
mamon): so long as the defendant’s possession was not proved
to be unrightful, it will not be disturbed – hence a defendantin possession is always in a better position than the plaintiff(Shevu’ot 46; Maim. Yad, To’en ve-Nitan, 8:1; Sh. Ar., Ḥ M 133:1).
But in order to raise the presumption of title, the possession
must be accompanied by a claim of right (BB 3:3 and Codes);where the defendant in possession does not claim a specificright thereto, the burden is shifted to him to prove a right toretain the chose in action. Or where a claim is made according
to custom, and the defense (that is, the possession) is contrary
to custom, such as in a claim for workmen’s wages (TJ, BM 7:1,11b), the presumption of rightfulness operates in favor of theplaintiff and shifts the burden of proof onto the defendant. In
an action between heirs, where the defendant has seized partof the estate, his claim of right is not any better than that of theplaintiff, and he will have to prove that his possession is rightful (Yev. 37b and Tos. ibid.). Where a man was seen to take achattel out of a house, it was held to be on him to prove that
he took it rightfully (BB 33b; Hai Gaon, Sefer ha-Mikkaḥ veha-Mimkar, ch. 40), presumably because his possession was
too recent to give rise to any presumption to that effect. Conversely, past possession which had meanwhile ceased (ḥ ezkat
mara kamma) would give rise to a presumption of title only
where the other party was not in possession either (BM 100a).
These rules do not apply to possession of land and houses but
only of money and chattels – for lands and other immovables
there must be an uninterrupted possession of three years (BB3:1), coupled with a claim of right (BB 3:3), in order to give rise
to a presumption of title.

PRESUMPTION OF RIGHTFUL POSSESSION. The fundamental
rule that the plaintiff has the burden of proving his claim (hamoẓ i mi-ḥ avero alav ha-re’ayah) is based on the presumption

PRESUMPTIONS AND QUASI-PRESUMPTIONS OF CONDUCT.
In order to mitigate the burden of proof and to simplify the
judicial process, the sages have, presumably from their own
accumulated judicial experience, established a vast numberof quasi-presumptions, rooted in the psychology of humanconduct, which apply to every litigant before the court, unless and until the contrary is proved. To give a few examples:a man does not waste his words or his money in vain without good cause (Ket. 58b, 10a); nor will he stand by inactive
when his money is taken or his property endangered (Shab.
117b, 120b, 153a; Sanh. 72b) or when a wrong is being done or
threatened to him (BB 60a). A man does not pay a debt before it falls due (BB 5a–b); nor does a man tolerate defects ina thing sold to him (Ket. 75b–76a). On the other hand, no
man buys a chattel without having first seen and examinedit (ibid.). A debtor will not easily lie in the face of his creditor (BM 3a), nor a wife in the face of her husband (Ket. 22b),
nor anybody in the face of a man who must know the truth(Tos. Ket. 18a; BK 107a). A man is not expected to remember
things which do not concern him (Shevu. 34b). A man will
not leave his house empty and his household unprovided for(Ket. 107a). However, he is apt to understate his fortune so as
not to appear rich (BB 174b–175a), and will rather have one

578

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Evidence in Civil Cases
BURDEN OF PROOF. It was in the law of evidence in civil
cases in which the genius of the talmudic jurists, unfetteredby scriptural restrictions, could develop fully. The obstacle that
there was to be “one manner of law” (Lev. 24:22) in criminaland civil cases alike (Sanh. 4:1) was overcome with the assertion that the Torah takes pity on the money (property) of thepeople of Israel, and if the standards of proof in civil cases
were as strict and rigorous as in criminal cases, nobody would
lend his neighbor any money anymore, for fear the borrower
would deny his debt or the memory of a witness would failhim (TJ, Sanh. 4:1). Accordingly, a balance had to be struck
between the exigencies of formal justice which required theburden of proof to be on the initiator of the proceedings (Sif.
Deut. 16; BK 46b) and commercial and judicial convenience
which required the greatest possible elasticity in handling anddischarging that burden.

evidence
ounce of his own than nine ounces of his neighbor’s (BM 38a);
nor will he sell and dispose of any of his goods unless he has to(BB 47b). No man commits a wrong unless for his own benefit(BM 5b) and the purpose of an act is its normal consequence(“everybody knows why the bride gets married”; Shab. 33a).
No person is lighthearted in the hour of his death (BB 175a), or
defrauds the Temple treasury (hekdesh; Shevu. 42b; Ar. 23a).
Apart from such general presumptions, there are special ones
relating to particular contracts or offices, as for example thepresumption that an agent has duly performed the duties of
his agency (Git. 64a), or that a priest has duly performed theduties of his office (TJ, Shek. 7:2, 50c).
PRESUMPTIONS OF CREDIBILITY (NE’EMANUT). Muchstronger than these general and special presumptions of conduct are two further categories of presumptions, which are –theoretically at least – irrebuttable (comparable to, but not
identical with, the Roman praesumptiones iuris et de iure). One
is the presumption of credibility (ne’emanut) and the other isthe presumption of common sense (umdana mukhaḥ at).
The presumption of credibility is primarily based on thenotion that the party or witness concerned has an intimate
knowledge of the matter in issue and has no reason to distort
it. Thus, where a man says he has divorced his wife, his word
is taken as conclusive for the court to permit her remarriage –because the matter is within his own knowledge, and he has
no reason to distort it, as he could even now divorce her any
time (BB 134b–135a, but see Maim. Gerushin 12:5; Sh. Ar., EH
152:1; see also *Divorce). Or, a woman is believed when shesays that her first husband has divorced her – because thematter is within her own knowledge and she need not havedisclosed her previous marriage at all (ha-peh she-asar hu
ha-peh she-hittir; Ket. 2:5). Or, an action will not lie for land
which the defendant had told the plaintiff he had bought fromthe plaintiff ’s father, although the defendant could not prove
the purchase: he will be believed that he bought it, because
he need not have disclosed that it had ever belonged to theplaintiff ’s father in the first place (Ket. 2:2). The law would be
different where the ownership of the plaintiff ’s father could
be proved by witnesses (ibid.).
Some of these irrebuttable presumptions of credibility arebased on Scripture, e.g., where a father says he has given his
daughter in marriage (Deut. 22:16: “I gave this man my daughter to wife”; Ket. 22a), or a father’s nomination of his firstbornson (BB 127b, following Deut. 21:17). There are, however, alsopresumptions of credibility which rank in weight with the rebuttable presumptions of conduct – that is, they are capable ofbeing displaced by express evidence to the contrary. A man ispresumed not to lie about matters which are easily ascertainable (Yev. 115a); and a man is presumed to remember matterswhich are extraordinary and astonishing (Hul. 75b). Conversely, a man whose words were proved false on one point,
will no longer be believed on other points in the same case;notwithstanding any presumption in his favor, he will be required to adduce express proof for the other points (BM 17a;

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Maim. Yad, Gerushin 13:1). Credibility is also presumed forstatements made for purposes unconnected with the litigation (mesi’aḥ lefi tummo: Git. 28b; cf. BK 114f.). A man is believed where his statement (e.g., that he had become a convert
on his own, without a bet din) disqualifies him (Yev. 47a), but
no such statement is accepted as proof of disqualification ofanybody else, even his wife or children (ibid.).
PRESUMPTIONS OF COMMON SENSE (UMDANA MUKHAHAT).
The presumption of common sense applies to bring acts or
conduct into conformity with reason or propriety: the presumption is that a person acts reasonably and properly, notwithstanding any outward appearance to the contrary; and his
acts will therefore be judged not according to appearances, butaccording to what, in reason and propriety, they ought to havebeen. Thus, a man is presumed not to give away the whole ofhis property during his lifetime; hence where a dying person disposed of all his property and then recovered, his act
will not be enforced by the courts, and he is regarded as having acted in the mistaken belief that he was going to die (BB146b). The same applies to transactions made for an ulterior
motive; where a woman had given away her property in order to deprive her future husband of his legal rights thereto,and on divorce reclaimed the property, the court is reported
to have torn the deed of gift into pieces (Ket. 78b; Maim. Zekhiyyah u-Mattanah 6:12). A husband giving his property to
his wife is irrebuttably presumed to have made her only histrustee and not to have deprived himself and his children of
all his property (BB 131b; for a list of these presumptions see
Piskei ha-Rosh Ket. 11:9).
PRESUMPTIONS OF CONDITIONS (UMDANA BE-GILLUIDA’AT). While these presumptions apply whether or not the
mistake or motive was expressed or admitted, there are othercases in which these or similar presumptions apply only wheresuch mistake or motive can be inferred from express statements made at the time of the transaction (umdanot be-gillui da’at). Thus, where a man disposed of his property, mentioning that he had decided to emigrate, and then he did notin fact emigrate, he will be presumed to have disposed of his
property only conditional on his emigration (Kid. 49b). Or,
where a man had made a will bequeathing his property tostrangers, because he had heard that his sons had died, andthen it appeared that they had not died, his will was set aside
as having been made by mistake (BB 132a). Even where a vendor had stated, at the time of the sale, that he sold in order tohave the money for a certain purpose, and that purpose could
not afterward be effected, he was held entitled to have the sale
set aside (Ket. 97a). It has been said that reservations giving
rise to such presumptions must, however, always be reasonable: the man desiring to emigrate, for instance, could havethe sale or gift of his landed properties set aside if the emigration did not transpire, but not the sale of his personal effects
which he would be assumed to take with him on his emigration (Tos., Ket. 97a).

579

evidence
JUDICIAL NOTICE (ANAN SAHADEI). All these presumptions
and quasi-presumptions are being taken notice of by the court
ex officio (anan sahadei; Resp. Rosh 34:1; 81:1), and in this respect they are similar to matters of custom and usage (cf. TJ,
Pe’ah 7:6, 20b). Not unlike the concept of “judicial notice” inmodern law, they replace formal evidence which would otherwise have to be adduced by the party on whom the burdenof proof lies: in the language of the Mishnah, the disputant ofa presumption of credibility in a given case would say, “we do
not live from his mouth,” but he has to adduce proof to verify
his words (cf. Ket. 1:6–9). In some cases, especially those involving marital status, courts will take notice also of common
repute or rumor (kol; Git. 89a; Ket. 36b; et al.; on presumptions see also *Ḥ azakah).

tively relaxing the rules of evidence in proper cases that the law
seeks to avoid any possible hardships which may arise fromthe objective difficulties of obtaining evidence. Such legislative
relaxations are to be found particularly in respect of routine
matters. Thus no formal evidence is required for the identification of litigants who identify themselves; even a relative
or a minor can identify a brother-in-law for the purpose ofḥ aliẓ ah (Yev. 39b; see *Levirate Marriage) or the evidence of
one witness (who would nowadays be called a “formal” witness) is sufficient to establish matters of physical examination,such as the appearance of signs of puberty or the symptoms ofa disease – matters which have to be proved, not because they
can be seriously contested but in order “that judgment may berendered without a stammer” (Rashi, Ket. 28a).

MODES OF PROOF. Where neither presumption nor custom
avails the party on whom the burden of proof lies, he may
discharge it by adducing evidence, either in the form of an*oath, or in the form of a shetar, or in the form of the testimony of *witnesses.

LEGISLATIVE RELAXATION OF RULES OF EVIDENCE. In
matters of marital status, there are many situations where
the law contents itself with the evidence of a disqualified or asingle witness, or hearsay, or other generally inadmissiblemodes of proof, because, in the language of Maimonides,
these are generally matters which can be verified by othermeans and on which a man will not normally lie, as e.g., thedeath of another man; “and while the Torah insists on the testimony of two witnesses and all the other rules of evidence
in cases which cannot be proved otherwise, as e.g., whether
A killed B or A lent money to B, in these matters in which itis unlikely that any witness would lie, have the sages seen fit
to relax the rules and to accept the evidence of bondswomen,
and in writing, and without cross-examination, so that thedaughters of Israel may not lose their remedy” (Gerushin
13, 29).

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE. Notwithstanding the formal
and apparent sufficiency of the evidence adduced, however,the court is not bound by it, but has to weigh its reliability
and satisfy itself of its truth before deciding the case in accordance therewith: it is a matter for the mind and heart ofthe individual judge, and no hard-and-fast rules can be laid
down (Maim. Yad, Sanh. 24:1–2).
FRAUD ON THE COURT. Where the judge has gained theimpression that the case before him, though duly proven, isa fraud (din merummeh), Maimonides holds that he ought todisqualify himself and leave the case to be decided by someother judge (ibid. 3); but the better opinion appears to be that
he ought to dismiss the case there and then (Resp. Rosh 68:20;
Ḥ M 15:3). Where it was the defendant who had deceived thecourt, judgment would be given in favor of the plaintiff, so as
not to let “the sinner reap the fruits of his sin” (Resp. Rosh107:6). The same rule would apply where a party sought toprevent the court from discovering the whole truth, whether
by refusing to submit to cross-examination, or by suppressing evidence, or by any other means (ibid.).

[Haim Hermann Cohn]

FORMAL EVIDENCE (GILLUI MILTA BE-ALMA). It is not only
by vesting a wide discretion in the judge but also by legisla-

Circumstantial Evidence
The above discussion concerned various legal presumptions – based on conduct, on credibility, on common sense,
presumptions of the existence of a given condition, and “judicial notice” – all of which involve interpretation of and legal consequences derived from known facts. There remains,
however, a basic question, as to whether facts may be determined in reliance on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial
evidence is evidence that does not directly prove the specificfact for which proof is required, but necessitates a deductive
process of drawing conclusions to prove that fact.
In dinei mamonot (monetary cases), as stated above, it isundisputed that a presumption may be relied upon for the determination of an actor’s intent. However, regarding the commission of an act itself or the actor’s identity, the rishonim takevarying approaches: Maimonides (Yad, Sanhedrin 24:1) adopts
the view that in such monetary cases facts can be determinedon the basis of circumstantial evidence, provided that theevidence offers good and convincing proof. For example, if aperson claims that he left a specific article as a deposit with adecedent and presents signs which prove that the article is his,and a judge is persuaded that the article is not the decedent’s
property – the article will be taken from the heirs and given to580

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. Even though a case has been duly
proved and decided, any party claiming that new evidence has
been discovered, which might change the outcome of the proceedings, is entitled to have the case reopened (Sanh. 4:1). The
only exceptions to this rule are, first, where the court has fixed
a time limit for the adducing of additional evidence and thattime has expired; and second, where the party has expressly
declared in court that there is no additional evidence available to him (Sanh. 3:8) – in these cases it is apprehended thatthe additional evidence might have been fabricated (Rashi,
Sanh. 31a).

evidencethe claimant, even if there is no will directing that this be done.
An opposite view appears in the responsum of R. Yosef Colon(Responsa Maharik, §129; Italy, 15t century), which provides
that a presumption can only be relied upon to determine theintention of an actor, but cannot be used as proof of the actual
commission of the act or the actor’s identity, regarding whichjudges only rely on direct evidence.
Regarding personal status, marriages and divorces, testimony that an act of divorce or marriage actually took place isrequired to confirm its validity; regarding marriage, all authorities agree that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to provecommission of the act. However, with respect to divorce, there
is a need for constitutive evidence – supporting witnesses who
witnessed the act of divorce – and the authorities are divided
as to whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient for this.
Rabbenu Tam (Tosafot at Gittin 4a) takes the view that actual
witnesses are necessary and that circumstantial evidence isinsufficient, while R. Alfasi (TB Gittin 47b–48a and Rabbenu
Nissim, ad loc) reasons that circumstantial evidence can takethe place of witnesses who confer validity to the get.
In penal law as well there are disputes about the statusof circumstantial evidence. The accepted view is that capitalcases may not be decided and punishments may not be imposed except on the basis of clear and direct proofs (see Maimonides, Yad, Sanhedrin 20:1), and there is a clear distinctionin this context between monetary cases and capital cases (dinei
mamonot and dinei nefashot).
However, the Tosafists (Shevuot 34a) take a different
view, postulating that a person may also be convicted of murder in reliance on circumstantial evidence, when such evidence is absolute and incontrovertible – just as the same evidence would have substantiated the defendant’s liability formonetary damages had he not actually killed the victim but
only injured him.
According to some authorities, even Maimonides would
agree that the prohibition against reliance on circumstantial
evidence applies exclusively to actual capital cases, but thatin other types of penal cases, such as malkot (lashes), circumstantial evidence can be relied upon in the same manner as
in dinei mamonot (monetary cases) (Responsum Maharik,
Part 87).
An exception to the rule with regard to capital cases isthat of adultery, in which the basic rule is that circumstantial
evidence is sufficient. The view of the amora Samuel in the
Talmud (Makkot 7a) is that to convict a man and a womanof adultery, it is sufficient that the witnesses testify that they
appeared to be engaged in an act of adultery, and there is norequirement that witnesses testify to having witnessed the actual sexual act. This opinion was accepted as the binding halakhic rule by most authorities (Yad, Issurei Bi’ah 1:19; Sh. Ar.,
EH 20:1). The main explanation for this divergence from thestrict evidentiary requirements of criminal law, especially incapital matters, is that the sages considered it unreasonable
to assume that biblical law required witnesses who witnessed
the actual sexual act, both because of the technical difficulty

and the indecency involved, and they therefore assumed that
under biblical law it was sufficient that there be testimony thatthey were seen behaving “like adulterers” (see *Adultery).

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

581

LESSENING THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL LAW –PUNISHMENT IN DEVIATION FROM THE LAW. Another category of cases which deviates from the rule that capital cases
may only be decided in reliance upon direct evidence are those
decided in accordance with the doctrine allowing the imposition of punishment in deviation from the strictures of criminaland evidentiary law when the exigencies of the times necessitate such punishment (le-migdar milta, i.e., to provide “a fence
around the words” of Torah). This category was discussed at
length in the Israeli Supreme Court decision in the Nagar case
(Cr.A. 543/79 Nagar v. State of Israel, PD 35(1) 163–170, opinionof Justice Elon). We will review some of this discussion.
Toward the end of the Tanna’itic era, we read of the establishment of a principle – followed for many years beforehand –which constituted a significant change in Jewish criminal law,with respect to both penal law and the rules of procedure andevidence in criminal trials:
R. Eleazar b. Jacob stated, “I heard that even without any
Torah [authority for their rulings], beth din may administer
flogging and [death] penalties; not, however, for the purposeof transgressing the words of the Torah but in order to make afence around the Torah” (TB Yevamot 90b; Sanhedrin 46a). In
TJ Yerushalmi, Ḥ agigah 2.2, the text is “I heard that they administer penalties not in accordance with the halakhah and theyadminister penalties not in accordance with the Torah” (page165 of the Nagar decision).

On the basis of this fundamental provision, which enabled thecourts to deviate from the original law of the Torah in criminal and evidentiary law, in accordance with the needs of thetime and the place, both the courts and the communal leaders utilized their authority to enact communal regulations(see *Takkanot):Detailed legislation by way of regulations which were enacted
during all of the periods against the background of variegatedreligious, societal, economic and moral circumstances…. Thislegislation granted broad power to determine criminal penalties and litigation procedures which conformed to the needsof the time and of society, and was accompanied by a serious
warning not to infringe a person’s stature as a human being, andhis dignity more than necessary. After determining the scopeof this extended authority given to the halakhic authorities in
the area of criminal law Maimonides gives the following summary of the Sages’ obligation when exercising these powers:“All these matters are carried out in accordance with what thejudge deems necessary under the exigencies of that time, andhis acts should always be for the sake of heaven and he should
not take a frivolous attitude to human dignity” (Maimonides,
Yad., Sanhedrin, ch. 24., 10) (ibid., pp. 165–66).

Formally, such regulations are defined as “temporary provisions,” but they have become part of substantive Jewish law inpractice. At various times, Jewish courts throughout the Diaspora have exercised this authority even in imposing death sentences without requiring a court of 23, and without the strin-evidencegent rules of evidence imposed by the original Jewish Law (seeElon, Jewish Law, pp. 515–19, and notes 100, 104–108).
As noted, in its original format, Jewish Law was strictin its requirements for direct evidence. Maimonides makes
the following illuminating observations on the strict evidentiary requirements of Jewish Law (Sefer ha-Mitzvot, Negative
Commandments, §290): “Even if A pursues B with intent tokill, and B takes refuge in a house, and the pursuer follows
him, and we enter after them and find B in his last gasp andhis enemy, A, standing over him with a knife in his hand, andboth of them are covered with blood, the Sanhedrin may notfind the pursuer A liable for capital punishment, since there
are no direct witnesses who actually saw the murder …” Thereason given by Maimonides is that if the court was permitted
to convict a suspect of a criminal offense on the basis of otherthan the unequivocal testimony of witnesses to the actual act,
the court might soon find itself convicting of criminal offenceson the basis of a “speculative evaluation of the evidence.” Hecompletes his comments with the observation, that “it is better and more desirable that a thousand guilty persons go free
than that a single innocent person be put to death.”
In contrast with the stringency that characterized theoriginal Jewish Law, the authority to impose punishment ina manner that deviated from Torah law enabled the courts innumerous Jewish communities to be content with circumstantial evidence alone, even for purposes of conviction forserious offenses such as murder. R. Isaac b. Sheshet of Perfet(Spain and North Africa; late 14th century) ruled that defendants accused of murder could be convicted relying on circumstantial evidence alone, provided there are convincing
proofs and plausible reasons.
In any event, in order to “create a safeguard,” since someone
from among you has died, if you decide that the death penalty
is called for because a crime has been committed heinously, violently and deliberately (it appears that they lay in wait for him[the victim] at night and during day, and openly brandishedweapons against him in the presence of the communal leaders), then you may [impose the death penalty]… even when
there are no eyewitnesses, if there are convincing proofs andplausible reasons.

In another responsum, the Ribash ruled that for the same reason it is also possible to rely on the confession of a litigant supplemented by circumstantial evidence (similar to the provisionin the law of evidence practiced in the State of Israel, allowing
conviction of the accused on the basis of a confession given
outside court, with the addition of “something extra”):
Jewish courts [at this time] impose flogging and punishment
not prescribed by the law, for capital jurisdiction was abrogated,
but in accordance with the needs of the time, and even without unequivocal testimony, so long as there are clear grounds
to show that he [the accused] committed the offense. In such acase, it is the practice to accept the defendant’s confession evenin a capital case, even where there is no clear proof, in orderthat what he says, together with some measure of corroboration, may shed light on what happened (ibid., 234).

582

Not every part of the Jewish Diaspora enjoyed such broad
autonomous criminal jurisdiction, and the extent of juridical
authority differed according to the period and the location.
However, jurisdiction similar to that enjoyed by the Spanish
center in the Middle Ages also existed at a later period in the
Jewish community of Poland. It was during this period that
we hear of Polish communities exercising the power of “imposing punishment not prescribed in the Torah,” in order toconvict defendants on the basis of circumstantial evidence(Nagar, ibid., pp. 167–169).
It is important to emphasize that, where convictions werebased on circumstantial evidence, it was constantly reiterated
that such evidence, even if not clear and direct, must be of akind that the judges “believe to be the truth” (Resp. Rashba,
attributed to Naḥ manides, §279), and that this kind of adjudication is only possible where “the accusation is proven to
be well grounded”; and that “the sole intention is to pursue
justice and truth and there is no other motive (Resp. Zikhron
Yehudah § 79, Nagar, ibid. 170).
As noted above, these principles constituted the basisof the ruling of the Israeli Supreme Court in Nagar, underwhich one suspected of murder could be convicted relying
on incontrovertible circumstantial evidence, even though thecourt had no direct evidence of his having committed the offense, and even though the body itself had not been found(see *Capital Punishment).
DOCUMENTS AS EVIDENCE. There is evidence of written
documents serving as legally valid proof in the Bible itself:“and written in the books and sealed, and witnesses called”(Jer. 32:44).
The talmudic rule is that deeds constitute valid proof in acourt. “Resh Lakish said: If witnesses are signed on a deed it is
as if their testimony had been examined in court” (TB Ketubbot 18b). Several reasons are given for this ruling: first, because
the deeds are drawn up with the debtor’s consent and he has
mentally resolved to agree to their contents since he derivessome benefit or profit thereby; second, because the texts of thedeeds are uniform and everyone understands their import;
and third, because people customarily rely on them, since otherwise they would be unable to do business with one another.
The rishonim therefore ruled that, in order for a deed to bebinding, it must be written with the debtor’s consent and at his
request; a deed which was written by witnesses of their own
initiative is not binding (Tosafot, Ketubot 18b; Naḥ manides,
Bava Bathra 171a; Hame’iri, Ketubot 20a).
Under biblical law, the authenticity of a deed is presumed,“a person does not dare to forge” (Rashi, at Gittin 3a). However, the changing times and different moral and social attitudes precluded continued adjudication of deeds on the basisof simple authentication by way of the witnesses’ signature,on the presumption that this excluded the possibility of forgery. The Rabbis henceforth enacted that all deeds would require substantiation. Thus, a person making a claim based ona deed, or relying on it as evidence, bore the burden of proof

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

evidenceof demonstrating that the witnesses’ signature was genuine.
Substantiating evidence for a deed could consist of additional
testimony on the signature, comparison of the signatures toother recognized signatures of the witnesses who signed, orthe summoning of the signing witnesses to testify that the signature on the deed was indeed theirs.
Maimonides took a different view regarding the natureof a deed. Maimonides contended (Hilkhot Edut 3:4) that under Biblical law oral testimony is sufficient in all areas of law,
including dinei mamonot (monetary civil cases). According
to Maimonides, the requirement and acceptance of the signature of witnesses as proof of a deed is rooted in a rabbinic
regulation, enacted so as not to “lock the door against borrowers” – i.e., economic life would be impossible if it werenecessary to confirm every loan by way of oral testimony incourt. In Maimonides’ view, the requirement of substantiationof a deed is an offshoot of this rabbinic regulation, intended
to prevent forgery of deeds.
In addition to requiring that witnesses’ signatures be substantiated in order to prevent forgery of a deed, the Talmud
prescribes that deeds are not to be written on paper (on which
the original text could be erased) or untanned animal skin,because writing on this kind of paper can be easily forged (TB
Gittin 21a–22b). Similarly, deeds cannot be written in a manner that enables the forging of their concluding section, orthe addition of words that did not appear in the original text;
a deed written in such a manner is inadmissible as evidence(Tb BB 160af.; cf. *Shetar).
OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE BY RIVAL LITIGANT. The litigants
are allowed to make conditions regarding the rules of evidence
in a civil case, in which they agree to admit otherwise inadmissible evidence. Nevertheless, so long as a trial has not yet
finished, either litigant can object to the hearing of inadmissible evidence (Sh. Ar., Ḥ M 22:1). Moreover, if the agreement
between the parties was not made in the court, the litigant canrenege on his consent to accept such evidence even after thetrial’s conclusion (Siftei Kohen., ad loc.). In order for a litigant
to submit evidence that is otherwise inadmissible and deny
the other litigant the right to object to such, he must make anagreement with the other litigant through an act of kinyan.

decide on whether the police action fell within the ambit ofsection 2 of the Protection of Privacy Law, 5741–1981. An affirmative ruling on this point could disqualify the illegally
procured evidence, precluding reliance thereon for a conviction. On the other hand, if the conclusion was that the police
action was not proscribed by the Protection of Privacy Law,then, even though the act itself was improper, the evidence
obtained thereby would be admissible. (In general, under
Israel law only evidence obtained through infringement ofprivacy as defined by the Protection of Privacy Law is rendered inadmissible.)
The Court ruled that this case did not involve an infringement of privacy, and the evidence was therefore admissible. Justice Elon held that the Protection of Privacy Law should
be interpreted in accordance with Jewish law, and therefore
adduced sources in Jewish law concerning the prohibition of
disclosing secrets, the prohibition on opening another person’s
letters without permission, and others. Nevertheless, Elon indicated a number of specific cases in which the need to obtainevidence prevails over the need to protect privacy or humandignity – both with regard to penal law and monetary law:Eavesdropping is an affirmative precept (mitzvah) in certain circumstances as for example in order to obtain evidence in a caseinvolving grave criminal activity (such as incitement). In sucha case, “they may hide witnesses [against] him behind a fence”(Mishnah Sanhedrin 7.10), and it is permitted to do so in orderto obtain evidence regarding any manner of criminal activity.
(See R. Joseph Babad’s Minḥ at Ḥ inukh – Commandment §462:“This is evidently not the simple meaning of the Mishnah in
Sanhedrin ad loc: ‘Witnesses are not hidden against any who aresubject to the death penalty according to the Torah law, otherthan these’ – and the matter requires clarification.”) Similarly,
it was permitted to open a letter addressed to another person
where there are grounds for suspecting that the letter’s author
intends to commit a wrongdoing with the addressee’s money
and the matter can be clarified by opening the letter and reading
it (see Responsa Hikekei Lev, Part I, Yoreh De’ah, 49, responsaof R. Hayyim Palache, rabbi of Izmir in the mid-19t century
and one of the outstanding respondents during the period of
the aḥ aronim. See also Responsa Maharik, n. 110, of R. Joseph*Colon, one of the great halakhic sages in Italy during the 15tcentury, and Sh. Ar. YD, 228.33 Rema).

EVIDENCE THAT INFRINGES PRIVACY AND VIOLATES HUMAN DIGNITY. *Human dignity and the right to privacy areextensively protected in Jewish law. Nevertheless, at times thesearch for the truth necessitates the violation of a suspect’s dignity or privacy. The conflict between the value of determining
the truth (even by prohibited means) and that of preserving
human dignity was discussed in the Israeli Supreme Court’s
decision in the rehearing of the Vaknin case (FH 9/83 Military Appeals Court v. Vaknin, PD 42(3) 837). In that case, thepolice obtained incriminating evidence against a defendantsuspected of possessing dangerous drugs by forcing him todrink salt water, as a result of which he vomited up the drug
packages that he had swallowed. The Court was requested to

In addition to the principles elucidated in the Vaknin decision, there is also the issue of investigating the adulterous wife(sotah; see *Ordeal). Although this is a procedure based upon
the occurrence of a miracle, which is not practiced in our time,
it is intended to clarify guilt, and involves the humiliation of
the woman being investigated.
An additional case raising the question of the clash
between the need for evidence and the right to privacy
came before the High Rabbinical Court of Appeals (Appeal
5733/216, R.D. 9, 331). The case concerned a husband who
claimed that his wife was mentally ill, and therefore requested
that the Court order her to undergo psychological treatment in order to restore “domestic peace.” In the event of
her refusal, he requested that she be declared “a rebellious

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6583

evil eyewife” (moredet). The husband requested to summon her doctor as witness to her mental condition, but the latter conditioned his testimony on the wife’s agreement to waiving
medical confidentiality, which the wife refused to do. The
president of the Court, Rabbi Shlomo Goren, and Rabbi
Mordechai Eliyahu both held that the suspicion regarding
a mental impairment was firmly based and that the doctor should therefore be compelled to testify to the court. On
the other hand, Rabbi Yosef Kafah ruled that the probativevalue of the doctor’s testimony was minimal, as he would only
testify on her medical condition as it had been many years
back. On the other hand, the testimony was liable to cause
her serious damage, given that she was engaged in education and would be derided by her students. Rabbi Kafah
therefore ruled that the doctor’s testimony should not be
required.
ACCEPTING EVIDENCE AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE
TRIAL. The Mishnah (Sanhedrin 3:8) states that “whenever evidence is brought – it can contradict the ruling.” Inother words, after the trial’s conclusion, even if the obligation ruled upon was discharged, the ruling can be annulled if new evidence was brought before the court. In sucha case, a new trial must be held. The tannaim (ibid.) disputed the issue of whether the Court can place a time limitation on the period during which a litigant can proffer
new evidence. The law was decided according to R. Simeon
b. Gamaliel – namely, that the court cannot impose a time
limit on a litigant’s submission of new evidence which, irrespective of when it was submitted, will be accepted. A limitation on the submission of new evidence is only effective if
the litigant himself declared that he has no further evidence;in such a case he is prevented from bringing further evidence
at a later stage (Maimonides,Yad, Sanhedrin 7:6–9; Sh. Ar.,Ḥ M 20).

Mafte’aḥ , 279–302; J.S. Zuri, Mishpat ha-Talmud (1921), 38–64.
Add. Bibliography: M. Elon, Ha-Mishpat ha-Ivri (1988), 1:
423, 502–504, 649, 800f., 827; 3: 1377f., 1442, 1486f.; idem, Jewish
Law (1994), 2:516, 610f., 803, 981f., 1013; 4: 1646f., 1715, 1767f.; idem,
Jewish Law (Cases and Materials) (1999), 200ff; M. Elon and B. Lifshitz, Mafte’aḥ ha-She’elot ve-ha-Teshuvot shel Ḥ akhmei Sefarad uẒ efon Afrikah (1986), 1:135–42; 2:440–47; B. Lifshitz and E. Shohetman, Mafte’aḥ ha-She’elot ve-ha-Teshuvot shel Ḥ akhmei Ashkenaz,Ẓ arefat ve-Italyah (1997), 90–91, 298–304; S. Albeck, Ha-Re’ayot
de-Dinei ha-Talmud (1987); E. Shochetman, Seder ha-Din (1988),
269–317; D. Frimer, “Kevi’at Abbahut al-yedei Bedikat Dam ba-Mishpat
ha-Yisraeli u-va-Mishpat ha-Ivri,” in: Shenaton ha-Mishpat ha-Ivri,
5 (5738), 219–42; Y. Ben Meir, “Re’ayot Nesibatiyyot ba-Mishpat haIvri,” in: Dinei Yisrael, 18 (5755–5756); Y. Ungar and A. Rachnitz(eds.), Mishpatei Ereẓ , 2 (2004); I. Warhaftig, “Beirur Uvdot ba-Mishpat toch Pegi’a be-Ẓ eni’ut ha-Perat,” in: Mishpatei Ereẓ , 2 (2004),
220–21.

EVIL EYE (Heb. ‫ ַעיִ ן ָה ָרע‬, ayin ha-ra; lit., “the eye of the evil”;
Aram. ‫ישא‬ָ ׁ ‫ ֵעינָ א ִ ּב‬, eina bisha), a widespread belief that somepersons may produce malevolent effects on others by looking at them, based on the supposed power of some eyes tobewitch or harm by glance. In early Jewish literature the acceptance of the existence of the evil eye as fact precluded any
theoretical explanation of this phenomenon and discussionof its origin. In post-talmudic literature, however, one of thefollowing two explanations is generally found: (1) the evil eye
contains the element of fire, and so spreads destruction (Judah
Loew b. Bezalel (“Maharal”) in Netivot Olam, 107d); (2) the
angry glance of a man’s eye calls into being an evil angel who
takes vengeance on the cause of wrath (Manasseh Ben Israel in
Nishmat Ḥ ayyim, 3:27; cf. Sefer Ḥ asidim, ed. by J. Wistinetzki(19242), 242 no. 981).
As both explanations imply magic, folk beliefs governing
magic and countermagic are evidenced in beliefs connectedwith casting and averting the evil eye.

Bibliography: Z. Frankel, Der gerichtliche Beweis nachmosaisch-talmudischem Rechte (1846); J. Freudenthal, in: MGWJ, 9(1860), 161–75; N. Hirsch, in: Jeschurun, 12 (Ger., 1865/66), 80–88,
109–22, 147–65, 249–58, 382–94; J. Klein, Das Gesetz ueber das gerichtliche Beweisverfahren nach mosaisch-thalmudischem Rechte (1885);
Gulak, Yesodei, 4 (1922), passim; S. Assaf, Battei Din ve-Sidreihem(1924), 102ff.; S. Rosenbaum, in: Ha-Mishpat, 1 (1927), 280–90; S.
Kaatz, in: Jeschurun, 15 (Ger., 1928), 89–98, 179–87; Z. Karl, in: HaMishpat ha-Ivri, 3 (1928), 89–127; A. Gulak, Le-Ḥ eker Toledot haMishpat ha-Ivri bi-Tekufat ha-Talmud, 1 (Dinei Karka’ot, 1929), 66f.;
D.M. Shohet, The Jewish Court in the Middle Ages (1931), 171–85 (contains bibliography); P. Dickstein, in: Ha-Mishpat ha-Ivri, 4 (1932/33),
212–20; Herzog, Institutions, 1 (1936), 233, 255ff., 367ff.; 2 (1939),
185–8; ET, 1 (19513), 137–41; 2 (1949), 70f.; 3 (1951); 106–10; 4 (1952),
199–208; 6 (1954), 85, 106, 705–14; 7 (1956), 290–5; 8 (1957), 404–44,
609–23, 722–43; 9 (1959), 64–103, 156–7, 448–9, 722–46; 12 (1967),
307–13; A. Karlin, in: Ha-Peraklit, 11 (1954/55), 49–57, 154–61, 247–54;
12 (1955/56), 185–91; J. Ginzberg, Mishpatim le-Yisrael (1956), passim;
S. Fischer, in: No’am, 2 (1959), 211–22; E.E. Urbach, in: Mazkeret…
Herzog (1962), 395–7, 402–8; Jaeger, in: Recueils de la Société Jean
Bodin, 16 (1965); Ch. S. Hefez, in: Mishpatim, 1 (1969), 67ff.; Elon,

Casting the Evil Eye
Whereas a “good-eyed” person is generous and good-hearted,
the “evil eye,” in biblical (cf. I Sam. 18:9; Prov. 28:22) and tannaitic (cf. Avot 2:9, 11; 5:13, 19) sources, denotes stinginess, selfishness, and jealousy; in the aggadah of Palestinian amoraim
the evil eye is a prevalent motif. Furthermore, jealousy was
linked with magic and with fatal consequences. Hence, talmudic and midrashic elaborations of biblical narratives represent
Sarah as casting the evil eye on Hagar (Gen. R. 4.45:5), Joseph’s
brothers on Joseph (ibid. 84:10), Og the giant on Jacob (Ber.
54b). Likewise, the evil eye caused the breaking of the first tablets of the Law (Num. R. 12:4) and the death of Daniel’s threecompanions (Sanh. 93a).
This magical power of the eye was not confined to biblical evildoers; folk heroes, regarded as sacred wonder-workers,
were believed to have exercised it as well, but for benevolent
purposes. So R. *Simeon b. Yoḥ ai transforms an evil person
into “a heap of bones” by means of his magic endowment(Shab. 34a; P d RK ed. by S. Buber (1868), 90a–b), and, witha look, R. Johanan, the amora, kills a man who calumniated584

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Menachem Elon (2nd ed.)]evolution
Jerusalem (BB 75a). The magical aspect of the deed is stressedin killing by transformation (Ber. 58a).
Averting the Evil Eye
Folk beliefs and folk customs are especially evident in the attitude toward the aversion of the evil eye. All measures taken
against it are either (1) preventive or (2) counteractive.
(1) The belief that the evil eye is activated by arousing
the jealousy and malice of the “jettatori” (i.e., the endowed
people) calls for preventive measures of self-restraint, e.g.,
the avoidance of any expression of praise, approbation, andof beauty, domestic or socioeconomic success, or happiness.
For this reason Abraham sent his son Isaac home at night after
the *Akedah (Gen. R. 56:11); Jacob advised his handsome andstrong sons not to enter the same gate all together “on accountof the eye” (ibid. 91:6); similarly, Joshua advised Ephraim andManasseh to hide in a forest (Josh. 17:15; BB 118a–b). Prominent men, beautiful women, and newborn babies – all ofwhom are likely to attract special attention – are especiallysusceptible to the evil eye. If, however, the beauty is veiled,riches not exhibited, and a child covered with a dirty bag or
given an ugly name, the happy event may pass unnoticed, andthe evil eye thus remains passive. Therefore, a costly garment
should not be spread over the bed when guests are visiting thehouse as “it will be burned by the eye of the guests” (BM 30a),and precious glass should be broken at a wedding. The ideathat “blessing comes only upon those things which are hidden from the eye” (Ta’an. 8b) is undoubtedly connected withsuch preventive measures.
(2) Once the evil eye has been activated, and the threatof danger and harm is close to realization, there is no needfor preventive measures: only confrontation and war measures based on countermagic which deceive or defeat theevil eye can then save the endangered person. The use ofa mirror (ornament) or a specific color (red, blue) may blightits source by reflecting the glance; an obscene gesture or aholy verse (*amulet) may avert the evil eye by frightening
it; and an outstretched hand may stop its rays. According
to the Talmud (Ber. 55b), whoever is afraid of the evil eye
should stick his right thumb in his left hand and his left thumbin his right hand, proclaiming: “I, so and so, son of so andso, am of the seed of Joseph, whom the evil eye may not affect.” The gesture (a “fig”) – universally used to avert the evil
eye by putting it to shame (this original meaning was probably unknown to sages who prescribed it) – took on a Jewish character by the pronouncement of the aggadic sentencethat the descendants of Joseph are immune from the evil eye(Ber. 20a).
Other means of fighting and subduing the activated evil
eye stem from attempts to absorb the devastating glance, andso to neutralize it. To divert the glance from the intended target, “interesting” objects may be hung between the eyes of theendangered person, e.g., precious stones, or as strange andunexpected an object as a tail of a fox between the eyes of ahorse in need of protection (Tosef., Shab. 4:5).

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

The belief in the evil eye and the various means, both sacred and profane, of averting it, were very prevalent among
East European Jews; to this day they exist in many Oriental
Jewish communities. In modern times the use of blue paintand a metal amulet in the form of an open palm of the handare still widespread in Oriental communities, and among Yiddish-speaking Ashkenazi Jews, it is customary to “qualify”
any praise with the phrase keyn ayen hore (“may there be noevil eye” often shortened to kaynahora). The custom of tyinga red band around the wrist or neck of a newborn child also
derives from a fear of the evil eye. In Yiddish, even the name“evil eye” is euphemistically called git-oyg (“good eye”). R. Lilienthal (see bibl.) lists over 80 anti-evil eye practices recorded
among East European Jews. The striking resemblance to thoselisted in monographs on Oriental Jewish communities (cf. Ḥ .
Mizraḥ i, Yehudei Paras (1959), 115–7) can be explained by theuniversality of the motif of the evil eye, on the one hand, andits particular Jewish expression, on the other.
Bibliography: L. Blau, Das altjuedische Zauberwesen (in:Jahresbericht der Landes-Rabbinerschule in Budapest fuer das Schuljahr 1897–98), 152–6; F.T. Elworthy, The Evil Eye (1895); Ginzberg,
Legends, index; M. Grunwald, in: MGJV, 5 (1900), 40f., 47f.; A. Loewinger, in: Menorah (Vienna), 4 (1926), 551–69; R. Lilienthal, in: Yidishe
Filologye, 1 (1924); S. Seligmann, Der boese Blick und Verwandtes(1910); idem, Die Zauberkraft des Auges (1922); S. Thompson, Motif-Index of Folk-Literature, 2 (1956), 121 (D 993), 364ff. (D 2071); J.
Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition (1939), 54–56, 283.
[Dov Noy]

EVILMERODACH (Heb. ‫) ֱאוִ יל ְמר ַֹד ְך‬, son of *Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylonia from 562–560 B.C.E. The Babylonian
form of the name is Amēl Marduk (“man of Marduk”). During Evil-Merodach’s reign, the stability of the royal court ofBabylon was undermined and there appeared the first signsof the decline of the neo-Babylonian Empire. After two years
as king, he was assassinated, probably by his brother-in-law
Nergal-šar-uṣ ur (Nergal Sarezer), who succeeded him on thethrone (Jer. 39:3, 13). It is related in the Bible (II Kings 25:27–30;
Jer. 52:31–34) that Evil-Merodach freed *Jehoiachin, king of
Judah, from prison in the 37t year of Jehoiachin’s exile in
Babylon and that he accorded him a food allotment for life
and treated him better than his other vassals. His motives canonly be guessed at. He may have contemplated a far-reaching
reverse of his father’s policies.
Bibliography: Weisbach, in: E. Ebeling and B. Meissner(eds.), Reallexikon der Assyriologie, 1 (1932), 94; Bright, Hist, 334;
EM, 1 (1965), 138–9, incl. bibl. Add. Bibliography: R. Sack, AmēlMarduk 562–560 B.C. (1972); idem, in: ABD II, 679; W. Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (1989), 291.
[Bustanay Oded]

EVOLUTION. Although evolutionary ideas are very old, being found in the works of Greek philosophers and echoed in
the aggadah and the Midrash, the main stimulus to evolutionary thought came from the theory developed at the end of the585

evolution
18t century, according to which life on earth has existed formillions of years, and not for less than 6,000, as held by thebiblical tradition current in the civilized world. The theory of
evolution produced a sharp reaction on the part of those intellectuals and scholars who subscribed to the assumption of
the stability of the species from the six days of creation. Besides scientists who cast doubts on the validity of the theory,
its chief opponents were (and still are) religious people who
accept the creation story in Genesis literally. There are, however, religious thinkers who see in the principle of evolution aconcept that accords with the idea of divine providence, someof them not only regarding the account of creation in Genesis as a simple explanation “in ordinary language” of the actual process of creation, but seeing in it a deeper significance.
Some point to aggadic and midrashic statements which contain allusions to evolution and to the fact that life existed onearth in epochs preceding the accepted reckoning in Judaism.
When discussing the Greek philosophers’ views on “the eternity of the universe,” a similar problem confronted Maimonides, who says (Guide, 2:25):

Applying this to the subject under discussion and stating it incontemporary terms, it may be said that if proofs were forthcoming for the theory of evolution (on the assumption that
there exists One who directs creation), a way would be foundof explaining the biblical passages accordingly.
Although Judah Halevi clearly recognized the need toaccept the Scriptures literally, he nevertheless stated in his
Kuzari (1:67): “If, after all, a believer in the Law finds himself compelled to admit an eternal matter and the existenceof many worlds prior to this one, this would not impair his
belief.” In the latter part of this sentence Judah Halevi alludes
to the statement of R. Abbahu (Gen. R. 3:7) that God “createdworlds and destroyed them,” while according to R. Judah b.
Simon there was “a succession of times (days and nights) before that,” that is, before the first day of creation (ibid.). To
this province belong also such statements as: “‘And there wasevening and there was morning, the sixth day’ (Gen. 1:31). R.
Simon b. Marta said, ‘Up to this point we count according to
the reckoning of the world, after it according to another reckoning’” (Gen. R. 9:16), that is, time before the final creation of

the world has a different meaning from that after it, which is
the reckoning that we follow. The relativity of time in the term“day” is referred to in the statement (Gen. R. 19:8) which distinguishes between the human and the divine day, the latterbeing a thousand years in duration, as it is said (Ps. 90:4): “Fora thousand years in Thy sight are but as yesterday.” Alongsidethese notions there are homiletical interpretations of biblicalpassages according to which all organisms were fully createdin the six days of creation, after which no changes have occurred in them (Hul. 60a). In contrast to those who extended
the period of creation, a tanna curtailed it by stating that “onthe first day the entire world was created,” this being the viewof R. Nehemiah, who disagreed with R. Judah’s opinion that“the world was created in six days” (Tanḥ . B., Gen. 7). All thesesages based their views on biblical verses, which could be interpreted either way. In this connection Rabbi A.I. *Kook has
remarked that “everyone knows that the creation is one of themysteries of the Torah, and if all the statements are merely to
be taken literally, what mystery is there?” (Iggerot ha-Re’iyyah(19612), no. 91). The literature of the sages is pluralistic in its
world outlook, especially in the spheres of cosmology and biology. The tannaim and amoraim absorbed legends and “factual” stories, the views of Greco-Roman science, and the folklore of ancient peoples. Among these were ideas which haveno basis in fact nor any support in biblical passages and areeven in conflict with the creation story. There was, for example, the view about the development of living organisms from
nonliving substances which, known as spontaneous generation and accepted until the 19t century, penetrated into thehalakhah. There was also the “assumption that a mouse does
not breed” (Sifra, Shemini, Parashah 5; Ḥ ul. 127a), and hence
the halakhic discussion on the question of the uncleanness of“a mouse which is half flesh and half earth” (Ḥ ul. 9:6. As late
as in 1652 Helmont, a Dutch chemist, still suggested a methodof producing mice by putting rags into a heap of grain). Therewas similarly the prevailing view that vermin originate fromperspiration or from dirt. Thus the Talmud (Shab. 107b) declared that “vermin do not breed,” against which an objection
was raised from the reference made to “eggs of vermin” (seeḤ ul. 9:6). The salamander, too, was thought to originate from afire which burnt continuously for several years (see Ḥ ag. 27a).
In the belief that some organisms develop on food itself, it was
permitted to eat certain foods on which maggots develop.
The folklore of various nations tells of organisms, suchas *mandrakes, that are half plant and half human. There wasalso the belief that some birds grow on trees in the form offruit, and R. Tam (12t century) was asked whether they require sheḥ itah, to which he replied that they do (see Loew,
Flora, 4 (1934), 348). The halakhah mentions an organism
called ‫ ַא ְבנֵ י ַה ּ ָׂש ֶדה‬or ‫ ַא ְדנֵ י ַה ּ ָׂש ֶדה‬, whose corpse, like that of a human being, communicates uncleanness (Sifra, Shemini, ch. 6;
Kil. 8:5). Explained by some as referring to the chimpanzee,
it is said in the Jerusalem Talmud (Kil. 8:5, 31c) to be “a manof the mountains who lives from his navel; if the navel is severed, he does not live,” the reference being to a manlike or-

586

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

We do not reject the eternity of the universe because certain
passages in Scripture confirm the creation; for such passages are
not more numerous than those in which God is represented as acorporeal being. Nor is it impossible or difficult to find for thema suitable interpretation. We might have explained them in thesame manner as we did in respect to the incorporeality of God
and this might have been easier … However, we have not doneso … for the eternity of the universe has not been proved andthere is no need of scriptural passages to reject it … If we were toaccept the eternity of the universe as taught by Plato, we should
not be in opposition to the fundamental principles of our religion … The scriptural text might have been explained accordingly … But there is no necessity for this expedient, so long as
the theory has not been proved. As there is no proof sufficient
to convince us … we take the text of the Bible literally.

evolution
ganism joined by its navel like a plant to the ground. Legends
about such an organism were current among various nations(see R. Patai, Adam ve-Adamah, 1 (1942), 216ff.). Mermaids,
the legendary half-human, half-fish beings, also figure in the
halakhah, the unclean “living creatures that are in the waters”(Lev. 11:10) being interpreted as “including mermaids,” which
however, unlike a human corpse, do not communicate uncleanness when dead (Sifra, Shemini, Parashah 3). The sages
who quoted these halakhot or statements were influenced by
the leading scientists of the time, such as Aristotle, Galen, andothers, who had confirmed these “facts” and to whom there
undoubtedly applied the principle that “if someone tells youthat there is wisdom among the non-Jews, believe him” (Lam.
R. 2:13). As it deals with all spheres of life and with theoretical subjects, the halakhah also on occasion incorporated legendary, fictitious ideas. In the field of “science” the sages wereready to accept various views current among their contemporaries (but proved in our day to be without foundation) anddid not hesitate to give expression to them even if they were
contrary to their accepted views.
To this province belong halakhot relating to *mixed species (kilayim). Despite the assumption inherent in the Bible
that in the six days of creation all organisms were fully formed,
statements of the sages in the aggadah and the halakhah referto the production of new species by hybridization and grafting. The Tosefta and the Jerusalem Talmud of tractate Kilayim
cite many “facts” about the formation of a third species by
grafting two species of flora, some systematically very remotefrom each other (see *Biology; it is now evident that no new
species can be produced by grafting). Thus, for example, it isasserted that, by sowing together the seeds of an apple and awatermelon a third species, the *melon (called in Greek melopepon, the apple-melon), is obtained (TJ, Kil. 1:2, 27a), evenas a dangerous creature called arvad is produced by mating asnake with a species of *lizard (Ḥ ul. 127a). Another tradition
holds that after Anah the son of Zibeon had produced a *mule,which is a dangerous animal, by crossing a stallion and a sheass (‫יֵ ִמם‬, a hemi-onos, i.e., a half-ass; cf. Gen. 36:24), “the Holy
One blessed be He appointed a ḥ akhina [a poisonous snake]which He mated with a ḥ ardon [a species of lizard] to producea ḥ avarbar,” a species of noxious animal whose bite proved
fatal to Anah (TJ, Ber. 8:6, 12b). This story is mentioned in a
discussion on whether mixed species originated during the six
days of creation (ibid.; Tosef. Ber. 6:11). On this subject there isthe view of the tanna R. Yose (Pes. 54a) that “two things God
originally planned to create on the eve of the Sabbath [of thecreation] but were not created until the termination of the
Sabbath, and at the termination of the Sabbath the Holy One
blessed be He granted Adam knowledge of a kind like the divine, whereupon he took two stones, rubbed them together,and fire issued from them [cf. the tale of Prometheus]; he also
took two [heterogeneous] animals and crossed them, and fromthem came forth the mule.” Thus R. Yose held that hybridization represents a remarkable wisdom granted to man, who
is prone to produce new organisms, “like the divine creator.”

Proofs of Evolution
The existence in prehistoric times of gigantic animals, thenextinct, is alluded to in biblical verses referring to the dragon,
the *leviathan, the Rahab, and others. Having perhaps foundtraces of the footprints of primeval animals or remains of theirskeletons (footprints of prehistoric reptiles have been discovered near Jerusalem in recent times), the ancients had their
imaginations stirred to describe these huge animals and explain the reasons for their extinction.
One of the crucial problems confronting the evolutionists was the question of the transition from ape to man. In theliterature of the sages there are allusions to a connection between man and ape. Thus the amoraim Rav and Samuel held
divergent views on the nature of the rib from which woman
was created, the one holding that it was a tail (Ber. 61a). In
the opinion of R. Judah: “[God] made him [i.e., man] a taillike an animal and then removed it from him for his honor”(Gen. R. 14:12). Even Adam was not the first man, for “974generations preceded the creation of the world and they
were swept away in a trice because they were evil” (Mid. Ps.
to 90:13; cf. Shab. 88b). Nor was Adam anatomically perfect,
since he was a hermaphrodite (Gen. R. 8:1); the fingers of hishands were joined together, and it was only from Noah onward that people were born with separated fingers (Mid. Avkir
to Gen. 5:29; and similarly in Tanh. to ibid.). In the days of
Enosh there took place a moral degeneration; human beingschanged, and “their faces became like apes” (Gen. R. 23:6; cf.
Sanh. 109b). All these statements are based on a homiletical interpretation of biblical verses, but underlying them wasprobably the view of the tanna or amora which he expressedin this manner. Finally there is a statement that attests to an
observation and a conclusion drawn from the realm of comparative anatomy: the amora R. Samuel of Cappadocia concluded from a common feature in fishes and birds that the latter, too, were created “out of alluvial mud”: this can be proved“from the fact that birds have on their legs scales like thoseof fishes” (Ḥ ul. 27b).
At the beginning of the 20t century the naturalist De
Vries (1848–1935) drew attention to the fact that in some floraand fauna characteristics suddenly appear which, though notpresent in their progenitors, are transmitted by heredity to theprogeny. These changes, known as mutations, for the mostpart small and fortuitous, are in the view of scholars the basisof the evolutionary processes. Through the accumulation ofthese mutations, organisms were separated during millions ofyears of evolution into strains, species, and higher systematicgroups. According to Neo-Darwinism the fortuitous muta-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6587

Another aggadah, which declares that God Himself “changes
His world once every seven years,” mentions various animals,
one of which is replaced by the other (TJ, Shab. 1:3, 3b). The
reference here may be to seven years of God, one of whosedays is a thousand years (see above; although there is a statement (BK 16b) that “the male hyena (‫ )צבוע‬becomes a bat after seven years,” etc.).

évorations and the operation of natural selection were responsible
for evolution, whereas according to Neo-Lamarckism, development cannot be accounted for without assuming that there
is something in the living substance which guides it toward
development. In this sense there is a statement of the rabbis:“There is no herb which has not a guardian angel in heaventhat strikes it and says, Grow!” (Gen. R. 10:6). Other scholars
maintain that there are metaphysical factors that guide anddirect the existence and development of the organism. This
theory, known as teleology, approximates to the religious viewof the Creator’s providence over His creatures. Some leading
evolutionists, although dissociating themselves from the teleological approach, nevertheless agreed that it was impossible
to explain evolution on the basis only of known forces. Thus
G.L. Stebbins, who made a study of evolution in flora, argued
that evolution can be explained by mutations, hybridization,and natural selection directed by a certain force of unknown
nature. Certain embryologists, too, assumed that in ontogeny – the development of the individual during the embryonicperiod – there is an unknown or nonrational force directing it
toward its development, and in this there is a parallel between
phylogeny, the development of the species, and ontogeny, thedevelopment of the individual.
However much these views fall out of fashion as molecular biology progresses and the fossil record is clarified, theseassumptions have an indubitable religious significance, andin this connection mention should be made of the words ofRabbi Kook: “The theory of evolution, which is at present increasingly conquering the world, is more in harmony with themysteries of Kabbalah than all other philosophical theories”(Orot ha-Kodesh, ii, 558). On the other hand there are many
evolutionists who are not prepared to include in the schemeof creation and evolution a nonrational force and hold thatthese “unknown” forces, responsible for the evolutionary
process, will be revealed and defined as known chemical or
physical forces. There are numerous theories to explain themechanism of evolution, but the doubts exceed the certainties. When Rabbi Kook was asked about the problem of evolution, he summed it up as follows: “Nothing in the Torahis contradicted by any knowledge in the world that emerges
from research. But we must not accept hypotheses as certainties, even if there is a wide agreement about them” (Iggerot
ha-Re’iyyah, no. 91).
Bibliography: S.B. Ulman, Madda’ei ha-Teva u-Veri’ at haOlam (1944); M.M. Kasher, in: Sefer Yovel… Samuel K. Mirsky (1958),
256–84; idem, in: Sinai, 48 (1960), 21–33; J. Feliks, Kilei Zera’im veHarkavah (1967), 7–12, 112–5; idem, in: Teva va-Areẓ , 7 (1965), 330–7;
O. Wolfsberg, in: L. Jung (ed.), Jewish Library, 2 (1968), 145–70.

Alentejo (Alemtejo) should reside in Évora. In 1360, 1388, and1434, the Évora community was given privileges by the kingdefining the limits of its autonomy. In 1325 the Jews of Évora
were compelled by a special decree to wear a yellow shield ofDavid on their hats (see Jewish *badge). On several occasions
the kings of Portugal intervened in favor of the Jews of Évora
who engaged in varied economic activities. In 1392 John I ordered the town authorities to desist from further confiscationof Jewish property in the synagogues of Évora, and in 1408 hegranted the Jews a privilege permitting them to enlarge theirquarter. The old Jewish quarter can still be visited. On the
doorposts of stone-made houses three slots for mezzuzot were
found. In 1478 the community paid a sum of 264,430 cruzados
to the crown. After the decree of expulsion and forced conversions of 1496/7, Évora continued to be an important center of *anusim. In April 1505 these were set upon by bands ofrioters, who manhandled them and set the synagogue on fire.
From 1542, the year in which Luis *Dias of Setúbal was burnedat the stake there, a tribunal of the Inquisition was active in
Évora. Numerous anusim were condemned to the stake fromthe 16t to 18t centuries.
Bibliography: M. Kayserling, Geschichte der Juden in Portugal (1867), index; J. Mendes dos Remedios, Os Judeus em Portugal, 1(1895), 226, 362, 382; L. Wolf, Reports on the Marranos or Crypto-Jews
of Portugal (1926), 6–7; N. Slouschz, Ha-Anusim be-Portugal (1932),
10–12, 16, 21, 24, 69; B. Roth, in: REJ, 126 (1957), 94–95; Roth, Marranos, index; J. dos Santos Ramalho Coelho, in: A Cidade de Évora,
63/64 (1980/81), 267–84; M.J.P. Ferro Tavares, in: Anuario de Estudios
Medievales, 17 (1987), 551–58; A.B. Coelho, Inquisicío de Évora dos
promórdios a 1668, 2 vols. (1987); M. do Carmo Teixeira and L.M.L.
Ferreira Runa, in: Revista de História Económica e Social, 22 (1988),
51–76; L.M.L. Ferreira Runa, in: Arqueologia do estado, vol. 1 (1988),
375–86; M.B.A. Araújo, in: Inquisicío, vol. 1 (1989–90), 49–72.

ÉVREUX, capital of the Eure department, N.W. France. During the Middle Ages, Évreux was renowned as a center ofJewish scholarship. Most famous of its scholars was the tosafist *Samuel (b. Sheneor) of Évreux, known as the “Princeof Évreux”; his elder brother, *Moses of Évreux, was also atosafist, and his two other brothers, the liturgical poet Judahand the commentator *Isaac of Évreux, are also well known.
The Jewish community lived in the “rue aux Juifs,” later known
as Rue de la Bove. The synagogue was situated on the eastern side of the street. After the expulsion of 1306, no community existed in Évreux. In the 1950s, a community wasestablished by Jews from North Africa. In 1968 it had about
250 members.

[Jehuda Feliks]

Bibliography: Gross, Gal Jud, 38–43; U. Lamiray, Promenades… dans Evreux (1927), 162f.
[Bernhard Blumenkranz]

ÉVORA, capital of Alto Alentejo province, S. central Portugal. It had one of the most important Jewish communities in
the country. Regulations defining the powers of the *Arraby
Moor issued during the reign of King Alfonso III (1248–79)
laid down that the chief rabbi of the Jewish communities in

EVRON (Heb. ‫) ֶע ְברוֹ ן‬, kibbutz in the Plain of Acre, Israel,near Nahariyyah, affiliated with Kibbutz Arẓ i ha-Shomer haẒ a’ir. Evron was founded in 1945 by immigrants from Poland
and Romania. In addition to intensive farming (cotton andavocado plantations), the kibbutz had a factory for irrigation

588

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

exchequer of the jews
equipment and a quarry. In 2002 the population was 686.
Ebron (Evron) was a town of the tribe of Asher (Josh. 19:28).
Website: www.matte-asher-region.muni.il.
[Efraim Orni]

EVRON, EPHRAIM (1920–1995), Israel diplomat. Evron wasborn in Haifa and was educated at the Reali High School there,
continuing his studies at the Hebrew University, and graduating in history in 1940. He served in the British army during World War II from 1941 to 1946 and in the Israel Defense
Forces in 1948. In the same year he entered the Foreign Office,and in 1950 was appointed director, but the following year wastransferred to the Office of the Prime Minister. He served as
personal assistant to Moshe Sharett, David Ben-Gurion, andPinḥ as Lavon, and his close involvement with the last in the“Lavon Affair” brought him into conflict with Moshe Dayan,
then chief of staff, and nearly wrecked his political career. He
left government service and took up a position representing
the Histadrut in the U.S.A., rejoining the Foreign Office in 1961
when he was appointed counselor, and subsequently minister,at the Israeli Embassy in London.
In 1965 he was appointed minister to the Israeli Embassyin Washington and served in that capacity until 1968 when he
was appointed ambassador to Sweden; in 1969 he became ambassador to Canada where he served until 1971. On his return
to Israel he was appointed deputy to the director-general of
the Foreign Office and in 1977 director-general.
In October 1978 he was appointed ambassador to the
U.S., in succession of Simcha *Dinitz, taking up his appointment in December of that year and serving until 1982.

pils. His books include Die Komposition der Genesis kritischuntersucht (1823); Grammatica critica linguae arabicae… (2vols., Leipzig, 1831–33); Die Dichter des Alten Bundes erklaert(2 vols., 1966–67); Die Propheten des Alten Bundes erklaert (3vols., 1867–682); Geschichte des Volkes Israel bis Christus (5vols., 1843–55; 7 vols., 1851–59); The History of Israel (8 vols.,
1883– ), according to H. Graetz a turning point in the treatment of Jewish history by Christian scholars; Ausfuehrliches
Lehrbuch der hebraeischen Sprache des Alten Bundes (1870);
and Theologie des Alten und Neuen Bundes (1871–78).
Bibliography: T.W. Davies, Heinrich Ewald, Orientalist
and Theologian (1903), incl. bibl.; H.J. Kraus, Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments (1956), 182–90;
RGG3, 2 (1927), 453–5. Add. Bibliography: J. Rogerson, in: DBI,
1, 363–64.
[Samuel Ephraim Loewenstamm / S. David Sperling (2nd ed.)]EXCERPTA VALESIANA, historical work, written c. 550
and treating the reigns of Odoacer and Theodoric (474–526).
It notes a conflict between Jews and Christians, probably overbaptism, at Ravenna, after which the Christians burned thesynagogues. The author, bitterly anti-Arian, is sharply critical of Theodoric, the Arian Ostrogoth ruler of Italy, who
imposed the contribution of funds necessary to rebuild thesynagogues.
[Jacob Petroff]

EWALD, HEINRICH GEORG AUGUST (1803–1875), Protestant theologian; scholar of the Bible, Israelite history, andSemitic languages. Ewald was a pupil of J.G. *Eichhorn. He
served as professor at Goettingen (1827–37, 1848–67) and Tuebingen (1838–48). He was twice dismissed from his post – oncein 1837 for protesting against the abolition of the Hanoverian
constitution by the king, and again in 1867 for refusing toswear allegiance to the king of Prussia. Ewald viewed historical criticism not as a religious threat but as a means of reconstructing the process by which divine providence had chosen to reveal the true faith to humanity. He believed that thestories of the patriarchs could be used to reconstruct ancient
Israelite tribal history, but that the patriarchs themselves were“ideal types.” Ewald was more positive in his historical assessment of Moses. As for the Hebrew prophets, it was throughthem that God gave the most important truths to humanity. Ewald also did research on Hebrew and Arabic grammar
and on the medieval works of Hebrew grammar, which were
written in Arabic. He is considered the father of the theory of
Hebrew syntax. In his Kritische Grammatik der hebraeischen
Sprache (1827–808; pt. 3 trans. as Syntax of the Hebrew of the
Old Testament, 1879), he attempted to discover the principles
which determine linguistic forms and explain them. J. *Wellhausen, T. *Noeldeke, and *A.Dillmann, were among his pu-

EXCHEQUER OF THE JEWS, department of medieval
English government for Jewish affairs. The squared tablecloth(12t century, Fr. eschequier) used like an abacus for counting
money in settling the sheriffs’ accounts gave its name to the
Exchequer, a branch of the royal administration in which accounts were rendered and revenue questions decided. A separate Jewish department (subordinate to the main Exchequer)
may have originated in the Exchequer of Aaron, established
for the affairs of *Aaron of Lincoln, whose assets passed to the
Crown on his death (1186). By 1194 there were already justices
or keepers of the Jews. Benedict of Talmont may have served asa Jewish Justice of the Jews in the last years of the 12th century.
After 1199 only Christians, varying in number from two to five,were appointed. Other Jewish “officials,” the most important
being the *archpresbyter (Presbyter Judeorum), were associated with the Exchequer of the Jews in the 13t century.
Its functions were both administrative and judicial. It
controlled the system of archae (or chests), at first six or seven,later over 20, in towns with established Jewish communities: appointing and dismissing their officials, ordering thewithdrawal and restoration of chirographs. All moneylending transactions (other than the lending of money against
pawned movables) had to be registered in these archae. Whenthe debt became due, the Exchequer of the Jews would issue
an authorization for the levying of the debt at the request of
the creditor; only if the debtor had died would this need to
be preceded by legal proceedings. The Exchequer of the Jews
also exercised a jurisdiction over cases involving Jewish debts

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6589

execution
which had passed into the hands of the Crown or had beentransferred to other Christian creditors. At certain periods inthe 13th century Crown revenue from Jewish sources was handled by the ordinary Exchequer, but in others the Exchequerof the Jews collected such revenue, retained it in a separate
treasury, and disbursed it on the king’s instructions. The Plea
Rolls of the Exchequer of the Jews survive for 1219–20, 1244,
1253, and in a virtually continuous series from 1266 to 1287 (incourse of publication).
Bibliography: Roth, England, index; H.G. Richardson,
English Jewry under Angevin Kings (1960); A.B. Cramer, in: American Historical Review, 45 (1939–40), 327–37; idem, in: Speculum, 16(1941), 226–9; Meekings, in: Bulletin, Institute of Historical Research,
28 (1955), 173–88; Rigg-Jenkinson-Cohen-Brand, Exchequer.
[Vivian David Lipman]

EXECUTION (Civil), laws concerning methods of recovering a debt.
Definition and Substance of the Concept
In Jewish law, a debt or obligation (ḥ iyyuv) creates in favorof the creditor not only a personal right of action against the
debtor, but also a right in rem in the form of a lien over thelatter’s property (termed aḥ arayut nekhasim; see *Lien; Law of*Obligation). Hence, many of the laws concerning the methods of satisfying a debt out of the debtor’s property also apply
to the recovery of a debt with the consent of the debtor, andnot merely to recovery of a debt by court action; e.g., suchmatters as the distinction between the different categories ofassets out of which the debt must be satisfied, the distinction
between free and “encumbered and alienated assets” (nekhasim benei ḥ orin and meshu’badim, respectively), or the matterof preferential rights as between several creditors, etc.
Recovery of debt will here be dealt with from two main
aspects: (1) methods of recovery involving the exercise of
constraint against the person or liberty of the debtor; and (2)methods of recovery from the debtor’s assets.
Execution in Jewish Law and in Other Legal Systems –Fundamental Principles
There are detailed instructions under biblical law governing
the relationship between the lender (creditor) and borrower(debtor; Ex. 22:24–26; Deut. 24:6; 10–13), the essence of whichis to enjoin the creditor not to prejudice the debtor’s basic necessities of life or his personal honor and freedom. This is incontrast to the right given the creditor in the laws of Hammurapi to enslave the debtor as well as the debtor’s wife, children, and slaves (secs. 114–6, 151–2, also 117–9) and in further
contrast with similar provisions in the laws of Assyria, Ashnunna, Sumer, etc. (see Elon, Ḥ erut ha-Perat 3–8). In biblical law the institution of slavery is limited to two cases only:(1) the thief who does not have the means to make restitution
and is “sold for his theft” (Ex. 22:2); and (2) the person who
voluntarily “sells himself ” because of his extreme poverty (Lev.
25:39). Scriptural references indicate, however, that in practicebondage for debt was customary at times (II Kings 4:1; Isa. 50:1

590

and see I Sam. 22:2) – presumably under the influence of thesurrounding legal systems; but the practice was strongly criticized by the prophets (Amos 2:6; 8:4–6; Micah 2:1–2) and after
Nehemiah’s sharp condemnation of the “nobles and rulers” forindulging in this practice (Neh. 5:1–13) bondage for debt was
abolished in practice as well as in theory. The Bible makes nomention of imprisonment for debt and, indeed, Jewish law has
given only the most limited recognition to *imprisonment,even in the field of criminal law.
Accordingly, methods of execution in Jewish law werein direct contradistinction to execution procedures under
the Roman Twelve Tables. By the legis actio per manus iniectionem, the creditor was entitled – on the expiration of the 30
days’ grace given the debtor to repay his debt and a further 60days within which someone could redeem him from imprisonment and pay the debt on his behalf – to put the debtor todeath or to sell him “trans tiberim”; if there were several creditors, each was entitled to a share of the debtor’s corpse. The
underlying motive of execution in Roman law was not only tosatisfy the creditor’s legitimate and material claim, but also to
extract vengeance and to punish the debtor for not fulfilling
his obligation (see H.F. Jolowicz, Historical Introduction to the
Study of Roman Law (19522), 192; Elon, Ḥ erut ha-Perat 11f.).
In the course of time the harshness of these provisions weremodified and the creditor’s right to sell or to put the debtor
to death was abolished by the Lex Poetelia in 313 (326?) B.C.E.,
but it still remained possible to imprison the debtor until herepaid the debt or made adequate compensation for it by his
own labor (Elon, ibid.). The basic attitude toward the creditordebtor relationship as laid down in biblical law, with the later
further requirement that the debtor make repayment by thedue date, has, throughout the ages, remained at the root of therules of execution in Jewish law (see Yad, Malveh, chs. 1 and
2; Tur and Sh. Ar., ḥ M 97–98), although certain changes andmodifications were, at various times, introduced in keepingwith the social and ethical realities prevailing in the different
centers of Jewish life (see below).
Distinguishing between a Pauper and a Man of Means
The biblical passages mentioned above already delineated thebasic concept of protecting the poor against the obduracy of
their creditors. Talmudic scholars emphasized the distinction in unequivocal terms: “To the poor of your people you
shall not be as a creditor, but to the rich” (Mekh., ed. Horowitz-Rabin, Mishpatim; 19, p. 316), and “You shall not be as acreditor to him – do not harass and demand from him when
you know he has no means” (Mekh. SbY to 22:24; BM 75b
and Codes). In post-talmudic times the distinction acquireda particular significance, especially in relation to imprisonment for debt.
Entry into the Debtor’s HomeEntering the home of the debtor, in order to remove his assets
in satisfaction of a debt, was prohibited in the Torah (Deut.
24:10–11). According to one opinion, entry for this purpose
was forbidden to both the creditor and the debtor – so that the
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

execution
debt, after the lapse of the due date (see also *Pledge). It follows therefore that entry into the debtor’s home in the lattercircumstances had never in fact been prohibited and was permissible (Sefer ha-Yashar, Nov. no. 602); Piskei ha-Rosh, BM
9:46–47), and this distinction was accepted by the majority ofthe posekim (Sh. Ar., ḥ M 97:6,15 and standard commentaries);
but such entry was nevertheless still restricted to the court officer (Tur, ḥ M 97:26; Sh. Ar., ḥ M 97:6,15; Keẓ ot ha-Ḥ oshen, ḥ M
97, n. 2; Elon, Ḥ erut ha-Perat (60, n. 35)). When it is clear thatthe debtor is impoverished and has no property, entry into hishome is prohibited since “this can only cause him shame andsuffering” (Sma, ḥ M 99–13).

former might not remove assets of the best kind and so thatthe latter might not take out assets of the worst kind – only
the officer of the court being permitted to enter in order to remove assets of a median kind (see below TJ, BM 9:14,12b). The
majority of the scholars, however, interpreted the prohibition
as directed only against the creditor, to prevent him from violating the borrower’s private domain and conspiring against
his person or property (TJ, BM 9:14,12b; Git. 50a and Codes).
To avoid the danger of this happening to even the slightest degree, some of the scholars were of the opinion that it was also
forbidden for the creditor forcibly to seize a pledge from the
debtor, even if it was found outside his home and even if thecourt had sanctioned a distraint on him. According to thesescholars it was only permissible for the officer of the court
forcibly to extract from the debtor security for his debt (Sif.
Deut. 276; Tosef., BM 10:8; BM 31b; 113 a–b). Some scholars expressed the opinion that, in principle, the prohibition against
entering the debtor’s home only applied to the creditor personally and that the officer of the court was even permitted
to enter the debtor’s home for the purpose of recovering assets in satisfaction of the debt; other scholars also prohibitedthe officer of the court from entering the debtor’s house andthe halakhah was so decided (BM 113b and Codes). Similarly,
a further dispute between the scholars as to whether the prohibition against entry applied in respect of all debts or only todebts arising from loans, was decided in accordance with thelatter view (Sif. Deut. 276; BM 115a and Codes).
The prohibition against entering the debtor’s home hindered the effective recovery of a debt if the debtor pleaded
that he had no assets and if no assets were found outside his
home, since it was impossible to search his home so as to ascertain the truth of his plea. The post-talmudic scholars sought
to overcome this difficulty in various ways. For example, Alfasi decided that entry is permissible if the debtor is “given
to violent and evil ways and is arrogant” (i.e., in refusing to
pay – quoted in Sefer ha-Terumot, 1:3), but Maimonides did
not accept this view and regarded any permission to enter the
debtor’s home as against biblical law (Yad, Malveh, 2:2), andother scholars also rejected any permit of this nature (Sefer
ha-Terumot, 1:3; Resp. Rashba, vol. 1, no. 909; vol. 2, no. 225).
Some scholars sought to overcome the problem by giving a
restricted interpretation to the biblical prohibition. Thus, forexample, Meir ha-Levi *Abulafia argued that the officer of thecourt is only prohibited from entering the debtor’s home when
the debt can be recovered from other assets outside his home;
if no such other assets are found and the creditor contends –even doubtfully – that the debtor has assets inside his home,the court officer may enter the latter’s home and seek assets
on which to levy execution (quoted in Tur, ḥ M 97:26). Jacobb. Meir Tam and Asher b. Jehiel offered a solution based on
the following reasoning: the biblical prohibition refers only
to the case of the creditor attempting to take a pledge fromthe debtor’s property as security for repayment of the loan atsome time after the debt was created; but not to the case of
the creditor seeking entry in order to collect payment of theCompulsory Labor
The possibility of compelling satisfaction of a debt by meansof the debtor’s own labor was recognized in various legal systems during the Middle Ages. This form of compulsion represented a temporizing with the institution of enslavement for
debt – all the recognized characteristics of this sometimes being manifest, while at other times and places the debtor was
merely required to cover the principal and interest of the debt
with his own labor (see Elon, Ḥ erut ha-Perat 68ff.).
There was in Jewish law no trace of this kind of compulsion until the 11t century (except for the contents of one of theaggadot concerning the destruction of the Temple: Git. 58a).
From this time onward, however, the question was discussed
in the light of the surrounding legal realities and the need formore efficient methods of debt collection. On the one hand,
the halakhic scholars regarded compulsory labor as prejudicial
to the debtor’s personal liberty – particularly in view of thegeneral attitude of Jewish law toward any kind of labor – hireas a restraint on personal freedom, for which reason it has afforded the laborer special privileges, such as the right of retracing, etc. (BM 10a, 77a; see also *Labor Law). On the other
hand, compulsory labor involved no actual deprivation of the
debtor’s liberty – such as resulted from a sale into slavery – if
its object was merely to give the creditor due satisfaction forhis debt. Alfasi, and other scholars following him, decided thatthe debtor should labor – hire himself in order to repay his
debt (quoted in Resp. Maharam of Rothenburg, ed. Cremona,
no. 146). Some scholars distinguished between different kindsof obligations, and thus, for example, it was decided that in thecase of a debt arising from the debtor’s obligation to maintainhis wife, he could be compelled to work in order to maintainher, since he expressly undertook to do so in the ketubbah – afactor not present in any other obligation and thus precluding compulsory labor (Elijah of Paris, Tos., Ket. 63a). Other
scholars were of the opinion that compulsory labor was precluded in all cases, including even that of a wife’s maintenance(Jacob *Tam quoted in Haggahot Maimoniyyot; Yad, Ishut,
12: s.s. 8), and this view was accepted by the majority of theposekim (Rosh, Resp. no. 78:2; Tur, EH, 70; Tur, ḥ M 97:28–30;
99:18–19; Sh. Ar., EH 70:3; 154:3; HM 97:15), although some of
the latter did recognize the exception in respect of a wife’s
maintenance (Rema, EH 70:3; Ḥ elkat Meḥ okek, Beit Shemu’el

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6591

execution
and Yeshu’ot Ya’akov, ibid.). A further opinion that compulsory labor could be imposed in respect of other obligations,
if the debtor was accustomed to labor and to hiring himself(the opinion of Radbaz, quoted in Erekh Lehem, HM 97:15),
was later rejected by most of the scholars (Tal Orot, Parashat
Kedoshim; Mishkenot ha-Ro’im, “Beth,” no. 39).
Imprisonment for Debt
In talmudic times and for a long time afterward, Jewish law
completely excluded the possibility of imprisonment for debt.
In the course of time, however, and because of the surrounding legal realities as well as internal social and economicchanges, the question of imprisonment for debt came to thesurface in Jewish law, and a number of basic halakhic rules
were laid down on this subject. For greater detail see *Imprisonment for Debt.
Execution Procedure
Execution procedure in Jewish law is based upon talmudic andpost-talmudic sources and may be briefly summarized as follows: when it is sought to execute a judgment of the court (“ifthe borrower fails to give of his own accord, payment is leviedthrough the court”: Yad, Malveh 18:1), the court will grant astay of execution – if so requested by the debtor in order togive him the chance of raising money to repay the debt – for aperiod of 30 days; during this period the debtor is not obliged
to provide any pledge or surety, unless the court sees grounds
for suspecting that he will place his assets beyond reach orin some other manner evade payment of the debt (Sh. Ar.,ḥ M 100:1; Resp. Maharik, sec. 14); the period of the stay may
be increased or reduced by the court, depending on the circumstances (Tur ḥ M 100:1; Rema ḥ M 100:1), but no stay will
be granted in respect of certain debts arising from tort (Yad,Ḥ ovel u-Mazzik, 2:20; see also Sh. Ar., ḥ M 420:27; for further details concerning the stay, see Arukh ha-Shulḥ an, ḥ M
100:2). No stay of execution will be granted when an appeal
is lodged against the judgment, unless so warranted by special circumstances (Rema ḥ M 14:4; Bah ḥ M 14:4; see also Takkanot ha-Diyyun be-Vattei ha-Din ha-Rabbaniyyim be-Yisrael,
5720 – 1959/60, Rule 132, and *Taxation). The creditor may also
demand that the court impose a general ban on anyone who
has money or chattels and refuses, without reasonable cause,to repay a debt (Yad, Malveh, 22:1; Sh. Ar., ḥ M 100:1). Upon
the debtor’s failure to repay within the period of the stay, thecourt will issue a writ of adrakhta (see below, Yad, ibid.; ḥ M
100:3), which is followed by various other procedural steps
until the actual sale of the debtor’s property or the creditor’s“going down” to the property (horadat ba’al ḥ ov la-nekhasim),in satisfaction of the debt. If a stay of execution is not soughtby the debtor and he declares that he will not pay the debt, thewrit of adrakhta is issued forthwith (BK 112b; Yad and Sh. Ar.,ibid.). If the debtor is found to have no property he is “warned”
by the court three times – on a consecutive Monday, Thursday, and Monday – and then the lesser ban (*niddui) is pronounced against him until he pays the debt or pleads that hehas no means of doing so and delivers a solemn oath accord-592

ingly (the oath of ein li; see below). If he suffers the ban for
30 days without seeking its retraction, it will be extended fora further 30 days and thereafter the full ban (*ḥ erem, “excommunication”) is pronounced against him (ḥ M, ibid.).
Adrakhta and Tirpa
The word adrakhta means “to pursue and overtake” (cf. Judg.
20:43; Ket. 60b), hence it is the term used for a document
empowering a creditor to “pursue” his debtor’s property andlevy payment thereon, wherever found (Rashi to BM 16b and35b). Other scholars gave the term the meaning of the word
dorekh (“treading upon”), i.e., by virtue of the writ of adrakhta, the creditor becomes master over and “treads upon”
the debtor’s property for the purpose of recovering the debt
therefrom (Rashbam to BB 169a and see Yad Ramah, ibid.).
The writ is issued for the recovery payment out of both thefree prospect, and the “encumbered and alienated” property(nekhasim benei ḥ orin and meshu’badim; see *lien). The adrakhta in respect of free property is written as follows: “X wasadjudged to be indebted to Y in such and such an amount and,he not having paid voluntarily, we have written out this adrakhta on such and such a field of his.” Thereupon the bond ofindebtedness is torn up, and according to one opinion, thisfact must be stated in the writ of adrakhta to prevent any possibility of the creditor recovering a second time on the samebond (Yad, Malveh, 22:13; Sh. Ar., ḥ M 98:9–10; Meiri, in: Shitah Mekubbezet BK111b).
If the debtor has no free property, the adrakhta on the“encumbered and alienated” property is written thus: “X wasadjudged to be indebted to Y in such and such an amount byvirtue of a bond in the latter’s hands; since he has not paid
the debt and whereas we have not found any free propertyof his and have already torn up Y’s bond, we therefore give Y
the power to investigate and seek out and lay hands on all theproperty of X that he can find, including all the lands sold by
X from such and such a time on, and Y is hereby authorized
to recover the debt and levy payment on all such property”(Yad, Malveh, 22:6; Sh. Ar., ḥ M 98:9; for the adrakhta version
as to orphans’ property, see Yad, Malveh, 12:9; ḥ M 109:2). If thecreditor finds any encumbered property which he is entitled
to seize for the purpose of recovering payment, he will do so
and thereupon the adrakhta is torn up (for the same reasons
as the bond is torn up) and a writ of tirpa (“tearing apart,”
seizure) is issued (in which the tearing up of the adrakhta isrecited: for the text see Yad, Malveh, 22:8; Sh. Ar., HM 98:9;
for a different order of procedure concerning the adrakhta
and tirpa, see commentaries to BK and BB, ibid.). A creditor
executing a tirpa against encumbered property is required totake a solemn oath that he has not yet recovered payment of
the debt, nor granted a release from or sold his claim (Shevu.
45a; Yad, Malveh, 22:10; ḥ M 114:4).
Appraisement and Related Procedures
After the creditor finds free property of the debtor and also inthe case of recovering payment from encumbered property,
following upon a writ of tirpa, an appraisement (shuma) of the
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

execution
property is made (at the instance of the court) by three persons
possessing the necessary expertise (Codes, ibid.; according tosome scholars the appraisement is made before the adrakhta
or tirpa is written, Yad Ramah, BB 169a). The appraisement
is made according to the value for which the property can besold at the particular time and place, without any need forthe creditor to sell it somewhere else or wait until the pricemight rise (HM 101:9). If the appraisers disagree, the majority opinion is accepted and if each gives a different estimate,
the average of the three estimates is taken (ḥ M 103:1–3). The
appraisement document is headed by the words iggeret shum(“letter of appraisement”), by which name it is known (MK 3:3,
BM 1:8; for other interpretations of the term iggeret shum see
commentaries on BM 20a and MK 18b).
After the appraisement has been approved by the court,
there is a public announcement or advertisement (hakhrazah)
in which the judges announce: “whoever wishes to buy
may come and do so,” in order to find the highest bidder. In
origin, the law of hakhrazah applied in respect of consecrated
property and the property of *orphans (Ar. 2lb and Codes),but was extended also to property sold in execution (Ket.
100b; Tos. to Ar. 2lb and Codes). The scholars disputed
the question whether the sale of orphans’ property should
be so advertised for 30 or 60 days and the halakhah was decided that the period should be 30 days where the announcement is made daily and 60 days where it is made on Mondays and Thursdays only (Ar. 2lb and Codes.). According tosome of the posekim, an announcement for 30 days is madeeven in matters not concerned with orphans’ property (Remaḥ M 103:1), but another opinion is that in the case of recovering payment out of free property, an announcement is made“as may be deemed necessary, until there are no higher bids”(ibid.).
The announcement is made in the morning and evening,when the “workmen set out and return home,” and is only
made for the sale of land, not for the sale of chattels, nor, if
the sale is for urgent purposes, such as maintenance, funeral
expenses, or polltax (Ket. 100b and Codes). The property issold to the person paying the highest price beyond the appraised value or – if there be no one to raise the price – to theperson paying the appraised value. The purchaser is given a
shetar hakhrazah or iggeret bikkoret (“letter of examination,”
Ket. 99b and see Rashi ad loc.; cf. also Tosefot Yom Tov, Ket.
11:5; for the text see Sefer ha-Terumot, 3:2; Beit Yosef ḥ M 103:17;
cf. also other interpretations in A rukh ha-Shalem, S.V. iggeret
bikkoret). The creditor is given a preferential right of acquiring the property for himself if no one offers more than theappraised value or if he equals any other offers (Sh. Ar., ḥ M
103:1). In this event the creditor is given a shetar horadah (i.e.,he “goes down” to the property, it is “appraised” to him; forthe text see Tur ḥ M 103:17 where it is called a shetar shuma;
cf. BM 16b, where it is called a shetar aḥ aletata Yad, Malveh,
22:10–11) where it is also called a shetar horadah but a different
version of the text is given; see also the standard commentaries and Gulak, ibid.).
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

One opinion is that once the adrakhta has reached thehands of the creditor, he may also enjoy the fruits of the property, but another opinion is that he may do so only after theappraisement and the announcement (BM 35b) – the halakhah
was decided in accordance with the latter view (Malveh, 22:12).
The execution proceedings are completed when the property
is sold and the proceeds paid to the creditor or the property
itself transferred to him.
Restoration of Property Transferred to the Creditor
In strict law the creditor to whom the debtor’s land is transferred is not thereafter obliged to return the land if the debtor
subsequently acquired the means to repay the debt in cash;
but the scholars enacted, in a takkanah referred to in the Talmud as shuma hadar (BM 16b and Codes; cf. Gulak, Ha-Hiyyuv ve-Shi’budav, 125, on the use of the term shuma in thisconnection), that this should be done for the sake of “Do what
is right and good in the sight of the Lord” (Deut. 6:18 and see*Takkanot). Chattels recovered by the creditor, however, are
not returnable to the debtor (Rema ḥ M 103:9). According to
one view, land is returnable to the debtor if he repays the debt
within 12 months but the halakhah was decided according to
the view that land is always returnable to the debtor (i.e., upon
repayment of the debt, BM 16b. and 35a, Codes). Land recovered by the creditor and then sold by him, or given in gift, or
inherited upon his death, is however not returnable to thedebtor (ibid.). According to some scholars, the land must always be returned to a debtor, even if given by him voluntarily
in satisfaction of the debt and not as a result of execution proceedings; but other scholars hold that his voluntary surrenderof the land is a bar to its ever being returned to him against
payment of the debt (ibid.). Similarly, a stipulation between
the creditor and debtor and effected by way of a formal kinyan (see *Acquisition, Modes of), to the effect that the former
shall not be obliged to return the land to the latter, holds goodeven when the land is turned over to the creditor as a resultof execution proceedings (Sh. Ar., ḥ M 103:9).
Categories of Assets for Recovery of Debt
If the debtor owns cash (coins), chattels, and land, he must
pay in cash and cannot refer the creditor to other property(Sh. Ar., ḥ M 101:1); if the debtor wishes to pay in cash but thecreditor wants land or chattels, some scholars give the creditor
the right to choose, but the halakhah was decided according
to the view that the choice is the debtor’s (Tur and Sh. Ar., ḥ M
101:3). If the debtor owns land only, the creditor may refuse
to accept it and choose to wait until the debtor is able to pay
him in cash (ḥ M 101:4). If the debtor has chattels and land but
no cash, the creditor recovers payment out of the chattels, but
the debtor has the right to choose the chattels for this purpose(ḥ M 101:2); the creditor cannot demand land if the debtor offers chattels in payment.
If the debtor has no chattels or such chattels do not satisfy
the debt, payment is extracted from his land (Malveh 22:4 andḥ M 101:10) and – when such land consists of fields of different quality – in this order: a debt arising from tort is satisfied

593

execution“Arrangement” for the Benefit of Impoverished Debtors(siddur le-ba’al ḥ ov). The Pentateuch lays down various provisions concerning the taking of a pledge from a borrower andthe duty to restore it in case the borrower is impoverished andrequires the pledge for the elementary necessities of life. The
scholars have interpreted these laws as applying to the taking
of a pledge other than at the time of the loan and for purposesof securing the loan, but not when it is taken in satisfactionof the loan (see *Pledge). The scholars laid down that when
the creditor seeks to levy on the debtor’s property – i.e., afterdue date of payment and in satisfaction of the debt – certain
property serving the debtor’s elementary needs is to be entirely beyond the reach of the levy. This exclusion of a part ofthe debtor’s property from the creditor’s grasp is termed mesaredin le-va’al ḥ ov; i.e., an assessment is made of how much toleave the debtor for his vital necessities (Rashi, BM 113b), or an“arrangement” is made for his necessities, as laid down by thescholars (Rashi to Ned. 65b); the version of some scholars ismesaredin le-va’al ḥ ov, from the word ‫ = שָׂ ִריד‬a remnant, i.e.,leaving the debtor a shred or remnant (Rashi, 113b).
The basic idea of an “arrangement” is found in a baraita
which lays down that a creditor may demand that an expensive suit of clothing belonging to the debtor be sold in satisfaction of the debt, but the latter must be left with some otherordinary clothing. In the opinion of R. Ishmael and R. Akiva,“all Israelites are entitled to the same robe,” and even an expensive suit must be left to the debtor (BM 113b). However, thedetailed laws of “arrangement” laid down by Judah ha-Nasi in
the Mishnah (Ar. 6:3), relate only to *arakhin obligations (tothe Temple) and not ordinary debts and only in the baraita
cited is mention made of “arrangement” in relation to all debts(BM 113b). According to some of the amoraim, no “arrangement” of this nature is ever made (BM 114a) and this view isfollowed by some of the posekim (Sefer ha-Yashar, Nov. no.

602), but the majority of the posekim confirm the institution(Yad, Malveh, 1:7; 2:1–2; Sh. Ar., ḥ M 97:6ff, 23). There is also
an opinion that “arrangement” is only made in the case of adebt originating from loan (and not, for example, from hire;ḥ M 97:29; Arukh ha-Shulḥ an 97:35).
Within the framework of the arrangement the debtor isleft with the following: food for a period of 30 days – according to the normal requirements of the average townsman, eventhough the debtor may have lived as a pauper; clothing for aperiod of 12 months (“he does not require to wear silken apparel or a head-covering of gold – these shall be taken from
him and he shall be given what is due to him”; see above); a
bed and other requirements for sleeping; essential home furniture, such as a table and chair (Arukh ha-Shulḥ an 97:26); hisshoes; an artisan is left with two of each kind of tool used byhim (Yad, Malveh 1:7 and ḥ M 97:23); according to R. Eliezer
a farmer is left with a pair of working animals, and the ownerof an ass or a boat is left with the ass or boat respectively, but
the majority opinion of the scholars, according to which the
halakhah was decided, is that these are regular assets and not
artisans’ utensils (Ar. 23b; and Codes). The debtor retains his*tefillin but not his books (ibid.), but some scholars say that if
the debtor is a talmid ḥ akham, his books are not taken fromhim (the opinion of Judah Barzillai, quoted in Sefer ha-Terumot 1:1,8). An interesting innovation is the decision of Moses*Sofer (at the beginning of 19t century) that a shopkeeper’s
stock of goods is not to be sold in execution, “since in thesetimes the essence of their livelihood is to buy and sell on
credit, it would amount to taking their lives in pledge (Deut.
24:6) if their stock is taken from their shops; therefore thepractice is to take payment in installments at fixed times …
so that the shopkeeper shall not fail completely” (Nov. Hatam Sofer ḥ M 97).
The laws of the “arrangement” are not concerned with
the needs of the debtor’s wife and children, even though they
are the debtor’s responsibility (Ar. 6:3f., and Codes). Hai Gaon
held the view, however, that the debtor’s needs for his household and children, for whose maintenance he is responsible,
come within the arrangement – and this was the practice in
Kairouan (see Elon, Ḥ erut ha-Perat 47, n. 43). The creditor
does not, however – but for an entirely different reason – levy
payment on the clothing of the debtor’s wife and children,
even if it was bought by the debtor with his own money. In
the opinion of some of the posekim, this includes their Sabbath and festival garments, even if they are very expensive. The
reason is that it is presumed that such garments are given by
the debtor to his wife and children with the intention that thegarments become their own property and the law precludes
the creditor from levying payment on chattels that have passedout of the debtor’s ownership (Yad, Malveh, 1:5; ḥ M 97:25,26
and Isserles ad loc; and see *Lien). Some scholars hold, on thestrength of this view, that a wife’s jewelry given to her by herhusband, the debtor, is also excluded from the creditor’s levy
(and see Sma, ḥ M 97 n. 62). Garments or jewelry owned by
the debtor’s wife prior to their marriage or acquired thereaf-

594

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6from the idit or best land; a wife’s jointure (Ketubbah) fromthe zibburit (the poorest or worst land); and all other obligations from the beinonit or land of medium quality (Git. 48b;
Yad, Malveh 19:1; ḥ M 102:1). In strict law, according to somescholars, all obligations except those in tort can be satisfied
from the zibburit, but the scholars prescribed that all obligations except for the wife’s jointure should be satisfied from thebeinonit so as not to close the door before a borrower; other
scholars hold the opinion that in strict law, all obligations
except those in tort and the wife’s jointure must be satisfied
from the beinonit (Git. 49b and Codes; TJ, Git. 5:1,26c; and see
above entry into the debtor’s home; above, on the question oflevying payment on chattels or land sold by the debtor to athird party see *Lien).
In many places it was customarily stipulated in bondagreements that the debtor had to pay the debt in cash, without putting the creditor to the trouble of execution proceedings and for this purpose the debtor was obliged personallyto deal with the sale of his property and to pay the creditor incash (Resp. Rashba, quoted in Beit Yosef ḥ M 101:5).

execution
ter with her own private funds, as well as garments or jewelry
expressly purchased by the husband for his wife, are clearlyexcluded from the levy (ḥ M 97:26 and Sma 63).
Plurality of Creditors – Preferential Rights
In the case of a written obligation (shetar or deed), the creditor
in whose favor the obligation was first established takes preference in levying payment on the debtor’s land, whether stillin the latter’s possession (i.e., the free property) or whether
already acquired from the debtor by a third party (i.e., “encumbered and alienated” property; Ket. 94a; Yad, Malveh,
20:1; Sh. Ar., ḥ M 104:1). This preferential right upon recovery
of a debt is the result of an attitude of Jewish law which gives
the creditor, upon the creation of the debt and over and above
his personal right of recourse against the debtor, a lien on thelatter’s land. This lien, which is in the nature of a right, takes
precedence over any similar right acquired by a subsequentcreditor. If a later creditor forestalls an earlier one in levying
on the debtor’s land, some scholars hold that what he succeeds
in recovering cannot be taken from him by an earlier creditor despite the right of a creditor by deed to seize a debtor’s“encumbered and alienated” assets – since a later creditor stilltakes precedence over a regular purchaser, so that “the door
shall not be bolted before a borrower” (Ket. 94a and Tos. to
ibid.). Other scholars (ibid), followed by the majority of theposekim (Alfasi and Asheri to Ket. 94a; and Codes), hold thatin these circumstances the levy of the later creditor is not valid
and the earlier creditor may seize from the later one whatever
the later may have recovered. However, if the later creditor
forestalls the earlier one and levies on the beinonit land, but
leaves the debtor with zibburit, the levy will be valid since theearlier creditor is still able to recover his debt from the zibburit (Sh. Ar., ḥ M 104:1).
So far as the debtor’s chattels are concerned, the earlier
creditor takes no precedence in recovering his debt from suchchattels, since there is no lien over movable property. In thecase of two creditors simultaneously claiming the debtor’schattels, some scholars hold that the earlier creditor takes precedence but the majority opinion of the posekim is that there
is no preferential right and the debtor’s assets are shared between the two creditors (see below; Ket. 94a; and Codes). Evenin respect of land there is no preferential right unless the land
was in the debtor’s possession prior to establishment of thedebt; and if the debtor, at the time the debt was established,charges in favor of two or more creditors any land which hemay acquire in the future (see *Lien), the earlier creditor will
have no preferential right in respect of such land, since when
the debtor acquires the land it is automatically charged in favor of both creditors (BB 157b; and Codes).
In the case of a mere oral obligation there is no preferential right between creditors, neither over land nor chattels, and two creditors seeking to levy payment at the sametime must share the debtor’s property (Rif. Resp. no. 197; seealso Sma to Sh. Ar., ḥ M 104 no. 3 and 31). According to somescholars, however, there is an order of preference in respect
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6of land in the debtor’s possession (ḥ M 104:13 and Sma), evenin the case of oral debt.
The posekim dispute the method of dividing the debtor’s
property amongst his creditors when there is no preferential
right. One opinion is that each creditor takes a share of theproperty in proportion to the size of his debt, since it would
be inequitable to divide the property equally in proportion to
the number of creditors (Rabennu Hananel, in Tur ḥ M 104:11;
Yad, Malveh 20:4 quoting the Geonim); whereas others holdthat the debtor’s property is shared equally amongst the creditors according to their number, provided that no creditor receives more than the due amount of his debt, since the small
creditor is thereby afforded greater protection (Ket. 94a; Alfasi
and Rashi ad loc.; and Codes).
Preferential Rights and Insolvency
A consequence of the law of preference as described aboveis that Jewish law does not recognize some of the laws of insolvency customary in other legal systems. Thus, it does notrecognize a concurrence with regard to division of an insolvent estate, whereby all the debtor’s assets – save for thosespecifically charged in favor of a particular creditor or creditors – are divided among his creditors on a concurrent basis
in proportion to the size of each creditor’s claim. Because of
the lien over the debtor’s land afforded in Jewish law to eachof the creditors, the order of precedence in recovering a debt
follows the order of the establishment of the various liens, insimilar manner to the order of preference in other legal systems regarding specifically charged assets. Even in cases where
there is no prescribed order of preference, for example, in respect of the debtor’s chattels or land acquired by him after theestablishment of the debt, the assets are distributed amongst
the creditors in proportion to the number of creditors and not
to the size of each claim.
In post-talmudic times the law was supplemented, within
the above-mentioned framework, by a number of rules very
similar to the familiar insolvency laws. Some of these rules
were aimed at protecting all the creditors. Thus, for example,
it was laid down that in cases where the law afforded no preferential right, a proportional share of the debtor’s estate had
to be reserved for those creditors who had not yet claimed
repayment and even for those creditors holding claims thatwere not yet due for payment. (Teshuvot Maimoniyyot, Mishp.
no. 41; Rashba, Resp. vol. 1, no. 1111; Keẓ ot ha-Ḥ oshen ḥ M 104,s.s. 2). It also became customary to announce in public thatanyone failing to lodge his claim against a particular insolvent within a specified period would lose his right (Rashba,
Resp. vol. 1, no. 893).
In different periods, when economic crises led to an increase in cases of insolvency, various takkanot were enacted todeal with the situation (see Elon, Ḥ erut ha-Perat 172ff.). These
provided for the appointment of a trustee (ne’eman) over theproperty of an insolvent (a bore’aḥ or “fugitive” as he is calledin the halakhic literature and takkanot of Poland, Germany,and Lithuania in the 17t and 18t centuries: see Elon, Ḥ erut ha-595

execution
Perat 180, no. 265). The trustee’s task was to collect and receive
all the debtor’s property – which thus became vested in him –and to sell the same and distribute the proceeds amongst thecreditors; the takkanot prescribed a punishment of a year’s imprisonment for a debtor who willfully squandered his property, and could not pay his debts (Halpern, Pinkas Takk. 112,
128; Elon, Ḥ erut ha-Perat 180–3).

is conditional upon the prior fulfillment of three requirements
by the creditor: (1) probate of the bond of indebtedness heldby him; (2) proof that the debtor is abroad and is not available
to face trial; and (3) proof that the assets on which it is sought
to levy payment belong to the debtor (Malveh 13:2; ḥ M 106:2).
In order to obviate the difficulties attending an execution in
the debtor’s absence, the creditor may request the court to restrain the debtor from leaving the country unless he provides asurety for the payment of the debt (Sh. Ar., ḥ M 73:10; see also
Elon, Ḥ erut ha-Perat 218, n. 409; PDR 2:65ff.).

Execution in the Absence of the Debtor
The scholars of the Talmud express conflicting opinions on thequestion of levying payment on the debtor’s property when heis absent and there is no reasonable prospect of reaching him.
One opinion is that in these circumstances, payment is notlevied, even if the creditor should take an oath that the debt
has not yet been paid; another opinion is that a debt is not recovered in the debtor’s absence except with regard to a debt on
which interest is payable; third opinion is that payment is notlevied unless the debtor had faced trial and thereafter taken
flight; a further view is that payment is levied in the debtor’sabsence and the possibility that he may have paid the debt
and received a release from his bond is disregarded, in orderthat “a person shall not take his neighbor’s money and thengo and sit abroad, which would cause the door to be bolted
before borrowers” (Ket. 88a, TJ, Ket. 9:9,33b, 8). Some of theposekim follow the third of these opinions (Hai Gaon, quoted
in Sefer ha-Terumot, 15:1; Rabbenu Ḥ ananel, quoted by Alfasi,
Asheri, and in Tos. to Ket. 88a); the majority of the posekim,
however, hold the opinion that payment is levied in the debtor’s absence, on both his land and chattels, after the creditor
has presented his bond of indebtedness and taken an oaththat the debt had not yet been paid (Alfasi and Asheri, Ket.
88a; Yad, Malveh, 13:1; Sh. Ar., ḥ M 106:1). In the event that the
debtor goes abroad before the debt falls due for payment, somescholars hold that by virtue of the presumption that no person pays a debt before its due date, the creditor may levy payment without taking the oath of non-payment – even though
the debt may meanwhile have fallen due – since the fact thatthe creditor holds the bond of indebtedness obviates the fearthat the debtor may meanwhile have paid the debt throughan agent. Other scholars hold that in these circumstances thecreditor is required to take the prescribed oath just becauseof the fear that the debtor may have paid the debt through anagent (Sefer ah-Terumot, 15:1; Tur, ḥ M 106:3).
At no time is payment levied in the debtor’s absence, unless the latter cannot be reached by an agent in a return journey lasting not more than 30 days (some scholars fix a longer
and others a shorter period); if the debtor is somewhere where
he can be reached in less than the stated period, the court will
dispatch an agent to notify the debtor of the proposed levy on
his assets. The expenses involved are paid by the creditor, butthese may be recovered in turn from the debtor (Yad, Malveh,
13:1 and ḥ M 106:1); expenses incurred by the creditor for his
own benefit, such as those connected with the issue of a writof adrakhta, etc. are not recoverable from the debtor (Sma n.
2 and Siftei Kohen ḥ M 106). Execution in the debtor’s absence

Impoverished Debtors and the Plea of Ein li“It is the law of the Torah that when the lender comes to recover payment of the debt, and it is found that the borrower
has property, then an assessment [“arrangement”] for his vitalneeds is made and the remainder is given to his creditor …;
if it is found that the debtor has no property, or that he only
has objects which fall within the assessment – the debtor isallowed to go his way (and he is not imprisoned, neither is heasked to produce evidence that he is a pauper, nor is an oathtaken from him in the manner that an idolator is adjudged,
as it is written: ‘you shall not be as a creditor unto him.’ ” (Yad,Malveh, 2:1). This was the law as it prevailed until geonic times.
The advent of the geonic period was accompanied by materialchanges in the economic life of Babylonian Jewry. Commerce,
extending to the North African and other countries, came increasingly to replace agriculture and the crafts as the mainstay of Jewish existence. Whereas formerly loans were taken
primarily for the borrower’s daily needs, they now came to be
employed mainly for profit-making purposes, and the growing
capital flow and development of external trade made it difficult to keep a check on the assets of a debtor, all of which encouraged the phenomenon of concealing assets. In the courseof time this led to the adoption of far-reaching changes in themeans of recovering a debt (see above; and also Imprisonment
for *Debt.). These changes only partially asserted themselvesin the geonic period, but two developments from this period
may be mentioned, both aimed at a more effective process ofdebt recovery from a debtor pleading a lack of means.
One development was to place the debtor under a strict
ban for a predetermined period, as a means of compelling
payment. Thus it was decided by Hai Gaon, the first to mention this practice, that because of the adoption of various
subterfuges by people of means seeking to evade payment of
their debts – including those falsely swearing to their lack ofmeans – any debtor pleading a lack of means to pay a debt
shall have the ban imposed on him for a period of 90 days,
during which time he is “severed” from Israel – so as to induce
the disclosure of his assets and payment of the debt. Uponthe expiry of this period he is made to take an oath that hehas no means (for the terms of the oath, see below). Only adebtor who is reputed to be a pauper and known as such by
the people is exempt from the ban when pleading no meansof paying his debt (see A. Harkavy, Zikkaron la-Rishonim, no.
182). The ban for 90 days is also mentioned in the Talmud (BK

596

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

execution
112b), but there it is imposed on a debtor who has means andpleads in court that the bond of indebtedness is a forgery; if,
after being given a respite in order to prove his plea, he fails to
appear in court, the ban will be imposed on him for 90 days
and thereafter an adrakhta issued on his assets. This drastic
innovation was not generally accepted as part of Jewish law. It
was rejected by Alfasi and Raviah as contrary to the law (theirstatements quoted by way of the Mordecai in Baḥ ḥ M 99:5)
and it is not mentioned at all by later posekim. Only in the 16tand 17t centuries is it mentioned again – in various communal takkanot – as the imposition of a ban for a period of threedays, thirty days, etc., with reference to a debtor pleading that
he has no means (see Elon, Ḥ erut ha-Perat 44, n. 25).
A second development in the geonic period toward
more efficient debt collection was a takkanah providing forthe administration of the oath of ein li (“I have no means”) or
shevu’at ha-ḥ ashad (oath taken when “suspected” of having
means) to a debtor pleading a lack of means to repay his debt:“After the redaction of the Gemara, when the early geonim
saw the swindlers increase in number and the door bolted
before a borrower, they regulated that a solemn oath – having the stringency of biblical law – be taken from a borrower
to the effect that he has nothing beyond the assessment thatis made for him and that he has not concealed anything withothers and has given no returnable gifts; the oath shall include
that whatever he may earn or that may come into his hand or
possession, in any manner whatever, shall not be used at all tofeed or clothe either his wife or children or be given to anyone
as a gift, save that he shall take from it sustenance for 30 days
and raiment for 12 months – such as is due to him; neither
the sustenance of gluttons nor of the nobility nor the raimentof high officials, but such as he has accustomed to – and theremainder he shall give to his creditors, in due order of preference, until the whole of his debt is collected” (Yad, Malveh,
2:2). Unlike the case of the ban imposed for 90 days, the pauper was also subjected to this oath, but was later exemptedfrom it by Maimonides, on the grounds that the oath was designed “to deal with swindlers and not with those generally
accepted to be paupers” (Yad, Malveh, 2:4). The administration of this oath, as qualified by Maimonides, was acceptedby the posekim (Tur and Sh. Ar., ḥ M 99:4).
A similar oath can be traced in the legal systems of various European countries, commencing from the 12t century
onward; thus for example, in the Offenbarungseid of German
and Austrian law, the debtor is also committed to make over
all his future earnings to his creditor (see Elon, Ḥ erut haPerat 49, n. 52).
The underlying purport of the Jewish laws of execution
is to ensure the existence of an effective debt-collection procedure, so as not to “bolt the door before a borrower,” while
maintaining adequate safeguards against the violation of a
debtor’s personal freedom and dignity. The pursuit of this
twofold objective has ensured that the laws of execution at all
times recognize a material distinction between a genuinely
impoverished debtor and a debtor of means seeking to evade

In the State of Israel
The laws and proceedings for the execution of judgments in
the State of Israel in general, particularly with respect to theimprisonment of debtors, were significantly changed by theSupreme Court’s decision in the Perah case (HCJ 5304/92,
Perah v. Minister of Justice, 47(4) PD 715). This decision, written by the deputy-president of the Court (Justice MenachemElon), relied on the position adopted by Jewish law regarding
imprisonment for the enforcement of debts. The Perah organization had petitioned the court to nullify one of the regulations that allowed for the excessively easy imprisonment ofdebtors, without the debtor even having to be brought before
the head of the Execution of Judgments Office.
The decision begins by noting that “the central issue of
this complaint is the fundamental right of a person to freedom
and dignity in the context of imprisonment for debt.” In theruling, Justice Elon presents a detailed description of the position of Jewish law and its development as attested by a broad
range of sources dealing with the execution of judgments ingeneral, and imprisonment for debt in particular, from thebiblical era through the contemporary period. In focusing on
the detailed process that lead to the Knesset enacting the Execution of Judgments Law, he noted that support for the proposed bill was based on principles of Jewish law that reject theview that collection measures also serve as a punishment of
the debtor. Justice Elon also relied on the fact that the Basic
Law: Human Dignity and Liberty establishes the values of theState of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.
In wake of this decision, a number of amendments weremade to the Execution of Judgments Law, allowing imprisonment for debt only in certain particular instances. (See also
the detailed discussion of the decision in the entry *Imprisonment for Debt.)
The Negola decision (LCA 7700/95, Negola v. Hazan, 50(1) PD 338) was another Supreme Court decision in which the
Court relied upon the “ancient social sources of Jewish law”
regarding the rules of execution of judgments. In that case, inthe framework of proceedings to enforce collection of a debt,
attachment proceedings were instituted for the sale of the petitioners/debtor’s residential apartment, and an alternative arrangement was established in accordance with the provisionsof the Execution of Judgments Law. These provisions require
that, prior to ordering the sale of a residential apartment, thehead of the Execution of Judgments Office must be shown that“the debtor and his family members who live with him will
have a reasonable place to live, or that there is an alternative
arrangement for them.” Justice Strassbourg-Cohen’s decision
discusses the nature of such an “alternative arrangement,” andanalyzes in detail the criteria and the considerations for striking a balance between the creditor’s right to collect his debt,
on the one hand, and the special personal circumstances of

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6597

fulfillment of his obligations towards the creditor, a distinction lucidly enunciated in the statements of Maimonides already cited.

[Menachem Elon]exempla of the rabbis
the creditors, on the other. Justice Tirkel added that the alternative residence must also be appropriate in terms of the timethat the debtor is able to stay there. Accordingly, if the debtor
had been entitled to live his entire life in the apartment that
he owned, he is entitled to an alternative arrangement that assure him a lifelong residence. This determination stems fromthe interpretation of the law in light of its purpose – namely,that it mandates the protection of the debtor’s basic living
needs, as expressed in the prohibition against attaching partof a debtor’s salary, his clothing, beds, tools, etc. Judge Tirkel
pointed out that this arrangement is based on ancient principles of social welfare within Jewish law: “No man shall takethe mill or the upper millstone to pledge; for he takes a man’slife to pledge,” (Deut 24:6); and “And if he be a poor man, thoushall not sleep with his pledge, you shall surely return him thepledge when the sun goes down, that he may sleep in his garment” (Deut 24:12–13), these being concepts that continued todevelop over generations. Justice Tal concurred with the opinions of Justices Strassbourg-Cohen and Turkel, but added thatin certain cases, where “the debtor … lives in a house that hehad built for himself with the money of others,” the verse “hewho builds his house with unfairness and his upper chamberswith injustice” (Jer 22:13) is applicable and he is not entitledto the same protection.
Extensive use of Jewish law was made in this regard ina decision of the Petah Tikvah Magistrate’s Court regarding
the imposition of liens on a debtor’s assets. The Court reliedon the writings of the Rosh (Piskei Ha-Rosh, BK 1.5) and of
Rabbi Israel Isserlein (Terumat ha-Deshen, §305), from which
it emerged that, prior to imposing a temporary lien on assets in order to prevent the debtor from hiding them, there
must also be proof of the grounds of the action, and it must
be shown that there is a likelihood that the defendant will attempt to hide these assets. The reason is that the purpose of
imposing a lien on the assets is not to punish the defendant,
but to prevent a situation which would encumber enforcement of the judgment (Maharshal, Yam Shel Shlomo, BK 1.20;
Civil Application 4804/02, NMC v. Ben Chalouche, Registrar
Zvi Weitzmann). The same Court also discussed the issue ofwhat situation is considered to be one that encumbers theexecution of judgment and concluded, on the basis of Jewish
legal sources (Sh. Ar., HM, 73.10; Shakh on Shulhan Arukh,
op.cit.; Maharshal, op. cit.), that, in order to obtain temporary relief, it is necessary to prove an active attempt on thepart of the defendant to conceal his assets and to frustrate
the execution of a judgment, and it is not sufficient to prove
his inability to discharge the debt. (Civil Application 2264/04,
Rosenthal v. Shinterko).
Another decision handed down by the same court,
also dealing with liens, reviewed the developments in Jewish law regarding the ability to enter a debtor’s house to collect a debt, in accordance with the Perah decision, while taking care to maintain the debtor’s dignity and not to harmhim. In light of this review, the Court examined the properbalance between the defendant’s rights and the plaintiff ’srights, and the degree of harm that can legitimately be caused
to the defendant in order to secure the plaintiff ’s rights(Civil Petition 2621/04, Shinterko v. Rosenthal, Judge Zvi
Weitzmann).
Regarding this matter, see also FF 24891/03, A.N. v. A.T.;
Civil Application 743/02 G.A. v. G.A., regarding an injunction against leaving the country; Execution of Judgment File
17-09642-96-8 – re foreclosure on a secured asset.
Concerning the use of Jewish law, see also Civil Petition 18702/02 Polaski v. Galaxy Electronics (Haifa District
Court, Judge Yakovshvili), regarding an arrangement of the
debtor’s assets and a lien on sacred objects; and 3403/01 Ziva
v. Yaakov, 5761(1) PDM, 756 (Jerusalem District Court, Judge
Moshe Drori), regarding the execution of an act without asignature of the creditor.)

598

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Menachem Elon (2nd ed.)]Bibliography: M. Bloch, Die Civilprocess-Ordnung nach mosaiich-rabbinischen Rechte (1882), 90–106; Gulak, Yesodei, 107–9; 4(1922), 184–96; Gulak, Oẓ ar, 314–36; idem, Toledot ha-Mishpat be-Yisrael bi-Tekufat ha-Talmud, I (1939) (Ha-Hiyyuv ve-Shi’budav), 118–40;
Herzog, Instit 1 (1936) 4f; 386; S.J. Zevin, in: Sinai, 3 (1938),55–71, 246;
ET, 5 (1953), 92–132; 9 (1959), 143–55; B. Cohen, in: Louis Ginsberg
Jubilee Volume (1945), 113–32, republished in his Jewish and Roman
Law (1966), 159–78; addenda ibid. 772–75. Add. Bibliography:
M. Elon, Kevod ha-Adam ve-Ḥ eruto be-Darkei ha-Hoẓ a’ah la-Po’al(2000), idem, Ha-Mishpat ha-Ivri (1988), I:105, 194, 486, 515, 535,
601, 633; 2:885, 1284f; 3:1319, 1370f; idem, Jewish Law (1994), 1:117, 218;
2:591, 627, 651f, 744, 784; 3:1079, 1533f., 1576, 1635; ibid., Jewish Law(Cases and Materials) (1999), 455–75; M. Elon and B. Lifshitz, Mafte’aḥ
ha-She’elot ve-ha-Teshuvot shel Ḥ akhmei Sefarad u-Ẓ efon Afrikah(1986), (1), 89–103; B. Lifshitz and E. Shohetman, Mafte’aḥ ha-She’elot
ve-ha-Teshuvot shel Ḥ akhmei Ashkenaz, Ẓ arefat ve-Italyah (1997),
61–67.

EXEMPLA OF THE RABBIS, a collection of more than 300
Hebrew stories – the largest collection of its kind compiled in
the Middle Ages – so entitled by M. Gaster, who discovered
them in manuscript and published them (1924). Most of thestories, especially in the beginning of the book, are similar to,or identical with, those in the talmudic-midrashic literature,
although in the latter part, there are some longer, more developed, stories, not found in the Talmud or Midrash. While themanuscript is undoubtedly of medieval times, Gaster maintains that the collection itself is a very early one, predating the
Talmud. Furthermore, he tries to prove that for their stories
the talmudic sages did not use oral sources, but rather a narrative Hebrew literature, of which the only extant specimen
is this collection. This he concludes on the basis of the organization of the work in accordance with literary principles.
No proof, however, exists for Gaster’s conclusions. It is much
more logical to suppose that the compiler of the Exempla collected stories from the talmudic-midrashic literature, adding
to them medieval stories, with which he became acquainted
through oral or written sources. All this material he organized together according to strict literary principles. The existence of two other medieval compilations of this sort –*Mi-exemplum

EXEMPLUM, legend or anecdote from the lives of the sages
to suggest emulation as instruction. In medieval Hebrew literature it is very difficult to distinguish between the legend
and *hagiography, historical fiction, and various kinds of fables. The exemplum is not defined by its own, intrinsic literarycharacter, but rather by the intent of the author which is notalways known and not always clearly expressed in the story.
An anecdote is an exemplum only if it is known that its purpose was to serve as an ethical model to be followed. To discover this purpose, however, is not always possible.
Talmudic-midrashic literature, for example, preserved
hundreds of stories and anecdotes describing the lives of thetannaim and the amoraim. Many of these were related by pupils in admiration of their teachers after the latter’s death;others out of pure historical interest to preserve the fame of
the great rabbis for posterity. The rabbis themselves told autobiographical anecdotes and some parables served only toprove a halakhic or midrashic point. The Middle Ages usedthe corpus of these stories, whatever the original character or
intent of the tales, as exempla: that is to say, a pious Jew had
to learn how the old sages behaved so that he might emulatethem and achieve the same high moral and religious standards. In the late Middle Ages, this process of turning biographies and hagiographies into exempla continued. In the
16t century, the pupils of the kabbalist Isaac *Luria of Safed
evolved a cycle of hagiographies about him which became very
popular in Eastern Europe in the 17t and 18t centuries, andwere included in many ethical and kabbalistic works. When

the Ḥ asidim evolved their own cycle of legends around theirleader *Israel Baal Shem Tov, they used many of the tales woven around Luria, giving them a sometimes factual basis. It isevident, therefore, that both in fact and in popular tradition
the Baal Shem Tov used legends about Luria as exempla foremulation, or at least he was described by his pupils as following in the ways of Luria. Medieval literature produced afew works which used talmudic-midrashic narrative materialas exempla for their own generations. This was the purposeof collections like The *Exempla of the Rabbis, a large collection of talmudic stories and medieval additions, and Sefer haMa’asiyyot of R. *Nissim of Kairouan. The latter was originally
written in Arabic, in order that the general public, not familiar with talmudic literature, could read the stories and benefit
from them. Another example is the early *Midrash Aseret haDibberot (see *Fiction, the Hebrew Story in the Middle Ages).
Most of the stories included in these works, especially in thelast one, are not exempla in the ordinary sense. Though theirintention is to teach ethical and religious behavior to the average Jew, the examples they set forth are often so extreme thatno one would be expected to follow their teachings exactly.
In Midrash Aseret ha-Dibberot, for instance, a story whichis intended to demonstrate the importance of observing the
Sabbath relates how a cow that had belonged to a Jew refused
to work on the Sabbath, and only when the Jew explained tothe cow that gentiles may work on the Sabbath did the animal comply. Another story illustrates the commandment not
to give a false oath in the name of God. It describes the misfortunes which befell a man who refused to swear under any
circumstances, even to the truth. R. Nissim, in his collection,tells the story of a man who, using most of his income to help
the poor, was told by Heaven that he still was not perfect. He
then sold his wife into slavery and gave the money to the poor.
These tales have an extreme, unrealistic standard of moral behavior which is more closely connected with Muslim fanatic
sects than with talmudic Jewish ethics. They are exempla in
the sense that they demonstrate the extent to which a saintly
person has gone in order to fulfill one of the commandments;
they are not exempla intended to teach moderate, everyday
behavior to the wider public.
A large body of exempla, short anecdotes, and more developed stories was introduced into Hebrew literature in Spain
through Arabic sources, and was included in Jewish philosophical and ethical-philosophical works, as well as in morenarrative form in the *maqamat and romances of the time.
Most of these exempla are of Indian origin, transmitted, by
way of Persian and Arabic literature, into Jewish works. They
are models of wisdom and not only of ethics. There is also astrong Sufi element in those found in the works of *Baḥ ya ibn
Paquda or Shem Tov ibn *Falaquera. Some medieval writings
served as exempla without having been written for that purpose, specifically the Jewish martyrologies; “The Ten Martyrs”(A. Jellinek, Beit ha-Midrash, 2 (19382), 64–72, under the title
Midrash Elleh Ezkerah), a medieval work describing the deathof the *Ten Martyrs in Roman time, became a model of be-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6599

drash Aseret ha-Dibberot and Rabbenu *Nissim of Kairouan’sSefer ha-Ma’asiyyot (which was written in Arabic) – seems tocorroborate the theory that Gaster’s manuscript belongs toa medieval tradition, according to which later authors tried
to provide their contemporaries with a selection of narrative
material in the talmudic-midrashic literature. Although theexact date of this collection is unknown, it may be assumed
that it was not compiled before the 11t or the 12t century. Literarily the collection presents a unified structure, in that every
story opens with either Ma’aseh (“A story”) or Tanu rabbanan(“The sages taught”). More important, however, is the purposeful arrangement of the stories: each is related, in content
and ideas, with those preceding and following it, thus forming an interconnected chain of stories. Abraham’s search forthe true God, for instance, is preceded by the story of his destruction of the idols and subsequent trial by Nimrod and isfollowed by the account of Hadrian’s attempt to present himself as a god. The book, a collection of stories of many types,
contains only a few which properly belong to the literary typeknown as the *exemplum.
See also *Fiction, the Hebrew Story in the Middle Ages.
Bibliography: M. Gaster, The Exempla of the Rabbis (1924,
repr. 1968). Add. Bibliography: J. Dan, Ha-Sippur ha-Ivri biYemei ha-Beinayim: Iyyunim be-Yoldotav (1974); A. Alba, Cuentos delos rabinos (1991).
[Joseph Dan]

exeterhavior for Jews in the Middle Ages. The corpus of historicalchronicles describing the massacres in Germany and northern France during the Crusades, though written primarily ashistorical works, served for centuries as exempla to any Jewish community under threat of conversion or death. Contemporaries of the expulsion from Spain repeatedly complain of
those who did not follow the example set by their Ashkenazi
brothers during the Crusades, but preferred conversion to exile. History itself, or historical chronicles, served in this caseas exempla in the full sense of the term.
The largest body of exempla in medieval Hebrew literature is to be found in Sefer Ḥ asidim (see bibliography), themain ethical work of the *Ḥ asidei Ashkenaz in the 12t and13t centuries. The book includes hundreds of exempla; however, where generally the exempla tend to specify men whose
undoubted virtue should prompt emulation of their deeds,
the exempla in Sefer Ḥ asidim are always anonymous. Where
the name is mentioned (e.g., “a certain Joseph or Mordecai”),
it has no associative meaning. Most of the exempla start with:“There was a Jew who…” or “It is told about a Ḥ asid who…”
The tendency toward anonymity was part of the ethical ideology of *Judah he-Ḥ asid, the author of most of the book. The
ideology based itself on the concept that if great deeds are told
about a person, he, or his family, might take sinful pride in
the fact (pride being regarded by the Ḥ asidim as one of the
cardinal sins). Unlike the exempla influenced by Islam, theexempla of Sefer Ḥ asidim are concrete, reflecting everyday
life and everyday ethical problems. It is possible that many ofthe episodes actually happened, the author using true anecdotes to illustrate his ethical standards. Many of the exempla
describe the behavior of Jews during the persecutions of the
Crusades; these served as models of behavior to many communities. Most of the exempla, however, describe the right,
ethical way to behave when tempted by pride, by the evil powers lurking in man, how to conduct oneself toward women,
gentiles, etc.
In the Ashkenazi ḥ asidic exempla there is a class of anecdotes which expound ways of repentance involving the use of
extreme self-mortification. Exempla of the same sort are found
300 years later in 16t-century Safed when mystic sages (someof them tried to remain anonymous) used the same type ofmortification as a means to repent for their own sins and forthe sins of the people of Israel.
In a sense, modern ḥ asidic narrative literature served also
as exempla, but its purpose was different. The wonderful stories told about the ẓ addikim were not models of conduct to befollowed implicitly by Ḥ asidim. The ẓ addikim had a different
code of behavior from their believers, and the stories of their
behavior were intended to provoke meditation, to bring theḥ asid into deeper understanding of the ways of the ẓ addikim
and the ways of God, and thereby to some extent to influence
the ḥ asid’s own ethical behavior.

(1924, repr. 1955); A. Jellinek (ed.), Beit ha-Midrash, 6 vols. (19382);
J.R. Marcus, Jew in the Medieval World (1960), 225–83. Add. Bibliography: J. Dan, Ha-Sippur ha-Ivri bi-Yemei ha-Beinayim: Iyyunim
be-Toldotav (1974); A. Alba, Midrás de los Diez Mandamientos y Libro
precioso de la Salvación (1989); idem, Cuentos de los rabinos (1991).
[Joseph Dan]

EXETER, town in S.W. England. Before the expulsion of
the Jews in 1290, Exeter was the most westerly Jewish community in England. The first mention of Jews there is in 1181.
Only one Exeter Jew, Amiot, is mentioned as contributing to the *Northampton Donum of 1194, but subsequently
Exeter became the seat of one of the *archae for the registration of Jewish debts. In 1275 the local chirographers, both
Jewish and Christian, were accused of forgery but were acquitted. At an ecclesiastical synod held at Exeter in 1287,
the church restrictions regarding the Jews were reenacted.
On the eve of the expulsion of 1290, the community numbered nearly 40 householders, who possessed considerable
debts and a large quantity of corn. At the beginning of the
18t century some Italian Jews were living at Exeter, including
Gabriel Treves and Joseph Ottolenghi (later of South Carolina). The conversion of Ottolenghi to Christianity about 1735
caused considerable controversy. Exeter subsequently becamea center of peddling activities. The synagogue still standing
was built in 1763. In 1968, 20 Jews lived in Exeter, apart froma number of Jewish students at the university. In the mid1990s and 2000s the Jewish population numbered approximately 150. There is an Orthodox synagogue, which today
holds monthly services.
Bibliography: Adler, in: Transactions of the Devonshire Association for the Advancement of Science, Literature and Art, 63 (1931),
221–40; Rigg, Exchequer, index; Roth, Mag Bibl, index; idem, Rise ofProvincial Jewry (1950), 59–61. Add. Bibliography: JYB, 2004.
[Cecil Roth]EXILARCH (Aram. ‫ ֵר ׁיש ָ ּגלו ָּתא‬, resh galuta), lay head of theJewish community in Babylon. (See Chart: Exilarchs of Parthian and Sasanid Periods and Chart: Babylonian Exilarchs.)

Bibliography: M. Gaster, The Exempla of the Rabbis(Eng. and Heb., 1924, 19682 with introd. by Braude); J. Meitlis, Das
Ma’assebuch (1933); J. Wistinetzki and J. Freiman (eds.), Sefer Ḥ asidim

Until the Arab Conquest
The government of Babylonian Jewry for the first 12 centuries
C.E. lay in the hands of the exilarch. Rabbinic traditions incorporated in the *Seder Olam Zuta, trace the origin of the institution to the last years of the exile of Jehoiachin, on the basis
of II Kings 25:27. Further data were derived from I Chronicles
3:17ff. Whether such an institution actually existed before Parthian times is not known, and certainty is impossible. Sources
on Jewish life in first-century Parthian Babylonia, however,leave little ground to suppose there was an exilarch then. Josephus’ account of the Jewish “state” of *Anilaeus and Asinaeus suggests, to the contrary, that no state-sanctioned Jewish government functioned at that time. Whatever the earlier
situation, Neusner has put forward the conjecture that theParthian government under Vologases I (d. 79 C.E.) probably established a feudal regime to govern Jewry as part of its

600

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

exilarchreorganization of the Arsacid administration (see *Babylonia). Jews played an important part in first-century Middle
Eastern politics, not only in Palestine, but also in *Armenia,*Adiabene, Charax Spasinu, and Babylonia itself. It was important to organize a loyal administration for Jewry, both forthe stability of the empire, and for the purposes of foreign affairs. The Jews, living on both sides of the contested frontier
between Rome and Parthia, could prove useful to either party
able to enlist their support. Furthermore, the destruction of
Jerusalem and, with it, the Temple administration which had
formerly issued religious instruction to the Diaspora, necessitated Parthian consideration. The Romans, supporting the
new rabbinical authority in Jabneh (see *Johanan b. Zakkai),exerted substantially more control than before.
The Parthians, perhaps earlier contented to allow local Jewry to receive instruction from Jerusalem, certainly
took advantage of the change in Palestinian politics and theanti-Roman turn in world Jewish opinion, to establish local control of Jewry under close supervision. The result was
highly beneficial. In the next century, Jews were the most loyal
supporters of the Parthian cause against *Trajan, Septimius*Severus, and Alexander *Severus. In Palestine, circles of Jewish messianists were prepared to cooperate with the Parthians against Rome.
The first clear evidence of the existence of the exilarchcomes in the middle of the second century C.E. Some Jewish
authority certainly existed about 145 C.E. when *Hananiah
the nephew of Joshua b. Hananiah intercalated the calendar
in Babylonia (Eccles. R. 7, 8, no. 4, 7:26, for his exile to Babylonia; Ber. 63a; TJ, Sanh. 1:2, 19a; TJ, Ned. 6:13, 40a, for the intercalation). The accounts of the intercalation contain the nameof a local official, given variously as Ahijah and Neḥ unyon.
At about the same time, moreover, Rabban *Simeon b. Gamaliel II rebuked R. Nathan, of Babylonia, for his part in aconspiracy against the former’s rule, saying “Granted that the
sash of office (kamara) of your father has indeed helped you
to become av bet din, shall we therefore make you also nasi?”(Hor. 13b). Since the kamara, mentioned in various Iranian
inscriptions, was one of the significations of office in Iran, it
stands to reason that R. Nathan was the son of the Jewish rulerof Babylonia. The first talmudic mention of the title of resh
galuta, however, occurs with reference to Huna the exilarch(TJ, Ket. 12:3, 35a; TJ, Kil. 9:3, 32b; Gen. R. 33:3). *Judah ha-Nasistated that if Huna were to come to Palestine he would give
precedence to him, for Huna was descended from the maleline of the Davidic household, while the patriarch, from thefemale line. Ḥ iyya and his nephew *Rav may have been related
to the exilarch, for both Babylonians claimed Davidic ancestry.
Ḥ iyya came from the same town as the exilarch, and called his
nephew Rav bar Paḥ ti. The title paḥ at was used in the Parthian
documents from Nisa for satrap, and if Rav was son of a Jewish paḥ at, then his father must have held high rank within theParthian feudal structure. Other Jewish authorities, earlier inthe same period, were reported by Palestinian rabbinic messengers to have Parthian names, wear Parthian dress, enjoy
the perquisites of a retinue, and execute capital punishment,
and yet to be knowledgeable in the law (Git. 14a–b; TJ, Kid.
3:4, 64a; TJ, Git. 1:5, 43c–d). So it is reasonable to suppose thata Jewish government did exist through the last century and ahalf of Parthian rule in Babylonia.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

601

NAHUM
140 –170
HUNA I
170 –210
MAR UKBA I
210 –240

HUNA II
240 –260

NATHAN I
260 –270

NEHEMIAH
270 –313

MAR UKBA II
313 –337
HUNA MAR IHUNA III
337– 350ABBA
350 –370

NATHAN II
370 – 400
KAHANA I
400 – 415

HUNA IV
415 – 442
MAR ZUTRA I
442– 455

KAHANA II
455 – 465
HUNA V465 – 470
HUNA VI
484– 508
MAR ZUTRA II
508– 520
AḤ UNAI?– 560Ḥ OFNAI
560 – 580
Ḥ ANINAI
580 – 590
BUSTANAI
d. 670

List of exilarchs of the Parthian and Sasanid periods (based on F. Lazarus; see bibl.).

exilarch

List of Babylonian exilarchs during the Middle Ages.

The advent of the Sassanids, in 226 C.E., necessitated theprovision of a new political foundation for Jewish self-government. At first, the Jewish administrators continued as before, hoping to hoodwink the Sassanids and forcibly to keep
the Jews in line. R. Shila, for example, administered lashes toa man who had intercourse with a gentile woman; the man
informed against him, whereupon a government agent (parastak) investigated the case. Shila persuaded the agent that he
was loyal, and then murdered the informant (Ber. 58a). But
in a similar situation, R. *Kahana had to flee to Palestine (BK117a), for, Rav told him, “Until now the Greeks [Parthians]
were here, who did not punish bloodshed, but now the Persians are here, and they will certainly cry, ‘Rebellion, rebellion!’” For their part, the Sassanids under Ardashir I (226–42),
who were closely associated with the cult of Ormuzd andĀnahīta, thought they could forcibly convert the various peoples of Babylonia and Mesopotamia to their religion. So for the
first two decades of Sassanian rule, no modus vivendi could
be reached. *Shapur I (242–272) chose a different, more tolerant policy, encouraging Mani to preach a syncretistic religionof Buddha, Zoroaster, and Jesus (but not Moses!) to appeal to
the several major groups of the empire, and seeking to conciliate the Jewish community as well. The Jewish government
was given a legitimate role in administering Jewish affairs,
when it promised to abide by state law in matters of concern
to the state, specifically rules of land tenure and payment oftaxes. The agreement of *Samuel and Shapur I, summarized
by Samuel’s teaching that “the law of the government is law,”
was closely adhered to by the Jewish regime, which enjoyeda secure position, with few, brief interruptions, for the next
four centuries. It is not known what role, if any, the exilarch
played in the negotiations preceding this agreement. If there
was one Jewish government in Babylonia, as seems plausible,
then Samuel must have been acting in its behalf. But rabbinic
traditions, which are the only ones to survive, do not mention
the participation of the contemporary exilarch, Mar *Ukba I,
in the matter.
Rabbinic opinion on the third-century exilarchate wasdivided. In the early part of the century, it is clear that the leading rabbis were subordinate to the exilarch. Rav was forcedby him to administer market prices, which Rav held was not
a proper function of the agoranomos, or market supervisor.
Samuel deferred to the exilarch Mar Ukba. It was, after all, theexilarch who had earlier employed rabbinically trained functionaries in the courts and bureaus of Babylonia in late Arsacidtimes. He had done so probably to circumvent the local Jewish
strongmen, typified by Anilaeus and Asinaeus in the first century, and the Parthianized Jewish nobility referred to above,in the second century. The rabbis appealed to the people on
the basis of their knowledge of Mosaic revelation, which, they
held, was unique to their schools, and they moreover affirmed
the exilarch’s claim to Davidic origin. At the outset, therefore,
the rabbinate and the exilarchate were closely allied against
the centripetal forces of feudal autonomy represented by local Jewish upper-class landholders. By the last third of the602

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

1. Bustanai d. 670

2. Ḥ isdai I b. Bustanai
3. Bar Adai b. Bustanai
4. Ḥ isdai II b. Bar Adai
5. Solomon b. Ḥ isdai II c. 733– 759
6. Isaac Iskoi b. Solomon
7. Judah (Zakkai b. Aḥ unai) d. before 771
8. Natronai b. Ḥ avivai 771
9. Moses
10. Isaac Iskoi b. Moses
11. David b. Judah c. 820 – 857
12. Judah I b. David c. 857
13. Natronai after 857
14. Ḥ isdai III b. Natronia
15. Ukba c. 900– 915
16. David b. Zakkai c. 918– 940
17. Josiah (Hasan) b. Zakkai 930 – 933 (?)
18. Judah II b. David 940
19. Solomon b. Josiah c. 951– 953
20. Azariah b. Solomon
21. Hezekiah I b. Hezekiah I ?
22. David I b. Hezekiah I ?
23. Hezekiah II b. David I before 1021–1058
24. David II b. Hezekiah II 1058– d. c. 1090
25. Hezekiah III b. David II from c. 1090
26. David III b. Hezekiah III
27. Ḥ isdai IV b. David III d. before 1135
28. Daniel b. Ḥ isdai IV c. 1150 –1174
29. Samuel of Mosul? 1174 (?)– c. 1195
30. David (b. Samuel ?) d. after 1201
31. Daniel
32. Samuel (b. Azariah ?) 1240 (?) –1270 (?)
1, 2– 67
8
9, 10
11, 1213
14
15, 1617
18 – 2223
24 – 25
26
27
28
29 – 32

H. Tykocinski, in: Devir, 1 (1923), 178, 179.
Iggeret Rav Sherira Gaon, ed. by B.M. Lewin (1921) 104.
ibid., L. Ginsberg, Geonica, 1 (1909), 16 ff.
A. Harkavy ed. Teshuvot ha-Geonim (1887), 378.
S. Abramson, Ba-Merkazim u-va Tefuẓ ot (1965), 11–14.
Harkavy, loc. cit.
Abramson, op. cit., 10.
J. Mann, in: Tarbiẓ , 5 (1934), 150 ff.
ibid., 164; Iggeret Rav Sherira Gaon, 117.
Mann, in: Sefer Zikkaron... S. Poznań ski (1927), 19, 20, 21.
ibid., 21–22, S. Assaf, in: Tarbiẓ , 11 (1940), 152 ff.
Mann, in: Sefer... Poznań ski, 22–23.
Mann, Texts, 1 (1931), 208.
Abramson, in: KS, 26 (1950), 93.
ibid., 93, idem, in: Perakim, 1 (1967/68), 14.
Mann, in: Sefer... Poznań ski, 24 – 25.
Abramson, in: Perakim, 1 (1967/68), 16.
[Abraham David]

exilarch
third century, however, tension developed between the exilarchate and certain rabbinical circles. The exilarch justified
his rule over Jewry as an heir of the Davidic household, justas did the Maccabeans, the Herodians, Jesus, and others who
claimed the right to govern “Israel.” That claim did not depend upon study in the rabbinical academies or conformity
to rabbinical rules. Whether or not the exilarch was a “goodJew” by rabbinic standards is ultimately irrelevant to the issue. The rabbis saw themselves as the sole bearers of Mosaic
revelation in its complete, dual form. They alone possessed theOral Law, which completed the written one and determined
its interpretation. About 275, Geniva, a disciple of Rav, caused
so much trouble for the exilarch that the latter sought the advice of the Palestinian *Eleazar b. Pedat. He was counseled toforebear. Geniva was shortly thereafter executed by the state.
It is not known what Geniva did to irritate the exilarch. The
only clue to his doctrine is his teaching that rabbis should becalled kings, the proof-text for which was Proverbs 8:15, “Byme kings reign.” The eighth chapter of Proverbs was consistently interpreted by the rabbis as the message of the Torah
personified. If by “me,” meaning “Torah,” kings rule, thenthose not qualified by “Torah” should subordinate themselvesto those who are, namely the rabbis. If Geniva made such an
assertion of rabbinical superiority, the exilarch would wisely
have handed him over to the Sassanids, for subversion of theexilarch was subversion, likewise, of the Sassanid system ofmillet-government. At the end of the century, Judah b. Ezekiel
founded the school at Pumbedita and, for the next 50 years,
the heads of the school kept a fund for its support, thus attempting to remain independent of the exilarchic treasury. At
the same time, leading rabbis asserted that rabbis should nothave to pay the karga, or head tax, imposed by the Sassanid
regime on minority communities. They held that Scriptures,
tradition, and even Artaxerxes of Achemenid times, had all
freed them of that obligation. Since taxes were apportioned
by communities, the exilarch would have had to collect funds
from other Jews in order to exempt the rabbis. This he did
not attempt, and a further irritant in the relations of the twogroups was the consequence. By the middle of the fourth century, the academy at Pumbedita, now headed by Rava, wassubject to close exilarchic supervision, and moved to the exilarchic capital at *Maḥ oza.
When, under Pērōz (459–84), Jews and Christians werepersecuted, the exilarch Huna V was executed, according to
the letter of R. Sherira, in the year 470. The office of exilarchremained vacant for some time. The virtual chaos of the reigns
before Khusro I (531–79) combined with the anti-Jewish activities of the Mazdakites supported by the throne in the timeof Kavadh (488–531), and the economic depression of the period, produced a lapse in orderly government for Jewry as well.
For a time (c. 510–20) the exilarch Mar *Zutra II threw off fealty to the throne, probably provoked by Kavadh’s support ofMazdak. From Khusro onward, the situation was restored toits former favorable condition.

During the Arab Period
The first exilarch of the Arab period was *Bustanai, whofounded a new dynasty of exilarchs from the descendants of
his Jewish wife and his other wife, the daughter of the king of*Persia who was given to him, according to the sources, by*Omar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb. Some opinions doubt the authenticityof the latter detail, because Omar did not visit *Iraq, but the
texts possibly refer to one of his generals. This fact expresses
the recognition granted by the Arab rule to the scion of theHouse of David who stood at the head of the Jewish community. The children of his Jewish wife disqualified the childrenof the Persian wife from acting as exilarchs with the argument that since the mother had not been converted, her children had the status of non-Jews. The polemics and the halakhic discussion have been preserved in a series of sources.
The ḥ akhamim of the academies decided in favor of the Persian branch. In spite of the protests, which were also voiced
after this decision, the descendants of the Persian wife wereappointed as exilarchs.

[Jacob Neusner]

Relations with the Rashei Yeshivot
The exilarchs maintained close ties with the heads of the
Sura and Pumbedita academies. They also concerned themselves with the incomes of these academies which were raised
throughout the Diaspora. One of the exilarchs, *Solomon b.
Ḥ isdai, the great-grandson of Bustanai from the Jewish branch(reigned 733–59), was himself a scholar and distinguishedhimself with his concern for the academy of Sura and its aggrandizement. He took Mar Samuel out of the Pumbedita
academy and appointed him head of the Sura academy (Iggeret
R. Sherira Ga’on, ed. by B.M. Lewin (1921), 106). Twenty-six
years later he appointed Rav *Yehudai, who was also a discipleof the Pumbedita academy, to the same position. Although
the position of exilarch was hereditary, it was not always thefirstborn who was chosen, but rather the member of the family who was most suitable and accepted by the academy heads
and the important merchants who wielded influence in the
court of the caliph. The exilarchs and the heads of the Sura andPumbedita academies were dependent on each other, because
the election of each of them required the confirmation of theother party. Against this background, there were examplesof self-assertion. *Anan b. David, the nephew of Solomon b.
Ḥ isdai, was worthy of being elected as exilarch because of his
erudition, but the ḥ akhamim found a “disqualifying blemish”
in him because of his negation of the Oral Law. His younger
brother Hananiah was elected in his place. The leaders of the
Karaite community, who were known as nesi’im, were descended from Anan.
The split between the *Rabbanites and the *Karaites appears to have been the cause of the decline in the status of
the exilarchs and the limitation of their authority. Caliph alMaʾmūn (ruled 813–33) granted the request of the Karaites that
their leader be recognized as the nasi of their community. In
825 he issued an order according to which any ten men – Jews,
Christians, or Zoroastrians – were authorized to organize

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6603

exilarch
supported him against those communities which refused to
pay their taxes to him; the caliph also assisted him in his feudwith R. Saadiah Gaon.
In general, the separation between the various functionsof the exilarchs and the geonim was maintained: *Hezekiah (II)b. David, a descendant of David b. Zakkai, was an exception;
he combined the exilarchate with the position of academy
head. He was exilarch for over 40 years, and from 1038 he succeeded *Hai as head of the Pumbedita academy until his deathin 1058. As a result of the conflict between the exilarch *Danielb. Ḥ asdai (1150–74) and the gaon *Samuel b. Ali, the exilarch
opened an academy in Baghdad which was independent ofthat of the gaon. When he died childless, two candidates of the
Josiah b. Zakkai branch, David and Samuel, sought his position. The latter, who benefited from the support of the gaon
Samuel b. Ali, was compelled to yield several of his powers to
the gaon. From then onward most of the powers of the exilarchs were transferred to the heads of the academies.

themselves into an independent community and were at liberty to elect a leader. After the death of the exilarch Iskoy II,
there were two rivals to his position, *David b. Judah andDaniel. The dispute was brought before the caliph for arbitration by the supporters of both parties. It is possible that theabove-mentioned order was also a result of this situation and
R. *Sherira hints that the decline in the status of the exilarchs
was due to this contention. From then onward they were compelled to share the spheres of their influence and their incomeswith the academy heads. Another change which occurred wasthat the gatherings of the ḥ akhamim which took place on fastdays and on the Sabbaths of the weekly portion of Lekh Lekha,
which were known as Shabbeta de-Rigla and which had until
then been held in the home of the exilarch, were from thenon held in the academies. The penalization powers of the exilarch were also restricted.
A dispute over the incomes of the exilarch and the academy head resulted in a crisis in which the latter gained theupper hand. The exilarch *Ukba attempted to appropriate
the incomes of Khurāsān from which the Pumbedita academy had until then benefited. According to Seder Olam Zuta
(Neubauer, Chronicles, 2 (1895), 78), *Kohen Ẓ edek, the gaonof Pumbedita, was supported by the bankers and merchants*Joseph b. Phinehas, *Aaron b. Amram, and *Netira, and in 913
Ukba was expelled by the caliph al-Muqtadir (908–32), at firstto Kermanshah and later to Kairouan, where he was received
with much respect and the Sefer Torah was lowered before
him (see below). The office of exilarch was vacant for three tofour years until, under public pressure, *David b. Zakkai, thenephew of Ukba, was elected. David b. Zakkai (918–40) was apowerful personality and he insisted upon his right of appointing the academy head according to his own discretion. His
candidate for the position of gaon of Pumbedita was Kohen
Zedek, while that of his rivals was *Kubashshir b. Kimoi. The
latter refused to confirm the appointment of David as exilarchand he ostracized him until they reconciled themselves in 922.
David endeavored to raise the status of the Sura academy, andin 928 he appointed R. *Saadiah Gaon as its head, having recognized his vast Torah erudition. When he appointed him, headjured R. Saadiah Gaon “not to appoint any other exilarch
beside himself, not to associate himself with those who plotted against him, and not to deviate from his words in any direction.” It appears that R. Saadiah Gaon desired to be independent of the exilarch and also to intervene in secular affairs.
The crisis finally erupted between them when R. Saadiah Gaon
refused to ratify a legal decision of the exilarch after it had already been ratified by the gaon of Pumbedita. David b. Zakkai
issued a ḥ erem (“ban”) against R. Saadiah Gaon and appointed*Joseph b. Jacob ibn Satia in his place. R. Saadiah Gaon, inturn, issued a ḥ erem against David b. Zakkai and appointed
Josiah (Hasan), the brother of David b. Zakkai, as exilarch.
Masʿūdī relates that the dispute was brought before the vizier
ʿAlī ibn ʿIsā. On Purim of 937, an agreement was concluded
between the opponents. David b. Zakkai attained a respected
position in the court of the Abbasid caliph al-Muqtadir, who

Official Status, Powers, and Functions
The status of the exilarch became one of the subjects in thediscussion held between the Muslim researcher of religions
Ibn Ḥ azm (994–1064) and *Samuel ibn Nagrela ha-Nagid in
Spain. The latter pointed out the honor and the powers of theexilarch of the House of David and considered this to be thefulfillment of the verse: “The scepter shall not depart from
Judah, Nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet” (Gen 49:10).
Ibn Ḥ azm rejected his words and claimed that the exilarch did
not wield any influence, neither over the Jews nor over any
others, that he lacked authority, and that his title was merely

604

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

The Induction Ceremony
The appointment of the exilarch was the occasion for a glorious ceremony, the description of which has come down tous from *Nathan b. Isaac ha-Bavli (Neubauer, Chronicles, 2(1895), 83–85). It was accompanied by a popular festivity, theclimax of which was the gathering in the synagogue on the
Sabbath, when hymns were recited in honor of the exilarchand he was blessed with special blessings and piyyutim. Hisname was mentioned in the Kaddish and he delivered a sermon or authorized the head of the academy to do so. Theḥ azzan lowered the Sefer Torah before him while the congregation stood on its feet. The people sent him presents. The
festivities were extended over seven days, during which he
was host to the people in his home. The Arab chroniclers who
mention this office point out that descent from the House ofDavid was an indispensable condition to election. The aristocratic origin and the heredity of the exilarchate made a strong
impression on the Shi’ites already during the early history
of Islam, to the point that they compared it to the imamate
and their theory on the subject of the legitimate caliphate. In
their writings they describe meetings between exilarchs andcaliphs and imams as equals, with the former reproving theMuslims. Bīrūnī (d. 1048) and others in his wake regarded
the exilarch as the lord of all the world’s Jews, who were subordinated to him.

exilarch
an honorary one and devoid of any actual meaning. A similar
discussion was held in Jerusalem between a Jewish ḥ akham
and a Christian clergyman named Abraham di Tibériade. G.
*Vajda, whose writings on this subject are based on a manuscript of 1689, assumes that this event occurred during thetenth century and possibly even later. The Jew points to theexistence of the exilarchate as a proof that the sovereignty of
the House of David has not been interrupted and that theMessiah has not yet come. He also refers to the above verse ofGenesis. The clergyman mocks and denigrates that status of
the exilarch who is not endowed with the title of king, lives inan outlying town of Iraq and not in the Promised Land, andlacks any punitive powers.
The Muslim rule granted the exilarch the same recognition as the Katholikos, the head of the Nestorian community.
A letter of appointment of the exilarch is not available, butthere is reason to assume that his powers and functions wereof a similar character. In the letter of appointment which was
granted to the Nestorian Katholikos in Baghdad during the
12t century it is said that he is authorized to intervene andmediate in the disputes between the various sects of his community and to dispense justice and that he is also responsible
for the supervision of their charitable funds. Anyone disobeying him or interfering in his affairs will be liable to punishment. He shall organize the collection of the poll tax and its
transfer to the government which, in exchange, will guarantee the lives of the people of his community and protect its
property. The receipt of this letter of appointment was accompanied by a ceremony in which a delegate of the government
participated. In addition to the duty of the exilarch to transfer the poll tax of his community to the authorities, he wasalso responsible for the execution of the Covenant of *Omar,
the discriminatory laws which affected protected subjects.
The Arab author Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 1200) relates that in 1031 theKatholikos and the Jewish exilarch were requested to assurethat the members of their communities wear the special garbof protected subjects.
Benjamin of Tudela, the traveler who visited Baghdad
in about 1168, writes of the exilarch Daniel b. Ḥ isdai that his
function had the confirmation of the caliph, who had ordered both Jews and Muslims to stand in the exilarch’s presence. The caliph received him in his palace every Thursday,
and on his way his carriage was preceded by horsemen who
called for the clearing of the way before the son of David. “Hehas been invested with authority over all the congregations ofIsrael at the hands of the Amīr al-Muʾminīn, the Lord of Islam. For thus Muhammad commanded concerning him andhis descendants” (Masot Binyamin, ed. by M.N. Adler (1902),
39–40, Eng. part). From the end of the 12t century the Baghdad academy heads assumed most of the powers of the exilarchs; from then onward they were the delegates of the community before the government. The letters of appointment
which were granted to the academy heads in 1209, 1247, and1250 by the Abbasid government, and which have been preserved, shed light on the functions of the exilarchs and theirpowers during this period when their leadership was a realone. These letters state that the members of their communities were to obey the exilarch’s instructions and were to pay
him the accepted taxes; the exilarch was to judge them andit was his duty to enforce the protection conditions and heed
the orders of the caliph.
There is a divergence of opinions among scholars as tothe appointment of judges (dayyanim) by the exilarch and its
dependence on the academy heads. It appears that this matter varied with the authority exerted by the exilarchs. It canbe divided into five periods: (a) until the reign of al-Maʾmūnappointments were made by the exilarch; (b) until after Davidb. Zakkai, when authority was divided between the exilarchs
and the academy heads, the appointment by each party was
restricted to its own domain; (c) during the days of Hai Gaon
appointments were made by the supreme bet din of the academy heads; (d) in the 11t and 12t centuries appointments weremade by the exilarchs; and (e) after 1175 (the year of the deathof the exilarch Daniel) it was only the academy heads who
appointed the dayyanim. Also, when the exilarchs appointed
the dayyanim, the pitka de-dinuta (“judicial authorization”)
was granted by the academy heads, while the exilarch merely
gave formal permission. The exilarch disposed of a tribunal
known as bet dina de-nasi (“bet din of the nasi”) or bava demaruta (“gate of the master”). If the exilarch was a ḥ akham,he headed the bet din himself. On most occasions, however,it was a distinguished ḥ akham, the dayyana de-bava (“judgeof the gate”), who headed the tribunal. R. Ẓ emaḥ b. Solomon
is mentioned as head of the tribunal of the exilarch Ḥ isdai b.
Natronai during the middle of the ninth century.
The exilarch had the following means of penalization at
his disposal: bans, fines, imprisonment, and flogging. During
the reign of the caliph al-Maʾmūn his penal authority was restricted so that the only remaining instrument was the ban.
During a later period his powers were, however, once more
extended and R. *Pethahiah of Regensburg, who visited Mosul during the 1170s, relates that the exilarch was authorized
to sentence offenders, even if the second party was a Muslim,
and that he had a prison in which he detained offenders.
The exilarch participated in the institution of halakhic
takkanot, such as the one in connection with the collectionof debts and the ketubbah from movable property instead offrom real estate, a takkanah which was circulated throughout the Diaspora with the signature of the exilarch in collaboration with his dayyanim, the academy heads, and theirbattei din. A letter has been found from the exilarch, dated
from 835, concerning the fixation of the intercalation – theexclusive right of the Palestinian academy. His incomes were
derived from the taxes which were paid by the communities
under his jurisdiction and which received government protection. According to the report of Nathan ha-Bavli (Neubauer,
Chronicles, 2 (1895), 85) every Jew aged 20 years or older paid
an annual tax of two zuzim. Butchers paid ¼ dinar as a fixedannual sum. The exilarch also derived incomes from ketubbot, gittin (“divorce bills”), bills, and gifts. These details are also

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6605

exilarch

PALESTINE AND EGYPT. The members of the family of theBabylonian exilarch who came to Palestine and Egypt werereceived with deference, but their status was merely a formal
one without any practical basis in administration. As a resultof the abortive rebellion of the exilarch Zutra against the Persian king Kavadh I (488–531) and the hanging of the rebel atthe beginning of the sixth century, his wife fled to Palestine.

When his son Zutra II, who was born after the death of his
father, reached the age of 18, he was appointed rosh pirka orhead of the Sanhedrin in Tiberias (520 C.E.). Eight or ten generations of his descendants succeeded him in this position. At
the close of the tenth and during the 11t centuries membersof the Babylonian exilarch’s household appeared in Palestineand Egypt. The only one of these who rose to power in Palestine and combined the functions of nasi and gaon during theyears from 1051 to 1062 was *Daniel b. Azariah of the familyof Josiah b. Zakkai. He left Babylonia because his family had
been deposed by the exilarch *Hezekiah II. Daniel succeeded
the gaon *Solomon b. Judah and supplanted Joseph b. Solomon ha-Kohen, who was av bet din and to whom the positionof gaon was due. From his seat in Ramleh and Jerusalem heruled over the whole of Palestine and Syria, where he was thejudge; he also appointed dayyanim. Even the communities of
Egypt were subordinated to him. After his death the positionof gaon reverted to *Elijah b. Solomon ha-Kohen.
David, the son of Daniel, would not reconcile himself tothe loss of the sovereignty of the House of David over Palestine and Egypt. He attempted to undermine the Palestinian
academy which had been exiled to Tyre because of the invasion of the Seljuks in 1071. In 1081 he went to Egypt, where he
was received with respect and his needs were provided for.
However, when he desired to dominate the Egyptian communities and the coastal towns of Palestine, he clashed with Mevorakh ha-Nagid. He imposed taxes and ruled with tyranny.
The Fatimid caliph al-Mustanṣ ir bi-Allah (1036–1094), whoclaimed descent from the “Prophet” and favored the descendants of David, supported him. David was finally deposed in
1094. The Jews of Egypt accepted the formal authority of theBabylonian exilarch. In 1162 Daniel b. Ḥ isdai ordained *Nethanel b. Moses ha-Levi in Baghdad as gaon and appointed him
to the “bet din ha-gadol in all the provinces of Egypt.” Even
several years later, the name of the exilarch appeared in legal
documents which were traditionally written with the “authorization” of the nasi. During Maimonides’ time a nasi named
Judah b. Josiah lived in Egypt; he ratified the legal decisionsof Maimonides. There were nesi’im who demanded judicial
powers for themselves, but the community and its leaders rejected these requests.
During the first half of the 13t century the nasi Solomon b. Jesse and his brother Hodayah, who had come fromDamascus, lived in Egypt. The latter came into conflict witha dayyan from France named Joseph b. Gershom, who lived
in Alexandria in the days of *Abraham b. David Maimuni(1205–1237), over a question of authority. The nasi issued aban against the dayyan and anyone who would materially assist the Frenchman. In the reply of the nagid to the appeal ofthe dayyan, which was also ratified by other ḥ akhamim, thetendency to restrict the authority of the nasi and to reduce
it to a merely formal ratification is evident. Even though theexilarchs considered themselves as the appointees over the
Jews of the lands of dispersion and even though they signed
themselves “the head of all Israel’s exiles,” their intervention

606

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

confirmed by an Arab source which adds that the Jews paid
him one-fifth of their income, as well as redemption fees formale children and animals. At the close of the 12t century theexilarch of Mosul owned fields and vineyards, in addition tohalf of the poll tax which he collected from his community forthe authorities. The exilarchs bestowed honorary titles upon
personalities who supported them. These included: “Friend of
the Nesi’ut (Exilarchate),” “Favorable to the Nesi’ut,” and “Supporter of the Nesi’ut.”
The Exilarchate Outside Baghdad
From the 11t century, the period of the decline of the Abbasida caliphate when independent governments were formed in
Mosul, Damascus, and Aleppo, descendants of the Babylonian
exilarch’s family also arrived in these places. As a result of theirdescent from the House of David the communities appointed
them as nesi’im over themselves, while they also obtained theirrecognition by the authorities as the delegates of the Jewish
community. They appointed officials and dayyanim, judged
the people, collected the poll tax, and received tithes.
YEMEN. During the 12t century the Jews of Yemen wereplaced under the formal “authority” of the exilarch of Babylonia and the Palestinian rosh yeshivah of Egypt. This was
expressed by the fact that the above personalities were mentioned by the ḥ akham before his sermon, the interpreter before the reading of the Torah, and the person who recited theblessing at meals. In a document of 1134 concerning Maḍ mūn
b. Japheth Hasan Bendar of Aden (d. 1151) there is the expression: nagid of the Jews of Yemen “appointed by the exilarch
and the academy heads.” It, is however, possible that this refers to members of the Babylonian exilarch’s household whocame to Yemen. During the 1130s the cousin of the Babylonian exilarch, who had come from Persia, was in Yemen.
“He promoted himself to [a leading] position and the local
people gave him permission to make decisions in religious
law in the synagogues of all Israel” (S.D. Goitein, in Sinai, 33(1953), 232). The latter struck the minister who mentioned
the “authority” of *Maẓ li’aḥ , the Palestinian gaon of Egypt,in his prayer. Benjamin of Tudela relates that in his time the
Yemenite community was led by Shalmon ha-Nasi and his
brother Hanan, descendants of David, who “divided up” thecountry between themselves. They corresponded with theirrelative, the Babylonian exilarch, and addressed their religious
questions to him. It should be noted that during subsequent
periods the nesi’im of Yemen were referred to as resh galuta,
although they had no connections with the Babylonian exilarch or the House of David.

exile, assyrian
was not viewed favorably in all places and practical powers
were not entrusted to them. This opposition was particularly
outspoken in Palestine, which was not part of the Diaspora,and in those places in the Orient where the Jewish communities were led by negidim.
Hulagu, the Mongolian khan who liquidated the Abbasid
caliphate with the conquest of Baghdad in 1258, did not harm
the Jewish community and its exilarch Samuel b. David. The
exilarchs maintained their positions during subsequent years
and some opinions assume that their status was improved.
There is no information available on their activities and only
the names of some of them are known. The exilarchate wasbrought to an end by Tamerlane in 1401. Until the beginningof the 18t century it was the practice of the governors of theimportant towns of Iraq to appoint a wealthy Jew as ṣ arrāf
bāshī (“chief banker”); he also acted as nasi of the local Jews.
His powers were almost identical to those of the Babylonian
exilarch during the Middle Ages. The nasi of Baghdad was the“nasi of the state” and his authority also extended to distantcommunities. This office was the patrimony of the descendants of the House of David and was passed down from father to son. From the 18t century until 1849 the nesi’im who
were appointed were not from the House of David. Fromthen onward the functions of nesi’im were transferred to the*ḥ akhām bāshī.

EXILE, ASSYRIAN. The mass deportation of populationgroups from conquered nations, as a measure to prevent thesenations from rebelling, was introduced as a general policy
by Tiglath-Pileser III in the second half of the eighth century B.C.E. Although deportation by Assyrian kings is wellattested in the ninth century, it was Tiglath-Pileser’s innovation to practice deportation on a vast scale and to accompany
it with population exchange; a practice continued by his successors in Assyria. (The Babylonians did not accompany deportation with population exchange.) The first deportationof peoples from the northern Israelite kingdom took placewhen Tiglath-Pileser III campaigned against Syria and Palestine (734–732 B.C.E.), at which time *Pekah son of Remaliah joined the rebellion led by the king of *Aram-Damascus
against Assyria. In the course of this campaign the Assyrians
conquered Gilead and deported the heads of the Israelite clansthat inhabited Transjordan (I Chron. 5:6, 26). One of TiglathPileser III’s fragmentary inscriptions lists several thousand
captives, apparently only males, whom he exiled from eightcities in Galilee (among which were biblical Hannathon, Jotbah, Rumah, and Merom).
When *Hoshea son of Elah revolted against Assyria,
Shalmaneser V besieged and conquered Samaria. His successor, Sargon II, states that 27,290 people (variant 27,280)
were exiled from the city of Samaria. In place of the Israelitedeportees, Sargon settled residents of other defeated nationsin the Assyrian province of Samaria. In this connection the
Bible mentions exiles from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath,and Sepharvaim (II Kings 17:24), while an inscription of Sargon II specifies members of four Arab tribes who were settled
in “Omriland” (Bīt Humri) in 716/5 B.C.E. Finally, accordinğto Ezra 4:1–2, forbears of the later Samaritans were brought
into the province of Samaria by Esarhaddon, and, according
to Ezra 4:9–10, “the great glorious Asenappar” – probably tobe identified with Ashurbanipal – settled people from *Erech,*Babylon, *Shushan, and other localities in the city of Samariaand elsewhere in Syria-Palestine. However, it cannot be determined whether these seventh-century colonists were brought
in to replace Israelites, who may have revolted again and been
deported. The foreign elements that were brought to Samaria
assimilated into the remaining Israelite population; the outcome of this lengthy process was a distinct cultural-nationalgroup which became known as the *Samaritans, i.e., the population of the province of Samaria. The Assyrians also exiled
inhabitants of Judah (see *Sennacherib, *Hezekiah).
The Israelite exiles were settled mainly in the Assyrian
provinces in Upper Mesopotamia (biblical Aram-Naharaim),
along the Habor River in the vicinity of Gozan (Tell-Ḥ alāf).
After 716 when some “cities of the Medes” came under Assyrian control, some Israelites were resettled in Media (II Kings
17:6; 18:11; probably in the province of Harhar (Diakonoff in̆̆Bibliography)). In I Chronicles 5:26 there is the addition “andHara” (‫הרא‬: LXX, Lucian recension kai harran, possibly referring to Haran (cf. Isa. 11:11)).
Notwithstanding the manifold legends fabricated about
the exile of the so-called “*Ten Lost Tribes,” there is no certain
information about the fate of the Israelite exiles in Mesopotamia during the Assyrian empire or at a later period. Onlya few extant allusions in the Bible and in epigraphic sources
testify to their existence. Of the latter sources, the onomastic evidence from Mesopotamia contained in Assyrian documents dated to the end of the eighth and to the seventh centuries is of particular significance, since it presents names
which are known from the Bible to be Israelite. However, withthe exception of personal names composed of the Israelitetheophoric element yau (YHWH), it is not always certain that

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6607[Eliezer Bashan (Sternberg)]

Bibliography: UNTIL THE ARAB CONQUEST: F. Lazarus, in:Bruell, Jahrbuecher, 10 (1890), 1–181; A.D. Goode, in: JQR, 31 (1940/41),
149–69; J. Liver, Toledot Beit David (1959), 37–46; M. Beer, in: Zion,
28 (1963), 3–33; idem, in: PAAJR, 35 (1967), 43–74; Neusner, Babylonia, 1 (1965), 50–58, 97–112; 2 (1966), 92–125; 3 (1968), 41–94; 4 (1968),
73–124; J. Gafni, in: Niv ha-Midrashiyyah (1968/69), 221–3; M. Beer,
Rashut ha-Golah be-Bavel bi-Ymei ha-Mishnah ve-ha-Talmud (1970).
FROM THE ARAB CONQUEST ON: Neubauer, Chronicles, 1 (1887),
63–67; 2 (1895), 78–87; Ibn Daud, Tradition, index; H. Tykocinski,
in: Devir, 1 (1923), 145–79; J. Mann, in: Sefer Zikkaron… S. Poznański
(1927), 18–32; Mann, Texts, index; idem, in: Tarbiz, 5 (1934), 148–61;
I. Goldziher, in: Jeschurun (ed. by J. Kobak), 8 (1871), 76–78; idem, in:
REJ, 8 (1884), 121–5; S. Pines, ibid., 100 (1936), 71–73; F. Lazarus, in:
MGWJ, 78 (1934), 279–88; W. Fischel, ibid., 79 (1935), 302–22; idem, in:Sefer Magnes (1938), 181–7; A.D. Goode, in: JQR, 31 (1940/41), 149–69;
S. Assaf, Geonim, 24–41; S.D. Goitein, in: Sefer ha-Yovel… M.M. Kaplan (1953), 51–53; idem, in: Bo’i Teiman, ed. by Y. Ratzaby (1967),
15–25; Abramson, Merkazim, 9–24; G. Vajda, in: Bulletin de l’Institut
de Recherche et d’Histoire des Textes, 15 (1967/68), 137–50.

exile, babylonian
the reference is to Israelite exiles, since these names are common Northwest Semitic ones and may also designate either
Phoenicians or Arameans.
The documents dealing with or discovered at Gozan,
which is mentioned in the Bible in relation to the exile ofIsrael (see above), are particularly instructive in this respect.
One letter (ABL 633) actually mentions one Halabišu (or less̆
likely, Haldu) from Samaria living in Gozan, although hemay not have been an Israelite. The same document, however, names two officials called Palṭiyau and Niriyau (= biblical Pelatiah and Neriah respectively) who almost certainly
were. Another Assyrian letter (ABL 1009), dated to the seventh
century B.C.E., mentions Samaritans among the troops of the
Assyrian king who were serving in Mesopotamia. In a commercial contract from Gozan (JADD 234 = SAA 6:34) dated tothe end of the eighth century, the signatory witnesses are twohigh-ranking officials in the Assyrian administration whosenames are Nādbiyau (biblical Nedabiah), who bore the title“chariot driver,” and Paqaha (identical with the Israelite royalname Pekah), whose title was “village manager.” In a document discovered at Gozan (No. 111) two typical Hebrew names
are mentioned – Usi’a (*Hosea) and Dayana (Dinah), as well
as Yaseme’il. In B. Mazar’s opinion, this document concerns
Hosea’s redemption of an Israelite woman (Dinah) from an
Aramean. In a legal document from Nineveh (SAA 14:50) one
Il-yau (= ‫ )אליהו‬sells a girl.
Traces of Israelite captives (and possibly even Judeans)seem to appear from the end of the eighth century at Calah(present-day Nimrud) on the Tigris, then capital of Assyria.
An Aramaic ostracon discovered there lists Northwest Semitic
personal names, some of which are common in Israel, such as
Elisha, Haggai, Hananel, and Menahem. This document possibly concerns a group of Israelites who lived in Calah alongside Phoenician and Aramean elements, and who worked ascraftsmen in one of the enterprises of the Assyrian kingdom.
Among the Nimrud ivories which bear inscriptions in Phoenician-Aramaic script, one is clearly a Hebrew inscription(ND. 10150). Some bronze bowls also found there were engraved with West Semitic names, such as Yibḥ ar-ʾel, El-heli,
and Aḥ iyô (Ahio), the last name being unmistakably Hebrew.
It cannot be ascertained how these objects, dating from thesecond half of the eighth century, reached Calah, but they may
have been taken as spoil from Samaria when the city fell.
Various Assyrian documents contain additional names ofan ordinary Hebrew type, such as Menahem, Amram, Naboth,and Abram, but it is difficult to determine beyond doubt thatthey belong to descendants of the Israelite exiles. In an Assyrian administrative document from the second half of theeighth century B.C.E., the name Ahiyaqāma appears in relătion to the Assyrian city of Halah (Halahha), which is men̆̆ ̆tioned in the Bible as one of the places to which the Israelite
exiles were deported (II Kings 17:6; 18:11). The text could beinterpreted as referring to an Israelite deportee named Ahikam. In the view of Tur-Sinai (Torczyner), the inscription on
an amulet discovered at Arslan Tash (ancient Hadatta), east of

the Euphrates, is written in Hebrew (though this is doubtful;see Sperling in Bibliography), and he attributes it to an Israelitedeportee from Samaria. The existence of an Israelite exile isalso alluded to in legendary tradition, such as that embodied
in the book of Tobit. The hero claims descent from the tribe ofNaphtali, supposedly deported in the days of Shalmaneser.
From the documents that presumably refer to the Israelites, or for that matter to any other exiles, it is evident thatas a rule they did not possess the status of slaves or of an oppressed population. The exiles were first settled in Mesopotamia as land tenants of the king (cf. the words of Rab-Shakeh
in II Kings 18:32), while the craftsmen among them were
employed in state enterprises. Eventually, some of the exiles
achieved economic and social status and even occupied highranking positions in the Assyrian administration. They were
given the right to agricultural holdings and to observe thecustoms of their forefathers, and enjoyed a certain measureof internal autonomy. The striking of roots in Mesopotamiansociety by a large part of the descendants of the Israelite exiles
resulted in their eventual absorption into the foreign milieu.
Nevertheless, part of the Israelite community undoubtedly
preserved its distinct national character and maintained connections with the homeland (cf. II Kings 17:28), later merging with the Judean exile. The return to Zion apparently included remnants of the ten tribes, as alluded to in the Bible(see the prophecies concerning national unification in Ezek.
16:53ff.; 37:16ff.; and cf. Zech. 8:13; 10:6ff.) and as indicatedin the genealogical lists of Ezra and Nehemiah (cf., e.g., Ezra
2:2; Neh. 7:7).

608

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: S. Schiffer, Keilinschriftliche Spuren… (OLZ
10, Beiheft 1, 1907); W. Rosenau, in: HUCA, 1 (1925), 79ff.; A. Ungnad, in: J. Friedrich et al., Die Inschriften vom Tell Halaf (1940); H.J.
May, in: BA, 6 (1943), 55ff.; H. Torczyner, in: JNES, 6 (1947), 18ff.; B.
Maisler (Mazar), in: BIES, 15 (1949–50), 83ff.; EM, 2 (1954), 500–3 (incl.
bibl.); J.B. Segal, in: Iraq, 19 (1957), 139ff.; W.F. Albright, in: BASOR,
149 (1958), 33–36; A.R. Millard, in: Iraq, 24 (1962), 41ff.; R.D. Barnett,
in: Eretz Israel, 8 (1967), 1*–7*; S.M. Paul, in: JBL, 88 (1969), 73–74.
Add. Bibliography: B. Oded, Mass Deportations and Deportees
in the Neo-Assyrian Empire (1979); idem, in: K. van Lerberghe and A.
Schoors (eds.), Immigration and Emigration within the Ancient Near
East (FS Lipiński, 1995), 205–12; S.D. Sperling, in: HUCA, 53 (1982),
1–10; H. Tadmor and M. Cogan, II Kings (1988), 176–80, 198–201,
336–37; M. Diakonoff, in: Scripta Hierosolymitana, 33 (FS Tadmor;
1991), 13–20; I. Ephʿal, ibid., 36–45; B. Becking, The Fall of Samaria(1992); H. Tadmor, Tiglath-Pileser III (1994), 82–3; G. Knoppers,
I Chronicles 1–9 (AB; 2003), 382.
[Abraham Malamat]

EXILE, BABYLONIAN, exiles of Judah to Babylonia, sixth–
fifth centuries B.C.E. Although Babylonia was not the only destination of former Judahites, it was the Babylonian deportees
and their descendants whose perspectives inform the Hebrew
Bible. Modern scholarship has adopted their perspective in
dividing Israelite/Jewish history into “pre-exilic,” “exilic,” and“post-exilic” periods. The destruction of the Assyrian empire
brought only temporary respite to the kingdom of Judah.
The newly established Chaldean (Neo-Babylonian) dynasty

exile, babylonian(626 B.C.E.), which together with Media and the Ummanmanda (Scythians?) destroyed Nineveh (612), quickly established its own rule (604) in “the land of Hatti” (Syro-Palestine). Although the prophet *Nahum rejoiced over Nineveh’s
fall and Habakkuk was stunned by Babylon’s rise (Hab. 1:1ff.),
Jeremiah foretold that Babylonian rule would last “70 years”(Jer. 25:12; 29:10) and counseled submission. The setback that
Babylon suffered at the hands of Egypt (601), however, encouraged King *Jehoiakim to rebel (II Kings 24:1). The uprising was crushed by Nebuchadnezzar himself (598–597), but
the statement that Jehoiakim was led into exile (Dan. 1:1ff.;
I Esd. 1:39ff.; cf. II Chron. 36:5–6) is probably unhistorical.
It is likely that he died in Jerusalem, reviled by Jeremiah (cf.
II Kings 24:6; Jer. 22:13–19; 36:30–31), and that the city was
surrendered by his son Jehoiachin on March 16, 597 B.C.E.
(II Kings 24:8ff.; II Chron. 36:9ff.). As punishment for therebellion, Nebuchadnezzar sent into exile the young kingand his family, royal officials, warriors, artisans, and otherdistinguished people from Jerusalem and Judah, and tookmuch spoil from the Temple and palace (II Kings 24:12ff.;
Jer. 13:18–19; II Chron. 36:9–10). The number of exiles is reported in round numbers once as 10,000 exclusive of artisans(II Kings 24:14) and once as 7,000 “mighty men” and 1,000
artisans (II Kings 24:16). Probably because Jehoiachin surrendered in time, Nebuchadnezzar did not destroy Jerusalem.
He took the exiled king’s uncle Mattaniah, made him a vassal
king, and changed his name to Zedekiah (II Kings 24:17; Ezek.
17:11ff.). Jehoiachin, however, retained his royal status, and a
Babylonian tablet of 592 reports that he and his five sons, alongwith other exiles, were allotted rations by Nebuchadnezzar.
The seal impressions “Eliakim steward of Yaukin,” discoveredat Tell Beit Mirsim, Beth-Shemesh, and Ramat Raḥ el, may indicate that his royal estates were preserved intact.
In the eyes of Jeremiah, the exilic community was, metaphorically, a basket of excellent figs and would ultimately berestored to the land, while the remaining population were badfigs and would experience further destruction (Jer. 24:1–10).
Ezekiel, settled among the exiles, provides evidence that eventswere dated according “to the exile of King Jehoiachin” (Ezek.
1:2). Despite the continuous preaching of Jeremiah and Ezekiel,
prophets in Judah such as Hananiah son of Azzur (Jer. 28:1ff.)
and in Babylonia such as Ahab son of Kolaiah, Zedekiah sonof Maaseiah, and Shemaiah the Nehelamite (Jer. 29:21ff.)
encouraged the rump state of Judah to believe that deliverance was at hand. Relying upon Egypt (Jer. 37:5; Ezek. 17:15;
29:6–7), Zedekiah rebelled. This time the city was destroyed(586 or 587) and the Temple burned. For breaking his oath ofallegiance Zedekiah was blinded, exiled to Babylon, and hissons were executed. Other leading officials were likewise put
to death. The Temple vessels were taken as booty, and all but
the poorest were sent into exile (II Kings 25:1–21; Jer. 39:1–10;
52:1–27; II Chron. 36:11–21; cf. also Dan. 5). Whereas excavation shows clear evidence of destruction at this time in several Judahite sites, e.g., Tell Beit Mirsim, Lachish, Beth-Shemesh, Beth-Zur, etc., the evidence thus far is that Benjaminremained untouched. (On the archaeological situation see
C. Carter, O. Lipschits, A. Zertal, and J. Zorn, apud Lipschits
and Blenkinsopp in Bibliography.) Appointed governor by theconquerors, *Gedaliah son of Ahikam resided in the Benjaminite town of Mizpah until he was assassinated by *Ishmael
son of Nethaniah of the royal family (II Kings 25:22–25; Jer.
40:7ff.). The people then fled to Egypt, taking Jeremiah withthem (Jer. 41–43), and in 582 a third group was carried off into
Babylonian exile (Jer. 52:30). The same source which reports
this last small exile of 745 Judahites gives figures of 3,023 and832 for the exiles of Jehoiachin and Zedekiah respectively (Jer.
52:28–30). It is not clear how these figures are to be reconciledwith those cited earlier.
The destruction of the state and the Temple and the exile
to Babylonia were traumatic experiences that concomitantly
brought forth desires for revenge and stirrings of repentance.
Feelings ran strong not only against Babylon (Isa. 47; Jer. 51; Ps.
137) but also against neighboring Edom, which rejoiced at, andbenefited from, the destruction (Ezek. 25:12–14; 35:1ff; Obad.;Mal. 1:3–5; Ps. 137:7; Lam. 4:21–22). Although Jeremiah andEzekiel explained the impending destruction as punishment
for moral and cultic sins, the actual destruction was a shock.
It aroused strong lament (Book of Lamentations) and regularcommemorative fasts (Zech. 7:1ff.; 8:18–19) and a yearning to
be reconciled with God and restored to the land of Judah (Ps.
137; Lam. 3:39ff.; 5:19–21). The Sabbath and festivals continued to be observed, and names such as Shabbethai (Ezra 10:15;
Neh. 8:7; 11:16; *Murashu Tablets) and *Haggai (the prophet;and a personal name in the Murashu Tablets) made their appearance. The contrast between monotheism and polytheism
became sharpened (e.g., Isa. 44:6ff.), and gentiles attracted to
the God of Israel were promised a share in the restored Temple if they observed the Sabbath and the Covenant, probablyof circumcision (Isa. 65:1ff.). Except for the leaders who had
contact with Babylonian officials – *Sheshbazzar/Shenazzar(Ezra 1:8ff.; 5:14; 6:5; I Chron. 3:18), *Zerubbabel son of Shaltiel(Ezra 3:2), Mordecai (Ezra 2:2), Bilshan (Ezra 2:2) – and were
therefore given, or adopted, Babylonian names (cf. Esth. 2:5,
7; Dan. 1:5ff.), the majority of exiles in Babylonia, as in Egypt,preserved the practice of giving Hebrew names.
Economically, the exiles did not fare badly, and sociallythey succeeded in preserving their clan and family structure
intact. A prominent position was held by King Jehoiachin,
who in 561 was exalted by King Amel-Marduk (*Evil-Merodach) over the other exiled kings. The communal leaders, “theelders of Judah/Israel” (Ezek. 8:1; 14:1; 20:1, 3), maintained
their traditional authority and were known as “elders of theexile (Jer. 29:1). Craftsmen and builders were engaged in theroyal building projects in Babylon, and clay tablets record rations distributed in 592 to such as Semachiah, Gaddiel, andUrimelech. Many were settled on “mounds” (tel), i.e., sites that
had formerly been destroyed and needed to be rebuilt, such
as Tel-Melah and Tel-Harsha (Ezra 2:59; Neh. 7:61). Ezekiel
had a house in Tel-Abib (Akkadian for “mound caused by the
deluge”), which lay along the Chebar Canal (Ezek. 1:1; 3:15, 23;

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6609

exile, babylonian8:1) in the vicinity of Nippur. Jeremiah had encouraged theexiles to settle down, build houses and plant gardens, lead anormal life, and preserve public security (Jer. 29:4ff.). One of
the Jews receiving royal rations in 592 was “Shelemiah the gardener.” The best evidence of continuity in the cultural sphereis the activity of the prophets Ezekiel, Deutero-Isaiah, Haggai, and *Zechariah. The first was born in Judah and was exiled with Jehoiachin. He relentlessly prophesied the destruction of Temple and state and with equal certainty delineated
its reconstruction. The last two, who were doubtlessly bornin exile, returned to Judah to inspire the reconstruction. The
great unknown prophet who goes by the name Deutero-Isaiah (Isa. 40–66) probably knew only exile and yet foretold therestoration in the most lyric of biblical poetry.
Return from Exile
Just as the greatest tragedy of the destruction of Jerusalem by
the Babylonians in 586 B.C.E. was the loss of the Temple, so
the first task after the return from exile was its reconstruction.
As Cyrus embarked upon his conquest of Babylon, DeuteroIsaiah looked upon him as the Lord’s shepherd and anointed,
called upon to release the exiled Jews, rebuild the city, andreestablish the Temple (Isa. 44:28; 45:1, 13). A policy of restoration and reconstruction was pursued by Cyrus throughout
the conquered territories, and he announced it proudly in his
Akkadian-language cylinder inscription (COS 2:314–16). The
specific permission granted the Jews was proclaimed orally
throughout the Diaspora and put down in writing. As his victories and policy of restoration were attributed to Marduk inthe Babylonian inscription, so in the proclamation to the Jews
they were attributed to the God of Heaven, the title by which
the God of Israel was generally known at that time (cf. Ezra
5:12; 7:12). No decree specifically granting permission to theexiles to return or to rebuild the city of Jerusalem has comedown. Permission is granted simply to rebuild the Temple andfor the exiles to return to Jerusalem for that purpose. Those
not returning are encouraged to assist the repatriates financially (Ezra 1:2–4). An Aramaic memorandum deposited in
the treasury archives in Median Ecbatana (Heb. Achmetha;
modern Hamadan), Cyrus’ summer residence, gives the dimensions and certain architectural features of the Temple, andstates that expenses are to be met by the royal treasury (Ezra
6:1–5). The Temple vessels were released by the treasurer Mithredath, at Cyrus’ order, to Sheshbazzar/Shenazzar, prince ofJudah, who restored them to Jerusalem (Ezra 1:7–11; 5:14–15;
6:5). Sheshbazzar was given the title of governor (peḥ ah) and
entrusted with the task of rebuilding the Temple (Ezra 16–17).
Although the sources are not clear on the subject, he was apparently succeeded in this assignment by his nephew Zerubbabel, who likewise bore the title “governor” (Ezra 3:1–13; 5:1–23;
Haggai 1:1; 2:1–2, 21).
Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and *Joshua son of Jehozadak, who was descended from a family of high priests, appear
at the beginning of a list of 12 leaders, symbolizing the unityof Israel, who headed the groups returning from exile (Neh.

7:7; one name has accidentally been left out from the parallel list in Ezra 2:2). Besides Zerubbabel (“Seed-of-Babylon”)
at least three other leaders bear non-Hebrew names – Mordecai (related to a name compounded with Marduk), Bilshan(= Bab. Belšunu, “Their Lord”), and Bigvai. The last name isfrom Persian bagāvahyah, “through God, the better,” and recurs in the first list of 17 or 18 returning families, along withsuch unusual names as Pahath-Moab (“Governor of Moab”)
and Elam (Ezra 2:6–7, 14; Neh. 7:11–12, 19). Perhaps thesenames refer to Israelites exiled from Transjordan (I Chron.
5:26) and to those who settled in Media (II Kings 17:6), hence
the Persian name, and in Elam (Isa. 11:11). Since most, if notall, of the place-names in the second list are located in Benjamin (Ezra 2:20 or 21–35; Neh. 7:25–38), it is likely that these17 (18) families settled in Judah. Interestingly, exactly 17 settlements are cited for Judah in the time of Nehemiah (Neh.
11:25–30). The subsequent lists enumerate families of priests,
levites, singers, gatekeepers, temple servants (Nethinim), and“sons of Solomon’s servants” (Ezra 2:36–58; Neh. 7:39–60). In
addition to these families, whose genealogical records werein order, there were other repatriates whose records were not.
The priests among them were disqualified from the priesthood (Ezra 2:59–63; Neh. 7:61–65). At least one of these families, however, that of Hakkoz, was apparently reinstated at alater date (Ezra 8:33; Neh. 3:4). The number of members ofeach family and town often varies between the two parallel
lists, while the total of all the figures falls far below the recorded total sum. While the difference could be made up by
adding women and children, it should also be noted thatthe given totals are schematic numbers, formed of various
combinations of seven and three: 42,360 plus 7,337 slaves(Ezra 2:64–65; Neh. 7:66–67). Despite the list’s title indicatingthat it numbers “the members of the province who returned
from exile … with Zerubbabel” (Ezra 2:1–2; Neh. 7:6–7),
the origin, nature, and purpose of the list has been much debated. The first recorded act of the newly established community was the reinstitution of the regular daily ritual on thefirst of Tishri, and later the celebration of the festival of Tabernacles “as prescribed in the Torah of Moses.” It was at thetime of this festival that Solomon’s Temple had been dedicated(I Kings 8:62ff.). Like that structure, the Second Temple wasto be built with cedars from Lebanon, and at the foundation
ceremonies, priestly and levitical choirs chanted psalms ofpraise and thanksgiving, “according to the order of David”
and as was prophesied by Jeremiah (Jer. 33:10–11). The linkwith tradition is evident from the fact that while the young
rejoiced, the elders, who remembered the First Temple, wept
(Ezra 3:10–12).
The repatriates’ ties with the past took on a strong ethnic coloring. In the neighboring provinces, particularly inSamaria, the Assyrian kings had earlier introduced an alien
population which, in the course of time, came to worship the
God of Israel (II Kings 17). They now wanted to participate
in the erection of the Jerusalem Temple. The repatriates felt
no kinship with these elements and claimed that Cyrus’ de-610

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

existentialism
cree was for themselves alone. Rebuffed, these “opponents of
Judah and Benjamin,” this new “people of the land,” succeededin thwarting by one means or another the efforts of the Jews
to rebuild the Temple during the reign of Cyrus and *Cambyses (Ezra 4:1–5). Years of famine followed and a certain demoralization set in. The rebellions and wars that took placein the Persian Empire after the death of Cambyses reverberated in Judah, and the prophets Haggai and Zechariah rose in
520 to encourage the Jewish leaders to resume construction of
the Temple. They did so with enthusiasm and Haggai prophesied to Zerubbabel in messianic terms. The son of the same
Jehoiachin, whom Jeremiah had likened to a signet which
the Lord deliberately pulled off his hand and cast away (Jer.
22:24), would become just such a signet on the Lord’s hand
(Haggai 2:23), and the righteous Davidic “shoot” foreseen by
Jeremiah (Jer. 23:5–6) was to sprout up and rule alongside
the high priest (Zech. 6:12–13). The actual building was again
called into question, this time by Tattenai, governor of TransEuphrates. The Jews could produce no document granting
them permission to build the Temple, but they reported thatsuch a document was on file in the royal archives. When thememorandum of Cyrus was located in Ecbatana, Darius reconfirmed the decree with its provision for covering expenses
and agreed to pay the expenses of a daily sacrifice on behalfof the royal family. Building subsequently proceeded and the
dedication was held on Adar 3, 515, “as prescribed in the Bookof Moses”; Passover was then celebrated by all those “who had
separated themselves from the impurity of the nations of theland… to seek the Lord God of Israel” (Ezra 5–6). The Temple
was rebuilt and the enemies of Judah were foiled, but Zerubbabel did not ascend the throne of David. No more is heardof him, and upon the death of Darius, the opponents of Judahsought to stir up King Xerxes against Judah (Ezra 4:7ff.). The
restored community only became firmly established during
the 40-year reign of Artaxerxes I, when *Ezra and *Nehemiah
undertook the twin tasks of the codification of the law and thefortification of Jerusalem.

EXISTENTIALISM, a modern philosophical movement,
which intends to elucidate concrete human existence. To the
movement belong such people as S. Kierkegaard, A. Schopenhauer, M. Heidegger, J.-P. Sartre, G. Marcel, M. Buber, F.
Rosenzweig, and J.B. Soloveitchik.
Embracing a number of disparate philosophical positions, existentialism can be described as a reaction to traditional philosophy with its emphasis on the static, the abstract,
the objective, and the purely rational. In its reaction, existentialism emphasizes the dynamic, the concrete, the subjective,
and the personal. More specifically, existentialism opposes
Idealism, which gave priority to the idea over factuality andlargely neglected the part of the philosopher himself in theconstruction of his philosophy. Existentialism stresses personal involvement and “engagement,” action, choice, and commitment, and regards the actual situation of the existential
subject as the starting point of thought. Revolting against the
Cartesian view of the self as a thinking entity, existentialism
is concerned with the existential subject in his wholeness andconcreteness – the willing, feeling, thinking person, who decides and acts from the perspective of his particular life situation rather than from some universal vantage point provided
by reason or history. One of the important influences on existentialism was phenomenology, which attempts to understandthe world and man not through causal formulae and analysis,
but through openness to the whole range of phenomena thatare manifest, without asking whether they are “real” in some
metaphysical sense. Yet, whereas E. Husserl’s phenomenology investigated human consciousness and its intentionality,
existentialists themselves were rather interested in existential
situations as insecurity, anguish, depression, shame, tragedy,
hope, solidarity, and love. Both Husserl’s phenomenology andexistentialism did not relate to the Kantian Ding an sich, reality in itself, but in the way reality appears to the subject thatis open to it: they do not explain phenomena, they rather describe them.

[Bezalel Porten]

Existentialism in Jewish Thought
Existentialist motifs are central to the writings of many modern
Jewish thinkers. One may for instance find existential motifs in
the thinking of Rabbi Nahman of Breslav (Meir, 37–54).
According to F. Rosenzweig, Hermann Cohen’s thought
prepared his own existential thinking (F. Rosenzweig and S.H.
Bergman highlighted the dichotomy between the neo-Kantian
Cohen of Marburg and the neo-Cohen of Berlin, whereas A.
Altmann thought that there was one great continuity in Cohen’s neo-Kantian thinking). It was the concern for the individual which led Cohen to accord religion an independent
place in his philosophic system. He argued that religion is necessary insofar as it posits the categories of sin, repentance, andsalvation to deal with the problems of the individual, which
Kantian ethics overlooks in its concern with man in general.
Cohen emphasizes the relation between God and man, rather
than theoretical speculation concerning God. With his notionof “correlation” Cohen maintains that the relationship between

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6611

Bibliography: E.F. Weidner, in: Mélanges Syriens Offorts à
M. Báné Dussaud, 2 (1939), 923ff.; W.F. Albright, in: BA, 5 (1942), 49ff.;
D.J. Wiseman, Chronicles of the Chaldean Kings (1956); Bright, Hist.
302ff.; Return from Exile; E. Bickerman, in: JBL, 65 (1946), 249–75;
J. Liver, Yemei Ezra ve-Neḥ emyah (1953); idem, Toledot Beit David(1959), 64ff.; idem, in: Eretz Israel, 5 (1959), 114–9; Bright, Hist. 341ff.;
H. Tadmor, in: Oz le-David Ben Gurion (1964), 470–73; M. Myers,
Ezra-Nehemiah (Eng., 1965); F.M. Cross, in: HTR, 59 (1966), 201–11.
Add. Bibliography: W. Hinz, in: ASN, 59–60; M. Coogan, West
Semitic Personal Names in the Murašȗ Documents (1976), 23; A. Kuhrt,
in: JSOT, 25 (1983), 83–97; P. Dion, in: ZAW 95 (1983), 111–12; J. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah (1988); M. Dandamayev, in: JAOS, 112 (1992),
163–64; S. Ahituv, Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions (1992),
128; B. Oded, in: K. van Leberghe and A. Schoors (eds.), Immigrationand Emigration within the Ancient Near East (1995), 205–12; R. Albertz, in: idem and B. Becking (eds.), Yahwism after the Exile (2003),
1–17; O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in
the Neo-Babylonian Period (2003); R. Zadok, ibid., 471–589.

exodus, book of
God and man is characterized by the holy spirit. Through his
relation to God and his acknowledging God as the model andsource of holiness, man strives to attain holiness for himself.
Man and God are partners in bringing the work of creation
to completion, i.e., in bringing about the messianic era. Boththe deeds of man and the divine grace are necessary for thesalvation of mankind.
Jewish existentialism proper begins with Franz Rosenzweig. Following Cohen, Rosenzweig attaches a great importance to the individual. In Das neue Denken (“The New Thinking,” 1925) he criticizes traditional philosophical categories,
instead making the personal experience of the individual thestarting point of philosophy. Because God, the world, and man
are experienced as three distinct entities, Rosenzweig rejects
the approach of philosophy from the pre-Socratics until Hegel
which reduced in a monistic manner these three “substances”
to one basic essence, to God (in pantheism), to man (in anthropology), or to the world (in materialism). The separationand interrelationship of God, man, and the world is central tohis New Thinking. He explains that the relation between God
and the world is cognized as creation; between God and man,as revelation; and between man and the world, as redemption.
As a result, the I is less a Cartesian cogito than a relating being, called upon to respond.
All of Martin Buber’s mature thought bears the stamp of
a closely similar existentialism of dialogue reflected in his notion of the I-you relationship, and his insistence on the concrete, on the unique, on the everyday, on the situation rather
than the “-ism,” on response with one’s whole being and thepersonal wholeness that comes into being in that response. At
the center of Buber’s existentialism stands “holy insecurity” or
the “narrow ridge” – the trust that meaning is open and accessible in the lived concrete, that transcendence addresses us in
the events of everyday life, that man’s true concern is not unraveling the divine mysteries, but the way of man in partnership with God. The partnership with “the eternal You” comes
into expression in the meeting and encounter with a you. The
living presence of God is felt when one is present to the otherand makes the other present.
For Abraham Joshua Heschel religious reality does not
begin with the essence of God but with His presence, not withdogma or metaphysics but with that sense of wonder and theineffable which is experienced by every man. Through thissense of wonder man is led toward that transcendent reality
to which each finite thing alludes through its own unique reality. Heschel approaches philosophy of religion as “situational
thinking” and “depth theology” which endeavor to “rediscover
the questions to which religion is an answer” (A.J. Heschel,
God in Search of Man [1955], 3).
Basic existentialist themes are also found in the thoughtof Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik. His thinking is pervaded bysuch themes as loneliness and alienation, but also heroic readiness of obeying the divine commandments. Soloveitchik’s halakhic hero lives through the normative prism of halakhah.
He is the ideal type who orients his life to halakhic disciplineand develops an indifference toward the chaotic, death, andthe absurd.
Although the existential Jewish writer F. Kafka has his
own anti-hero, who is the object of circumstances, of misunderstandings, and alienation and who possesses a total lack ofcommunication, one may sense Kafka’s longing for a fuller life
in his description of alienated modern man (Meir, 129–145).
In their various writings, all Jewish existentialists proposedthat their readers adopt an “authentic” lifestyle, the content of
which differed from author to author.

612

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: E.B. Borowitz, A Layman’s Introduction to
Religious Existentialism (1965); M. Friedman, The Worlds of Existentialism; A Critical Reader (1964); idem, To Deny Our Nothingness:
Contemporary Images of Man (1967). add. bibliography: D.
Hartman, “The Halakhic Hero: Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, Halakhic
Man,” in: Judaism, 9 (1989), 249–73; E. Meir, Jewish Existential Philosophers in Dialogue (Hebrew; 2004).
[Maurice Friedman / Ephraim Meir (2nd ed.)]

EXODUS, BOOK OF (Heb. title) ‫[“ ]וְ ֵא ֶּלה[ ׁ ְשמוֹ ת‬And theseare] the names of ” – the first words of the book; Gk. exodos ton
wion Israel ex aigyptou], “departure [of the children of Israel
from Egypt]”; (cf. Sefer Yeẓ i’at Miẓ rayim (“book of the departure from Egypt”), Dikdukei Te’amim, 57) the second book of
the Pentateuch. The masoretic notice at the end of Exodus(C.D. Ginsburg’s edition) gives it 1,209 verses (middle verse:
22:27), 16,713 words, and 33,529 letters; 33 (or 29) triennial
sections (sedarim), 11 annual ones (parashiyyot). According
to the traditional chronology, the book’s narrative embraces
129 years, from the death of Joseph (A.M. 2320) to the erection of the Tabernacle in the second year after the Exodus(A.M. 2449). The book itself is the end-product of centuries
of composition. It has 40 chapters (adopted from the Vulgate
in the 14t century).
Book of Exodus – Contents
Chs. 1:1–18:27
1:1–2:25

The Liberation.
The enslavement of Israel and the advent ofMoses.
3:1–7:13
The call and commissioning of Moses.
7:14–11:10 The plagues.
12:1–13:16 Firstborn plague and Passover rite.
13:17–15:21 The miracle at the sea.
15:22–17:16 Trouble and deliverance on the way to Sinai.
18:1–27
Jethro’s visit and the organization of the people.

Chs. 19:1–24:18
19:1–20:21
20:22–23:33
24:1–18

The Covenant.
The theophany at Mt. Sinai and the Decalogue.
Rules and admonitions.
The Covenant ceremony.

Chs. 25:1–40:38
25:1–27:19
27:20–31:18
32:1–34:35
35:1–40:38

The Tabernacle and the Golden Calf.
Orders to build the Tabernacle.
Activities and actors in the Sanctuary.
The Golden Calf.
Building the Tabernacle.

exodus, book ofStructure and Content
Although it is part of a continuous narrative that runs throughthe *Pentateuch, the Book of Exodus shows signs of having
been intended as a distinct unit. (See Table: Analysis of theBook of Exodus.) The opening verses of the book do not continue Genesis 50:26, but briefly recapitulate the genealogy ofGenesis 46:8–27 as a background for the story of Israel’s proliferation, which sets in motion events leading to the departurefrom Egypt. Similarly the last verses of the book (40:36ff.) lookahead to (and epitomize) Numbers 9:15–23 to round out theaccount of the Tabernacle; Exodus 40:35 has its proper sequel
only in Leviticus 1:1. Beginning with a backward glance andending with a forward one, the book gives the appearance ofa (to be sure, secondary) literary entity unto itself.
Genesis describes Israel’s antecedents and God’s promises of progeny and land to the patriarchs. Exodus relates thefulfillment of these promises in three great divisions:(1) The liberation – God redeems Israel from slavery
and demonstrates His faithfulness, His compassion, and His
power (Ex. 1–17);(2) The covenant – God establishes a covenant with Israel
and gives them rules to make them His kingdom of priests, aholy nation (Ex. 19–24);(3) The Tabernacle – God ordains the building of asanctuary for Himself in the midst of His people, so that
He might dwell among them, care for, and guide them (Ex.
25–31, 35–40).
The visit of *Jethro (Ex. 18) shows signs of being out ofchronological order (see below). In the third division, thesequence of command and execution is interrupted by the*Golden Calf episode (Ex. 32–34), the people’s travesty ofGod’s provision for securing His presence among them.
The contents of the book may be divided as follows:daughter who gives birth to a son. His retreat from the struggle of his people in Egypt is temporary, however, for God hastaken note of their misery and resolves to act.
Well-knit as the narrative is, inconsistencies occur, suggesting a separate provenance of its elements; e.g., thoughprodigiously prolific, the Israelites have only two midwives;
and though Moses seems to be the first child of his parents,
he turns out to have an older sister (cf. Ex. R. 1:19 according
to which the marriage is really a remarriage). The theme offertility (a veritable refrain in ch. 1) and birth dominates andunites this whole section, giving the impression of a distinct
design.
The birth story of Moses has been compared with thatof Sargon of Agade (Pritchard, Texts, 119; COS I, 461) andCyrus (Herodotus, 1:107ff.). However, an Egyptian myth telling how Isis concealed her infant child in a delta papyrus
thicket to save him from the predator Seth offers a closer analogue, and points to local Egyptian color in the Moses story(W. Helck).

A. THE ENSLAVEMENT OF ISRAEL AND THE ADVENT OF
MOSES (1:1–2:25). Israel’s proliferation (described in terms
employed in the primeval history (Gen. 1:28; 9:7) and the patriarchal promises (Gen. 17:2, 6; 28:14)) provokes the king of
Egypt to employ increasingly brutal measures in an effort to
reduce it: forced labor proving to be inadequate, he resorts firstto a clandestine, and when that fails to a public, order to put todeath all male infants of the Hebrews. In this evil time, a boy
is born to Levite parents, and to save him, his mother hides
him in the Nile’s canebrake. Pharaoh’s daughter retrieves theinfant and connives with his sister (who stands watch closeby) to restore it to his family. Later the child is brought backto the princess; she names him *Moses (probably of Egyptian
derivation; cf. the final element of such royal names as Thutmose “born of [the god] Thut”) and adopts him as her son.
Three acts of rescue by the young man Moses (adumbrations of his future role) are related: he rescues a Hebrew froman Egyptian taskmaster, one Hebrew from the unjust attackof another, and finally, as a fugitive in Midian, he rescues thedaughters of the local priest from bullies (note the rising scaleof disinterest). Moses takes up with the priest and marries his

B. THE CALL AND COMMISSIONING OF MOSES (3:1–
7:13). While shepherding his father-in-law’s flock deep inthe wilderness, Moses comes upon the mountain of God (unknown to him as such). The wonderful apparition of a bushthat burns without being burnt draws him into the presenceof God, who calls him to lead Israel out of Egypt. Moses’ repeated objections of inadequacy finally impel God to appoint
his brother *Aaron as his spokesman (an etiology of how Levite-priests became the spokesmen and mediators of prophecy
in Israel (Lev. 10:11; Deut. 24:8; 33:10; II Chron. 17:8–9)). The
two bring God’s message to the grateful people. Speaking to
Pharaoh, however, they disguise their demand (upon God’s
instruction) as a request for leave to worship God in the wilderness at a three-day’s march from Egypt. Pharaoh rebuffs
them contemptuously: “Who is YHWH that I should heed him
and let Israel go – I do not know YHWH, nor will I let Israelgo” (Ex. 5:2). He then orders that the Israelites’ toil be intensified, which sends Moses back with a bitter complaint to God.
God responds with a renewed charge and vow to liberate Israel in fulfillment of His promise to the Patriarchs. However,neither the people nor Pharaoh are moved by Moses’ reportof this transaction, so God prepares Moses and Aaron to act
against the Egyptians.
The *burning bush story includes the revelation of theproper divine name, YHWH, and its interpretation – the enigmatic “I am/shall be what I am/shall be” (3:13–15). Moses’
supposition that the people would ask God’s name is itself
unclear – all the more so since the contingency fails to materialize in the sequel. The coherence of the fragments in 4:18–26
is problematic (Naḥ manides supposes that verses 22–23 belong to the story of the last plague; in the Samaritan Pentateuch they are in fact repeated in 11:4), and the meaning of
the night encounter with YHWH in which Zipporah saves thelife of one of her family by circumcising her son is wholly obscure (Jacob’s nocturnal struggle with a “man” at Jabbok (Gen.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6613

exodus, book of
32:25ff.) may be aptly compared to this incident). An adumbration of the plague of the firstborn on the paschal night,
from which Israel’s firstborn are saved through a blood rite,
has been seen here.
The most salient problem of this complex section is therepetition in 6:2–7:13 of the main outline of 3:1–6:1 – the revelation to Moses of God’s plan to save Israel; Moses’ mission
to Pharaoh and Israel; his objection that he is clumsy of speech
and the consequent appointment of Aaron as his spokesman;and Pharaoh’s rebuff of the brothers. The medieval Frenchexegete Joseph Bekhor Shor suggests that at least part of thesecond narrative recapitulates the first (at 6:13, 29); in fact, it
appears that these are variant narrations of Moses’ call andcommissioning. The contribution of the second narrative is its
stress on God’s involvement in Israel’s liberation: Pharaoh’s rebuff challenges God’s reputation, and He must teach the arrogant Egyptian who He is. Thus the major motive of the plague
story is introduced (cf. 7:5 with 7:17; 8:6, 18; 9:14, 16, 29).
C. THE PLAGUES (7:14–11:10). After Pharaoh spurns the credentials of Moses and Aaron as God’s messengers because hismagicians imitated them, the brothers are instructed to bringon *plagues of blood, frogs, and lice. The first two are again
imitated by the magicians, but the third is beyond them, andthey confess it to be “the finger of God.” Six more plagues follow, with Pharaoh oscillating between obduracy and concession. When, with the eighth plague (locusts) he engages in real
negotiation with Moses, it is Moses’ turn to be difficult. He
so exasperates the king that after the ninth plague (darkness)
he is expelled from the palace with a warning never to show
his face there again. Moses stalks out in a rage after warning
Pharaoh of the final plague of the firstborn.
The plague narrative is constructed on a 3.3.3. (plus 1)
pattern – reflected in the tannaitic mnemonic Deẓ akh ʿAdash
Beʾaḥ av and expressly noted by medieval exegetes (Samuel b.
Meir, Levi b. Gershom, Abrabanel). This pattern is imposed onheterogeneous materials whose inconsistencies have troubled
readers from earliest times (for details, see *Plagues of Egypt).
Despite this, the effect of the narrative is achieved: human arrogance toward God is not only futile; in the end it overmasters its subject and leads him to his destruction.
D. FIRSTBORN PLAGUE AND PASSOVER RITE (12:1–13:16). A
fortnight earlier, on the first of the spring month (later, Nisan),God had prescribed the protective rite and sacrificial meal that
Israel was to carry out on the night of the final plague – namely,
the slaughter of the Pesaḥ (protective/pass-over (Mekh.))lamb, the daubing of its blood on doorposts and lintels, strict
confinement indoors, and consuming of the roast flesh inhaste and readiness to leave (see *Passover).
The text moves on to link the Pesaḥ with the future
week-long festival of maẓ ẓ ot, whose onset coincides with
the Pesaḥ night (14 Nisan), and whose main feature – unleavened bread – accompanies the Pesaḥ meal as well. The
two, evidently distinct, holy days are henceforth to be cel-

614

ebrated as memorials of the Exodus – their coincidence on
the same date being the basis of their combination. (Onlyin 12:39 is an etiology of the Maẓ ẓ ot Festival associating it directly with the events of the Exodus given – the inability of
the Israelites to tarry in Egypt long enough for their doughto rise.)Moses passes on to the people only the injunction concerning the Pesaḥ . However, his message too has a part thatlooks to the future. This time the link with the future is thePesaḥ rite itself: in time to come it is to be reenacted (annually) as a memorial to the sparing of Israel’s firstborn during
the plague that struck Egypt. (The Samaritan mode of celebrating the rite, preserving all its dramatic and apotropaic
features, appears closer to the intention of the text than the
Jewish mode, deliberately emptied of them (cf. National Geographic Magazine, 37:1 [1920], 34–35, 44–45; Pes. 9:5; Abraham
Ibn Ezra on 12:24).
On the fateful night, the bereaved Egyptians press the
Israelites to leave. The latter had already fulfilled (ʿaśu (12:35),
pluperfect) Moses’ order to ask the Egyptians for valuables(and thus get some return for their unrequited labor and suffering (Sanh. 91a; Ḥ ezkuni on 3:21f.; B. Jacob, in: MGWJ, 32(1924), 285ff.). (The notice (Ex. 3:20) that the valuables areworn by children is probably an etiology of a festive practice of Jews in the Egyptian diaspora of the later first millennium.) Verses 37–42 of chapter 12 are notes on the departure:
the first station; the size of the host (conceived as an army:
ragli, “footmen,” ẓ iv’ot YHWH, “the troops of YHWH”); thelarge admixture of non-Israelites; the etiology of maẓ ẓ ot; “thenight of vigil.”
Further regulations concerning the Pesaḥ in verses 43–49
continue verses 1–20, and belong (in the light of verse 50) before verse 29. They appear here owing to their assumption of
settled conditions and the presence of foreigners among thecelebrants. A passage enjoining the commemoration of the
Exodus with the Maẓ ẓ ot Festival (a variant of verses 15–20)
and the dedication of firstlings follows. Notable is the conception of both as pedagogic measures – vehicles for the transmission of God’s mighty deeds to future generations. A large
agglomeration of ritual materials of quite varied characterand provenance has thus been attracted to this point in the
narrative. The reason is clearly to link the rites and holy daysin question – doubtless pre-Israelite in origin – with their
meaning in Israel.
E. THE MIRACLE AT THE SEA (13:17–15:21). A report of God’s
providential guidance of the departing Israelites is followed bya prose and poetic account of the miracle at the yam suf, usually rendered “Sea of Reeds” or “Red Sea.” (On the problematic term see Vervenne in Bibliography; location unknown;
every body of marsh and water from Lake Sirbonis in thenorth, across the Isthmus of Suez, to the Gulf of Suez in thesouth has been proposed.) The theme of teaching Egypt who
YHWH is reaches its culmination in God’s assertion of authority against Pharaoh and his whole army (14:4). God’s design

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

exodus, book of
having been abetted by Pharaoh’s change of heart and pursuitof Israel, Moses bids the frightened people to “stand fast andsee the salvation of YHWH…YHWH will fight for you and you
be still!” God displays His sovereign control of the sea, which
he first blows apart so that Israel can pass through it on dry
land and then allows to close on the pursuing Egyptians. The
prose of chapter 14 is elevated: refrain-like clauses (cf. 14:6–7,
9, 17, 23, 26, 28) and phrases (cf. 14:16, 22, 29) summed up in
15:19 and climaxed by a strongly cadenced five-clause coda
(14:30–31).
The “Song of the *Sea” – a paean to God the warrior(15:3) – follows. Its junctures are marked by three verses in“staircase parallelism” (a b c d / a b e f) – verses 6, 11, 16b – dividing it into four parts: (a) a declaration of intent to hymn
God’s victory and a summary of its essence – the drowning of
Pharaoh’s army; (b) the piling up of waters by God’s wind, thegreedy pursuit by the enemy, and the drowning of the enemy;(c) God’s guidance of the people to His holy abode (the Landof Canaan), inspiring terror in all the neighboring countries;(d) coda: God’s implanting His people in His own mountain,His dwelling-place, His sanctuary in the Land of Canaan; acclamation of God as eternal king.
As the celebration of a specific event, the song is comparable only to Deborah’s hymn (Judg. 5), although from verse
12 on it moves on to Israel’s journey to its land and its settlement therein. A hymn to the victor at the sea has apparently
been expanded into a larger celebration of God’s deeds for
Israel from the Exodus to the settlement, incorporated here
because of its first half. The language displays several earlyfeatures (-emo suffixes; retention of radical y in yekhasyumu;
staircase parallelism; echoes of the primeval battle with Yam(the Canaanite god of the sea), cf. Cassuto in bibl.); the mention of Philistia, the references to cavalry, and the sanctuary
on God’s mountain, however, indicate a date no earlier than
the tenth century for the present form of the song.

and the force mustered by Joshua Amalek is defeated; God’soath to wipe out Amalek is memorialized by an altar named“YHWH is my ensign.”
These stories are more or less paralleled by post-Sinai
narratives: the third story, by the “Waters of Meribah” episode in Numbers 20:2–13, in which Moses and Aaron are denied entry into Canaan; the second, by the story of Numbers
11 – chiefly about the quail – which ends with the people’s being punished for their complaint (Joseph Bekhor Shor identifies the Exodus with the Numbers story in his comment to
Ex. 16:13); the fourth, by the encounter with Amalek and others in Numbers 14:45, in which Israel is defeated. Nor are they
free of occasional post-Sinai allusions: e.g., “before YHWH”
of 16:9, a commonplace reference to the tent-sanctuary; the“rock at Horeb” (17:6); the Negebite nomads of Amalek. Notwithstanding their shaky anchorage in time and place, these
episodes are thematically fitting here. They display God’s
providence and His capacity to deliver Israel from distress,
thus paving the way for His claim upon them based on theirexperience of Him (“You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to me”;
19:4). Punishment would be out of place here, but not so inthe post-Sinai narrative, where the credit established by God
and the covenant obligation of loyal devotion to Him countagainst the people.

F. TROUBLE AND DELIVERANCE ON THE WAY TO SINAI(15:22–17:16). The interval between the crossing of the sea
and the arrival at Sinai is filled with four episodes relating trials and tribulations (catchwords: nissah “try, test” and the assonant nes “(en)sign” (15:25; 16:4; 17:2, 7, 15)). (a) Marah, wherea miraculous healing of brackish water is connected with an
obscure law giving, a trial, and an admonition evocative of
epilogues to law collections. (b) The *manna story – an only
partly fused composite (note the allusion to quail that has nosequel here) – teaching God’s capacity to provide food evenin the wilderness. It also illustrates the holiness of the Sabbath: just as God ceased providing manna on the Sabbath, so
must Israel rest from procuring and preparing food on thatday; 16:35 notes that the manna ceased only when Israel arrived in Canaan (cf. Josh. 5:12). (c) Massah and Meribah: thepeople complain of thirst, Moses strikes “a rock at Horeb”(but the camp is at Rephidim, a station away from the holy
mountain; 17:1 and 19:1–2) and water gushes forth. (d) The
encounter with *Amalek: by virtue of Moses’ raised hands

G. JETHRO’S VISIT AND THE ORGANIZATION OF THE PEOPLE (EX. 18). Drawn by the wonders done for Israel, andaccompanied by Moses’ divorced wife, and children (but cf.
4:20), Jethro comes to the encampment at the mountain ofGod. He confesses YHWH’s superiority to all other gods andoffers sacrifice to him. On the morrow, seeing how Moses isoverwhelmed by the charge of the people, Jethro proposes adivision of labor between Moses – who should retain only thefunctions of mediating between God and the people – and ahierarchy of officers who would care for all other needs. (Thetext speaks of judicial functions, but the terminology (cf. e.g.,
I Sam. 8:12; II Sam. 18:1; II Kings 1:9ff.; 11:10) is military, in linewith the conception of the Israelites as an army.) Whether
Jethro’s visit occurred before or after the Sinai law giving haslong divided exegetes (see Mekh., Ibn Ezra, Naḥ manides on18:1). The argument for a later visit is based on (a) the location of the camp at the holy mountain (cf. 19:1–2); (b) the allusion to an already present cult site (18:12); (c) Moses’ teaching of God’s laws and statutes (18:20); (d) the representation in
Deuteronomy 1:9–10 of the administrative organization here
ascribed to Jethro as having occurred just before the people
left Sinai; and, finally (e) the notice of Numbers 10:29ff. that
Moses’ father-in-law was in the camp at that time.
Thematically, the episode suits its context: its first half
relates a foreigner’s appreciation of the great acts of God told
in the preceding chapters; its second half foreshadows Moses’
mediatory and legislative function – the topic of the rest of thebook. Rabbinic exegesis, for its part, found the contrast in attitude to Israel between Amalek and the equally foreign Jethro

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6615

exodus, book of
to be the point of the juxtaposition of chapter 18 to chapter
17 – a contrast whose historical consequences are depicted in
I Samuel 15:6 (see at length David Kimḥ i on Judg. 1:16).
H. THE THEOPHANY AT MT. SINAI AND THE DECALOGUE(19:1–20:21 (18)). On the first of the third month after the Exodus (i.e., 1 Sivan, in later terms) Israel arrives at Sinai. Moses
ascends to the mountaintop where God descends, and messages concerning God’s proposal to contract a covenant with
Israel are carried by Moses to and from the people. Upon theiracceptance in principle of God’s proposal, Moses prepares thepeople for the theophany (divine manifestation). On the thirdday, amid lightning and thunder, God manifests Himself on
the mountain and speaks the *Decalogue. Terrified, the people
fall back and beg Moses to be their intermediary with God.
Moses approaches the cloud “where God was” to receive therest of the commandments.
The details and order of the narrative in chapters 19 and
20 are perplexing. Weighty matters crowd together in a barely
intelligible sequence. The number of Moses’ ascents and descents is unclear. The stated aim of the theophany in 19:9 (tolet the people overhear God’s dialogue with Moses so that theymight believe him forever) has no sequel – except perhaps in
the unspecified dialogue alluded to in verse 19b. The people
are strictly barred from approaching the mountain – a wholly
unnecessary precaution. The order to return with Aaron (verse24) has no sequel (unless it be 24:1); and what Moses said tothe people (19:25) is left unsaid.
The Decalogue – a self-contained entity – is only loosely
related to the context (see *Decalogue). The terror of the people (19:18–20) seems to follow upon God’s speaking the Decalogue (as in Deut. 5:20ff.), but it has long been felt (especiallysince no reference to God’s speech occurs in the passage) thatit belongs properly to the pre-Decalogue situation describedin 19:16ff. (cf. Naḥ manides).
The extraordinary complexity is best explained as theresult of the interweaving of parallel narrations; the author
appears to have been reluctant to exclude any scrap of data
relevant to this momentous occasion.

Deut. 28 with their clear-cut blessings and curses, the formallyproper epilogue to a law collection; cf. Hammurapi’s Laws,
Pritchard, Texts, 178ff; COS II:335–53). These “utterances of
YHWH” and “rules” (usually understood as the categorical andcasuistic statements, respectively (cf. Ibn Ezra on 21:1)) appear
to constitute the “*Book of the Covenant” that Moses is said
(24:7) to have written down and read to the people; hence thesection is conventionally named “the (larger) Book of the Covenant” (to distinguish it from the “smaller”: 34:11–26, on which
see below). It is made up of heterogeneous elements, including
prior entities – note the title of 21:1; or the interrupted seriesof participial clauses concerning capital crimes in 21:12, 15–17.
Sets of five clauses are discernible: the slave laws, the homicidal ox, theft. A general design is evident: the section begins
and ends with cultic-religious admonitions and commands; inbetween these the impersonal casuistic laws appear (note thetransition in 21:2, “If you buy”) – their environment bestowing on them its character of a divine address and commandment. A fairly clear principle of association and gradation isdiscernible from (c) through (e); the precedence given to (b)is conditioned by the situation – limitation of slavery among
Hebrews being the chief boon that their liberator conferred
upon them. Indeed the very gradation referred to betrays aclear hierarchy of values (contrast the arrangement of laws
in the Babylonian collections of Eshnunna and Hammurapi(Pritchard, Texts, 161–177; COS II (332–53)). Notable is therecognition of the slave as a person in his own right in 21:20,
26–27, unparalleled in ancient law (though still holding him
less than a free man; cf. 21:21, 32). Ibn Ezra’s summary of thesection merits quotation:
The essence [of the laws] is that one should not do violence
to or coerce a weaker man. First, subjugation of the person istaken up – namely, enslavement… Assault is dealt with for thesake of the law on injuring slaves… And talion is dealt with inorder to distinguish the case of maiming a free man from thatof a slave… The goring ox is mentioned to stipulate the rule inthe case of the killing of a slave… Violence to property is thenext topic. First field and vineyard are taken up, for they constitute the essence of property; next, crops – produced by theearth; and then bailees and the borrower. And next, the seducer who coerces a minor… The resident alien is mentioned
because he is helpless, and similarly the widow and orphan andthe poor debtor.
Afterward the violence that may be perpetrated covertly
is taken up: cursing God, which one would fear to do openly;or delaying payment of the sacred dues of wine and oil… and…
purveying false reports… Judges are addressed in the injunction against perverting justice – which is violence that can bedone covertly… And the reason for mentioning the fallow year
is to declare the yield forfeit to the poor, and the Sabbath, sothat servant and alien may rest… The intention of 23:13 is toreinforce the second commandment [against worship of othergods]; and that is the reason for the three pilgrimage festivals,
namely, the assemblage of all Israel to worship God…

I. RULES AND ADMONITIONS (20:22 (19)–23:33). The further stipulations of the covenant are told to Moses, to be transmitted by him to Israel. These consist of cultic regulations, civil
and criminal laws, and socio-moral exhortations, arranged asfollows: (a) rules concerning access to God in worship (20:22(19)–26 (23)); (b) the emancipation of Hebrew slaves (21:1–11);(c) homicide and assault (21:12–27); (d) the homicidal ox(21:28–32); (e) injury to property, i.e., to animals (including
theft; 21:33–22:3) and to crops (22:4–5); the responsibility ofbailees and borrowers (22:6–14); seduction (22:15–16 – fromthe vantage point of the father’s interest, i.e., the bride-price);(f) a miscellany of religio-moral admonitions and commandments (22:17–23:13); (g) a cultic calendar (23:14–19). Admonitions to obey the accompanying angel of God and to keep
strictly apart from the society and worship of the Canaanites serve as the epilogue to the section (contrast Lev. 26 andThis ingenious, if somewhat one-sided, view of the continuity of the section has the merit of highlighting the extraor-

616

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

exodus, book ofdinary preoccupation of the rulings and admonitions withsocio-moral values. Especially noteworthy is the fact that although the laws have numerous parallels to other Near Eastern legal collections, the notion of their divine origin appears
unique to Israel.
J. THE COVENANT CEREMONY (EX. 24). Moses relates therules and admonitions to the people, who accept them. He
then writes them down, and, after a second reading and acceptance, performs a sacrifice and blood-sprinkling ceremony
to conclude the pact. Moses and Israel’s notables ascend themountain for the sacrificial meal, consecrated by a vision ofGod. Afterward, Moses takes leave of the notables and enters
the cloud on the mountaintop to receive the stone tablets andthe laws which God is to give him.
The chronology and interrelation of the elements of thischapter have long puzzled exegetes. The first two verses ofchapter 24, not picked up until verse 9, are vaguely evocative of
19:24. Some rabbinic opinion places all of the events of 24:1–11
before the pronouncement of the Decalogue (Yoma 4b; Rashi
to 24:1) going so far as to identify the people’s acceptance reported in 19:8 with that reported in 24:3 (or 7; Saadiah, citedby Ibn Ezra on 20:21). There is discontinuity between 24:11 and
12: in between, Moses and the elders must have descended themountain. The relation of the six and seven days of 24:16 toprior events is again obscure, rabbinic opinion being divided
as to whether they preceded or followed the Decalogue speech(see Rashi). The impression is unavoidable that heterogeneous
matter has been combined.
K. ORDERS TO BUILD THE TABERNACLE (TENT OF MEETING, 25:1–27:19). God commands that materials be assembled
for making Him a dwelling place amid the people (see *Tabernacle). A vision of the tent-sanctuary that God intends in allits detail is shown to Moses (25:9, 40; 26:30; 27:8; cf. I Chron.
28:12, 19 with reference to Solomon’s Temple, and the dreamof Gudea, the neo-Sumerian ruler of Lagash, summarized in
H. Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods (19552), 255–8; COS II,
417–33). First in importance and first described is the ark – thereceptacle of the “tablets of the pact” that Moses is to receive –and the cherubim on its cover, where God will “meet with”
Moses and give him his orders concerning Israel (25:22). Next,
the table and lampstand, the furnishings of the outer room of
the sanctuary. All these articles are of gold or wood overlaid
with gold, as befits the holiest part of the sanctuary.
The inner tent is to be of richest cloths: linen of several
plies, and blue, purple, and crimson wool, on which figures ofcherubim are woven; gold clasps connect the cloths. A coverof goatskin, on which yet another of ram and dolphin skins
lies, protects the inner cloths of the tent.
Planks of acacia wood, set in silver sockets and securedby horizontal poles, form the walls of the Sanctuary – all thewood overlaid with gold. A curtain of finest cloth separates
the ark from the outer sanctuary; in the entrance to the latter, a similar curtain (but with embroidered rather than woven designs) is hung.
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

A square wooden altar overlaid with copper and having
copper service vessels stands in the courtyard. The linen curtains forming the rectangular court are attached to poles set
in copper sockets. The materials of the sanctuary are clearly
graded in accord with the sanctity of the objects made ofthem (M. Haran).
L. ACTIVITIES AND ACTORS IN THE SANCTUARY (27:20–
31:18). Reference to the light which is to be lit nightly in theTabernacle and tended by Aaron and his sons leads to a description of their investiture. The gorgeous sacred vestmentsof Aaron, the high priest, are described, then the simpler attire of his sons. There follows a week-long ritual to be carriedout by Moses to consecrate Aaron and his sons as priests.
Linked to this account of the consecration ritual, through reference to the altar, is a prescription for the modest daily sacrifices that are to be made in the Sanctuary (one sheep in themorning, one in the afternoon). The peroration of this section(29:42b–46) would be a fitting close to the entire descriptionof the Tabernacle and its personnel.
However, there is more to come: a gold-plated wooden
incense altar for the outer sanctuary; an injunction to collect a
half-shekel personal ransom from each Israelite to protect him(“make expiation for him”) against the evil effects of a census – the money to be assigned to the sanctuary; a descriptionof the bronze laver and its use by the priests. The references
to the incense altar and the laver include descriptions of thepriestly use of them, which may be the reason for their location after the section on the priesthood rather than before it,
together with the other furniture. (On the problem see Meyers in Bibliography. The Samaritan text indeed transposes thedescription of the incense altar to follow 26:35.) Recipes forthe anointing oil and the incense conclude the uses for which
the materials listed at the start of the section have been collected. God then names the craftsmen responsible for executing all these instructions.
Finally, a Sabbath law, prescribing death for its violation,is promulgated. The link with the foregoing is the term “labor”(31:5), the sense of the juxtaposition (as correctly inferred by
the rabbinic exegetes (cf. Rashi, Samuel b. Meir, Ibn Ezra)) being to establish the priority of the Sabbath rest even over thebuilding of the Tabernacle.
Sections K. and L. are not a natural sequel to 24:12–13, andthe notice of 31:18 (God gave Moses the stone tablets when
He had finished speaking with him on the mountain) only
underscores the foreignness of the Tabernacle sections to thenarrative framework that surrounds them. To be sure, there
is an associative link between the announcement of a delivery of stone tablets to Moses and the order to prepare an ark
to receive them (cf. the identical sequence of ideas in Deut.
10:1–3); and since the ark passage was but a part of the detailed description of the desert sanctuary, its inclusion entailed
the rest of the passage. Rashi (following Tanhuma Ki Tissa 31(181), cf. Elijah Mizrahi’s comment to Rashi on 31:18) frankly
removes all of 25:1–31:17 from the present order of the narra-

617

exodus, book oftive, and places it after the golden calf episode, i.e., he makes
the story of the execution of the orders to build the Tabernacle
follow immediately upon the giving of the orders. As we shallsee, however, the present order has its logic.
M. THE *GOLDEN CALF (EX. 32–34). Not knowing how
Moses could have survived 40 days on the mountain andfearing the worst, the people implore Aaron to “make them agod” to lead them. Aaron fashions a calf out of their golden
earrings, which the people acknowledge as their redeeming
god; Aaron then proclaims the morrow a festival for YHWH
whom the calf must therefore symbolize; the calf – in essence
an unauthorized (indeed a forbidden (20:2ff.) and hence“apostate”) means of securing the divine presence – thus
travesties the Tabernacle (cf. Judah Halevi’s trenchant interpretation in Kuzari, 1:97, and David Kimḥ i on the related“apostasy” of Jeroboam, at I Kings 12:28). Meanwhile, on
the mountain, God wrathfully dismisses Moses, threatening
to destroy the people. Moses’ plea on their behalf is successful, and he descends, bearing the stone tablets, to the festive throng. At the sight of their revel, Moses breaks the tablets (signifying the rupture of the covenant, in accord withstandard ancient custom), and, having ground the calf into
powder, makes the people drink its remains (rabbinic exegetes interpret this, in accord with Num. 5:16ff., as an ordeal
to discover the guilty; cf. Av. Zar. 44a; Targ. Jon. on 32:20).
The Levites rally to Moses and put to death about 3,000
offenders, in return for which they are consecrated to God’s
service (an etiology of the tribe’s conversion to clerical status). Moses now undertakes to obtain remission of Israel’s
sin and restoration of the covenant. At first he is ordered
to lead the people onward under the guidance of an angel; God’s presence amid the stiff-necked people will be too
dangerous for them (33:1–5, a reflective gloss on 32:34). Therefollows a barely integrated passage telling how Moses pitchedhis tent outside the camp as an oracle site for himself andthe people, and how he there held intimate conversations with
God; in the present context, this appears as a result of God’s
refusal to be amid the people. Moses now strives to move God
to rescind His decision (He rescinds in 33:14), and at the sametime to secure the people against God’s wrath should they sin
in His presence. Banking on his favor with God, Moses extracts from Him a revelation – both visual (“I will make all
My goodness pass before you” (33:19)) and conceptual (“andI will proclaim before you the name of YHWH” (ibid)) of His
compassionate attributes (34:6–7), whereupon Moses entreats God to show this compassion and forgive offenses ofthe stiff-necked people He made His own. (Moses again successfully implores God by appealing to His compassionate attributes in his intercession on Israel’s behalf after the incidentof the spies (Num. 14:18); partial citations of these “thirteen
attributes of God,” as they are traditionally styled, occur in
Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; Nah. 1:3; Ps. 86:15; 103:8; 145:8; Neh. 9:17.
For the subsequent use of the passage in public intercessory
prayers, see RH 17b.)

618

God’s abrupt response is to conclude a covenant – in thepresent context, to renew the broken covenant (though it is
not so expressed) – with stipulations that prove to be a variant repetition of 23:12, 14–33, beginning with the topic dealt
with last in the earlier passage. The two main concerns of thesestipulations are the prohibition of apostasy and the cultic calendar – against both of which Israel offended when they worshipped the golden calf in an invented festival (Joseph Bekhor Shor). Moses is commanded to write down the covenant
terms (34:27). The sequel in verse 28 says that he wrote down“the ten words” on stone tablets (and thus renewed the broken relationship with God). However, this contradicts 34:1, in
which God Himself undertakes to rewrite on the new set oftablets the same words that had been on the first set, namely,
the Decalogue of chapter 20. The understanding of 34:28 has
been traditionally governed by verse one (the subject of “hewrote” being taken as God) no doubt correctly (cf. the unequivocal sense of “the ten words” in Deut. 4:13; 10:4); but thismeans that in 34: (10–) 27 and 28 two different conceptionsof the covenant terms have been crudely juxtaposed (see further, *Decalogue).
A fitting conclusion to this episode in which Moses confronted God resolutely, staking all on the special relationshipbetween them, is the notice (34:29ff.) that Moses’ face had become uncannily radiant through his intimate converse with
God. The golden calf narrative rivals that of the Sinai theophany in its complexity, and for the same reason: charged withintense significance, both were subject to reflections and elaborations that tradition carefully gathered and preserved.
N. BUILDING THE TABERNACLE (EX. 35–40). Having reconciled God to Israel, Moses can proceed to build His dwelling place amid the people. Starting with the last, first, Moses
admonishes the people concerning the Sabbath rest, thencollects the materials and appoints the craftsmen, who set
about building. The order of execution differs from the orderof the commands: degree of sanctity determined the order of
items in chapters 25ff., common practice determined the order of construction (“The rule is that a man builds his house
first and only afterward brings furniture into it,” Ber. 55a; cf.
Naḥ manides on 25:1). The tent structure is built first, then its
contents, finally the accouterments of the court. An itemization of materials used follows. Then the priests’ accouterments are made.
The completed work is presented to Moses, who, at thecommand of God, sets it up on the first day of the first monthof the second year after the Exodus. Immediately the Divine
Presence fills it, and its exterior sign, the cloud (fire by night),
covers the tent. (Previously, the Presence and the cloud andfire had rested on the top of Mt. Sinai 24:16–17.) Thus, eventhough Israel should depart from Sinai, the presence of God
would accompany them. The book ends with an anticipationof Numbers 9:15–23, relating how the Divine Presence, attached to the Tabernacle, guided Israel throughout its desertsojourn. (See Table: Analysis of the Book of Exodus.)
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

exodus, book of

ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF EXODUS (after S.R. Driver, Introduction (19133), 22–42)
P
J
E

1

P
J
E

3

P
J
E

1– 5

2– 4a

7–8

4b

2

21– 22

19 –22

9–15

15 –23a
1–14

4

16 –186

1–16

19 –20a
17–18
2– 30

22 – 265

29 –3120b –21

27–28

P
J
E

23 – 29

P
J
E

23b

P
J
E

14b –15a

P
J
E

11

3

14–15a1–2

20c–21a20b
11b –15

8

8 –12

4–11a

25a

10

35

15c –1924 –2615b

40 – 41

21c –23PJE

19

2b – 3a

21– 22
17–19

15 –18
10a

21a

11–14

19b –20
19a

10b

21b

28 – 2915

30 – 31

27b

1– 3

6 –24

16

20 – 21P
JE

31– 36

3 –16

8– 9

22–27

17

37a
29 – 30

20

13

26–27a

4– 5

1–18
31– 3625– 30

1a

1–2a
1b –2

3b – 98 –16
11b –13

10–11a

20–23

P
J
E

15 –18a

18

7
3– 6

E

18
14 –17
P
J
E
P

18b

32

1– 4

12 – 23

P
J
E

33

P

35–40

1–8

19

1–27
20 –25

19

18b

31

14a

28
21– 27

1–2

24–25

P
J
E

13b
12 –13a

1–20

1–3

5–7

22 – 23a

1–11

12

1–4

13 –21

27

9 –10

42a

1–7

28 –29

20–23

4– 8

14

9

16 –2825b –3424b

37b – 394

1

21b –22

16.17.18
15b
17
1–3

24a

6

5 – 2319 – 20a

1–13

P
J
E

P
J
E

23b –25
20b

5

1

7

P
J
E

13 –148 –12
15– 20a

P
J
E

P
J
E

7
6

9–14

24 1–2 3–8 9–11 12–14
25–31 18a
25 – 34
15 –2435
29 – 35

5 –11

34

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

1– 28

619

exodus, book of
Text and Composition
Like the rest of the Pentateuch, Exodus is textually among thebest preserved books of the Bible. Very few passages appear
corrupt (e.g., 17:16a), and the versions offer little improvement
over the received Hebrew (though there are hundreds of variants (see the apparatus in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) someof which have appeared in Exodus-fragments of the Dead Sea
Scrolls; see bibl.). Remarkable for its extensiveness and appeal-4&%&"%4&"'3" 0 &&%&M"SJTI

4

3BNTFT“If a man uses his field or vineyard for grazing, and lets his beast
loose so that it grazes in another man’s field [he shall make restitution out of his own field according to the yield expected; but
if it consumed the whole field (‫שלם ישלם משדהו כתבואתה ואם כל‬‫ ])השדה יבעה‬he shall make restitution from the best part of his
own field or vineyard.”#BBM;FQIPO

. -"
"/ ,&
;"
-"

4&"0'
3&&%4

ing in substance is the Samaritan Hebrew and Septuagint insertion in 22:4, indicated by brackets below:-",&4*3#0/*4(04)&/1JUIPN&UIBN

8BZPGUIFMBOEPGUIF1IJMJTUJOFT

4VDDPUI,BEFTI#BSOFB"ZOBM2VEBZSBU.06/54*/"*

 +&#&-)"-"-#JUUFS-BLFT.06/54*/"*+&#&-4*//#*4)3

.06/54*/"*&(:15

1" 3 " /

% &4

&3

.0
6/
0'4 5"*/4&*3#BBM;FQIPO
4&"0'3&&%4

5

4&"0'3&&%4/BLIM.06/54*/"*+&#&-:"h--"2

8BZPGBM)BKK&[JPO(FCFS/FWF1JSBO

;

.06/5
4*/"*+&#&4*3#"-



&*-"
5

&
46
0'

)B[FSPUI(6'0'-'(6

1"3"/%&4&35)*--40'.*%*"/.06/54*/"*.06/54*/"*.06/54*/"*+&#&-.64"
4U$BUIFSJOFT.POBTUFSZ
5)&/035)&3/3065&
5)&$&/53"-3065& 5)&$&/53"-3065& 5)&4065)&3/3065&
Map 1. Map illustrating major theories on the Israelites’ route from Egypt to Kadesh-Barnea; in addition to the routes the major sites are given according
to various theories.

620

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

N
M

M

O

Jo r d a n

OF
ES B
P
A
E P O Heshbon
ST M
A

Jaffa

Jericho
Jerusalem

Sihon

N

Gaza
Gerar

Dibon
A

HormahArad

BO

Kir ofMoab

M

Beer-Sheba

HebronDEA

Lachish

A

A

D S
EA

N

Nebo

CA

Ije-Abarim
UN

R

M

MO

O
TH

Bozrah

D

Punon

O

Kadesh-Barnea

E

This reading obviates the legal difficulty inherent in the plain
sense of the received Hebrew that was troublesome to Rava
in BK 6b. The Septuagint of the last six chapters (which virtually repeat the orders for building the Tabernacle merely
substituting past tenses for future) is abbreviated in places
and follows a different order from the received Hebrew. D.W.
Gooding has argued, however, that far from throwing a cloudover the antiquity and primacy of the Hebrew, these changes
betray the impatience of the translators and the ineptness oflater editors. The Greek’s incompleteness and absurdity inspots speaks against its priority over the sensible and consistent account of the Hebrew. That the book is composed ofheterogeneous materials of varied provenance is a plausible
inference from the repetitions, inconsistencies, and incoherence that have been indicated in the survey of its contents
given above. The assumption of a few tradition strands thathave been woven together or sometimes merely juxtaposed,
recognizable by characteristic conceptual and linguistic constants, has proven to give the most satisfactory solution to thequestion of the book’s composition. Conventional criticism
reckons with three such strands, styled J, E, and P (Priestly
Source), that were combined in stages by editors. There ismuch controversy over details, some scholars denying theexistence of E, others finding it necessary to postulate yet afourth strand (variously identified and styled J1, N, or L). Morerecently, controversy has broken out over the standing of P as
an independent document – for details see *Pentateuch and
Schwartz in Bibliography. The three conventional strands,
however, remain the starting point of critical assessment of thebook’s composition. They are set forth in the accompanying
table according to the analysis of S.R. Driver (1913). It must
be borne in mind that such schematic representation cannot
do justice to the careful, qualified arguments that underlie theanalysis, nor can it indicate where preexistent entities and editorial work are postulated.
Subsequent study has focused on the earlier stages of
the tradition, recognizing behind the narrative strands individual tales, or themes, or a ground form of the traditionalsequence of events; and behind the law collection, smaller
series (e.g., decalogues) of admonitions or categorical statements, or casuistically formulated rules. The ultimate provenance of the material and the manner of its transmission
can only be speculated upon. It is reasonable to suppose thatthe narrative of the liberation from Egypt was utilized in thecelebration of the Passover, especially in view of the pedagogic purpose of the celebration (13:8); less secure is the assumption of a covenant festival in which the Sinai law giving
and covenant-making were celebrated, or rather dramatizedin accord with the “libretto” of chapter 19–20: bereft of any
plausible liturgical use is the golden calf episode. As a vehicleof transmission the liturgy may thus have played a considerable, but not exclusive role; as the original well-spring of the
traditions, it is wholly inadequate. The theory that the present
narrative has a poetic substratum is commended by traces of
poetic language, and not infrequent patches of elevated styleR.

exodus, book of

Unsuccessful
Attempt

Ezion-Giber

Earlier Route
Later RouteMap 2. Map illustrating earlier and later traditions regarding the route of
the Israelites from Kadesh-Barnea to the Moabite Plateau.

in which parallelism and refrain appear (e.g., 3:15b; 9:23–24;
14 (see above, E); 19:3–6). That the narrative is to be comprehended as saga – the enthusiastic relation of events under the
impact of their significance – has been persuasively put forward by M. Buber.
Attention is being focused increasingly upon the editorial contribution to the shaping of the traditions. The disposition of the material must have been dictated in the main by
the order of events as related in the individual strands. Indications are that all strands shared a common ground form; thevariants that appear are, therefore, to be regarded as maximal.
Two forms of the covenant document were preserved – “thesmaller Book of the Covenant” (the “cultic Decalogue” in
34:10–26) and the other incorporated now in the “Book of the621

exodus, book of
Covenant” (23:12, 14–33). Two versions of the “accompanying
angel” theme were preserved: one in 23:20ff. – non-pejorative, the other in 33:2ff. – pejorative. Widely diverging blocksof material laid claim to having been delivered to Moses on
Sinai during his 40-day stay with God; the result is the obscurechronology that frames the “Book of the Covenant” and theblock of the Tabernacle plans – the editor(s) being hard put tofind a place for all the legitimate claimants. However, alongside the evidence of embarrassment and perplexity stands the
grand design of the material and its generally skillful composition as a testimony to the intelligence and spiritual vitalityof the editors. Through their labor, at once conservative andcreative, the traditions of ancient Israel have reached us in aform richer, more problematic – and therefore more suggestive – than they had ever been in their primary state.
Historical Reflexes
Current scholarly consensus based on archaeology holds
the enslavement and exodus traditions to be unhistorical.
Indeed, the Book of Exodus itself underlines its unhistoricity by its abundance of miracle tales and by not bothering toname either the Pharaoh of the enslavement or of the exodus.
(The popular identification of the oppressor as *Ramses II isbased (a) on the mention of the city name *Ramses (2) (Ex.
1:11; 12:37; Num. 33:3, 5) and the “land of Ramses” (Gen. 47:11),
but the royal name Ramses itself was borne by 11 pharaohs of
the 19t and 20t Egyptian dynasties; (b) on the attestation ofa people “Israel” in Asia Minor on the stela of *Merneptah,
son of Ramses II.) What may be attempted is the dating of
the material of the book, which is bound up with the larger
question of the dating of the Pentateuch as a whole. Here, thefollowing indications, taken from the Book of Exodus alone,
may be collected:a) The latter half of the “Song of the Sea,” particularly
the mention of Philistia, points to a post-settlement date (seeE. above).
b) 16:35 is connected with Joshua 5:12 and, like it, has a
post-settlement perspective.
c) The laws reflect a non-monarchic, tribal society of villagers living on the soil. Blood revenge and self-help are recognized. Neither the judicial system of the monarchy nor the
new categories of crime that arose under it are visible.
d) It has been proposed to see in the Exodus Tabernaclea reflection of the Davidic tent-shrine (II Sam. 6:17), in which
the gorgeous cloths and lavish gold overlay would be morecredible as well (Cross, in bibl.). Alternatively, the Shiloh sanctuary has been suggested as the ultimate model of the Tabernacle (I Sam. 2:22; Ps. 78:60; cf. esp. II Sam. 7:6 on the pre-Davidic home of YHWH), though the present description shows
strong affinities to the plan and furniture of the Solomonic
Temple (M. Haran). Most recently, affinities have been soughtwith the Jewish temple at *Elephantine in Egypt destroyed in
the fifth century (Rosenberg in Bibliography).
e) The correspondence between the story of the Golden
Calf and that of the two golden calves set up by Jeroboam I

622

in Bethel and Dan (cf. esp. Ex. 32:4b, 8b; I Kings 12:28b) indicates a genetic connection between the two. Since the Jeroboam narrative evidently expresses the view of the Jerusalemite orthodoxy (whose estimate of the calves is not attested
in north-Israelite literature before Hosea (8:5f.; 13:2), it may
be inferred that the present form of the Golden Calf story
reflects their polemic against the calves of the north. It cantherefore not be earlier than the division of the monarchy after Solomon’s death.
f) Pithom, “house of (the god) Atum,” named along withRamses as one of the two “store cities/garrison cities” built by
the Israelites (Ex.. 1:11), does not appear as a city name before
the late sixth century B.C.E. As for Ramses, it is now known
that the great monuments from this ancient city (Egyptian Piramesse) built at Qantir by the pharaohs of the 18t and 19tdynasties were transported to Tanis and Bubastis centuries
later. The addition of these two names to Exodus 1:11 is an attempt by Egyptian Jews in the sixth century or later to relate
the enslavement traditions to their own environment (Redford, Wente in Bibliography).
g) In Exodus 28:42 priests are required to wear breeches
in order to protect against inadvertent self-exposure at the altar. Breeches or trousers are a Persian invention. The earlier
pre-Exilic law (Ex. 20:23) required the more difficult elimination of stepped altars to achieve the same goal of modesty(Sperling in Bibliography).
The lower limits of the historical allusions and the inferable backgrounds of the material in Exodus thus range frompost-settlement times to the earlier Persian period (sixth tofifth centuries).
Main Themes
The Book of Exodus contains the final form of Israelite traditions concerning the birth of the nation and the founding of
its main institutions (excepting the monarchy).
a. The birth of the nation was a revelation of God’s trustworthiness, compassion, and power that was to serve for alltime as a ground for hope in Him in time of trouble (Isa.
11:15–16; Micah 7:15; Ps. 77:16ff.). In the burning bush narrative, God’s compassion is the sole motive of His rescue ofIsrael: He heard their cry and took note of their misery. Whatis peculiar in this instance of rescue is not its motive (cf. theSodom and Gomorrah story) but its result – the bringing ofa people to its promised land. Thus the trustworthiness of
God is manifest. In the second commissioning narrative (Ex.
6), God’s mindfulness of His promise to the Patriarchs is ona par with His compassion as a motive of His action. His redemption of Israel from Egypt thus attests to His faithfulness.
Again, the circumstances of the redemption – God’s “taking
one nation from the midst of another by prodigious acts”(Deut. 4:34) – show the measureless power at His disposal.
Egypt’s Pharaoh is the paradigm of heathen might and arrogance. However, the plagues and the drowning of his armyin the sea demonstrate the nullity of all earthly power in theface of God (cf. Isa. 31).
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

exodus, book of
The episodes in the wilderness further delineate God’s
nature: He is revealed as the reliable provider of all His people’s vital needs (cf. Deut. 8:3ff.).
b. These deeds establish God’s capacity to be the protectorof Israel, His right to possess Israel as His redeemed property,and His claim on their obedience and loyalty (cf. the association of ideas in Deut. 6:20–25, and Ibn Ezra thereon). They are
the basis of His proposing His covenant to Israel at Sinai.
The Sinai covenant differs essentially from that madewith the Patriarchs. The latter is an unconditional promise,
the grant of a sovereign to his loyal servants (M. Weinfeld);the former is a sovereign’s rule for his subjects, similar in formand spirit to ancient vassal treaties. At Sinai, obligations werelaid upon the people, the express will of their lord, the fulfillment of which was the condition of their happiness.
The terms of the covenant – in every form in which they
have been transmitted – are couched as an address by God tothe people. Their publicity is essential. Since Israel is to be aholy order (19:6), the entire nation must know its sacred regimen. This distinguishes the convenant rules from the laws ofother ancient civilizations; they are not ensurers of domestic tranquillity through justice and defense of the weak (e.g.,
Hammurapi’s laws; Pritchard, Texts, 178; COS II, 336) – no system of law so conceived was made the vehicle of public education – but a discipline whereby holiness and righteousness
before God are achieved (cf. Ex. 22:30).
c. The people’s response to God is a major concern ofthe book. They have no militant role in their own liberation,
but must merely carry out various instructions. At the sea,
when they panic, they are commanded to “stand fast and see
the salvation of YHWH”; and when it comes “they had faithin YHWH and in Moses His servant” (14:31). This is clearly aspiritual peak.
On the way to Sinai, they repeatedly fall to complaining
about their wants, unable to rise above their cares to a quiet
trust in God. He supplies their need time and again, giving them every reason to have faith in Him, yet they cannot
learn to be trustful. The terror He inspires in them at Sinai
is not enough to keep them from recourse to an idol when
they despair. Experience of His deliverances fails to instill inthem permanently the faith that “nothing is too wonderfulfor YHWH” (cf. Ps. 78).
d. Exodus depicts the founding of all the main institutions of Israel excepting the monarchy: the human agency
through which God acts on and speaks to humanity – the archetype of the prophet; the priest and the consecrated tribe ofdefenders of the faith, the Levites; the sanctuary – God’s dwelling place amid His people, where He is accessible to them forworship and oracle, and by which He guides them along theway; forms of worship – daily sacrifice and annual memorial
festivals; and, above all, the covenant, through which God andpeople are bound to each other: “I will take you to be My people, and I will be your God” – a veritable marriage formula.
These themes remained at the heart of biblical thought.
The complex structure of the Book of Exodus, the effect of ages
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6of reflection and elaboration on each of them, bespeaks theircontinuous vitality throughout the biblical period.
Bibliography: COMMENTARIES: A. Knobel and A. Dillmann, Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament(1880); A.H. Mc-Neile, Westminster Commentaries (1908); S.R. Driver,
Cambridge Bible (1911); A. Kahana, Torah, Nevi’im u-Khetuvim…, 2(1913); G. Beer and K. Galling, Handbuch zum Alten Testament, Reihe
I, 3 (1939); M.D. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (1968);
M. Noth, The Book of Exodus (1962); M. Greenberg, Understanding
Exodus, 1 (1969); J.C. Rylaarsdam, in: The Interpreter’s Bible, 1 (1952);
S. Goldman, From Slavery to Freedom (1958). GENERAL STUDIES:
W. Rudolph, Der “Elohist” von Exodus bis Josua (1938); M. Noth, Ueberlief (1948); G. von Rad, The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other
Essays (1966); F.V. Winnet, The Mosaic Tradition (1949). MOSES: H.
Gressmann, Mose und seine Zeit (1913); M. Buber, Moses (1946); P.
Déman et al. in: Cahiers Sioniens, 8 (1954); E. Osswald, Das Bild desMose (1962); S. Loewenstamm, in: EM, 5 (1968), 482–95. CHAPTERS
1–18: W. Helck, in: VT, 15 (1965), 35ff.; B.S. Childs, in: JBL, 84 (1965),
109ff.; B. Jacob, in: Essays… J.H. Hertz (1944), 245ff.; M.D. Cassuto,
in: Eretz Israel, 1 (1953), 85ff.; S. Mowinckel, in: HUCA, 32 (1961), 121ff.;
H. Kosmala, in: VT, 12 (1962), 14ff.; M. Greenberg, in: Papers of the
Fourth World Congress of Jewish Studies, 1 (1967), 151ff.; J. Pedersen,
Israel, Its Life and Culture, 3–4 (1940), 728ff.; F.M. Cross, Studies inAncient Yahwistic Poetry (1950), 83ff.; M.D. Cassuto, in: Keneset leZekher Ḥ .N. Bialik, 8 (1944), 121ff.; J. Muilenburg, in: Studia Biblica et
Semitica (in honor of Th. C. Vriezen; 1966), 233ff. LITERARY CRITICISM: G. Fohrer, Ueberlieferung und Geschichte des Exodus (1964); S.
Loewenstamm, Masoret Yeẓ iʾat Miẓ rayim (1965). CHAPTERS 19–24:
W. Beyerlin, Origins and History of the Oldest Sinaitic Traditions(1965); H.H. Rowley, Men of God (1963), 1–36; A. Alt, Essays on Old
Testament History and Religion (1966), 79ff.; M. Noth, The Laws in
the Pentateuch and Other Studies (1966), 1ff.; H. Cazelles, Etudes surle Code de l’Alliance (1946); G. Mendenhall, in: BA, 17 (1954), 26ff.,
49ff.; M. David, in: Oudtestamentische Studiën, 7 (1950), 149ff.; D.J.
McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (1963); M. Greenberg, in: IDB, 1(1962), 733ff.; M. Weinfeld, in: JAOS, 90 (1970), 184ff. THE TABERNACLE, ETC.: F.M. Cross, Jr., in: BA, 10 (1947), 45ff.; H. Haran, in:
JSS, 5 (1960), 50ff.; idem, in: Scripta Hierosolymitana, 7 (1961), 272ff.;
idem, in: JBL, 81 (1962), 14ff.; idem, in: HUCA, 36 (1965), 191ff.; S.
Loewenstamm, in: EM, 5 (1968), 532–48. TEXTUAL CRITICISM AND
DEAD SEA SCROLL FRAGMENTS: D.W. Gooding, The Account of theTabernacle (1959); P.W. Skehan, in: JBL, 74 (1955), 182ff.; F.M. Cross,Jr., The Ancient Library of Qumran (1961), 184ff.; M. Baillet et al., Discoveries in the Judean Desert, 3 (1962), 49ff., 142. Add. Bibliography: J. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll from Qumran (1986); J. Durham,
Exodus (Word; 1987); N. Sarna, Exodus (JPS; 1991); idem, in: ABD II,
689–700, with bibl.; K. Kitchen, ibid., 700–8; A. Wente, in: ABD V,
617–18; Y. Hoffman, The Doctrine of the Exodus in the Bible (1983); E.
Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (1990); D. Redford,
in: VT, 13 (1963), 401–13; idem, Egypt, Canaan and Israel in AncientTimes (1992), 451; A. Cooper and B. Goldstein, in: MAARAV, 8 (1992),
15–37; J. van Seters, The Life of Moses … (1994); M. Vervenne, in: K.
van Lerberghe and A. Schoors (eds.), Immigration and Emigration
within the Ancient Near East (1995), 403–29; C. Meyers, in: M. Fox etal (eds.), Texts, Temples … FS Haran (1996), 33–46; G. Davies, ibid.,
71–85; B. Schwartz, ibid., 103–34; C. Houtman, Exodus (HCOT, 4 vols.
(1993–2002); E. Frerichs and L. Lesko (eds.), Exodus: The Egyptian
Evidence (1997); W. Propp, Exodus 1–18 (AB; 1998); S.D. Sperling,in: R. Chazan et al., Ki Baruch Hu (Studies Levine; 1999), 373–85; S.
Rosenberg, in: NEA, 67 (2004), 4–13.
[Moshe Greenberg / S. David Sperling (2nd ed.)]623

exodus rabbah
EXODUS RABBAH (Heb. ‫ ׁ ְשמוֹ ת ַר ָ ּבה‬, Shemot Rabbah), aggadic Midrash on the Book of Exodus (for the designation“Rabbah,” see *Ruth Rabbah).
The Structure
Exodus Rabbah, which is divided into 52 sections, consists of
two different Midrashim (see Esther Rabbah; and Numbers
Rabbah): Exodus Rabbah I (sections 1–14) and Exodus Rabbah II (sections 15–52).
Exodus Rabbah I
An exegetical Midrash to Exodus 1–10, Exodus Rabbah I interprets successively, each chapter, verse, and, at times, eachword. The division into sections generally follows the earlyEreẓ Israel triennial cycle (see *Torah, Reading of the). Eachsection begins with one or more proems (*Derashah; *Midrash), of which there are more than 20 in Exodus Rabbah.
Except for one which opens with the name of an amora anda verse from Isaiah, all the proems are anonymous and begin with a verse from the Hagiographa (mainly from Psalms,
Proverbs, and Job). The structure of some proems is defective,
particularly in their ending and in their connection with the
beginning of the section. The sections have no epilogues. Exodus Rabbah I is written for the most part in Hebrew, in partmishnaic, and in part Hebrew of the early Middle Ages. *Aramaic (also Babylonian Aramaic) is only sparingly used andthere is a sprinkling of Greek and Latin words. In style andcontent Exodus Rabbah I often resembles later medieval Midrashim and aggadot, such as Sefer ha-Yashar. The redactor of
Exodus Rabbah drew upon tannaitic literature, the Jerusalem
Talmud, *Genesis Rabbah, *Leviticus Rabbah, *Lamentations
Rabbah, and other early aggadic Midrashim of the amoraic
period, and he made extensive use of the Babylonian Talmud
and of Midrashim of the *Yelammedenu-Tanḥ uma type. Such
Midrashim were the chief source of the work, and many of its
homilies occur in the various editions of the Tanḥ uma, mostly
in the printed one. The redactor of Exodus Rabbah broke thelengthy expositions of the Yelammedenu-Tanḥ uma type, which
included halakhic material as well, linking the shorter units toappropriate biblical verses, at the same time incorporating additional material from numerous other sources. In using legends of the Babylonian Talmud, the redactor tried, often notvery successfully, to change their language from Babylonian
to Galilean Aramaic. His intention apparently was to compile
a Midrash, in continuation of Genesis Rabbah, on the Book of
Exodus up to the point where the *Mekhilta begins. The redaction of Exodus Rabbah I took place, it seems, not earlier
than the tenth century c.e.

happier future. Exodus Rabbah II, which contains some Greek
and Latin words, is mainly in mishnaic Hebrew, with an admixture of Galilean Aramaic – the original language fromwhich some of the aggadot, taken from an earlier Midrash,were translated into Hebrew. Exodus Rabbah II makes use of
tannaitic literature, the Jerusalem Talmud, and early amoraic
Midrashim, but not entire themes from the Babylonian Talmud. Many of its homilies also occur in the known editions of
the Tanḥ uma. It contains several halakhic expositions, numerous parables, and some aggadot of a comparatively late type.
For the most part, however, it exhibits features which place it
earlier than Exodus Rabbah I, and it was apparently compiledin the ninth century C.e. It is probably the second part of a
Midrash, the first part of which, no longer extant, served as themain source of Exodus Rabbah I. Exodus Rabbah I and II wereapparently combined by a copyist in the 11t or 12t century
c.e. The first scholar known to have been acquainted with theentire work in its present form was *Naḥ manides, who quotes
it in his commentary on the Pentateuch.
Editions
Exodus Rabbah was first printed in Constantinople, together
with the four other Midrashim on the Pentateuch (see *Genesis
Rabbah) in 1512. This edition, on which all subsequent ones are
based, contains many mistakes and often gives only abbreviated texts of other Midrashim where a parallel homily occurs
in full. Several manuscripts of the work are extant but have
not yet been fully investigated. Until a scholarly edition is published, no thorough study of Exodus Rabbah is possible.
Bibliography: Zunz-Albeck, Derashot, 124f.; Lehrman, in:Soncino Midrash (1939), Eng.; J. Mann, The Bible as Read and Preachedin the Old Synagogue, 1 (1940); S. Lieberman, Midrash Devarim Rabbah (19642), xxii. add. bibliography: Shinan, Midrash Shemot
Rabbah, Chapters I–XIV (1984); M. Bregman, The Tanḥ uma-Yelammedenu Literature (2003).
[Moshe David Herr]

Exodus Rabbah II
Exodus 12–40 is a homiletical *Midrash of the YelammedenuTanḥ uma type. The division into sections is based on the triennial cycle. Introduced by proems characteristic of the Yelammedenu-Tanḥ uma Midrashim, some of which are quoted in
the name of R. *Tanḥ uma, the sections frequently conclude
with epilogues referring to redemption and the promise of a

EXPULSIONS, The Jews underwent expulsions during thetime of the Assyrian and Babylonian kingdoms (see Assyrian *Exile; Babylonian *Exile). Pagan *Rome also adopted onrare occasions a policy of removing the Jews from the capital, considering them an undesirable element: there is some
vague information on the expulsion of the Jews from Romein 139 B.C.E. among the other “Chaldeans.” In 19 C.E. Tiberius
ordered the expulsion of all the Jews in Italy if they would notabandon their faith. In 50 C.E. Claudius expelled them from
Rome. From the end of the Bar Kokhba Revolt (135 C.E.) until
the capture of Jerusalem by the Muslims (638), the Jews wereprohibited from entering that city and its boundaries. The policy of expelling Jews was however only adopted by victorious
Christianity from the fourth century C.E., in implementationof its objectives to separate the Jews from the rest of society,and degrade and oppress them so that they would convert toChristianity. Individual expulsions from Islamic countries,
such as the expulsion from *Tlemcen (N. Africa), are also
recorded during the tenth century (see J. Miller (ed.), Teshu-

624

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

exPULSIONS
vot Ge’onei Mizrahò u-Ma’arav (1888), 31a, no. 133). The phenomenon of expulsions is, however, overwhelmingly foundin Christian lands. Some of these were “general expulsions”
which removed the Jews from the territory of a whole country for an extended period. The expulsion from *England in
1290 (the number of expelled has been estimated at 16,000)
removed the Jews from its borders until after 1650. The expulsions from *France, especially those of 1306 and 1394, evicted
the Jews from most of the territory within the borders ofFrance until 1789. The expulsions from *Spain and *Portugal,
1492–97 (where the number of victims has been assessed byhistorians from 100,000 to several hundreds of thousands),
removed the Jews from the Iberian peninsula almost until thepresent day and brought about a series of expulsions of Jews
from lands within the sphere of influence of these countries. At
the time of the *Black Death (1348–50), the Jews were expelledfrom many places in Europe, but in most localities, especiallyin *Germany, they were readmitted after a short while. The
presence of Jews was rigorously prohibited in *Russia from the
15t century until 1772, when masses of Jews accrued to Russia from the annexed Polish-Lithuanian territories. Even after
this date, there was an attempt to maintain this prohibitionin the form of the *Pale of Settlement until 1917. Within theframework of its enforcement numerous expulsions of bothgroups of Jews and entire communities from towns and villages which were “out of bounds” (such as the expulsion from
*Moscow in 1891) were carried out. There were also expulsionsof short duration from the boundaries of entire countries, suchas the expulsion from *Lithuania in 1495. Expulsions from
specific regions and towns were frequent and regular occurrences in Germany and northern *Italy during the 14t to 16t
centuries, but in certain cases they were also ordered down to
the 18t century (the expulsion from *Prague, 1744–52). The
political fragmentation of these countries during the Middle
Ages usually enabled the Jews to settle within the proximityof the baronage or town from which they had been expelled
and to return there after a short interval. During World War I,
the Russian authorities evacuated about 600,000 Jews from
Poland, Lithuania, and the Baltic countries to the interior of
Russia, an act regarded as an expulsion.
While the motives for the expulsions fall into differingand variegated categories, the root of them all was hatred of
the Jew. This hatred was at times exploited by fiscal considerations of the rulers responsible for the expulsions.
Socio-economic factors contributed to the hostility of
the Christian merchants and craftsmen toward their Jewish
rivals, the hatred of Christian debtors for the Jewish moneylenders, and, on the other hand, the occasional feeling that
there was no need for the Jews as moneylenders for interestand that they did not fulfill any other economic-social function. Tendencies and sentiments of national and political consolidation also played their part. In Spain, the desire to isolate
the *New Christians from Jewish influence was also a factor
in the expulsion. In an epoch when the menace of death hovered continually over the Jews, especially in places where they

had grown accustomed to expulsion and rapid readmission,
expulsion was considered the lightest of possible evils. *Judah
Loew b. Bezalel (the Maharal of Prague) thought that the eraof exile in which he lived was more tolerable because its principal sufferings consisted of expulsions, which he described as
the divorce of a woman by her husband. The Jews of *Frankfurt, when they were actually expelled, also felt that “we went
in joy and in sorrow; because of the destruction and the disgrace, we grieved for our community and we rejoiced that we
had escaped with so many survivors” (poem by R. Elhananb. Abraham Helin, at end of pt. 3 of Ẓ emaḥ David, 1692). The
general expulsions were however considered disasters, and theexpulsion from Spain in particular became a fearful memory
for the nation. The expulsions always resulted in losses toproperty and damage to body and spirit. In addition to thelosses caused by forced sales – when the buyer realized that
the Jew was compelled to abandon all his real property, and attimes many of his movable goods – insecurity and vagrancy
left their imprint on the social and economic life of the Jews,
especially in the German and Italian states. Highway robberies
and losses suffered during the enforced travels also increased
the damage to property. Much information is available on attacks and murders committed against expelled Jews who left
their country and the protection of the authorities. Even in
those expulsions where instructions were given to protect
the departing Jews, such as the expulsions from England andSpain, there were numerous attacks. The wanderings were thecause of many diseases and also reduced the natural increase.
A shocking description of the sufferings of the exiles from
Spain and Portugal is given in the writings of the kabbalist
Judah b. Jacob *Ḥ ayyat. He relates of himself and his companions after they had reached the safety of Muslim Tunis: “Weate the grass of the fields, and every day I ground with my own
hands in the house of the Ishmaelites for the thinnest slice ofbread not even fit for a dog. During the nights, my stomach
was close to the ground – and my belly my cushion. Becauseof the great cold of the autumn – we had no garments in the
frost and no houses to lodge in – we dug trenches in the refuse
heaps of the town and put our bodies therein” (introduction
to Minḥ at Yehudah (Mantua, 1558), 3a).
The expulsions left their impress on the entire nationand its history, both materially and spiritually. They maintained and constantly intensified the feeling of foreignnessof the Jews in the Diaspora. The consecutive expulsions fromEngland, France, and Spain resulted in a situation where after
1492 there were no Jews living openly on the European coastof the Atlantic Ocean in a period when this had become thecenter of world traffic. The expulsions of the late 15t century
resulted in the return of many Jews to the Islamic countries, inparticular to the Ottoman Empire. The Jews were also driven
into *Poland-Lithuania. Frequently, the expulsions caused thecenters of gravity of Jewish life to be removed from one place
to another, the creation of new centers of settlement, messianic
movements, and a renewed relationship with Ereẓ Israel; it
was no coincidence that the kabbalists of *Safed were Spanish

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6625

extradition
exiles. The expulsions also caused the Jews of Spain to comeinto contact with those of Italy, the Balkans, Asia Minor, North
Africa, and many Middle Eastern countries, where they influenced and fashioned the social-spiritual character of many
communities in these regions. The expulsions may be considered one of the decisive factors shaping the map of Jewish
settlement and one of the forces which molded the thinkingof Jews both in relation to themselves and to the world of nations and states which surrounded them.
For expulsion by the Nazis, see *Holocaust.
Bibliography: S.P. Rabinowitz, Moẓ a’ei Golah (1894); B.L.
Abrahams, in: JQR, 7 (1894/95), 75–100, 236–58, 428–58; A. Marx,
ibid., 20 (1907/08), 240–71; R. Straus, Die Judengemeinde Regensburg
im ausgehenden Mittelalter (1932); idem (ed.), Urkunden und Aktenstuecke zur Geschichte der Juden in Regensburg (1960); E.M. Kulisher,
Europe on the Move (1948), index, s.v. Jews; I. Sonne, Mi-Paulo haRevi’i ad Pi’us ha-Ḥ amishi (1954); Baer, Spain, index; JSOS, index.
[Haim Hillel Ben-Sasson]

EXTRADITION.
Biblical Sources
EXTRADITION OF SLAVES. The Torah relates directly to theissue of extradition in the context of a slave who flees from his
slavery, prohibiting a person from returning to his master an
escaped slave who is now in his custody: “Do not deliver tohis master a slave who has escaped from his master. He shalldwell in your midst with you, in the place he shall choose in
one of your gates, where it is good for him; you shall not oppress him” (Deut 23:16–17). Some Biblical commentators haveinterpreted this passage on the basis of the context in which itappears, viz. as referring to a slave who during battle escapesfrom the enemy camp to the Israelite camp, the reason for theprohibition on his extradition being that it is better for theslave to remain in the Israelite camp than to return to worshipping idolatry. An additional reason proposed is a practical one, deriving from the aforesaid battle context – namely,
the danger that the slave will “learn the way into the city,” sothat to return him to his master would constitute a danger
to the security of the city (Naḥ manides. ad loc.; Ibn Ezra, adloc.). A case in which the question of extraditing a slave at atime of battle arose in 1 Samuel 30:11–16: David and his men,in pursuit of the Amalekites, found an Egyptian slave who had
been forsaken by his Amalekite masters. The slave agreed toshow David and his men the location of the Amalekite troop,
in return for David’s promise that he would not return him
to his masters.
According to the Talmud, the prohibition against extradition applies to a Canaanite slave who has fled from Jewish masters outside the Land of Israel into the Land of Israel(Bavli, Gittin 45a; Maim., Yad, Avadim 8.10). Rabbi Judah the
Prince is of the opinion that the prohibition applies to a person
who purchases a slave on condition that he emancipate him,and later regrets his act and seeks the slave for himself.

uge from punishment by entering sacred grounds: “If a person shall maliciously kill another with guile, he shall be taken
to die (even) from my altar” (Exod 21:14). In this manner,
the Torah abrogated the rule, widespread at that time andeven later (1 Kings 2: 29–32), that entry upon sacred groundcan spare a murderer from his just punishment. Biblical commentators emphasized that this law is intended to serve as acontrast to the law of one who committed inadvertent manslaughter, who is given a special place to live and guaranteed
protection from persecution by the blood avenger (see *Cityof Refuge). A murderer with malice aforethought has nowhere
to seek refuge, not even the altar. Maimonides (Guide 3.39)
emphasizes the difference between the Torah’s commandagainst delivering an escaped slave, regarding whom we arecommanded to have mercy and to grant protection and care
for all his needs, and a malicious person, whom we are commanded not to pity and not to protect, and who must be
turned over to the officer of justice even if he grasps hold of
the altar.

EXTRADITION OF AN ESCAPED CRIMINAL. The Torah rejects the possibility that an escaped criminal may acquire ref-

INSTANCES OF EXTRADITION IN THE TORAH. The Book
of Judges (15:9–13) relates that, after Samson smote the Philistines, the Philistines retaliated against Israel, in order tocapture Samson and to take revenge for his deeds. The menof Judah went to Samson and told him that they had cometo take him so as to extradite him to the Philistines. Samson
asked the men of Judah to swear to him that they themselves
would not harm him but would only extradite him to the Philistines. They duly did so, binding Samson with ropes; however, as soon as he was delivered to the Philistines he flung
off the ropes with which he had been bound and once again
struck down a thousand Philistines. Some halakhic authorities classified Samson’s extradition as performed under duress,
for had the men of Judah not given Samson to the Philistines,
the Philistines would have killed them (Or Sameah on Maim.,
Yad, Yesodei ha-Torah 5.5). From the commentary of Radak(II Samuel 20:22), it follows that extradition was only possible
due to Samson’s consent, but that they would not have been
entitled to extradite him against his will.
Following the incident involving the concubine at Gibeah (Judges 19–21), during which people from the town ofGibeah in the territory of Benjamin perpetrated an act of rapeand murder, the other tribes of Israel gathered together anddemanded that the clans of Benjamin turn over the perpetrators of the atrocity, in order to “eliminate the evil from Israel”(ibid. 20:12–14). The Benjaminites refused to extradite themen and went to war against the other tribes of Israel. Nahmanides, in his Torah Commentary (Gen. 19:8) states that the
Benjaminites were not obligated to deliver the sinners from
Gibeah into the hands of the other tribes of Israel, because
the responsibility to take action lay exclusively in the handsof the tribal court of Benjamin, each tribe having jurisdiction
over its own members.
Another incident relating to extradition appears in I Samuel 23:10–12, when David, fleeing from Saul, together with his

626

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

extradition
followers, came to the aid of the townsfolk of Keilah, saving
them from the Philistines. After David had smitten the Philistines at Keilah, Saul heard that David was situated there, andwent with his army in order to capture him. David inquiredof God, through the ephod (sacred oracle) held by the Abiathar the priest, as to whether the heads of Keilah would deliver
him into the hands of Saul. God responded that they would
extradite him, whereupon David left the city. The text implies
that, in this case as well, the delivery of David into the handsof Saul by the people of Keilah, had it occurred, would havebeen one of extradition under duress, as had they not turnedDavid over to Saul, Saul would have destroyed the town.
Talmudic Period
Following the era of the Talmud and thereafter, in periods
during which Jewish communities found themselves under
the suzerainty of a heathen ruler, whether in Israel or in thevarious Diaspora communities, the issue of extradition wasconsidered from various angles: the criminal justice aspectof the offender’s acts; the relationship between Israel and theother nations of the world; the relationship between the Jewish legal system and the non-Jewish legal system; and the relationship of the Jewish community towards its own members
who had deviated from the right path. Jewish legal autonomy,
while containing a not-insignificant measure of juridical
competence even in the field of criminal law, was nevertheless restricted with respect to the majority of cases concerning serious offenses and offenses of interest to the authorities,
in which areas the authorities retained the right of adjudication and the right to punish. We will now deal with the main
problems and questions discussed in the talmudic literaturein this regard.
THE SEIZURE AND EXTRADITION OF JEWISH THIEVES ANDROBBERS. During the talmudic period, the Sages encounteredcases in which they were requested by the Roman administration to hand over Jewish criminals. We find differing opinions
among the Sages regarding the question as to whether such extradition is prohibited or permitted, or possibly even desirable.
The Talmud relates how R. Eleazar b. Simeon seized thieves
and robbers on behalf of the Roman administration, and thedispute that arose in this regard with R. Joshua b. Korha. R.
Joshua b. Korha reacted to R. Eleazar b. Simeon’s acts withthe words: “Vinegar son of wine: how long will you continue
to deliver the people of God to death?” R. Eleazar b. Simeon
answered by way of a parable: “I am eliminating thorns fromthe vineyard” to which R. Joshua b. Korha retorted: “Let theowner of the vineyard [i.e., God] come and eliminate histhorns” (tb, bm 83b). A further discussion of the same issue
appears in the sequel to this talmudic passage, which records
that R. Ishmael b. Yose would also apprehend offenders at thebidding of the authorities. These controversies reflect the aversion to turning over a Jew to the Roman government, which
was suspected of not conducting fair trials, hostility to Jews,
and persecution of their persons and property.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

SAVING JEWS SUSPECTED OF SERIOUS CRIMES. An additional incident discussed by the Talmud and its commentaries (Bavli, Niddah 61a) reflects the divergent approaches to theissue of granting asylum to a murderer. In this case, certain
persons who were suspected of murder approached R. Tarfon with the request that he hide them from the authorities.
R. Tarfon’s response was that he could not hide them, for theSages had stated that one should take heed of an evil rumor,
viz. that they were in fact murderers. Talmudic commentators are divided as to the reason for R. Tarfon’s refusal to hidethem. According to Rashi (ad loc.), R. Tarfon suspected there
might be truth to the rumor that they had murdered, in whichcase it would be forbidden to save them. According to R. Aḥ aGaon (She’iltot de-Rav Aḥ a §129; Tosafot, ad loc.), R. Tarfon’s
suspicion did not emanate from the fact that he was forbidden
to save them, but rather from the danger to which he would
be exposed were he to save them. R. Asher b. Jehiel (Rosh, on
Niddah 9.5) adopts the She’iltot’s explanation and rejects thatof Rashi, because, according to his view, it cannot be forbidden to save a person’s life merely because of a rumor that hehas sinned. From Asheri’s words, it follows that, when it isclear that the person has indeed committed a crime, it would
be forbidden to save him even according to Rashi’s disputants.
R. Solomon Luria (Yam shel Shelomo on TB Nid. 61a) states
unequivocally that a distinction must be made between thecase of one who has definitely murdered, whom it is forbidden to save and who must be handed over to the authorities
to judge, and the case of a rumor, which gives rise to a mere
suspicion, in which case the individual, who is presumed innocent until proven guilty, must be saved, provided there isno danger to the savior in doing so.
Post-Talmudic Period
Over the centuries during which Jews were in various Diasporas and subject to the whims of foreign rulers, many and varied
questions arose concerning the interrelationship between the
Jewish community and the Jewish legal system and between
the authorities and the local legal system. Within this reality, and in view of the need to grapple with the phenomenonof criminality that existed within the Jewish community, thequestion often arose as to the need to hand over Jewish criminal offenders to the authorities. In post-ralmudic and responsa
literature, various aspects of this topic are considered.
DELIVERING A CRIMINAL WHO ENDANGERS THE
COMMUNITY. When a given individual’s criminal conduct
constituted a danger to the entire Jewish community, such as
when the non-Jewish authorities are liable to harm the entire
Jewish community on account of the acts of an individual offender, or when only the non-Jewish authorities have thepower to prevent the offender continuing in his socially unacceptable conduct, he may be extradited to the non-Jewish
authorities. Thus, already in the 13t century it was ruled thatthe non-Jewish authorities could be informed, and extradition
was permissible, in the case of a violent man who regularly
assaulted others, or a person whose criminal acts encouraged627

extradition
gentiles to contrive plots against the Jewish community, in order to remove the danger from the entire Jewish community(Maharah Or Zaru’a, #142). The Shulḥ an Arukh rules (ḥ M388) that a Jew who harasses the community, and not merely
one individual, could be delivered into the hands of the nonJews in order “to beat, imprison or fine him.” R. Moshe Isserles
adds, in his glosses to the Shulḥ an Arukh (ad loc.) that evena Jew who is engaged in forgery – if there is a danger that the
Jewish community will be harmed by his activities, and hefails to take heed of the warnings made to him – may be delivered to the authorities, in order to demonstrate that only he,the offender, engages in forgery, and no other member of thecommunity does so. Elsewhere, Isserles writes that the permission to deliver such offenders to the non-Jewish authorities is based upon the principle of “rodef ”– i.e., that any Jew
is permitted, if necessary, to kill a person who is pursuing his
fellow with the aim of killing him, in order to save the life of
the pursued: “One who endangers the community, e.g., if heengages in forgery in a locality where the authorities forbidit, has the status of a rodef and it is permitted to deliver him
to the authorities” (Rema, ḥ M 425.1). R. David Halevi, in his
commentary Turei Zahav on the Shulḥ an Arukh (ḥ M 157.8)
similarly rules that anyone who transgresses and rebels against
the local law in a manner that endangers the Jewish community may be turned into the authorities, even if the authorities
do not demand that he be handed over.

R. Joel Sirkis (Responsa Ba”ḥ ha-Yeshanot §43), the leaders of
the Jewish community were asked to deliver to the Christianauthorities for trial a Jew who, according to the authorities,
had collaborated in the desecration of Christian religious artifacts. The authorities demanded his extradition, stipulating
that, if he was not extradited, the community leaders would
have to take his place for any punishment that was decreed.
Sirkis ruled that the words of Maimonides – that a person who
is liable for the death penalty may be extradited – apply even
where the non-Jewish authorities have grounds to kill him under their laws, even if he is not deserving of death according
to Jewish law. In such a case, it was not certain that handing
over the Jew would result in his death, because the authorities intended to conduct a trial, and the possibility existed that
he would be proven innocent. Hence, R. Sirkis ruled that his
delivery to the non-Jewish authorities was permitted even dejure, in contrast to Maimonides’ ruling that we avoid rulingthat way where possible. Furthermore, in this case too permission to deliver the accused was given only because there
was prima facie evidence of his guilt, and that the grounds forwhich the non-Jews sought to judge him were thereby substantiated; hence, the accused himself was considered responsible
for the allegations made against him.

WHEN THE COMMUNITY IS THREATENED IF THE WANTEDPERSON IIS NOT DELIVERED. The Tosefta (Terumot 7.20)
deals with a case in which non-Jews demanded that a groupof Jews hand over one of their number to be killed, or elsethey would all be killed. The Tosefta rules that it is forbidden
to deliver a single Jewish soul; rather, they should all be killed.
However, if a specific person was designated to be handed
over, they should deliver that individual rather than allow allof them to be killed. The Jerusalem Talmud records an amoraic
controversy as to whether such a person can only be delivered
if he is in fact deserving of death, as was Sheba son of Bichri
who rebelled against King David’s rule (2 Samuel 20). In otherwords the story of Sheba is seen as the source of the ruling by
the Tosefta. The alternative view is that he should be handed
over request, even if he is not liable to the death penalty. It isnoteworthy that the case of the Tosefta does not discuss theissue of extradition – i.e. deliverance of a suspected criminal
for the purpose of trying him – but only (translating it into
the contemporary context) the case of a terrorist group which
threatens to kill many people unless an individual is handed
over to them. Nonetheless, the halakhic authorities relied on it
in cases where the non-Jewish authorities required the handing over of a specific individual and threatened the lives ofother Jews in the event that he was not delivered. Maimonides(Yad, Yesodei ha-Torah 5.5) ruled that, if the wanted person
is deserving of death, he may be handed over in order to prevent the killing of the remainder of the group; however, “weavoid ruling this way where possible.” In a case brought before

SAVING JEWS SUSPECTED OF SERIOUS CRIMES FROM THE
LAWS OF THE AUTHORITIES. R. Jair Ḥ ayyim Bacharach(Resp. Ḥ avvot Yair §146) was asked about a case involving a
Jewish youth, a fugitive murderer, who was later caught by theauthorities. R. Bacharach rejected the possibility that he could
be delivered to the non-Jewish court, even by the relatives ofthe murder victim (by virtue of the a fortiori argument thatthey could in any event deliver him to the authorities basedon the law of the blood avenger; see *Blood Avenger). At thesame time, based on Rashi’s interpretation of the talmudic passage about R. Tarfon, he rules that it is forbidden to save theyouth from the authorities, because of the duty to “eradicate all
evil from your midst.” He then raises the possibility that, eventhough it is forbidden to save him, it may be permitted to givehim advice on how to escape. In suggesting this possibility,
R. Bacharach relies on the words of R. Tarfon in the talmudic
story, who told those people who sought refuge with him thatthey should hide themselves – what may have amounted toadvice on the part of R. Tarfon. R. Jacob Emden (Resp. She’ilat
Ya’avetz II. 9) rejects this possibility out of hand, ruling that it
is forbidden to give advice to a murderer on how to evade thejudgment against him. In the case brought before him, after
one Jew who had murdered another Jew was arrested by theauthorities, he was given the possibility of acquitting himself
by swearing a solemn oath that another person killed the victim and he was not the murderer. The local rabbi ruled that themurderer should save himself from death by swearing falsely.
R. Emden vehemently rejects this advice and states that “it isforbidden to save him from death through any means, evenan [otherwise permissible one],” and certainly not throughmaking a false oath.

628

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

extraDITIONEXTRADITION BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT “THE LAW
OF THE LAND IS LAW”. In the rulings of the great halakhic
authorities of Spain from the 13t century onward, the authority of the local non-Jewish government is accepted also
in matters of penal law, by virtue of the principle that “thelaw of the land is law” (see *dina de-malkhuta dina), and not
only regarding matters of local administration and civil law.
The Rashba, in a responsum cited by the Beit Yosef on the Tur(ḥ M 388), discusses a case in which the Jewish community was
asked by the non-Jewish authorities to determine whether aparticular Jew had transgressed a criminal offense; if so, hewould be punished by the authorities. The Rashba, relying
upon the principle of “dina de-malkhuta dina,” sets forth thefollowing rule that, when a Jewish court operates under thegovernment’s authority, there is no need to insist on all thenormal evidential strictures of the Torah – warning, valid
witnesses, etc. – even in capital matters for, were the Jewish court to insist on such requirements, the world would be
desolate, as murderers and their companions would multiply.
The Rashba proceeds to rule, relying on the above-mentioned
talmudic cases involving R. Eleazar Simeon and R. Ishmael b.
Yose, that anyone who is appointed by the king is permitted
to turn in Jewish criminals to the king. The Ritva, a disciple of
the Rashba, also explained the acts of the aforesaid tannaimon the basis of the principle of “dina de-malhuta dina,” whichapplies even in the realm of criminal law (Ḥ iddushei ha-Ritva
ha-Ḥ adashim, at BM 83b).
R. Samuel de Modena (Salonika, 16t century; Resp. Maharshdam Ḥ M 55), relying on a responsum of the Rabad, rules,
on the basis of the principle of “dina de-malkhuta dina” thatacts of the government concerning the punishment of criminals are legally binding just as the government has authority
to enact laws in the city.
In the 19t century, R. Moses Schick (Resp. Maharam
Schick, HM 50) utilized the above-cited rulings of Rashba
and Ritva in relation to a case in which the Jewish community suspected, albeit without any conclusive evidence, that awoman had murdered her husband. The question was asked
whether there was any obligation to report the case to the authorities. Maharam Schick determines, in relation to the legitimacy of governmental enactments in punishing criminals,
that “…anything they do whose purpose is to benefit society,their law is law,” and that the woman could be reported to theauthorities, albeit he concludes that great scholars should notinitiate this matter, but rather do nothing – neither save nor
extradite the suspect.
The State of Israel
The Extradition Law, 5714 – 1954, determines the ways andmeans by which a person can be extradited from the Stateof Israel to another country that requests his extradition.
Amongst the provisions set down in the Law, compliance withwhich is essential to perform the extradition, are the following: the existence of a reciprocal agreement between Israel andthe requesting state; that the offense concerned not be of a po-

litical nature; that the extradition be to a state, the fairness of
whose judicial proceedings the State of Israel acknowledges;
and, that no person shall be extradited who has already beenbrought to trial in the State of Israel for the same offense.
In the Aloni affair (HCJ 852/86 Aloni v. Minister of Justice, PD 41(2)1) the issue of extradition was heard by the Supreme Court of the State of Israel, together with an examination of the existing legal framework in Israel in light of theprinciples of Jewish law. The Court was asked to decide theissue of whether the State should be ordered to extradite to
the French authorities a man who was wanted in France formurder. The accused was declared extraditable according to
the Israeli Extradition Law, pursuant to a treaty between thetwo states, but the justice minister decided not to execute theextradition order, due to fear of danger to the life of the defendant by prisoners in the French prison in the event of his
extradition. Justice Menachem Elon analyzed the position of
Jewish law on the topic of extradition at length and in great
detail, based on the above-cited and other sources. His conclusion was that the provisions of the Extradition Law accord,
first and foremost, with the categorical stand of Jewish law,which negates the possibility that a suspect in the commissionof an offense evade accountability for his acts, particularly if
the alleged crime is murder. Justice Elon relies on the justifications in favor of extradition approved by the great halakhic
authorities, even where extradition was forced on the Jewish
community by the non-Jewish authorities. These justifications
were based either on substantive Jewish law itself, or on theprinciple of “dina de-malkhuta dina” – i.e., in order to establish
social order and the rule of law. According to Elon, the sourcesof Jewish law indicate that throughout Jewish history extradition was permitted in specific cases, even when no supervisionof the judicial system or the penalty prescribed was performedby the Jewish community. Therefore, it is all the more justified
today when it is executed freely by a sovereign Jewish State,with rights equal to those of the state requesting the extradition, and when the Jewish State has the ability to monitor the
integrity of the judicial system in the other state and to annul
the extradition treaty with it in the event that the said judicial system lacks such integrity. Elon suggests that this view
would be concurred with even by the authorities who opposedcooperation with non-Jewish courts unless the crime posed adanger to the Jewish community. This opposition was basedon their fear of a miscarriage of justice being caused by the
extradition, a fear that was regarded as more significant thanthe benefit gained in punishing the criminal. These being thereasons for their opposition to extradition based on cooperation with non-Jewish courts, the same authorities would not
object to extradition performed by and with the advantages
afforded by a sovereign Jewish State.
From the above-cited rulings of Ḥ avvot Yair and She’ilat
Ya’avetz, which set forth a prohibition on shielding the criminal in cases of serious crimes, Justice Elon derives that, in asovereign Jewish state, their rulings should be understood as
indicating a duty to extradite. According to Elon, in a small

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6629

extraordinary remedies
Jewish community the argument may be made that, while it isforbidden to conceal the offender from the authorities, there
is no obligation to hand him over, and if the authorities so desire they can come and search for him. By contrast, in a sovereign state, it is impossible to simply turn a blind eye, becausesuch is not the way of a Jewish state, which has a duty either
to try the offender, if this is possible according to its laws, orto extradite him to a state which has the ability to try him,
subject to the restrictions stipulated in the law. According to
the aforementioned arguments, when it is impossible to try
the offender in Israel, the State of Israel must extradite the offender in order to eliminate the evil from its midst.
In the same judgment, Justice Elon ruled that, in theevent of a reasonable probability of danger to the life of theaccused were he to serve his sentence in a foreign country, heshould not be extradited. This was in contradistinction to themajority of the Court, who ruled that extradition should only
be avoided in the event of a high probability of danger to his
life. Justice Elon also ruled that the execution of the extradition be delayed until arrangements are put in place to ensurethat the accused’s wife will not find herself in a state of abandonment (iggun). It should also be noted that, in this judgment, Justice Elon recommended that the Extradition Law
be amended so as to allow a criminal sentenced by a foreign
court to serve his sentence in an Israeli jail; indeed, in 1999
the law was amended in this spirit.
The position adopted by Justice Elon aroused controversy. Amongst his disputants was R. Shaul Yisraeli (see bibliography), who emphasized the prohibition of litigating before
non-Jewish courts. According to R. Yisraeli, the possibility ofdelivering a Jew to the authorities by virtue of the Law of theKing and “dina de-malkhuta dina” only exists where there is
no autonomous government in Israel and no possibility oftrying the criminal under Jewish law. In addition, he statesthat the authority of government law, by virtue of the principle of “dina de-malkhuta dina,” only applies to those citizens
who live within the borders of that state. It does not extend
to validate an extradition agreement between states, and it istherefore forbidden for the State to enter into an extradition
treaty which, according to R. Yisraeli, has no validity fromthe halakhic point of view even post factum. R. Yisraeli alsoemphasizes the merits of the Land of Israel, by whose virtue arguments (for his innocence) may be found in his favor(Makkot 7a). The solution suggested by R. Yisraeli to ensurethat the State of Israel does not become a “sanctuary for criminals” is for the State to enact a law according extra-territorial
status to Israeli criminal law, enabling all Jewish criminals tobe tried in Israel.
It should be noted that the Jerusalem Rabbinical Court,in considering the issue dealt with by the aforesaid Supreme
Court judgment, determined that an extradition treaty madeby the State of Israel with another state has halakhic validity
by virtue of the principle of “dina de-malkhuta dina” because“it is a matter of good governance that the State of Israel not
become a refuge for Israeli criminals and that we should be

able to punish criminals who are located in other countries– in Israel” (File 8384/5747, pp. 27–28, given on 12 Tishrei
5748, 5/10/87).

630

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

ADD. Bibliography: M. Elon, Jewish Law (1994), 4:1861,
1862; idem, Jewish Law (Cases and Materials) (1999), 369–88; idem.,“Laws of Extradition in Jewish Law,” in: Teḥ umin, 8 (1986/7) 263–86;
304–9 (in Hebrew); S. Yisraeli, “Extradition of an Offender to a Foreign Jurisdiction,” in: ibid., 287–96 (in Hebrew); J.D. Bleich, “Extradition of an Offender to a Non-Jewish People,” in: ibid., 297–303 (inHebrew); idem, “Extradition of an Offender Who Has Fled to Ereẓ
Yisrael,” in: Or ha-Mizraḥ , 35 (1986/7), 247–69; Y. Gershuni, “Is it Permitted for the Government of Israel to Extradite a Criminal to Another Nation?” in: Or ha-Mizraḥ , 21 (1971/2), 69–77 (in Hebrew); B.
Rabinowitz, “Teomim, Extradition For Imprisonment by Non-Jews”
in: No’am, 7 (1963/4), 336–60 (in Hebrew).
[Menachem Elon (2nd ed.)]

EXTRAORDINARY REMEDIES.
Extrajudicial Remedies
As in other ancient civilizations, the earliest method of vindicating violated rights under biblical law was self-redress. A
burglar at night may be killed on the spot (Ex. 22:1), life may
be taken for life (see *Blood-Avenger) and limb for limb (see*Talion). Even when another man’s rights were violated, one
was exhorted not to stand idly by, but to interfere actively tovindicate them (Lev. 19:16; and cf. Ex. 23:4–5; Deut. 22:1–4).
Again, as in other systems of law, self-redress was largely superseded by judicial redress – firstly because of unavoidable
excesses on the part of avengers, secondly because the effectiveness of self-redress always depended upon the injured
party being stronger than the wrongdoer and the weak victim was in, the danger of being left without a remedy, andthirdly because an injured party ought not to be the judge in
his own cause. The right to self-help survived in the criminal
law mainly in the form of self-defense or the defense of others; but in civil law self-redress is in talmudic law much morein evidence than in most other systems, and was a well-established legal remedy.
The biblical license to kill the nocturnal burglar (Ex.) isretained in talmudic law for the reason that such a burglar presumably knows beforehand that, if caught, he might be killedby the irate landlord and is therefore presumed to come with
the intention to kill the landlord first, and: “whoever comesto kill you, better forestall him and kill him first” (Yoma 85b;
Maim. Yad, Genevah, 9:7–9). There is no restriction in law as
to the mode of killing such a burglar: “you may kill him inwhatever way you can” (Sanh. 72b). But if the thief is caught
alive, no harm may be done to him; nor may the landlord
lay hands on him if he knows that the thief comes for money
only and has no murderous designs, or where there are people around who would hinder him (ibid.; Maim. ibid., 10–12).
Similarly, the biblical allusion to the duty of saving the girl in
danger (Deut. 22:27) led to the rule that a man was allowed
to kill the persecutor in order to save the persecuted girl fromdeath or rape (Maim. Yad, Roẓ e’ah u-Shemirat Nefesh, 1:10).
While efforts must be made to avert the danger by means otherextraordinary remedies
than killing, a man is not to be charged with culpable homicide
if he did kill even though the danger could have been averted
by other means (ibid., 13). A person is under a duty to save another from death or rape even by killing the offender, and his
failure to do so, while not a punishable offense (ibid., 15–16),
is considered a grave sin (Lev. 19:16; Deut. 25:12).
The general right of self-redress in civil cases has beenstated by Maimonides as follows: “A man may take the law
into his own hands, if he had the power to do so, since he acts
in conformity with the law and he is not obliged to take thetrouble and go to court, even though he would lose nothingby the delay involved in court proceedings; and where his adversary complained and brought him to court, and the court
found that he had acted lawfully and had judged for himself
truthfully according to law, his act cannot be challenged”(Yad., Sanhedrin, 2:12). This final rule was preceded by a dispute between talmudic jurists, some of whom held that a man
may take the law into his own hands only where otherwise,i.e., by going to court, he would suffer monetary damage (BK27b). This view was rejected because there could be nothing
wrong in doing what the law had laid down as right in thefirst place (Piskei ha-Rosh 3:3). The party taking the law into
his own hands only took the risk that the court might, on thecomplaint of the other party, overrule him; so that in cases ofany doubt it was always safer to go to court at the outset.
There were, however, cases of doubt as to what the law
actually was, and as to where the respective rights of the parties lay – in which instance the court would uphold the title ofthat party who had already taken the law into his own hands
and put the court, so to speak, before a fait accompli (kol deallim gaver: BB 34b). The reason for this rule – “a very startling phenomenon indeed” (Herzog) – is stated by Asheri tobe that it would be unreasonable to leave the parties quarreling all the time – one trying to outwit the other – so it waslaid down that once one of them had possessed himself of thechose in action, he was to prevail; the presumption being thatthe better and truer one’s right is, the better and more unrelenting effort one will make to vindicate it, while a man witha doubtful right will not go to the trouble of vindicating it at
the risk of being again deprived of it in court (Piskei ha-Rosh3:22). This reasoning appears to be both legally and psychologically unsatisfactory; a better explanation might be that
where the other party did not establish any better title to thechose in action, he could not succeed as against the party inpossession, such possession being for this purpose recognized
as accompanied by a claim of right (see *Evidence).
The rule applied not only to land but also to movables
and money. Although courts are no longer competent to award*fines, where a person entitled in law to a fine has taken it fromthe wrongdoer, tefisah, he may retain it (BK 15b; Sh. Ar., HM1:5); and where he had taken more than was due to him, thewrongdoer may sue only for the return of the balance (Turand Rema, ibid.). A wife who had succeeded in collecting her
ketubbah from her husband is allowed to retain it notwithstanding the husband’s contention that only half of it is dueto her (Ket. 16b). The holder of a bill which was unenforceable because of formal defects may retain the amount of thebill if he succeeded in collecting it (the numerous and rather
complicated rules of tefisah were compiled by Jacob Lissa
and are appended to ch. 25 of the standard editions of Sh. Ar.,ḥ M). But there is a notable exception to this rule; namely, no
creditor may enter the debtor’s house against his will, for itis written, “Thou shalt stand without” (Deut. 24:11); nor may
the debtor’s property be attached or sold in satisfaction of adebt otherwise than by process of the court (BM 9:13). Even
where the debtor had agreed, by contract in writing, that thecreditor may satisfy himself by seizing the debtor’s property
in case of default, the creditor was not allowed to do so except
where no court was available to award him a legal judgment(Sh. Ar., ḥ M 61,6; see *Execution; *Pledge).
Two instances of extrajudicial authority in inflicting punishments for crime may be mentioned. One is the prerogativeof the king to kill any person disobeying or slandering him(Maim. Yad., Melakhim, 3:8) – not only is the king not boundby the rules of law and procedure, but he may lawfully execute murderers acquitted for lack of evidence or other formal
grounds if he considers it necessary for the public good (ibid.,10). The other is the right of zealots (kanna’im) to kill thievesof Temple utensils, idolatrous blasphemers, and men cohabiting with idolatresses, without legal process, if they are caught
inflagrante delicto (Sanh. 9:6): this rule derives its justificationfrom the praise God heaped on Phinehas for his impassioned
act in stabbing the man whom he found cohabiting with theMidianite woman (Num. 25:6–13).

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6631

Extralegal Remedies
Instances are already reported in the Bible of punishments
being inflicted, mostly drastic and wholesale, and sometimes
at the express command of God, but outside the frameworkof the law and without legal process (e.g., Gen. 34:25–29; Ex.
32:27–28; Judg. 20:13). With the elaboration of talmudic criminal law and procedure and rules of evidence, and the consequential complication of the criminal process, the necessity
soon arose for extraordinary procedures in cases of emergency(Hora’at Sha’ah): it was in such an emergency that Simeon b.
Shetaḥ is reported to have sentenced and executed 80 witchesin Ashkelon on one day (Sanh. 6:4). Extralegal punishments
such as these were stated to be justified or even mandatorywhenever the court considered their infliction necessary for
upholding the authority and enforcing the observance of thelaw (Yev. 90b; TJ, Hag. 2:2,78a). With the lapse of capital jurisdiction (see *bet din) – but not previously, as some scholars wrongly hold – this emergency power was called in aid
to enable courts to administer the criminal law and upholdlaw and order generally, the very lapsing of the jurisdiction
creating the “emergency” which necessitated the recourse tosuch emergency powers. Thus, courts were empowered to inflict corporal and even capital punishment on offenders who
were not, under the law, liable to be so punished (Maim. Yad,
Sanhedrin, 24:4); and there are instances already in talmu-

eyAL
dic times of illegal punishments being administered – suchas cutting off the hand of a recidivist offender (Sanh. 58b), or
burning an adulteress alive (Sanh. 52b; the Talmud (ibid.),
however, adds: “That was done because the bet din at thattime was not learned in the law.”), or piercing the eyes of amurderer (Sanh. 27a). In post-talmudic times, new forms of*capital punishment were advisedly introduced, not only for
penological reasons but also to demonstrate that these courts
were not administering the regular law. Justification for suchinnovations was found in the biblical reference to “the judgesthat shall be in those days” (Deut. 17:9), the nature and content
of the Hora’at Sha’ah, as the term indicates, depending on thecircumstances and requirements of the time (Bet ha-Beḥ irah
Sanh. 52b; Resp. Rashba vol. 5, no. 238). The same considerations led to a general dispensation with formal requirementsof the law of evidence and *procedure (Resp. Rashba vol. 4,
no. 311). Conversely, prior deviations from such law, as, e.g.,
executions on the strength of *confessions only, were retrospectively explained as exceptional emergencies (Maim., loc.
cit. 18:6).
A peculiar instance of an extra-legal remedy is the rulethat where a litigant has a dangerously violent man for his adversary, he may be allowed to sue him in non-Jewish courts
under non-Jewish law (Maim. ibid., 26:7; Resp.Rosh 6:27; Tur,ḥ M 2; see *Judicial Autonomy; *Mishpat Ivri). In civil cases,
courts are vested with proprietary powers so as to be able todo justice and grant remedies even contrary to the letter ofthe law (Maim. loc. cit., 24:6; and see *Confiscation and Expropriation; *Takkanot).
[Haim Hermann Cohn]

The fundamental provision referred to above allowed theBet Din to deviate from original Biblical and Talmudic law inmatters of evidence, procedure and penal policy, guided by
the needs of the time and the place. Based on this provision,both the courts and the communal leaders utilized their authority to enact communal regulations (see entry: *Takkanot
ha-Kahal) with detailed legislation concerning penal policy.
Formally, such regulations are defined as “emergency provisions” (hora’at sha’ah), but they were in fact incorporated into
substantive Jewish law. Indeed, Jewish courts throughout the
Jewish Diaspora occasionally exercised their extra-legal punitive powers to adjudicate capital cases, and even to impose
death sentences, without requiring a court of 23, and without
being bound by the stringent rules of evidence imposed by
the original Jewish law.
The Israeli Supreme Court discussed this issue at length
in the Nagar case (Cr.A 543/79 Nagar v. State of Israel 35 (1)PD 113. Based on this principle, Justice Elon ruled that suspects could be convicted for the commission of murder even
where the Court had no direct evidence of their commissionof the crime, and even where the dead body had not beenfound.
For a broad discussion of this topic, see entries: *Capital
Punishment; *Evidence.
[Menachem Elon (2nd ed.)]632

Bibliography: Vogelstein, in: MGWJ, 48 (1904), 513–53; H.
Cohen, in: Jeschurun, 9 (1922), 272–99; S. Assaf, Ha-Onshin Aḥ areiḤ atimat ha-Talmud (1922), passim; Gulak, Yesodei, 1 (1922), 171; 2(1922), 17, 18; A. Gulak, Toledot ha-Mishpat be-Yisrael, 1 (1939), HaḤ iyyuv ve-Shi’budav, 112 n. 41, 113–6; Herzog, Instit, 1 (1936), 226–8,
264f., 272f.; B. Cohen, Jewish and Roman Law, 2 (1966), 624–50, addenda 793–6; ET, 2 (1949), 11–13, 7 (1956), 385f.; 8 (1957), 512–27; Z.
Wahrhaftig, Ha-Ḥ azakah ba-Mishpat ha-Ivri (1964), 51–77. Add.
Bibliography: M. Elon, Ha-Mishpat ha-Ivri (1988), 1:15f, 49ff.,
421ff., 436ff., 1324ff.; idem, Jewish Law (1994), 1:15ff, 55ff.; 2:515ff.,
533ff.; 4:1582; idem, Jewish Law (Cases and Materials) (1999), 200ff.;
M. Elon and B. Lifshitz, Mafte’aḥ ha-She-elot ve-ha-Teshuvot shelḤ akhmei Sefarad u-Ẓ efon Afrikah (1986), 2:332, 337, 343; B. Lifshitz
and E. Shohetman, Mafte’aḥ ha-She’elot ve-ha-Teshuvot shel Ḥ akhmei
Ashkenaz, Ẓ arefat ve-Italyah (1997), 230.

EYAL (Heb. ‫“ ; ֱאיָ ל‬strength”), kibbutz in central Israel, on theeastern border of the Sharon, northeast of the Arab town
Qalqilya, affiliated with Ha-Kibbutz ha-Me’uḥ ad. Eyal was
originally founded on July 3, 1947 as a *Palmaḥ outpost near
the Syrian border east of Lake Huleh, where it fulfilled a vitalfunction during the Israel War of Independence (1948). After the war, the settlement was transferred (Nov. 1, 1948) to
its present site, which was also vulnerable to attack until the
Six-Day War of 1967. Its farming was based on field crops, orchards including organic farming and milch cattle. The kibbutz operates two factories: Eyal Microwave for microwave
components and one for optical lenses (in partnership withkibbutz *Shamir). In 2002 the population was 385.
Website: www.eyal.org.il.
[Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]EYBESCHUETZ, JONATHAN (ben Nathan Nata; 1690/95–
1764), talmudist and kabbalist. Eybeschuetz, a child prodigy,
studied in Poland, Moravia, and Prague. In his youth, after thedeath of his father, he studied in Prossnitz under Meir Eisenstadt and Eliezer ha-Levi Ettinger, his uncle, and in Vienna
under Samson Wertheimer. He married the daughter of Isaac
Spira, the av bet din of Bunzlau. After traveling for some time
he settled in Prague in 1715, and in time became head of theyeshivah and a famous preacher. When he was in Prague hehad many contacts with priests and the intelligentsia, debating religious topics and matters of faith with them. He became
friendly with Cardinal Hassebauer and also discussed religious questions with him. Through the help of the cardinal,
Eybeschuetz received permission to print the Talmud with theomission of all passages contradicting the principles of Christianity. Aroused to anger by this, David *Oppenheim and the
rabbis of Frankfurt had the license to print revoked.
The people of Prague held Eybeschuetz in high esteem
and he was considered second only to David Oppenheim. In
1725 he was among the Prague rabbis who excommunicatedthe Shabbatean sect. After the death of David Oppenheim(1736), he was appointed dayyan of Prague. Elected rabbi ofMetz in 1741, he subsequently became rabbi of the “Three
Communities,” Altona, Hamburg, and Wandsbek (1750). BothENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6eybeschuetz, jonathan
in Metz and in Altona he had many disciples and was considered a great preacher.
His position in the Three Communities, however, wasundermined when the dispute broke out concerning his suspected leanings toward Shabbateanism. This controversy accompanied Eybeschuetz throughout his life, and the quarrel
had repercussions in every community from Holland to Poland. His main opponent was Jacob *Emden, also a famous
talmudist and his rival in the candidature to the rabbinate of
the Three Communities. The quarrel developed into a great
public dispute which divided the rabbis of the day. While mostof the German rabbis opposed Eybeschuetz, his support camefrom the rabbis of Poland and Moravia. A fruitless attempt
at mediation was made by Ezekiel *Landau, rabbi of Prague.
Most of Eybeschuetz’ own community was loyal to him andconfidently accepted his refutation of the charges made byhis opponent, but dissension reached such a pitch that bothsides appealed to the authorities in Hamburg and the government of Denmark for a judicial ruling. The king favoredEybeschuetz and ordered new elections, which resulted in
his reappointment. Yet the literary polemic continued, evenprompting several Christian scholars to participate, some ofwhom, thinking that Eybeschuetz was a secret Christian, cameto his defense. After his reelection as rabbi of the Three Communities, some rabbis of Frankfurt, Amsterdam, and Metz
challenged him to appear before them to reply to the suspicions raised against him. Eybeschuetz refused, and when thematter was brought before the Council of the Four Lands in
1753, the council issued a ruling in his favor. In 1760 the quarrel broke out once more when some Shabbatean elements werediscovered among the students of Eybeschuetz’ yeshivah. At
the same time his younger son, Wolf, presented himself asa Shabbatean prophet, with the result that the yeshivah wasclosed. When Moses Mendelssohn was in Hamburg in 1761,
Eybeschuetz treated him with great respect, even publishinga letter on him (Kerem Ḥ emed, 3 (1838), 224–5), incontrovertible testimony to Eybeschuetz’ awareness of Mendelssohn’sideological approach.
Eybeschuetz was considered not only one of the greatest preachers of his time but also one of the giants of the Talmud, acclaimed for his acumen and particularly incisive intellect. Thirty of his works in the field of halakhah have been
published. His method of teaching aroused great enthusiasm among the pilpulists, and his works, Urim ve-Tummim
on Ḥ oshen Mishpat (1775–77), Kereti u-Feleti on Yoreh De’ah(1763), and Benei Ahuvah on Maimonides (1819), were considered masterpieces of pilpulistic literature. To the present
day they are regarded as classics by students of the Talmud.
They are unique in that the many pilpulim they include arein most cases based on clear, logical principles that give them
their permanent value. His homiletic works, Ya’arot Devash(1779–82), Tiferet Yonatan (1819), and Ahavat Yonatan (1766),
also found many admirers. In succeeding generations his reputation was sustained by these works. Since (apart from Kereti
u-Feleti) his works were not printed in his lifetime, it is clearthat his great influence among his contemporaries must havederived from the power of his oral teaching and from his personality, both of which were highly praised by many writers.
Of his books on the Kabbalah, only one was printed, Shem
Olam (1891), but during his lifetime Eybeschuetz was considered a great kabbalist.
Opinions are still divided on the assessment of this striking personality, his supporters and detractors vying with one
another with an extraordinary intensity. The great bitterness
surrounding the controversies on the question of his secret
relationship with the Shabbateans stems precisely from his
being recognized as a true master of the Torah. It was hard tobelieve that a man who had himself signed a ḥ erem against
the Shabbateans could have secretly held their beliefs. Suspicions were aroused against him on two occasions: in 1724,with the appearance of a manuscript entitled Va-Avo ha-Yom
el ha-Ayin, which the Shabbateans, and also several of his own
students, ascribed to him. This book (preserved in Ms.) is indisputably a Shabbatean work. Even after he had signed theḥ erem against the Shabbateans, suspicion was not allayed andit prevented his election to the rabbinate of Prague. In 1751,
the dispute grew more virulent when some amulets written
by Eybeschuetz in Metz and Altona were opened. Jacob Emden deciphered them and found that they contained unmistakable Shabbatean formulae (Sefat Emet, 1752). Eybeschuetz
denied that the amulets had any continuous logical meaning, maintaining that they consisted simply of “Holy Names”(Luḥ ot Edut, 1755), and he even put forward an interpretationof them based on his system. His opponents retorted that thereal interpretation of the amulets could be discovered from thework attributed to him, Va-Avo ha-Yom el ha-Ayin, and thatthey could and should be interpreted as having a meaningful content. Scholarly historical research has advanced threeviews concerning Eybeschuetz’ relationship with Shabbateanism: that he was never a Shabbatean and that suspicions
on this score were completely unfounded (Zinz, Mortimer,
Cohen, Klemperer); that he was a Shabbatean in his youth
but turned his back on the sect around the time of the ḥ eremof 1725 (Bernhard Baer, Saul Pinhas Rabinowitz); that he wasa crypto-Shabbatean from the time he studied in Prossnitz
and Prague until the end of his life (Graetz, David Kahana,
Scholem, Perlmutter). An interpretation of his kabbalistic beliefs must also depend on his relationship with Shabbateanism. Some believe that the book Shem Olam, which deals withthe philosophical explanation of the nature of God, is a workwhose kabbalistic teaching only confirms generally acceptedkabbalistic teaching (Mieses); others consider that the book is
undoubtedly Shabbatean in its conception of God (Perlmutter). Still others believe that the work is a forgery or was erroneously attributed to Eybeschuetz (Margulies). Recent research has demonstrated a close relationship between Shem
Olam and Va-Avo ha-Yom el ha-Ayin.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6633

Bibliography: B. Brilling, in: HUCA, 34 (1963), 217–28; 35(1964), 255–73; D.L. Zinz, Gedulat Yehonatan (1930); M.J. Cohen,
Jacob Emden, a Man of Controversy (1937); G. Scholem in; KS, 16

EYDOUX, EMMANUEL(1939–40), 320–38; idem, in: Zion, 6 (1940–1), 96–100; idem, Leket
Margaliyyot (1941); R. Margulies, Sibbat Hitnahaguto shel Rabbenu
Ya’akov me-Emden le-Rabbenu Yehonatan Eybeschuetz (1941); A. HaShiloni (I. Raphael), La-Pulmus ha-Meḥ uddash al Shabbeta’uto shel
R. Yehonatan Eybeschuetz (1942); M.A. Perlmutter, R. Yehonatan Eybeschuetz ve-Yaḥ aso la-Shabbeta’ut (1947); Mifal ha-Bibliografyah
ha-Ivrit, Ḥ overet le-Dugmah (1964), 13–24.
[Gershom Scholem]

EYDOUX, EMMANUEL, pen name of Roger Eisinger(1913– ), French author. Descended from Alsatian Jews, he
was born in Marseilles, where he engaged in business until
1965. He then abandoned commerce and taught Jewish history
and thought in an ORT school. He was active in the cultural lifeof the Marseilles Jewish community. Eydoux began publishingpoems in 1945, under the pen name of “Catapulte.” He thenwrote plays and books on the history of Judaism. The main
poetic works of Eydoux were Le Chant de l’Exil (1945–47),
Abraham l’Hébreu et Samuelle Voyant (1946), L’Evangile selon
les Hébreux (1954), and Elégies inachevées (1959). He wrote aplay, Ghetto à Varsovie (1960), and a tetralogy including Pogrom (1963) and Eliezer ben Yehouda (1966). Eydoux was also
the author of Le dernier Pourimspiel des orphelins du docteur
Janusz Korczak (1967), which has its setting in the Warsaw
ghetto under the Nazis. His didactic works include La Science de l’Être (1949) and Introduction à l’histoire de la civilisation d’Israël (1961).
[Moshe Catane]

EYLENBURG, ISSACHAR BAER BEN ISRAEL LEISER
PARNAS (1550–1623), talmudist. Eylenburg was born in Posen and studied under Mordecai *Jaffe, *Judah Loew b. Bezalel (the “Maharal”) of Prague, and Joshua *Falk. He served as
rabbi and av bet din of Gorizia, Italy. In his Be’er Sheva (Frankfurt, 1709), he attempts to provide tosafot for those tractates
which do not possess them. His halakhic method is original.
Taking the actual talmudic halakhah as the basis of his discussion, he adopts a critical attitude to the commentaries ofsuch rishonim as Isaac *Alfasi, *Rashi, and *Maimonides, nothesitating to disagree with them or even to reject them. He is
opposed to philosophy, condemning Maimonides and others who “arrogated to themselves the right to read the works
of sectarians.” The work follows to a considerable extent themethod of Judah Loew b. Bezalel in halakhah. Eylenburg
also wrote Ẓ eidah la-Derekh (Prague, 1623), a supercommentary to Rashi’s commentary on the Pentateuch, with glosses
to other supercommentaries on Rashi, including that of Elijah *Mizraḥ i. His halakhic work was highly regarded by thescholars of Safed, who invited him in 1621 to serve as rabbi of
the Ashkenazi community of that city, in place of Moses Da*Castellazzo whom they wished to dismiss. Eylenburg declined the invitation, only to be invited again upon Castellazzo’s death, when he accepted. He died in Austerlitz on his
way to Safed.

tesdiener, in: Azkarah… Kook, 4 (1937), 344; M.A. Shulvas, Roma viYrushalayim (1944), 96; Benayahu, in: Tarbiz, 29 (1959/60), 73.
[Isaac Ze’ev Kahane]

EYNIKEYT (“Unity”), official organ of the Jewish *Anti-Fascist Committee in the Soviet Union. Eynikeyt began to appear in Kuibyshev in June 1942 once every ten days under theeditorship of Shakhne Epstein. The editorial board consistedof: D. *Bergelson, Y. *Dobrushin, S. *Halkin, S. *Mikhoels, L.
Strongin, I. *Fefer, L. *Kvitko, and A. *Kushnirov. After Epstein
died, G. Shitz was named chief editor. In July 1943 Eynikeyt
moved to Moscow and became a weekly magazine. By February 1945 it began to come out three times a week, but publication was stopped on Nov. 20, 1948, with the liquidation of all
Jewish cultural institutions in the U.S.S.R. Altogether, about
700 issues of Eynikeyt were published, and its contributors
included all the Yiddish writers of the Soviet Union. Some of
their contributions were first published there, like Fefer’s famous poem “Ich bin a Yid” (“I Am a Jew”). The newspaper
was devoted entirely to the war effort, carrying stories on theatrocities perpetrated against Jews in the countries occupiedby the Germans and emphasizing the contribution and thebravery of Jews in the war against the Nazis. There was a column called “Jewish Life Abroad,” with reports on Jewish events
outside the U.S.S.R., Jews in the anti-Nazi underground, andalso events in the yishuv of Palestine. The paper reported thevisit of Mikhoels and Fefer to the U.S., Canada, Mexico, andGreat Britain, and also the visit of the Americans Goldberg
and Novik. These visits later served the KGB in drawing up its
accusations of espionage for the West in the case of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. After the war Eynikeyt continued to appear under the guidance and supervision of the Soviet authorities. This control was especially noticeable in thepaper’s editorial policy toward the struggle of the yishuv inPalestine. In the first half of 1948, in conformity with official
Soviet policy, the paper supported Israel’s *War of Independence and the establishment of the State of Israel. But from
September 1948 until its dissolution, it published attacks on
Zionism. The employees of Eynikeyt shared the fate of otherJewish cultural activists.
Bibliography: Ben-Yosef, in: Yad Vashem Studies, 4 (1960),
135–61; Litvak, in: Gesher (1966), 218–32.
[Yehuda Slutsky / Shmuel Spector (2nd ed.)]Bibliography: Azulai, 1 (1852), 115, no. 427; Perles, in: MGWJ,
14 (1865), 123; S.M. Chones, Toledot ha-Posekim (1910), 59, 93–95; Got-

EYTAN, RACHEL (1931–1987), Hebrew author. Eytan spentpart of her childhood in children’s homes and later lived in a
kibbutz. She was trained as a teacher and worked with childrenof new immigrants. Her first novel, Ha-Raki’a ha-Ḥ amishi(1962; The Fifth Heaven, 1985) depicts in realistic style the lifeof abandoned children living in an orphanage in Ereẓ Israel
during World War II. The novel, which was awarded the prestigious Brenner Prize, was one of the early attempts of Israeli
literature to deal with the underprivileged “inferior” groupsof the new Jewish society. In 1967 Eytan moved to New Yorkand was appointed professor of Hebrew and Yiddish at Hofstra

634

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

ezekiel
University. Her second novel, Shidah ve-Shidot (“Pleasures ofMan,” 1974) is the story of a young married woman who hasa passionate affair with a member of the Israel Philharmonic
Orchestra, told against the background of the urban, hedonistic society of Tel Aviv following the Six-Day War.
Bibliography: Y. Oren, in: Yedioth Aharonoth (Dec. 6, 1974);
E. Ben Ezer, in: Al ha-Mishmar (Dec. 6, 1974); A. Zehavi, in: Yedioth
Aharonoth (Dec. 20, 1974); G. Shaked, Ha-Sipporet ha-Ivrit, 4 (1993),
161–62, 383; T. Mishmar, “Ein Osim Leḥ em mi-Ideologyot” (on The
Fifth Heaven), in: Te’oriyah u-Vikkoret, 7 (1995), 147–58.
[Anat Feinberg (2nd ed.)]EYTAN (Ettinghausen), WALTER (1910–2001), Israel diplomat. He was the son of Maurice L. Ettinghausen (1882–1974),
bibliophile and antiquarian bookseller. Eytan, born in Munich, was educated in England and taught German language
and literature in Oxford from 1934. Eytan served in the British army from 1940 to 1945. Settling in Palestine in 1946, heserved as director of the Civil Service and Diplomatic Collegeof the *Jewish Agency in Jerusalem. In this capacity, and particularly as first general director of the Ministry for Foreign
Affairs under Moshe *Sharett and Golda *Meir (1948–59),
he greatly influenced the structure and character of Israel’s
foreign service. In 1949 he headed the Israel delegation bothto the Rhodes armistice negotiations and to the Lausanne
Conference with the Arab states (see State of *Israel: Historical Survey). In 1955 Eytan headed the Israel delegation to
the Atomic Energy Conference in Geneva. He served as
Israel ambassador to France from 1959 until 1970. In March
1972, Eytan was appointed head of the Board of Governorsof the Israel Broadcasting Authority, in succession to Chaim*Yahil, and held the position until his retirement in 1978.
He wrote The First Ten Years: Diplomatic History of Israel(1958).
[Netanel Lorch]

EZEKIEL, a major prophet who is said to have begun prophesying in the fifth year of Jehoiachin’s exile in Babylonia,
seven years before the final fall of Jerusalem; his prophecies are recorded in the book that bears his name. The name
Ezekiel (Heb. ‫ ;יְ ֶחזְ ֵקאל‬Gk. Iezkiēl; Vulg. Ezechiel [cf., in I
Chron. 24:16, and for (ּ‫)י(חזְ ִק ָ ּיה)ו‬ְ ], = ‫ )?יְ ִחזְ ִק ֵאל‬seems to be
derived from ‫“ יְ ַח ֵ ּזק ֵאל‬may God strengthen” (namely, “thechild” (so Noth, Personennamen, 202; others cf., Ezek. 3:8f.,
14)).

Book of Ezekiel – Contents
Chs. 1:1–3:21

The call of the prophet.

Chs. 3:22–24:27
3:22–5:17

The doom of Judah and Jerusalem.
House arrest and dramatic representation ofsiege and punishment.
6:1–7:27
Prophecies against the mountains of Israel andthe populations of the land.
8:1–11:25
A visionary transportation to Jerusalem.
12:1–20
Dramatic representation of the exile of Judahand its king.
12:21–14:11 On false prophets and the popular attitude
towards prophecy.
14:12–23
No salvation through vicarious merit.
15:1–8Parable of the vine wood.
16:1–63
Parable of the nymphomaniacal adulteress.
17:1–24
Parable of the two eagles.
18:1–32
God’s absolute justice.
19:1–14A dirge over the monarchy.
20:1–44
The compulsory new exodus.
21:1–37
The punishing sword: three oracles.
22:1–31
Unclean Jerusalem: three oracles.
23:1–49
The dissolute sisters, Oholah and Oholibah.
24:1–14
The filthy pot: a parable of Jerusalem.
24:15–27
Death of the prophet’s wife.

Chs. 25:1–32:32
25:1–17
26:1–28:26
29:1–32:32

Dooms against foreign nations.
Brief dooms against Ammon, Moab, Edom, andPhilistia.
Doom against Phoenicia.
Seven oracles against Egypt.

Ch. 33:1–33

A miscellany from the time of the fall.

Chs. 34:1–39:29
34:1–31
35:1–36:15
36:16–38

38:1–39:29

Prophecies of Israel’s restoration.
Renovation of the leadership of Israel.
Renovation of the mountains of Israel.
A new heart and spirit: the condition of lasting
possession of the land.
The revival of the dead bones of Israel and theunification of its two scepters.
The invasion of Gog and his fall.

Chs. 40:1–48:35
40:1–43:12
43:13–46:24
47:1–12
47:13–48:35

A messianic priestly code.
A visionary transportation to the future temple.
Ordinances of the cult and its personnel.
The life-giving stream issuing from the temple.
Allocation of the land.

37:1–28

location of the book in the canon
The talmudic arrangement of the major prophets is Jeremiah,
Ezekiel, and Isaiah, the departure from the true historicalorder being justified thus: “The Book of Kings ends withdoom, Jeremiah is all doom, Ezekiel begins with doom but
ends with consolation, while Isaiah is all consolation, so weplace doom alongside doom and consolation alongside consolation” (BB 14b). This arrangement appears in some early Bible
manuscripts (Ginsburg, Introduction, 5), but manuscripts of

the Ben Asher tradition (e.g., Leningrad, Aleppo) and the early
printings follow the proper chronological order (Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel) as in present texts (cf. Kimḥ i’s introduction
to Jeremiah; Minḥ at Shai’s introduction to Isaiah).
The talmudic bipartition of the book recalls Josephus’ statement that Ezekiel “left behind two books” (Jos., Ant., 10:79) –ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6635

structure and contentsezekiel

The Dates in the Book of Ezekiel
Text

Year

Month

Day

B.C.E.¹

Event

1:1
1:2f.
3:16
8:1
20:1
24:1
26:1
29:1
29:17
30:20
31:1
32:1
32:17
33:21
40:1

30
35
A week later
36
37
39
11
10
27
11
11
124
12
12
25

14
–

35
35

Note2
July2 593

36
35
10
–
10
31
31
33
12
–5
10
1/77

35
10
10³
31
12
31
37
31
31
15
35
10

Sept. 592
Aug. 591
Jan. 588
587–6
Jan. 587
April 571
April 587
June 587
March 5854
March 5855
Jan. 585
April/Oct. 5737

Vision of heavenly beings.
Vision of God’s vehicle and call of the prophet.
Appointment as lookout.
Vision of temple abominations.
Prophecy of compulsory exodus.
Beginning of Jerusalem’s siege.
Prophecy of Tyre’s destruction.
Prophecy of Egypt’s destruction.
Tyre’s doom amended, substituting Egypt therefor.
Prophecy of Pharaoh’s destruction.
Parable of Pharaoh as a fallen tree.
Dirge over Pharaoh.
Lament over Pharaoh in Sheol.
Arrival of fugitive with news of Jerusalem’s fall6.
Vision of future temple.

¹ The year-count in the dates starts from the exile of King Jehoiachin (1:2; 33:21; 40:1), datable by a Babylonian chronicle to 2 Adar (mid-March) 597. However, II Chron.
36:10 has the exile beginning at “the turn of the year” – i.e., the next month, Nisan, the start of Nebuchadnezzar’s 8th year (II Kings 24:12). The era of the exile thus began in Nisan (April) 597, and its years, like Babylonian regnal years, ran from Nisan to Adar.
² The date formula in vs. 2 is manifestly an editorial gloss on that of vs. 1 (hence the third person and the absence of the month); the era of the 30th year is enigmatic (traditionally: from the discovery of the Torah in Josiah’s reign [622 B.C.E.], or the jubilee year [see note 7 below]). Some take 30 to be the age of the prophet at his call (cf.
Gen. 8:13).
3
Not the usual data formula: = II Kings 25:1 and perhaps taken from there.
4
LXX: 11th year, i.e. 586.
5Month to be supplied from 32:1; LXX: 1st month (April 586).
6
About five months after Jerusalem’s fall, in the summer of 586 (Tammuz [July]–Ab [August], Jer. 39:2; 52:6f., 12), the 19th (Nisan–Adar) year of Nebuchadnezzar and the11th (Tishri–Elul) year of Zedekiah.
7
Heb. Rosh Ha-Shanah; LXX: first month (Nisan [April]); tradition, comparing Lev. 25:9: seventh month (Tishri [Oct.]). Tradition thus makes the 25th year of exile a jubilee
year; since 20 years before is called the 30th year (1:1, taking 1:2 as its gloss), tradition interprets it as counting to a jubilee that coincided with the discovery of the Torahin the reign of Zedekiah (see Targum and Kimḥ i at 1:1).

possibly (cf. R. Marcus) a reference to the fact that chapters
1–24 are, on the whole, prophecies of Israel’s doom, while
chapters 25–48 are prophecies of consolation. The contentsof the book may be subsumed under these two major rubrics, with further specification by subject and date. (See Table: Book of Ezekiel – Contents and Table: Dates in the Bookof Ezekiel.)
The marking of certain prophecies (or events) by dates
possibly signifies their evidential value to the prophet (cf. hisconcern over being vindicated by events: 2:5; 12:26ff.; 29:21;
33:33) and may adumbrate the Second Isaiah’s argument fromprophecy (Isa. 41:26f.; 42:9; 44:8; 45:21; 46:10f.; 48:3ff.). First
practiced by Jeremiah’s biographer, the custom of dating is at its
height in Ezekiel, and is followed by Haggai (1:1, 15; 2:1; 10; 20)
and Zechariah (1:1; 7:1) – though Ezekiel’s formula is unique.
From the prophet’s call to the start of Jerusalem’s siege
the dated prophecies are condemnatory, and this is true ofthe great bulk of chapters 1–24 (cf. the scroll of “laments andmoaning and woe” that the prophet eats in 2:10–3:3). During
the siege years and briefly thereafter, the dated prophecies
condemn Israel’s neighbors – the subjects of chapters 25–32(note the clustering of dates in the Egypt oracles, perhaps
signifying an expectation of Egypt’s imminent fall). The

news of Jerusalem’s fall is embedded in a miscellany of brief
oracles related to the first part of the book (ch. 33), and is followed by consolatory prophecies of Israel’s restoration (chs.
34–48). The sole dated prophecy among these opens the detailed program of the future theocracy’s institutions in chapters 40–48.
The division of the book into pre-fall doom prophecies
and post-fall consolations must thus be at once qualified byrecognition of the intermediate status of the oracles against
foreign nations; both thematically and chronologically they
straddle the two major divisions. Moreover, the two divisions
are not strictly homogeneous thematically (nor is it likely they
ever were). Besides prophecies of doom, the first half of thebook contains both calls to repentance (14:6; 18) and a few
consolations (e.g., 17:22–24), of which 11:14–21 is palpably
pre-fall (though intruded into its present context by association with what precedes it). Similarly, condemnation appears
in the post-fall prophecies (e.g., 34:1–10; 36:3ff.) – entirely
appropriate to its context. Nor is the block of foreign-nation
oracles exhaustive: a veiled anti-Babylonian oracle comes earlier (21:33–37) and an explicit anti-Edomite oracle comes later(ch. 35), both integrated into their contexts. Nor is the dating
strictly followed in the face of a good countervailing reason.

636

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

ezekiel
Grouping the Egyptian oracles entailed an overlap between
the last-dated of them and the arrival of the fugitive from
Jerusalem. And the eventual substitution of Egypt for Tyre
as Nebuchadnezzar’s prey (in the dated appendix to ch. 29)
advised setting the Tyrian prophecies ahead of the Egyptian,though the latter set in first.
The book thus shows signs of a deliberate editing andarrangement along thematic-chronological lines. Occasional
erratic entities are not enough to destroy this overall impression.
The stylistic consistency of the book is striking. Excepting 1:2ff. (an editorial gloss to 1:1), it is couched in the formof a first-person report by the prophet of God’s communications to him or the visions he was shown. Only five statementsin the book are his own (4:14; 9:8; 11:13; 21:5). His reactions topopular sayings, even his complaints, are clothed as oraclesof encouragement or exhortation (contrast, e.g., 33:30–33 with
Jer. 15:10ff.). Oracle-reports begin with: ‫)היָ ה( ְדבר ה׳ ֵאלי‬ָ ‫וַ ְ ּי ִהי‬(“This word of the Lord came to me”). The prophet is addressed ‫“( ֶ ּבן ָא ָדם‬O man!” or “mortal!”) often followed by animperative to say or do something (the prophet rarely reportsthat he executed the order). The message proper is introducedby ‫“( כּ ֹה ָא ַמר ה׳‬Thus said the Lord”), whose frequency is explained by 2:4; 10:11; 3:27. Doom-prophecies regularly state theground of the punishment, introducing it with ‫“( יַ ַען‬inasmuchas”), followed by the sentence of punishment, introduced by‫“( לכן‬so then” or “assuredly”). The characteristically Ezekelian
concluding phrase is ‫“( וְ יָ ְדע ּו )וִ ַיד ְע ֶּתם( ִּכי ֲאנִ י ה׳‬then they [you]shall know that I am the Lord”) – with minor variations. A
penchant for formulas is one of several affinities of Ezekiel tothe priestly writings of the Pentateuch (see *Holiness Code).

10:4 – may, as a “clean place” of running water (Lev. 14:5), have
served as a revelation site (cf. Mekhilta, Petiḥ ta), in which casethe theophany was not wholly unexpected. (The presence ofprophets among the exiles seems not to have been unusual;cf. Jer. 29:15; Ezek. 13:9.)
Appointment as a lookout recurs in 33:1–21 in association with its natural concomitant, a call to repentance. Suchcalls are found otherwise only in 14:6 and chapter 18. Hencethe common assumption that the role of a lookout calling for
repentance belongs to the latter part of the prophet’s career is
to be rejected as baselessly shifting a theme attested only before the fall to the post-fall prophecy. (Equally baseless is thenotion that as a lookout the prophet addressed the individual rather than the nation; cf. the explicit addresses in 18:31;
33:11.) To be sure, the prophet did not have in mind any but
the exilic remnant of the “house of Israel” when he called forrepentance – the Jerusalemites were inexorably doomed – but
he regarded them as a nucleus of a new Israel, not as discrete
individuals. Nonetheless, 3: 16b–21 is intrusive in its context; it
may well have sprung from the prophet’s later reflection upon
his role and responsibility toward his audience during the firstpart of his career, which was dominated by a “negative” message. Its incorporation into the account of the call bespeaks adesire to collect here all the components of the prophet’s first(and principal) role.

The Call of the Prophet(1:1–3:21). By the Chebar River (Akk. nār Kabari, a large canalthat left the Euphrates near Babylon and passed through Nippur), the prophet is accosted and overwhelmed by a cloudand-fire apparition of the divine vehicle – a wheeled platform,
borne by four hybrid creatures – on which was enthroned thefiery Majesty (kavod) of the Lord. Fortified to face his defiant audience, the prophet is sent to announce to them God’s
coming punishment (cf. Jer. 1:7ff.; 18f.). He is fed a scroll on
which the doom is inscribed (cf. Jer. 15:16). Afterward a windbears him to the exile community of Tel Abib (Akk. til abūbi,“mound [abandoned since the time] of the Flood”), where herecovers from shock. Again he is addressed and appointed to
be a lookout to warn Israel of the catastrophic consequencesof their wickedness. This role delimits his responsibility: asa lookout, he is not accountable for the reaction of his audience – an important release for a prophet anticipating an indifferent or hostile reception.
The appearance of the fiery presence of God to stand by
his devotees (Ex. 16:10; Num. 14:10; 16:19), and His coming ona cherub to their aid (Ps. 18:8ff.) were elements of tradition.
The Chebar River – like the Ulai and the Tigris of Daniel 8:2;

The Doom of Judah and Jerusalem (3:22–24:27)
HOUSE ARREST AND DRAMATIC REPRESENTATION OF
SIEGE AND PUNISHMENT (3:22–5:17). The prophet is ordered to shut himself up, “bound,” in his house, and to refrainfrom speaking and publicly censuring the people (cf. Amos
5:10; Isa. 29:21); he can speak only to deliver God’s messages.
The prophet’s withdrawal is borne out by every notice of his
contact with others (8:1; 14:1; 20:1; 33:30ff.). He is visited athome; he is never on the street or in the market, no reflex
of daily life outside makes its way into his utterances. “Forthe most part Ezekiel lives in a separate world. Other people
drift in and out of the book, but there is little direct contact”(Freedman). The only conversation recorded with other human beings is by the command of God (24:18ff.). Except fordramatic representations, the prophet does nothing. “Though
told in story form, Ezekiel’s account is more a spiritual diary of
personal experience of God and his inner reaction to it thana record of objective occurrences” (ibid.). In accordance withhis tendency to extremes, he carries Jeremiah’s gloomy unsociability (Jer. 15:17; 16:2, 5, 8) to its last degree (an analogy from
Second Temple times occurs in Jos., Wars, 6:300ff.). Releasefrom his “dumbness” came only with the arrival of the fugitive
bearing news of Jerusalem’s fall (24:26f.; 33:2ff.).
Orders for a complex series of acts representing thecoming doom follow: (a) a model of the siege of Jerusalem
is to be built and prophesied against; (b) through lying motionless on his sides, the prophet is to “bear the punishment”(cf. Num. 14:34; this is the usual meaning of the phrase,
see especially Ezek. 14:6–10) of Judah and Israel for a number

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6637

analysis of the contentsezekielof days equivalent to the years of their punishment; (c) he is
to consume scant rations of a loaf of mixed grains and water
to show the siege-famine; (d) he is to bake a cake (ʿugah, in
direct contact with fuel or ashes, see *Bread) on human excrement (later exchanged for cattle dung) to symbolize the“unclean” food of exiles (cf. Hos. 9:3f.); (e) he is, finally, toshave his head and dispose of the hair in thirds to symbolize
the annihilation of the population (cf. Isa. 7:20; Zech 13:8f.).
Act (d) is intrusive and belongs thematically with the acts ofchapter 12; it was attracted to this section by the food prescription of 4:10ff.
Prophecies Directed Against the Mountains (= theland; vs. 1) of Israel and Their Heathen Cult Installations (chs. 6 and 7; cf. Lev. 6:30) AND AGAINST THE POPULATION. Chapter seven proclaims that “the end has come”(Amos 8:2; Gen. 6:13) for all classes of the populace.
A VISIONARY TRANSPORTATION TO JERUSALEM (chs. 8–11).
In a trance-vision, the prophet is taken to see the abominations in the Temple (ch. 8) and the destruction of Jerusalemby heavenly executioners (9:1–10:7). While he prophesies
against a cabal of 25 leading men, one Pelatiah drops dead.
A thematically associated denunciation of the Jerusalemites’
design to supplant the exiles and a promise of the latter’s restoration follows. In the course of the vision, the stages of thedeparture of God’s Majesty from the Temple and the city are
recounted (10:18f. (referring to vs. 4?); 11:22f.). The historicalimplications of this vision are discussed below.
DRAMATIC REPRESENTATION OF THE EXILE OF JUDAH
AND ITS KING (12:1–16). After the event, the original references to the king’s disguise in verses 6 and 12 were interpretatively adjusted to conform with the blinding of King Zedekiah(II Kings 25:7). Verses 17–20 order the prophet to represent,
as he eats, the fright of the Jerusalemites.

THREE PARABLES (chs. 15–17). Chapter 15 contains the parable of the vine wood. Not the useful vine (Hos. 10:1; Jer.
2:21; Ps. 80:9, 15) but the useless vine wood is the fit image of
Israel – good only for fuel, and hence consigned to destruction.
Chapter 16 contains the parable of the nymphomaniacal
adulteress. This lurid, even pornographic, parable, immoderate in its language and its historical judgments, combinesthese elements: the image of marriage for the covenant relationof God and Israel (Hos. 1–3; Jer. 2:2; 3:1); Jerusalem’s Jebusite
origin – used to argue the genetic depravity of Israel; the viewthat political alliances (whether voluntary or coerced) areequivalent to apostasy – both expressing reliance on powers other than God. At verse 44, the figure is skewed andloses its form. Jerusalem is unfavorably compared to her“sisters” Samaria and Sodom. Undeserving as she is, God
will, out of faithfulness to His ancient covenant, yet redeem
her and let her rule her sisters. Then she will be ashamed ofher past.
It is likely that verses 44ff. are secondary; but to consider
them post-fall because of the concluding promise of restoration is to miss the prevailingly condemnatory context of thepromise. Contrast the reversed proportions of the same elements in the restoration prophecy of 36:16 –7.
Chapter 17 concerns the parable of the two eagles (Nebuchadnezzar and Psammetichus II, see below), a cedar (Jehoiachin), and a vine (Zedekiah): a denunciation of Zedekiah
for seeking Egyptian aid to rebel against, and thus break his
vassal oath to, Nebuchadnezzar. An oath by YHWH is inviolable even if coerced (II Chron. 36:13). A consolatory appendix (vss. 22ff.) predicting the replanting of a sprig of the cedar,and in no way part of the denunciation, evidently stems fromthe last period of the prophet.

NO SALVATION THROUGH VICARIOUS MERIT (14:12–23;
against Gen. 18:24, etc.). The legendary worthies Noah, Daniel(apparently akin to the Ugaritic righteous ruler Dnil; Pritchard, Texts, 149ff.; COS I, 343–56), and Job could save themselves alone – not even their own children – from God’s judgment. (This theme is related to the intercessory function ofprophecy (cf. 13:5 with 22:30) and is thus linked to the preceding oracles.) Yet with Jerusalem, an exception will be made:some unworthies will escape with their children to Babylonia to justify God’s dooming the city to Ezekiel’s hearers whowill thus be able to see for themselves what a depraved lot theJerusalemites are.

GOD’S ABSOLUTE JUSTICE (ch. 18). In this chapter Ezekiel maintains that there will be no vicarious suffering of one
generation for another’s sins (vss. 1–20), or condemnation ofa presently good man for his wicked past (21–28); hence torepent is to live in God’s grace. The argument was provokedby the current epigram (Jer. 31:28): “Fathers have eaten unripe
grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge?,” charging God
with punishing the innocent descendants of wicked forefathers (cf. indeed II Kings 23:26; 24:3f.; Jer. 15:4; Lam. 5:7), an“inequitable” procedure (vss. 25, 29). The prophet is at pains
to deny any “vertical” bequeathal of guilt, either between generations (as in Ex. 20:5), or within a single generation. Thus
only the guilty are punished, and even they may be reconciledwith God by repentance.
The presentation is systematic and couched in casuistic-legal terms – the idiom of abstract expression familiar tothe priest-prophet (cf. 14; 33:1–20). For the sake of symmetry, the argument is carried beyond the immediate issue toits obverse – the denial too of “vertical” bequeathal of merit.
The form shows theology comprehended as law – specifically,
God’s rule of justice brought into line with Deuteronomy

638

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

ON PROPHECY (12:21–14:11). Two denunciations of the popular dismissal of doom prophecies precede a long diatribe
against false prophets of weal (= Jer. 23:25ff.), and sorceresses.
Another oracle declares God inaccessible to the heathenish Israelites for normal oracular consultation (under the dispensation of wrath, only one-way communications from God toman obtained).

ezekiel
24:16’s directive to earthly judges. Notable too is Ezekiel’s catalogue of righteous traits; its linguistic and substantive affinity
with pentateuchal law is highlighted by contrast with othersuch catalogues in Isaiah 33:15ff. and Psalms 15.
A DIRGE OVER THE MONARCHY (ch. 19). In this dirge Ezekiel
employs two images: that of a lioness and her cubs, and thatof a vine and its branches.
THE COMPULSORY NEW EXODUS (ch. 20). This is a review
of Israel’s past as a series of refusals to accept God’s laws andconcludes with an affirmation by God to balk its present intention of assimilation to the pagans. God will force His kingship upon them, restore them by force to their land, and there
receive their worship.
A plan to normalize the religious life of the exiles by renewing the sacrificial cult in Babylonia has been hypothesized
as the provocation of this message. This chapter reveals important aspects of the prophet’s theology of history: the predetermination of the exile (cf. Ps. 106:26); Israel’s child-sacrifice as a punitive divine ordinance; concern for His reputation
among humankind as the primary motive of God’s dealings
with Israel. The idea that Israel’s restoration is a divine necessity which, if need be, will be forced upon Israel is developed
less vehemently later in chapter 36.
THE PUNISHING SWORD: THREE ORACLES (ch. 21). The firstof these announces the indiscriminate work of God’s sword“from the south northward” (such “horizontal” involvement of
innocent with guilty contemporaries is not covered in ch. 18;
contrast 9:4); the second is a song to a sharpened sword; thethird, a dramatic picture of Nebuchadnezzar taking omens at
the crossroad to determine whether his sword should strike
Rabbath Ammon or Jerusalem. Verses 33ff., misleadingly addressed to Ammon, warn that ultimately the instrument ofGod’s punishment (Babylonia) would itself be struck down
by barbarians (cf. Isa. 10:12ff.). This is the only anti-Babylonian oracle in the book.
UNCLEAN JERUSALEM: THREE ORACLES (ch. 22). The firstis an arraignment of the “bloody city” (Nah. 3:1) – of Nineveh,
whose terms recall Leviticus 18–20; the second, a reminiscenceof Isaiah 1:20 – once silver, the city is now all dross; the third
oracle, a variation of Zephaniah 3:1–8 – all the classes of thecity are corrupt. The prophet’s avowal that not a soul could befound to redeem the city in God’s sight is a hyperbole similar to I Kings 19:14, Jeremiah 5:1ff., and Lamentations 2:14. It
does not mean that Ezekiel and Jeremiah could not have been
contemporaries (as Torrey argued).

THE FILTHY POT: A PARABLE OF JERUSALEM (24:1–14; cf.
11:3ff.), dating to the start of the siege, anticipating its purgation through fire.
THE DEATH OF THE PROPHET’S WIFE (24:15–27). The
prophet must dramatically represent, by his abstention frommourning, the paralyzing shock that will engulf the exiles
at hearing of the city’s fall (cf. Jer. 16:5–7). However, for theprophet, the arrival of that news will end his dumbness (i.e.,release him from obsession with Jerusalem’s fall).
Doom Pronounced Against Foreign Nations (chs. 25–32)
These chapters consist of prophecies of doom pronounced
against seven foreign nations involved in Judah’s revolt (Jer.
27:3). Excepting Egypt, they failed to support Judah; they all
survived her. The dating of these prophecies shows that theirlocation is approximately chronological. Condemnatory of
Israel’s enemies, they are a preliminary to prophecies of Israel’s restoration.
BRIEF PROPHECIES OF DOOM AGAINST AMMON, MOAB,
EDOM, AND PHILISTIA (ch. 25; cf. Jer. 47–49). PROPHECY
OF DOOM AGAINST PHOENICIA (chs. 26–28). Four prophecies are directed against Tyre and one last against Sidon. Noteworthy is the representation of the island city as a ship loadedwith merchandise (the amazing itemization of which is aprime source of information on east Mediterranean commerceof the time (see Bondi, Bartoloni in Bibliography); Ezekiel
might have come by this from Phoenician traders and artisans known to have been pensioners of the Babylonian king;Pritchard, Texts, 308). Also remarkable is the image of the kingof Tyre as an expelled denizen of God’s garden (28:12–19) – a
tantalizingly obscure variant of the Eden myth.
EPILOGUE TO CHAPTERS 25–28 (28:24–26). The epilogue
contains the promise that after its restoration, Israel will neveragain suffer the contempt of these neighbors, since they will
all have been destroyed. Excepting Edom and Philistia whoare vaguely charged with “taking revenge,” the charges against
these nations are their hubris and their contempt of Israel(both offensive to God). Why Tyre receives such a measureof wrath is unclear.

THE DISSOLUTE SISTERS, OHOLAH (Samaria, i.e., “her own
tent”) AND OHOLIBAH (Jerusalem, i.e., “my tent is in her”) (ch.
23). The relations of the two Israelite kingdoms with Egypt,
Assyria, and Babylonia are represented – in the extravagant
manner of chapter 16 – as the shameless sexual frenzies of two
harlot sisters. From verse 36 on, the apostasy motif of chapter
16 appears in a disordered epilogue.

SEVEN ORACLES AGAINST EGYPT (chs. 29–32). The unusual
clustering of dated prophecies may signify the prophet’s expectation of Egypt’s imminent fall to Nebuchadnezzar after the
defeat of Apries (see below), and his concern for establishing
the priority of his prophecies to that event. Egypt’s offense is
its unreliability as an ally (29:6 = Isa. 36:6), or Pharaoh’s hubris. However, because Egypt tried to help Judah, it is promised a restoration (29:13ff.). The latest passage in the book is anappendix to the first Egyptian oracle. Nebuchadnezzar, having failed to reduce Tyre, is promised Egypt as his wages (onthe historical background, see below). The presence of thisamendment to the Tyre prophecies alongside the untouched –and by then confuted – original prophecies attests to the inviolate status of Ezekiel’s oracles in his own (and subsequent

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6639

ezekiel
age’s) estimation. It is a warning against the easy assumptionof later tampering with the prophet’s words.
The standpoint of the prophecies against the nations is
one of sensitivity to the diminution suffered by God owing
to Israel’s humiliation. Israel’s fall gave occasion to its neighbors to gloat and aggrandize themselves. Heathen arrogancereached its limit; God must now act to assert his authority onearth. This necessarily entails the restoration of Israel, whichis indeed anticipated several times in this section (25:14; 28:25;
29:16, 21). The interconnection of the doom of the nations andIsrael’s restoration is seen also in the sequence of chapters
35–36, on which see below.
A Miscellany From the Time of the Fall (ch. 33)
Verses 1–20: The kernel of this piece is the despairing cry of
the people: How can we live, immersed as we are in sin (vs.
10)? It stimulates a clarification of the constructive aspect ofthe doom prophecy – the prophet’s role as a lookout, warning
his hearers of the consequence of their sin and urging them torepent and live. Previously isolated elements (3:16b–19; 14:6;
18:21ff.) are woven into a new whole, meeting the need of thehour. As in 18, a legal-casuistic style is the vehicle of doctrinal statement.
Verses 21ff.: The arrival of the fugitive with news of Jerusalem’s fall brings an end to the prophet’s dumbness – to what
effect, remains obscure.
Verses 23–33, in form a single prophecy, comprise twoheterogeneous pieces. Verses 23–29 are a scornful rejection ofclaims on the part of those dwelling in the land of Israel after
the fall to retain title to the land despite their fewness (a later,
pathetic version of 11:15b). Verses 30–33 promise the prophet
that, although he is now no more than an entertainer to thepeople who flock to hear him, the imminent advent of doom
will make them take his words seriously. Why this pre-fallpiece is placed here is unclear.
All of chapter 33 belongs to the doom prophecy, but it
reflects a situation just before and after the fall – later thanthat of chapter 24. It is dated later than the first dated foreignnation prophecies (which themselves straddle the fall). The
arrangement of chapter 33 after the block of foreign-nation
prophecies is therefore reasonable.
Prophecies of Israel’s Restoration (chs. 34–39)
RENOVATION OF THE LEADERSHIP OF ISRAEL (ch. 34). In a
new tone of compassion, God inveighs against the bad shepherds who misguided his flock and promises personally totake it in charge (vss. 1–16; cf. Jer. 23:1ff.). The image is thenskewed, and bucks and rams within the flock are blamed forhaving bullied the rest. A new David will be their shepherd,
and under him they will enjoy all the covenant blessings ofLeviticus 26:4–12.

land (vs. 5). Then the hill country of Israel will prosper as neverbefore, and reproaches of infertility, famine, and “bereaving
its inhabitants” (through conquest by foreigners and deportations) will be removed forever.
A NEW HEART AND SPIRIT: THE CONDITION OF LASTING POSSESSION OF THE LAND (36:16–38). With inexorable
logic the theology of Israel’s career is expounded: exiled forits sins, Israel brought the Lord into disrepute among thenations. In order to establish His authority on earth, God
must restore and glorify Israel. But to prevent a repetition of
the disaster, God will alter the moral nature of the people, giving them a new heart and spirit and thus insuring that they
will be faithful to him (cf. Jer. 32:39 [Ezek. 11:19]; Jer. 31:32f.).
That the benefactions to Israel are merely incidental to God’sconcern for His reputation is repeatedly insisted upon (vss.
22, 32).
Though the gentle conclusion of the prophecy (vss.
33–38) mitigates it somewhat, it emerges as even more thoroughly theocentric than the related doctrine of the compulsory exodus in chapter 20.
THE REVIVAL OF THE DEAD BONES OF ISRAEL AND THE
UNIFICATION OF ITS TWO SCEPTERS (ch. 37). Once again a
popular saying (“Our bones are dried up, our hope is lost …”)
provides the stimulus for a prophecy, this time a prophetic
vision. With the prophet’s participation (as in the vision of
Jerusalem’s destruction, 11:4–13) “all the house of Israel,” by
now reduced to “very many and very dry bones,” are miraculously reconstituted.
The imagery of the second oracle is related: Ezekiel is ordered to represent symbolically the reunification of the monarchy by joining two sticks, inscribed, respectively, “Judah’s”
and “Joseph’s.” The happiness of the future kingdom under
God is summed up in four everlasting boons: possession of
the promised land, rule by David, God’s covenant of well-being, God’s presence in His sanctuary among them.
The conclusion of chapter 37 brings to an end the accountof Israel’s restoration and renovation, and the last verse adumbrates the theme of the program of chapters 40–48. Between
the two, however, appear the prophecies on Gog, presupposing the situation arrived at by the end of chapter 37.

THE RENOVATION OF THE MOUNTAINS OF ISR AEL (countering ch. 6; 35:1–36:15). For encroaching upon Judah, the hill country of Seir will be desolated (cf. III Ezra
4:50) – along with all others who dared lay hands on God’s

THE INVASION OF GOG AND HIS FALL (chs. 38–39). Luredby the prospect of loot, Gog (whose name is modeled on thatof King Gyges of Lydia, but who is not, here, a historical personage) and his barbarian allies will march down from thenorth against defenseless Israel. God, however, will destroy
his great host on the mountains of Israel, thus demonstrating to Israel that He is their God, and to the nations that Israel’s former misfortune resulted from God’s wrath, not His
weakness.
Influence of earlier prophecies on this depiction of Gog’s
fall is acknowledged in 38:17. The menace of a nameless northern nation occurs in Jeremiah 1:14; 4:6; and other passages; anda concerted assault of pagans, in Isaiah 29:1ff.; Micah 8:11ff.

640

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

ezekiel
According to Isaiah, Assyria was to perish on the mountainsof Israel, not by the sword of man (14:24ff.; 31:8). In pre-exilic
prophecy, however, the assault of the heathen was punishment for Israel’s sins, and their collapse must precede Israel’s
redemption. Ezekiel adapted these unfulfilled prophecies tothe exilic situation. A heathen assault could come now only
against a restored Israel, and it could not be punitive. Inspiredby the ancient model of Pharaoh’s fall at the sea, Ezekiel conceives the motive of the assault to be the prospect of pillaging
a defenseless people (Ex. 15:9); the significance of the heathen’s
fall is derived from the same model: to shed glory on God (Ex.
14:4; cf. Ezek. 39:13).
A Messianic Priestly Code (Kaufmann; chs. 40–48)
Following the general topical order of the priestly writings in
the Pentateuch, a description of the future sanctuary, regulations for the cult and its personnel, and provisions for settlement in the land are set out in detail. Modernization and rectification of past wrongs are pervasive motives.
A VISIONARY TRANSPORTATION TO THE FUTURE TEMPLE(40:1–43:12; a counterpart to chs. 8–11). A blueprint of the
Temple area is narrated as a tour through its courts, gates, androoms, the prophet being guided by an angelic “man” with ameasuring rod and line. The design appears to follow the latest form of the Solomonic Temple, with some schematization (e.g., the preference for the number 25; cf. the 25t year,40:1). The prophet witnesses the return of the divine Majesty
through the east gate, by which it had exited in 11:1, into theinner sanctum. Thence an oracle issues, condemning the past
contiguity of the palace and the Temple as a defilement of thelatter, and banning it for the future.
ORDINANCES OF THE CULT AND ITS PERSONNEL (43:13–
46:24). These sections deal with the altar, the reorganizationof the clergy (Zadokites alone to remain full priests, the rest
to be degraded to menials for having served at the “idolatrous” rural sanctuaries), their regulations and perquisites, theterritorial “sacred oblation” which is to be set aside for themand the temple, a brief cultic calendar. Mention of the “oblation” attracts regulations concerning the “chieftain” (king),
to whom holdings on each side of the oblation are assigned(in consequence, his ancient right [or abuse] of expropriation (I Sam. 8:14) is abolished). Besides his role in the cult,
his responsibility for maintaining justice is touched upon
(45:9ff.).
The discontinuity and loose order of this section suggestthat it is a composite that took shape piecemeal.

cally Israelite. Another rectification is the right extended topermanently resident aliens to share in tribal holdings. Yet another is the equalization of the tribal holdings: all receive equal
latitudinal strips of land with some coastal plain, some highlands, and some bit of the Jordan-Dead Sea depression. Jerusalem will bear the new name “YHWH is there” (cf. 37:26–28).
the text and its integrity
According to critical scholars, the text of Ezekiel is among themost corrupt of the Bible. That technical passages (e.g., the account of the divine vehicle, the list of Tyre’s merchandise, theTemple blueprint) – at best difficult to understand – shouldhave suffered in transmission is not surprising. However, poetry too has been garbled (cf. chs. 7; 21). The Greek (“Septuagint”) often provides a remedy, but at the same time raises newquestions because of its frequently shorter text. In the light of
the Greek, the received Hebrew text appears conflate – i.e., it
exhibits variants, synonymous readings, and tags that havebeen collected from several versions of the prophet’s words.
The texts of Ezekiel and Jeremiah were peculiarly susceptible
to expansion and the addition of tags owing to the fact thatthey are very formulaic, their idiom being modeled upon thetwo most highly stylized and formulaic works of early Israelite tradition – the pentateuchal priestly writings and Deuteronomy respectively.
On occasion, allusions to events later than the prophecies that contain them indicate post-event touching up (see,e.g., on ch. 12, above). Since none reflects events later thanthe last-dated item in the book (see below), the assumptionthat someone other than the prophet is responsible for themis unnecessary.
Recurrently, a piece will show a juncture at which a breakdown in form (20), a skewing of theme (16; 23; 34), or change ofmood (17) appears. Repetitions (see on ch. 33), discontinuities,
and erratic blocks (38–39; 40–48) argue against the originality
and integrity of a piece. But whether such phenomena point toanother hand rather than to later reflections or editorial activity of the prophet himself is a matter of dispute among critics.
The common assumption that a circle of disciple-transmitters
existed who had a large part in the shaping of the present text
and its disjunctures lacks any evidential basis.
locale and historical background

THE ALLOCATION OF THE LAND (7:13–48:35). The boundaries of the future Land of Israel are essentially those of Numbers 34:1–12, and consequently exclude Transjordan, histori-

Information supplied by contemporary records suffices to test
the claim of the book that its contents fall between July 593
and April 571 B.C.E.
Just before breaking off, the Babylonian Chronicle reports that in December 594 Nebuchadnezzar called out hisarmy against Syria – for the first time since his conquest of
Jerusalem in 597. It seems hardly coincidental that (a) just atthat time a new king, Psammetichus II, came to the throneof Egypt, who showed a lively interest in Syria, and (b) an
anti-Babylonian conspiracy of Phoenicians and Palestinians
was formed in Jerusalem in Zedekiah’s fourth year – 594/3(Jer. 27).

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6641

THE LIFE-GIVING STREAM ISSUING FROM THE TEMPLE(47 :1–12). The vision of this marvelous stream, through which
the prophet is led by his angelic guide, bridges the topic of the
Temple and cult and that of the land, which follows.

ezekiel
In the same year Jeremiah had his altercation with Hananiah ben Azzur, who prophesied the imminent fall of Babylon and the return, within two years, of King Jehoiachin andhis exiles (Jer. 28).
The situation of the exiles can be gathered from Jeremiah’s letter to them, which was sent about this time (Jer. 29).
There, too, prophets (whom Jeremiah brands as false) encouraged in the people expectations of a speedy end to their
exile – which Jeremiah was at pains to quash. He not only
exhorts them to be reconciled to their captivity, he communicates to them an oracle (ch. 24) unconditionally condemning
Jerusalem to a horrible end. Hope in the future of Jerusalem isfutile and wrong; the future belongs to the exiles from whom
the nation will be regenerated (so 24:6f.).
In 591 Psammetichus made a state visit to some shrines
on the Syrian coast, probably not without political overtones.
About two years later, evidently in collaboration with Egypt
and its Palestinian allies, Judah revolted. Nebuchadnezzar
called out a powerful army which laid siege to Jerusalem inJanuary 588. Shortly afterward, Psammetichus died, but his
successor, Apries, maintained his policy. An Egyptian force
marched into Palestine, giving Jerusalem temporary relief(Jer. 37:5; 34:21). But it was soon beaten back, and the siege
resumed until famine brought Jerusalem to its knees in thesummer of 586.
None of the neighbors of Judah was destroyed in the revolt; Tyre and Egypt are known to have preserved their independence. During or directly after Jerusalem’s ordeal, Tyre
was besieged by Nebuchadnezzar for 13 years (Jos., Apion,
1.21), the end being reckoned between 575–72. The city cameunder Babylonian control, but was not sacked. Only in 568/7
did Nebuchadnezzar finally move against Egypt (Pritchard,
Texts, 308d); the outcome of that campaign is unknown, but
Egypt remained independent until its conquest by Cambysesof Persia in 525.
The whole span of Ezekiel’s dates falls within the reign ofNebuchadnezzar (605/4–562). He and he alone appears in thebook as the conqueror of Judah and the appointed scourge ofGod for the nations. Every clear historical allusion in the book
is to this, or some preceding, period. Especially significant isthe book’s ignorance of events later than its last date. Its author
lived to see the failure of his Tyre prophecy, and emended it
in 571. However he did not know that not Nebuchadnezzar,
but Cambyses, would conquer Egypt (525) – which would notthen go into a 40-year exile; and that Babylon’s end would
not be sanguinary and fiery (21:36ff.) but virtually bloodless (539). Persia is mentioned only as an exotic adjunct tothe forces of Tyre and Gog – indicating that the author was
ignorant of what happened from 550 on, when Cyrus unitedMedia and Persia into the nucleus of the Persian Empire. If
the author(s?) of 34–48 lived later than 538, they would haveseen the confuting of all their restoration prophecies and programs by events. In sum: no post-571 anachronism has left its
mark in the book to necessitate the assumption of another
hand than Ezekiel’s.

That the locale of the prophecy is Babylonia is said several times (1:1; 3:11; 15; 11:24) and implied by the era of “ourexile” (33:21; 40:1). Several prophecies have an explicitly exilic standpoint or audience (11:15ff.; 12:11ff.; 13:9; 14:22; 20:34ff.;
24:21b; note also the peculiarly Ezekelian usage of “on the soilof Israel,” unnatural for someone living in the land of Israel,
12:22; 18:2; 21:7; 33:24).
At the same time, the almost exclusive focus on Jerusalem in the doom prophecies and the passionate addresses toher have given rise to the view that at least part of the prophecy originated in Jerusalem – the present exilic cast of thewhole being editorial (so Rashi at 1:3, combining statementsin the Mekhilta to Ex. 12:1 and 15:9). However, the lack of aconvincing explanation for such an alleged editorial transfer
of originally Jerusalem prophecies to Babylonia leads one to
ask whether the anomaly of Ezekiel’s prophecy, given its Babylonian setting, is really so implausible.
Ezekiel fails to discriminate between exiles and homelanders in his diatribes; his audience is an undifferentiated“rebellious house,” i.e., they are unconscious of any deep-dyed
guilt and expect shortly a turn for the better in their fortunes;
and they are encouraged in this by their prophets (ch. 13).
The situation corresponds to what is known from Jeremiah
to have obtained in Jerusalem the year prior to Ezekiel’s call(see above). However, Jeremiah’s letter reveals that precisely
the same situation obtained among the Babylonian exiles. So
much so that Jeremiah’s major concern is to create a cleavage between the exiles and the Jerusalemites with regard totheir hopes for the immediate future. Both his exhortation to
become reconciled to a long captivity and his prediction of
an inexorable and total doom for Jerusalem are intended tomake the exiles despair of Jerusalem’s survival, to tear themfrom the hopes they attached to the city. Only so could theybe brought to repentance and the realization of their destiny
as the “good figs” (Jer. 24:7).
The implications of Jerusalem’s fate were thus hardly lessprofound for the exiles than for the Jerusalemites themselves(indeed most of the exiles were from Jerusalem, II Kings
24:14ff.). Had Jeremiah been in Tel Abib he would have foundno topic of more absorbing concern to his audience than the
future of the city; and his letter shows what the tenor of his
message to them would have been: “laments, and moaning,
and woe.”An exiled Ezekiel’s preoccupation with Jerusalem (notquite exclusive; his calls to repentance are directed at the exiles, cf. Jer. 24:7, end) is unexceptionable. Anomalous amongprophets is his continuously addressing an audience that is apparently hundreds of miles away. But the appearance is misleading. Prophecies against foreign nations, an establishedgenre, always involve an incongruity between the ostensible
audience (the foreign nations) and the real one – the Israelites for whose ears the prophecies are really meant and forwhom they bear a vital message. Similarly an exiled prophet’s
address to Jerusalem would have been meant for the ears of
his immediate environment. Since in fact and spirit that en-

642

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

ezekielvironment was thoroughly Jerusalemite, the prophet would
not have sensed any incongruity between his ostensible andhis real audience. Whatever anomaly attaches to an exiled
Ezekiel’s prophecy arises out of the anomalous coexistenceof two Jerusalemite communities hundreds of miles apart at
this juncture of history.
That Ezekiel was far from Jerusalem during his career
as a prophet is the most plausible explanation of his Temple
vision in chapters 8–11. This congeries of strange cults andsinister plotting going on all at once at different locations in
the temple precinct is evidently a montage whose elements
are drawn principally, but not exclusively, from the syncretistic cult fostered by Manasseh and eradicated by Josiah (cf.
II Chron. 33:7; II Kings 23:11; we do not know whether Josiah’s
reforms completely survived his death). As the report of a divine vision, the account had powerful significance even to an
audience removed from its scene.

to the earlier view that, while God rules over all, His special
grace and holiness are, and will be, confined to Israel.
Yet Ezekiel was deeply indebted to classical, literaryprophecy as well. Instances of this have been pointed out inthe analysis of the contents of the book. It need be remarked
here only that by far the most striking affinities of Ezekiel’s
prophecy are with Jeremiah. The two have in common a vocabulary and a stock of concepts and figures (eating God’s
words (Jer. 15:16), the harlot sisters (3:6ff.), the bad shepherds(23:1ff.), the lookout (6:17), and many more) beyond what may
be explained by mere contemporaneity. That Ezekiel had heard(of) Jeremiah before 597 is to be assumed (cf. Ezek 9:4); that hecontinued to receive word of his prophecies afterward is likely,
since such word did reach the exiles (Jer. 29:24ff.).
ezekiel’s message and its effects

Of the man Ezekiel all that is known is that he was a priest(1:3), married to a woman who died during the siege of Jerusalem (24:15ff.). He was, presumably, among the aristocrats
who were deported with King Jehoiachin in 597. By then hehad acquired the priestly learning and attitudes that characterize his prophecy: knowledge of the layout of the Temple and its
regimen; of the historico-religious traditions of Israel, and of
the idiom of priestly writing of the Pentateuch that dominates
his prose (critics dispute the direction of the influence: some
attributing to Ezekiel the invention of certain priestly idioms;
most allowing the influence at least of the Holiness Code (Lev.
17–26) upon the prophet – the issue is a pivot of pentateuchal
criticism); and sensitivity to the “clean” and the “unclean” (e.g.,
his frequent allusion to menstrual uncleanness, niddah), and,above all, to the awesome holiness of God.
Passion and a fertile imagination, tending to the baroque,shine through his writings. He is the master of the dramatic,
representational action (which has a portentous, mysteriously
causal character; in 24:24 the prophet is called a prefiguring“sign,” mofet). He was famous for his (often lurid) imagery(21:5). His actions and his images are more numerous andmore complex than those of any of his predecessors. As a visionary too he has no peer; indeed he innovated a genre: thetransportation-and-tour vision, so common in later apocalypse. It is no wonder that people flocked to his “entertainments” (33:32).
Ezekiel was immersed in the whole range of Israel’s prophetic tradition. Archaic models inspire him – prophesying
under seizure by “the hand of YHWH” (cf. Elijah [I Kings
18:46] and Elisha [II Kings 3:5]), transportation by the “windof YHWH” (cf. Elijah, I Kings 18:12; II Kings 2:16). He is the
only prophet after Moses who not only envisions the future
but lays down a blueprint and a law for it. He reflects nothingof the eschatological vision of the unity of humankind under
God introduced into Judahite prophecy by Isaiah (2:2ff.; 18:7;
19:24f.; Mic. 4:1ff.; Hab. 2:14; Zeph. 3:9; Jer. 3:17), but holds on

For Ezekiel the key to the agony of Judah was to be found in
the curses attached to God’s covenant (as in Lev. 26; Deut. 28),
which, since the age of Manasseh, had cast a pall over Judahite religious thought (cf. II Kings 21:10ff.; 22:19ff.; 24:3). As
Ezekiel saw it, the entire history of Israel was one continuous
breach of covenant, for which the fall was the just and predicted punishment. In the face of nihilistic cynicism (18:1, 25),
he insisted on the justice, the reasonableness, and the regularity of God’s dealings with men. That is the ground of his denunciation and of his call to repentance as well.
What was not anticipated in the early curses was the aspersion cast on God’s power by their operation. It had been
assumed that with punishment would come contrition (Lev.
26:41) and repentance (Deut. 30:1ff.), to be followed by reconciliation and restoration. That seems to be the presuppositionof Ezekiel’s call (to the exiles) to repent (18:30ff.). But in viewof the injury to God’s reputation (cf. 36:20, a projection onto
others of an inner-Israelite reaction?), the idea took hold of
the prophet that Israel’s rehabilitation could not depend on
the gamble that Israel would indeed repent. Frustrated by thepeople’s obduracy, the prophet announced a compulsory new
exodus (20:32ff.), underlying which was the necessity of vindicating God’s power. Contrition would come later (20:43; cf.
16:61; 36:31) and was no longer a precondition of redemption.
As for repentance, God would see to it that after the people
were restored they would remain permanently reconciled
with, and obedient to, God; not they, but He would makethem a new heart (contrast 36:26 (= 11:19) with 18:31). Thenthey could enjoy eternal blessedness that would serve as a witness of the power of their God to the world.
The doctrine of God’s stake in the preservation and restoration of Israel appears in the Second Isaiah (43:25; 48:9, 11); it
must have contributed to the exile’s will to resist assimilation
to their environment and to their faith in a national future.
The effect of Ezekiel’s denunciation may be detected in
his audience’s acknowledgment of their sin in 33:10 at the timeof the fall (contrast 18:1), and even more clearly in the version given by the Chronicler of Zedekiah’s reign (II Chron.
36:11ff.). II Kings 24:18ff. knows nothing of the defilement of

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6643

influences upon the prophet

ezekielthe temple, nor does it charge the king with violating his vassal oath (Ezek. 8; 17).
Ezekiel’s visions and his angelic actors in them inaugurated a literary category that flourished in post-exilic prophecy
and apocalyptic (cf. Zech., Dan.). The visionary transportation-tour became the standard vehicle for apocalyptic revelations of the secrets of the cosmos.
The least influential part of Ezekiel’s prophecy was his
program for the future (chs. 40–48). Medieval exegetes were
painfully aware of the contradictions in detail between what
Ezekiel laid down and what the community of the Restoration did; they “saved” Ezekiel by declaring his program to be
purely messianic (which indeed it is; see, e.g., the conflicting
positions of Rashi and Kimḥ i on 43:11; cf. Rashi on vss. 21ff.
and Kimḥ i on vs. 25 and 45:21ff.). The authorities of Second
Temple times may also have thought so; in practice, they madethe Torah their rule, and ignored Ezekiel’s program entirely.

Four aspects of Ezekiel’s prophetic career figure most prominently in rabbinic literature:(1) The divine chariot revelation (chap. 1), which became
the basis not only of Jewish mysticism but also of various
kinds of esoteric speculations (see *Merkabah Mysticism), andits study was therefore restricted within the rabbinic school
curriculum (Ḥ ag. 2:1; Tosef., Ḥ ag. 2:1), and excluded fromthe synagogue haftarah reading (Meg. 4:10); but according
to Tosef., Meg. 4:34, it could be recited to the public, thoughapparently without the Aramaic translation; subsequently it
was introduced as the prophetical reading for (the first dayof) Shavuot.
(2) The fierce denunciations of Israel which might be exploited by the Church for anti-Jewish polemical purposes andwere therefore partly unacceptable to the rabbis.
(3) The resurrection of the dry bones (chap. 37), which
was a potentially favorite theme for sectarian speculations andwas therefore played down by a number of rabbis.
(4) Ezekiel’s vision of the future temple and his priestly
laws, which appear to contradict the pentateuchal rules andvery nearly led to the exclusion of the Book of Ezekiel fromthe canon (Shab. 13b, and parallels).
The general popularity of Ezekiel’s revelation in non-rabbinic circles was bound to dampen rabbinic enthusiasm. Although many of the leading talmudic scholars, from the firstthrough fourth centuries, continued to study and expound
mystical concepts based on Ezekiel’s Ma’aseh Merkavah (cf.
Tosef., Ḥ ag. 2:1ff.; TJ, Ḥ ag. 2:1, 77a), there was a sharp reaction in Palestine from the second century onward regarding
certain kinds of esoteric speculations of an apocalyptic nature.
Of four rabbis who entered the heavenly “garden” only one, R.
*Akiva, “ascended in peace and descended in peace.” The otherthree were spiritually harmed by their spiritual adventures,
which were henceforth strongly, though not always successfully, discouraged (Tosef., Ḥ ag. 2:3ff., and parallels; cf. Hag.
2:1). It is interesting to note that Ezekiel’s detailed descriptionof the heavenly chariot was contrasted unfavorably not onlywith the prophecies of Moses and Samuel – “whatever he saw
he related; hence Scripture calls him (disparagingly) ‘son ofman’” (Tanḥ ., Ẓ av 13) – but also with Isaiah’s restrained revelation (Isa. 6:1ff.). Ezekiel was therefore likened to “a villager
who saw the king,” while Isaiah resembled “a townsman who
saw the king” (Ḥ ag. 13b).
Although the Midrash emphasizes that God had commanded the heavens to open before Ezekiel (Gen. R. 5:5) –perhaps as a counterweight to similar claims on behalf ofJesus – according to R. Eliezer, “a maidservant saw at the[Red] Sea what Ezekiel and all the other prophets neversaw” (Mekh., Shirah, 3; cf. Mekh., Yitro, Ba-hodesh, 3). R.
Eliezer, whose early contacts with Jesus’ disciples madehim especially wary of sectarian ideas (Av. Zar. 16b–17a; etal.), was anxious to emphasize the immense revelation to all
Israel rather than to a select few. In line with his “nationalistic”
tendency, he prohibited the haftarah reading of chapter 16(on Jerusalem’s “abominations”), sharply rebuking a student
who had ignored his interdict (Meg. 4:10; Tosef Meg. 4:34;
et al.).

644

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6later doubts about thecirculation of the bookThe divergence in moral theology between Ezekiel 18:4 andExodus 20:5b did not embarrass later authorities; it was but
one of several matters of doctrine that Moses ordained anda later prophet abrogated (so Mak. 24a). Divergences in law
were another matter, and by the first century C.E. the many
conflicts between the Torah and laws in Ezekiel’s program had
become so worrisome that withdrawal of the book from circulation was being considered (bikkeshu lignoz et Sefer Yeḥ ezkel).
Only Ḥ ananiah ben Hezekiah’s demonstration that the conflicts could be reconciled kept the book available (Shab. 13b).
The possibility was evidently more important than the specific reconciliations, for barely a trace of Ḥ ananiah’s efforts wastransmitted (Sifre to Deut. 25:15; cf. Men. 45a).
Another argument for withdrawing the book was thedanger surrounding inquiry into the divine vehicle describedin chapters 1 and 10. A ramified theosophical doctrine, taught
only to a select few, was anchored in that vision (Ma’asehMerkavah; “account of the chariot”; Ḥ ag. 2:1). The risk inherent
in it of overstepping proper bounds is illustrated by a reportof a child who “was looking into ḥ ashmal (Ḥ ag. 13a), when fire
leaped forth from hashmal and consumed him.” Once again thebook was saved from withdrawal by Ḥ ananiah who pointed outthat such children were very rare (Ḥ ag. 13a). The first chapter ofthe book remained problematic, and the anonymous opinionof the Mishnah is that it is not to be recited as a haftarah (Meg.
4:10). There is a similar stricture upon Ezekiel 16, because of its
insult to Jerusalem. Neither is normative and chapter 1 is customarily the haftarah of (the first day of) Shavuot. Ezekiel is notreferred to by name in the New Testament but the influence ofthe book on the book of Revelation is unmistakable.
[Moshe Greenberg]

ezekiel in the aggadahezekiel
R. Eliezer somewhat reduced the significance of Ezekiel’s
resurrection of the dry bones, pointing out that “the deadwhom Ezekiel revived stood up, recited a song [i.e., of praise],and [immediately] died” (Sanh. 92b). R. Judah apparently regarded the story as an allegorical vision; but other rabbis fully
accepted the resurrection miracle.
In later midrashic literature, Ezekiel is praised for his
love of Israel; hence he was deemed worthy to perform theresuscitation miracle (SER 5:23). He was criticized, however,for his initial doubting of the possibility of such a miracle.
Because of his lack of faith, he was doomed to die on foreignsoil (P d RE 33).
The halakhah of the Book of Ezekiel deviates on a number of points from the Torah. Although attempts were madeto reconcile the contradictions (most notably by Hananiah b.
Hezekiah who saved the canonicity of the book), a numberof cases were left to be “interpreted by Elijah in the future”(Men. 45a, and parallels). R. Yose b. Hanina, a third century
amora, frankly conceded that Ezekiel’s doctrine of personal
responsibility (Ezek. 18:3–4) was irreconcilable with Moses’
teaching concerning “visiting the iniquity of the father upon
the children and upon the children’s children” (Ex. 34:7, etal.; Mak. 24a).
According to R. *Simeon b. Yoḥ ai, Ezekiel was consultedby Ḥ ananiah, Mishael, and Azariah whether to bow down
to Nebuchadnezzar’s idol. He referred them to Isaiah 26:20,
in effect advising them to hide and flee. They refused to accept his counsel and prepared to die for the sanctification ofGod’s name. Despite Ezekiel’s tearful pleading, God refused
to promise His aid, though saving them in the end (Song. R.
7:8). The Midrash reflects the conflicting opinions on the preferable Jewish reaction to the Hadrianic persecution. Ezekiel
represents’ the moderate compromising view such as that of
R. Yose b. Kisma (cf. Av. Zar. 18a), while the course of martyrdom followed by R. Akiva and R. Ḥ anina b. Teradyon, among
others (Ber. 61b; Av. Zar. 18a), was preferred by R. Simeon (adisciple of R. Akiva), who fearlessly braved death when hedemanded to be instructed by his imprisoned master (Pes.
112a), and risked his life again when he openly denounced the
Romans (Shab. 33b).

with the lower tomb, and it is at this outer tomb that the pilgrims pray. In the room adjoining Ezekiel’s tomb there are five
tombs purported to contain the remains of five geonim. Another room, with a window, is referred to as “Elijah’s Cave,”and a third room contains the tomb of Menahem Ṣ āliḥ *Daniel, a well-known philanthropist whose family was entrustedwith guarding the tomb. The walls bear various inscriptions,
including three poems in the Arab-Spanish meter composedby the Babylonian poet R. Abdallah Khuḍ ayr and in honorof donors. Pilgrimages to the tomb were usually made in thelate spring, especially on Shavuot. A special parchment scroll,“the Scroll of Ezekiel,” was read, containing passages from theBook of Ezekiel and written on behalf of the ascent to heavenof the souls of the departed. In 1860 the Muslims made anattempt to wrest ownership of the tomb from the Jews, but
a government emissary from Constantinople decided in favor of the Jews.
[Abraham Ben-Yaacob]

in islam
The name of the prophet Ezekiel (Ḥ iẓ qīl) is not mentioned inthe *Koran. However Sura 2:244 (“Dost thou not look at those
who left their homes by thousands, for fear of death; and God
said to them ‘Die,’ and then He quickened them again …”) alludes to Ezekiel 37:1–10. According to Qiṣ aṣ al-Anbiyāʾ (Legends of the Prophets), the mother of Ḥ iẓ qīl ibn Būdhī wasbarren (an allusion to Hannah, the mother of Samuel theprophet), and he is therefore referred to as “the son of the oldwoman.” It was he who resuscitated the dead who were killedby the plague (al-ṭā‘ūn).
[Haïm Z’ew Hirschberg]

According to a tradition this was located at a village 20
miles (32 km.) south of the town of Ḥ illa in central Iraq. The
Arabs refer to Ezekiel as to other prophets as “Dhū al-Kifl”(various etymologies have been suggested such as “doubly
rewarded”; “guarantor”?) for the responsibility that he bore
for the people of Israel. The tomb is mentioned for the firsttime in the epistle of R. *Sherira Gaon (c. 986), and a detailed description is given by *Benjamin of Tudela about 1170,*Pethahiah of Regensburg (about the same time), and later byother travelers, Jewish and non-Jewish. It is situated in a manmade cave, covered by a cupola. Over the cupola a magnificent outer tomb is built, coinciding in its linear dimensions

in the arts
Ezekiel and his prophetic vision have not inspired many worksof literary importance. Apart from Barbara Macandrew’s
Ezekiel and Other Poems (1871), a lyric by Emma *Lazarus, “TheNew Ezekiel” (in Songs of a Semite, 1882), predicting the Jewish people’s national revival in Ereẓ Israel, works on the theme
include a poem by Franz *Werfel, Ezechiel, der Prophet (1953),
a tale of the Babylonian captivity by Lieselotte Hoffmann, andAlbert *Cohen’s one-act play Ezéchiel (1933), a dialogue representing the struggle between prophetic vision and reality.
In art the important subjects drawn from the Book of
Ezekiel are the apocalyptic visions – the Chariot (Merkavah) with fiery wheels, the resurrection of the dry bones, andthe locked gate. There are also some scenes showing Ezekiel
undergoing various ordeals – eating a scroll, lying prostrate
in expiation of the sins of Israel and Judah, and cutting hishair and beard and weighing them in the balance. The prophet
is usually shown with the fiery chariot or the double wheel,taken as a symbol of the two Testaments. Sometimes he also
holds a scroll reading “Porta clausa est, non aperietur” (44:2).
In the third-century frescoes of the synagogue at *Dura-Europos there is an outstanding cycle of scenes from the Bookof Ezekiel. There are representations of the men slaughtering

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6645[Moses Aberbach / Stephen G. Wald (2nd ed.)]ezekiel’s tomb

ezekiel, abraham ezekiel
the people of Jerusalem (9:1–6), the prophet taken up by thehair and transported to the Valley of the Dry Bones, andthe winds breathing life into the bones. The sixth-century
Rabbula Gospels (Laurentiana, Florence) portray Ezekielin conjunction with Jesus and David. In Oriental art he appears in frescoes in Greece (Hosios David, Salonika, fifth century), and in the church of Bachkovo, Bulgaria (12t century),
and frequently in icons in those lands influenced by the Byzantine tradition. In the West, Ezekiel is first encountered inillumination, as in the ninth-century Bible of San Paolo Fuori
le Mura. The earliest Western monastic example is the frescoin San Vicenzo de Galliano (c. 1007). There is a 12t-century
statue by Benedetto Antelami on the facade of Borgo San Donnino, Fidenza, and a cycle in the lower church of Schwarzheindorf, near Bonn, Germany. Thirteenth-century portrayals in
French churches are on the portal of Saint-Firmin, Amiens, ona window, at Bourges, and in La Sainte-Chapelle, Paris. The vision of the divine chariot also appears in Lesnovo, Serbia (14t
century), and in the Pitti Palace, Florence. The Valley of the
Dry Bones appears in miniature painting from the ninth tothe 14t centuries in both East and West; it culminates in the
Signorelli fresco in the cathedral of Orvieto and the Tintoretto
painting in the Scuola di San Rocco, Venice. Michelangelo’s famous representation of Ezekiel among other prophets of Israel
appears on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel (1508–10). In theearly 19t century the English poet and artist William *Blake
produced a fine engraving and a painting of the prophet.
Ezekiel’s vision, in contrast to that of Isaiah, mentions
only “sounds” and “voices,” but even this unspecific conception would seem to call for some musical embodiment which,however, must inevitably fall short of the sublime suggestionsin the biblical source. This is, for example, true of cantorialinterpretations of the Ve-ha-Ofanim prayer and of the many
ofan poems (see *Piyyut). In art music the major composers
have generally avoided the subject of Ezekiel’s vision, whereasthat of Isaiah (with its explicit “tonal” description and established place in Christian liturgy) offers far more promisingmaterial to the composer. The two visions, combined in the
Prologue to Goethe’s Faust, have an ambitious setting in the
prologue act of Arrigo Boito’s Mefistofele (1868, 18753). The
Valley of the Dry Bones is described by Franz Liszt in his Ossa
arida for choir and organ (1879) and a symphonic work, The
Valley of Dry Bones, was composed by A.W. *Binder (1935).
The biblical text has also been set by several Israel composers, generally for choir. In a very different musical tradition
the Afro-American spiritual “Ezekiel Saw the Wheel,” with
its simple rhythmic tune, is interesting for its text: this swiftly
turns from the description of “a wheel in a wheel – way up in
the middle of the sky” to criticism of the behavior of certain
members of the congregation. Another popular spiritual, “DryBones,” which has often been effectively arranged for vocal
or instrumental ensembles, transforms the terrifying biblicalscene into a syncopated, jocular description of the gradualjoining together of the bones and of their subsequent separation in reverse order.

Bibliography: COMMENTARIES: A.B. Davidson and A.W.
Streane (Eng., 1916); G.A. Cooke (ICC, 1937); G. Fohrer and K. Galling(Ger., 1955); W. Zimmerli (Ger., 1955–69); J.W. Wevers (Eng., 1969);
R. Eliezer of Beaugency, ed. by S. Poznański (Heb., 1910); S.D. Luzzatto (Heb., 1876). OTHER WORKS: Kaufmann, Y., Religion, 401–46;
Kaufmann, Y., Toledot, 3:475–583; J. Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient
Israel (1962), index; G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 2 (1965),
220–37; M. Buber, Torat-ha-Nevi’im (1942), 168–72. SPECIAL STUDIES: C.C. Torrey, Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Original Prophecy (1930);
S. Spiegel, in: Harvard Theological Review, 24 (1931), 245–321; idem,
in: JBL, 54 (1935), 145–71; V. Herntrich, Ezechielprobleme (1932);
C.G. Howie, The Date and Composition of Ezekiel (1950); G. Fohrer,
Die Hauptprobleme des Buches Ezechiel (1952); H.H. Rowley, Men
of God (1963), 169–210; S. Krauss, in: Ha-Shilo’aḥ , 8 (1901), 109–18,
300–6; Y.N. Simḥ oni, in: He-Atid, 4 (1912), 209–34; 5 (1912), 47–74;
M.H. Segal, in: F.I. Baer et al. (ed.), Magnes Anniversary Book (1938),
168–77; A. Margolioth, in: Tarbiz, 22 (1950/51), 21–27; D.N. Freedman, in: Interpretation, 8 (1954), 446–71; K.S. Freedy and D.B. Redford, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 90 (1970), 462–85.
IN THE AGGADAH: Ginzberg, Legends, index. TOMB OF EZEKIEL:
R. Joseph Hayyim Alhakam, Mamlekhet Kohanim (Bagdad, 1873).
EZEKIEL IN ISLAM: “Ḥ izḳ īl,” in: EIS2, 3, 535 (incl. bibl.); H. Speyer,
Die biblischen Erzaehlungen im Qoran (1961), 412–3. IN THE ARTS:
L. Réau, Iconographie de l’art chrétien, 2 pt. 1 (1956), 373–8, incl. bibl.
Add. Bibliography: W. Eichrodt, Ezekiel (OTL; 1970); J. Levenson, Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48 (1976);
W. Zimmerli, A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel 1–24
(Hermeneia; 1979); idem … Ezekiel 24–48 (Hermeneia; 1983); A.
Hurvitz, A Linguistic Study …Priestly Source…and Ezekiel (1982); M.
Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20 (AB; 1983); idem, Ezekiel 21–37 (AB; 1997);
R. Klein, Ezekiel (1988); L. Boadt, in: ABD, 2, 711–22; L. Allen, Ezekiel
1–19 (Word; 1994); idem, Ezekiel 20–48 (Word; 1990); J. Galambush,
Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel: The City as Yahweh’s Wife (1992); S.
Bondì, in: V. Krings (ed), La civilsation phénicienne et punique (1995),
268–81; P. Bartoloni, ibid., 282–89; D. Block, The Book of Ezekiel 1–24
(NICOT; 1997); Ezekiel 25–48 (NICOT; 1998); M. Cohen (ed.), Mikra’ot
Gedolot ‘Haketer’ Ezekiel (2000); R.L. Kohn, A New Heart and a New
Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile and Torah (2002); M. Goshen-Gottstein and
S. Talmon (eds.), Hebrew University Bible: The Book of Ezekiel (critical text-edition; 2004).

646

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

EZEKIEL, ABRAHAM EZEKIEL (1757–1806), English
artist, son of the silversmith Abraham Ezekiel (d. 1799) who
helped to build the synagogue in Exeter in 1763 together withhis brother Benjamin. The son, practicing as a silversmith,watchmaker, and scientific optician, was a successful miniature and portrait painter enjoying a high reputation locally.
He also engraved portraits by Opie (1783), Reynolds (1795),
and others and executed several bookplates.
His son, SOLOMON (Isaac) EZEKIEL (1781–1867), a
plumber and tinsmith by trade, settled in Penzance in Cornwall. He founded “The Penzance Hebrew Society for Promoting the Diffusion of Religious Knowledge,” printed (1844–47)
the lectures on Abraham and Isaac which he gave before it,and published an incisive letter (1820) which prevented theestablishment of a Conversionist Society in Penzance.
Bibliography: Rubens, in: JHSET, 14 (1935–39), 104–6; C.
Roth, Rise of Provincial Jewry (1950), 60; JC (March 22, 1867), and supplement (May–June 1933). Add. Bibliography: ODNB online.
[Cecil Roth]ezekiel, mordecai joseph brill
EZEKIEL, APOCRYPHAL BOOKS OF. Josephus (Ant.,
10:79) appears to refer to two books of Ezekiel, one of which
was presumably an apocryphal work. Reference to such awork is also made in the stichometry of Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople (806–15), and the pseudo-Athanasian canon list. Fragments of an Ezekiel book are preservedin various ancient sources. The longest is the story of theblind man and the lame found in Epiphanius (c. 315–402; Adversus Haereses, 64:70, 5, ed. Hall). It is a parable designed
to prove the resurrection of both body and soul by demonstrating their interdependence. A lame and a blind man
conspired together to rob a king’s orchard, the blind man
using his legs to transport the lame man who guided his
steps. An almost identical story serves a similar function in
rabbinic sources (Sanh. 91a–b; cf. Mekh. Shirata, 2; Lev. R.
4:5). A second fragment is to be found in Clement of Rome’s(Pope Clement I 92?–100) Epistula ad Corinthios, 83 (PG, 1(1886), 226), opening “Repent, House of Israel, of your lawlessnesses.” This fragment is of a strongly prophetic characterbased on the language of biblical prophecy. It is also quoted inpart by Church Father Clement of Alexandria (Paedagogus
1:91, 2; PG, vol. 7, 357). A third tiny fragment is preservedin Clement of Alexandria’s Quis dives salvetur? (40:2; PG, 9(1890), 645) and it may belong to the same “prophetic” Ezekiel
apocryphon. It seems to be difficult, however, to conceive of
the story of the lame and the blind as belonging to the same
work, and either an addition or two Ezekiel apocrypha are involved. Another short sentence attributed to Ezekiel occurs
in various forms. In Epiphanius, Adversus Haereses (30:30, 1;
PG, 41 (1863), 458), the form is found “and the heifer shall bear
and they shall say, ‘She has not borne.’ ” This is employed in
Christological contexts and it is difficult to discern its original import. Various scholars also assign the above quotation in Clement of Rome Epistula ad Corinthios (1:23; PG,
vol. 1, p. 260) to an Ezekiel book. Some fragments of a Greek
Ezekiel apocryphon were discovered on a papyrus and published by Campbell Bonner in 1940. These fragments include
one passage which is quoted by Clement of Alexandria (Paedagogus, 1:84, 2–4; PG, 8 (1891), 512) as from Ezekiel, which confirms their identification. This document too bears the prophetic stamp observed in some of the above quotations andit may derive from the same work.

erence to Americans as a “Christian” people, and Tyler acknowledged Ezekiel’s protest as well founded. In 1845 Ezekiel
protested local ordinances that severely punished violators of
the Sunday blue laws and brought about their repeal. A revisedcode adopted in Virginia in 1849, as a result of Ezekiel’s campaigning, protected citizens who observed the Jewish Sabbathfrom incurring penalties for violating Sunday laws. Ezekiel
was a leading protester against seeming U.S. acquiescence
to Swiss anti-Jewish discrimination which helped to bringabout a modification of the U.S.-Swiss treaty in 1857. Moving
to Cincinnati in 1869, Ezekiel served as secretary to the boardof governors of Hebrew Union College from 1876 to 1896. His
son was the sculptor Moses Jacob *Ezekiel, whose Ecce Homo,a bronze sculpture of a suffering Christ, done about 1899, wasincluded in the exhibition “The Hand and the Spirit; Religious
Art in America, 1700–1900,” which was shown at the University Art Museum, Berkeley, in 1972.
Bibliography: H.T. Ezekiel and G. Lichtenstein, Jews ofRichmond (1917), 117–8; AJHSP, 9 (1901), 160–3.

EZEKIEL, JACOB (1812–1899), U.S. communal leader.
Ezekiel was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and was apprenticed as a bookbinder. In 1833 he moved to Baltimore,
where he helped to establish the Hebrew Benevolent Society.
The next year he moved to Richmond, Virginia, where he entered the dry goods business, and became active in Jewish
affairs. In 1841 Ezekiel took issue with President Tyler’s ref-EZEKIEL, MORDECAI JOSEPH BRILL (1899–1974), U.S.
agricultural economist. Ezekiel, who was born in Richmond,
Virginia, received a bachelor of science degree in agriculture
from Maryland Agricultural College (1918), a master of science
degree from the University of Minnesota (1923), and a Ph.D.
in economics from the Robert Brookings Graduate School of
Economics and Government (1926).
Ezekiel spent his career in federal government and United
Nations service. He was statistical assistant in agriculture to
the U.S. Census Bureau from 1919 to 1922, when he joined thefarm management division of the Department of Agriculture.
From 1930 to 1933 he was assistant chief economist of the Federal Farm Board. In 1932 he formulated the details of what was
to become the Agriculture Adjustment Administration andhelped prepare a draft of the Agricultural Adjustment Act.
Ezekiel was also involved with the founding conferences andearly activities of what was to become the United Nations Foodand Agriculture Organization. From 1933 to 1944 he was economic adviser to the secretary of agriculture. He returned to
the Department of Agriculture for two years and then spent
15 years in the economic division of the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the UN (1947–62), the final year as assistantdirector-general. In 1962 he became chief of the UN divisionof program control staff in the State Department’s agency forinternational development. He retired from the FAO in 1962
to take a position with the United States Agency for International Development. He served as chief of the United Nations
Division of this agency until his retirement in 1967. During
the last years of his life, Ezekiel took occasional assignments
as consultant. In 1969 he worked for several months with the
FAO, helping to prepare a report entitled “Indicative Plan forWorld Agricultural Development.”
Ezekiel’s major interests besides agricultural economics were economic development and econometrics, subjects
on which he contributed many articles to professional peri-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6647

Bibliography: M.R. James, Lost Apocrypha of the Old Testament (1920), 64–70; Holl, in: Aus Schrift und Geschichte, Theologische
Abhandlungen Adolf Schlatter (1922), 85–98; C. Bonner, Studies andDocuments, 12 (1940), 183ff.
[Michael E. Stone]ezekiel, moses
odicals and wrote a number of books. Among his publishedworks are Methods of Correlation Analysis (1930, 19412); $2,500
a Year – from Scarcity to Abundance (1936); Jobs for All ThroughIndustrial Expansion (1939); and the F.A.O. publication Usesof Agricultural Surpluses to Finance Economic Development
in Underdeveloped Countries – A Pilot Study in India (1955).
He was also co-author and editor of Towards World Prosperity (1947).
[Joachim O. Ronall / Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]EZEKIEL, MOSES (1891–1969), Indian botanist. Born in
Nagpur, Ezekiel was economic botanist to the governmentof Gwalior (1918–22), professor of botany at Wilson College, Bombay, and later principal of the College of Scienceat Nadiad, Gujarat (1947–50). From 1952 he headed the biology department at Petlad College. His works include Animal
Histology (1927), A Handbook of Plant Sociology (1947), andThree Great Evils – Contamination, Adulteration and Poisoning of Foodstuffs (1947). Ezekiel, who was active in Jewish life,
also wrote The History and Culture of the Bene-Israel in India (1948).
[Mordecai L. Gabriel]

EZEKIEL, MOSES JACOB (1844–1917), U.S. sculptor.
Ezekiel was born in Richmond, Virginia, and his sculpture isimbued with elements of his Southern and Jewish roots. As
a youth he modeled Cain Receiving the Curse of the Almighty
and Moses Receiving the Law on Mount Sinai, both of which
are now lost. He attended the Virginia Military Institute, andserved in the Confederate army during the American Civil
War. After the war, he studied art in Cincinnati and Berlinin the late 1860s.
His bas-relief Israel (1873), in which Israel is represented
allegorically, won the Michael Beer Prix de Rome. A 1904 replica of the lost original resides at the Skirball Museum Cincinnati at Hebrew Union College. The first foreigner to receive
the prize, Ezekiel embarked on two years of study in Rome
beginning in 1874, where he then settled permanently. Hisstudio in the Baths of Diocletian became a fashionable gathering place for artisans of all persuasions as well as royalty
and politicians. The B’nai B’rith commissioned his enormous
marble group Religious Liberty for the Centennial Expositionof 1876 (National Museum of American Jewish History, Philadelphia). This was one of the earliest of several monuments hemade for the United States as well as for European countries.
In 1888 he designed the seal for the recently established Jewish
Publication Society of America. Inscribed in the seal, whichshows Jerusalem with a Shield of David, is the motto “Israel’s
mission is peace.” He also executed portrait busts, including
bronze heads of Robert E. Lee (c. 1886, Virginia Military Institute Museum, Lexington) and Rabbi Isaac Mayer *Wise(1899, Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati). The king of Italy
knighted Ezekiel in 1907. Although he lived most of his adultlife in Rome, his will specified that his body return to America
after his death. He was buried at the foot of a Confederate memorial he designed for Arlington National Cemetery (1914).

648

His autobiography, Memoirs from the Baths of Diocletian, waspublished posthumously in 1975.
Bibliography: D. Philipson, “Moses Jacob Ezekiel,” in: Publications of the American Jewish Historical Society, 28 (1922), 1–62.
[Samantha Baskind (2nd ed.)]EZEKIEL, NISSIM (1924–2004), Indian poet, critic, social
commentator, and editor. Ezekiel was a member of Bombay’s*Bene Israel community. His father was a distinguished editor, professor of botany and zoology at Bombay University,and principal of a number of colleges. Nissim Ezekiel was thefather of post-Independence Indian poetry. Born in Bombay(Mumbai) he studied first at Bombay University, taking his
M.A. in 1947, and then at Birkbeck College, London. He later
worked on The Illustrated Weekly of India (1952–54) and laterheaded the English department of the Bombay College of Arts,
where he was professor of English and reader in American literature. Ezekiel published literary reviews and verse collections, including A Time to Change and Other Poems (1957),
The Third (1958), and The Unfinished Man (1960). Some of hisverse appeared in British poetry journals. He was brought up
in a secular milieu and even as a child preferred the poetryof T.S. Eliot, W.B. Yeats, and Ezra Pound to the English poetry being written in India. His poetic engagements paralleledthose of Ted Hughes, Philip Larkin, and other postwar British
poets but he developed his own voice marked by tenderness
and irony. His use of Indian English vernacular after the 1960s
gave his poetic language a rich humorous seam to draw on.
Ezekiel received the Sahitya Akademi award in 1983 and the
Padma-Shri, India’s highest civilian honor, in 1988.
[Tudor Parfitt (2nd ed.)]EZEKIEL BEN REUBEN MANASSEH (d. 1851), Baghdad
philanthropist who distributed large amounts of money forcharitable purposes in Iraq and Ereẓ Israel. In 1840 Ezekiel established the Baghdad rabbinical academy, named Bet Zilkha
and also Midrash Abi Manshi after its benefactor. The yeshivah
was first headed by R. Abdallah *Somekh and provided thestudents with all their needs. Ezekiel also built in Baghdad
the “new synagogue” in 1847, the “small synagogue” in 1849,
and Kneset Yeḥ ezkel in Safed, which was named after him (itnow bears the name of R. Moses *Alshekh). He also donatedhalf of the construction costs of the Bet Ya’akov synagogue,
better known as Hurbat R. Yehudah he-Ḥ asid, in the Old Cityof Jerusalem. After his death, his sons Manasseh and Sason
continued his philanthropic work.
Bibliography: A. Ben-Jacob, Toledot ha-Rav Abdallah
Somekh (1949), 15–20; idem, Yehudei Bavel (1965), 175–7.
[Abraham Ben-Yaacob]

EZEKIEL FEIVEL BEN ZE’EV WOLF (1755–1833), Lithuanian preacher, known as the “maggid of Deretschin.” Ezekiel
was born in Planaga, Lithuania. In his youth he was appointed
preacher in his native town and, subsequently, in Deretschin.
At the age of 19 he was an itinerant preacher in the Jewish
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6eẓ ḥ ayyim
communities of Galicia, Hungary, and Germany (where heremained for some time in Breslau). In Vilna he made theacquaintance of Elijah b. Solomon (the Gaon of Vilna) andthrough him, of Solomon Zalman of Volozhin, brother of*Ḥ ayyim b. Isaac of Volozhin. Solomon made a deep impression upon Ezekiel, who wrote his biography (Toledot Adam,in 2 parts (Dyhernfurth, 1801–09); frequently reprinted). This
contains details of Solomon’s life and his teachings as well as
stories current about him, and is a unique work for its period,
reflecting the widening of the horizons of Hebrew literaturein Lithuania at the end of the 18t century. Ezekiel sharply
censures those rabbis who neglect study of the Scriptures asa result of their preoccupation with the Talmud and codes.
In 1811 Ezekiel accepted an invitation to become the “maggid” (official preacher) of Vilna, a post in which he served
until his death.
Other works by Ezekiel are Musar Haskel (Dyhernfurth,1790), an exposition of Hilkhot De’ot and Teshuvah of Maimonides, and a commentary Be’urei Maharif (i.e., Morenu ha-Rav
Ezekiel Feivel) on the Midrash Rabbah to Genesis, Exodus,
and Leviticus, which was published in Vilna together withthe text in 1878. A third volume of Toledot Adam remains
unpublished.
Bibliography: H.N. Maggid-Steinschneider, Ir Vilna, 1(1990), 87–90; S.J. Fuenn, Kiryah Ne’emanah (19152), 241–4; Yahadut
Lita, 3 (1967), 54.
[Abraham David]

fear, for He is God. He then appoints Moses His messenger to
Pharaoh to tell him that he will lead the people of Israel out of
Egypt (96–112). Moses complains that he lacks the eloquence
for the task (113–5), at which God says that Aaron will speak
for him (116–9). God then tells Moses to cast down his rod
and turns it into a snake. He tells him to put his hand into his
bosom and it (his hand) becomes leprous (120–31). There isa description by God of the plagues that He intends to sendon the Egyptians and He tells Moses to instruct the Hebrew
people about the Passover (132–92). A messenger relates thedestruction of the Egyptians and how the Hebrews were saved(193–242). The last two fragments depict the oasis at Elim withits 12 springs of water and its 70 palm trees (243–53) and thewonderful bird that appeared there (254–69). This latter description is probably in the voice of a messenger sent by Moses
to find a resting place.
From this summary it can be seen how closely the author
follows the biblical account in the Book of Exodus. The vocabulary, too, reflects the Septuagint. Some elements, however,seem to be original to the author, or else derive from aggadic
material, as, for example, the character of Chum in line 66ff.;
the dream of Moses in line 68–82; the details of the destruction of the Egyptians, line 193–242; and the appearance of thebird (the Phoenix?) in lines 254–69.
The 269 verses of iambic trimeters that have been preserved represent a considerable portion of the play. This indicates that the author, influenced directly or indirectly by Euripides, was fluent in Greek and adept at writing verse. Asidefrom being a late example of ancient Greek tragedy, the play
may be seen as an anticipation of the later medieval passion
plays. Like these its primary function was probably to exploit
the existing profane form as a vehicle toward familiarizing its
audience with sacred history. The dependence of the work on
the Septuagint means that it was written not earlier than the
beginning of the second century B.C.E., while the latest dateis the middle of the first century B.C.E., when it is mentioned
by Alexander Polyhistor. Eusebius’ reference to Ezekiel “thewriter of tragedies” (an epithet also found in Clement of Alexandria) suggests the existence of more examples of this genre
by the same author.

EZEKIEL THE POET, Hellenistic Jewish writer of tragedies.
*Eusebius quotes from a unique Greek tragedy on a biblicaltheme, entitled Exagoge (“The Exodus”), written by Ezekiel“the writer of tragedies” (Praeparatio Evangelica 9:28), giving*Alexander Polyhistor as his source. The fragments are theonly surviving example of a Jewish drama in antiquity that is
consciously patterned after Greek drama.
The play begins with a long soliloquy by Moses containing an exposition of the events that have led up to the firstscene. Moses tells how the Jews came to Egypt, how they were
oppressed, and how Moses was cast into the water and saved
by Pharaoh’s daughter (1–31). He then tells how he learned
about his childhood, avenged a kinsman who was being beatenby an Egyptian, and fled from Egypt for fear of Pharaoh’s retaliation (32–58). The action of the play apparently begins with
Moses watching the seven fair daughters of Raquel (“Reuel” –Jethro, cf. Ex. 2:18, 18:1) and with Zipporah telling him that heis in the land of Libya, which “is held by Ethiopians” but ruledby her father (59–65). Later, in reply to a question of a certain Chum, Zipporah says that she is wedded to the stranger(66ff.). Moses tells of a dream in which he saw a kingly person seated on Mount Sinai. In his dream, the throne was offered to Moses and he accepted it (68–82). Moses’ father-inlaw interprets this dream to mean that Moses will be a leader
and a judge, who will know all things past, present, and future(83–89). Moses then sees the burning bush and inquires aboutit (90–95). God tells Moses to remove his shoes and have no

EẒ Ḥ AYYIM, an Orthodox educational institution in Jerusalem, including a kindergarten, a talmud torah, a preparatory
yeshivah (“yeshivah ketanah”), a yeshivah, and a *kolel. During the Turkish period Eẓ Ḥ ayyim served as the central Ashkenazi educational institution of the old yishuv, particularly
for the youth of the Perushim community (the descendantsof the disciples of Elijah, Gaon of Vilna), the ḥ asidim having
established the Ḥ ayyei Olam Yeshivah.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6649

Bibliography: Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1:23, 155ff.;
J. Wieneke (ed.), Ezechielis Judaei poetae Alexandrini… (Lat., 1931); J.
Gutmann, Ha-Sifrut ha-Yehudit ha-Hellenistit… (1963), 9–69; G.M. Sifakis, Studies in the History of Hellenistic Drama (1967), 122–4; PaulyWissowa, 12 (1909), 1701–02.
[Marshall S. Hurwitz]

ezineEẓ Ḥ ayyim was established as a talmud torah for orphans in the early 1850s at a meeting held in the women’s
gallery of the “Menahem Zion” Bet Midrash in the courtyard of the Ḥ urvah Synagogue, and reflected the growth of
the Ashkenazi community, particularly with regard to children. Its budget was originally entirely dependent upon
direct allocations from the Kolel Jerusalem in Vilna and R.
Samuel *Salant was appointed its head. In 1855, a “Ḥ evrat
Talmud Torah” was founded in Jerusalem which assumed
responsibility for the institution under the leadership of R.
Salant and R. Isaiah *Bardaki. The Ḥ evrah imposed indirect
taxes on the Ashkenazi community, in the form of a fixed
percentage from weddings, circumcisions, and synagogue offerings, to augment those funds which were received fromabroad.
The regulations provided inter alia that if a pupil showedno learning ability by the time he reached the age of 13 he wasto be taught a trade, the leaders of the yishuv thus accepting,at least in principle, the idea of occupational training.
In 1858 there arrived in Jerusalem R. Saul Benjamin HaKohen Radzkowitz, a man of considerable organizational
ability and imagination, who took upon himself the task ofestablishing Eẓ Ḥ ayyim on a firm footing and extending its
activities. His unconventional activities, however, gave rise tofears on the part of the conservative leadership that the institution might collapse and he was dismissed, a step which gave
rise to an unusually violent controversy.
At first the curriculum was strictly confined to religious
subjects, which led to considerable criticism, as a result of
which two hours daily were devoted to writing and arithmetic,in 1867. The critics were still not satisfied. Eẓ Ḥ ayyim came tobe regarded as the symbol of old-fashioned conservatism andin response to its opposition to changes in the curriculum thefirst modern schools in Jerusalem were opened (Lemel, theAlliance Israélite, and Evelina de Rothschild, etc.).
World War I cut off the sources of income from abroad
and the British occupation in 1917 found the institution in aperilous state. Funds from the United States were in the handsof the Zionists, who opposed its educational approach inprinciple. The Committee of Delegates, which had control ofthe distribution of aid to the Jews of Ereẓ Israel, applied greatpressure on Eẓ Ḥ ayyim to institute comprehensive reforms inmethods and curriculum, including Hebrew as the language of
instruction. The pressure was resisted, and after much effort Eẓ
Ḥ ayyim succeeded in establishing anew its connections with
the Diaspora, thus ensuring its continuation.
Up to and including the beginning of the Mandatory
period Eẓ Ḥ ayyim was one of the three institutions which
had the deciding voice in the election of the leadership of theold yishuv, the other two being the Kolelim Committee andthe Bikkur Ḥ olim Hospital. In 1919 it was one of the deciding factors in the election of Rabbi A.I. *Kook as chief rabbi
of Jerusalem.
During the Mandatory period the prestige of Eẓ Ḥ ayyim
diminished even among the old Ashkenazi yishuv with the650founding of new schools and yeshivot. Nevertheless the energetic leadership of R. Jehiel Michel *Tykocinski ensured
not only its survival but even its expansion. In 1929 its center moved to a new and spacious building adjacent to theMaḥ aneh Yehudah market while branches were establishedin all the old suburbs of Jerusalem.
Despite its curriculum certain changes have taken place,the most outstanding of which is the use of Hebrew in the
branches in non-religious subjects, although in the mainbuilding Yiddish is still the language of instruction even in
non-religious subjects.
As of June 2005, Eẓ Ḥ ayyim had some 1,000 pupils,
ages three to seventeen. Located on three campuses around
Jerusalem, including the original building near the Maḥ aneh
Yehudah market, Eẓ Ḥ ayyim also had a kolel of approximately
150 young married men (avrekhim) who received financial
support. It had a dining room, an aid fund for the needy, anda library of some 20,000 volumes.
Bibliography: J.M. Tykocinski, in: Lu’aḥ Ereẓ Yisrael, 9(1904), 121–67; A.R. Malachi, in: Talpiyyot 9, nos. 1–2 (1965).
[Menachem Friedman]

EZINE, district of Çanakkale, Turkey. Ezine was situated in
the vicinity of many important cities like Troy, Neadria, andAlexandria Troas. The Ottoman domination in this region
began in the 1350s. Ezine became an important settlement
point owing to its fertile land and trade routes. The first Jewish presence in Ezine can be traced back to 1845 when five“alien” (yabanciyan) Jews were reported. Overpopulation of
the Jews in Çanakkale brought same families to Ezine Centrum as well as to other parts of the district, such as Bayramiç, Kumkale, and Yenișehir in the late 19t century. The Jews
lived in a small quarter composed of 40 households and today
known as Yahudi Sokağı. In 1894 there were 130 Jews in Ezine,
60 in Bayramiç, 24 in Kumkale, and 13 in Yenișehir. During
the Gallipoli Campaign of World War I, the Jewish population in Ezine temporarily increased due to mass flight fromthe battlefields. The Jewish community in Ezine was attachedto Çanakkale for religious purposes until the Gallipoli Campaign. Thus, it had neither a synagogue nor a private cemetery. Ezine Jews were engaged in peddling, export of grain,
bonito, leather, and cotton, butchery, jewelry, green groceries, money-changing, and viniculture. The Hakim, Kohen,
Yuday, Ruso, and Elinda families were the best known Jewish
families in Ezine. After the establishment of the Turkish Republic, the Jewish population in Ezine began to diminish. Official records show that in 1927 there were only 31 Jews. The
small Jewish presence lasted until the 1960s. Among the Jewish
cultural heritage are a few Jewish houses and one synagogue
whose building later served as a place to remove seeds from
cotton and today is abandoned.
Bibliography: Cezair-i Bahr-i Sefid Vilayet Salnamesi (1293),
86; Karasi Vilayet Salnamesi (H.1305), 141; Ezine Nüfus Müdürlüğü,3 Sıra Numaralı Esas Defteri, 105–52; A. Galanté, Histoire des Juifs
d’Anatolie, 4 (İstanbul, 1987), 223; J.M. Cook, The Troas: the Archeo-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

ezobi, jehoseph ben hanan ben nathan
logical and Topographical Study (1973), 316, 374–82; V. Cuinet, La Turquie d’Asie, 3 (1894), 696, 763–70.
[M. Mustafa Kulu (2nd ed.)]Ẓ efunot Negev (1967), 189–213; idem, in: Illustrated London News, 255(Nov. 15, 1969), 32–33; 255 (Nov. 29, 1969), 28–29.

EZIONGEBER (Heb. (‫) ֶע ְציוֹ ן ָ ּג ֶבר ) ֶ ּג ֶבר‬, first mentioned in the
Bible as one of the camping sites of the Israelite tribes on their
way to Canaan (Num. 33:35–36).
As such, it is mentioned next to Elath in Deuteronomy 2:8. From the biblical narrative of the Exodus (Num.
21:4), it may be deduced that Ezion-Geber was somewhere on
the Gulf of Elath. Its location on the Gulf of Elath and function as a port and shipyard during the reign of Solomon isclearly stated in I Kings 9:26. II Chronicles 8:17 indicates that
it was not Solomon who founded Ezion-Geber and Elath.
According to archaeological evidence it was most probably the
Edomites or Midianites as early as the end of the Late Bronze
Age (see *Timna). The port and shipyard of Ezion-Geberare again mentioned in connection with the unsuccessful attempt by Jehoshaphat in the ninth century B.C.E. to renew
the gold route to Ophir (I Kings 22:49). After this, it disappears from the biblical annals, and in the eighth century
B.C.E., there is mention only of the struggle between the
kings of Judah and Edom for the possession of the city of
Elath.
In 1934 F. Frank discovered Tell al-Khalayfa, a low moundapproximately ⅓ mi. (c. 0.6 km.) north of the shores of the
Gulf of Elath, between modern Eilat and Akaba, and he identified it with Ezion-Geber. N. Glueck subsequently excavated thesite (1938–40) and identified it with Ezion-Geber and Elath,assuming a change of the former name to Elath in the days ofthe kings of Judah. According to him, the site was not only the
Solomonic port, but also an important industrial center forthe manufacture of copper and iron tools, which served as export goods for the trading ventures of Solomon. Recent excavations in the Arabah and the discovery of an early Iron Age I
port installation in the bay and on the island Jazīrat Farʿūn,
7½ mi. (12 km.) south of modern Eilat, have suggested a reconsideration of the date and character of the ruins of Tell alKhalayfa, and consequently of the location of Ezion-Geber. It
has become clear that the site was fortified, perhaps serving as
a caravanserai, and not a copper smelting plant, and an identification with the ancient city of Elath has been suggested. It
has been proposed that the port and shipyard of Ezion-Gebershould be identified with the island of Jazīrat Farʿūn, the only
natural anchorage in the Gulf of Elath. Extensive casemate
walls and a well-built port testify to its maritime use in early
biblical days. From archaeological discoveries in the southern
Arabah (1969), it can be deduced that long before Solomon’s
ships were assembled at Ezion-Geber–Jazīrat Farʿūn, Egyptian
mining expeditions on their way to the Arabah copper mines
used Ezion-Geber as their harbor.
Bibliography: F. Frank, in; ZDPV, 57 (1934), 191–280, esp.
244; N. Glueck, The Other Side of the Jordan (1940), 89–113; idem,
Rivers in the Desert (1959), index; idem, in: BA, 28 (1965), 70–87, incl.
bibl.; B. Rothenberg, in: PEQ, 94 (1962), 5–71; 101 (1969), 57–59; idem,

EZOBI, JEHOSEPH BEN HANAN BEN NATHAN (13t
century), paytan. Ezobi was born and lived in Provence (hisname signifies that his family came from the town of Orange,close to Avignon) and probably taught in Perpignan. Abraham *Bedersi praises him as his master and as a talented poet(Ḥ erev ha-Mithappekhet, verse 148), and Todros b. Judah Abulafia in a hymn in his honor writes: “He is known as Ezov [hyssop]; how pleasant is the hyssop – even the cedars cannot obscure him” (Gan ha-Meshalim ve-ha-Ḥ idot, 2 pt. 1 (1931), 46).
“Ka’arat ha-Kesef” (“The Silver Plate”), an educational, ethical, and religious poem, is Ezobi’s best-known hymn (printedby Steinschneider, 1860, and in Joseph Ḥ ayyim ben Elijah alḤ akam, Nifla’im Ma’aśekh… Ma’aśiyot, 1989), dedicated tohis son on the day of his wedding. The name derives from its
130 verses – equal in numbers to the 130 *shekels, the weightof the silver plates offered by the princes of the tribes to theTabernacle (Num. 7:13ff.). In this poem, Ezobi appeals to
his son to follow the ways of the Torah. He warns him not
to be misled by Greek philosophy, and encourages him tolearn grammar and poetics, to study the Talmud and its commentators, such as Alfasi and Maimonides, and to follow his
own example and become a liturgist. He also enjoins his son
not to favor the wealthy over the poor. In an appended note,he requests his son to read this poem every week. The poem
was translated into Latin by *Reuchlin (Tuebingen, 1512–14).
Another translation was published by Jean Mercier (Paris,
1561). I. Freedman published an English translation (1895/6);
M. Forcano translated it into Catalan (1997). Other poemsby him include “Aromem El Ram,” a strophic hymn (zulat) for
the seventh day of Passover on the splitting of the Red Sea;
“Aggid Ḥ asdei ha-El,” a strophic hymn for Shavuot; “Az meRosh Mikdemei Ereẓ ,” another zulat on the death of Moses, forSimḥ at Torah; “Ezkor Yamim mi-Kedem,” in commemorationof the *Ten Martyrs; a seliḥ ah, “Ayeh Na Ḥ asadekha Adonai?”(of uncertain authorship), etc. Some of his poems have notbeen published, for example a bakkashah studied by B. BarTikva that includes the letter mem in every word. Ezobi plays
skillfully with motifs taken from the Midrashim, adding someirony and personal humor. Schirmann compares the qualities
of his poems with the best works of the early paytanim. Sefer
Millu’im (“Book of Addenda”), known only from a quotationin the responsa of R. Solomon b. Abraham *Adret (Constantinople, 1516, no. 25), is a homiletic commentary, in prose, on
the 613 commandments.
His brother Eleazar, also a poet, exchanged poems with
Abraham Bedersi; he was born in Carpentras and lived in
Béziers. Another brother, Meshullam, settled in Segovia, Castile, where he wrote in 1279 a short work on Hebrew grammar,
Aguddat Ezob (Ms. Hebr. 992 of the Bibl. Nat., Paris, unpublished, see C. del Valle, in: Helmántica, 163 (2003), 191–205),
based in the grammars of Jonah ibn Janaḥ and David Kimḥ i.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6651[Beno Rothenberg]

ezra
It is probable that he also wrote the commentary on the Torah,
Sefer ha-Ezobi, still in manuscript.
Bibliography: Zunz, Lit Poesie, 351, 480; Davidson, Oẓ ar,
4 (1933), 397; Schirmann, Sefarad, 2 (1956), 343–8; I. Freedman, in:
JQR, 8 (1895/96), 534–40; J. Reuchlin, Ezobi, Jehoseph ben Hanan ben
Nathan, Rabi Ioseph Hyssopaeus Parpinianensis iudaeorum poeta dulcissimus ex hebraica lingua in latina[m]traductus (1512); M. Steinschneider, Musar Haskel ve-Shir ha-Keara (1860); Weinberger, in: HUCA,
37 (1966), 1ff. (Heb.); B. Bar-Tikva, in: Sefer Aviad (1986), 185–94;
idem, in: Jewish Studies in a New Europe (1998), 54–63; idem, in: Talpiyot, 10 (1998), 397–405; Schirmann-Fleischer, The History of Hebrew Poetry in Christian Spain and Southern France (1997), 464–67,
469 n. 2; M. Forcano, in: Anuari de Filologia, Estudis Hebreus I Arameus, 20 (1997), 67–79.
[Angel Sáenz-Badillos (2nd ed.)]EZRA (Heb. ‫[“ ; ֶעזְ ָרא‬YHWH] helps”), priest and scribe who
played a major role in the rebuilding of the Temple, after the
return from the Babylonian exile.
The Man and His Mission
Ezra whose name means “help” (possibly a shortened form for‫“ ֲעזַ ְריָ ה‬The Lord has helped,” the name of two of his ancestors(7:1, 3)) was, along with Nehemiah, one of the two notable figures of the post-exilic community in Judah (sixth–fifth century B.C.E.). His work is known from the last three chapters(7–10) of the book that bears his name, and from chapter 8 of
the book of Nehemiah (see *Ezra and Nehemiah, Book of).
Ezra was both a priest, whose ancestry is traced back to Aaron(7:1–5), and a scribe “well versed in the law of Moses” (v. 6,
11). Just as another Persian king, *Cyrus, had done in his time(538), so also one of his successors, *Artaxerxes I (465–424),
issued a royal edict to Ezra granting permission for Jews to gowith him to Jerusalem. Ezra was permitted to bring with him
gold and silver donations from other Jews, and regular maintenance expenses of the Temple were to be provided from theroyal treasury. Ezra’s mission was “to expound the law of the
Lord” and “to teach laws and rules to Israel” (v. 10). For thispurpose he was granted not only a royal subsidy, but he wasalso empowered to appoint judges, enforce religious law, andeven to apply the death penalty. In response to critics who
argue that such a concern by a Persian king for a foreign cultwould be unlikely, the Passover papyrus issued by *Darius II
in 419/18 to the Jews at Elephantine in Egypt regarding thedate and method for celebrating the Passover (Porten) has often been cited. Nevertheless, the question of imperial authorization of Jewish law by the Persian Empire continues to bea subject of debate (Watts).

implement and teach the law, did not conduct his first public reading of the Law until 13 years later. Another problem
for the biblical chronology is that Ezra found many people inJerusalem but, according to Nehemiah, in his time, Jerusalem
was unpopulated. For these reasons and others, some scholars believe Ezra came to Jerusalem much later, either in the
37t year of Artaxerxes I (428) or in the seventh year of Artaxerxes II (397) (see discussion in Klein).
His Journey to Jerusalem
Ezra’s four month journey to Jerusalem is described by Ezra
in a first-person memoir. After listing the names of the leaders
returning with him, Ezra discovers there were no Levites in
his party so he had to muster up 38 Levites from some Levitical families. Another problem was security. Because Ezra hadoriginally made a declaration of trust in God before the king,he felt it inappropriate to request from him the customary escort. Thus he accounted the party’s safe arrival in Jerusalem
with all its treasure intact as a mark of divine benevolence.
Ezra’s Reaction to Reports of Intermarriage
When Ezra arrived in Jerusalem he was informed that somepeople, including members of the clergy and aristocracy, had
contracted foreign marriages. Immediately upon hearing thisnews Ezra engaged in mourning rites, tore his garments, andfasted and, on behalf of the people, confessed their sins anduttered a prayer of contrition. At the initiative of one of theleaders of the community Ezra was urged to take immediate
action. An emergency national assembly was convened, andEzra addressed the crowd in a winter rainstorm calling upon
the people to divorce their foreign wives. The assembled crowd
agreed to Ezra’s plea, but because of the heavy rains and thecomplexity of the matter (Ezra’s extension of legal prohibitions of marriages that had previously been permitted), they
requested that a commission of investigation be set up. After
three months the commission reported back with a list ofpriests, Levites, and Israelites who had intermarried. It is often
thought that Ezra’s action insisting on the divorce of foreign
wives and their children, together with Nehemiah’s concernthat the children of these foreign women could not speak thelanguage of Judah (Neh. 13:24), represented a shift in Israelite
matrimonial law. Previously offspring of intermarriage wasjudged patrilineally; now it was to be on the matrilineal principle (for a different view, see Cohen).

Date
The date of Ezra is problematic as is his relationship with Nehemiah, because apart from Neh. 8:9, and two other minor
references (Neh. 12:26, 36), the two are never mentioned together. According to their respective books, Ezra assumed his
mission in the seventh year of Artaxerxes (458) and Nehemiahcame in the 20t year of the same king (445). This would meanthat Ezra, who came at the express command of Artaxerxes to

The Reading of the Torah
Chapter 8 of the book of Nehemiah records that Ezra publicly
read the Torah on the first day of the seventh month (Rosh HaShanah). He stood upon a platform with dignitaries standingon his right and left. The ceremony began with an invocation
by Ezra and a response by the people saying “Amen, Amen”(v. 6). During the reading the people stood while the text wasmade clear to them (or translated for them (into Aramaic)) by
the Levites (van der Kooij). The people were emotionally overcome by the occasion and wept. However, they were enjoined
not to be sad rather to celebrate the day joyously with eating,

652

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6ezra
drinking, and gift giving. The day after the public reading,a group of priests and Levites continued to study the Torahwith Ezra and came across the regulations for observing the
feast of Tabernacles on that very month. A proclamation was
issued to celebrate the festival which was done with great joy,and the Torah was again read publicly during the entire eightdays of the festival.
Significance of Ezra’s Torah Reading
Ezra’s reading of the Torah inaugurated a new element in Jewish life whereby the Torah was read and explicated on regularoccasions in public. This public reading also led to the democratization of knowledge of the Torah among Jews, since prior
to this event most parts of the Torah were under the exclusive
provenance and control of the priests (Knohl).
[David Marcus (2nd ed.)]men whose piety is especially extolled by the rabbis (Mid.
Ps. to 105:2).
In Islam
Muhammad claims (Sura 9:30) that in the opinion of theJews, ʿUzayr (Ezra) is the son of God. These words are an
enigma because no such opinion is to be found among theJews, even though Ezra was singled out for special appreciation (see Sanh. 21b; Yev. 86b). The Muslim traditionalists attempt to explain the words of Muhammad with a Muslim
legend, whose origin appears to stem from IV Ezra 14:18–19.
The people of Israel sinned, they were punished by God, theHoly Ark was removed, and the Torah was forgotten. It wasdue, however, to Ezra’s merit that his heart was filled with the
Torah of God, which he taught to the people of Israel. When
the Holy Ark was returned to them and they compared thatwhich Ezra taught them with the text of the Sefer Torah in the
Holy Ark, the words they found were identical. They deduced
from this that Ezra was the son of Allah. Ţabarī cites anotherversion of this legend: the Jewish scholars themselves hid theArk, after they were beaten by the Amalekites. H.Z. Hirschberg proposed another assumption, based on the words of Ibn
Ḥ azm (I, 99), namely, that the “righteous” who live in Yemen
believe that ʿUzayr was indeed the son of Allah. According toother Muslim sources, there were some Yemenite Jews who
had converted to Islam who believed that Ezra was the messiah. For Muhammad, Ezra, the apostle (!) of the messiah, canbe seen in the same light as the Christians saw Jesus, the messiah, the son of Allah. An allusion to the figure of Ezra as theapostle of the messiah is found in a tale which is widespreadamong the Jews of Yemen, according to which Ezra requested
that they immigrate to Ereẓ Israel, and because they did not,he cursed them. Yemenite Jews have therefore refrained fromnaming their children Ezra. According to some Muslim commentators, ʿUzayr is the man who passed by the destroyed city(of Jerusalem; Sura 2:261) and did not believe that it could be
rebuilt (see *Jeremiah).

In the Aggadah
Ezra was still studying under *Baruch b. Neriah in Babylonia
when Daniel and his companions left for Palestine. He regarded the study of the Torah as of greater importance than
the task of reconstructing the Temple. Therefore it was only
after his master’s death that Ezra decided to gather the exiles
who had not gone up earlier with Daniel and who desired toreturn to the Holy Land and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem(Song R. 5:5). Ezra had another reason for remaining in Babylon after Daniel’s departure: he was considerate of the feelings of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, of the high-priestly family of Zadok. Joshua would have been embarrassed by Ezra’s
presence in the Land of Israel, in view of the latter’s greater
qualification for the office of high priest. Ezra, therefore, remained in Babylon until Joshua’s death. After Ezra went to theLand of Israel, he was appointed high priest. He had carefully
worked out his own pedigree before he left Babylonia (BB 15a)and in order to insure the purity of those remaining there hetook with him all those of doubtful or impure descent (Kid.
69b). He was so zealous in spreading the Torah, that rabbis
said of him, “If Moses had not anticipated him, Ezra would
have received the Torah” (Tosef., Sanh. 4:7). He restored andreestablished the Torah that had been almost completely forgotten (Suk. 20a). He ordained that public readings from the
Torah take place not only on Sabbaths, but also on Mondays
and Thursdays (Meg. 31b; TJ, Meg. 4:1, 75a). He also had theBible rewritten in “Assyrian” characters, leaving the old Hebrew characters to the Samaritans (Sanh. 21b). He established schools everywhere to fill the existing needs and in thehope that the rivalry between the institutions would redound
to the benefit of the pupils (BB 21b–22a). He also enacted theordinances known as “the ten regulations of Ezra” (see BK
82a–b; TJ, Meg. loc. cit.) and together with five of his companions, compiled the Mishnah (tractate Kelim, in A. Jellinek, Beit
ha-Midrash, 2 (1853), 88). Aside from the book which bears
his name, Ezra wrote the genealogies of the Book of Chronicles up to his own time (BB 15a) and had a hand in writing
the Book of Psalms (Song R. 4:19). The rabbis identify him
with the prophet Malachi (Meg. 15a). He is one of the five

Tomb of Ezra
There are a number of traditions concerning the site of Ezra’s
tomb. According to Josephus it is in Jerusalem; others holdthat he was buried in Urta or in Zunzumu on the Tigris; but
the general accepted version is that his tomb is situated at‘Uzēr, a village near Basra. This tradition is mentioned by*Benjamin of Tudela, *Pethahiah of Regensburg, Judah *AlḤ arizi, and other travelers, Jewish and non-Jewish, who visited
Babylonia. The tomb is in a building covered by a cupola andon its walls are written a variety of inscriptions. Nearby, there
is a khan in which the visitors to the tomb gather, and which
also contains shops where Arab and Jewish merchants offered
their wares in the period between Passover and Shavuot, thetime of pilgrimages to the tomb. The visitors lit candles andmade solemn vows. Special prayers were said (e.g., one wasthat composed by R. *Joseph Ḥ ayyim Al-Ḥ akam, containedin his book Mamlekhet Kohanim, Baghdad, 1873). The Mus-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6653[Haïm Z’ew Hirschberg]

ezralims fear the tomb and ascribe to it supernatural powers, andmany legends are linked to it.

nition of their services to India, David was knighted in 1927.
During World War II, they gave generous relief to refugees
from Europe.

Bibliography: J.M. Myers, Ezra, Nehemiah (1965); D.J.
Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (1984); H.G.M.Williamson, Ezra,
Nehemiah (1985); J. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah (1988); A. van der
Kooij, “Nehemiah 8:8 and the Question of the ‘Targum’-Tradition,” in:
G.J. Norton and S. Pisano (eds.), Tradition of the Text: Studies Offered
to Dominique Barthélemy in Celebration of his 70t Birthday (1991),
79–90; R.W. Klein, “Ezra-Nehemiah, Books of,” in: D.N. Freedman(ed.), Anchor Bible Dictionary, 2 (1992), 731–42; S.J.D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness (1999); J.W. Watts (ed), Persia and Torah: The
Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch (2001); B. Porten,“The Passover Letter (3.46),” in: W.W. Hallo (ed.), The Context ofScripture, 3 (2002), 116–17; I. Knohl, The Divine Symphony: The Bible’s Many Voices (2003). IN THE AGGADAH: Ginzberg, Legends, 4(1913), 354–9; 6 (1928), 441–7. IN ISLAM: Ṭ abarī, Tafsīr, 10 (1327 A.H.),
78–79; Nīsābūrī, ibid., 68–69; Ţabarī, Tafsīr, 3 (1323 A.H.), 19–20 (toSura 2:261); Thaʿlabī, Qiṣ aṣ (1356 A.H.), 291–3; H. Speyer, Biblische Erzaehlungen… (1961), 413; H.Z. Hirschberg, in: Leshonenu, 15 (1947),
130–3. TOMB: Ben-Jacob, in: Edoth, 1:1 (1945), 37–40. Add. Bibliography: EIS2, 10, 960, S.V. ‘Uzayr (incl. bibl.).

Bibliography: D.S. Sassoon, History of the Jews in Baghdad (1949), index.
[Abraham Ben-Yaacob][Abraham Ben-Yaacob]

EZRA, family prominent in India in the 19t and 20t centuries. JOSEPH BEN EZRA BEN JOSEPH KHLEF (d. 1855), one of
the notables of the Jewish community in Baghdad, traveled to
India at the beginning of the 19t century. Together with hissons Ezekiel and David, he settled in Calcutta, engaging incommerce and becoming very wealthy. After some time, hereturned to Baghdad, where he died. The family was known
as Baḥ er (Ar. “sea”), possibly because they were among thefirst to cross the sea to India. The traveler *Benjamin II firstmentioned Joseph as among the most distinguished personalities of Calcutta in 1849. Joseph’s son DAVID (1797–1882) was
president of the Calcutta Jewish community and one of theoutstanding Oriental philanthropists. Contributing generously
to charitable institutions in India and Iraq, he assisted the Palestinian sheluḥ im (“emissaries”) who often visited India, andalso provided funds for the ransoming of captives. A street wasnamed after him in Calcutta, where he built two magnificent
synagogues: Neweh Shalom (1856) and Bet El (1870).
His son ELIAS DAVID (1830–1886) was also a wealthy philanthropist. In 1882 he opened a school for the poor in Calcutta
and in 1883/84 built a synagogue named Maghen David after
his father. He contributed 12,000 rupees toward the establishment of a zoological garden which became known as “EzraHouse.” In 1870, he married Mozelle (Mazal-Tov; 1850–1921),
the daughter of Sir Albert *Sassoon. She founded a large hospital for the poor in Calcutta, named Ezra Hospital after her
husband, and two yeshivot: Mazal Ẓ ome’aḥ and Knesset Eliahu
in Jerusalem. Their son SIR DAVID (1871–1947), president of
the Jewish community of Calcutta, was also a noted philanthropist. In 1912 he married Rachel (1877–1952), daughter ofSolomon David Sassoon. Both were active in many spheres ofpublic life: David was president of a scientific society for the
study of nature in India; Rachel founded the League of Jewish Women in 1913 and administered two hospitals. In recog-

EZRA, APOCALYPSE OF (also known as Ezra IV), bookof visions ascribed to Ezra the Scribe, written between 95–
100 C.E., probably in Ereẓ Israel. It is extant in some Greek
fragments, Latin, Syriac, Ethiopic, two separate Arabic versions, Armenian, Georgian, and a Coptic fragment.
The book is composed of seven visions. The first three, inthe form of dialogues between Ezra and the angel Uriel, deal
primarily with the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem
and with theodicy. Each of these three visions concludes with abrief eschatological revelation. The fourth vision is of a weeping, bereaved woman who is transformed into the heavenly
Jerusalem, the promise of redemption for Zion. Next, Ezra sees
an eagle with 12 wings, eight “little wings,” and three heads.
This, he is told, is the fourth beast which appeared to Daniel(Dan. 7), the fourth wicked world empire, its heads and wings
representing kings and emperors. Ezra witnesses its judgment
and destruction at the hands of a lion, a symbol of the Messiah, after which the righteous rejoice in the messianic kingdom. The sixth vision sees one “as the form of a man,” risingfrom the sea, who is attacked by innumerable hosts, which
he destroys to be greeted by a joyous multitude – another vision of the Messiah’s victory over the evil nations. In the lastvision, Ezra receives the Torah, the 24 books of the Bible, andthe 70 books of secret, apocalyptic lore, and then prepares forhis assumption to heaven.
IV Ezra is considered one of the high points of Jewish
apocalyptic literature, combining sensitive perception withprofound and daring analysis. The author is deeply concernedwith the theological problems arising from the destruction of
Jerusalem: “Is Israel any worse than Babylon, that they ruleover us?” he asks (IV Ezra 3:27ff.). This question brings him togrips with some basic problems concerning the nature of man.
How could God create man with an “evil heart” and, whengiving him the Torah, not remove this evil heart, which causes
him to transgress its laws? Further, why is man given understanding, so that sinning, he knows that he sins and is destinedfor Gehenna? To these and other such questions raised in
the first three visions, no real solution is offered. Ultimately,
the angel can only say that God’s ways are inscrutable, that
He rejoices in the righteous few, and that Ezra and those likehim are assured of their salvation. But the author’s real answer is perhaps to be sought elsewhere, in the eschatologicalsections which conclude each of these visions, and in thethree eschatological visions which follow, the solution tothese problems residing in the eschatological occurrences
themselves.
The book is preserved in the Latin Church and is included by Protestants in the Apocrypha. It did not survive

654

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Ezra, greek Book ofin the Eastern Church, however, and except for a few patristic quotations (e.g., Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 3:16,
10) and the reuse of the text in the late “Esdras Apocalypse,”the Greek text is no longer extant. There is much debate as
to whether the original was Hebrew or Aramaic, the former
seeming the more likely possibility. In the Latin, two additional chapters (sometimes called III Ezra and V Ezra respectively; see Greek Book of *Ezra) occur at the beginning andat the end of the book. The book is included in many Ethiopic and Armenian biblical manuscripts, but has survived inonly one Syriac manuscript (Cod. Ambrosianus) and in two
incomplete Georgian copies.
A large portion of ch. 7 does not appear in the Vulgate
Latin manuscripts, the publication of which in 1875 from
Codex Ambianensis by R. Bensly was followed by the discovery
of a series of Latin codices containing this section. Kabisch,with the subsequent support of de Faye and Box, maintained
the book to be composed of a series of five separate source
documents: a Salathiel apocalypse (cf. IV Ezra 3:2) covering
substantially the first four visions; the Eagle vision (A); the Sonof Man vision (M); the final Ezra vision (E1); and a second Ezra
source which included the apocalyptic sections of Visions 1–4.
This hypothesis was strongly attacked by Clemen and Gunkel,
who were followed by Violet and, later, Keulers. These emphasize the basic structural unity of the work, pointing to its division into seven visions separated by prayer and fast, the appearance of the same technical terminology throughout, andthe questionable nature of many of the so-called “inconsistencies” or “contradictions” between the sources. They thus accept
the basic unity of the work, at the same time not denying thepossibility that the author employed existing written or oral
sources. The book contains no traces of sectarian or Essene
ideas and sometimes follows the line of traditional rabbinic
exegesis (cf. IV Ezra 6:7–10 and Gen. R. 63:9, Mid. Hag. to Gen.
25:26 et al.). It also includes a fragment of a Midrash on the 13
Attributes (IV Ezra 123ff.) and similar material. The date is established primarily by the identification of the three heads ofthe eagle in chapters 11–12 with the Flavian emperors.

member of the board in 1965 and deputy chairman in 1967, andwas chairman, the highest position in the industry, from 1971
to 1982. His period of office included the 1974 miners’ strike,but he was generally characterized by a conciliatory attitudein industrial relations. Ezra was knighted in 1974 and created a life peer in 1983. After retirement from the coal board,
he joined the Social Democratic Party in the House of Lords
and held numerous British and European directorships andadvisory posts in industry and commerce. He was appointed
a Grand Officer of the Italian Order of Merit and held Frenchand Luxembourg decorations.
[Vivian David Lipman]

EZRA, DEREK, BARON (1919– ), British industrial administrator. Ezra was educated at Magdalene College, Cambridge, and served in the British army during World War II,
being appointed a member of the Order of the British Empire
and awarded the United States Bronze Star. In 1947 he joined
the newly nationalized coal industry. After holding posts insales and marketing on the National Coal Board, he became a

EZRA, GREEK BOOK OF (also called the Apocryphal Ezra,
First Esdras, or Third Esdras), a Greek translation of the lasttwo chapters of II Chronicles, the entire Book of Ezra (except
for 1:6), and Nehemiah 7:73–8:13. It differs from the canonical version in that a section of Ezra is transposed, Nehemiah 1
does not follow Ezra, and a noncanonical story is introduced.
The following summary illustrates these changes.
The first chapter corresponds to II Chronicles 35 and 36(omitting the last two verses since they appear in Ezra 1:1 and
2, which corresponds to Greek Ezra 2:1 and 2); Josiah celebrates Passover, battles with the Egyptians, and dies of his
wounds; his successors; the sack of Jerusalem; the destructionof the Temple; the Babylonian exile. Chapter 2 corresponds toEzra 1; 4:7 to end of 4 (2–4:6 being transposed to chapter 5);
Cyrus permits the Jews to return and rebuild the Temple; theTemple vessels are returned; the correspondence between acertain Artaxerxes and the Jews’ antagonists (Jos., Ant., 11:26,
changes this to, or understands it as, Cambyses); interruptionof the construction of the Temple until the reign of Darius.
Chapters 3 and 4: each of three guardsmen of Darius suggests
what is most powerful – wine, royal power, or womankind –and the third, Zerubbabel, answers “womankind” but adds
“truth,” thereby winning the contest; as a reward he requests
permission to rebuild the Temple; Darius complies. Chapters
5:1–6: preparations for Zerubbabel’s expedition. Chapters
5:6–9:36 correspond to Ezra 2:1–4:5 and to Ezra 6 to the end:
catalog of those who returned; erection of the Altar; reference to the earlier troubles from Cyrus’ reign to Darius’ second year; the Temple rebuilt; Ezra’s expedition. Chapter 9:37
to end, corresponding to Nehemiah 7:73–8:13: Ezra reads the
Torah at a public gathering.
The canonical version tells of Zerubbabel’s return, breaks
off the narrative at the halt of the Temple construction, records
letters between the Jews’ enemies and the king, and returns to
the narrative. By noting that the interruption lasted until thetime of Darius before the correspondence (4:5) and at its close,
the author indicates that, for him, the documents are earlier
than Darius’ reign. The Greek Ezra, placing these documents
after Cyrus’ proclamation, before Zerubbabel’s return, conveys this same picture of a poison-pen correspondence prior
to Darius (Kaufmann Y., Toledot, 4 (1956), 522–7 upholds thisview, as do Josephus and traditional commentators). It differs

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6655

Bibliography: H. Gunkel, in: E. Kautzsch (ed.), Apokryphen
und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments, 2 (1900), 331–401; L. Vaganay, Le problème eschatologique dans le IVe livre d’Esdras (1906);
Schuerer, Gesch, 3 (19094), 315–35; B. Violet, Die Esra-Apokalypse(1910–24); G.H. Box, The Ezra-Apocalypse (1912); J. Keulers, Die eschatologische Lehre des vierten Esrabuches (1922); R.P. Blake, in: HTR,
19 (1926), 299–320; 22 (1929), 57–105; L. Gry, Les dires prophetiquesd’Esdras (1938); M. Stone, in: HTR, 60 (1967), 107–15; idem, in: Le
Muséon, 79 (1966), 387–400.
[Michael E. Stone]

Ezra and Nehemiah, Books offrom the canonical version in that Zerubbabel’s expedition
occurs under Darius rather than Cyrus.
Josephus used the work as a source for his discussion of
the post-Exilic Return (Ant., 11:1–56); little else can be said
about it with assurance. To some the work is complete andthe concluding conjunction and verb – “and they were gathered” – are a formal close. If the work is a unit, the Nehemiah
passage may have been introduced to underscore Ezra’s emphasis on the Law. Others see the conjunction-verb endings
as evidence that the work is incomplete; it belongs to the next
verse (Neh. 8:14). If the author’s starting point and closing are
unknown, so is his purpose. The translated material has been
seen as a version based on the Septuagint, a revision of a translation older than the Septuagint, or an independent translation from the Hebrew and Aramaic. And the “guardsmen”
episode has been variously labeled as a Greek, Oriental, or
more specifically, Aramaic or Persian folk-tale. The story may
be an originally non-Jewish story that was reworked. Scholars
think the answer “Truth” is an addition and the contest waslimited to one answer per guardsman. Furthermore, Truth ispraised; the force of the other elements is proved by example.
However, womankind’s power is shown in two ways. Woman
is presented as the life-giving mother and clother of man (animportant ancillary function of woman in antiquity). Without
a mother there can be no king or vine-cultivator to produce
wine. This sufficiently proves womankind’s superiority over
the others. At this point a new motif is introduced – woman as
temptress for whose favor man dares all; here biblical sounding phrases appear – “beautiful to look at,” 4:18 (cf. Gen. 29:17);
and “leave one’s father and cleave to one’s wife,” 4:20 (cf. Gen.
2:24) – which may reflect Jewish influence. The guardsman
mentions an incident showing Darius’ subservience to a concubine. Darius and his nobles exchange glances (shocked at
the temerity?); immediately Truth is eulogized. This second
motif on woman provides an opening for introducing Truthand placing an aggadah-like moral lesson within the framework of the Return.
Bibliography: Cook, in: Charles, Apocrypha, 1 (1913), 1–58
(translation and discussion); Thackeray, in: J. Hasting, A Dictionaryof the Bible, 1 (1898), 758–63 (lists early literature); O. Eissfeldt, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (19643) 777–81; S. Jellicoe, The Septuagint
and Modern Study (1968), 290–4.

scripts, and subsequently all modern printed Hebrew editions,followed this practice of dividing the books. However, there
are good reasons (linguistic, literary, and thematic) for theargument that the two books were originally separate works(Kraemer), which were brought together by a later compiler,and are now to be read as a single unit (Grabbe).
Place in the Canon
There are two traditions regarding the place of Ezra-Nehemiah in the Hebrew Bible. The more dominant Babylonian
tradition, which is followed by all modern printed editions,places Ezra-Nehemiah immediately before Chronicles, thelast book of the Writings. However, the Palestinian tradition,
which is found in major Tiberian manuscripts, such as Aleppo
and Leningrad, places Chronicles first in the Writings (before
the Psalms), and places Ezra-Nehemiah last. In the Protestant
Old Testament (e.g., the NRSV version), Ezra-Nehemiah isplaced among the historical books, after Chronicles and before Esther. In the Roman Catholic Old Testament (e.g., theDouay-Rheims version), the books are similarly placed after
Chronicles but before Tobit, Judith, and Esther.
Text and Versions
Some Hebrew fragments from the Book of Ezra (4QEzra) were
found in Cave 4 at Qumran (Ulrich). The fragments contain
part of the text of Ezra 4:2–6, 9–11, and 5:17–6:5 and exhibit
two orthographic variants (e.g., at Ezra 4:10, 4QE zra reads ‫נַ ֲה ָרא‬for MT’s ‫)נַ ֲה ָרה‬, and two minor grammatical variants concerning singular and plural forms of verbs (e.g., at Ezra 6:1 where
4QE zra reads the singular ‫“ ובקר‬he searched” for MT’s ‫וּב ַּקרוּ‬ַ“they searched”). The Greek tradition knew of two versionsof Ezra-Nehemiah, one of which is known as II Esdras, and isa very literal translation of the Hebrew. This version numbers
Ezra-Nehemiah consecutively so that chapters 1–10 of II Esdras represent the Book of Ezra, and chapters 11–23 represent
the Book of Nehemiah. However, the other version, known as
I Esdras, is wholly concerned with Ezra and not Nehemiah.
It offers a rendering of the entire Book of Ezra but translates
only that portion of the Book of Nehemiah (7:72–8:13) which
deals with Ezra. This additional section is attached directly towhat is chapter 10 in the Masoretic version.

EZRA AND NEHEMIAH, BOOKS OF, two books in the
Hagiographa (i.e., the Book of Ezra and the Book of Nehemiah), which were originally a single work.
The Masoretic tradition regarded the books of Ezra andNehemiah as one book and referred to it as the Book of Ezra.
This was also the Greek tradition, and the same Greek name,Esdras, was given to both books (see below). The division into
separate books does not occur until the time of Origen (fourth
century C.E.) and this division was transferred into the Vulgate
where the books are called I Esdras (Ezra) and II Esdras (Nehemiah). It was not until the 15t century that Hebrew manu-

Languages of the Books
The language of Ezra-Nehemiah is late biblical Hebrew (Polzin) and the text exhibits features which are characteristic of
this later language. These include use of the -‫ ו‬consecutive
with the cohortative (‫)וָ ֶא ׁ ְשלְ ָחה‬, increased use of pronominal
suffixes to the verb (‫ )וַ ִ ּי ְּתנֵ ם‬and of ‫ ָהיָ ה‬with the participle (‫ָהיוּ‬‫)א ְֹמ ִרים‬, many Akkadian and Persian loan words (such as ‫ִא ֶ ּג ֶרת‬“letter” = Akk. egirtu; ‫“ ּ ַפ ְרדֵּ ס‬garden” = Pers. pairidaeza), andmany Aramaisms (Naveh and Greenfield). Parts of Ezra are
written in Aramaic (4:8–6:18, 7:11–26), and it has been suggested that originally the entire book of Ezra-Nehemiah was
written in Aramaic and was subsequently translated (Marcus).
In support of this theory is the fact that there is no extant Targum for Ezra-Nehemiah.

656

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Jacob Petroff]Ezra and Nehemiah, Books ofBook of Ezra: Outline(1) Edict of Cyrus and rebuilding of the Temple (chapters 1–6)

Edict of Cyrus (1:1–11)
List of those returning with Zerubbabel (2:1–3:1)
Restoration of worship and laying foundations of the Temple (3:2–13)
Opposition to the Temple building (4:1–24)
Appeal to Darius and favorable response (5:1–6:14)
Completion of the Temple (6:15–22)(2) Work of Ezra (chapters 7–10)

Edict of Artaxerxes to Ezra (7:1–28)
List of those going back with Ezra (8:1–14)
Return to Jerusalem (8:15–36)
Ezra reaction to news of intermarriage (9:1–10:14)
List of those who had intermarried (10:15–44)

Book of Nehemiah: Outline(1) Nehemiah’s mission (chapters 1–7)

Nehemiah’s response to news from Jerusalem (1:1–11)
Permission to go to Jerusalem granted (2:1–9)
Arrival at Jerusalem and secret inspection of walls at night (2:10–20)
Reconstruction of the city’s wall (3:1–38)
Threats against the workers (4:1–17)
Economic problems (5:1–13)
Nehemiah’s administration (5:14–19)
Intrigues against Nehemiah (6:1–19)
More defensive measures (7:1–4)
List of the exiles with Zerubbabel (7:5–8:1a = Ezra 2:1–3:1)(2) Ezra’s reading of the Torah and religious celebrations (chapters 8–9)

The reading of the Torah (8:1b-12)
Celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles (8:13–18)
Day of penance and prayer of the Levites (9:1–37)(3) Nehemiah’s reforms (chapters 10–13)

Code of Nehemiah (10:1–40)
The population of Jerusalem and Judah (11:1–36)
Clerical genealogies (12:1–26)
Dedication of the wall (12:27–43)
Provision made for Temple services (12:44–47)
Expulsion of foreigners (13:1–9)
Renewal of Levitical support (13:10–14)
Enforcing Sabbath regulations (13:15–22)
Problem of mixed marriages (13:23–29)
Summary of other reforms (13:30–31)

for occupational and genealogical lists, and, most importantly,
the fact that the first few verses of Ezra (1:1–3a) are identicalto the last two verses of Chronicles (II Chron 36:22–23), thus
indicating that Chronicles leads in by means of catchlines tothe following Book of Ezra (Haran). The position of Ezra-Nehemiah before Chronicles in the Protestant and Catholic Old
Testament canons would seem to lend support for this pointof view. In recent times, however, the independent authorshipof both works has been argued on the basis of the following
perceived contrasts: that Chronicles glorifies David, highly regards prophecy, has a conciliatory view of Northerners, and amiraculous view of history, whereas Ezra-Nehemiah emphasizes Moses and the Exodus, is forceful about its opposition
to the Northerners (Samaritans), and has a different view ofhistory. Ezra-Nehemiah ought then to be dated to the endof the fifth century B.C.E. whereas Chronicles is a later bookcomposed at the end of the fourth century B.C.E. (Japhet). The
catchlines at the end of Chronicles were borrowed from Ezra
to give the book of Chronicles an “upbeat” ending heralding
Cyrus’ decree, and so not ending with the exile of the people
in Babylon (Williamson).
Contents of the Books
Ezra-Nehemiah deals with the period of the restoration of
the Jewish community in Judah, then the Persian provinceof Yehud, in the sixth–fifth centuries B.C.E. during the approximately 100 years between the time of the edict of *Cyrus(538) permitting the Jews to go back to Jerusalem and the 32nd
year of the reign of *Artaxerxes I (433). Three different periods are represented in the books, each with different leadersand different royal missions. The first period (Ezra, chaps.
1–6) goes from the time of the edict of Cyrus (538) until
the rebuilding of the temple (516), when the leaders of theJews were Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel. The second period(Ezra, chaps. 7–10 and Neh., chap. 8) commences in the seventh year of the reign of Artaxerxes (458), when Ezra is givena royal mandate to lead a group of exiles back to Jerusalem.
The third period (Neh., chaps. 1–7 and 9–13) encompasses a
12-year period from the 20t year of the reign of Artaxerxes(445) until his 32nd year (433), and deals with the work of Nehemiah.

Authorship and Date
The question of the authorship of Ezra-Nehemiah is boundup with its relation with the book of Chronicles. Since thetime of Zunz (1832), the consensus of modern scholarshiphas been that the author of Chronicles was also the author of
Ezra-Nehemiah, and this view still has its adherents (Blenkinsopp, Clines (1984)). Arguments for joint authorship include
common vocabulary, style, uniformity of theological conceptions, similar description of religious ceremonies, penchant

THE FIRST PERIOD (EZRA, CHAPS. 1–6). The first period,
embracing 22 years from 538 to 516, includes an account of(1) the edict of Cyrus; (2) a list of the first returnees; (3) restoration of worship and laying foundations of the Temple;(4) opposition to the Temple building; (5) the appeal to *Darius and his favorable response; and (6) the completion of the
Temple. In this period the leaders were *Sheshbazzar and*Zerubbabel. Sheshbazzar is thought to be identical with
Senanazzar (the fourth son of Jeconiah (Jehoiachin), I Chron.
3:18), and is termed both prince (‫ )נָ שִׂ יא‬and governor (‫) ּ ֶפ ָחה‬.
Zerubbabel is one of the leaders of the first émigrés (2:2), andprobably succeeded Sheshbazzar (4:2), though both are said
to have laid foundations of the Temple (Sheshbazzar in Ezra
5:16 and Zerubbabel in Zech. 4:9).

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6657

Ezra and Nehemiah, Books of
The Edict of Cyrus (1:1–11). There are two accounts given in
the Book of Ezra of the edict of Cyrus: a Jewish version in Hebrew, and a Persian version in Aramaic. The Jewish/Hebrew
version has Cyrus declare that God has given him “all the
kingdoms of the earth,” that He has ordered the reconstruction of the Temple, and that any of God’s people who so wish
may return to assist in the carrying out of the order (1:1–3).
The Persian/Aramaic version gives extra details detailing thespecifications of the Temple to be built (e.g., its height andwidth should be 60 cubits, emulating the Temple destroyedby the Babylonians), that expenses for the Temple will be paidby the state, and that precious utensils captured by *Nebuchadnezzar and brought to Babylon will be returned (6:3–5).
This last fact is actually mentioned in the first chapter of Ezra
(v. 7). Cyrus released the cult objects and delivered them to
Sheshbazzar, the governor of Judah, via Mithredath, the statetreasurer. The Cyrus cylinder records similar acts of amnesty
and favor shown to the peoples and deities of other countries
following his conquest of Babylon in 539 (Cogan).

building effort. The returnees believed that they were the true
representatives of the people of God who had gone into exile,and that those who had not gone into exile but remained in
the land, or were descendants of displaced peoples who had
subsequently adopted Israel’s religion, were not entitled tojoin in this project. The opponents are called ‫וּבנְ יָ ִמן‬ִ ‫הוּדה‬ָ ְ‫ָצ ֵרי י‬“adversaries of Judah and Benjamin” and ‫ם־ה ָא ֶרץ‬ָ ‫“ ַע‬people ofthe land,” and they attempted to thwart the rebuilding effort
by various means including writing accusatory letters to the
Persian kings. These accusatory letters contained in 4:6–23
are problematic on two counts: first, because they do not deal
with the rebuilding of the Temple but with the rebuilding of
the city, and second because these letters are addressed to
Persian kings who reigned long after the Temple was actuallycompleted (516). These letters are sent to *Xerxes I (486–465)
and *Artaxerxes I (465–424). That the section containing theseletters is misplaced is clear from the fact that it is put in a different place in I Esdras, where these letters occur in chapter
2, and not in chapter 4 as in the Masoretic text.

A List of the First Returnees (2:1–3:1). The list of the returning
exiles with Zerubbabel is itemized by family, place of origin,
occupation (e.g., priests, Levites, singers, gatekeepers, etc.).
Because this list is repeated in its entirety in Nehemiah (Neh.
7:6–8:1a) there has been much discussion of the list’s purpose,and where the list originally belonged. Most likely, the writer inthe Book of Ezra was using a later list compiled for other uses,
and its purpose at the beginning of Ezra is to magnify the first
response of the exiles to Cyrus’ edict. However, in the Book of
Nehemiah, the list is used for a different purpose, as a starting
point of a campaign to induce those who had settled elsewherein Judah to move to Jerusalem, which needed repopulation.

Appeal to Darius and Favorable Response (5:1–6:14). The endof chapter 4 reverts back to the proper chronology, that of
the second year of Darius (521), at which time the prophets*Haggai and *Zechariah encouraged the Jews to persist in thebuilding of the Temple. The renewed activity led to an investigation by local Persian authorities, and a letter of inquiry (nota complaint like the preceding communications) was sent toDarius. The Persian authorities reported that they had gone
to Jerusalem, observed the state of building operations, andhad requested information on the authorization of the project.
They were informed by the Jewish leaders of the edict of Cyrus
granting the Jews permission to rebuild the Temple, and theletter asked the king to verify whether or not Cyrus did issue
this edict. Darius then ordered a search in the royal archives,
and the edict was found and is reproduced in his reply to the
local authorities (see above). Darius issues instruction that the
Cyrus decree be honored, and that expenses for the project be
defrayed from the tax income accruing to the royal treasury
from the province. Moreover, provisions were to be made fordaily religious observances so that prayers could be made forthe welfare of the king and his family. The aforementioned
Cyrus Cylinder is often pointed to as an example of a Persianmonarch who requested prayer from other peoples for his
own and his son’s welfare.

Restoration of Worship and Laying Foundations of the Temple (3:2–13). Among the first activities of the returning exiles
in 538 were to erect an altar on the site of the Temple, renew
sacrificial worship, and celebrate the festival of Tabernacles.
Preparations were then made for the rebuilding of the Temple,
parallel to the preparations made for Solomon’s Temple. The
laying of the foundations was performed with a special service:prayer and song. The people’s response was enthusiastic andthey wept out of joy. However, there were a number of the returned exiles who had seen the first Temple, and these people
wept in memory of this destroyed Temple to such an extent
that the weeping for joy could not be distinguished from those
weeping in memory of the destroyed Temple.
Opposition to the Temple Building (4:1–24). Work on the Temple did not proceed smoothly and, although it was started in
the second year after the return (537), work was not continued
on it until the second year of Darius I (521). The long delay ofsome 21 years between the laying of the Temple’s foundationsin 537 and its completion in 516 is explained as due to opposition by the local population. The opposition arose primarily
as a result of the exclusionary policy of the returnees about
permitting the indigenous population to participate in the re-Completion of the Temple (6:15–22). The reconstruction on the
Temple was completed in the sixth year of the reign of Darius I(516); the work had taken 21 years since the foundation waslaid in the second year of Cyrus (537). A joyful dedication ceremony took place with enormous amounts of sacrifices, “onehundred bulls, two hundred rams, four hundred lambs, andtwelve goats.” Shortly afterwards the returned exiles celebrated
the Passover, together with those of the indigenous population
who had “separated themselves from the uncleanliness of thenations of the lands,” a hint that the returnees were open topermitting others into their fold (see also Neh. 10:29).

658

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Ezra and Nehemiah, Books of
THE SECOND PERIOD (EZRA, CHAPS. 7–10 AND NEH.,
CHAPS. 8–9). The second period dated in the seventh yearof the reign of Artaxerxes I (458) deals with the work of *Ezra,
after whom the book was named, and includes (1) the edict ofArtaxerxes to Ezra; (2) Ezra’s return to Jerusalem; (3) his reaction to news of intermarriage; (4) his reading of the Torah; and(5) a day of penance and a prayer of the Levites. In this period,
the leader is Ezra, a priest whose ancestry is traced back to
Aaron (7:1–5), and a scribe “well versed in the law of Moses”(7:6, 11). The date of Ezra is problematic as is his relationshipwith *Nehemiah, because apart from Nehemiah 8:9, andtwo other minor references (Neh. 12:26, 36), the two are nevermentioned together. According to their respective books,
Ezra assumed his mission in the seventh year of Artaxerxes(458) and Nehemiah came in the 20t year of the same king(445). This would mean that Ezra, who came at the express
command of Artaxerxes to implement and teach the law,
did not conduct his first public reading of the Law until 13
years later. Another problem for the biblical chronology isthat Ezra found many people in Jerusalem but, according
to Nehemiah, in his time, Jerusalem was unpopulated. For
these reasons and others, some scholars believe Ezra came toJerusalem much later, either in the 37t year of Artaxerxes I(428) or in the seventh year of Artaxerxes II (397) (see discussion in Klein).
The Edict of Artaxerxes to Ezra (7:1–28). In the seventh yearof his reign (458), Artaxerxes I (465–424) issued a royal edict
granting permission for Jews to go to Jerusalem with Ezra.
Ezra was permitted to bring with him gold and silver donations from other Jews. Regular maintenance expenses of
the Temple were to be provided from the royal treasury andthere was to be release of taxes for Temple personnel. Ezra’s
mission was “to expound the law of the Lord” and “to teachlaws and rules to Israel” (v. 10). For this purpose he was
granted, not only a royal subsidy, but he was also empowered to appoint judges, enforce religious law, and even to apply the death penalty. In response to critics who argue thatsuch a concern by a Persian king for a foreign cult would be
unlikely, the Passover papyrus issued by Darius II in 419/18
to the Jews at Elephantine in Egypt regarding the date andmethod for celebrating the Passover (Porten) has often been
cited. Nevertheless, the question of imperial authorization of
Jewish law by the Persian Empire continues to be a subject of
debate (Watts).
Ezra’s Return to Jerusalem (8:1–36). Ezra’s four-month journey to Jerusalem is described by Ezra in a first-person memoir. After listing the names of the leaders returning with him,
Ezra discovers there were no *Levites in his party so he had
to muster up 38 Levites from some Levitical families. Anotherproblem was security. Because Ezra had originally made a declaration of trust in God before the king, he felt it inappropriate
to request from him the customary escort. Thus he accounted
the party’s safe arrival in Jerusalem with all its treasure intact
as a mark of divine benevolence.
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Ezra’s Reaction to News of Intermarriage (9:1–10:44). When
Ezra arrived in Jerusalem he was informed that some people,
including members of the clergy and aristocracy, had contracted foreign marriages. Immediately upon hearing thisnews Ezra engaged in mourning rites, tore his garments andfasted, and, on behalf of the people, confessed their sins anduttered a prayer of contrition. He is joined by a group of supporters who are also disturbed by this news. At the initiativeof a certain Shecaniah son of Jehiel, Ezra was urged to take
immediate action. An emergency national assembly was convened, and Ezra addressed the crowd in a winter rainstorm
calling upon the people to divorce their foreign wives. The assembled crowd agreed to Ezra’s plea, but because of the heavy
rains and the complexity of the matter (Ezra’s extension of legal prohibitions of marriages that had previously been permitted), they requested that a commission of investigation be set
up. After three months the commission reported back with alist of priests, Levites, and Israelites who had intermarried.
Ezra’s Reading of the Torah (Neh 8:1–12). Seemingly out oforder, Ezra reappears in chapter 8 of the Book of Nehemiah
where it is recounted that he publicly read the Torah on thefirst day of the seventh month (Rosh Ha-Shanah). He stoodupon a platform with dignitaries standing on his right andleft. The ceremony began with an invocation by Ezra and a response by the people saying “Amen, Amen.” During the reading the people stood while the text was made clear to them(or translated for them (into Aramaic)) by the Levites (vander Kooij). The people were emotionally overcome by the occasion and wept. However, they were enjoined not to be sad,rather to celebrate the day joyously with eating, drinking, andgift giving. The day after the public reading, a group of priests
and Levites continued to study the Torah with Ezra and cameacross the regulations for observing the feast of Tabernacles onthat very month. A proclamation was issued to celebrate thefestival which was done with great joy, and the Torah was again
read publicly during the entire eight days of the festival. It hasoften been pointed out that the feast of Tabernacles which is
described as being discovered anew from the Torah readingand had not been observed since the days of Joshua, had already been observed not too much earlier by the first returnees (Ezra 3:4). Furthermore, the materials said to be collected
for the festival (branches of olive, pine, myrtle, palm, and leafy
trees) differ from those mandated for the festival in Leviticus
23:40 (where the materials are the fruit of ‫ ָה ָדר‬trees (later interpreted as the citron), willows of the brook, palms, and boughof leafy trees (later interpreted as the myrtle)). Most strikingly,
these materials are said to be used to construct ‫“ ֻסכֹּת‬tabernacles,” and not to be used for making of the ‫ לוּלָ ב‬and ‫ ֶאתרוֹ ג‬inaccordance with the later rabbinic interpretation.
Day of Penance and Prayer of the Levites (Neh. 9:1–37). On the
24t day of the month, immediately after the celebration of thefeast of Tabernacles, a fast day was announced. The identification and purpose of this fast day is unknown. Most commentators believe that this fast and following prayer of the Levites

659

Ezra and Nehemiah, Books ofshould come after the events described in Ezra 10, which wasconcerned with problems of intermarriage. The long prayerof the Levites (v. 5–37) is akin to one of the historical hymns
in the Psalter (cf., Ps. 105, 106, 135, 136) (Fensham). The hymn
contains stereotypical Psalm language, and contains references
to the creation, the covenant with Abraham, the acts of God
in Egypt, the wanderings in the desert, Sinai, the conquest,
the Judges, and to later periods. Many of the sections are divided by the independent pronoun ‫אַתה‬ָּ ְ‫( ו‬v. 6, 7, 19, 27, 33). The
hymn is noteworthy in not mentioning David and Solomon,
two of Judah’s glorious rulers, nor is there any mention of theexile and the current restoration, events central to Ezra andNehemiah. Verses 6–11 of this hymn are included in the Jewish morning prayer service (‫סוּקי דְּ זִ ְמ ָרא‬ֵ ‫) ּ ְפ‬.
THE THIRD PERIOD (NEH., CHAPS. 1–7 AND 9–13). The
third period encompasses 12 years from the 20th year of thereign of Artaxerxes I (445) until his 32nd year (433), and deals
with the work of Nehemiah, who had held an important office(termed a “cupbearer”) in the royal household of the Persian
king Artaxerxes I (465–424). The work of Nehemiah describedin the form of a first-person memoir includes his rebuilding of
the walls of Jerusalem and his economic and religious reforms.
One of the characteristics of Nehemiah’s memoirs is that heintersperses short direct prayers within his narrative usually
starting with ‫ זָ כְ ָרה לִ י ֱאל ַֹהי‬or with slight variations (5:19, 6:14,
13:14, 22, 29, 31) but once with ‫( ׁ ְש ַמע ֱאל ֵֹהינוּ‬3:36–37). In particular, this period deals with (1) Nehemiah’s response to the news
from Jerusalem; (2) Nehemiah’s efforts at reconstructing andfortifying Jerusalem; (3) intrigues against Nehemiah; (4) the
dedication of the wall; (5) Nehemiah’s resolution of economic
problems; (6) Nehemiah’s religious reforms.
Nehemiah’s Response to News from Jerusalem (1:1–2:9). In the
20t year of the Persian king Artaxerxes I (445), a delegationof Jews arrived from Jerusalem at Susa, the king’s winter residence, and informed Nehemiah of the deteriorating conditions
back in Judah. The walls of Jerusalem were in a precarious state
and repairs could not be undertaken (since they were specifically forbidden by an earlier decree of the same Artaxerxes(Ezra 4:21)). The news about Jerusalem upset Nehemiah, andhe sought and was granted permission from the king to go to
Jerusalem as governor and rebuild the city. This change in Persian policy is thought to have come after the Egyptian revolt of
448 when it was believed that a relatively strong and friendly
Judah could better serve Persia’s strategic interests (Myers).
Nehemiah was also granted much material assistance including supplies of wood for the rebuilding effort. However, unlike
Ezra, Nehemiah requested a military escort for safe conduct
throughout the provinces of the western satrapies.
Nehemiah’s Efforts at Reconstructing and Fortifying Jerusalem(2:10–4:17, 7:1–4). A short time after his arrival in Jerusalem
Nehemiah made a nocturnal inspection tour of the city walls
riding on a donkey. He relates that he could not continue riding, but had to dismount, because of the massive stones left by660

the overthrow of the city by the Babylonians. After his tour ofinspection, Nehemiah disclosed to the local Jewish officials his
mission to rebuild the walls. Nehemiah set to the task of rebuilding the wall by dividing the work into some 40 sections.
Nearly all social classes (priests, Levites, Temple functionaries,
and laypeople) participated in the building effort. Throughout the time of the building, Nehemiah encountered opposition and harassment from the leaders of the Persian provinces,
who had previously administered the affairs of Judah, especially from one *Sanballat, a Horonite (from Beth Horon), also
termed the Samarian/Samaritan. Sanballat resorted to mockery
and ridicule, stating: “that stone wall they are building – if a fox
climbed it he would breach it” (3:33–35). To counter the opposition, Nehemiah provided a guard for the workmen, and the masons and their helpers also carried swords. Because of the magnitude of the project, the workmen were separated from eachother by large distances, so a trumpeter was provided ready tosound the alarm, the idea being that should one group be attacked the others would come to their aid. Nehemiah ordered
the workers to remain in Jerusalem partly for self-protection
and partly to assist in guarding the city. After the wall was rebuilt, Nehemiah appointed Hanani his brother and a similarnamed individual, Hananiah, to be in charge of security. He
also gave an order that the gates to the city should be closed
before the guards went off duty and that they should be opened
only when the sun was high (at midmorning). In addition to thesecurity police, there was a citizen patrol whose duty it was tokeep watch around their own houses. The central problem was
the small population of Jerusalem: the city was extensive andspacious, but the people it in were few, and the houses were notyet built. Nehemiah decided to bring one of ten people fromthe surrounding population into Jerusalem (11:1–2).
Intrigues against Nehemiah (6:1–19). One of Nehemiah’s enemies, Tobiah, an Ammonite, had intermarried with a prominent family in Judah. He had tried unsuccessfully to subvert
Nehemiah’s work by enlisting their aid, but without success.
Since Nehemiah’s enemies could not prevent the rebuilding
and fortification of the city they made desperate attempts tocapture him. One plan was to lure him away from Jerusalem
to some unspecified place. Four times they attempted to invite
him to “meetings,” and each time Nehemiah, knowing theirharmful intentions, refused their invitation. When these attempts failed, a fifth attempt was made to hurt Nehemiah byframing him before the Persian authorities with a false reportthat he planned to have himself proclaimed king in Judah. A
sixth attempt to damage Nehemiah was to pay a false prophet,
Shemaiah, to lure Nehemiah into the Temple, but Nehemiah,realizing that this was a plot, refused to go. Despite thesethreats, Nehemiah reports that the wall was completed in just52 days, which seems to be an incredibly short time for sucha monumental task. According to Josephus, the project took
two years and four months.
Dedication of the Wall (12:27–43). A large gathering of priests,
Levites, musicians, and notables assembled from all over JudahENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Ezra and Nehemiah, Books offor the dedication of the wall in Jerusalem. Nehemiah divided
the participants into two processions each commencing fromthe same point; one procession marched south towards theDung Gate and then around the right side of the wall, theother marched north along the top of the left side, and bothgroups joined up together at the Temple square. Each procession was led by a choir, and musicians with trumpets, cymbals, harps, and lyres brought up the rear. Ezra is said to havemarched in one procession (though his presence in the text
is probably an editorial addition), and Nehemiah in the other.
The two joyful processions met up in the Temple square where
the dedication was concluded with many sacrifices.

the Temple to one of his old enemies Tobiah, the Ammonite(see above). When Nehemiah returned he evicted Tobiah, discarded all his belongings, and had the chambers purified andrestored to their original use.

Nehemiah’s Resolution of Economic Problems (5:1–19). During
the period of the rebuilding, the people complained about the
scarcity of food and the burden of high taxes. To meet theirbasic needs, the poor were required to pledge their possessions, even to sell sons and daughters into slavery. Nehemiah
reacted angrily against the creditors accusing them of violating
the covenant of brotherhood. When his appeal to the creditors
voluntarily to take remedial action failed, Nehemiah forced
them to take an oath, reinforced by a symbolic act of shaking
out his garment, to restore property taken in pledge, as wellas to forgive claims for loans. Nehemiah himself alleviatedthe people’s tax burden by refusing to accept the very liberalhousehold allowance for his official retinue which amounted
to some 40 shekels of silver a day.

Enforcing Sabbath Regulations (13:15–22). Nehemiah reportsthat in his day the Sabbath had been utterly commercialized.
People were working in vineyards and on the farms, andPhoenician traders set up shops in Jerusalem on the Sabbath.
Nehemiah attempted to put a stop to this Sabbath activity byordering the gates of the city closed during the Sabbath. Despite his orders, the Phoenician traders camped outside thewalls hoping to entice customers to come outside.

Nehemiah’s Religious Reforms (10:1–40, 12:44–47, 13:1–29). Nehemiah’s religious reforms are found (a) in the so-called Codeof Nehemiah; and (b) in the regulations he enacted upon embarking on his second term as governor in the 32nd year of
Artaxerxes I (433).
Code of Nehemiah (10:1–40). The Code of Nehemiah represents pledges made by the community to observe the Torah,
its commandments and regulations. It is preceded by a listof signers including Nehemiah, his officials, the priests, Levites, and prominent family members (1–28). In the Code, thecommunity promised to do seven things: (1) to avoid mixed
marriages with the peoples of the land; (2) not to buy fromforeigners on Sabbaths and holy days; (3) to observe the sabbatical year; (4) to pay a new annual third shekel temple tax;
(5) to supply offerings for the services and wood for the Temple altar; (6) to supply the first fruits, firstlings, tithes, andother contributions to the Temple; (7) to bring the tithes dueto the priests and Levites to local storehouses.

Renewal of Levitical Support (13:10–14). Another consequenceof Nehemiah’s absence at the Persian court was that the people
had stopped giving tithes to the Levites forcing them to return to their villages. Nehemiah took steps to bring back theLevites to Jerusalem by ensuring that outstanding payments,
which had not been collected during his absence, would be
paid and that future tithes would be regularly given.

Problem of Mixed Marriages (13:23–29). As in Ezra’s day, Nehemiah had to deal with problems arising from marriages
with foreign women. A major concern of his was the fact thatthe children of these marriages could no longer speak thelanguage of Judah. Nehemiah ordered an end to further intermarriage, but he did not go as far as Ezra who demandeddivorce from foreign wives.
Significance of the Books for Later Judaism
Ezra and Nehemiah’s actions and decrees may be seen as the
beginning of an ongoing reinterpretation of tradition in its application to changing circumstances (Talmon). Ezra’s readingof the Torah inaugurated a new element in Jewish life whereby
the Torah was read and explicated on regular occasions inpublic. This public reading also led to the democratization ofknowledge of the Torah among Jews, since prior to this event
most parts of the Torah were under the exclusive provenanceand control of the priests (Knohl). The differences between
the formulation of regulations in the Book of Nehemiah andtheir counterparts in the Torah illustrate the process of legal elaboration necessary to meet contemporary exigencies(Clines, 1981). These differences can be seen in at least threeareas: contributions to the Temple, regulations regarding Sabbath observance, and new intermarriage prohibitions.

Regulations Enacted by Nehemiah during his Second Term as
Governor (13:1–31). Expulsion of Foreigners (13:1–9). In theircontinued reading of the Torah the community came acrossa law (possibly referring to Deut 23:4–6) that Ammonites andMoabites were prohibited from becoming Israelites, and sothey resolved to separate from foreigners (‫) ֵע ֶרב‬. When Nehemiah returned from an official visit to the Persian court in the
32nd year of Artaxerxes (433) he discovered that the high priest
Eliashib had given living quarters in a former storage room of

TEMPLE CONTRIBUTIONS. Some examples of modifications
to Pentateuchal laws introduced in the Code of Nehemiah involve upkeep of the Temple. In Exodus 30:11–16, mention ismade of a one-time half-shekel tax. The Code of Nehemiah,
however, establishes an annual Temple tax, that of one-thirdof a shekel. In Leviticus 6:1–6, it is stated that fire should burncontinuously on the altar but it does not prescribe the mechanism by which this ought to be done. The Code of Nehemiah
does this by stipulating how the wood for the altar is to beobtained. In Deuteronomy 14:23–26, it is enjoined that tithes

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6661

ezra ben abraham ben mazhir
for the Levites are to be brought to the Temple. The Code of
Nehemiah modifies this regulation by permitting an alternate
collection system in provincial depots. All these stipulations
for the Temple maintenance represent an innovation in ancient Israel, since now the upkeep of the Temple is made theresponsibility of the entire community, not just of the king or
the governor (Eskenazi).
SABBATH OBSERVANCE. In the Pentateuch, the Sabbath law
enjoins rest from work (e.g., Ex. 20:8–11; 23:12; and passim),
but nowhere defines buying food as work, yet buying foodfrom foreigners on the Sabbath is prohibited in the Code of
Nehemiah. According to Amos 8:5, pre-exilic Israelites did nottrade on the Sabbath, but the new conditions in Nehemiah’stime of foreign merchants coming into Jerusalem on the Sabbath led to this new interpretation of the law.
NEW INTERMARRIAGE PROHIBITIONS. The stipulations
against intermarriage in Exodus 34:11–16 and Deuteronomy
7:1–4 prohibit intermarriage with Canaanites (Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites). Both Ezra and Nehemiah redefine these old Canaanites (who had long disappeared) as the
new Canaanites, the current Ashdodites, Ammonites, andMoabites. It is often thought that Ezra’s action insisting on
the divorce of foreign wives and their children, together with
Nehemiah’s concern that the children of these foreign women
could not speak the language of Judah, represented a shift in
Israelite matrimonial law. Previously offspring of intermarriage was judged patrilineally; now it was to be on the matrilineal principle (for a different view, see Cohen).
Bibliography: J.M. Myers, Ezra, Nehemiah (1965); S. Japhet,“The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah Investigated Anew,” in: VT, 18 (1968), 330–71; R. Polzin, Late
Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew
Prose (1976); S. Talmon, “Ezra, Nehemiah,” in: L.K. Crim (ed.), The
Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Supplementary Volume (1976),
317–28; F.C. Fensham, “Neh. 9 and Pss. 105, 106, 135 and 136. PostExilic Historical Traditions in Poetic Form,” in: JNSL, 9 (1981), 35–51;
D.J.C. Clines, “Nehemiah 10 as an Example of Early Jewish Biblical Exegesis,” in: JSOT, 21 (1981), 11–17; J. Naveh and J.C. Greenfield,“Hebrew and Aramaic in the Persian Period,” in: W.D. Davies and L.
Finkelstein (eds.), Introduction; The Persian Period; The Cambridge
History of Judaism, 1 (1984), 115–29; D.J.C. Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah,
Esther (1984); M. Haran, “Explaining the Identical Lines at the End
of Chronicles and the Beginning of Ezra,” in: BR, 2 (1986), 18–20;
H.G.M. Williamson, “Did the Author of Chronicles Also Write theBooks of Ezra and Nehemiah? Clutching at Catchlines,” in: BR, 3(1987), 56–59; J. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah (1988); T.C. Eskenazi,
In An Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to Ezra-Nehemiah (1988); A.
van der Kooij, “Nehemiah 8:8 and the Question of the ‘Targum’-Tradition,” in: G.J. Norton and S. Pisano (eds.), Tradition of the Text: Studies Offered to Dominique Barthélemy in Celebration of his 70t Birthday (1991), 79–90; R.W. Klein, “Ezra-Nehemiah, Books of,” in: D.N.
Freedman (ed.), Anchor Bible Dictionary (1992), 2:731–42; E. Ulrich,“Ezra and Qoheleth Manuscripts from Qumran (4QEzra, 4QQ oh a,b),”in: E. Ulrich et al. (eds.), Priests, Prophets, and Scribes: Essays on theFormation and Heritage of Second Temple Judaism in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp (1992), 139–57; S. Japhet, I & II Chronicles (1993); D.
Kraemer, “On the Relationship of the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah,”662

in: JSOT, 59 (1993), 73–92; L.L. Grabbe, Ezra-Nehemiah (1998); D. Marcus, “Is the Book of Nehemiah a Translation from Aramaic?” in: M.
Lubetski et al. (eds.), Boundaries of the Ancient Near Eastern World:
A Tribute to Cyrus H. Gordon (1998), 103–10; M. Cogan, “Cyrus Cylinder (2.124),” in: W.W. Hallo (ed.), The Context of Scripture (2000),
2:314–16; J.W. Watts (ed.), Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial
Authorization of the Pentateuch (2001); B. Porten, “The Passover
Letter (3.46),” in: W.W. Hallo (ed.), The Context of Scripture (2002),
3:116–17; S.J.D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness (1999); I. Knohl,
The Divine Symphony: The Bible’s Many Voices (2003).
[David Marcus (2nd ed.)]EZRA BEN ABRAHAM BEN MAZHIR (c. 12t century),rosh yeshivah in *Damascus. *Benjamin of Tudela, who met
Ezra, lists the officials of the yeshivah, the leader being Ezra’s brother Sar Shalom, who bore the title of “father” of theyeshivah. Like his father, who had preceded him, Ezra assumed the title of gaon and laid claim to all the privileges
which had previously been accorded to the yeshivah in Ereẓ
Israel, of which the Damascus yeshivah was regarded as a continuation. These claims were disputed by the heads of the Fostat Yeshivah, and the controversy between the two institutions
developed into a rivalry between the strongminded R. *Samuelb. Ali, head of the Baghdad Yeshivah, who supported Ezra, and*Daniel b. Hasdai, the Babylonian exilarch, who championed
Fostat. The rivalry continued for many years.
Bibliography: Mann, Texts, 1 (1931), 230, 232, 251–2, 257; Assaf, in: Tarbiz, 1:1 (1930), 105; 1:2 (1930), 80–81; 1:3 (1930), 67, 77.
[Eliyahu Ashtor]

EZRA BEN EZEKIEL HABAVLI (1660–after 1742), rabbi
and poet in *Baghdad. Ezra was vehement in his criticism
of the Jews of Baghdad. In his Tokheḥ ot Musar (“Moral Reproofs,” 1735), written in rhymed prose, both in Hebrew andAramaic, he severely took them to task for their low moral
standards. He reproved them for wasting time on drink andfrivolity, for their lack of support of the poor, and for theirdisregard of Torah. The sharpness of his criticism led to his
persecution by the community and he was either imprisoned
or expelled from the community. Ezra also wrote Netivot Shalom (1742), homilies on the Pentateuch.
Bibliography: Benjacob, Oẓ ar, 617; A. Ben-Jacob, Yehudei
Bavel (1965), 97, 309.

EZRA BEN NISAN (1595–1666), *Karaite scholar and physician, leader of the community of Troki, Lithuania. In 1634 hefulfilled the duties of dayyan, and in 1640–43 held the positionof shofet (judge). Ezra came in contact with the famous Jewish
scholar and kabbalist Joseph Solomon *Delmedigo of Candia, who spent five years in Lithuania as a physician of Prince
Krzysztof Radziwiłł. It may be that Delmedigo imparted his
knowledge of medicine to him, but he probably taught him
Rashi’s commentary to the Pentateuch with Elijah *Mizraḥ i’sand *Ibn Ezra’s commentaries. Ezra had a large library, which
supposedly was burnt in the course of the Russian invasion in
1655. According to A. *Firkovich, Delmedigo taught him medENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Ezrin, hershell
icine, introduced him to the prince, and even to King Jan Casimir (1648–68), and Ezra occupied Delmedigo’s position after
he left. Accordingly, Ezra cured a daughter of the king, who
granted him lands in Troki that were seized after his demise by
local Dominicans, because Ezra had only two daughters who
never married. There is no evidence from other sources confirming this information. Ezra also became a hero of Karaite
folklore. Ezra composed some liturgical poems, some of themincluded in the Karaite Siddur (IV, Vilna 1890).
Bibliography: G. Akhiezer and I. Dvorkin, in: Pe’amim,
98–99 (2004), 243–34; A. Firkovich, Avnei Zikkaron (1872), 251–53;
M. Kizilov, Leipziger Beiträge zur jüdische Geschichte und Kultur I(2003), 83–103; Mann, Texts, 2 (1935), 1545, index.
[Golda Akhiezer (2nd ed.)]can also be discerned in the works of other noteworthy personalities, especially *Baḥ ya b. Asher, who mentions him byname only twice but uses his writings many times; Joshua *Ibn
Shu’ayb, who cites Ezra on many occasions in his Derashot al
ha-Torah (the printed copy often confuses Ezra with Abraham*Ibn Ezra); and *Isaac b. Samuel of Acre, who cites Ezra in his
book Me’irat Einayim (in Ms.). Traces of Ezra’s commentaryon the Song of Songs appear in the *Zohar.
Bibliography: G. Scholem, Reshit ha-Kabbalah (1948),
127–30; idem, in: Sefer Bialik (1934), 141–62; idem, Kitvei Yad be-Kabbalah (1930), 1–3; idem, Ursprung und Anfaenge der Kabbala (1962),
328–32; I. Tishby, Perush ha-Aggadot le-R. Azri’el (1945); idem, in:Zion, 9 (1944), 178–85; idem, in: Sinai, 16 (1945), 159–78; E. Gottlieb,
Ha-Kabbalah be-Khitvei R. Baḥ ya ben Asher (1970), 38–73; idem,
in: Tarbiz, 37 (1967/68), 294–317; idem, in; KS, 40 (1964/65), 1–9; G.
Vajda, Le Commentaire d’Ezra de Gérone sur le Cantique des Cantiques (1969).
[Efraim Gottlieb]

EZRA BEN SOLOMON (d. 1238 or 1245), one of the leading
kabbalists of his day in Gerona, Spain. For a long time scholars thought him identical with *Azriel b. Menahem of Gerona,since various authors attributed to Azriel works written by
Ezra and vice versa. However, the poems of Meshullam b.
Solomon da *Piera, a contemporary of the two and also a native of Gerona, make it possible definitely to determine that
Ezra and Azriel were two different individuals who lived inGerona at the same time. This fact is also confirmed by testimonies of kabbalists from the late 13t and early 14t centuries. G. *Scholem’s discovery of several of their works and I.
Tishby’s studies have established that the two men representeddifferent kabbalistic trends.
According to Abraham *Abulafia, Ezra wrote a commentary to the Sefer *Yezirah (see A. *Jellinek, Beit ha-Midrash, 3(1938), 43) which has not survived. His commentary on theSong of Songs, attributed to *Naḥ manides, was first publishedin Altona in 1764, with many errors repeated in all subsequent
editions. It was republished by H.D. Chavel in Kitvei Rabbenu
Moshe ben Naḥ man (2, 1964, 474–548), but this edition too
contains all the errors of its predecessors. It has been translated into French and commented upon by G. Vajda (see bibl.).
Both Ezra and Azriel wrote commentaries on talmudic legends. Several fragments of Ezra’s commentary appear in Likkutei Shikhḥ ah u-Fe’ah (Ferrara, 1556); however, the publisher,
Abraham b. Judah Elmaleh, concealed the author’s name. The
work exists in several manuscripts, especially Vatican 441.
Two of Ezra’s letters which have survived were published by
G. Scholem (in Sefer Bialik (1934), 155–62).
Ezra’s works show the influence of his teacher *Isaac theBlind. In his turn, Ezra greatly influenced his contemporaries
and the kabbalists of the 13t and 14t centuries. His colleague
and contemporary Jacob b. Sheshet *Gerondi, who cites him
several times, sometimes in agreement and often in dispute, inMeshiv Devarim Nekhoḥ im and Ha-Emunah ve-ha-Bittaḥ on,
calls him “the sage (ha-ḥ akham) Rabbi Ezra.” Azriel follows
in Ezra’s footsteps in his commentary on talmudic legends,
although he changes the meaning and the outlook. The greatest scholar of the period, Naḥ manides, cites Ezra’s writings
on at least one occasion. As noted by I. Tishby, his influence

Bibliography: Weiss, in: HHY, 5 (1921), 46–47; Marx, ibid.,
197; Scholem, in: Tarbiz, 2 (1930/31), 244f., 514; Fried, ibid., 514; Urbach, Tosafot, 278f.
[Israel Moses Ta-Shma]ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

663

EZRA OF MONTCONTOUR (late 12t and early 13t century), French tosafist. Ezra studied under *Judah b. Isaac Sir
Leon of Paris. *Meir b. Baruch of Rothenburg studied under
Ezra (see his responsum, Cremona, 312). Ezra was head ofa yeshivah at Montcontour. He was generally referred to as“the prophet” by the rishonim and this is how he is mentioned
in the tosafot (Git. 88a; Shev. 25a; Tos. R. Perez to BK 23b,etc.). However, mention of “Ezra” without any title might also
refer to him. The epithet might stem from his connections
with the kabbalists. Traditions handed down by his contemporaries relate that Ezra, like his friend *Jacob of Marvege,
attained an “ascent of the soul.” There is no evidence, however, that he himself was a kabbalist. According to thesesame traditions, Ezra was the grandson of Abraham *Ibn
Ezra.

EZRIN, HERSHELL (1947– ), Canadian diplomat, public servant, businessman, Jewish community leader. Ezrin
was born in Toronto to Sydney and Marcia Ezrin, boththe children of immigrants from Russia and Poland. After
graduating from Hebrew day school, he earned his B.A.
and M.A. degrees in history from the University of Toronto
and Carleton University before joining the Canadian Department of External Affairs in 1969, shortly after Pierre Elliot
Trudeau was elected Canada’s prime minister. Ezrin’s foreign
postings included Los Angeles, New York, and New Delhi.
During the 1980s he served in high positions in the federal
and Ontario governments before entering the private sector in 1988. Subsequently Ezrin held a series of top executive
posts, including chairman and CEO of GPC Canada, a publicaffairs and strategic communications firm. He also served asa senior counselor and political adviser to several government officials.

ezrin, hershell
Ezrin was active on behalf of a number of Toronto Jewish
organizations, including the Holy Blossom Temple Foundation, the Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care, and Mount Sinai
Hospital. He also served as an adviser to both the State of Israel
Bonds and the Canada-Israel Committee. He also served thebroader community in numerous capacities, most notably as
chair of the Board of the Toronto Symphony Orchestra, andwrote widely on public affairs.
In 2004 Ezrin became CEO of the Canadian Council for

Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA), an organization establishedby the Jewish federations in 2004 to lobby on behalf of the organized Jewish community on both domestic and Israel-related matters. As the first CEO of CIJA, which includes oversight of both the Canada-Israel Committee and the Canadian
Jewish Congress, Ezrin had the task of giving the Canadian
Jewish community effective direction and a strong and effective voice in the larger Canadian community.

664

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Harold M. Waller (2nd ed.)]Historiated initial letter “F” of the word
Fratribus at the beginning of II Maccabees in a 12th-century manuscriptfrom France. It illustrates the sending of
the letter from the Jews of Jerusalem totheir brethren in Egypt calling on themto observe the feast of Ḥ annukah. Bordeaux, Bibliothèque Municipale, Ms. 21,
fol. 256v.

Fa–FeuFABIUS, LAURENT (1946– ), French politician – the youngest premier in the history of the Republic. Fabius was bornin France to a Jewish family which converted to Catholicism
during World War II. After completing his studies in political science and humanities, he became active in the Socialist
party. In 1978 he was elected deputé to the French Assembly.
When François Mitterrand was elected president of the Republic in 1981, Fabius joined the government, first as minis-

ter in charge of the budget (1981–83) and then as minister forindustry and research (1983–84). In 1984, with the collapse of
the alliance between the Socialists and the Communists andthe generally poor showing of the government in the public
opinion polls, Mitterrand called in Fabius, as a representativeof the new technocratic trend in the Socialist party, to lead the
new government. With the appointment of the young, articulate politician, polls took an upswing. “Modernization and

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6665

fableunity – these will be the priorities of my government,” statedFabius when taking office.
In 1986 the Socialists were ousted by a right-wing government and Fabius ceased to be prime minister. When theSocialists returned to power in 1988, Fabius was elected president of the National Assembly, a position he held until he became first secretary of the Socialist party in 1992. He had the
difficult task of pulling the party out of a slump but support
for the Socialists continued to plummet. At the end of 1992,
the party agreed to send him and two former health ministers
to trial for their ministerial responsibility for a 1985 scandal
when HIV-contaminated blood had been knowingly distributed by high officials; over 1,000 people had acquired the HIV
virus and 200 died. The National Assembly and the Senate endorsed the decision to send the three to trial. Fabius had asked
to be brought to trial, saying to the Senate “Innocent and recognized as such, I come before you to ask you to charge mewith errors I did not commit,” and was eventually found not
guilty. Reelected a member of the National Assembly in 1993,
he became, its president for the second time two years later
when the left came back to power. In 2000 he was appointed
minister of economy, finances and industry in the government
led by Socialist premier Lionel Jospin, but the electoral defeatof the left in the 2002 general elections sent him back to the
opposition benches of the National Assembly. In 2004 Fabius
took a strong stand against the European constitutional treaty,
a rather unexpected move that surprised political commentators, who viewed him as a moderate, center-to-left politician. Defying the leadership of the Socialist Party, which endorsed the constitutional treaty, Fabius followed the mood of
the public, which overwhelmingly dismissed the treaty in thereferendum of May 2005, thereby conceivably improving his
chances in the presidential elections of 2007.
Fabius wrote La France inégale (1975), Le cœur du futur(1985), C’est en allant vers la mer (1990), Les blessures de la vérité (1995), Cela commence par une ballade (2003), and Une
certaine idée de l’Europe (2004).
Bibliography: J.-G. Fredet, Fabius, les brûlures d’une ambition (2001).
[Gideon Kouts / Dror Franck Sullaper (2nd ed.)]FABLE, an animal tale (according to the most general andhence most widely accepted definition), i.e., a tale in which
the characters are animals, and which contains a moral lesson. The genre also includes tales in which plants or inanimate
objects act and talk.

aim is to educate (e.g., the Greek pedagogues, the rabbis of
the Mishnah and the Talmud, the darshanim, and the priestsof the various churches during the Middle Ages). Because
the earliest sources of the European literary fable and theoldest known collection are connected with the name of the
Greek Aesop, the animal fable has often been called the Aesopian fable.
While the animal society of the fable operates very similarly to its human analogue, the activity, in general, remains
exclusively within the realm of the animal world. Some fables,
however, do depict interaction between humans and animals.
A similarity between the fable and the fairy tale (maerchen,
Heb. ma’asiyyah) is seen in this fanciful conception of animals
functioning as human beings. Yet within the fable itself, theplot is usually realistic and seldom contains magical elements,
such as metamorphoses, revivals of the dead, and ghosts. The
fable further differs from the fairy tale in its being mono-episodic. A series of episodes related or written together havedeveloped into the beast epic, but each of those episodes canbe isolated from its wider context. Like the fairy tale, though,the fable too uses universal motifs and stock characters. The
latter are either stereotyped or endowed with conventional
functions within the animal society.
The source of the fable lies in the observation of animals
in their natural setting, and the tale often remains etiological.
More sophisticated plots and the didactic application of theconcrete story to the realm of ethics result from the tendency
to draw obvious parallels and to develop potential analogies.
In these cases, the two possible narrative forms are the metaphorical and generalizing fables.
Among various conjectures as to the origin of the fable,
the 19t-century scholar, Julius Landsberger, maintained thatthe fable originated with the Jews (Hebraeer), pointing out thesimilarity between the names Aesop and Asaph. While thistheory has been contradicted (by Joseph *Jacobs and others),
some of the Hebrew fables are nevertheless among the mostancient that are extant in literary form. These are traced backto the 15t–14t centuries B.C.E., and a still earlier oral tradition can be assumed.
The Hebrew term for fable, mashal (‫) ָמ ׁ ָשל‬, is linked, in
popular etymology, to the two homonymic roots mshl, meaning respectively “to liken,” and “to rule.” This is explained by
the fact that meshalim were narrated by rulers or related tofuture rulers in order to instruct them in just ways.

Introduction
Definitions vary according to the importance ascribed tothe thematic factor (the animal story) or the functional factor (its didactic tendency). As a literary creation, the fable developed out of oral folklore, and it can thus be asserted thatthe thematic element is closely related to those popular origins, while the didactic quality is the product of a more sophisticated cultural level, usually of an individual whose specificIn the Bible
The biblical term refers to the proverb, aphorism, and to allegorical prophecy. Later interpretation applied the term toallegory (Ezek. 17:3–12), to the parable (II Sam. 12:1–4), andto the fable. Of the latter there are two prime examples: Jotham’s fable told to the citizens of Shechem on Mount Gerizim (Judg. 9:8–15), in which he likens their king, Abimelech,
to the bramble which became the king of the trees; and thefable of the thistle and the cedar of Lebanon in the answer
given by Jehoash, the king of Israel, to Amaziah, the king of666

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

fableJudah (II Kings 14:9; II Chron. 25:18). One interpretation of
I Kings 5:13 (where Solomon is said to have spoken of trees
and animals) is that it refers to Solomon’s writing of fables, afield in which the Semitic wise man (e.g., *Ahikar) characteristically engaged.
In the Talmud and Midrash
A much richer source of fables is the talmudic-midrashic literature, which mentions several outstanding fabulists, notably*Hillel (Sof. 16:7), and his pupil, *Johanan b. Zakkai (Suk. 28a;
BB 134a; Sof. 16:6). Johanan mastered three genres: fox tales,
palm tales (lit., “the talk of palm trees”), and washerman tales.
(The last, mishlei kovesim, has been interpreted by Landsberger(see bibl.) as referring to the first century C.E. Libyan fabulist,
Kybisses, a view rejected by D. Noy (see bibl. Maḥ anayim, 91),
and others.) According to the Talmud, the most prolific of thefabulists was R. *Meir, a tanna in the last generation (Sanh.
38b–39b); he was reputed to have known 300 fables, but only
three were transmitted to his students. (The numbers are formulistic and perhaps exaggerated.) It is even said that when
he died “the composers of fables ceased” (Sot. 49a). J.L. *Gordon argues that R. Meir’s fables were Aesopian and that he hadheard them from his teacher, *Elisha b. Avuyah, who was acquainted with Greek culture. *Bar Kappara, in the following
generation, is said to have known as many fables as R. Meir
(Eccles. R. 1:3). It is interesting to note that the fox, the heroof a great number of European fables, is a central figure in thetalmudic tradition of animal fables. In the Midrash, the fox
himself is depicted as a teller of fables (Gen. R. 78:7).
The same period reflects an increased affinity with the
Aesopian tradition and the Indian animal tales (as they are
known from the Jatakas and the Panchatantra). According to
Jacobs, of 30 talmudic fables only six lack Greek or Indian parallels; many show both. I. *Ziegler maintains that the fables astaught by the rabbis were adapted to their audience more thantheir Greek counterparts: the insistence on moral and theological teaching is stronger with the rabbis, as seen in the following comparison of epimythia (i.e., the proverb-like statements
concluding the narrative). In the fable of the fox who ate too
many grapes and was required to fast before he was able toleave the vineyard, the Aesopian version concludes that time
takes care of everything, whereas Ecclesiastes Rabbah brings
a moralizing quotation from Ecclesiastes (5:14): “As he cameforth of his mother’s womb, naked shall he return.”ḥ IBBUR YAFEH MIN HA-YESHU’AH (“The Book of Redemption”). In the 11t century Rabbenu Nissim, from Kairouan(see *Nissim b. Jacob b. Nissim ibn Shahin), wrote this bookof tales, which also includes two fables. The work, originally
written in Arabic, was discovered in 1896; prior to that, only
the Hebrew translation (Ma’asiyyot she-ba-Talmud, Constantinople, 1519) was known.
KALILA AND DIMNA. Translated into Latin as Directorium
Vitae by the apostate *John of Capua, this composition wasof great importance to European fable literature; it became
the basis of all translations. According to A.S. Rappoport, theGreek translation of Kalila and Dimna (ed. by J. Derenbourg,
1881) was also made by a Jew, Simeon, in 1080. The original is
to be traced back through the eighth-century Arabic translation to an origin in the Indian Panchatantra. This line of influence from India nourished the prose fiction of the Jews ofMuslim and later of Christian Spain and of Provence.
SEFER SHA’ASHU’IM (“Book of Delights”). Written at the endof the 12t century by Joseph b. Meir *Ibn Zabara – whose
cultural environment was clearly Muslim – this work bears
some relation to the Taḥ kemoni of Judah *Al-Ḥ arizi, and tothe maqamat of the Arabic poet Al-Ḥ ariri. It contains a fable
which deals with a conflict between the strong leopard andthe sly fox and which in turn forms the framework for anotherfable and for four other stories, describing faithless women(one of them the widow of Ephesus, which also appears inPetronius’ Satyricon). One of the stories is a version of thefable of the fox in the vineyard, completely devoid, however,of the homiletic bent of the Midrash. The book shows tracesof Arabic, Greek, and Indian culture, and has parallels in collections of medieval exempla literature. It was translated into
English by M. Hadas as The Book of Delight (1960).
BEN HA-MELEKH VE-HA-NAZIR (“The Prince and the Hermit”). Translated into Hebrew by Abraham ibn Ḥ isdai in
Spain at the end of the 12t or beginning of the 13t century(first printed edition, Constantinople, 1518), this work was
discovered by Steinschneider to be a translation and adaptation of the Greek “Barlaam and Joasaph.” Indian in origin(c. eighth century), it is a typical example of lndian wisdom
literature, in which the stories are told by a wise man as hetutors a young prince.

In the Middle Ages
THE ALPHABET OF *BEN SIRA. Among the stories in thiswork are the fable of Leviathan and the fox, an etiological fable about the enmity between cat and mouse; and other stories containing motifs from international folklore and possibly
based on folktales. The 1698 Amsterdam edition was printed
with “Musar al-pi ha-Ḥ idah,” a fragment of a collection of fables, printed in the early 16t century under the name Ḥ idot
Isopeto. (“The Riddles of Isopet”). The name Isopeto, for Aesop, appears in other Jewish writings, and parallels the name
Ysopet in the Romance languages.

MISHLEI SHU’ALIM (“Fox Fables”). This work was written by
R. *Berechiah b. Natronai ha-Nakdan who lived during thecreative period of Jewish fable literature (end of the 12t andbeginning of the 13t century), and was printed in Mantua in
1557. The use of the name Mishlei Shu’alim, identical with agenre of fables mentioned in the Talmud (Suk. 28a; Sanh. 38b),
is explained on the title page by the statement that the fox is
the most cunning of animals, and therefore the cleverest. The
number of fables included in this collection varies between 107
and 115 with the different manuscripts. They are written in theform of maqamat, in a clear, lively style; structurally each has
an epimythium, the first two lines of which comprise the pro-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6667

fablemythium as well (i.e., a proverb-like statement at the openingof the narrative). The religious tendency of the Midrash, totally absent in Sefer Sha’ashu’im, appears vaguely in Berechiah’s
composition. Its tone is clearly Jewish: biblical references are
numerous, other sources are echoed in it, mythological creatures are changed to men. A talmudic reference to R. *Akiva(Ber. 61) is the source of Berechiah’s story of the fox and thefish. On the other hand, the work also displays many parallels to the West-European Aesopian tradition, including the
Old-French compilation of Marie de France and the Directorium Vitae. Some parallels also appear in the popular late-medieval beast epic Roman de Renart (High German, Reinhart
Fuchs; Low German, Reynke de Vos). It is possible that Mariede France and Berechiah had common sources in the West
European Isopet traditions, in which case the title and theprinter’s remark can be explained by the immense popularityof fox fables at that period.
Mishlei Shu’alim became part of European Jewish culture:a Yiddish translation by Jacob Koppelman appeared as earlyas 1588 in Freiburg, and was reprinted several times in Prague,
Vilna, and Warsaw, Several reprints in Hebrew were also rendered in different parts of Europe. Popular among non-Jews
as well, it appeared in a Latin translation by Melchior Hanel(Prague, 1661), and the German author, G.E. Lessing, translated seven of the fables into German (Abhandlung ueber die
Fabel, 1759). M. Hadas published an English translation, Fablesof a Jewish Aesop (1967).
MESHAL HA-KADMONI (“The Fable of the Ancient”). The
Spanish Hebrew writer, Isaac ben Solomon ibn *Sahula, aspired to create a Hebrew fable independent of foreign influences, and titled his book Meshal ha-Kadmoni, so as to stressthe fact that its sources were in the Talmud and Midrash. In
fact, however, he did not succeed in completely eliminating
foreign influences. Written in the form of a maqama, the fables
are cast in dialogue. Their moral lessons are Jewish, and theanimals, well versed in Jewish learning: the deer is an expert
in Talmud, the rooster, a Bible scholar, and the hare knows theposekim. They are also knowledgeable in such fields as logic,
grammar, and biology. Neither characterization nor plots arefabular in the popular or traditional sense, which, according toHeller, renders Sahula’s fables less important than those of Ibn
Zabara or of Berechiah. Meshal ha-Kadmoni was first printed
in 1480. The Venetian edition of 1546 is amply and imaginatively illustrated with pictures of the disputing animals. The
book, which gained popularity, was translated into Yiddish by
Gershon Wiener (Frankfurt, 1693).
SEFER HA-MESHALIM (“The Book of Riddles”). The 13tcentury kabbalist Joseph *Gikatilla compiled this non-kabbalistic collection of approximately 140 riddles, essentiallydidactic in nature, and often lacking the ingenuity of a genuine riddle. (Some manuscripts, however, include only about
half the number of riddles.) The basis of comparison in theseriddles varies among plants, animals, and inanimate objects.
It was published by I. Davidson in 1927.

668

IGGERET BA’ALEI ḥ AYYIM (“The Animals’ Collection”). A
translation by *Kalonymus b. Kalonymus (Arles, 1316, in sevendays) of the end of the 25t book of a Muslim encyclopedia,
its first printed edition appeared in Mantua in 1557 (ed. by J.
Landsberger, 1882). Its sources include Greek and Arabic but
are primarily Indian. Several elements of this work are notcharacteristic of the fable: the animals, for instance, dispute
throughout the book with human beings before the king of
ghosts, and the plot is not mono-episodic. On the other hand,the context of law courts and the depiction of animals functioning like human beings do resemble the fable. The Jewish
element in the translation is the addition of a Jew to the Muslim who represents men in the trial. There is clearly a relationship between Iggeret Ba’alei Ḥ ayyim and the Bidpai literature,and parallels to some of its “characters” are found in Kalila andDimna. The popularity of this work is evidenced by the factthat it was printed several times and translated into Yiddish.
MISHLEI SENDABAR (“The Tales of Sendabar,” Sindbad).
Translated into Hebrew the same year as Iggeret Ba’alei Ḥ ayyim(1316), these tales exist in eight Oriental versions (Greek, Syriac, Old Spanish, three Persian ones, Arabic, and Hebrew),
all under the same name. (In all the major Western languages
they appear as The Seven Sages.) M. Epstein suggests the possibility of a Hebrew origin on the basis of a similarity to Vashti
the Queen in the Book of Esther. The wickedness of womenis the central theme of both the frame tale and those told by
the sages. One of the sages of the Hebrew version, Lokman,is, according to tradition, the Arabic Aesop. The distinctive
feature of the Hebrew Mishlei Sendabar is the freeing of thewoman at the end; in other versions she is killed or otherwise
severely punished. The intermediary between the Indian and
the Arabic versions is generally held to be Pahlevi. Epstein
points out, however, that the Hebrew alone bears some features which distinguish the Western from the Eastern version.
According to others, the bridge is either the Byzantine Empire
or the Crusaders. A.M. *Habermann’s view is that the book
was translated to Hebrew from Arabic, although this has notbeen proved to be the only possibility. Modern editions include M. Epstein’s (Tales of Sendebar, 1967) and A.M. Habermann’s (Mishlei Sindbad, 1946). (See *Sindabar.)MISHLEI IRASTO (“Tales of Irasto”). Translated by the early16t century rabbi of Amsterdam, Isaac *Uziel, this work isvery similar to Mishlei Sindabar, but the coarse elements havebeen excluded. It was translated, according to Habermann,from Italian; according to A. *Elmaleh (editor of Mishlei Irasto,
1945), from Latin.
In the Post-Medieval Period
THE KUHBUCH. This most popular collection of Yiddish
fables in Europe is known only in Moses Wallich’s edition(Frankfurt, 1687). Its name is taken from an earlier compilation of the same name, no longer extant, which was printed
in 1555 by Abraham b. Mattathias. While it apparently included
parts of Mishlei Shu’alim and Meshal ha-Kadmoni, its fables are
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

fablenot direct translations; it also includes stories in the typical Renaissance style of Decameron. A modern German translation
by R. Beatus was published by A. Freimann in 1926.
DARSHANIM. The various ideological schools of medieval
Jewry employed fables as religious exempla. The rationalists,
the Hasidei Ashkenaz, and the representatives of the Kabbalah
in its various stages all used fables allegorically or metaphorically to support and to exemplify their ideas. It is quite likelythat fables were used by darshanim after the Middle Agesas well, although few examples are extant. Fables with aclear homiletical tendency appear among the meshalim of
Jacob of Dubno (Jacob *Kranz, better known as the Dubno
Maggid), one of the outstanding darshanim of the Musar
Movement. It is somewhat exaggerated, however, to callhim “the Jewish Aesop,” as M. *Mendelssohn did, since hedrew the background material for his fables primarily fromeveryday life; as H. Glatt (He Spoke in Parables, 1957) has
said, “he was more of a parablist than a fabler.” One of his
fables is the Aesopian “One Donkey for Two People.” Other
classical fables in his repertoire include “The Crafty Woodcock” (i.e., the Aesopian “The Fox, the Cock, and the Dog”)
and “The Utensils that Gave Birth” (cf. Kalila and Dimna andPanchatantra). The stories in his commentary to Pirkei Avot
also contain fables.

tone of the work, and amusement apparently its primary purpose, although it may also have some practical implications.
In verging on the comic, this work resembles the 18t-century German fables. In 1893 Joshua *Steinberg published his
Mishlei Yehoshu’a which are mainly epigrams. Collections ofEast European Jewish fables such as these were published as
far east as Baghdad.
HEBREW TRANSLATIONS OF FABLES. A number of (Hebrew) translations of fables appeared in the 19t century, including: I.L. *Jeiteles’ translation of Lessing’s fables; Solomon
Pundy’s (b. 1812) of the German folklorist Pfeffel’s fables; Benjamin Kewall’s (1806–1880) adaptation of 52 of Aesop’s fables
Pirḥ ei Kedem (1843). The Italian Jewish writer S.D. *Luzzattoin Kinnor Na’im (Vienna, 1825), translated fables by Aesop
and Lessing. Krylov’s fables were translated by Meir Wolf
Singer (1885) and by Chayim Susskind (1891). In the beginning of the 20t century a new translation of Lessing’s fables
was made by Moses *Reicherson (1902), and a translation of
Krylov by S.L. *Gordon (1907). More than 400 years after its
translation into Hebrew, Kalila and Dimna was retranslated
by Elmaleh (1926).

LATE 19th CENTURY. Later in the 19t century, the poet
J.L. Gordon published Mishlei Yehudah (1860), a collection
mainly of translations of La Fontaine’s fables. In the preface to this work, he gave a history of the Hebrew fable. Gam
Elleh Mishlei Yehudah, another collection of fables, appearedin 1871. While Gordon essentially collected and transmitted
fables from the European tradition to Hebrew, A. *Paperna
wrote a book of fables Mishlei ha-Zeman (1894), essentiallya long discourse among various animals on the questionof who was the happiest of them all. Irony is the dominating

THE 20th CENTURY. Few literary fables have been written
in the 20t century. Among Jewish works, the most importantis probably that written by Eliezer *Steinbarg and published in
Romania (Shriftn, 2 vols., 1932–33), shortly after the death of
the author. The two volumes, written in rich, rhythmic Yiddish verse, include 150 fables of animals and inanimate objects
alike. (His fables were published earlier (1928) with wood-cutsby A. *Kolnik.) Some of the fables have epimythia; others convey the moral lesson through the tale itself.
Hananiah Reichman, who translated the fables of Krylov (1950), includes in his epigrammatic collections much
fabular material, adapted to his own concise and ironic verse
form. His books include Mi-Mishlei ha-Ammim u-mi-PiḤ akhamim (1941), Pitgamim u-Mikhtamim (1955), and Devash
va-Okeẓ (1960). He also translated Steinbarg’s fables into Hebrew (1954). An interesting contribution is E. *Fleischer’s Meshalim (1957), a book of fables which was sent to Ereẓ Israel
from a prison camp in Eastern Europe. The author used thepseudonym Bar-Abba. Written basically in the classical veinof La Fontaine and Krylov, these fables have new themes andcombine humor with bitter social satire.
The religious fables (a minority among parables, as Yalkut
Meshalim (ed. S. Sheinfold) generally in the case of exempla)of the Ḥ afez Ḥ ayyim (R. *Israel Meir ha-Kohen from Radin)
were published in Tel Aviv in 1952. From the oral tradition,
Naphtali Gross’ Mayselekh un Mesholim (1955, 19682) showsa low percentage of fables in the East European Jewish tradition. Less than five percent (27 of the 540 fables) in the collection are fables. H. Schwarzbaum’s commentary shows thatthese few have a great affinity to both the European Aesopian
tradition and to the traditional Jewish sources. The percentage of animal fables is still lower (less than two percent) in thecollections of the Israel Folktale Archives.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6669

In Modern Hebrew Literature
EARLY PERIOD. Modern Hebrew literature, highly didactic
in its early stages (late 18t–early 19t centuries), found the fable a useful literary device. Isaac ha-Levi *Satanow wrote thepseudepigraphic Mishlei Asaf (2 vols., Berlin, 1788–91). Imaginatively attributed to Asaph b. Berechiah (I Chron. 6:24), thework is stylistically imitative of Proverbs and the Wisdom of*Ben Sira. Its animal fables, which tend to be allegorical, arecomposed in the talmudic and the Aesopian traditions. In thesame period, such writers as Joel *Loewe and Isaac Euchel
dealt with the fable from a theoretical standpoint.
Shalom ben Jacob *Cohen’s Mishlei Agur (Berlin, 1799;
1911) includes verses and verse-dramas, which sometimes havefabular characteristics. The Yiddish satirist Solomon *Ettinger,
who associated with the Zamosc maskilim, differed from mostof his contemporaries in stressing style more than ideology.
Influenced by German drama and fable literature (Lessing,Gellert), Ettinger added Jewish content to the foreign themes.
Many of his fables are essentially epigrammatic.

fabri, felix
Summary
The fable in general, and Jewish fable in particular, has almost
disappeared from the oral tradition. The largest number ofJewish fables is found in the talmudic-midrashic literature in
the Near East, and in the medieval European Jewish collections. Foreign influences upon these fables are decisive, but it
is clear to both reader and scholar that some of the early stagesof the history of the fable, as far as it can be reconstructed at
the present, point to Ereẓ Israel.
Bibliography: B. Heller, in: J. Bolte and G. Polivka (eds.),
Anmerkung zu den Kinder-und Hausmaerchen der Brueder Grimm, 4(1930), 315–64; J. Landsberger, Die Fabeln des Sophos (1859); D. Noy, in:
Maḥ anayim, 56 (1961); 69 (1962); 79 (1963); 84, 91, and 92 (1964); 111(1967); idem, in: Yeda-Am, 1–8 (1948–63); I. Ziegler, Die Koenigsgleichnisse des Midrasch beleuchtet durch die roemische Kaiserzeit (1963); H.
Schwarzbaum, Talmudic-Midrashic Affinities of some Aesopic Fables(1965), incl. bibl.; M. Buber (ed.), Tales of Hasidim, 2 vols. (1947–48);
idem (ed.), The Tales of Rabbi Nachman (1962); Zinberg, Sifrut, 5(1959); 6 (1960); A.S. Rappaport, The Folklore of the Jews (1937); Waxman, Literature, index; Steinschneider, Uebersetzungen, index.

His numerous publications include Output of Manufacturing Industries, 1899–1937 (1940), Employment in Manufacturing, 1899–1939 (1942), The Trend of Government Activity in
the United States since 1900 (1952), Basic Facts on Productivity
Change (1959), Measurement of Technological Change (1965),
A Primer on Productivity (1969), Five Monographs on Business
Income (with C. Warburton, 1973), and The Economic Growthof the United States: Perspective and Prospective (1979).
[Joachim O. Ronall / Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]FABRICANT, SOLOMON (1906–1989), U.S. economist.
Fabricant, who was born in Brooklyn, New York, received
his B.A. from New York University and his M.A. (1930) and
Ph.D. in economics from Columbia University (1938). In 1930
he joined the National Bureau of Economic Research as a research assistant. He was connected with the Bureau throughout his career, and from 1953 to 1965 was director of research.
In 1947, after World War II service with the War Production
Board and the European regional office of the United Nations
Relief and Rehabilitation Agency (UNRRA), he became an associate professor of economics at New York University and a year
later a full professor. In 1955 he became a member of the NBER
board of directors, and a director emeritus in 1981. During his
50 years with the Bureau, he produced research on such topics as manufacturing output and employment, business cycles,
government employment, and changes in productivity.
Regarded as the world authority on the characteristics ofbusiness cycles and the “father” of current productivity measures, Fabricant devoted himself to research and writing on
developmental economics, business fluctuations, and macroeconomic theory.

FACING HISTORY AND OURSELVES, Holocaust education program begun in 1976 just as consciousness of the Holocaust was moving beyond the survivor community, when
two Brookline, Massachusetts, teachers integrated a unit on
the Holocaust and Human Behavior into their 8t grade social
studies course. Throughout the next decade, it expanded its
outreach, first in Massachusetts with support from that state’s
Department of Education, and then across the country as oneof the model programs designated by the National Diffusion
Network of the Office of Education.
In 1990, Facing History opened its first regional officein Chicago, to be followed by offices in six other regions andone in Europe. The organization has now evolved into a program of teacher training, resource preparation, and ongoing research and development that now reaches more than
21,000 educators and over 1.6 million students in 90 countries around the world.
Faithful to its name, there are two dimensions to Facing
History and Ourselves, the historical material and the individual student – the self. Facing History’s intellectual and pedagogic framework was built upon a synthesis of history andethics for effective history education. It included a language
and a vocabulary for studying difficult and complicated history. It conveyed an understanding that such history did nothave to happen but instead was the culmination of a seriesof ongoing choices (or lack of choosing) and decisions at every level of society. It further engaged students with a senseof the connection of that history to their present and futureworlds. The model was interdisciplinary, and built upon themethods of the humanities – inquiry, analysis, interpretation,and judgment. Facing History engaged students in confronting, as distinct from simply studying, the past. Its pedagogy
insisted on going beyond the simple answer and response to
grapple with complexity and uncertainty in order to come to
informed choice which recognized an ethical imperative while
rejecting helpless relativism.
From the beginning the core case study of Facing History
and Ourselves has been an in-depth study of the failure of democracy in Germany and the events leading to the Holocaust.
Studying the unique and universal lessons of the Holocaust
helps students to think morally about their own behavior andto reflect on the moral nature of the decisions they have made.
By examining the circumstances of this piece of history, students explore fundamental issues of citizenship, responsibility, and decision-making in a democracy.

670

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Galit Hasan-Rockem]°FABRI, FELIX (15t century), Dominican monk in Ulm(Germany). In 1480 he accompanied the German noble Georg
von Stein on a pilgrimage to Palestine. Landing at Jaffa, Fabri
proceeded by way of Ramleh to Jerusalem. From there he visited Jericho and Bethlehem, and a longer journey took him
through Hebron and Gaza to Mount Sinai. He returned to Ulm
in 1483. Fabri noted many remarkable details in the countries
he visited and wrote an account of his travels that has beentranslated in the Palestine Pilgrims’ Texts.
Bibliography: The Wanderings of Felix Fabri, tr. by A. Steward, 2 vols., 1893–97.
[Michael Avi-Yonah]

Facing History and Ourselves
In Facing History classrooms, middle and high school
students learn to think about individual decision-making andto exercise the faculty of making judgments. By illuminating
common themes of justice, law, and morality in the past andpresent, Facing History offers students a framework and a
vocabulary for examining the meaning and responsibility of
citizenship and the tools to recognize bigotry and indifferencein their own worlds. Through a rigorous examination of thesteps and events that led to the Holocaust, along with othercase studies of collective violence and genocide, Facing History teaches one of the most significant and necessary lessons
for adolescents to understand: prevention of collective violence is possible. The mass violence and genocide in the past
were not inevitable but rather were shaped by choices madeby individuals and groups – choices that at the time may haveseemed ordinary and unimportant, but taken together, led to
extraordinary, unimaginable consequences.
Facing History encourages adolescents to draw connections among events in the past, choices in the present, and thepossibilities of the future. It began with the study of the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide but it gradually expanded
its concerns. The Facing History program offers teachers andstudents vocabulary, concepts, and materials to confront themass violations of human rights and human dignity in recent
history, whether they be in the breakdown of democracy inGermany in the 1920s and 1930s, or in South Africa, or the
Armenian Genocide, or the more recent genocides in Rwanda,
Bosnia, or the Sudan.
Students learn to recognize universal themes of prejudice, discrimination, and de-humanization, as well as courage, caring, responsible participation, and steps that can betaken toward prevention.
The Facing History framework is also built upon thenotion that democracies are fragile enterprises and can only
remain vital through the active, thoughtful, and responsible
participation of its citizens. Education for democratic citizenship means encouraging students to recognize that participation can make a difference and is integral to the ethical choices
and decisions that we all face. Very often, those decisions are
influenced by labeling and stereotyping, and by how we define group identities and who belongs and who does not. Facing History courses embody a sequence of study which begins with identity – first individual identity and then group
identities with their definitions of membership. From there
the study examines the failure of democracy and the steps
leading to the Holocaust – the most documented case of 20tcentury indifference, de-humanization, hatred, racism, andantisemitism. It goes on to explore difficult questions of judgment, memory, and legacy, and the necessity for responsible
participation to prevent injustice. The program ends with asection called “Choosing to Participate” with examples of individuals who have taken small steps to build just and inclusive communities and whose stories illuminate the courageand compassion that is needed to protect democracy today
and in generations to come.

Facing History is often described as a journey, back andforth between past, present, and future. Its language and vocabulary are tools for entry into history – terms like perpetrator, victim, defender, bystander, rescuer, collaborator, andopportunist. Students learn that terms like identity, membership, legacy, denial, memory, and judgment can help themunderstand complicated history, but that an authentic use ofthat language needs to be rooted in the constellation of individual and group choices, decisions, and behaviors that Facing History has called “Ourselves.”
The Facing History journey further embraces a pedagogy that is rooted in the concerns and issues of adolescence:
the overarching interest in individual and group identity; in
acceptance or rejection, in conformity or non-conformity,in labeling, ostracism, loyalty, fairness, and peer group pressure. It speaks to the adolescent’s newly discovered ideas ofsubjectivity, competing truths, and differing perspectives,
along with the growing capacity to think hypothetically andthe inclination to find personal meaning in newly introduced
phenomena.
The elements of Facing History pedagogy have been
demonstrated in hundreds of institutes and workshops andhave characterized teaching and learning in thousands ofclassrooms. These institutes are given in both face-to-faceand online environments, and include an online campus withmodules and lesson plans to extend the program. Since theexamination of difficult and complex issues of human behavior in critical moments in past and present requires careful
thinking and reflection, Facing History teachers employ effective strategies to encourage students to listen, to take another’s perspective, to understand differing points of view, andto undertake intellectual risks in their analysis and discussion. Meaningful intellectual growth is a process of confronting imbalance and dissonance as students grapple with new
ideas and different perspectives that contradict unexaminedpremises, so these teachers carefully challenge generalizations
and push for clear distinctions in language and explication.
Building upon the increasing ability to think hypotheticallyand imagine options, Facing History teachers stretch the historical imagination by urging delineation of what might havebeen done, choices that could have been made, and alternative scenarios that could have come about.
Equally important, Facing History pedagogy embodies
teaching the skills of in-depth historical thinking and understanding. These include knowledge of chronology, causality,and point of view; along with the ability to analyze evidence,take different perspectives, make distinctions and understand relationships. Facing History teachers make these skills
explicit and provide opportunities for continual demonstration and practice. They further believe that all students
are capable of attaining the high standards necessary to engage deeply in the resource materials of the program. Yet students learn differently, so it is essential to use multiple assessments in their classrooms to honor the complexity of theirthinking.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6671

fackenheim, emil

Bibliography: D. Barr, “Early Adolescents’ Reflections on
Social Justice: Facing History and Ourselves in Practice and Assessment,” in: Intercultural Education (May 2005); M. Sleeper and M.S.
Strom, “Facing History and Ourselves,” in: M. Elias and H. Arnold(eds.), The Educator’s Guide to Emotional Intelligence and Academic
Learning: Social-Emotional Learning in the Classroom (2006); M.
Sleeper, A. Strom, and M.S. Strom, “Goals of Universal Primaryand Secondary Education,” paper delivered at American Academyof Arts and Sciences workshop (Cambridge, 2004); M.S. Strom, M.
Sleeper, and M. Johnson, “Facing History and Ourselves: A Synthesisof History and Ethics in Effective History Education,” in: A. Garrod(ed.), Learning for Life Moral Education Theory and Practice (1992);
T. Tollefson, “Facing History and Ourselves,” paper delivered at Conference on Education and the Civic Purposes of Schools” (San Jose,
Costa Rica, 2005).
[Martin Sleeper (2nd ed.)]

FACKENHEIM, EMIL (1916–2003), philosopher. Fackenheim was born in Halle, Germany. After graduating fromthe Stadtgymnasium in 1935, and despite the encouragementof his classics teacher, Adolph Loercher, to study classicalphilology, he chose to move to Berlin and enter the rabbinical program at the Hochschule fuer die Wissenschaft desJudentums. For three years, he studied Midrash, Bible, history, and philosophy; he also began a degree in philosophy at
the University of Halle. His academic career in Germany wasinterrupted by Kristallnacht and internment for several
months in Sachsenhausen. In the spring of 1940 he fled toAberdeen, Scotland, and matriculated in a degree program inphilosophy at the university. A year later, he and other refugees
were gathered in camps and dispersed throughout the British
Empire. Fackenheim traveled by ship to Canada, was internedin a camp in Sherbrooke, Ontario, and eventually released.
He was accepted into the doctoral program in philosophy at
the University of Toronto and received his degree in 1945 witha dissertation on Medieval Arabic philosophy and its classical antecedents. From 1943 to 1948 he served as rabbi forcongregation Anshe Shalom in Hamilton, Ontario. Invited toteach philosophy at the University of Toronto in 1948, heremained there until 1983, when he retired as university professor. He and his family immigrated to Israel in 1983. He
taught at the Institute for Contemporary Jewry at the Hebrew University for several years. In the 1980s he taught German theological students in Israel and in the 1990s traveled
several times to Germany, receiving various degrees andhonors.
In the postwar period Fackenheim pursued two intellectual interests. First, he examined the tension between faith andreason from Kant to Kierkegaard, writing important essays on
Kant on evil and on history and essays on Schelling. Second,he explored the role of revelation in modern culture, in particular Jewish faith, autonomy, the challenge of naturalism
and secularism, and the defense of revelation in the thoughtof Martin Buber and Franz Rosenzweig. Fackenheim developed an existential account of historically situated agency andself-constitution, which he articulated and defended in his
short book, Metaphysics and Historicity, based on his Aquinas Lecture at Marquette University. His philosophical project on faith and reason, for which he received a Guggenheim
Fellowship in 1956–57, became a book on Hegel, The Religious Dimension in Hegel’s Thought, published in 1968. In thecourse of the decade that he worked on Hegel, Fackenheim’s
existential thinking took the shape of a distinctly dialecticalstyle of argumentation and analysis, indebted to his interpretive work on Hegel and to his understanding of the earlyworks of Kierkegaard.
Until 1966 Fackenheim had largely avoided dealing with
the Nazi assault on Jews and Judaism and the atrocities of thedeath camps. In the summer of 1966 he delivered a paper on
the “death of God” movement and the “self-exposure of faith
to the modern secular world,” in which he ended by acknowledging the centrality of facing the horrors of Auschwitz. At the672

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Evaluation of Facing History has been a priority of the
program since its inception. Researchers have studied the impact of the program in such areas as adolescent psychosocialand moral development and education, violence and violence
prevention, historical understanding, citizenship education,
empathy, self-concept and social interest, academic achievement, teacher professional development, and school climate.
In a major study funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New
York, Facing History classes were shown to be significantly
successful in expanding adolescents’ capacities for interpersonal understanding, and in enhancing the ability to reflect
upon the personal meaning of issues of social justice.
As Facing History completes three decades of teaching
about the Holocaust and other examples of collective violence
and looks ahead to the 21st century, its impetus is to go beyond
memory and legacy and ask how those perspectives can leadto prevention. Its content and pedagogy is helping students
become more global and giving them tools and concepts tobuild bridges and relationships for global understanding andparticipation. Thus, the global outreach to educators has become critical. Through its website (www.facinghistory.org)
Facing History has facilitated online forums for scholars andeducators on such issues as the impact of religion on identity,
the nature of transitional justice in societies which have undergone mass violence, and the role of education in creating a civilsociety. Through its power to engage teachers and students,
Facing History can facilitate thoughtful and positive change
in a school community and convey that while participation
can make a difference in sustaining democracy. Such participation, including judgments of right and wrong, needs to be
informed, as opposed to constrained by history.
Major Facing History Publications
Included are Facing History and Ourselves: Holocaust andHuman Behavior (primary resource book); Crime Against
Humanity and Civilization: The Genocide of the Armenians; I
Promised I Would Tell (Holocaust Survivor Memoir); Elementsof Time (companion guide to Facing History’s videotape collection of Holocaust survivor testimonies); Facing History andOurselves: Jews of Poland; Race and Membership in American
History; The Eugenics Movement.

fackenheim, emil
end of that paper, he acknowledged the role that Elie *Wiesel’s
autobiographical, fictional reflections might play in showing
how Jewish faith could be exposed to those horrors and yet
survive. The next spring, on March 24, 1967, at a symposium
convened by the American Jewish Committee and organizedby the editor of its journal Judaism, Steven Schwarzchild,“Jewish Values in a Post-Holocaust Future,” Fackenheim first
formulated and presented his imperative for authentic Jewish
response to the Holocaust, what he called the 614t commandment, “Jews are forbidden to give Hitler any posthumous victories.” He elaborated the reasoning that led to this imperativeand its hermeneutical content in “Jewish Faith and the Holocaust,” which appeared in Commentary and, in a slightly different form, in the introduction to his book of essays, Quest
for Past and Future. Its argument received its most developed
form in the third chapter of God’s Presence in History, published in 1970 and based on his 1968 Deems Lectures at New
York University.
In these central writings, Fackenheim argued that no intellectual understanding – historical, political, theological, or
psychological – of the evil of Auschwitz is possible; the event
has no “meaning” or “purpose.” Even the most comprehensive philosophical systems, the Hegelian system most of all,founder on the rock of radical evil. But while no such intellectual comprehension is satisfying and hence no intellectual
response acceptable, an existential response is necessary. No
theoretical, philosophical, or theological source, however, iscapable of framing what a genuine response should be. At thispoint, thought must go to school with life; one can and mustturn to actual lived experience, during and after the event, tograsp how Jews have responded and hence how one ought torespond. Ongoing Jewish life, Fackenheim claims, can be interpreted as a response to a sense of obligation or duty, and thisduty is a duty to oppose all that Nazism sought to accomplish
in its hatred of Jews and Judaism and in its rejection of humandignity and worth. While for secular Jews, such a duty has no
ground but is accepted as binding without one, for believing
Jews, the only ground that is possible is the Voice of a Commanding God. Hence, for them, it has the status of a divine
command, alongside but not superseding the other, traditional
613 Biblical commandments. It is, in his famous formulation,a 614t commandment.
Fackenheim had arrived at this imperative of resistanceto Nazi purposes, this duty of genuine post-Holocaust Jewish
existence, alongside an ongoing reflection on revelation andmodernity and as an expression of a newly appreciated necessity of exposing faith and obligation to a post-Holocaust situation. His journey had capitalized on several crucial insights.
One was that after Auschwitz, as he put it, even Hegel would
not be a Hegelian, i.e., that Auschwitz was a case of evil forevil’s sake and was therefore unassimilable to any prior conceptual system. Even the most systematic philosophic thought
was historically situated and was ruptured by the horrors ofthe death camps. Second was the commitment to existential-dialectical thinking about the human condition and toits hermeneutical character. Third was the recognition thatwhile Auschwitz threatened all prior systems, ways of life,and beliefs, Judaism must and could survive exposure to it.
The work of Elie Wiesel and Wiesel’s life itself confirmed thishope and this realization.
In the 1970s Fackenheim’s thought extended the linesof thinking that we have summarized. First, in his book Encounters Between Judaism and Modern Philosophy he explored
how modern philosophy had ignored or distorted Judaism andhad exposed its own inadequacies in so doing. Second, he applied the framework just described to a variety of themes –most notably to the State of Israel, its reestablishment and defense, but also to the belief in God, the relationship between
Jews and Christians, and the necessity of struggling against
all attempts to diminish human dignity and the value of human life. These efforts continued throughout his life and in
effect amount to a ramification of the interpretation of the
614t commandment, for Jews, Christians, philosophers, historians, Germans, and others. Finally, he turned to importantphilosophical problems with his existential and hermeneutical argument. The crucial problem had to do with the possibility of performing the imperative of resistance or, as one
might put it, the possibility of confronting the radical threatof rupture and not giving way to total despair. This was to become the central problem of his magnum opus, To Mend theWorld, published in 1983 (with new introductory material in1987 and again in 1993).
In the earlier period, culminating in 1970, Fackenheim
had argued from the necessity of the commandment or imperative to its possibility, either on Kantian grounds, that
duty entails the freedom to perform it, or on Rosenzweigian
grounds, that along with the commandments that God grants
in an act of grace, He also gives humankind out of the same
love the freedom to perform them. By the late 1970s Fackenheim had come to see the extent to which both responses
failed to respect the victims of the Nazi horrors. In the crucial chapter of To Mend the World, he systematically and dialectically explores the agency of evil and its victims, in order
to arrive at a moment when the victim’s lucid understanding
grasps the whole of horror, and yet reacts to it and in opposition to it with surprise. He confirms this intellectual grasp with
an emblematic case of victims of the camps and the atrocities,
who both see clearly what they are being subjected to, what
the evil is, and sense a duty to oppose it in their life. He thengoes on to claim that this episode constitutes an ontologicalground of resistance, and that Judaism, through the idea of acosmic rupture and a human act that respects and yet opposes
it, what is called in the Jewish mystical tradition (Kabbalah)tikkun olam, provides philosophy with a concept essential tograsp the possibility of genuine post-Holocaust life. To Mend
the World proceeds to apply these lessons in three domains –philosophy, Christianity, and Jewish existence, in each caselocating an emblematic case of tikkun (mending or repair)that respects the evil of Auschwitz as a total and unqualified
rupture and yet finds a route to hope and recovery. Hegel, he

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6673

factor, max
remarks, had said that the wounds of Spirit heal without leaving scars. Hegel was wrong – while healing is necessary (andhence recovery as a hermeneutical and existential activity),
the scars of the Holocaust will and must remain.
This line of argument was not without its difficulties,
and challenges have been made to it. Fackenheim, in the lasttwo decades of his life, once more extended its lines – witha book on the Bible and how it ought to be read by Jews andChristians, together, in a post-Holocaust world, with a surveyof Jewish belief and practice in the 1980s, and with a numberof essays on the State of Israel as a paradigmatically genuine
response to the Nazi assault, i.e., as a unique blending of religious purposes and secular self-reliance, combining a commitment to a homeland for Jews against the most extreme
assault and to its defense. Philosophically, in his last years,
Fackenheim focused on two issues that were connected in his
mind, one the radicality of the Nazi evil and the question “whythey did it,” and secondly the character of the type of victim
called the Musselmanner, which Primo Levi famously called
the “drowned” and identified as the characteristic product ofthe death camps. These two issues also continue themes ofFackenheim’s earlier work, the nature of the radical evil that
was Auschwitz and the question whether there is not a typeof victim of the Nazi horrors that must be respected and notdishonored, and yet that is outside the bounds of the ontological ground of resistance itself.
Fackenheim’s philosophical commitments were deeply
immersed in existential and concrete realities, most notably
the historicity of philosophical and religious thought, the hermeneutical and situated character of human existence, and theunprecedented evil of Nazis and the death camps. Auschwitz
led him to expose philosophy, culture, and religion unconditionally to historical refutation; yet his deepest yearnings wereto find continued hope and to avoid despair, to appreciate thenecessity of Jewish life and the defense of human value anddignity. These dispositions, however, were what we might call“rationally defended yearnings” and hence necessities (duties
and obligations) only in a deeply contextual sense. He wanted
them to be objective and absolute duties, but in the context of
his developed thinking, after the 1960s, there are no such duties, or, if we think there are, they are ones that carry no global
or general authority. What force they bear must be defended
one by one and situation by situation, within the larger context of a commitment to face the utter rupture of Auschwitz
and still go on with life, to heal and recover while nonethelessnot expecting the scars of history to disappear.

FACTOR, MAX (1877–1938), U.S. cosmetics manufacturer.
Factor was born in Lodz, Poland, where at the age of eight

he served an apprenticeship to a dentist-pharmacist. Yearsof mixing potions instilled in him a fascination with the human form. Factor opened his own shop in Moscow, where
he sold hand-made rouges, creams, fragrances, and wigs. A
traveling theatrical troupe wore Factor’s makeup while performing for Russian nobility. Appreciating his handiwork,
the Russian aristocrats appointed Factor the official cosmetic
expert for the royal family and the Imperial Russian Grand
Opera. Factor emigrated to the United States in 1904, andopened a cosmetics booth at the World’s Fair in St. Louis. He
moved his family to Los Angeles, where, in 1909, he openeda cosmetics and perfume shop in the center of the city’s theatrical district. The business subsequently developed into
Max Factor & Co., the largest cosmetics firm in California
for decades.
In 1914, Factor created a makeup specifically for movie
actors which, unlike theatrical makeup, would not crack or
cake. Film stars rushed to his makeup studio, anxious to try
out his “flexible greasepaint,” while producers headed for thewigs that Factor made from human hair. In 1938 he developed
pancake makeup, a new type of material to be used by actors
in Technicolor films, which soon became the standard makeup
for all color motion pictures.
In the 1920s Factor introduced cosmetics to the public,
promoting the idea that every girl could look like a movie starby using Max Factor Makeup. When pancake was launched,
it became one of the fastest-growing, largest-selling, single
makeup items in the history of cosmetics. Factor was responsible for countless other cosmetic innovations, including theword “makeup” itself, which he coined. He and his company
created such mainstays as lip gloss, the eyebrow pencil, false
eyelashes, waterproof makeup, and the concept of cosmetic“color harmony.” He also developed numerous makeup techniques for movie special effects, as well as personal application.
Much of his work has been preserved at the Hollywood
History Museum in Hollywood, California. The exhibits include the lobby and various makeup rooms from his studio,
as well as thousands of rare Hollywood costumes, props, sets,
and memorabilia.
Factor co-authored the book The Technique of Stage
Make-up: A Practical Manual for the Use of Max Factor’s Theatrical Make-up (with J. Knapp, 1942).
Each of his four sons joined the business. DAVIS FACTOR (1902–1991), who was born in Russia, became chairmanof the board. MAX FACTOR, JR. (1904–1996), born in St. Louis,
became vice chairman of the board. A specialist in cosmetic
chemistry, he received awards from the motion picture andtelevision industry for designing special makeup to go before the cameras. LOUIS FACTOR (1907–1975), also born in
St. Louis, became vice president and assistant secretary of the
firm. Los Angeles-born SIDNEY FACTOR (1916– ) was a member of the board. Max Factor’s son-in-law, MAX FIRESTEIN(1894–? ) of Denver, became chairman of the board’s executive committee. Active in Jewish organizational life, he was

674

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: L. Greenspan, and G. Nicholson (eds.), Fackenheim: German Philosophy & Jewish Thought (1992); M.L. Morgan(ed.), The Jewish Thought of Emil Fackenheim (1987); idem, Emil Fackenheim: Jewish Philosophers and Jewish Philosophy (1996); idem, Beyond Auschwitz: Post-Holocaust Jewish Thought in America (2001).
[Michael L. Morgan (2nd ed.)]fagaraspresident of the Los Angeles Jewish Community Council andserved on the national campaign cabinet of the United Jewish Appeal. His sons ALFRED FIRESTEIN (1924– ) and CHESTER FIRESTEIN (1930– ) became president and executive
vice president, respectively, of Max Factor Co. DAVIS FACTOR(1935– ) of the third generation was director of marketing in
the international division. By the end of the 1960s Max Factor had become the third-largest U.S. cosmetics manufacturer,
and the largest in the international field.
Max Factor became a division of Procter & Gamble in
Hunt Valley, Maryland.
Bibliography: F. Basten, R. Salvatore, and P. Hoffman (eds.),
Max Factor’s Hollywood: Glamour, Movies and Make-Up (1995).
[Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]FADENHECHT, YEHOSHUA (1846–1910), religious Zionist
and a founder of the *Mizrachi movement in Galicia. Born
in Berezhany, Galicia, he moved to Kolomea, where he wasregistrar of births and deaths for the local Jewish community
throughout his life. In the early 1880s, he founded one of thefirst Zionist associations in Galicia, and struggled against extremely Orthodox anti-Zionist circles. One of Herzl’s earliest
religious supporters, Fadenhecht published suggestions regarding aliyah to Ereẓ Israel in the second issue of the newspaper Die Welt. For many years he contributed articles oncurrent affairs to the Hebrew press in Galicia. After the First
Zionist Congress at Basle (1897), he published Yizre’el, intended to be a Hebrew periodical; its sole issue was entirely
filled with his own contributions devoted to explaining political Zionism, Herzl’s beliefs, and the value of the Zionist Congress – all in the frame of reference of his controversy withultra-Orthodox opponents.
Bibliography: Ha-Miẓ peh, 7 no. 2 (1910); Ba-Mishor, 5 no.
203 (1944).
[Getzel Kressel]

FADIMAN, CLIFTON (1904–1999), U.S. literary critic.
Fadiman was born in New York and graduated from Columbia University in 1925. He became editor in chief at Simon& Schuster and then book editor of the New Yorker (1933–43)
and was widely known for his weekly radio program Information Please (1938–48). His collected essays were published
in Party of One: Selected Writings (1955). He was a familiar figure offering suggestions to readers in the Book-of-theMonth Club and guiding the selections of The Reader’s Club.
An editor and anthologist, he helped put together the multivolume Great Books of the Western World (1990) and also edited The Treasury of the Encyclopedia Britannica (1992). He
was awarded, in 1993, the National Book Foundation Medalfor Distinguished Contribution to American Letters. He wasremembered by Carolyn Heilbrun in When Men Were the
Only Models We Had: My Teachers Barzun, Fadiman, andTrilling (2002).

°FADUS, CUSPIUS, Roman procurator of Judea 44–46 C.E.
Fadus was appointed by the emperor Claudius after the shortperiod of Jewish government which ended with the deathof *Agrippa I. He had specific instructions to punish the inhabitants of Caesarea and Sebaste, mostly soldiers, who had
shown disrespect to the dead king. Upon arrival he foundthe Jews in Perea in Transjordan engaged in a border disputewith the inhabitants of Philadelphia (Rabbath Ammon). The
Jews asserted themselves and killed many of their opponents,
thereby arousing the anger of Fadus, who sentenced one of
their leaders to death and banished two others. He also took
action against the false prophet *Theudas (Acts 5:36), whom
he killed together with many of his followers. According toJosephus, one of his major concerns was to rid Judea of its
many robbers. In matters not involving state security he apparently ruled with moderation and generally did not interferewith Jewish customs. In one instance, however, he demandedthat the sacred vestments of the high priest be handed over tothe Romans for safekeeping, a practice once before adopted
by the Romans but abandoned a few years earlier. The Jews
protested and obtained his leave to send an embassy to Rome.
Claudius, influenced in part by the intervention of the young
Agrippa II, revoked the decision. Fadus was succeeded by *Tiberius Julius Alexander.
Bibliography: Jos., Ant., 15:406; 19:363–4; 20:2–14, 97–100;
Jos., Wars, 2:220; Schuerer, Gesch, 1 (1901), 565–6; Pauly-Wissowa,
8 (1901), 1895, no. 2.
[Lea Roth]FAENZA, city in N. central Italy. In the 14t century the Jews
of Faenza were moneylenders. As a result of the sermons of*Bernardino da Feltre, the celebrated physician Lazzaro da
Pavia was expelled from the city in c. 1480. The liturgical poet
Raphael ben Isaac da Faenza also lived in the city in the mid15t century. There is also documented evidence of the presence of a rabbinate of Faenza in the same years. Isaac *Azulai,
who manufactured majolica seder plates, worked here in 1575.
From the 16t century until the Napoleon era there is no evidence that Jews lived in Faenza.
Bibliography: Milano, Italia, 127, 358; Roth, Italy, 199,
202, 445. Add. Bibliography: G. Caravita, Ebrei in Romagna:
1938–1945: dalle leggi razziali allo sterminio (1991); L. Picciotto, Il librodella memoria: gli ebrei deportati dall’Italia, 1943–1945 (2001).
[Attilio Milano / Federica Francesconi (2nd ed.)]Bibliography: R. Severo, “Clifton Fadiman,” in: New YorkTimes (June 21, 1999).
[Lewis Fried (2nd ed.)]FAGARAS (Rom. Fǎgǎraş; Hung. Fogaras), town in Transylvania, Romania; until 1918 in Hungary. Jews were not permitted to settle there until the beginning of the 19t century.
In the 17t century, however, they occasionally visited the fortress at Fagaras to present petitions to the prince of Transylvania. The settlement of Jews 12 miles (20 km.) from the town
in the village of Porumbak, today known by the Romanianname of Porumbacul de Sus, was of special interest. From
the judicial aspect, this village belonged to the owners of thetown Fagaras. In 1697, two Sephardi Jews, Avigdor b. Abra-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6675

fagius, paulus
ham and Naphtali b. Abraham, leased a workshop there forthe manufacture of glass articles. They signed the contract oftenancy in Hebrew characters; this document is preserved in
the community archives in Budapest. They were followed byother lessees as well as by Jews who leased the local tavern. A
community was organized and a cemetery acquired in Fagaras in 1827. At the beginning of the community’s existence its
members used mostly the German language, only later goingover to Hungarian. After 1919 many of them started to teachtheir children the language of the new country – Romanian.
The synagogue was erected in 1859. There were 286 Jews living in Fagaras in 1856; 485 in 1891; 514 in 1910; 457 in 1920;
390 in 1930; and 267 in 1941. The Jewish contribution to theeconomic development of the town and the region was very
important during the entire existence of the local community. A Jewish school was founded in 1867; the language of
instruction was German until 1903, Hungarian until the endof World War I, and subsequently Romanian. It was closed
down in 1938. The community joined the neologist organization (see *Neology) in 1869 and became Orthodox in 1926.
The rabbi of Fagaras, Adolf Keleman (1861–1917), visited Ereẓ
Israel in 1905 and subsequently published his impressions of
the journey in Hungarian.
For long periods of time the relations between the Jews
and the Romanian and Hungarian population of the region
was more or less normal, with relatively few antisemitic incidents.
During the Romanian Fascist regime (1940–44), Jewish possessions and communal property were confiscated.
Some of the men were conscripted for forced labor and others (mostly those accused for Communist activities) weredeported to *Transnistria. The Jews from the surrounding
villages were concentrated in the town. There were 360 Jews
living in Fagaras in 1947. Subsequently many left, first for thebigger cities in Romania, and after that abroad (mostly to
Israel), and 20 remained by 1970.
Bibliography: Sitzungs-Protokoll fuer die Beschluesse der Fogaraser israelitischen Kultusgemeinde, 1861–1874; Grundbuch der Sitze
und deren Inhaber in Fogaraser Tempel, in: the Central Archives for
the History of the Jewish People (RM 189); Pinkas Ḥ evrah Kaddisha
1827–61 (ibid., RM 190); MHJ, 5 pt. 1 (1959), no. 716, 808, 864, 868, 887;
8 (1965), no. 360; Magyar Zsid Lexikon (1929), 284.
[Yehouda Marton / Paul Schveiger (2nd ed.)]°FAGIUS, PAULUS (Paul Buechelin; 1504–1549), Hebraist.
Born at Rheinzabern, in the Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany,
he was professor of theology at Strasbourg and later of Hebrew
at Cambridge. He studied Hebrew with Wolfgang Capito andwith Elijah Levita, whom he invited to supervise the Hebrew
press he established in Isny (Bavaria). He translated the following Hebrew books into Latin: Elijah Levita’s Tishbi (Isny,
1541; Basle, 1557) and Meturgeman (Isny, 1542); the Talmud
tractate Avot (Isny, 1541). He edited a Hebrew version of thebook of Tobit with a Latin translation (Isny, 1542); the Alphabet of Ben Sira (Isny, 1542), and David Kimhi’s commentary676

to Psalms 1–10 (Constance, 1544). He edited several chaptersof Targum Onkelos (Strasbourg, 1546) and wrote an exegetic
treatise on the first four chapters of Genesis. (“Exegesis sive
expositio dictionum hebraicarum literalis et simplex in quatuor capita Geneseos,” Isny, 1542). He was the author of an elementary Hebrew grammar (Constance, 1543) and translated
an anonymous booklet by a converted Jew, who endeavored,with reference to Jewish sources, to prove the truth of Christianity (Liber Fidei, Isny, 1542; a short extract, under the title
Parvus Tractatulus, appeared in the same year in the Hebrew
Prayers edited by Fagius). Some parts of the same text had
been already published and translated by Sebastian Münster in 1537. He began the republication of a revised edition of
the concordance Me’ir Nativ. After his migration to England,
where he died, this work was completed by Antonius Reuchlin (Basle, 1556).
Bibliography: L. Geiger, Das Studium der hebraeischen
Sprache in Deutschland (1870), 66; Steinschneider, Cat Bod, 977, no.
5048; 3080, no. 9397; idem, in: REJ, 4 (1882), 78–87; 5 (1882), 57–67;
idem, in: ZHB, 2 (1897), 149–50, no. 178; Perles, Beitraege, index; M.
Stern, Urkundliche Beitraege ueber die Stellung der Paepste zu den Juden (1893), no. 159; J.-B. Prijs, Die Basler hebräischen Drucke (1964),
82–83, 500; A.M. Habermann, in: Alei Sefer, 2 (1976), 97–104; R. Peter,
in: Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses, 59 (1979), 385–390;
L.T. Stuckenbruck, in: G.G. Xeravits and J. Zsengeller (eds.), The Book
of Tobit (2005), 194–219.
[Giulio Busi (2nd ed.)]

FAHN, ABRAHAM (1916– ), botanist. Fahn was born in
Vienna but grew up in Halicz and went to school there and in
Stanislawow (Poland). He immigrated to Ereẓ Israel in 1935.
Fahn studied biology at the Hebrew University, where he obtained his doctorate in 1948. In 1952–53 he did research at the
Jodrell Laboratory, Kew, and in the school of Botany at Cambridge, England. In 1956 he was a research fellow at Harvard
University and in 1965 he was appointed full professor at the
Hebrew University. Fahn published a number of scientificbooks: Plant Anatomy (in Hebrew, 1962; translated into English, Spanish, Indonesian, and Chinese); Secretory Tissues in
Plants (in English, 1979); and, with coauthors, Wood Anatomy
and the Identification of Trees and Shrubs of Israel and Adjacent Regions (in English, 1986); Xerophytes (in English, 1992);
and The Cultivated Plants of Israel (in Hebrew, 1998). Fahn wasdean of the Faculty of Science in 1963–66. He is an honorary
member of leading scientific societies, foreign member of the
Linnaean Society of London, and corresponding member ofthe Botanical Society of America. He was awarded the Israel
Prize for science in 1963.
[Bracha Rager (2nd ed.)]

FAHN, REUBEN (1878–1939?), Hebrew writer and investigator of Karaism. Born in eastern Galicia, he became a prosperous merchant in Halicz and developed an interest in the
town’s Karaites. He settled in Stanislav in 1918 and became
secretary of the National Council of Galician Jewry in the
short-lived West Ukrainian Republic (1918–19). On the outENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6faïtlovitch, jacques
break of World War II he was put on trial by the Russians for
Zionist activities and taken to Russia where he disappeared
without trace. A regular contributor to the Hebrew press fromhis youth, Fahn wrote poetry, articles, and stories, particularlyon the Karaites, and studies of Haskalah literature. Two volumes of his collected works were published: Sefer ha-Kara’im(1929) and Pirkei Haskalah (1937). A book of his essays, Massot, appeared in Jerusalem in 1943 (preface by Dov Sadan).
His Mivḥ ar Ketavim (selected works), ed. by N. Govrin, appeared in 1969.
Bibliography: Genazim, 1 (1961), 115–8, includes bibliography; Kressel, Leksikon, 2 (1967), 571f.; Arim ve-Immahot be-Yisrael;
Stanislav, 5 (1952), s.v.
[Getzel Kressel]

FAIN, SAMMY (1902–1989), U.S. songwriter. Born in New
York and named Samuel Feinberg, Fain was a trained pianist
who worked in vaudeville and in the music-publishing business before achieving success as a composer in the mid-1920s.
In a six-decade career, he wrote the music for such well-loved
popular songs as “I’ll Be Seeing You,” “That Old Feeling,” “Secret Love,” and “Love Is a Many-Splendored Thing.” He won
Academy Awards for the latter two and his songs received
eight other Academy Award nominations. Among his othermajor songs were “I Can Dream, Can’t I?” with his frequent
lyricist-partner, Irving Kahal, “Dear Hearts and Gentle People,” and the title song from the film April Love. Earlier, he hadhits with “Let a Smile Be Your Umbrella on a Rainy (Rainy)
Day,” “Wedding Bells Are Breaking Up That Old Gang ofMine,” and “When I Take My Sugar to Tea.” Called to Hollywood, the team of Fain and Kahal wrote songs for a numberof movie musicals. One of their most successful movie songs,“You Brought a New Kind of Love to Me,” was introduced by
Maurice Chevalier. “That Old Feeling,” one of the great torch
ballads, was introduced in the movie Vogues of 1938. Perhaps his most famous song was “I’ll Be Seeing You,” which
was popularized in nightclubs in the 1940s and went on to
become one of the most romantic signature songs of WorldWar II. During the 1950s, with the lyricist Bob Hilliard, Fain
composed the songs for the 1951 Disney film Alice in Wonderland, including “I’m Late.” With Paul Francis Webster, hewrote the music for the films A Certain Smile (1958) and Tender Is the Night (1961). Some of the other movies for which hewrote the music include Call Me Mister (1951) and a remakeof The Jazz Singer (1953).

and best-selling books that explored the legal and emotional
realities of rape, Fairstein became the nation’s best-known
prosecutor of sex crimes. She became chief of the sex-crimes
unit in 1976, two years after it was created as the first such
unit in the country. It had four prosecutors at the time; when
she left it had 40. In 1977 Fairstein was a principal advocateof New York’s so-called rape shield law, which prohibited, inmost cases, what had long been a common defense practice inrape and sexual assault cases: exploring the sexual history ofvictims to suggest promiscuity. Later she lobbied successfully
for a similar law in rape-homicide prosecutions. Fairstein was
also credited with a major role in the passage of a law in 1983
that struck down a requirement that victims of rape and othersex crimes prove that they had offered “earnest resistance.” Shealso was a principal advocate of the Sexual Assault Reform Act
of 2001, which facilitated the prosecution of date rape and ofrapes involving the use of drugs.
As chief of the sex-crimes unit in the district attorney’s
office, she oversaw the disposition of 500 to 700 cases a year
involving rape and other sexual abuses. Between 125 and 175of those cases were prosecuted as felonies. Fairstein played a
key role in a notorious 1986 case involving Robert E. Chambers Jr., who killed Jennifer Levin in Central Park after anevening in a “preppie bar.” Fairstein doggedly prosecuted thecase and used the defense’s own witness to demonstrate that
Chambers’s choke hold on the victim could have been intentionally lethal.
Fairstein served as the model for several no-nonsense
prosecutors in the movies Farrell for the People (1982) and
Presumed Innocent (2001). The author Robert Daley dedicated his 1985 novel, Hands of a Stranger, to Fairstein, andfictionalized many of her well-known cases. It was made into
a television movie.
In 1996, Fairstein published her first novel, Final Jeopardy, which introduced the character Alexandra Cooper,
who bore a striking resemblance to the author. The book wasa critical and commercial success and was followed the next
year by Likely to Die, which was an international bestseller. By
2005 she had published six novels. Her nonfiction book, Sexual Violence: Our War Against Rape, published in 1994, was a
New York Times notable book.
[Stewart Kampel (2nd ed.)]FAIRSTEIN, LINDA A. (1943– ), U.S. prosecutor and author. Fairstein grew up in Mount Vernon, N.Y., a suburb of
New York City. She went to Vassar College and the Universityof Virginia Law School. In 1972 she began working in the office of Frank Hogan, the Manhattan district attorney. At thetime, the office had seven women among 170 prosecutors. By
2001, when she left, half of the office’s 600 prosecutors were
women. In a 30-year career of major cases, legislative reforms,FAÏTLOVITCH, JACQUES (1881–1955), Orientalist, devoted
to *Beta Israel (Falasha) research and relief work. Faïtlovitch
was born in Lodz. He studied Oriental languages at the Ecoledes Hautes Etudes in Paris, particularly Ethiopic and Amharic under Joseph *Halévy, who aroused his interest in the
Beta Israel. He made 11 missions to Ethiopia (1904–5, 1908–9,
1913, 1920–21, 1923–24, 1926, 1928–29, 1934, 1942–43, 1943–44,
1946). In 1904 he went to Ethiopia for the first time and spent
18 months among the Beta Israel, studying their beliefs andcustoms. The results were published in his Notes d’un voyagechez les Falachas (1905). In his view the Beta Israel were Jews
needing help to resist Christian missionary activity, which

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

677[Stewart Kampel (2nd ed.)]faitusi, jacob ben abraham
threatened their survival as a Jewish community. He promised
them to enlist world Jewry on their behalf and took two young
Beta Israel with him to Europe to be educated as future teachers. Having failed to win the support of the Alliance Israélite
Universelle, he organized “pro-Falasha” committees in Italy
and Germany to raise funds for Jewish education for the Beta
Israel in Abyssinia and abroad. In 1908–09 Faïtlovitch spent
15 months in Abyssinia; he was received by Emperor Menelik
II and pleaded for equitable treatment for the Beta Israel. Thisvoyage is described in his book Quer durch Abessinien (1910;
Massa el ha-Falashim, 1959). Finally, he established one schoolin Dembea during his third voyage in 1913. After World War IFaïtlovitch, who had lectured at Geneva University (1915–19),transferred the center of pro-Falasha activity to the UnitedStates, and with the aid of the New York Committee a boarding school for Beta Israel children was opened in Addis Ababain May 1923. Starting from 1927 Faïtlovitch settled in Tel Aviv
but he had a nomadic life and spent many years in the UnitedStates. The Italian conquest in 1935–36 hampered the expanding activity and World War II stopped it entirely. After the establishment of the State of Israel he was able to persuade theJewish Agency to take up educational work among the Beta
Israel. Faïtlovich was an indefatigable lecturer, everywhere
trying to stir active interest in the “Black Jews of Abyssinia.”
He considered the Beta Israel ethnologically the descendants
of genuine Jews and an integral part of the Jewish people. An
observant Jew himself, he felt that it was not enough to study
the Beta Israel, but that it was an obligation to save them fromextinction and lead them through education into the fold of
traditional Judaism. He took out of Ethiopia to study in Europe, Egypt and Palestine 25 young boys. He was interested in
the quest for the nidḥ ei Israel and in *proselytism; he createdcommittees for the conversion of people from Asia and Africa. In addition to the books mentioned above, he publishedMota Mus (Heb., Fr., 1906), Proverbes Abyssins (1907), “Nouveaux Proverbes Abyssins” (in Rivista degli Studi Orientali, 2(1909), 757–66), Les Falachas d’après les Explorateurs (1907),
Versi Abissini (It., 1910), and Falascha-Briefe (1913). He wrote
numerous articles and pamphlets and a series of tracts in Amharic intended for distribution among the Beta Israel. The only
article that he wrote in English is entitled “Falashas” (in AJYB,
22 (1920), 80–100). Faïtlovitch bequeathed his valuable libraryto the Tel Aviv Municipality, with the collection now locatedin Tel Aviv University.
Add. Bibliography: J. Quirin, The Evolution of the Ethiopian Jews (1992), 193–200; D. Summerfield, From Falashas to Ethiopian Jews (2003), 39–90; E. Trevisan Semi, “De Lodz à Addis Abeba,
Faitlovitch et les Juifs d’Ethiopie,” in: Les Cahiers du Judaïsme 10(2001), 60–71; idem, “Faitlovitch,” in: Pe’amim 100 (2004) (Heb);
idem, The “Ingathering of the Exiles”: Jacques Faitlovitch, “Father ofthe Beta Israel” (1881–1955) (2005).

migrated to *Jerusalem around 1800. In 1806 he became anemissary of Jerusalem to *Tripoli, *Tunisia, and *Algeria. He
published: Berit Ya’akov (Leghorn, 1800), including the Shitah Mekubbeẓ et of Bezalel *Ashkenazi to tractate Sotah, theLikkutei Ge’onim of various authors on tractates Nedarim andNazir, and Likkutim on tractate Nazir by Abraham ibn Musa,to which he appended Sha’arei Ẓ edek by *Levi b. Gershom on
the 13 hermeneutical principles and an original work on thesubject entitled Yagel Ya’akov; Mizbaḥ Kapparah (ibid., 1810),
containing the Shitah Mekubbeẓ et to Menaḥ ot, Zevaḥ im, andBekhorot, novellae on Ḥ ullin attributed to *Naḥ manides andRonu le-Ya’akov, his own commentary on tractates Ḥ ullin andTemurah. Appended to the work are homilies in praise of
the Land of Israel; Mareh ha-Ofanim (ibid., 1810) including
the novellae of *Asher b. Jehiel on Sotah and his own commentary, Yagel Ya’akov, on Pesaḥ im, Beẓ ah, Rosh Ha-Shanah,
Avodah Zarah, and Makkot. Faitusi died in Algeria, while ona mission there. His son, ḥ AYYIM DAVID, published Jacob’s
Yerekh Ya’akov (ibid., 1842), homilies on the Pentateuch andthe Five Scrolls, together with Kokhav mi-Ya’akov, novellae on
the Talmud and responsa.
Bibliography: Frumkin-Rivlin, 3 (1929), 127–8; Rosanes,
Togarmah, 5 (1938), 279; Yaari, Sheluḥ ei, 707–8; Hirschberg, Afrikah, 2 (1965), 160, 347 n. 33.
[Simon Marcus]

FAIVOVICH HITZCOVICH, ANGEL (1901–1990), Chilean politician. Born in Santiago, he received the title of agronomical engineer in 1922 and was appointed assistant in
the zootechnic section of the University of Chile. In 1930 hegraduated in law and in 1935 was elected councilor of the Municipality of Santiago. In 1937 he was elected from the Radical
Party as a member of Parliament for Santiago and in 1945 as
senator. He served several terms. Faivovich was professor ofInternational Law and Juridic and Social Studies at the University of Chile. He was president of the Radical Party between 1946 and 1952, during the administration of Gabriel
Gonzalez Videla, exercising considerable political influence
in government circles. He opposed the candidacy of Allende,
dividing the Radical Party and founding the Party of Radical
Democracy. He bequeathed his fortune to beneficial causes
in Chile and Israel, particularly to the Weizmann Institute of
Science in Reḥ ovot.
[Moshe Nes El (2nd ed.)]

FAITUSI, JACOB BEN ABRAHAM (d. 1812), Jerusalem
emissary and talmudist. Faitusi was born in *Tunis and im-FAIYŪM (Fayyūm), district and city in Upper Egypt, southwest of *Cairo. In the early Middle Ages flourishing Jewish
communities seem to have existed there, since *Saadiah Gaon
was born there, in approximately 882, received his basic education in the city of Dilas of the Faiyūm district, and wrote
his first two books there. Benjamin of Tudela, the 12t-century
traveler, found 200 Jews there according to one of his manuscripts, and 20 Jews according to another. Since the former
number appears in most of his writings, it would be possible
to assume that the figure applies to the Jewish population of

678

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Max Wurmbrand / Emanuela Trevisan Semi (2nd ed.)]falaquera, shem tov ben joseph ibn
the entire district. In any case, the number of the Jews in the
Faiyūm district declined in that period as the whole of its
population decreased formidably; its depopulation was progressive. Jacob *Saphir, the 19t-century traveler, reported in
his book (Even Sappir (1866), 259) that only a single Jew lived
in Faiyūm, and that he was a newcomer to the town. In 1907
there were 43 Jews in the town and district, but the community later dissolved.

in the *disputation on the Talmud in 1240, but appears tohave died before 1247. His son Jean may have been converted
to Christianity.

Add. Bibliography: E. Strauss (Ashtor), Toldot ha-Yehudim be-Miẓ rayim ve-Suriya, vol. I (1944), 31–32; N. Golb, “The Topography of the Jews in Medieval Egypt,” in: JNES, 24 (1965), 125–26,
127–28; E. Ashtor, “The Number of Jews in Medieval Egypt,” in: JJS,
18–19 (1967/8), 16–17; J.M. Landau, Jews in Nineteenth-Century Egypt(1969), 8, 50, 255.

FALAQUERA (also Falaguera, Falaquero, Palquera), family in Spain; one of the most aristocratic and wealthy familiesof the Jewish community of *Tudela. The Falaqueras ranked
among “the great of the community,” i.e., the eight families inwhose hands the administration of the community was concentrated, according to the communal regulations of 1305,
and whose consent and signatures were required to authorize every such regulation. A certain R. Joseph b. Shem Tov
ibn Falaquera was appointed in 1287 head of the dayyanim
empowered to try informers. Other members of this family,
Joseph b. Judah, Joseph b. Isaac, and Solomon b. Moses, arementioned as muqaddimūn (leaders) of the community ofTudela at the close of the 13t and early 14t century. Nathanb. Falaquera (also mentioned by the name Naçan del Gabay)
held important positions in the financial administration ofNavarre at the close of the 14t century. The philosopher andpoet Shem Tov b. Joseph ibn *Falaquera was also a memberof this family. A branch of the Falaquera family lived in the
town of Huesca.

[Eliyahu Ashtor]

FAJANS, KASIMIR (1887–1975), U.S. physical chemist who
did pioneering work on radioactivity and isotopes. Fajans
was born in Warsaw, and after studying in Leipzig, Heidelberg,
and Zurich, worked with Rutherford in Manchester. After aperiod on the staff of the Technische Hochschule at Karlsruhe,
Fajans went to the University of Munich, where in 1923 he became full professor of physical chemistry. In 1932 he secured
support from the Rockefeller Foundation for the establishment of an institute of physical chemistry in Munich, of which
he became director, but in 1935 he was forced by the Nazis toleave the institute. He emigrated to the U.S. and in 1936 became professor of chemistry at the University of Michigan at
Ann Arbor. Fajans, with Goehring, discovered the element 91(uranium X2 or brevium), the more stable isotope of which(called protoactinium) was discovered independently a little
later by Hahn and Meitner and also by Soddy and Cranston.
Of Fajans’ contributions to scientific journals, many are concerned with brevium, other work on radioactive transformations, and the chemistry of the radioactive elements. But hewas also active in numerous other fields of physical chemistry. For some time he was coeditor of Zeitschrift für Kristallographie and associate editor of the Journal of Physical and
Colloid Chemistry. He wrote Radioaktivität und die neueste
Entwicklung der Lehre von den chemischen Elementen (19202),
Physikalisch-chemisches Praktikum (1929, with J. Wuest), Radioelements and Isotopes; Chemical Forces and Optical Properties of Substances (1931), and Quanticule Theory of Chemical
Bonding (1960).

Bibliography: Gross, Gal Jud 476–83; P.G. Langevin, Recherches Historiques sur Falaise (1814), 39; L. Musset in: Bulletin de laSociété Antiquaire de Normandie, 50 (1946), 305ff.
[Bernhard Blumenkranz]

Bibliography: Baer, Spain, 1 (1961), 425; Baer, Urkunden,
index. Add. Bibliography: M. de la E. Marín Padilla, in: Anuario de Estudios Medievales, 15 (1985), 497–512.
[Joseph Kaplan]

FALAQUERA, NATHAN BEN JOEL (late 13t century),
Spanish physician. He may be identical with Nathan of Montpellier, the teacher of the anonymous author of Sefer haYashar. Falaquera is the author of a book on medicine, Ẓ ori
ha-Guf (“Balm for the Body”), written in Hebrew; however,
although he uses medical and botanic terms taken from talmudic literature, his sources are mainly Arabic. The opinionsof Hippocrates, Galen, Averroes, Avicenna, and Maimonides
are given. Three manuscripts of the book are still extant andit was quoted by Joseph b. Eliezer ha-Sephardi, author of Ohel
Yosef on Abraham ibn Ezra’s commentary on the Torah.

[Samuel Aaron Miller]

Bibliography: H. Friedenwald, Jews and Medicine (1944),
661; G. Sarton, Introduction to the History of Science, 2 pt. 2 (1931),
1096–97.
[David Margalith]

FALAISE, town in the Calvados department, France. During the 12t and 13t centuries there was a Jewish community
in Falaise, which was still remembered until 1890 in the name
“Rue aux Juifs.” Among the scholars there were the tosafists*Samson b. Joseph of Falaise and *Samuel b. Solomon of Falaise (also known as Sir Morel), who was one of the leading
French tosafists and also a successful financier. He took part

FALAQUERA, SHEM TOV BEN JOSEPH IBN (1223/8–after 1290), philosopher, translator, commentator, poet, andencyclopedist. Falaquera was born in Spain between 1223 and1228; his last known work refers to events in 1290. Various etymologies have been suggested for his name, which was thename of a prominent Jewish family in Tudela. Hebrew spellings include ‫פלקירא‬, ‫פלקירה‬, ‫פלכרה‬, ‫בלקירה‬, ‫פלאקיר‬, ‫פלקריי‬.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6679

Bibliography: Lange, in: Zeitschrift fuer Elektrochemie, 61(1957), 773–4.

falaquera, shem tov ben joseph ibn
European spellings include Falaquera, Palquera, Palaquera,
Palquira, Palqira, Palkira, Palkera, Phalkira, Phalchera.
Most of Falaquera’s prose works survive, many in multiple editions or manuscripts, but Falaquera testifies that halfof his prolific youthful poetry (totaling some 20,000 verses)
was lost, and in later life, although he abandoned his poetic career, he continued to intersperse poetry with his prose works.
Some of this poetry was humorous. “Time said to the fool: Be
a doctor / You can kill people and take their money / You’ll
have an advantage over the angels of death / For they kill aman, but for free.” His prose is also marked by occasional humor. His last known work, in defense of *Maimonides’ Guideof the Perplexed, plays on the name of the philosopher’s opponent Solomon Petit and calls him peti (fool).
We do not know how Falaquera supported himself. Repeated references to poverty in some of his writings may indicate personal indigence. We also have no evidence whether
he ever married or had a family. With only a few exceptions,
Falaquera’s references to women were generally quite negativeand even misogynist. In one of his poems he aims his barbs
at women: “Let your soul not trust in a woman / A woman isa spread net and pit (Proverbs 1:17, 22:14) / How can we still
believe that she is honest [straight] / For woman was takenfrom a rib?” If the “Seeker” in his Book of the Seeker represents Falaquera himself (since the Seeker’s curriculum would
have made him approximately Falaquera’s age at the time hecomposed the book), and if the “Seeker” is patterned after
the character Kalkol in his earlier Epistle on Ethics, we may
be able to infer from Kalkol’s never marrying (because he did
not want to waste his time or strength on women, or to become entrapped by them) that Falaquera himself never married for similar reasons.
Modern scholarly interest in Falaquera, going back to theearly stages of *Wissenschaft des Judentums, began with Leopold *Zunz’s doctoral disseration, “De Schemtob Palkira” (Halle
University, December 21, 1820) on the life, times, and doctrinesof Falaquera. In 1857 Solomon *Munk published Falaquera’s
Hebrew paraphrase of selections from the lost Arabic originalof the Fons Vitae, on the basis of which Munk determined thatthe previously unknown and presumably Arab author was actually the Hebrew poet and philosopher Solomon ibn *Gabirol. Over the next century most of Falaquera’s works were published (some with translations into European languages). The
latter decades of the 20t century saw a resurgence of interestin Falaquera, with books, major studies, and doctoral dissertations by R.K. Barkan, G. Dahan, S. Harvey, M.H. Levine, A.
Melamed, D. Schwartz, Y. Shiffman, L. Stitskin, M. Zonta. R.
Jospe’s Torah and Sophia: The Life and Thought of Shem Tov
ibn Falaquera (Cincinnati, 1988) includes a biography, descriptions of Falaquera’s works, and systematic survey of his philosophy, with a special study of his psychology.
Works
We know of eighteen works by Falaquera, all written in Hebrew, in line with Falaquera’s aim of spreading philosophy

among the Jewish people. Based on internal evidence, in theirprobable chronological order they are the following:
1. Battei Hanhagat ha-Nefesh – Batei Hanhagat Guf haBari (Verses on the Regimen of the Healthy Body and Soul),
a composite of two works on health and ethics, published by
S. Munter (Tel Aviv, 1950).
2. Iggeret ha-Musar (Epistle on Ethics), a *maqama (prose
narrative interspersed with verse), replete with Jewish andArabic ethical maxims, recounting the adventures of a youth,
Kalkol, in search of wisdom. Edited by A.M. Haberman (Jerusalem, 1936), this early work forms a model for Falaquera’s
later and larger Book of the Seeker.
3. Ẓ ori ha-Yagon (The Balm for Sorrow), also a maqama,
containing rabbinic and philosophic consolations, in several
editions; critical edition with annotated English translation
and a survey of the consolation genre of literature by R.K. Barkan (Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1971).
4. Megillat ha-Zikkaron (The Scroll of Remembrance).
The work, of which Falaquera says elsewhere “in which I
discuss times past, for at this time hordes of troubles comeupon us daily,” probably chronicling Jewish sufferings, is notextant.
5. Iggeret ha-Vikku’aḥ (The Epistle of the Debate). The
subtitle of the book is Be-Ve’ur ha-Haskamah asher bein haTorah ve-ha-Ḥ okhmah (Explaining the Harmony Between
the Torah and Philosophy). A popular work, much of it written in rhymed prose, the book describes a debate between aḥ asid, a pious traditionalist Jew and a ḥ akham, a philosopher,and is deeply indebted to Ibn Rushd’s Faṣ l al-Maqal (Decisive
Treatise). S. Harvey’s Falaquera’s Epistle of the Debate: An Introduction to Jewish Philosophy (Cambridge, MA, 1987; Italian: Genova, 2005) includes a critical edition of the Hebrew
text with annotated English translation and valuable appendices. Harvey (1992) has also suggested persuasively that thedebate is patterned on the Maimonidean controversy of the1230s. A Latin translation of the Epistle with French notes
and introduction was published by G. Dahan (in Sefarad, 39(1979), 1–112).
6. Reshit Ḥ okhmah (The Beginning of Wisdom), an encyclopedic introduction to the sciences in three parts: I – On
the moral qualities necessary for the study of science; II – The
enumeration of the sciences; III – The necessity of philosophy
for the attainment of felicity; the philosophy of Plato and thephilosophy of Aristotle. Major portions of the book, which wasedited by M. David (Berlin, 1902), are paraphrases of Arabic
philosophers, especially Al-Farabi.
7. Sefer ha-Ma’alot (The Book of Degrees), an ethical work
describing the corporeal, spiritual, and divine degrees of human perfection. The term ma’alot, degrees, also means virtues.
Those of the divine rank are the most perfect people, namely
the prophets, who no longer exist. Those of the spiritual rank
are the true philosophers. Most people are of the corporeal
rank, enslaved to their bodily needs. The book, a sequel to
Reshit Ḥ okhmah, but unlike the former an original work of
Falaquera’s own ideas, was one of three Hebrew books in the680

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

falaquera, shem tov ben joseph ibn
library of the 15t century Italian Christian philosopher Picodella Mirandola. Leopold *Zunz first wished to publish thisbook, but found only one manuscript, and it was eventually
published by L. Venetianer (Berlin, 1894).
8. Sefer ha-Mevakkesh (The Book of the Seeker). The
book was composed in Ḥ eshvan, 5024 (= Oct.–Nov. 1263)
when Falaquera was past 35 and approaching 40 years of age.
A maqama expanding on the theme of the youthful seeker of
wisdom (like his earlier Epistle on Ethics), the book surveys
the arts and professions, as well as the sciences (only the sciences had been presented in his Reshit Ḥ okhmah), culminating in philosophy. Several 19t- and early 20t-century editionsof the book exist. M.H. Levine prepared a critical edition andtranslation of Part I in his Ph.D. thesis (Columbia University,1954), and his translation was revised and published separately(New York, 1976).
9. De‘ot ha-Philosofim (The Opinions of the Philosophers). This voluminous work, only minor sections of whichhave been published, is a major encyclopedia of the sciences,
extending over some 600 pages in ms. Parma – De Rossi 164(= Jewish National and Hebrew University Library microfilm
13897) and ms. Leyden 20 (= Jewish National and Hebrew University Library microfilm 17368). It was written to propagate
philosophy and science among the Jews, and quotes extensively from Arabic sources. R. Jospe (1988) published a tableof contents of the work, aspects of which were analyzed by S.
Harvey, G. Freudenthal, A. Ivry, and M. Zonta in The Medieval Hebrew Encyclopedias of Science and Philosophy, ed. S.
Harvey, (Dordrecht, 2000). Falaquera states that his purpose
in composing the work was to teach true philosophy to theJews, distinguishing true opinions from those which have notbeen demonstrated and are mere conjecture; and to provide
a convenient and systematic collection of the opinions of thephilosophers in accurate Hebrew translation, which would
also serve as “a review book for me in old age.”
10. Sefer ha-Nefesh (The Book of the Soul). The first systematic Hebrew work of psychology, the book was publishedin several 19t- and early 20t-century editions. A critical edition with annotated English translation and extensive discussion was published by R. Jospe (1988). The book, which
frequently reviews material earlier discussed in De‘ot ha-Philosophim, reflects (and in places paraphrases) classical andArabic sources, prominent among them Ibn Rushd, Ibn Sina,and Isḥ aq ibn Ḥ unain.
11. Shelemut ha-Ma`asim (The Perfection of Actions).
An annotated edition of this work on ethics in ten chapters
was published by R. Jospe (1988). The first six chapters of thebook, as B. Chiesa has shown (in A. Vivian, ed., Biblische undjudaistische Studien, Festschrift fuer Paolo Sacchi [Frankfurt
am Main, 1990], 583–612), are for the most part an abridgedtranslation of the Summa Alexandrinorum, an epitome ofAristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. The last four chapters reflect
Arabic ethical literature, especially Ḥ unain ibn Isḥ aq’s Adabal-Falasifah (Aphorisms of the Philosophers). Typically, Falaquera translated anew or paraphrased those Arabic passages

he was interested in citing – as he also did in his other works –and did not take advantage of existing Hebrew translations,such as Judah Al-Ḥ arizi’s translation of the Adab, the Musarei ha-Filosofim.
12. Iggeret ha-Ḥ alom (The Treatise of the Dream). Editedby H. Malter (in JQR, n.s. 1, 1910/11, 451–501), this treatise does
not deal with dreams (as some scholars thought), but derives
its name from a superscription by a copyist about the author:“He said that he saw in a dream that he was composing thistreatise, and when he awoke, he engaged in it, and this is its
beginning.” The treatise begins: “A treatise [literally: epistle]
collecting words of peace and truth.” Maimonides had understood Zechariah 8:19 (“Love truth and peace”) as referring tointellectual and moral perfection, and Falaquera’s division ofPart I (Peace), dealing with physical and spiritual well-being,
and Part II (Truth), dealing with truth in speech and actions,and speculative truth, reflects Maimonides’ interpretation.
13. Sefer ha-Derash (The Book of Interpretation). The
work is not extant. It was probably a rationalistic commentary on aggadic passages in the Talmud or Midrash. Fragmentary citations in later authors (published by R. Jospe and
D. Schwartz, 1993) may be taken from this work. (See below,
Perush).
14. Perush (Bible Commentary). Falaquera’s Bible Commentary is no longer extant. However, Samuel ibn Seneh
Zarza’s commentary on the Torah, Mekor Ḥ ayyim, which frequently deals with the commentaries of Abraham Ibn Ezra,
also cites Falaquera in twenty-six passages; these citations,presumably taken from Falaquera’s Bible commentary, were
published with English translation by R. Jospe (1988). Nineteen additional citations to Falaquera are found in Zarza’s
Mikhlol Yofi, a commentary to rabbinic derashot (homilies)
and aggadot (lore). Of these nineteen, seven are identical withpassages cited in Mekor Ḥ ayyim. Since the Mikhlol Yofi is acommentary on rabbinic texts, and since eight of the remaining twelve citations make no reference to a biblical verse, it
may well be that the twelve, or at least these eight, citations are
not from Falaquera’s Bible Commentary but from his Book ofInterpretation. The twelve passages in question were publishedwith English translation and discussion by R. Jospe and D.
Schwartz (1993). The surviving fragmentary citations support
the view that both commentaries, on the Bible and on rabbinic
texts, were frequently philosophical in approach.
15. Moreh ha-Moreh (The Guide to the Guide). One ofthe very first commentaries to Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed, Falaquera’s work is unusual in its philosophic precision and breadth; in its extensive citations of Arabic sources
and comparisons of Maimonides’ opinions with those sources;
and in its new and precise translation of those sections of the
Guide discussed by Falaquera. The title is usually understoodas a play on the title of Maimonides’ book, but based on Falaquera’s own explanation of the name in the Introduction, it
could also be called “The Guide of the Rebellious,” namely ascorrecting the opinions of those who oppose and misinterpret Maimonides’ Guide. It was first published by M.S. Bis-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6681

falaquera, shem tov ben joseph ibn
liches (Pressburg, 1837); an annotated, critical edition withcommentary and extensive research into Falaquera’s Arabic
sources was published by Y. Shiffman (Jerusalem, 2001). Falaquera cites Ibn Rushd so frequently throughout the book that
he does not refer to him by name, but simply refers to him
as ha-ḥ akham ha-nizkar (“the mentioned philosopher”). The
third appendix to the book entails a detailed and careful critique of Samuel ibn Tibbon’s Hebrew translation of the Guideof the Perplexed.
16. Likkutim mi-Sefer Mekor Ḥ ayyim (Selections from
[Solomon ibn Gabirol’s] Fons Vitae). This text is extant in two
manuscripts. The Paris manuscript was published with an annotated French translation by S. Munk in his Mélanges de Philosophie Juive et Arabe (Paris, 1857; reprinted 1927); the Parma
manuscript was edited with an annotated Italian translation
by R. Gatti (Genova, 2001). The Selections eliminate the dialogical form of Solomon ibn Gabirol’s original, and may reflectagreement with Abraham ibn Daud’s criticism that Gabirol’s“words could be included in less than one tenth of that book,”
and that he had substituted many untrue arguments for one
true demonstration. The Selections also occasionally rearrange the order of the original, perhaps in accordance withwhat Gabirol himself said (3:1), that he had not followed
any specific order and that the student should reorder thearguments as appropriate. Occasionally the Selections arenearly identical with the original, and sometimes even longer, including examples or illustrations not found in Gabirol’s work.
17. Likkutim mi-Sefer ha-Aẓ amim ha-Ḥ amishah (Selections from the Book of the Five Substances). Also an abridged
Hebrew translation or paraphrase of passages from a Neo-Platonic, Pseudo-Empedoclean work, this work was publishedby David Kaufmann in Studien ueber Salomon ibn Gabirol(Budapest, 1899).
18. Mikhtav al Devar ha-Moreh (Letter Concerning the
Guide [of the Perplexed]). Falaquera’s last known work, the letter in defense of Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed against
opponents of philosophy was written in 5050 (= 1290 C.E.).
Falaquera mocks Maimonides’ opponents, comparing themto Korah’s rebellion against Moses. Part of the problem results from the anti-rationalists’ ignorance of philosophy andArabic, and the inadequacy of the two Hebrew translationsof the Guide, especially the second translation, by Judah AlHarizi. The letter is included anonymously at the end of Abba
Mari ben Moses Ha-Yarḥ i’s Minḥ at Kena’ot, ed. M.L. Bisliches (Pressburg, 1838), pp. 182–185, and at the end of Iggerot
Kena’ot, pp. 23–24 (Part 3 of Koveẓ Teshuvot ha-Rambam veIggerotav, 1859).
Philosophy
Since Falaquera considered philosophy to be necessary for attaining ultimate human felicity, and believed in the harmonyof revealed and rational truth, he wrote many of his works withthe explicit aim of propagating the study of philosophy among
the Jewish people by making it available in Hebrew translation.

These works, which can be characterized as text-books, encyclopedic surveys or introductions to philosophy, were often
replete with new Hebrew translations or paraphrases (typically abridged) from Arabic philosophical literature, even incases like the Guide of the Perplexed and the Aphorisms of thePhilosophers for which Hebrew translations already existed,because of Falaquera’s insistence on accuracy, terminologicalconsistency and stylistic clarity.
His competence in philosophy and his critical sense
for nuance led him to juxtapose, compare and contrast diverse philosophical opinions. Since true human perfection isintellectual, dissemination of philosophy in Hebrew and rebuttal of its opponents serve a religious as well as a culturalneed.
A consistent theme in Falaquera’s works is the harmonyof faith and reason. The Torah and philosophy, when bothare properly understood, are “sisters” and “twins.” The rabbinic saying, “Rabbi Meir found a pomegranate; he ate what
was within and discarded the peel” (BT Ḥ agigah 15b) meansthat one should accept in philosophy what is true and in accord with the Torah. Reason can verify religious truth, andfaith perfects reason.
To reject philosophy because some philosophers haveerred is (in an image borrowed from Ibn Rushd) like denying
water to a person dying of thirst, just because some people
have drowned. A Jew should learn the truth from any source,
as one takes honey from a bee. For “all nations share in thesciences; they are not peculiar to one people;” and “Accept thetruth from whoever utters it; look at the content, not at the
speaker” (Sefer ha-Ma’alot).
Falaquera’s rationalism is manifest throughout his works,
including his Bible exegesis and his specific treatises. He
equates the Platonic doctrine of creation with that of Genesis,and he reads his intellectualism into Biblical ethics, to derive
an extreme asceticism with misogynic overtones. Falaquera’s
position (Shelemut ha-Ma‘asim, ch. 6, following the Summa
Alexandrinorum, an epitome of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics) emphasizing the priority of contemplation and rejecting
ethics as the ultimate human end, is more extreme than thatof Aristotle himself, for whom the external causes or goods
required for ethics can become an impediment to perfection
and contemplation (theoria), whereas for Falaquera the ethicalinvolvement and social commitments themselves impede contemplation (Hebrew: eẓ ah; Arabic: ra’y). Despite Falaquera’s
clear concern for the philosophic education of his people, hebelieved that genuine felicity is attained by the “solitary” (mitboded) individual, who is isolated not physically but spiritually from the external distractions of society and the internalinterference of the appetites.
Knowledge of God begins, for Falaquera, with selfknowledge, i.e., knowledge of one’s soul. We find throughout
his works statements reflecting the Delphic Maxim, “Knowyourself.” Thus: “Know your soul, O Man, and you will know
your Creator.” By the science of psychology, a person “willknow his soul and his Creator.” Psychology is, therefore, prior

682

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

falkto all the other sciences: “Knowledge of the soul is prior to
the knowledge of God, and … is the most excellent form ofknowledge after the knowledge of God” (Sefer ha-Nefesh, Introduction; De‘ot ha-Philosofim VI:A:1).
Falaquera was not an original thinker of the first order,
nor did he claim to be original; but the breadth and depthof his knowledge of Judaism, philosophy, and science makehim an important figure in the history of Jewish philosophy.
The pioneering philosophical efforts of earlier luminaries attained an enduring impact through their consolidation andpopularization by philosophers like Falaquera, whose contribution is no less important for the fact that their light was often a reflected one.

FALESHTY (Rom. Fǎleşti), town in Bessarabia, today Republic of Moldova. In 1817, the community numbered 176 families(out of a total of 364 families) and 4,518 persons (68 of thetotal population) in 1897. As the czarist legislation restricting Jewish settlement in border areas (see *Russia) applied toFaleshty, the Jews were frequently expelled from the town on
the grounds that they were living there illegally. In 1887 a society for settlement in Ereẓ Israel was established in Faleshty,
and with the assistance of funds provided by Baron Edmondde *Rothschild, 25 families settled in 1887 in Kastina (*Be’er
Toviyyah). In 1925, 106 Jewish families in Faleshty were occupied in agriculture, farming an area of 1,025 hectares. The Jewish population numbered 3,258 in 1930 (51.7 of the total).

Bibliography: I. Efros, “Palquera’s Reshit Hokmah andAlfarabi’s Ihsa al `Ulum,” in: JQR, n.s. 25 (1934–35), 227–35; P. Fenton,“Shem Tov ibn Falaquera ve-ha-Te’ologiyah shel Aristo,” in: Da‘at(1992), 27–39; S. Harvey, “Falaquera’s Epistle of the Debate and the Maimonidean Controversy of the 1230s,” in: R. Link-Salinger (ed.), Torah
and Wisdom: Studies in Jewish Philosophy, Kabbalah and Halacha: Essays in Honor of Arthur Hyman (1992), 75–86; S. Harvey, “Mekoran shelha-Muva’ot min ha-Etica le-Aristo ba-Moreh u-ve-Moreh ha-Moreh,”in: A. Ravitzky (ed.), From Rome to Jerusalem: J. Sermonetta Memorial Volume (1998), 87–102; R. Jospe, “Rejecting Moral Virtue as the
Ultimate Human End,” in: W.M. Brinner and S.D. Ricks (eds.), Studies
in Islamic and Judaic Traditions (1986), 185–204; idem, “Ikkarei haYahadut shel R. Shem Tov ibn Falaquera,” in: S. Heller-Willensky and
M. Idel (eds.), Studies in Jewish Thought (1989), 291–301; R. Jospe and
D. Schwartz, “Shem Tov ibn Falaquera’s Lost Bible Commentary,” in:
HUCA, 64 (1993), 167–200; H. Malter, “Shem Tob ben Joseph Palquera:
A Thinker of the Thirteenth Century,” in: JQR, n.s. 1 (1910–11), 151–81;
A. Melamed, The Philosopher-King in Medieval and Renaissance Jewish Political Thought (2003); S. Munk, Melanges de Philosophie Juiveet Arabe (1857; reprint, 1927); M. Steinschneider, Uebersetzungen,
5ff., 37ff., 356, 380, 422ff., 989; Y. Shiffman, “Shem Tov Falaquera keFarshan Moreh Nevukhim la-Rambam: Kavim le-Haguto,” in: Maimonidean Studies 3 (1992–3), 1–29; L. Stitskin, Eight Jewish Philosophers in the Tradition of Personalism (1979), 134–40; M. Zonta, Un
Dizionario Filosofico Ebraico del XIII Secolo: L’introduzione al “Sefer
De‘ot ha-Filosofim” di Shem Tob ibn Falaquera (1992); M. Zonta, UnInterprete Ebreo della Filosofia di Galeno: Gli Scritti Filosofici di Galeno Nell’opera di Shem Tob ibn Falaquera (1995); idem, La Filosofia
antica nel Medioevo Ebraico (Brescia, 1996), 204–12.
[Raphael Jospe (2nd ed.)]

Holocaust Period
The Romanian withdrawal in 1940 took place without incident. The incoming Soviet authorities established a Yiddishlanguage secondary school, but on June 19, 1941, exiled all
Zionists and businessmen to Siberia. Most of the exiles survived the war; some returned and settled in the larger towns
or went to Israel, while others remained in Siberia.
An aerial bombardment at the beginning of the war(June 21, 1941) caused the first Jewish casualties. Those who
had horses at their disposal quickly fled the town, while others followed on foot. A few succeeded in crossing the Dniester with Russian help and escaped from there into the interiorof the U.S.S.R. Most of the fleeing Jews, however, were caught
on the way by Romanian-German forces and put to death. On
June 27 Faleshty was taken over by German troops, who werealso joined by Italian forces. The local population and peasantsfrom the surrounding villages collaborated with the occupying forces in robbing and burning Jewish property and murdering the Jews. Romanian troops arrived at a later date andstepped up the murderous campaign. The Jews were concentrated in a ghetto raised at the town’s entrance, to which theJews of other places in the vicinity were brought. The young
people were put on forced labor; at night they were imprisoned in the great synagogue and there German and Romanian troops assaulted the women among them. The others
were driven out of the ghetto and forced to walk to a nearby
village, Limbenii Noui, where many died of disease and starvation. In September the survivors were again deported, thistime to the Mǎrculeşti camp. In October those who were still
able to walk were expelled to *Transnistria, where practicallyall of them either succumbed to the inhuman conditions orwere murdered by soldiers. One group of Faleshty Jews, including the town’s rabbi, Ihiel Flam, were taken to a river in
mid-winter, forced to break the ice, strip, and throw themselves into the freezing waters. Only a very small number ofFaleshty’s Jews survived the war.

FALCO, MARIO (1884–1943), Italian jurist. Born in Turin,
Falco specialized in canon and ecclesiastical law. He became
lecturer in law at the universities of Macerata (1910) andParma (1912) and was appointed to the chair at the Universityof Milan on its foundation in 1924. He held this post until the
promulgation of the antisemitic laws in 1938. Most of Falco’s
extensive legal writings are concerned with canon law. They
include Il Concetto Giuridico di Separazione della Chiesa dallo
Stato (1913), La Codificazione del Diritto Canonico (1921), andCorso di Diritto Ecclesiastico (1938). An active Zionist, he participated in Jewish affairs both locally and nationally and was amember of a government committee which prepared the draft
law on the Italian Jewish community in 1930.

Bibliography: Eynikeyt (March 6, 1945).
[Jean Ancel][Giorgio Romano]

FALK, family of U.S. industrialists and philanthropists. MAURICE FALK (1866–1946) was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylva-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6683

falk, bernard
nia, where his father worked as a tailor. At the age of 27 he obtained a controlling interest in a small smelting concern, theDuquesne Reduction Company, which in subsequent years
expanded its operations to include many sizeable steel and refining holdings. One of the founders of the Federation of Jewish Philanthropies in Pittsburgh, he and his younger brother
Leon gave ten million dollars in 1929 to establish the Mauriceand Laura Falk Foundation, whose beneficiaries have included
many educational institutions. A branch foundation, the Maurice Falk Institute for Economic Research in Israel, was established at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. The bulk of hislarge estate was willed to the Foundation for the purpose of
studying social problems “for the benefit of mankind.”
LEON FALK (1870–1928) was associated with his brotherin most of his business and charitable undertakings, joining
with him in 1928 to establish the Falk Medical Clinic at the
University of Pittsburgh. He also served as director of thePittsburgh Federation of Jewish Philanthropies and donatedconsiderable sums to Pittsburgh’s Montefiore Hospital and
YM-YWHA. His son, LEON FALK JR. (1901–1988), served aspresident of the Federation of Jewish Philanthropies in Pittsburgh and in 1939 as vice chairman of the *American Jewish
Joint Distribution Committee. When Maurice Falk granted
money in 1939–40 to study the possibility of resettling Jewish
refugees in the Caribbean, Leon Jr. traveled to the Dominican
Republic to investigate conditions there and acted as chairman of the Dominican Republic Settlement Association. He
became treasurer of Falk and Company in 1928 and was chairman of the board from 1948 to 1952.
The Falk Medical Fund is a grant-making foundation incorporated in 1960 as an outgrowth of the Maurice and Laura
Falk Foundation.. The fund focuses on social policy related tomental health, community health, and civil rights and minorities issues. Since its inception, the fund has awarded grants
targeted to the elimination of racism and the creation of programs that combine research in psychiatry and mental healthwith issues of racism, prejudice, violence, and bigotry. The Falk
Foundation was a major contributor to the Brookings Institution, one of Washington’s oldest think tanks, which named its
auditorium after the Falk family.
SIGO FALK served as chairman of the Maurice Falk
Fund as well as the Leon Falk Family Trust. He was also a director of Duquesne Light Holdings, Allegheny Land Trust,and the Pittsburgh Symphony. He was a trustee of Chatham
College, where he served as board chair from 1995 to 2002,
and the Historical Society of Western Pennsylvania. Falk wasformerly the associate director of Health Systems Agency ofSouthwestern Pennsylvania and president of Cranberry Emergency and Diagnostic Center. In 2001, he was honored as theOutstanding Philanthropist by the Association of Fund-raising Professionals.

ter, and went to London to become news editor of the Evening News. He edited the weekly Reynolds News and the Sunday Dispatch (1919–32). He then retired from newspapers andwrote books on life in Fleet Street. He also wrote The Naked
Lady (1934), a life of Adah Isaacs *Menken: Rachel the Immortal (1936), the life of the famous French actress *Rachel;
The Way of the Montagues (1947); and books on Turner andRowlandson. Falk published an autobiography, He Laughedin Fleet Street (1933).

FALK, BERNARD (1882–1960), British author. Falk began
his career on the Daily Dispatch in his home town, Manches-

FALK, JACOB JOSHUA BEN Ẓ EVI HIRSCH (1680–1756),
rabbi and halakhic authority. Falk was born in Cracow and
was a descendant of Joshua Heschel b. Joseph of *Cracow, theauthor of Meginnei Shelomo. He studied in Polish yeshivot andtook up residence in Lemberg after his marriage to the daughter of Solomon Segal Landau, an important member of that
community. There he was appointed inspector of the talmud
torah. He became wealthy and was a leader of the community. In 1702 his wife, daughter, mother-in-law, and her father
were killed by the explosion of a gunpowder storehouse, andhe himself was miraculously saved. As a result he vowed “toapply himself diligently to the study of the Talmud and theCodes” (Introduction to the Penei Yehoshu’a). He left Lemberg and served as rabbi in the communities of Tarlow, Kurow, and Lesko (Lisko) successively. In 1717 he was invited to
become rabbi of Lemberg, succeeding Ẓ evi Hirsch Ashkenazi(the Ḥ akham Ẓ evi). His yeshivah became the central yeshivahof Poland. Falk was one of the most extreme opponents of the*Shabbatean movement, then gaining ground in Poland, andhe excommunicated the Shabbateans in 1722. In consequenceof the opposition he had aroused, he was compelled to leave
Lemberg in 1724 and went to Buczacz where he lived for someyears. Between 1730 and 1734 he served as rabbi of Berlin. He
then accepted an invitation to succeed Jacob *Reischer as rabbi
of Metz and remained there until 1741.
From Metz he went to Frankfurt where he was rabbi until
1751. The hostile attitude of the town authorities and internal
communal quarrels following his intervention in the controversy around Jonathan *Eybeschuetz, in which he sided with
Jacob *Emden, caused his resignation and departure fromthe city, and he lived for a time in Mannheim and Worms. He
continued his campaign against Eybeschuetz, sending him aletter entitled “the final warning” on Sivan 11, 1751 and in 1752
excommunicated him. In response to the demands of the Altona community that he rescind the ban, Falk demanded thatEybeschuetz appear before a bet din of three ordained rabbis toanswer for his actions. Ḥ .J.D. *Azulai, who repeatedly praised
Falk’s wide knowledge (as well as that of his second wife), visited him in Worms in 1754. Falk told him some “dismaying
details” about the affair, and Azulai expressed his shock at the“desecration of the Torah and the defamation of the Divine
Name” as a result of the publication of the dispute between
the Jewish scholars. From Worms Falk went to Offenbach,where he died. He was buried in Frankfurt and although herequested that no eulogy should be said after his death he was

684

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Hillel Halkin / Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]Falk, Joshua
eulogized by Ezekiel *Landau (see Frankfurt Memorbuch, National Library, Jerusalem).
Falk became renowned through his Penei Yehoshu’a, regarded as one of the outstanding works of novellae on the
Talmud. Since Falk’s grandfather published responsa under
the same title (“The Face of Joshua”), the grandson called his
work Appei Zutrei (“The Small Face”) to distinguish it from
Ravrevei (“The Large Face”) of his grandfather. The work is
distinguished by its penetrating explanation of difficult talmudic themes. Originally published in separate parts – Berakhot
and the order Mo’ed (Frankfurt, 1752); Ketubbot, Gittin, andKiddushin, with Kunteres Aḥ aron (Amsterdam, 1739); Bava
Kamma and Bava Meẓ ia (Frankfurt, 1756), Ḥ ullin, Makkot,
and Shevu’ot and a second edition on Mo’ed and the Tur,Ḥ oshen Mishpat (Fuerth, 1780) – it was published together for
the first time in Lemberg in 1809. Among his other works stillin manuscript the following may be noted: Sefer Minḥ at Ani,novellae to Eruvin, Niddah, and Yevamot; Kelal Gadol, on the
problem of “rov and *ḥ azakah” (i.e., where the principle of following the majority, rov, conflicts with that of a previous presumption, ḥ azakah), and responsa. Only a few of his responsa
have been published (in various collections). His purpose was“to explain most of the difficulties raised by the tosafists on
Rashi’s commentary … as well as such points as the tosafists
leave unsolved, or for which they admit that their solution isunsatisfactory, or where their answer appears forced.” In his
introduction to the Penei Yehoshu’a he asserts that he always
took care that his conclusions should be in conformity withthe halakhah of the Talmud and the Codes and was careful
not to commit to writing any novellae which did not conformwith the truth, “but whenever something new occurred to me
on a talmudic topic or in explanation of Rashi and tosafot andit appeared to me to approximate to the truth, according to
the method of our predecessors and teachers, I accepted it.”He also stresses that his sole purpose was “to stimulate thescholar and to bring about a more profound analysis on thepart of those who already know how to arrive at halakhic decisions.” These features of the work explain its constant popularity among students, and its frequent reprints. He emphasizes
that Kabbalah is sometimes of help in explaining the aggadot;
but despite his reliance on the Zohar and on the works of kabbalists (Penei Yehoshu’a to Ber. 10a) he declares “we have no
dealings with esoteric lore.”
Falk had three sons, two of whom are mainly of note.
ISSACHAR DOV (1712–1744), who was born at Lesko, Galicia,
studied under his father and Ẓ evi Hirsch Ashkenazi of Halberstadt. He became the rabbi of Podhajce, Galicia, and in
1744 he was appointed head of the yeshivah at Metz, but diedon the way there, in Berlin, before being able to take up theappointment. Four of his responsa were published in Kiryat
Ḥ annah of R. Gershon b. Isaac Moses Coblenz (Metz, 1785;
nos. 41–44). His decision in the case of a get (bill of divorce),
in which he disagreed with R. Jacob Yokel *Horowitz, is preserved in She’elat Ḥ akham, and was published at the end of
the responsa of R. Ḥ ayyim Kohen Rapoport (1957, pp. 243–4).

Issachar Dov’s novellae appear under the title of Ḥ ezkat Avahata in the book Tesha Shitot (1800, pp. 53b–80b) of his sonẒ evi Hirsch Rosanes.
His brother ARYEH LEIB (1715–1789) accompanied his father to Germany. He was appointed rosh yeshivah in Frankfurt
during his father’s incumbency, and held the position from1745 to 1750. When his father left Frankfurt, Aryeh Leib was
appointed rabbi of Sokal, then in Poland. In 1754 he signed
the excommunication against the *Frankists in Brody. From
1761 to 1789 he was rabbi of Hanover. In the affair of the Cleves*get he supported Israel *Lipschuetz. He published the fourthpart of his father’s Penei Yehoshu’a, adding to it his own novellae to Bava Kamma under the title Penei Aryeh (Fuerth, 1780).
He was succeeded as rabbi of Hanover by his son ISSACHARBERISH (1747–1807). Issachar’s son, SAMUEL, was appointed
rabbi of Groningen, Holland, in 1802. After about seven years
he succeeded his brother-in-law, Jehiel Aryeh Leib *Loewenstamm, as rabbi of Leeuwarden, Holland. In 1815 he succeeded
his father-in-law as rabbi of the Ashkenazi community of Amsterdam, and finally served as rabbi of Amersfoort. He supported the *Haskalah movement among the Jews of Holland,
approved the translation of the Bible into Dutch, and was thefirst rabbi in Holland to preach in the vernacular. Moses *Sofer
refers to him in respectful terms (Ḥ atam Sofer, pt. 2, EH, no.
139). He also encouraged the foundation of a general fundknown as Kolel Hod, i.e., “H-olland and (Heb. ‫ )ו‬D-eutschland(Germany),” for the support of the poor of the Holy Land.
Samuel’s son ISSACHAR BAER BERENSTEIN (1808–1893) wasborn in Leeuwarden and died in The Hague. From the deathof his father until 1848 he served in Amsterdam as a dayyan.
He was then appointed chief rabbi of The Hague, succeeding
Joseph Asher Lehmann, and served there 45 years. He was
highly esteemed by the Dutch government for his activities inorganizing various communal institutions.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6685

Bibliography: E.L. Landshuth, Toledot Anshei ha-Shem
u-Fe’ulatam ba-Adat Berlin (1884), 27–34, 111; Bruell, Jahrbuecher,
7 (1885), 163–6; H.N. Dembitzer, Kelilat Yofi, 1 (1888), 108b–115b; 2(1893), 77b; M. Horovitz, Frankfurter Rabbinen, 3 (1884), 5–61; S. Buber, Anshei Shem (1895), 43f. (on Aryeh Leib), 104–9, 125; J. Loewenstein, in: Ha-Peles, 2 (1902), 3 (1903); J.H. Simchovitz, in: MGWJ, 54(1910), 608–21; D. Kahana, Toledot ha-Mekubbalim…, 2 (19273), 23,
37–39, 44–52; Z.(H.) Horowitz (ed.), Kitvei ha-Ge’onim (1928), 28ff.
(on Jacob Joshua), 67, 97–100 (on Issachar Berish); D. Wachstein, in:Studies in Jewish Bibliography … A.S. Freidus (1929), 15–31 (Heb. pt.);
J.A. Kamelhar, Dor De’ah, 2 (1935), 19–26; D.A.L. Zins, Ateret Yehoshu’a(1936); N.M. Gelber, in: Arim ve-Immahot be-Yisrael, 6 (1955), 108 n.
8 (on Aryeh Leib); J. Meisel, Pinkas Kehillat Berlin (1962), 502 (index S.V. Joshua Falk).
[Yehoshua Horowitz]

FALK, JOSHUA (1799–1864), U.S. Orthodox rabbi, scholar,
and author. Joshua ben Mordechai Hakohen Falk was born in
Poland and immigrated to America in 1854. He served as rabbiof two communities in New York, Newburgh and Poughkeepsie, before becoming an itinerant preacher and then retiringfrom the active rabbinate. Known as “the father of Americanfalk, joshua ben alexander ha-kohen
Hebrew literature,” Falk wrote the first book in the Hebrew
language to be published in America (aside from the Bible
and prayer books): Avnei Yehoshua (“The Stones of Joshua”),
a commentary on the Ethics of the Fathers (1860). The interesting colophon to the book reads: “I give thanks that it was
my good fortune to be the typesetter of this scholarly book,the first of its kind in America. Blessed be the God of Israel,
who surely will not deny us the Redeemer.” Falk also wrote
Binyan Yehoshua (“The Edifice of Joshua”), novellæ on the
Talmud, and Homat Yehoshua (“The Wall of Joshua”), an anthology of sermons.
com.

Website: The Jewish Virtual Library; Jewish Encyclopedia.
[Bezalel Gordon (2nd ed.)]

FALK, JOSHUA BEN ALEXANDER HAKOHEN (c. 1555–
1614), Polish yeshivah head and halakhist commonly referred
to as “Sma” from the initials of the title of his major work. Falkwas born in Lublin and studied under Moses Isserles and Solomon Luria, but refused to serve as rabbi of the community. He
devoted his life to teaching, receiving financial support fromhis father-in-law, Israel b. Joseph Edels, the communal leaderof Lemberg, who also maintained the yeshivah conducted by
Falk. The yeshivah attracted many pupils, some of whom later
achieved fame as rabbis. Famed as a halakhic authority, Falk
took an active part in the Council of the Four Lands and was
one of the signatories in 1587 to the decree against purchasing rabbinical positions. In 1607 he presided over a sessionof the Council which passed a decree on the subject of interest, which the intensified financial activity among East European Jewry had rendered an urgent halakhic problem. Falk’s
resolute refusal to change his view on a get (“bill of divorce”)
which he had issued for a seriously ill man, and which Meir
ben Gedaliah *Lublin and Mordecai *Jaffe had declared invalid, led to a vehement clash of opinions among contemporary rabbis, Falk being upheld by those assembled at Jaroslaw in 1611.
Falk’s most celebrated work is Sefer Me’irat Einayim, acommentary on the Shulḥ an Arukh, Ḥ oshen Mishpat, published in all editions of the Shulḥ an Arukh. He was moved
to write the commentary because of the large number of halakhists and exponents of the laws who, in his opinion, “haverent the Torah, which is our garment, into 12 pieces, and because of the many scholars who, content to base their halakhic
decisions on the Shulḥ an Arukh alone without investigating
the sources (especially *Jacob b. Asher’s Tur together with
Joseph *Caro’s Beit Yosef and Moses Isserles’ Darkhei Moshe),remained ignorant of the sources and rationale of the law andrendered incorrect halakhic decisions.”
Sefer Me’irat Einayim is the fourth part of a more extensive commentary on the Tur and Shulḥ an Arukh, the first
three parts entitled Perishah, Derishah, and Be’urim. The wholecommentary is entitled Beit Yisrael (after Falk’s father-in-law).
Because Me’irat Einayim was based on the first three parts of
his commentary, it was essential for the reader first to study

686

the Tur and the other three parts of his commentary. Though
Falk apparently intended to write a work on the whole Shulḥ an
Arukh, he succeeded in covering only the Ḥ oshen Mishpat.
The Me’irat Einayim is an extensive exposition and elaboration upon that work, especially upon Moses Isserles’ glosses,
Falk often acting as the intermediary between Joseph Caroand Isserles where they disagreed. Falk’s work contributed
greatly in making the Shulḥ an Arukh an authoritative sourceof codified Jewish law. Falk also wrote Kunteres al ha-Ribbit(1692) on the laws of interest promulgated by the Council of
the Four Lands in 1607. Several of his numerous responsa havebeen published in various collections (Ge’onei Batra’ei, Bayit
Ḥ adash, Masot Binyamin). He wrote novellae on 14 tractatesof Isaac Alfasi (the Rif) and on the commentary to it by Nissim b. Reuben Gerondi (the Ran), expositions on the Kabbalah and philosophy, and several other works, all of whichwere destroyed in a fire in Lemberg.
[Shlomo Eidelberg]

His great grandson ḥ AYYIM (ABRAHAM) BEN SAMUEL FEIVUSH (PHOEBUS; late 17t century), was also a rabbi. Afterthe expulsion of the Jews from Vienna (1670), Ḥ ayyim went
to Jerusalem with his father, author of Leket Shemu’el and Derush Shemu’el, and in his old age he settled in Hebron, where
he died. He wrote a commentary to the Book of Psalms, under
the title Ereẓ ha-Ḥ ayyim (Constantinople, 1750?). Ḥ .J.D. Azulai mentions Ḥ ayyim’s commentary to nearly all of the Bible.
Bibliography: S. Buber, Anshei Shem (1895), 80–82 (no. 197),
129, 238; Rav Zair (H. Tchernowitz), in: Ha-Shilo’aḥ , 6 (1899), 233–40;
idem, Toledot ha-Posekim, 2 (1947), 231ff.; 3 (1947), 112–20; Halpern,
Pinkas, index 588, S.V. Yeshu’a b. Aleksander; H.H. Ben-Sasson, Hagut
ve-Hanhagah (1959), index, S.V. Yehoshu’a Falk.

FALK, KAUFMAN GEORGE (1880–1953), U.S. physicalchemist and biochemist. Born in New York, Falk taught physical chemistry at Columbia University. He wrote on ignition temperatures, refractive index, chemical equilibria, theelectronic theory of valency, and on biochemical topics. His
books were Chemical Reactions, their Theory and Mechanism(1920), Chemistry of Enzyme Action (1921), and Catalytic Action (1922). He was president of the Hebrew Technical Institute in New York from 1924.
FALK, MARCIA (1946– ), U.S. poet, translator, and liturgist. Falk was born in New York City and grew up in New
Hyde Park, N.Y. During her childhood, she began painting(becoming a life member of the Art Students League in Manhattan), writing poetry, and studying Hebrew. She received
her B.A. in philosophy, magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa,
from Brandeis University and both her M.A. in English and
her Ph.D. in English and comparative literature from Stanford
University. Falk was a Fulbright Scholar and a postdoctoral
fellow in Bible and Hebrew literature at the Hebrew Universityof Jerusalem, and has taught at Stanford, the State Universityof New York at Binghamton, and the Claremont Colleges. In
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6falk, samuel jacob Ḥ ayyim
2001 she held the Priesand Chair in Jewish Women’s Studies
at HUC-JIR in Cincinnati.
Falk won international acclaim for her translation of theSong of Songs, originally published in 1977 and subsequently
released in several editions, most recently as The Song of Songs:
Love Lyrics from the Bible (2004). Her translation, which madelavish use of assonance and alliteration and interpreted obscure images for modern readers, represented a radical departure from earlier translations. In 1996 Falk published The
Book of Blessings: New Jewish Prayers for Daily Life, the Sabbath, and the New Moon Festival, a groundbreaking prayer
book. The Book of Blessings contains new, egalitarian Hebrew
and English blessings, along with poems and meditations, as
alternatives to the traditional Jewish liturgy. Falk offers nongendered non-anthropomorphic epithets of the divine, suchas “source of life” and “breath of all living things.”
Falk translated the Yiddish poet Malka *Tussman, With
Teeth in the Earth: Selected Poems of Malka Heifetz Tussman(1992), and the Israeli mystical poet *Zelda, The SpectacularDifference (2004). Falk’s own vision, characterized by clarityand quietude, is evident in her two published poetry collections, It Is July in Virginia: A Poem Sequence (1985) and This
Year in Jerusalem (1986).
Bibliography: L. Day, “In the Hidden Garden: Two Translations of the Song of Songs,” in: The Hudson Review, 48/2 (1995),
259–69; D. Ellenson, “Marcia Falk’s The Book of Blessings: The Issue
Is Theological,” in: CCAR Journal (Spring 2000), 18–23; L. Hoffman,“Marcia Falk’s The Book of Blessings,” in: Prooftexts: A Journal of Jewish Literary History, 19/1 (1999), 87–93.

ministration in 1953. Bored with his job, he turned first to theater and television and then to film, eventually receiving Oscar nominations for his performances in Murder Inc. (1960)
and Pocketful of Miracles (1961). In the 1970s Falk made aconvincing impression in the films Husbands and A Woman
under the Influence and starred in his own popular television
detective series Columbo, new episodes of which were filmed
after more than a 20-year break. As perhaps an illustration of
the concept that life imitates art, his daughter Catherine Falkbecame a private detective.
In 1972 he appeared on Broadway in The Prisoner ofSecond Avenue. In 1987, he starred in Wim Wenders’ Cannes
Award-winning film Der Himmel ueber Berlin/Wings of Desire, and Rob Reiner’s The Princess Bride. Other film roles include The Balcony (1963), Robin and the 7 Hoods (1964), The
Great Race (1965), Luv (1967), Mikey and Nicky (1976), Murder by Death (1976), The Cheap Detective (1978), The In-Laws(1979), Big Trouble (1986), Happy New Year (1987), In the
Spirit (1990), Roommates (1995), Lakeboat (2000), Enemiesof Laughter (2001), Corky Romano (2001), Three Days of Rain
(2002), Undisputed (2002), The Thing about My Folks (2004),
and Checking Out (2004).
In addition to winning five Emmy awards, Falk has been
nominated for seven other Emmys for his television performances. His memorable TV portrayals have also earned him
a Golden Globe award and eight other GG nominations.
[Jonathan Licht / Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]

FALK, PETER (1927– ), U.S. actor. Born in New York, Falkworked for the Budget Bureau of the state of Connecticut asan efficiency expert after receiving his M.B.A. in public ad-

FALK, SAMUEL JACOB Ḥ AYYIM (c. 1710–1782), kabbalist
and adventurer, known as the “Ba’al Shem of London.” Falk,
who was born in Galicia, was intimately connected with leaders of the Shabbatean sectarians for many years, e.g., Moses
David of Podhajce. He became known early as a magician, escaped burning as a sorcerer in Westphalia, was banished by
the archbishop elector of Cologne, and about 1742 made his
way to England. Here he achieved notoriety in both Jewish andnon-Jewish circles for his kabbalistic practices based on theuse of the mysterious Name of God, hence becoming known
as a *Ba’al Shem (“Master of the [Divine] Name”). He had aprivate synagogue in his house in Wellclose Square, and alsoestablished a kabbalistic laboratory on London Bridge where
he carried out alchemical experiments which aroused somenotice. Among those who were attracted to him, was the international adventurer Theodore De Stein, who claimed to be
king of Corsica and hoped to obtain through Falk’s alchemical experiments sufficient gold to enable him to “regain” histhrone. He was also in touch with, among others, the Duke of
Orleans, the Polish Prince Czartoryski, and the Marquise dela Croix. On one occasion, Falk is said to have saved the Great
Synagogue from destruction by fire by means of a magical inscription which he inscribed on the doorposts. On the other
hand, he was denounced as a Shabbatean heretic and fraud by
his embittered contemporary Jacob *Emden. He was, at theoutset, on the worst possible terms with the official London
community. However, in the end he became reconciled with

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6687[Lucille Lang Day (2nd ed.)]

FALK, MIKSA (1828–1908), Hungarian journalist andpolitician. Born in Budapest, Falk contributed early in hislife to leading newspapers. From 1858 he was one of Count
Széchenyi’s close friends – in spite of the fact that this Hungarian statesman was antisemitic – and Falk published Széchenyi’s
political writings. In 1861 Falk was prosecuted for printing
an article demanding the restoration of the Hungarian constitution and was sentenced to six months imprisonment. In
the same year Falk was sponsored by the liberal leader Ferenc Deák for membership in the National Academy of Sciences. In 1866 he became a tutor in Magyar of the empress
Elizabeth, wife of Francis Joseph. After the “compromise”
of 1867 in which he had played a considerable part, and bywhich Hungary recovered its independence within the Hapsburg monarchy, Falk became chief editor of the government
German-language newspaper Pester Lloyd. Falk converted
to Christianity, sat in parliament for ten years, and wrote on
Hungarian history.
Bibliography: Magyar Irodalmi Lexikon, 1 (1963), 324.
[Baruch Yaron]

FALKOWITSCH, JOEL BAERISCH
it and received the support of the Goldsmid family. As a result of this, or possibly of success in a lottery, he died in relatively affluent circumstances, leaving a considerable legacy toJewish charities and an annual payment for the upkeep of thechief rabbinate in London. Much light is thrown on his personality and activities in the semi-literate diary of his henchman Hirsch Kalish, preserved in manuscript in the Adler
Collection in the Jewish Theological Seminary of America,
N.Y.; one of his own kabbalistic notebooks is in the library of
the bet ha-midrash in London. Toward the end of his life, his
portrait was painted by the distinguished Anglo-American
artist John Copley. This is now frequently reproduced erroneously as the portrait of the famous *Israel Ba’al Shem Tov,
founder of Ḥ asidism.
Bibliography: C. Roth, Essays and Portraits in Anglo-Jewish History (1962), 139–64; idem., Mag Bibl, 124–5; Wirszubski, in:Zion, 7 (1942), 73–93.
[Cecil Roth]FALKOWITSCH, JOEL BAERISCH (19th century), Hebrew and Yiddish essayist. Falkowitsch was born in Dubno
and lived in Odessa. In addition to a free Hebrew translation of Lessing’s Philotas under the title Amminadav (1868),
he published two successfully produced plays in Yiddish:Reb Khayml der Kotsin (“Reb Khayml the Judge,” 1866) andRokhele di Zingerin (“Rokhele the Singer,” 1868). Althoughbaptized a few years before his death, he remained well disposed to Judaism. Falkowitsch appeared at blood-libel trials
where he argued against the antisemitic charges. When antiJewish attacks appeared in the Warsaw Russian newspaper,
Varshavsky Dnevnik, he wrote a defense in German, called
Wort zur Zeit (“A Timely Word,” Hebrew transl. “Davar beItto” in the weekly Ha-Kol (1877), 8–21).
Bibliography: Ha-Boker-Or, 4 (1879), 844; S. Wiener, Kohelet Moshe (1893–1936), 3 no. 25; Zeitlin, Bibliotheca, 81, 467; Rejzen,
Leksikon, 3 (1929), 13–16.
[Jefim (Hayyim) Schirmann / Marc Miller (2nd ed.)]

FALL, LEO (1873–1925), composer. Born in Olomouc, Moravia, Fall, the son of a military bandmaster, was educated at
the Vienna Conservatory and served as a theater conductor.
His first three successful operettas, Der fidele Bauer (1907),
Die Dollarprinzessin (1907), and Die geschiedene Frau (1908),
placed him among the masters of the “second period of the operetta,” with Franz Lehar and Oscar *Straus. His most popular
works were Die Rose von Stambul (1916) and Madame Pompadour (1922). Fall’s music was distinguished for its charm of
melody and clever orchestration.

gious services were first held in 1874. These first settlers wereGerman Jews; the community and its religious, social, andwelfare institutions were soon changed considerably by the influx of Russian immigrants in the 1880s and 1890s. Two of thethree congregations serving the community in 1970 – American Brothers of Israel and Congregation Adas Israel – were
established in this era. Adas Israel, originally the Adas Israel
Society, was founded in 1885; dissidents from Adas Israel established the American Brothers of Israel about 1892. At the
beginning of the 20t century a third synagogue, Aguda B’nai
Jacob, was founded. Abraham Lipshitz began ministeringto these three congregations, which made up the Orthodox
community, about 1910, serving them for over 30 years. In
the decade 1910–20 Congregation Beth David was founded,
Hebrew schools were established, and in 1924 a Conservative
synagogue, Temple Beth El, was founded. Morton Goldberg
served the congregation from 1925 to 1937, when Jacob Freedman replaced him as spiritual leader. Rabbi Freedman helped
found the Fall River Jewish Community Council (1938), which
in 1970 included about 25 societies and organizations. The
other major communal institution is the Fall River United
Jewish Appeal.
Jews prominent in Fall River life have included David L.
Gourse, clothier and commissioner of public welfare; Albert
Rubin, a state legislator for many years; H. William Radovsky,
finance commissioner; and Rabbi Samuel Ruderman, longconsidered the spokesman for the Jewish community. David
H. Radovsky and Moses Entin both played important roles
in fraternal organizations and in the Zionist movement. Twonationally known businessmen and philanthropists, Jacob
Ziskind and Albert A. List, were from Fall River. Anotherresident, Dr. Irving Fradkin, inaugurated Dollars for Scholars,an educational funding program which has been adopted bycommunities throughout the United States.
From their arrival in Fall River, Jews were involved inpeddling and in operating small retail establishments. Many
Jewish-owned businesses suffered as a result of the 1904 textile
strike. Later, large furniture and retail clothing stores were established, and Jews engaged in finance and in operating textile
mills. Although textile production has decreased, many Jews
are involved in garment contracting; others are professionals,
small retailers, and landlords. The declining Jewish populationin Fall River can be attributed to a high rate of intermarriage
as well as to increased social and physical mobility; Somerset
and Highlands are new areas of Jewish residence.
[Bernard Wax]

FALL RIVER, city in S.E. Massachusetts near Rhode Island
border. The Jewish population of Fall River has been declining for the past 35 years and now numbers less than 1,000, a
decrease from the 1970 population of 4,000 Jews. Attracted
by the early cotton-manufacturing industries, the first Jews
settled in Fall River during the 1860s and 1870s. Formal reli-

FALTICENI (Rom. Fălticeni), town in Moldavia, N.E. Romania. The first Jews settled there between 1772 and 1774, and anorganized community existed from 1780, when the town was
officially founded under the name of Şoldăneşti, later changed
to Fălticeni, as a commercial center between Austrian Bukovina and Moldavia. In 1781 the landowner permitted the building of a synagogue in the form of a regular house and put aplot for a cemetery at the disposal of the community. Many

688

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

familiants lawsof the Jews were Sadgora ḥ asidim or belonged to Chabad.
Several leaders of the community were killed by Greek revolutionaries in 1821, because the Jews were unable to pay themthe money they demanded. The community numbered 1,500
in 1803, 5,767 in 1859 (63.5 of the total), 5.499 in 1899, 4,751
in 1910 and 4,216 in 1930 (36.6). Up to World War I the majority of the Jews in Falticeni were occupied in crafts, and therest in commerce. Jewish traders held an annual fair there. The
community had a hospital, an old age home, 11 synagogues,
a talmud torah and two schools (for boys and girls). Among
the rabbis were Joshua Falik (1835–1915), author of Torah studies; Aryeh Leib Rosen (d. 1950), author of responsa publishedin Eitan Aryeh; and Alter Dorf. The Jewish scholar Solomon
Zalman *Schechter also lived in Falticeni, where he studied
Torah. Other prominent figures were the Hebrew writer Mattitiyahu Simḥ ah Rabener, director of the Israelite-Romanianschool (in the 1860s and 1870s); the traveler Israel Joseph Benjamin (*Benjamin II); the painter Rubin Zelicovici (Reuven*Rubin; later emigrated to Israel); the mathematician David
Rimer (later emigrated to Israel); and the journalist Ḥ ayyim
Rimer, former director of the Jewish periodical of Romania
Revista Cultului Mozaic (1980–94) At the end of the 19t andbeginning of the 20t centuries a Zionist organization led byShulem Mayer was active. After World War I, when Bukovina was incorporated within Romania, Falticeni ceased to bea border town and the economic situation of the Jews deteriorated. In the 1930s members of the antisemitic parties organized the looting of Jewish shops and forcibly prevented Jews
from attending the annual fair.
Holocaust Period
There were 4,020 Jews living in Falticeni in 1941, about
one-third of the total population. Under the Fascist regime(September 1940–January 1941) a “Green House” was set up
in the center of town, where Jewish merchants were brought
and tortured until they agreed to pay for their release. On
the eve of war with the Soviet Union (June 1941), a German
headquarters was set up in the town and the synagogues wereexpropriated to be used as military barracks. All male Jews
were concentrated in camps, from which 1,000 were sent on
to Bessarabia for forced labor; those wealthy enough were able
to ransom themselves. More Jews were sent on forced labor
far from their homes, where a number perished in the harshconditions. Falticeni was evacuated in the spring of 1944, at
the approach of the Soviet Army. The Jews took refuge in
Suceava and Botosani and returned six months later to findtheir houses stripped of all their possessions. By the time theother inhabitants had returned, the Jews had succeeded in
restoring public services both in the town itself and throughout the district.
The Jewish population numbered 4,700 in 1947, but decreased to 3,000 in 1950. In 1944–48 a Jewish secondary schoolfunctioned. In 1969 there were about 150 families with one
synagogue. In 1994, 51 Jews lived in Falticeni. In Israel there
is an organization of Jews from Falticeni.
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: A. Gorovei, Folticeni (1938); PK Romanyah,
188–92; E. Schwarzfeld, in: Egalitatea, 22 (1911), 162–3, 170–1, 178–9,
186–7, 194–5; idem, Împopularea, reîmpopularea şi întemeierea tîrgurilor şi tîrguşoarelor din Moldova (1914), 24–26; M. Schwarzfeld, in:Analele Societăţii Istorice Iuliu Barasch, 2, pt. 1 (1888), 65, 73; W. Filderman, in: Sliha, 1 no. 3(1956), 3; 1 no. 4 (1956), 3. Add. Bibliography: O. Bacalu, D. Rimer, and N. Vaintraub (eds.), Fălticeni (1995).
[Theodor Lavi / Lucian-Zeev Herscovici (2nd ed.)]FALUDY, GYÖRGY (1913–2006), Hungarian poet and author; born in Budapest. He translated François Villon’s poetry
into Hungarian (Villon balladái, 1937). In 1939 Faludy fled toFrance and eventually settled in the United States, where hevolunteered for service in the U.S. Army. He returned to Hungary in 1946 and devoted himself to writing and journalism.
Five years later he was arrested on a political charge, and was
released from prison in 1953. Faludy then joined the editorial
board of the literary journal Irodalmi Ujság. It was in this paper that in 1956 he published a poem about his experiencesin prison. At the time, the publication of the poem was regarded as an indication of the liberalization of the regime.
Almost immediately, however, the failure of the revolution
forced him to flee the country once again. This time he went
to England, where he resumed publication of Irodalmi Ujság.
Faludy’s works include A pompéji strázsán (“On the Guard at
Pompei,” 1938); Európai költők antológiája (“An Anthology ofEuropean Poets,” 1938); and the prose works Tragoedie eines
Volkes (1958) and Emlékkönyv a rót Bizáncról (“Memories of
Red Byzantium,” 1961). In 1962 he published his autobiography,
My Happy Days in Hell, in English. Faludy’s works in Hungarian were burned by the Nazis and in later years confiscatedby the Communists.
Bibliography: Magvar Irodalmi Lexikon, 1 (1963), 327.
[Baruch Yaron]

FAMILIANTS LAWS (Familiantengesetze; Heb. Gezerat haSheniyyot in allusion to Yev. 2:4 (20a)), legislation regulating
the number of Jews in Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia entitled
to found families. The laws were introduced by *Charles VI
in 1726–27 to curtail the number of the Jewish population.
The number of families fixed was 8,451 for Bohemia, 5,106
for Moravia, and 119 for Silesia. The laws were expressly confirmed, with certain modifications (see below), by Joseph II
in his Toleranzpatent of 1781. The structure of the Familiants
system was basically the same for all three regions. In Bohemia the apportionment of the number of families was allotted to the Kreis (district) authorities, while in Moravia thecommunities themselves, which were more compact and exercised a relatively strong autonomy, had more influence inthe apportionment. The regulations remained, with some alleviations, in force until 1848. According to this system no Jew
could marry and found a family unless he possessed one of
the “family numbers” (Familiennummern). This could only betransferred to the eldest son (at the age of 24) after the deathof the Familiant. A younger son (but not a daughter) could in-689

family
herit the number only after the death of an older brother. The
family numbers were carefully registered by the district authorities in the Familiantenbuch (register of Familiants), andcandidates for obtaining one in the Kompetentenbuch. If a
Familiant had daughters only, his Familiant “number” (Familiantenstelle) expired. In addition, Jews were permitted toreside only in places to which they had been admitted before
1726, and within these they were limited to special quarters,
streets, and even houses (Judenhaeuser-židovny). Violationsof the regulations could be punished by flogging and expulsion.
The Toleranzpatents and other laws, such as the Systemalpatent (see *Bohemia) of 1797, introduced various changes in
the Familiants system. The numbers were increased to 8,600
for Bohemia and 5,400 for Moravia. Alleviations were introduced which tended to favor the upper or professional strata
in Jewish society, marriage permits being granted for secondor third sons against high payments. On request for a marriage permit the applicant had to prove that he possessed 300
florins (in Prague 500). From 1786 a certificate to prove that
he had attended a German or Jewish-German school was required, and from 1812 he had to take an examination in thecatechism Benei Ẓ iyyon, drawn up by Naphtali Herz *Homberg. Marriage permits could also be given to those taking
up agriculture or a guild craft, or after military service. Communal employees were generally permitted to marry as “supernumeraries,” but they were not allowed to transfer theirpermits to their eldest sons.
The Familiants system forced many Jews to marry secretly (“Bodenchassines,” “attic weddings”) or “pod pokličkou”(“under cover”). The children of such couples were consideredillegitimate by the authorities and had to bear their mothers’
names. It was not until 1847 that the fathers were permitted
to acknowledge their fatherhood in the records and thus aquasi-legitimacy was established. In one instance, in Prostejov (Prossnitz) in 1841, some women who had “illegitimate”
children were sentenced to forced labor and only released by
special favor.
Because of the Familiants system a large number of Jews
were not able to settle anywhere permanently; they wandered
about the country, and contributed largely to developing a
Jewish beggar group (see *Begging and Beggars). People inthis category lived virtually outside the law, deprived of any
economic status or regular means of livelihood. The systemgave rise to conflicts within the communities, and led to tensions in Jewish society, which had before been relatively homogeneous despite the social differences. Lawsuits before
secular authorities, denunciations, bribery, and sale of expired
family numbers to higher bidders from outside the community instead of transfer to candidates within it were frequent
occurrences. In disrupting Jewish family life the Familiants
system became one of the causes of *assimilation. It also led
to large-scale emigration from these areas. Many of the communities in Hungary (Slovakia) were founded by the younger
sons of Moravian Jewish families.

It is significant that although in movements of Jewish
enlightenment (see *Haskalah) the Familiants Laws were occasionally referred to as “pharaonic laws,” no attempts weremade to protest against them, and only in the 1840s, and eventhen anonymously, were thoughts in that strain raised in journals and poems.
With the March Revolution of 1848 the Familiants system ceased to be effective, although formal abolition was only
decreed in 1859. The numerus clausus on marriage and closure of areas to Jews ceased. The corpus of legal enactments
on Jews in Bohemia and Moravia is collected in H. Kopetz,
Versuch einer systematischen Darstellung der in Boehmen bezueglich der Juden bestehenden Gesetze und Verordnungen(1846) and H. Scari, Systematische Darstellung der in Betreff
der Juden in Maehren und im K.K. Antheile Schlesiens erlassenen Gesetze und Verordnungen (1835), index; see also *Bavaria and *Prussia.
Echoes of the Familiants system are found in belletristic
writings by Jewish authors, such as Leopold *Kompert’s “Ohne
Bewilligung” (“Without Permit”) and Vojtěch *Rakous’ Na rozcesti (“On the Crossroads”).

690

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: A. Frankl-Gruen, Geschichte der Juden in
Kremsier, 1 (1896), 29–30; Th. Haas, Die Juden in Maehren (1908), 5–11,
58–64; A. Stein, Geschichte der Juden in Boehmen (1904), 108–10; A.F.
Pribram, Urkunden und Akten zur Geschichte der Juden in Wien, 1–2(1918), index; H. Flesch, in: MGJW, 71 (1927), 267–74; R. Rosenzweig,
in: ZGJT, 2 (1931), 38–44; 3 (1932/33), 61–71; A. Grotte, ibid., 209–12; I.
Herrisch, in: JGGJC, 4 (1932), 497–99; R. Mahler, Divrei Yemei Yisrael,
1 pt. 2 (19542), 207–15; Y. Z Kahana, in: Zion, 8 (1943), 203–6; R. Kestenberg-Gladstein, Neuere Geschichte der Juden in den boehmischen
Laendern, 1 (1969), index; idem, in: Tarbiz, 29 (1960), 293–4; idem,
in: Jews of Czechoslovakia, 1 (1968), 21–22, 29, 30; idem, in: Field of
Yiddish, 3 (1969), 305–9.
[Ruth Kestenberg-Gladstein]

FAMILY.
In the Bible
An accurate sociological description of the family and its legal
status in biblical times is virtually impossible because the relevant evidence is not of a strictly socio-descriptive nature.
SOURCES. Some of the most often quoted examples of family
life and its functions come from literary passages in the epic
tradition. Thus, one finds considerable attention given to theinteraction of various members in the patriarchal community.
The history of the Israelite people is predicated on the Divine
promise made to its eponymous ancestor Israel and his progenitors. The different branches of the tribal league are traced
back to the sons born to Israel by his four wives, and neighboring peoples are judged according to their ancestral relationship to the Hebrew patriarchs. The framework of these
relationships is literary, taking the form of stories about thefamily life of Abraham and his descendants. Other important figures such as Moses and Aaron are also identified bytheir family ties with the Levitical tribe. Another focal point
for tales of family life is the period of occupation and settle-

family
ment in the land. Family glimpses are afforded of such heroic
figures as Caleb and his daughter, Gideon, and Samson. The
prophet Samuel and the first Israelite monarchs are also castin vivid family portraits.
The lack of suitable documents dealing with everyday
life (see below) makes it necessary to utilize these literary
allusions to family life in developing a picture of the family
in biblical times. It should be noted, however, that there aresometimes discrepancies between the situation reflected in
biblical narratives and that reflected in legal texts (e.g., marriage to a half-sister, while forbidden in Lev. 18:9, 20:17, andDeut. 27:22, is recorded in Gen. 20:12, in connection with
Abraham and Sarah, and the possibility is indicated in II Sam.
13:13, in connection with Amnon and Tamar). A gap between
law and practice would not be surprising, and perhaps it is
this which is reflected in the divergence between the legal andnarrative traditions.
A second source of information is genealogies, found especially in Genesis (pertaining to the patriarchs and other ancient figures) and in I Chronicles (giving the family trees of themain tribal leaders and groups), but also scattered throughout the epic passages of the Pentateuch (e.g., the genealogies
of Moses and Aaron).
In poetical compositions, too, one sometimes finds allusions to marriage or to marital relationships (e.g., the prophetic allegory of Ezek. 16 and the depiction of the ideal wifein Prov. 31:10–31).
Strictly legislative materials are unfortunately few andof limited scope. Leviticus 18 and 20 gives the “forbidden degrees,” i.e., a list of those relationships which are consanguineous and therefore make marriage forbidden (see below). Numbers 5:11–31 describes the ritual process for testing a woman
suspected by her husband of infidelity. A case in the epic tradition is cited as a precedent for the inheritance rights of daughters in the absence of sons (Num. 26:28–34; 27:1–11; 36:10–12;
Josh. 17:1–6). Social legislation pertaining specifically to thefamily is found primarily in Deuteronomy. The legal responsibility of the bride to be a virgin (if advertised as such) whenentering into marriage and certain subsidiary matters, suchas intercourse with a marriageable girl before marriage, aredealt with in Deuteronomy 22:13–23:1. The process of *divorce
is outlined (in only the briefest form) in Deuteronomy 24:1–4,
while military exemption for a new bridegroom is prescribedin verse 5 of the same chapter. The laws relating to *levirate
marriage appear in Deuteronomy 25:5–10. Apart from scattered verses on miscellaneous aspects of family status, these
are the main legal passages on the subject of family law. It is
obvious from this brief survey that many basic themes are
neglected entirely.
Unlike the discoveries from other cultures in the ancient
Near East, the discoveries from ancient Israel have yielded nostrictly legal documents pertaining to marriage. Mesopotamia
has yielded hundreds of contracts and other types of documents, many of which are marriage arrangements. Much has
been learned from such documents found at Nuzi, and the*Elephantine papyri include a marriage contract. That such
documents were used by the Israelites is clear: it is known,for example, that a marriage was dissolved by giving the wife
a sefer keritut (“writ of separation,” Deut. 24:1, 3; Isa. 50:1; Jer.
3:8). The earliest direct reference to a Jewish marriage contract(apart from the one in the Elephantine papyri) is in the apocryphal Book of Tobit, where it is written that Raguel “… tooka scroll and wrote out the contract and they affixed their seals
to it” (Tob. 7:14). These scattered allusions seem to confirm
that marriage contracts were used in ancient Israel; the lackof direct evidence is apparently accidental.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6691

THE FAMILY UNIT. The Israelite family as reflected in all
genealogical and narrative sources is patriarchical. Attempts
have been made to find traces of matriarchy and fratriarchyin the earliest stages of Israel’s history, but none of the arguments is convincing (see below).
The family was aptly termed bet av (“house of a father”;
e.g., Gen. 24:38; 46:31). To found a family was “to build ahouse” (Deut. 25:10). The bayit (“house”) was a subdivision of
the mishpaḥ ah (“clan, family [in the larger sense],” Josh. 7:14).
The criterion for membership in a family (in the wider sense)
was blood relationship, legal ties (e.g., marriage), or geographical proximity. The genealogies of I Chronicles sometimes
speak of the clan leader as the “father” of a town, or towns,
in his district (e.g., I Chron. 2:51, 52). A common livelihoodor profession was probably a major factor in family and clansolidarity. Besides those families who engaged primarily inagriculture (conducted on their own lands), there were others who practiced some specific trade (e.g., they were linen
workers, I Chron. 4:21, or potters, I Chron. 4:23). The sacerdotal functions of the Levites and the sons of Aaron are themost striking case in point.
Family solidarity is reflected in customs such as blood
revenge (Num. 35:9–34; Deut. 19:1–13). Not only was thisvengeance exacted upon members of another clan who had
killed a kinsman (II Sam. 3:22–27, 30), but even within theframework of a clan, the members of a particular family were
responsible for exacting the death penalty when anothermember of their family was killed in an intra-family murder(II Sam. 14:4–11). The avenger (go’el) also had other responsibilities. A near kinsman was required to redeem a relative who
had been forced by penury to sell himself into slavery (Lev.
25:47–49). The same obligation held true for family property
that had been sold because of poverty (Lev. 25:25; cf. Jer. 32:7).
The Book of Ruth refers to this custom but is complicated by
the requirement that the surviving widow also be taken (moreor less in line with the Levirate practice (Deut. 15:5–10)). The
family was a religious as well as a social unit (Ex. 12:3; I Sam.
20:6, 29; Job. 1:5; see *Education).
CONSANGUINITY. The ties of blood relationship that forbade
sexual relations are spelled out in order to prevent ritual violations (Lev. 18:6–18; 20:11–14, 17, 19–21). One’s consanguineous
relatives, “near kin” (she’er besaro), as thus defined, were thefather (av), mother (em), father’s wife (eshet av), sister (aḥ ot) –family
whether the daughter of the father or the mother, granddaughter – whether the daughter of a son or of a daughter, daughterof the wife of one’s father (bat-eshet av), the father’s sister, themother’s sister, the father’s brother and his wife – the aunt (dodah), the son’s wife (kallah) – in biblical terms, the “bride” inrelation to the parents of her husband, and the brother’s wife
(eshet a). It was forbidden to take a woman and her daughter(Lev. 18:17; stated conversely, a woman and her mother, Lev.
20:14) or granddaughter; likewise a man was prohibited fromtaking his wife’s sister (called ẓ arah, a “rival”) while his wife
was still alive (Lev. 18:18; contrast Jacob’s marriage to Leahand Rachel).
FUNCTIONS OF FAMILY MEMBERS. The respective functions
and status of these persons are reflected in scattered passages.
The father was the head of the family unit and owner of its
property (Num. 26:54–55). He was the chief authority and, assuch, is portrayed as commanding (Gen. 50:16; Jer. 35:6–10;
Prov. 6:20) and rebuking (Gen. 37:10; Num. 12:14). Ideally
he was expected to be benevolent, to show love to his family (Gen. 25:28; 37:4; 44:20) and also pity (Ps. 103:13). The patriarchal blessing (Gen. 27) evidently carried legal force withregard to the distribution of the patrimony and other attendant privileges.
The mother, if she were the senior wife of a harem or
the sole wife of a monogamous marriage, occupied a place ofhonor and authority in spite of her subordination to her husband (see below). At his death she might become the actual,and probably the legal, head of the household (II Kings 8:1–6)
if there were no sons of responsible age. As a widow, she was
especially vulnerable to oppression; concern for her welfare
was deemed a measure of good government and wholesome
society (e.g., Deut. 24:17). The influence of famous mothers in
epic tradition, e.g., Sarah (Gen. 21:12) and the wife of Manoah(Judg. 13:23), is illustrative of the significance attached to theirrole. Not all of their power was exercised openly; often themotherly stratagem is deemed worthy of special notice in theepic tradition, e.g., the stratagems of Rebekah (Gen. 27:5–17),
Leah (Gen. 30:16), and Rachel (Gen. 31:34). The mother naturally displayed care and love (Gen. 25:28; Isa. 49:15; 66:13;
Prov. 4:3).
The role of the queen mother (gevirah) stands out in several instances (e.g., I Kings 2:19; 15:13; cf. II Chron. 15:16). The
almost uniform practice of naming the mother of the newly
crowned Judahite king (e.g., I Kings 14:21) may be a reflectionof her special status, but not necessarily. The biblical narrative was evidently concerned with keeping track of the royalheirs by this means, perhaps in order to stress the particularfamily or region whose daughter had gained the distinction of
having her son rise to the throne (cf. II Kings 21:19 and 23:36
where the Galilean origin of the kings’ mothers is indicated).
It is not certain that in every case the son of the chief wife
gained the succession.
The greatest misfortune that could befall a woman waschildlessness (Gen. 30:23; I Sam. 1). Children were a blessing

from the Almighty (Ps. 127:3–5); they assured the continuanceof the family name (Num. 27:4, 8; 36:8b). The mother was
more directly involved in the early training of the children
than was the father (Prov. 1:8). When the children grew older,the father assumed responsibility for instructing the son (Gen.
18:19; Ex. 12:26–27; 13:8, 14, 15; Deut. 6:7), while the motherevidently kept charge of the daughter until marriage (Micah
7:6). Children were exhorted to honor both parents (Ex. 20:12;
Deut. 5:16), and the inclusion of this command in the Decalogue probably accounts for the threatened death penalty tooffenders (Ex. 21:15; Lev. 20:9; Deut. 27:16). The decline in respect for parents was symptomatic of the dissolution of society (Ezek. 22:7; Micah 7:6; Prov. 20:20). The demonstration ofthis respect was primarily through obedience (Gen. 28:7; Lev.
19:3; Deut. 21:18–21; Prov. 1:8; 30:17). Parental control included
the right to sell daughters in marriage, although there werelimitations on selling her into slavery (Ex. 21:7–11; cf. 22:15–16;
Neh. 5:5), and an absolute ban on selling her for prostitution(Lev. 19:29). The father could annul his daughter’s vows (Num.
30:4–6), and damages were paid to him for a wrong done toher (Ex. 22:15–16; Deut. 22:28–29). A daughter who was widowed or divorced might return to her father’s household (Gen.
38:11, Lev. 22:13; Ruth 1:15).
The terms “brother” (aḥ ) and “sister” (aḥ ot) applied bothto offspring of the same father and mother (Gen. 4:2) as wellas to offspring who had only one common parent, either afather (Gen. 20:12) or mother (Gen. 43:7; Lev. 18:9; 20:17).
Attempts have been made to find traces of a fratriarchal system in the most ancient Israelite traditions; e.g., in Laban’srole (Gen. 24) as head of the family when his sister Rebekah
was sent to marry Isaac. Laban’s role, however, can be explained without recourse to fratriarchy; Laban, as the direct descendant of Nahor (Gen. 24:15, 29; 29:5), certainly wasslated to become head of the family after his own father’s
demise. Another biblical incident, the concern of Jacob’ssons after the humiliation of their sister, whom they called
their “daughter” (Gen. 34:17), can also be understood in thisway.
Brotherly solidarity is frequently stressed (e.g., Prov.
17:17), and harmony among brothers was held up as an ideal(Ps. 133:1). Brothers were obligated to avenge each other’smurder (II Sam. 3:27) as part of their duty as go’el (“defender”
or “redeemer”; Num. 35:19–28; Deut. 19:6; Josh. 20:3; II Sam.
14:11). Another aspect of this responsibility was the requirement that one ransom a brother who had been taken captive
or had gone into servitude as the result of financial adversity(Lev. 25:48; Ps. 49:8; cf. Neh. 5:8).
The term “brother” is often extended to more distant relatives, e.g., nephews (e.g., Gen. 13:8; 14:14), fellow tribesmen(Lev. 21:10), and others (Deut. 2:4, 8; 23:8).
Other members of the immediate family were the paternal uncle (dod; e.g., Lev. 10:4; 20:20) and the paternal aunt
(dodah; the father’s sister, Ex. 6:20; and the wife of the father’s
brother, Lev. 18:14; 20:20); also cousins (male, ben-dod, Lev.
25:49; Num. 36:11; female, bat-dod, Esth. 2:7).

692

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

family
MARRIAGE AND ADOPTION. Though a man left his parents when he married (Gen. 2:24), he normally remained amember of his father’s family. In relation to his wife, he was“master” (ba’al; e.g., Gen. 20:3; Ex. 21:3, 22; Lev. 21:4; Deut.
24:4). He “took” her from her parents, or she was “given”
to him by her father, or by her master or mistress, if she
was a slave (Gen. 2:22; 16:3; 34:9, 21). The marriage agreement, which, judging from neighboring cultures, was probably
set down in a written contract, was made between the husband and either the bride’s father alone (Gen. 29; 34:16; Ex.
22:16; Deut. 22:29; Ruth 4:10) or both her parents (Gen. 21:21;
24). The marriage negotiations might result from an attractionthat had already developed between two young people (e.g.,Samson and the Philistine girl, Judg. 14), but generally thefather must have taken the initiative since evidently he had
the right to determine who would be his daughter’s spouse(Caleb, Josh. 15:16; Saul, I Sam. 18:17, 19, 21, 27; 25:44). If a
man seduced a virgin, he had to pay her bride-price to herfather, who could, at his own discretion, give his daughter tothis man in marriage or withhold her from him (Ex. 22:15).
However, if he forced her, he was obligated to marry her andpay her price, and had no right ever to divorce her (Deut.
22:28–29).
Generally, prior to the consummation of the marriage a*betrothal was entered into; under this arrangement the brideprice (mohar) was established (Gen. 34:12; Ex. 22:16; I Sam.
18:25), accompanied by a gift (mattan; Gen. 34:12). A time limit
was set by which the payments were to be completed and themarriage put into effect (I Sam. 18:17–19, 26:27). The engagement was a legal transaction in the fullest sense. An engaged
man was exempt from military service (Deut. 20:7). The legal
status of a betrothed virgin was such that she was prohibitedto other men. If someone besides her fiancé had intercoursewith her, she was held guilty of adultery. If the act took place
in town, where she could have cried for help, the woman was
equally guilty; but if it happened in the country she was exonerated by the benefit of the doubt – perhaps she did cry out
and was not heard (Deut. 22:23–27).
The essence of the *marriage ceremony seems to havebeen the transfer of the bride to the house of the groom. He
would don a turban (Isa. 61:10) and proceed with his companions to the house of the bride. There the bride, richly attired(Isa. 61:10; Ps. 45:14–15) and veiled (Song 4:1, 3; 6:7; cf. Gen.
24:65; 29:23–25), awaited him. She was then conducted to thehouse of the bridegroom (Gen. 24:67; Ps. 45:15–16). The festivities included songs extolling the virtues of the bridal pair(Jer. 16:9) – Psalms 45 and Song of Songs evidently represent
such compositions – and a feast of seven days (Gen. 29:22–27;
Judg. 14:10–12) or even a fortnight (Tob. 8:20). Unusual circumstances might require that the feast be at the home of
the bride’s parents, but under normal circumstances it musthave taken place at the home of the groom. The marriage wasconsummated on the first night (Gen. 29:23), and the bride’s
nuptial attire (simlah) was kept afterward as evidence of her
virginity (betulim; Deut. 22:13–21).

The modern definitions of *monogamy and polygamy
are not strictly applicable to the ancient world. It was normal for the head of a household to have only one legal, fullfledged wife (Heb. ishshah; Akk. aššatu); if she were barren,
the husband had the right to take a concubine who was often
the handmaiden of his wife (Gen. 16:1–2; 29:15–30; 30:1ff.).
However, a man might take two wives of equal standing (Gen.
26:34; 28:9; 29:15–30; 36:2–5; I Sam. 1:2). In that case the law
forbade his depriving his firstborn son of his legitimate double
portion in the interests of the son of the other wife, should she
be the favorite (Deut. 21:15–17). Royal polygamy (Deut. 17:17;
I Kings 11:1–8) was partly a reflection of foreign policy, eachnew addition to the harem representing a new or renewed
treaty relationship. Heroic leaders would also be expected
to have numerous wives and to father many offspring (Judg.
8:30–31; I Sam. 25:42–43).
Living with her husband, the wife was normally close to
her husband’s father (ḥ am; I Sam. 4:19, 21) and mother (ḥ amot;
Ruth passim; Micah 7:6). Occasions when the groom stayedwith the bride’s parents (ḥ oten, e.g., Ex. 18:1; ḥ otenet, Deut.
27:23) are noted in the Bible precisely because they were not
the norm. Heroic figures such as Moses and Jacob (cf. also
Sinuhe, the hero of an Egyptian historical novel) were forced
because of unusual circumstances to spend long periods with
their in-laws.
When her father died, a woman’s brother would perform
all the duties of the ḥ oten (Gen. 24:50, 55). Brothers- and sisters-in-law were considered too closely related to marry (Lev.
18:16, 18; 20:21), except in the case of the husband’s brother (yavam), who was expected to fulfill the Levirate responsibility.
*Adoption is clearly demonstrated in the case of Jacob’s
accepting Manasseh and Ephraim as sons (Gen. 48:5); parallels
from other ancient Near Eastern cultures have been noted. The
absorption of various clans, e.g., the *Calebites and Jerahmeelites into the tribe of Judah, suggests that adoption may havebeen more widespread in Israelite society. Divine adoption of
the king seems to be reflected in certain passages (II Sam. 7:14;
Ps. 2:7). It has been suggested, on the basis of parallel customs
from Nuzi, that Abraham had adopted Eliezer, his chief servant (Gen. 15:2), and that Laban had also adopted Jacob before
sons of his own were born (Gen. 31:1–2). The evidence is too
scanty for firm conclusions, but one would be surprised if noadoption whatever was practiced (cf. the metaphorical use of
adoption symbolism (Ezek. 16:1–7; Hos. 11:1–4)).

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6693[Anson Rainey]

Post-Biblical
The subject of the family in the post-biblical period is considered here under two aspects:(a) family in its wider sense of individuals related by marriage or consanguinity, and(b) the smaller unit consisting of parents and children.
THE LARGER FAMILY UNIT. There is no doubt that the word
“family” was used in this sense, i.e., the descendants of an
eponymous ancestor, and various families are referred to infamily
the Talmud, such as the families of Bet Zerifa (Kid. 71a), Bet
Zevaim and Bet Kupai (Yev. 15b), and Bet Dorkati (Ket. 10b).
Among the priestly families, a completely pure and unsullied
genealogy was rigidly insisted upon. It took the most extreme
forms, and it was laid down that “they set a higher standard inmatters of priestly descent” (Ket. 13a). Josephus, who prided
himself on his priestly descent (Life, 1:1), states that the genealogies of the priests were carefully preserved in the archivesof the Temple. The attempt of the Pharisees to remove John
Hyrcanus (I) from his office of high priesthood (Kid. 66a; cf.
Jos., Ant., 13:10, 288–92) and the pathetic incident of R. Zechariah b. ha-Kaẓ av, a priest, who was forced to divorce his wife,
despite his oath that he had not left her for a moment during
their capture by enemy soldiery (Ket. 2:9), are both based on
the law that a woman who had been taken captive by nonJewish soldiers was forbidden to marry a kohen.
What was obligatory and mandatory for priestly families
was regarded as desirable for non-priestly families. Most of
the last chapter of the talmudic tractate Kiddushin deals withthis question, with the aim of ensuring the purity of the family. Both purity of descent and eugenic considerations wereregarded as important: “A man should not marry into a family which has a recurrent history of epilepsy or leprosy” (Yev.
64b). The responsibility of the individual member of a family
toward the good name of the family as a whole is constantly
stressed: “A family is like a heap of stones. Remove one, andthe whole structure can collapse” (Gen. R. 100:7). “Woe unto
him who sullies his children and his family” (Kid. 70a) and“whosoever brings disrepute upon himself brings disrepute
upon his whole family” (Num. R. 21:3). This regard for thegood name of the family as a whole gave rise to the impressive ceremony of *Keẓ aẓ ah in which “all the members of thefamily” participated when one of them “married a woman
who was not worthy of them” (Ket. 28b).
There were “aristocratic families of Israel” on whomalone “the Holy One, blessed be He, causes his Divine Spirit
to rest” (Kid. 70b). They alone were regarded as worthy ofmarrying into the priestly families. The status of certain families as “pure and impure” and as “sullied and unsullied” waswell known (Ket. 28b.). It was regarded as a meritorious act
to marry the daughter of a scholar (Pes. 49a), and genealogical lists were drawn up, and carefully preserved (Pes. 62b;
Yev. 49b). The last mishnah of Ta’anit (4:8) records an ancientcustom that on the 15t of Av and on the Day of Atonement
the young men of Jerusalem used to go out in the vineyards
to choose their brides, and the maidens adjured them saying;“Young man, lift up thine eyes and see what thou art choosing for thyself. Set not thine eyes on beauty; set thine eyes onfamily.” On the other hand, a blind eye was turned to a family in which it was known that there had been an undesirable admixture which could not be traced (Kid. 71a). During
the talmudic period, the marked tendency of descendants tocontinue the calling or the profession of their forebears is referred to in a statement justifying the fact that retribution istaken in the case of the worshiper of Moloch “from the man

and his family” (Lev. 20:5). “If he sinned, in what did his family sin? Because there is not a family containing a publican ofwhich all the members are not publicans or containing a thief
in which they are not all thieves” (Shev. 39a). Mention is also
made of “families of scribes, which produce scribes, of scholars who produce scholars, and of plutocrats who produce plutocrats” (Eccl. R. 4:9). This emphasis on the worthiness of thefamilies as a prime consideration in choosing one’s life partner has persisted throughout the social life of the Jews. It wascommonplace among East European Jews for the parents ofthe potential bride or bridegroom to ensure that the parents
should be such as “one could sit down with them at table.” It
is an interesting fact that in Hebrew and in Yiddish there isa word (mechutan) to designate the relationship establishedbetween the parents of the bride and the parents of the bridegroom, or between the respective families.

694

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

THE SMALLER FAMILY UNIT. In Jewish social life and tradition the family constitutes perhaps the most closely knit
unit in any society. All members of the family, husband andwife, parents and children, are bound by mutual ties of responsibility.
Although in theory polygamy is permitted by both Bible
and Talmud, the ideal set forward is always of husband, wife,and children forming one unit. The passage from Psalms,“it shall be well with thee, thy wife shall be a fruitful vinein the innermost part of thy house; thy children like olive
plants round about thy table” (Ps. 128:2–3), formed the basis of
innumerable homilies on the part of the rabbis extolling thevirtue of domestic bliss (cf. Tanh. Va-Yishlaḥ ; ser 18, etc.).
The family was regarded as the smallest social unit throughwhich the cultural and religious heritage of Judaism can betransmitted.
Where Christianity glorified celibacy and monasticism as
the highest ideal and a means of extolling the virtue of chastity, Judaism extolled the institution of marriage and the family. It is significant of the difference in outlook that whereas
Paul regarded celibacy as the highest virtue and only reluctantly gave permission to marry, “But if they cannot contain,
let them marry; for it is better to marry than burn” (i.e., incur
the death penalty of burning for incest and adultery; I Cor.
7:9), a Midrash attributes the death of Nadab and Abihu, thetwo sons of Aaron, “from a fire from the Lord” (Lev. 10:2) tothe fact that in their arrogance they refused to marry (Lev.
R. 20:10). The rabbis pointed to the verse “He created it [theworld] not a waste, he formed it to be inhabited” (Is. 45:18) as ajustification for the religious duty not only of marrying but ofsetting up a family. R. Eliezer went so far as to regard the man
who does not marry and shirks the duty of rearing children as
equivalent to a murderer (Tosef., Yev. 8:4). The Mishnah (Yev.
6:6) lays it down as a duty to procreate, in accordance with
Gen. 1:28 “Be fruitful and multiply,” the minimum number ofchildren for its fulfillment being two (according to Bet Shammai two male children; according to Bet Hillel one male andone female). So essentially was this regarded as the purpose

family, american jewishof marriage that according to the same Mishnah not only wasa man permitted, but even enjoined, to divorce his wife after
ten years of barrenness.
The discussion in the Babylonian Talmud to this Mishnah(60b–63a) is replete with statements emphasizing the sacred
nature of this duty and the joy, beauty, and sanctity of the Jewish home. It includes such statements as “He who has no wife
lives without joy, without blessing, and without goodness”; “ofthat man who loves his wife as himself, honors her more thanhimself, who guides his sons and daughters in the right way,
and arranges for their early marriage, Scripture says ‘and thoushalt know that thy tent is peace’ (Job. 5:24).”
The family unit was regarded as a closed one. The spontaneous blessing of Balaam “How goodly are thy tents, O
Jacob” (Num. 24:5) was inspired by the fact that he saw that“the doors [of their houses] were not opened opposite thoseof their neighbors” (cf. Rashi ad loc.). The wife was supposedlargely to confine herself to her household duties and strangers were somewhat discouraged, despite the emphasis placed
upon the duty of hospitality. The wife and mother was the undisputed mistress of the home.
Children are a divine trust (cf. the story of the death of
R. Meir’s two children, Yal. Prov. 964). It was the father’s duty
to teach his child religion, to teach him a trade, even to teachhim to swim (Kid. 40a), and it was strictly forbidden to a parent to show favoritism to any of his children (Shab. 10b). No
duty ranked higher than the fifth commandment, “honor thy
father and thy mother” (Ex. 20:12). Domestic harmony wasenjoined in the injunction “a man should spend less than hismeans on food, up to his means on clothes, beyond his meansin honoring wife and children, because they are dependent
on him” (Ḥ ul. 84b).
This constant insistence upon the value of the family as asocial unit for the propagation of domestic and religious virtues and the significant fact that the accepted Hebrew word for
marriage is kiddushin, “sanctification,” had the result of making the Jewish home the most vital factor in the survival of
Judaism and the preservation of the Jewish way of life, much
more than the synagogue or school. It was also a major factor for moral purity.
The traditional Jewish home exemplified the maxim“where there is peace and harmony between husband andwife the *Shekhinah dwells between them.” A religious spiritof practical observance pervades it, from the *mezuzah on
the doorpost to the strict observance of the dietary laws in
the kitchen. The home was the center of religious practiceand ceremonial. Its outstanding expression was the festive
meal on Sabbaths and festivals with the kindled candles on
the table, the *Kiddush, *Zemirot, and Grace before and after
Meals. The outstanding such occasion is the seder on Passovereve. But there was also the *Sukkah, the morning and night
prayers, the blessing of the children by their father on the eveof Sabbath and Festivals, and the blessing of the parents (significantly called “my father, my teacher,” and “my mother, myteacher”) in the Grace after Meals.

Nor were the social and humane virtues overlooked.
The placing of a coin in the charity box (usually for the poorof the Holy Land, the “Meir Ba’al Ha-Nes Fund”) initiatedthe duty of charity; Deut. 11:15 was interpreted to mean thatone should feed one’s domestic animals before sitting down
to one’s meal.
Perhaps in nothing was the strength of the family bondmore seen than in the paradox that whereas in theory divorce
among Jews is the easiest of all processes, in practice it was,until recent times, a comparative and even absolute rarity.
The powerful bond which united parents and children in one
bond with mutual responsibilities and mutual consideration
made it a bulwark of Judaism able to withstand all stresses
from without and from within.
See also: Marriage, Husband and Wife, Parent andChild.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

695[Louis Isaac Rabinowitz]
Bibliography: BIBLICAL PERIOD: The most important
treatment of recent times is that of de Vaux, Anc Isr, 19–55 (incl.
bibl., pp. 520–3); see also I. Mendelsohn, in: BA, 11 (1948), 24–40;
idem, in: iej, 9 (1959), 180–3; R. Patai, Sex and Family in the Bible andthe Middle East (1959); A.F. Rainey, in: Orientalia, 34 (1965), 10–22.
POST-BIBLICAL PERIOD: D. Aronson, The Jewish Way of Life (1946),
104–123; I. Epstein, The Jewish Way of Life (1946), 196–9, 203–5; M.M.
Kaplan, Judaism as a Civilization (1935), 416–22; I. Maybaum, The
Jewish Home (1945).

FAMILY, AMERICAN JEWISH.
Introduction
Any discussion of American Jewish family life as an institution
must view it within the context of contemporary American social, economic, and political life. All contemporary American
Jews are “Jews by choice” in that their relationship with the
Jewish people, Judaism, and its institutions is voluntary. They
have freedom and feel part of mainstream American life.
The experience of the Jewish family in the United Statesover the past century has been one of acculturation and accommodation to the norms and values of American society.
The diversity within Jewish life precludes a description of anarchetypal contemporary American Jewish family. In contrast, according to Glatzer the historic Jewish family – at leastin theory (1959) – was (1) patriarchal, (2) three generational,(3) home oriented, (4) pious, and (5) devoted to study, particularly the Bible, Talmud and other Jewish texts. As in allother modern Jewish societies, the majority of Jewish families
in the United States today, and perhaps the majority of Jewish
families in the typology suggested bear scant resemblance toGlatzer’s model of the premodern European Jewish family.
Many Jewish families still share certain distinctive socioeconomic characteristics, i.e., they are middle or upper middle
class, are politically to the left of center, and socialize oftenwith other Jews. But many, from day to day, are hardly distinguishable from their non-Jewish neighbors. In a profoundway, the religion most practiced by American Jewish families
has been America itself, its freedoms, democracy, openness,and unprecedented opportunities.

family, american jewish
The transition from tradition and self-segregation characterizes the development of the American Jewish family in
the United States. These processes affected virtually every aspect of family life, from size and residential patterns to marriage and career choices. There are some who see this process as having weakened the Jewish family, leading it in the
direction of ultimate extinction as a distinctive type; others see evidence of surprising strength and the maintenanceof tradition in a world of dramatic change. Often citing thesame evidence, they perceive the Jewish family as having successfully transformed itself in response to the conditions of
its environment, requiring, perhaps, only some redefinition.
The process of change which the Jewish family underwent in
America may be divided into four eras: (1) the years definedby mass immigration or its consequences, beginning in 1881
and lasting until the late 1920s, (2) the mid-century era, lasting from about 1930 to the mid-1960s, (3) the decades of the
1970s and 1980s, and (4) the end of the 20t century and the
beginning of the 21st.
Immigration
The majority of Jews living in the United States today arethird-, fourth-, and fifth-generation descendants of the families of some 2,650,000 immigrants who arrived in America
between the last two decades of the 19t century and the firstquarter of the 20t century as part of the mass transplantationof peoples from Eastern and Southern Europe. Howe (1976)
points out that for Jews, more than for any other Europeangroup, this historic migration was a movement of families,
signified by the great proportion of females and children who
took part in it. Mass migration, which is usually set in motion by an economic or political crisis, war, or natural disaster, disrupts the normal development of family life. “Yet, it
was the ferocious loyalty of the Jews to the idea of the familyas they knew it, the family both as locus of experience and as
fulfillment of their obligation to perpetuate their line, that enabled them to survive (the immigration experience)” (p. 20).
However, immigration put an enormous strain on the family.
The older generation was often left behind, never to be seen
again. Husbands came before their wives and children thus
beginning the process of Americanization earlier. Family reunions were often joyous but seldom without problems as bothhusband and wife had changed in the intervening years; thehusband had become more American, the wife had becomeused to handling family matters. There were also problemsof abandonment, of husbands who had disappeared into thegreat abyss of America.
The majority of Eastern European Jewish families whocame to the United States were nominally Orthodox; they werenot, though, among the most learned or pious of that generation. Those who were well established in Europe stayed inEurope. “There is little recognition [today] of the fact that asignificant group of the post-1905 immigrants had [already]moved away from Jewish culture …” (Sklare, 1971, p. 17). Nevertheless, they held on to a distinctive Jewish ethos and way oflife brought from their towns and villages. Within their world,molded by centuries of Jewish tradition, arranged marriages
were common, and large families were desirable, if not always
achievable. With a high infant mortality rate and the death ofyoung children by disease, for some children to survive, many
more had to be born. The husband was the dominant spouse,
the primary breadwinner, and the master of the house, at leastin theory. Yet, quite often, the wife was forced to work or inbusiness both husband and wife often worked together. The
needs of the group, especially one’s family, generally took precedence over any one of its members. Personal achievementof boys and men was encouraged, knowing that the rewards
would benefit the entire family. The boundaries of family loyalty and commitment generally extended beyond the immediate household to include a wider circle of relatives.
During this period, economic survival was the immediate concern of each family. “Between 1900 and 1920, it can beargued, more American Jews were engaged in a really difficult
struggle for existence than at any time before or since” (Glazer,
1965, p. 23). Despite this, when family members assisted one
another the difficulties of resettlement were eased. Countlessveteran families legally undertook responsibility for new immigrant relatives, helping them find housing and employment,
and, when necessary, sharing food, shelter, and clothing, until
the newest arrivals were securely settled.
The many hardships of starting life in a new society put
great pressures on the functioning of the family. For example,
in the lore of the old country the Jewish father was the naturaland unchallenged head of the household, respected and fearedby all family members. The Jewish mother was revered for her
dedication to her husband and the responsibility she assumed
for her young children. Upon reaching America these relationships often changed. The difficulty of adult immigrants inparting with the ways of the old country, in learning to read
English and speak it without an accent, in finding gainful employment, and in general, mastering the new environment,
in many cases led to the reversal of roles between parents
and children. “‘Green’ parents turned to their Americanizedchildren for succor. Parents became children, and children
were unwillingly pressed into the role of parents” (Feingold,
1992, p. 38). Young children learned English more readily andit was not uncommon for them to serve as family spokesman
when dealing with the school teacher, principal, policemen
and other non-Jewish authorities. In addition, thousands ofchildren were removed from school to work in sweatshops
or to perform other menial labor in order to guarantee theirfamily’s subsistence income. Inevitably, many children, feelingmore American than their parents, were embarrassed by thelatter’s foreignness and derided them for being “greenhorns” –and then often felt guilty for it. Many immigrant families, perhaps those who were initially less stable, experienced various
levels of dysfunction in response to these pressures.
A primary source that reflects the struggles and vicissitudes of first generation Jewish families in America is the letters to the editor column of the then popular Yiddish daily,

696

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

family, american jewish
the Forverts, a collection known as A Bintel Brief. The thousands of letters sent to this column by immigrants, beginningin 1906, bear testimony to the family arguments, difficulties
with raising children, infidelity, divorce, and particularly, casesof paternal desertion experienced by many Jewish families.
“The number of [Jewish] men who left their families becameso great at one time that the Forverts, in cooperation with the
National Desertion Bureau, established a special column totrace them” (Metzker, 1972, p. 10).
Another source on Jewish family life from this period,
The Jewish Communal Register (1918), is a compendium ofsocio-economic and demographic data on approximately amillion and a half New York Jews, one-half of all the Jews in
the United States at that time. One table, covering the period
from 1901 to 1916, compiled by the United Hebrew Charities,
indicates a steady decrease, from 11,447 to 6,014, in the numberof Jewish families receiving community assistance. As Morris
Waldman, at the time the executive director of the Federated
Jewish Charities of Boston, pointed out:[T]he striking thing is, that in spite of the rapid increase of theJewish population, due to immigration as well as to naturalcauses, the number of dependent families has steadily diminished year by year, not only proportionately, but actually… Thisis particularly gratifying in the light of the fact that the numberof dependent families among other elements in the city, judging by the experience of other private relief agencies, has increased in proportion to the increase of their population. This
proves that the Jews from eastern European countries are notwilling dependents. On the contrary, they make every effort tocare for themselves and thus remain self-respecting as well as
self-supporting (pp. 991–92).

children were American born and American educated. Afterthe mid-1920s, integration into the American mainstream
became the most important issue on the Jewish community’s agenda.
With impressive speed, masses of Jewish families in cities throughout the United States found the means to relocatefrom the area of first settlement to a second, more desirable,community. As early as 1925, for example, Brownsville had
become the largest center of Jewish population in all of New
York City, more populous than the Lower East Side of Manhattan, which many of its inhabitants had left in search of cleaner,
healthier, and more spacious living (Landesman, 1969). Geographic mobility, usually the move from a small apartment
in an older, run down quarter, to a larger apartment or home
in a newer, more prestigious section, was the by-product ofsocial and economic success. The Menorah Journal of April
1928 points out:
In the United States the benefits of equality have now been attained for all practical purposes. Every number of every Jewish weekly in the land points with pride to some Jewish judge
or governor, to Jewish bankers, real estate operators and merchants, to members of the faith who are actors and authors andeditors, or who have been honored for some success dear to thehearts of their fellow Americans (ibid., p. 361).

The Mid-Century
Although the challenges of resettlement seemed overwhelming at the time, the Jewish family, in retrospect, stood up tothem rather well. The evidence for this is the remarkably rapidsocial mobility of second-generation American Jews whoseparents, in spite of their struggles, saw to their education andgeneral welfare. This second era encompasses approximately
40 years divisible, into two periods. The first began roughlyaround 1925 and lasted until 1945; the second commenced withthe end of World War II and continued until the mid-1960s.
During the first 20 years immigrant Jewish families underwent
a remarkable social metamorphosis. After World War II they
emerged thoroughly Americanized and ready to reap the benefits of the country’s post-war economic upsurge.
Quota legislation adopted by Congress in 1921 and 1924,
known as the Johnson Acts, effectively ended 40 years of continuous immigration to the United States. With the abatementof mass immigration, the problems of resettlement faded,
and the tenor of Jewish community life changed. Those whocame in the 1880s and 1890s had been here for decades; their

Ironically, the process of becoming established took placeagainst a backdrop of significant antisemitism and discrimination which only peaked towards the end of the 1930s. During these years, “gangs attacked Jews on the streets of Brooklyn and other eastern cities with little interference from thepolice, while organizations calling themselves the Christian
Front of the Christian Mobilizers conducted ‘Buy Christian’campaigns, cheered the Fuehrer and denounced prominent
American Jews” (O’Brien, 1967, p. 271). If nothing else, the effect of antisemitic street violence was reason enough for Jewish families to leave the working class neighborhoods of theLower East Side of Manhattan, the Bronx, and Brooklyn where
older Jewish enclaves bordered the neighborhoods of otherimmigrant groups. Both intergroup conflict and increasing
prosperity stimulated geographic mobility.
By 1920, first-generation Jewish immigrants were outnumbered by their American-born Jewish children who began“asserting themselves in the Jewish community” (Hutchinson,1956). “As members of the second generation began to strive
for the values of the dominant society, they introduced theseeds of conflict into the … community” (Kramer and Leventman, 1961). By the beginning of the 1940s, it was clear thatyounger Jewish families, by then virtually all second generation Americans, bore the values and cultural patterns of theirnative land. One observer from that era writes: “Today in
America, Jewry, like a chameleon, has taken on the color of
its new surroundings. Its soul remains divided between thememory of its Eastern heritage – of traditions nursed throughcenturies of ghetto life – and the interests of the community,
which has received it. Its thought has been cast increasingly
in the American vernacular …” (ibid.). Typically, second-gen-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

697

These words portend the successful social and economic integration of the American Jewish family into American society during the coming decades. America was expanding, jobs
were available and workers were needed.

family, american jewish
eration families attenuated the Orthodox rituals, which were
the only form of religious Judaism their parents and grandparents had known in Eastern Europe, even if these had not been
consistently observed. Kramer and Leventman note that upon
becoming adults, the children of immigrants “acquired a middle-class inclination to make distinctions between the sacred
and the secular unknown in the ghetto … What the second
generation required were religious institutions adapted to thenorms of its new status” (ibid., p. 11). Sklare (1972) thus attributes the success of Conservative Judaism during the period
1920–1950 to “its appeal to young marrieds who were in theprocess of establishing independent households and developing a pattern of Jewish living that would be distinctive to theirgeneration.…Younger Jews who wished to retain continuity
with their past and at the same time integrate into American
middle-class culture found Conservative Judaism to be theperfect solution to their dilemma” (Sklare, ibid.). Both Conservative and Reform Judaism represented a restructuring ofEuropean Orthodox religious patterns that appealed more to
American Jewish sensibilities. In particular, they sanctioned
shorter, mixed-pew Sabbath worship services with greater
decorum. For families of both movements, the weekly synagogue service became the main, and for many the only, even
if infrequent, family religious activity, with the exception of
the Passover seder, Hanukkah candles, or celebrating a family
life cycle event, such as a bar or bat mitzvah. The synagogue
was used for life cycle events: birth and bar-mitzvah, marriage
and death, times of crisis and illness as well as on the High
Holidays. One observer spoke of it as a Judaism of “hatch em,
match em, patch em and dispatch em.”
To be sure, many family traditions brought from Europe endured and were passed on to the first American-borngeneration. “Certain deeply felt attitudes, well adapted to theconditions of the shtetl, were brought … by East European
immigrants and transplanted in American soil. If this soil
had been completely uncongenial to them, they would bedead and forgotten by now; but the soil was partly congenial,
partly inimical” (Yaffe, p. 278). Jewish families saw in the pluralistic nature of American society a tolerance for non-native
customs that did not exist in the more highly structured andtraditional societies of Europe. This openness helped fostera kind of biculturalism – Jewish and American. Even while
seeking to emulate the ways of their new surroundings, mostimmigrants could not divest themselves of their old country
values and norms. As a result, many never felt fully at home in
America. By contrast, their children, born in the United States,
though only one generation removed from Eastern Europe,
saw themselves as American in all respects.
Structural acculturation among second generation Jewish families began as early as the 1920s, says Feingold, and was
expressed through:A loosening of the ties of kinship, and ultimately the large extended family was replaced by a small nuclear one. Familyclans that had settled in the same neighborhood dispersed. The
nuclear family was compelled to bear alone the stress of rapid698

change or decline in fortune. Occasionally families cracked under the strain, but most often the changed Jewish family survived and continued to live as before – or as much as was possible (ibid., p. 37).

The dispersion to which Feingold refers was not universal. Second generation families, in fact, often continued to live in thesame community, and sometimes even in the same apartmentbuilding or complex. This was also true in certain cities morethan others. Pittsburgh for example, has had a stable Jewish
upper-middle-class neighborhood since the 1930s and is stillusing the infrastructure created more than three quarters ofa century ago. During this era, three generation households,
consisting of grandparents, parents, and children, were notas uncommon as they were to become. Grandparents often
maintained an active role in managing the family. No doubt
this helped many young couples by reducing their child-rearing responsibilities, affording them additional time for work or
schooling. In spite of discrimination, many children of immigrants succeeded in entering American colleges and universities. They trained for the “free” professions of law, medicine,
dentistry, pharmacy and accounting (Glazer 1965, p. 33). It
was during this period that large numbers of American Jewish families improved their socio-economic status, becoming
solidly middle class.
According to Glazer, in the mid-1930s almost one-halfof young Jewish adults came from homes where their fathers
were blue-collar workers, and about one-third from homes
where their fathers owned their own businesses or were managers and officials in other enterprises. In one-tenth of thehomes the fathers were clerks, and in fewer than one-twentieth they were professionals. In contrast, some 60 percent of
the younger generation was engaged in “clerical and kindred”
work, and many headed for an independent business careeror profession. In smaller cities during the 1930s, such as Detroit, Buffalo, and San Francisco, an even larger percentageof young Jews, including women, were becoming teachers,
white-collar clerks, and salespeople (ibid., pp. 30–32). Theirsolid penetration of the middle class during this period set
the stage for even greater socio-economic advancement during the next two decades.
Even before reaching the middle class economically,
American Jewish families displayed many of the social patterns of this group. A prime example of this is the decline in
the birth rate. “The process of family limitation among American Jews,” says Sklare, “has its roots in the fertility behaviorof the first generation. But it was not until the second generation that newer conceptions of family size made deep inroads”(ibid., 1971, p. 79). In 11 community-wide studies carried out
between 1930 and 1940 Seligman (see Glazer, p. 34) reports
on Jewish fertility ratios (the proportion of children under 5
per 1,000 persons aged 20–54) ranging from 81 to 122. Among
non-Jewish Caucasians in 1940 from across the United States,
the ratio is 154. Glazer comments that “in the late ‘Thirties, it
seem[s] fair to conclude that a modicum of relative prosperity had been accompanied by a very rapid drop in the size of
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

family, american jewish
the Jewish family” (ibid., p. 35). “By 1938,” notes Feingold, “50percent of Jewish families produced two or fewer children.
Jews were on their way to becoming America’s most efficient
contraceptors” (p. 48). Sociologists and others at that time
who were sensitive to these trends predicted a decline in thesize of the American Jewish community.
By 1940 American Jews had adopted the model of the
middle-class American family more successfully than any
other immigrant group. This status is portrayed in a numberof popular wartime- and postwar-period novels, including
A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (Betty Smith, 1943), A Walker in
the City (Alfred Kazin, 1951), Marjorie Morningstar (Herman
Wouk, 1955), and Good-bye Columbus (Philip Roth, 1959).
Jewish families portrayed in earlier works, such as Abraham
Cahan’s The Rise of David Levinsky (1917) and Henry Roth’s
Call It Sleep (1934), are, by comparison, preoccupied with themore fundamental issues of resettlement and becoming “real”
Americans. After 1940, these themes are no longer relevant.
Fictional Jewish families as portrayed by Jewish authors in the
1940s are unmistakably, middle-class American families who
also happen to be Jewish.
Glazer asserts that “the fifteen years of prosperity fromthe end of the thirties to the mid-fifties … wrought greatchanges, and created the Jewish community we know today.… This community of businessmen and professionalmen is better educated and wealthier than most of the population – probably as well educated and as wealthy as someof the oldest and longest established elements in the UnitedStates” (ibid., p. 3). Glazer attributes this success to the fact thatJews, more than other immigrant groups, had for generations
engaged in various urban, middle-class occupations, and in
spirit had long belonged to the middle class.
Upon its rise to the middle class, the Jewish family began exhibiting additional signs of modernization. Strodbeck(1957) offers evidence which demonstrates that after WorldWar II, Jews, as compared to Italians, place less stress on “familism,” i.e., they are more willing to leave home and live independently. This suggests that certain values, which helped
American Jews achieve higher social rank, might have hada negative impact on family solidarity. Balswick (1966) concludes on the basis of “writings and research material of thelast twenty years,” that “the American Jewish family is closelyknit. It is more closely knit than non-Jewish families withwhich it has been compared” (p. 166). However, this conclusion is challenged by Westerman (1967), who cites various
methodological problems with Balswick’s analysis, particularly a failure to compare contemporary Jewish families withthose of previous generations.
America’s economic boom following World War II helped
to usher in a golden age for the American Jewish family. The
G.I. Bill of Rights helped American Jewish veterans get an
education and universities expanded to meet growing needs.
Veterans’ benefits also enabled them to purchase homes. Social integration was advanced by the relocation of second- andthird-generation Jewish families from urban areas of second
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

settlement to the periphery of the city and its suburbs. This
migration brought about a paradigm shift in American Jewish life whose effect on the family, in particular, was fundamental and far reaching.
Shapiro (1992) cites the reasons for the unprecedented
growth of the suburbs after 1945 as follows, including:the increased use of automobiles, postwar prosperity, the pentup demand for housing created by the depression and the war,
the desire of veterans to resume a normal family life after thedislocations of wartime, the baby boom of the late 1940s and1950s, government programs that encouraged the building andpurchase of houses by veterans … (p. 43)

Many Jewish families found the means to abandon thecrowded and deteriorating conditions of the city for the newness and openness of the suburbs. Gordon (1959) specifically
cites the shortage of urban living space as a key factor in theirmigration.
The depression years of the 1930s were followed closely byWorld War II. During that fifteen-year period, few, if any, newhomes were built, and even fewer families could afford to purchase them, whatever their cost. Families “doubled up”: sonsor daughters who were recently married moved in with theirparents until conditions improved.… The builders of massproduced homes, such as those in Levittown, provided “lowcost housing.” Prices were reasonable enough to satisfy young
people who were determined to establish their own family life,
independent of parents and in-laws.

But not all young, upwardly mobile Jewish families in the period were so determined, and pockets of urban Jewish life remained. Dawidowicz describes one postwar group that choseto stay in the city.
After years of housing starvation (during the Depression andthe war years), many young families in New York found that thegreat Queens building boom of 1948–1951 offered them a wide
choice of modest apartments at modest monthly rentals from$75 to $140. Besides wanting a place to live at rents they could
afford, these young people were fleeing from the changes intheir old neighborhoods in Manhattan, the Bronx, and Brooklyn. They were looking for an inexpensive facsimile of the suburbs a half hour from Times Square. (p. 68)

The experience of suburban living influenced the dynamics of Jewish family life. The new environment engendered aprocess of social change reminiscent of the experience of immigrant families two generations earlier. This is described by
Mary Antin in her autobiography The Promised Land (1912),
in which she notes how:
In Polotzk we had been trained and watched, our days had
been regulated, our conduct prescribed. In America, suddenly
we were let loose on the street. Why? Because my father having
renounced his faith, and my mother being uncertain of hers,
they had no particular creed to hold us to… My parents knew
only that they desired us to be like American children; and seeing how their neighbors gave their children boundless liberty,
they turned us also loose, never doubting but that the American way was the best way (pp. 270–1).

699

family, american jewish
According to Shapiro:

Gordon (1959) observes that “the suburb is helping to produce
marked changes in the basic structures of the Jewish family
and its educational, political, religious, cultural and social life”(p. 19). Life in suburbia was so different from life in the citythat changes in family life were inevitable.
One important consequence of these changes was the virtual full acceptance and social integration of the Jewish family into American society. This development was discussed inWill Herberg’s classic book Protestant, Catholic, Jew: A Studyin Religious Sociology (1955), one of the most influential works
in the postwar sociology of American religion. Herberg posits that by the mid-twentieth century, Judaism was no longer
considered marginal to American society. Affiliation with amajor religious faith was important to Americans, and Judaism, as the seminal creed of America’s Judeo-Christian tradition, duly qualified. Jews, as individuals, might still encounter
discrimination, but the Jewish tradition, especially as manifest within the home and family, was seen as consonant withthe highest of American values (Herberg, ibid., and Kramer
and Levantman, p. 153). In Herberg’s typology Jews, whowere three percent of the American population, constituted
one third of its religious experience. Of course, the Judaismof the suburbs was not the pseudo-Orthodoxy of the immigrant generation. Reform, Reconstructionist, and Conservative Judaism, at least until the 1970s, were the only streams of
Judaism to successfully take root there. The modern and often
lavish temples and synagogues erected in the 1950s and 1960s
conveyed the message that the Jewish family felt self-assured
and at home in America (Sklare and Greenblum, 1967). Somewere designed by prominent architects, Jewish and non-Jewish – they manifested the sense that Jews had arrived andwere taking root.
Synagogue affiliation was altogether a different experience in the suburbs. The distances characteristic of suburban living made regular synagogue participation, for those
so inclined, more difficult. Whereas in the city, the synagogue was classically a neighborhood institution, in the suburbs it served a widely dispersed population often accessible only by car. Thus, synagogue attendance could no longer
be an informal and spontaneous affair. The increased distance between home and synagogue was but one of the postwar changes in Jewish family life. The Conservative movement responded by permitting travel to and from synagogue
by car on the Sabbath. Orthodoxy, which continued to prohibit travel felt more at home in the city or turned a blindeye to those who traveled to synagogue. Living withinwalking distance of the synagogue was later to be a boon to
the sense of community among Orthodox and traditional
Jews.
The transplanting of Jewish community life from the city
to the suburbs contributed to (1) the long range decline of theJewish neighborhood, (2) an increase in formal affiliation as ameans of community attachment, (3) the child-centered family, (4) the transformation of gender roles, and (5) increased
geographic mobility.

In the old neighborhood, grandchildren often lived withinproximity of their grandparents, which naturally facilitatedmore frequent contact. This intimacy made it more likely thatfamily traditions were passed on. Suburban living distanced
these generations. The Yiddish of immigrant grandparents,
which was understood and spoken, albeit typically unused,by the second generation, seemed foreign and arcane to theirsuburban grandchildren. A Sunday visit to bubbie and zaidie
in the city might take in shopping at the Jewish bakery, bookstore, or kosher butcher. Such casual activities were the mostintensive Jewish cultural encounters some third- and fourthgeneration children would experience.
While this scenario partly reflects an overall distancing
from tradition, it also points to the diminuition of intense Jewish family activity in the suburbs. Such activity is a source of
mimetic norms, i.e., knowledge that is “imbibed from parents
and friends, and patterned on conduct regularly observed inhome and street, synagogue and school” (Soloveitchik, 1994).
This form of learning emerges naturally in the traditional Jewish neighborhood. The Jewish neighborhood, much like theshtetl of prewar Europe, is an example of gemeinschaft, an informal, corporate form of community life. In contrast, suburban Jewish life is likened to gesellschaft, a form of community
organization wherein social interaction is more disparate andthe transmission of culture more formalized. It has become
more common for suburban Jewish families who do not live
near one another to meet and interact only within the context
of formal activities. These scheduled Jewish experiences, suchas attendance at synagogue services, school meetings, youth
group programs, adult learning courses, holiday celebrations
and cultural events, compete for time with a miscellany ofother activities. (See Sklare; Gans; Blau; Gordon; and Kramer
and Leventman, op. cit.)
The suburban synagogue is the central, even if not thesole, focus of public Jewish life. Synagogue membership entitles a family, or any one of its members: to celebrate the Jewish holidays as part of the congregation; to the services of the
rabbi and his assistant; to attend synagogue-run classes andlectures; to receive Jewish news and information through thein-house newsletter, and to use the synagogue’s facilities forthe celebration of family life-cycle events. For the newly suburbanized Jews, this reflected the dependency of the familyon the Jewish skills and knowledge of community professionals. In many instances for that generation, even such classic
family rites as lighting Hanukkah candles or participating in a

700

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

The diffusion of Jewish population into the suburbs and exurbs diluted Jewish identity. In the compacted Jewish neighborhoods of the cities, Jewish identity was absorbed throughosmosis. In suburbia, it had to be nurtured. Jewish suburbanites
lived [mostly] in localities where, in contrast to the city, mostof the people were not Jews, the local store did not sell Jewish[especially Yiddish language] newspapers, there were no kosher butchers, synagogues were not numerous, and corned beef
sandwiches were not readily available. (p. 147)

family, american jewish
Passover seder no longer took place at home, but in the synagogue, under the direction of a rabbi, or teacher.
Observers note the extent to which the contemporary
American Jewish family, particularly in suburbia, becamechild centered. While concern for the well-being and education of children is basic to Jewish tradition, the child-oriented behavior of American Jewish families is a more recent
phenomenon. This generation of American Jews was often
characterized by a Judaism that was for the young – children
attending Hebrew school at least until bar and bat mitzvah –and the old – grandparents attending regularly as a routine
part of their lives.
Having acquired the economic means to provide morethan basic food, clothing and shelter, Jewish parents developed
a tendency to indulge their children with a surfeit of material
goods. This behavior is reflected, says Sklare (1971, p. 88), in
the expression “‘they gave their son everything.’ ‘Everything’means the best of everything from the necessities to the luxuries: it includes clothing, medical attention, entertainment, vacations, schools and myriad other items.” In this same context,
observed Gordon, “The financial burdens that Jewish parents
in suburbia gladly bear for what they regard as the best interests of their children is often astonishing [and sometimes
disturbing] to persons who are aware of the sacrifices these
entail” (Gordon, ibid., p. 65). Many second- and third-generation American Jewish parents acknowledged that the very
move to suburbia was “for the sake of the children.”Another example of child-focused family behavior wasreflected in the attitude towards ritual observance and Jewish education. According to Sklare, any ritual that is centered on the child is more likely to be retained by the family(ibid., pp. 115, 116). This means that (1) the ritual activity must
provide an opportunity to directly involve the child, and (2) itshould convey “optimism, fun, and gratification.” The Passoverseder and the lighting of candles at Hanukkah are two oftencited examples. Toward the end of the 20t century, Sukkot
experienced an increase in the percentage of observance as
Jews had land and backyards where they could build a sukkah
and it was a family centered, do-it-yourself activity, a perfectsuburban project. This understanding of ritual correlates religious practice with the interests of children. Consequently,
within the year of their youngest child’s bar or bat mitzvah,
many parents discontinued their child’s formal Jewish education, choosing not to renew their synagogue membership, tocurtail their other Jewish communal activities, and sometimes
to reduce the family’s observance of home rituals.
In their respective analyses of Jewish suburban life, Gans
(ibid., p. 233) and Gordon (ibid., pp. 19, 59–60) discuss changes
in the family that developed with respect to both males andfemales in the mid 20t Century. According to Gans:

family organization in which the father, as religious leader ofthe household, supervised the children’s education for an adultcommunity in which he himself was playing a role.

In response to their husbands’ preoccupation with earning aliving, claims Gordon, suburban Jewish women in the postwar era began to take responsibility for matters for which theirhusbands were once considered the sole authority in theory
if not in practice. This mirrored the responsibility that other
American women assumed for the transmission of culture.
My observation…, and particularly this intensive study of suburban Jewish family life, leads to the conclusion that.… “all major decisions are made by the husband while all the minor ones
are made by the wife.” The major decisions… deal with suchmatters as war and peace, sputnik and satellites. The minor issues include rearing the children and choosing their schools, theparticular synagogue with which to affiliate, the neighborhood
into which to move and the kind of home to buy.
The Jewish woman has acquired her new position of…
leadership by default… So completely engrossed in businessaffairs… [the husband] generally gives little attention to spiritual and cultural matters that involve his home and family. The
husband’s failure has led inevitably to the wife’s new status.

The geographic mobility among Jewish families in the postwar era primarily reflects their relocation to the local suburbs,
not inter-state or cross country migration. It is true that fromthe 1950s it became increasingly common for the corporate
breadwinner to be transferred great distances. However, since
many Jews remained excluded from the corporate sector during these years, the voluntary move to the nearby suburbs was
far more common. Jewish families moved not only from thecity to the suburbs, but in time they also moved within andbetween suburbs. As its income rose, it was not uncommon fora family to sell its home in a less expensive section of one suburb and move to a higher status area within the same suburb.
Naturally, families also moved from lower to higher status suburbs. Kramer and Levantman note that the “securely American status of the third generation and its increasing mobility
have released it from old ties and community sentiments….”

In the suburb… the men’s daytime absence shifts a much greaterrole in its affairs to the women, except in functions requiring
business skills, and aspirations such as power…[Women’s’] concern with Jewish education seems also to be stronger than thatof the men…This is a major shift from the traditional Jewish

The Mid-1960s to the 1980s
By the middle of the 1960s Jewish family life in America appeared to have reached the zenith of prosperity and security.
From a historical perspective, few, if any other Jewish communities could claim to feel so well integrated into surrounding
society. Sklare (1971) contends that this very success resulted
in “[a] paucity of substantial research studies on the American-Jewish family…The Jewish family constellation has notcreated social problems in the general society. In fact it hasdone just the opposite: the Jewish family seems to have solved
problems rather than caused them” (p. 73).
But all was not perfect. Acculturation and integration
came with a price. “As upward mobility pushed immigrants’children to the suburbs, their parents were linked to memories of dark stairways, stale smells, cramped apartments, loudvoices, and barbarous accents. In comparison, blending into a
bland mainstream was a big step forward. With so much dis-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6701

family, american jewish
carded, little remained to give their distinctiveness purpose
except sentimental leftovers fed by kitsch, Broadway shows,and self-righteousness…This mix of ethnic remnants andcarbon-copy assimilation left such parents little to pass on”(Rubin, 1995, pp. 93–94). The poignancy of this transformation became more evident towards the end of the 1960s when
traditional notions about family life were confronted by the
popularization of values that were more liberal and individual oriented. Many of the assumptions regarding what constitutes a “sound and healthy” family were challenged. Questions
were raised about the structure and purpose of the family, as
well as the obligations of family members towards each other.
“Since 1970, or thereabouts,” says Cohen (1983, pp. 114–15) “theAmerican family has undergone such dramatic changes as tospark a popular and scholarly debate about whether it is infact disintegrating.”
The mythic portrayal of the American family is prevalent in the way Jewish institutions are structured. The family is defined as two parents and children. A fixed division oflabor is presumed and children are seen as the focus of thefamily. Membership costs are often defined by family. Synagogue membership is usually stated in family units. Meeting are scheduled as if the family defined above is the norm;
so too, programming and fees. These institutions have beenslow to change even as women have become officers, major
donors and decision makers. It is as if the sisterhood continued to serve Friday evening tea at the Oneg Shabbat eventhough the rabbi, cantor, president and principal supporters
may now be women.
Rela Mintz Geffen reports that according to the 1990
National Jewish Population Survey the most common household in the Jewish community comprises one adult Jew living alone; the next most common is two adults Jews; and only
then two adult Jews with at least one child under the age of
18 living at home. Only 14 of Jewish households in the survey were comprised of two Jewish adults and with at least one
child under 18 living at home. In contemporary parlance, the“conventional Jewish family” is two Jews, one male, one female – whether born Jewish or not – with one child under theage of 18 living at home.
Contemporary Jews live not only in the traditional family
but also as singles of all ages; empty nest couples whose children have left home and will not again return; senior adults
living alone or in communities and facilities, widowed or married; dual-career spouses; single parents, whether by death ofone’s spouse, loss or divorce; and non-traditional couples, gay
men and lesbian women. These people, constituting a majority of all Jews, often feel unacknowledged by contemporary
American Jewish institutions. Programming and normative
language of the community often excludes them and many respond accordingly. There may be an asymmetry between thedefinition of family embodied in community institutions andthe actual configuration of the way Jews in America live.
“For American Jews,” says Fishman (1994), “as for other
Americans today, there is no one model of ‘the family.’ Jewish

families reflect, in somewhat less extreme profile, an America in which less than 15 percent of households conform to
the model of father, mother-at-home, and children living
together…[Thus t]he ‘typical’ American Jewish householdtoday is more likely than not to be atypical in some way. Proportions of older, single, divorced, remarried, or dual-careerhouseholds make up more of the Jewish population than intact
young families with children” (pp. 5, 33). As a result of thesechanges, social scientists no longer study American families,
per se; instead, surveys are conducted among “households,”
such as in the Council of Jewish Federations (CJF) 1990 National Jewish Population Survey (p. 33). The term “household”
accommodates a more flexible and wider range of domestic
living arrangements than those associated with the conventional western family.
Trends which first emerged some 25–30 years ago continue to have an impact upon Jewish family life. These include: a decrease in the rate of marriage; the postponementof first time marriage; an increase in the number of marriages
that end in divorce; an increase in the rate of intermarriage,
particularly non-conversionary marriages; a decrease in thebirth rate to a level lower than replacement; an increase ingeographic mobility; an increase in cohabitation, and single
motherhood; and an increase in substance abuse. Some haveargued that there is an increase in domestic violence and inhomosexuality but they may be mistaken. It is certainly thecase that there is an increase in acknowledgement of domestic
violence and or homosexuality. It was commonplace to linkthese phenomena with a decrease in Jewish education and thepractice of Jewish ritual, but the evidence is mixed. The number of children receiving a day school education is at all-timehigh and the measurement of Jewish ritual observance does
not necessarily indicate a decline. There is no doubt that Jewish values must compete in the open marketplace of ideas ina multicultural United States, where exposure to other value
systems is commonplace.
Fishman (ibid.) examines a number of these trends bycomparing data from the 1970 National Jewish Population
Study (NJPS) and the CJF 1990 National Jewish Population
Study with data drawn throughout the 1980s from some twodozen Jewish communities. Regarding marriage, her analysis
indicates that while in 1970 nearly four-fifths of all adult American Jews were married, by 1990 this figure had decreased toabout two-thirds. A parallel decrease was recorded for all
adults in the United States. Over the last 30 years being single
in America has developed into a lifestyle. Whereas in 1970–1
17 percent of Jewish men were still single at ages 25–34, thisfigure increased to about 50 percent in 1990. An even greater
increase applies to Jewish women ages 25–34; only 10 percentof this group was not married in 1970–1, in comparison toabout half in 1990. By age 45, however, over 90 percent of all
Jews are reported to have been married at least one time.
“The delay or avoidance of marriage is but one ofmany factors which may lower Jewish birthrates” (Cohen,
1983, p. 117). Still, another factor is higher education; the more

702

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

family, american jewish
education a couple has completed, the less likely it is to produce more than one or two children. It is understandable then,that Jewish couples, who in comparison with the rest of the
population complete more years of education and also marrylate, often raise smaller families. This tendency was observed
among Jewish families by Seligman and Antonovsky, even in
the midst of America’s baby boom. Orthodox Jews are the exception. Seligman and Antonovsku cautioned that “[t]he highproportion of two-person and three-person [Jewish] families may be indicative of a declining reproductive rate…” (inSklare, 1958, p. 66). The impact of this trend was noted overa decade later. “[I]n the second generation,” says Sklare, “thebirth rate dropped so precipitously as to have serious implications for Jewish population size as well as for group continuity” (1971, p. 79).
A low birth rate has continued into the third and fourth
generations. In 1990, 93 percent of Jewish women ages 18 to 24
and 55 percent of those ages 25 to 34 had not yet had children(Fishman, ibid., p. 31). As a result, with the exception of the
Orthodox community, the Jewish birth rate in America presently stands at significant less than replacement level of 2.1.
Averting the presumed consequences of what appears to be alooming demographic crisis currently occupies a high position on the organized Jewish community’s national agenda. A
significantly attenuated Jewish population would weaken the
Jewish community’s standing at large, including its ability to
act on behalf of its own interests. It would jeopardize the existence of a range of local Jewish institutions, from family services to community centers and schools, as well as the Jewish
community’s fundraising efforts on behalf of Israel and distressed Jews in other countries. Finally, some have presumed
that it would sap the vitality of American Jewish culture andcreativity. Others who study American Judaism believe thatthe intensity of Jewish life and the freedom of Jews to create as Jews, to act publicly as Jews and feel free even in theirseemingly secular pursuits to act as Jews will offset the loss ofnumbers. Many who point to the problem of intermarriage
are slow to acknowledge the tremendous contribution, energy
and vitality brought to all institutions and all denominationsof Judaism by Jews by choice, those not born as Jews.
The significance of this low birth rate is compounded by
the high outmarriage rate – the rate is subject to dispute ranging between 45–52. Just as the intermarriage [rate] has increased dramatically among younger American Jews, rates of
conversion have fallen, especially after the introduction by Reform Judaism’s acceptance of patrilineal descent. Mixed marriage is five times higher among Jews 18 to 34 than it is among
those over age 55” (Fishman in Bayme and Rosen, p. 26). Ironically, the rise in intermarriage is not unrelated to a decline inantisemitism. Jews are now regarded as acceptable partners
for non-Jews and the opposition from the non-Jewish family
has declined markedly. Intermarriage also has less to do with
one’s Jewish identity and allegiance to the Jewish people than it
did a generation or two ago. During the mid-1950s, accordingto Rosenthal (1963), the overall community intermarriage rate

for the Greater Washington, D.C., area, a mid-sized yet highly
cosmopolitan Jewish community, was 13 percent. In larger
Jewish communities, the rate was between 6–10 percent. By
the 1970s, intermarriage rates in many American communities
had risen to approximately 30 percent. Whereas, according toMedding, et al. (1992), Jewish identification tends to be passed
on to the next generation in conversionary marriages, especially Orthodox and Conservative conversionary marriages,
this is not true of mixed marriages. “Jewish identification in
mixed marriages is accompanied by the presence of symbols
of Christian identification, resulting in dual-identity households at all levels of Jewish identification” (p. 39). Daniel Elazar
called this the permeability of contemporary boundaries. So
long as mixed marriages constitute the great majority of outmarriages, intermarriage poses a major challenge to transmission of Judaism through Jewish family life in America.
Divorce, like outmarriage, was once relatively rare among
American Jews. This is no longer the case. Divorce, especiallythat which results in long-term single parent households, has
increased over the last three decades. Data from the CJF 1990
NJPS reveals “18 divorces for every 100 ever-married men and19 for every 100 ever-married women [indicating that] divorce
has become relatively common among American Jews.” “Rising rates of divorce,” says Fishman, “have created a situationin which one-third of Jewish children live in homes whichhave been touched by divorce: about ten percent of Jewish
children live in single parent homes and twenty percent live
in households in which at least one spouse has been divorced”(1994, p. 34). Clearly, the traditional notion of a two parent
family with mother and father raising their own children together is not the only form that contemporary Jewish family
life has taken.
Active extended kin relations continued to characterize
American Jewish family life until the 1970s. Yet there too the
picture may be a bit overdone. Children left for college and left
for jobs; grandparents migrated to the South and also to theWest. It was presumed that grandparents would be the major
repository of Jewish values and yet in the contemporary family it is often the grandparents who are most removed fromJewish education. And because of immigration, because of the
Holocaust, many grandparents grew up without grandparents
and do not have an image of what grandparenting involved.
And American culture, which does not revere the elderly, certainly offers few models to teach them.
On the other hand, the increase in geographic mobility during the last quarter century has enhanced extended
family ties. Greater family resources, the ease of travel, thelowering of long distance phone rates, and ubiquity of the internet have increased the involvement of grandparents with
their grandchildren. At the same time divorce and intermarriage pose unique challenges. Especially perplexing is the relationship of grandparents to their grandchildren when thecustodial parent is not their child. According to the CJF 1990
NJPS, between the years 1985–1990, 25 percent of adults surveyed changed residence, at least once, between cities within

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6703

family, american jewish
the same state. Another 24 percent changed residence, at least
once, between states. Frequent mobility makes it more difficult to develop long-term social relationships within a community. Three generation relationships, as well as active ties
between cousins, have become rarer but also more cherishedin recent years. There is a tendency for extended family events
to be limited to infrequent holiday gatherings or major lifecycle celebrations.
No doubt an added challenge to Jewish family life has
been the development of the dual career family. According to
the CJF 1990 NJPS about three-fourths of women aged 25–44
and two-thirds of women aged 45–64 are members of thelabor force. “Today the labor force participation of Jewish
women departs radically from patterns of the recent past. In
most cities the majority of Jewish mothers continue to work
even while their children are quite young. In Boston, Baltimore, San Francisco, and Washington, three out of every fiveJewish mothers with pre-school children are working” (Fishman, ibid., p. 17). Nearly 40 percent of working Jewish women
under the age of 44 in 1990 are reported to work in some professional capacity, as compared to 24 percent in 1970. In 1957,
says Goldstein, only about 30 percent of Jewish women aged
25–44 were employed at all (ibid., p. 113). Remaining at home
to raise children was a more common practice. The increased
availability of professional day care services, many under Jewish auspices, aided the growth of dual career families in recent decades. It also should be noted that contrary to many
historical recollections women in the traditional Jewish homeoften worked outside of the home; their labor was necessary
for the survival of the family. When the husband studied thewife was responsible for providing for the family and in theimmigrant family, the working mother was also essential forsurvival. Stay at home mothers may have reflected the midcentury American middle class ideal rather than actual practice. In fact, the wife not having to work was a status symbolin mid-century America. The empowerment of women, theincreasing professionalization of and opportunity for womenpose challenges to the Jewish family but is not unprecedented
in the Jewish experience. Substance abuse, domestic violence
and incest, pathologies long considered to exist at strictly marginal levels among Jewish families, began to receive increased
attention in the 1970s. It is not clear whether earlier instancesof these problems were more common but went largely unreported, or whether more acculturated third- and fourth-generation Jewish families in fact have been more susceptible. The
training of mikveh ladies to recognize signs of physical abuse
by a husband is a clear indication that these problems are notconfined to the secular family alone.
As late as the end of the 1960s, alcoholism was not seen
as a problem that affected many Jewish families. Franzblau(1967) cited findings by the Yale Center of Alcoholic Studies
indicating that first-time admissions to New York State Hospitals are fifty times as numerous among Irish as among Jews,
fifteen times as numerous among Scandinavians, ten times asnumerous among Italians, nine times as numerous among theEnglish and eight times as numerous among the Germans. According to Franzblau, Jewish families of the period comparedfavorably to non-Jewish families “whether the factual material presented be on juvenile delinquency, adult criminality,
prison populations, family desertion and non-support, separation and divorce rates, commitments to mental hospitals forthe tertiary manifestations of syphilis…” (p. 59). He suggested
then that “Jewish home and Jewish family life are…endowedwith some mysterious extra safeguards against the disintegrative forces of the environment” (ibid.).
More recent estimates of alcoholism among Jewish adults
range from five to fifteen percent. Since about 92 percent of
all Jews marry by age 45, alcoholism among Jews is both afamily and a personal problem. Increased recognition of alcoholism and drug addiction within the Jewish community
has led to the establishment of Jewish support groups as alternatives to groups like Alcoholics Anonymous which havea Christian orientation.
Domestic violence, including the sexual abuse of children, was considered, for all intents and purposes, absent fromthe consciousness among American Jews during the middle
part of the century, but certainly not during the immigrantexperience. The winter 1991–2 Journal of Jewish Communal
Service, poignantly entitled “Family Violence IS a Jewish Issue,” offers five articles that examine both spousal and elderly
abuse, as well as describe abuse treatment programs operated
by various local Jewish communal agencies. The April 1990 issue of Moment features an article entitled “Confronting Sexual
Abuse in Jewish Families” in which the author describes her
own and others’ victimization and offers other victims’ advice. She rejects “[t]he myth that Jewish families and incestuous families are a contradiction in terms…” and confronts anissue formerly never associated with Jews.
Conventional family values have been decidedly challenged by the liberal atmosphere which prevails on mostAmerican university campuses. In the 1960s, questions about
the typical western family, a topic generally relegated to sociology and anthropology lectures, spilled over from the lecturehall to the streets. The counterculture experience, in which somany young Jews participated, encouraged alternative family
forms and lifestyles. This partially explains the disproportionate number of Jews who affiliated with communes and cults.
Although the experiment with communal living more or lessended by the mid-1970s, Jewish involvement in cults has continued to this day but is now regarded as a much more marginal phenomenon, except to those whose children are within
the cults. The Baal Teshuvah movement, in which children
become more observant than their parents – and often unable to eat in their homes or to spend Shabbat and holidays
with them – is also a challenge to the family structure. It isalso present within Orthodoxy where Modern Orthodox parents have ḥ aredi children who find their parents’ Orthodoxy
not sufficiently devout. The attractiveness of cults to young
Jews is explained by some observers as a reaction to low selfesteem among those who cannot meet the high expectations

704

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

family, american jewishof their parents or community. Others see it as a response to
the spiritual emptiness found in so many contemporary Jewish families and synagogues. The ḥ avurah and programs that
educate the Jewish family, both of which initially gained wider
popularity in the early 1970s, reflect the efforts of the Jewish
community to combat these problems.
The community ḥ avurah is modeled after the student
organized Havurah that “originated in the late 1960s [in New
York and Boston] with young Jews who were unhappy with
the Conservative and Reform congregations in which they
had been raised. Influenced by the counterculture, they weredissatisfied with contemporary Jewish institutions, both religious and communal, which they regarded as “sterile, impersonal, hierarchical, and divorced from Jewish tradition”(Weissler, p. 200). Both the independent ḥ avurah, which isunaffiliated with any community institution, and the synagogue or community center ḥ avurah, whose participants are
generally affiliated with these institutions, typically consistsof a small number (10–20) of singles, couples, or sometimes
both. The typical ḥ avurah holds Sabbath and holiday services,celebrates life-cycle events, organizes study groups, and undertakes one or more social action causes. The particular activities of each ḥ avurah reflect the interests of its membership. It
is an attempt to establish community and to retain a personal
dimension to institutional Jewish life.
The small and intimate setting of the ḥ avurah compares
favorably to the vast and formal surroundings of many American synagogues to those seeking fellowship and spirituality
in their worship. The ḥ avurah experience is an “opportunity
to have a continuing intimate association – to feel a sense of
belonging, to be linked with people they know personally andwho care about them, and to have people with whom to sharehappiness and sorrow – bar mitzvahs, Passover seders, sickness, death, etc.” (Reisman, p. 207). The ḥ avurah experienceis used by many singles, couples, and families, as a substitutefor the natural family and community network that was oncemuch more prevalent within American Jewish life.
Economic considerations also play a role in Jewish affiliation. The higher one’s economic status, the more likely
one is to affiliate with the Jewish community and the lesslikely one is to intermarry. Rates of intermarriage are consistently higher among those of lesser socioeconomic achievement as measured by education, occupation and income, especially for those under 45. In 1990 one in two of those Jews
with an income of more than $100,000 were Jewishly affiliated; the rate of affiliation was one in three for those earning
less than $60,000. Lower income Jews also feel disaffiliatedfrom Jewish life.
Jewish education programs for families have existed in
the United States for decades, but it is only since the 1970s
that this approach has been developed as a sub-specialty(Schiff, p. 262). Jewish family education is based on the premise that, although “the attitudes and behavior patterns [ofmost American Jewish families presently]…resemble thoseof the non-Jewish, white middle-class (Rosenman, p. 153),” a

percentage of these families are willing, or can be induced, tobe tutored in basic Jewish knowledge, skills and values andhelped to integrate these into their lives.” Programs in Jewish
family education exist at the local level where they are sponsored by community centers, synagogues, day schools, [and]family service agencies. At the national level, the William
Petschek National Jewish Family Center established in 1981
by the American Jewish Committee, the Whizin Institute for
Jewish Family Life at the University of Judaism in Los Angeles, Brandeis University in Waltham, MA, Yeshiva University
in New York, and other universities, are among those institutions that offer research opportunities, professional and lay
seminars, personnel training, and produce and disseminate
educational materials. Although the proliferation of these institutions reflects the growing importance of this field in theeyes of community educators and leaders, it is also indicativeof the sense of urgency which surrounds the present condition of the American Jewish family.
Two important studies in the 1970s (Himmelfarb, 1974
and Bock, 1976) found that the most salient influence on adult
Jewish identification was the family. Yet, most synagogues,
schools and community centers focused their programming
exclusively on children, leaving the family to its own devices.
Wolfson (1983) called the family’s reliance on the institution
to provide opportunities for Jewish celebration a “dependency
cycle.” He called on synagogues and schools to empower families with the skills and resources to create a home filled with
Jewish celebration, content and values. In 1989, Wolfson gathered a group of pioneering Jewish family educators to establish
the Whizin Institute for Jewish Family Life to further the fieldof practice in Jewish family education. Hundreds of Jewish
professionals and laity attended Whizin seminars to learn thelatest strategies for “reaching and teaching” the Jewish family.
By the end of the century, virtually every synagogue, school
and JCC had a full range of Jewish family education programming (Wolfson and Bank, 1998).

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6705

End of the 20t Century
At the end of the 20t century, the American Jewish family
more strongly resembled its non-Jewish neighbor than its
own forebear of a hundred years ago. Goldstein and other“survivalists” insist that Jewish families continue to maintainsufficient distinctive collectivist socio-economic and sociocultural characteristics to guarantee continuity, at least for theforeseeable future. Cohen (1994) argues that current intermarriage and birth rates will result in a smaller, but qualitatively
stronger American Jewish community “[O]n the family level,
rather than the group level, for the vast majority of families,
intermarriage eventually severs the link of future generations
with the Jewish people.” While Cohen remains optimistic
about the overall long range survival of the American Jewish
community, he foresees the disappearance of many presently
existing Jewish family lines.
The only variance to the observations above lies within
the Orthodox sector. Orthodox families, who constitute some

family, american jewish
ten percent of the American Jewish population, do not reflect
the trends of the wider Jewish community. Although domestic problems of all stripes do occur within Orthodox circles,
their incidence appears limited because it is less reported andcertainly less acknowledged. Characteristically, the more religiously observant the family and the more segregated it isfrom the general society, the less likely it is to experience intermarriage, a low birth rate, and other elements accompanying assimilation.
Among the main purposes and functions of the family,
says Bayme (1989), is the transmission of culture and heritage, the basis of group identity. In the middle decades of thepast century, this task, he contends, has been transferred to
the Jewish school. “We today ask of Jewish schools not only totransmit knowledge and cultural literacy of Judaism but also
to transmit Jewish identity and consciousness. Conversely,
research has demonstrated that without the cooperation andinvolvement of families Jewish schools can achieve very little.”
Recent trends in education emphasize family participation andrecent life cycle and calendar ritual behavior also demonstrate
an increase in activities that are family centered, albeit with abroadened definition of family.
Can Jewish families continue to fulfill their historicalfunction? Can the definition of Jewish family accommodate
all alternative household forms, including cohabiting couples
and groups, singles, lesbians and gays, and still guarantee longrange Jewish survival? These serious questions are currently
being asked by individuals, such as Bayme, as well as otherconcerned academicians and social scientists, community layleaders and professionals. The Jewish family is not about todisappear from the American scene; however, it clearly will
have undergone significant transformations.
Social policy planners and senior educators who wish
to strengthen the Jewish family are presently busy at both thenational and community level. Among their objectives is toguarantee the affordability of quality Jewish family education,
for children as well as adults, and affordable rates for community center, synagogue, and summer camp participation. For
those who chose maximal Jewish life, day school education,
Jewish summer camps and synagogue membership along with
their ancillary activities pose a heavy financial burden. (Oneimportant commentator has joked that day school tuition is“Jewish birth control.”) They stress that programming for the
Jewish family should be appealing, of high quality, marketed
vigorously, and supported by community funds. Maximum
and efficient use of communal resources, they contend, would
help provide affordable day care and other vital services to assist dual income and financially distressed families. A cogent
community strategy can help minimize the additional costsof Jewish living, making affiliation and participation affordable to many more families.
The family is the nexus between the individual and society. The welfare of both is dependent upon the success of thefamily as an institution in fulfilling its primary goals of socializing and educating its members. Similarly, individual Jewish

identity and the viability of Jewish communal life in the UnitedStates are tied to the cultural integrity of the American Jewish family. The historic Jewish family, in various countries andin various periods, has demonstrated great resilience in theface of physical, spiritual and economic pressures. Ironically,
it is the relative absence of these pressures in America, which
presents a challenge to Jewish survival. External antisemitism
is not forcing Jews to remain together. They are comfortably
accepted and acceptable within American culture. A low birthrate, high intermarriage, and the diverse forms of family life
present new and different challenges to the American Jewish
family. “Given the inexorably integrative forces of American
society and the resultant parallel trends among Jews,” note Lipset and Rabb (1995) “it is reasonable to predict that the Jewish
community as a whole will be severely reduced in numbersby the middle of the next century.” In an attempt to forestall
this outcome, the organized Jewish community is developing
policies and programs aimed at supporting and strengthening the family. The next few decades are sure to reveal the results of these efforts.

706

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: “The Workshop of Israel,” in: The Menorah
Journal (April 1928), 361; M. Antin, The Promised Land (1912); C.
Baum, P. Hyman, and S. Michel, The Jewish Women in America (1975);
J. Balswick, “Are American Jewish Families Closely Knit?” in: Jewish Social Studies, 28:3 (1966), 159–167; S. Bayme, “The Jewish Family in American Culture,” paper presented at the Institute for American Values Conference: What Do Families Do?, Stanford University,
Nov. 1989; B. Cohen, Sociocultural Changes in American Jewish Life
as Reflected in Selected Jewish Literature (1972); S.M. Cohen, American Modernity and Jewish Identity (1983); idem, “Why Intermarriage
May Not Threaten Jewish Continuity,” in: Moment, 19:6 (1994), 54–57;
L. Dawidowicz, The Jewish Presence: Essays on Identity and History(1977); H.L. Feingold, A Time for Searching: Entering the Mainstream
1920–1945 (1992); S. Barack Fishman, “The Changing American Jewish
Family Faces the 1990s,” in: S. Bayme and G. Rosen (eds.), The Jewish
Family and Jewish Continuity (1994), 3–52; A.N. Franzblau, “A New
Look at the Psychodynamics of Jewish Family Living,” in: N. Kiell,
The Psychodynamics of American Jewish Life (1967); N. Glatzer, “The
Jewish Family and Humanistic Values,” in: Journal of Jewish Communal Service, 36 (1969), 269–73; N. Glazer, “Social Characteristicsof American Jews,” in: J.L. Blau, N.G. Glazer, O. and M.F. Handlin,and H. Stein (eds.), The Characteristics of American Jews (1965), firstpublished as “Social Characteristics of American Jews, 1654–1954,” in:
AJYB, 56 (1955); S. Goldstein, Highlights of the CJF 1990 National Jewish Population Survey (1991); A.I. Gordon, Jews in Transition (1949);
idem, Jews in Suburbia (1959); S.C. Heilman, Synagogue Life: A Studyin Symbolic Interaction (1973); W. Herberg, Protestant, Catholic, Jews:
An Essay in American Religious Sociology (1955); I. Howe, World of
Our Fathers (1976); E.P. Hutchinson, Immigrants and Their Children,
1850–1950 (1956), 13–15; The Jewish Communal Register, Kehillah (Jewish Community of New York; 1918); Journal of Jewish Communal Service, 68:2 (1991–92), 114–39; D. Katz, Home Fires: An Intimate Portrait(1992); J.R. Kramer and S. Levantman, Children of the Gilded Ghetto:
Conflict Resolutions of Three Generations of American Jews (1961);
A.E. Landesman, Brownsville: The Birth, Development and Passingof a Jewish Community in New York (1969); S.M. Lipset and E. Raab,
Jews and the New American Scene (1995); N. Linzer, The Jewish Family: Authority and Tradition in Modern Perspective (1984); S.R. Lowenstein, “Confronting Sexual Abuse in Jewish Families,” in: Moment,famine and drought
15:2 (1990), 48–53: A. Markowitz, “Jews in Cults: Why We’re Vulnerable and How They Snare Our Children,” in: Moment, 18:4 (1993),
22–55; I. Metzker (ed.), A Bintel Brief: Sixty Years of Letters fromthe Lower East Side to the Jewish Daily Forward (1971); D.D. Moore,
At Home in America: Second Generation New York Jews (1981); D.J.
O’Brien, “American Catholics and Anti-Semitism in the 1930’s,” in:Catholic World, 204 (1967), 270–276; B. Reisman, “The Havurah: An
Approach to Humanizing Jewish Organizational Life,” in: Journal of
Jewish Communal Service, 52 (1985), 202–9; E. Rosenthal, “Studies ofJewish Intermarriage in the United States,” in: AJYB, 64 (1963), 3–53;
B. Rubin, Assimilation and Its Discontents (1995); A.I. Schiff, “Trends
and Challenges in Jewish Family Life Education,” in: Journal of Jewish
Communal Service, 67 (1991), 262–68; C. Selengut, “American Jewish Converts to New Religious Movements,” Jewish Journal of Sociology, 30:2 (1988); B.B. Seligman and A. Antonovsky, “Some Aspects ofJewish Demography,” in: Sklare (ed.), The Jews: Social Patterns of an
American Group (1958); E.S. Shapiro, A Time for Healing: American
Jewry Since World War II (1992); C.B. Sherman, “Demographic andSocial Aspects,” in: O.I. Janowsky (ed.), The American Jew: A Reappraisal (1964); M. Sklare, Conservative Judaism: An American Religious Movement (1972); idem, America’s Jews (1971); M. Sklare andJ. Greenblum, Jewish Identity on the Suburban Frontier: A Study ofGroup Survival in the Open Society (1967); H. Soloveitchik, “Rupture
and Reconstruction: The Transformation of Contemporary Orthodoxy,” in: Tradition, 24:4 (1994), 64–130; F.L. Strodbeck, in: Report of
the Social Science Research Council’s Committee on Identification of
Talent, by D.C. McClelland and others, 1957; J. Westerman, “Notes on
Balswick’s Article – A Response,” in: Jewish Social Studies, 29:4 (1967),
241–44; C. Weissler, “Coming of Age in the Havurah Movement: Bar
Mitzvah in the Havurah Family,” in: S.M. Cohen and P.E. Hyman(eds.), The Jewish Family: Myths and Reality (1986), 200–17; J. Yaffe,
The American Jews: Portrait of a Split Personality (1968). Add. Bibliography: G. Bock, “The Jewish Schooling of American Jews: A
Study of Non-cognitive Educational Effects” (Doctoral dissertation,
Harvard University; 1976); H. Himmelfarb, “The Impact of Religious
Schooling: The Effects of Jewish Education on Adult Religious Involvement” (Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago; 1974); R.G.
Wolfson, “Shall You Teach Them Diligently?” University Papers, University of Judaism (1983); A. Bank, and R.G. Wolfson, First Fruit: A
Whizin Anthology of Jewish Family Education, Whizin Institute for
Jewish Family Life, University of Judaism (1998).

FAMINE AND DROUGHT. Agriculture in Ereẓ Israel wasdependent on irregular rainfall, but drought and consequent
famine were of frequent occurrence. The paradoxical appreciation by Deuteronomy 11:10ff. of this disadvantage (as involving God in constant attention to the land) puts a goodface upon what Ezekiel 36:30 bluntly calls the land’s “reproach
among the nations for its famine.” Kimḥ i comments on thisas follows: “The land of Israel stands in greater need of rain
than other lands [being mountainous in contrast, e.g., to thegreat river valleys of Mesopotamia and Egypt]; hence famine is more common in it than elsewhere. And when one has
to leave his land for another because of famine – as witness
Abraham, Isaac, and Elimelech – it is a reproach to it.” Another cause of famine through natural causes was the failureof the crop through pests and disease. In addition to these two“acts of God,” famine was caused by siege in time of war. Of

the famines in Ereẓ Israel mentioned in the Bible (the most
famous, the seven years’ famine predicted by Joseph in Egypt,
included also the Land of Israel – Gen. 41:54, 43:1) most were
due to drought (Gen. 12:10; 26:1; 41:54; Ruth 1:1; II Sam. 21:1;
I Kings 18:1–2; II Kings 8:1; and apparently Amos 4:6 (cf. verses
7ff.), two to the result of siege – that of Samaria by Ben-Hadad (II Kings 6:24–29) and of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar(ibid. 25:3) – and one the result of a visitation of locusts (Joel
1:4–20). A vivid description of the effects of drought occurs in
Jeremiah 14:1–6. The same conditions, both natural and manmade (cf. Jos., Wars, 5:424–35), continued during the period of
the Second Temple, but to them were added famine, or at least
shortage of food, which resulted from the strict adherence tothe law requiring that land should remain untilled during the
Sabbatical year, to which there is no historical reference in the
Bible. The frequency of famine is reflected in the fact that of
the seven calamities said in the Mishnah to afflict the world
because of sin, three are famines of various degrees of intensity: the “famine of drought,” which does not affect the whole
population, the “famine of panic,” which affects all, and the“famine of utter destruction” (Avot 5:8). The traditional triadof major catastrophes consists of “pestilence, sword, and famine” (cf. Jer. 14:12; 21:7, 9; 24:10; Ezek. 6:11, etc.; compare the
Hashkivenu and the Avinu Malkenu prayers). The fact that,given a choice of one of these three, David chose pestilencesuggests that it was the least of them (II Sam. 24:14f.). Lamentations gives a preference in the scale of suffering to famine
over the sword (4:9). This would indicate that famine was thegreatest evil of all: it is in fact difficult to envisage the terrible
suffering endured through famine in ancient times. The grim
picture, given by R. Johanan, imaginative though it is, of theconsequences of the seven-year famine predicted by *Elisha(II Kings 8:1) – that in the fourth year people would be reduced to eating unclean animals, in the fifth reptiles and insects, in the sixth their children, and in the seventh their own
flesh (Ta’an. 5a) – is probably not so exaggerated as may appear. Both during the famine caused by the siege of Samaria
by *Ben-Hadad and of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, the eating of human flesh is mentioned (II Kings 6:29; Lam. 2:20–31;
4:10). Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria (669–27) claims that the
Babylonians under siege by him ate their children. Similarly,
Assyrian treaties threaten potential violators that they will be
reduced to eating their children. Josephus mentions the eating of children in Jerusalem during the Roman War (Wars
6:201–13, cf. I Bar. 2:2ff.). A pathetic story is told of one of thewealthiest women of Jerusalem picking out grain from animal
dung after the Roman War (Git. 56a). There are at least threehistorical references to famine caused by the observance of the
Sabbatical year, one during the siege of Jerusalem by the forcesof Antiochus IV (Ant. 12:378 = I Macc. 6:49–54), one in thewar of Herod against Antigonus (ibid., 14:476) and one during
Herod’s reign (ibid., 15:7 – see also *Shemittah). The Midrash(Ruth Rabbah 1:4) enumerates ten famines which visited theworld. It includes only seven of those mentioned in the Bible
as due to drought, and makes up the complement by one as-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

707[Arden J. Geldman and Rela Mintz Geffen (2nd ed.)]fanocribed to the time of Adam, one to the time of Lamech anda spiritual famine for lack of God’s word (Amos 8:11, usuallytaken as eschatological). This midrashic passage also differentiates between the famine of Elijah which was a sporadic“famine of drought” and that of Elisha which was one “of [economic] panic.” One of the three things “which the Holy One,
blessed be He, proclaims in person” (Ber. 55a), famine was regarded as the direct result of transgressions. This is, of course,
specifically mentioned in the Bible where the rule is that famine and drought are either threatened (Lev. 26:19f., 26; Deut.
11:17; 28:23; I Kings 17:1; Zech. 14:17) or suffered for sins. Amos
(4:6ff.) interprets occurrences of these calamities as prods torepentance – warning notices of God’s wrath aimed to bring
the people to contrition and thus avert final destruction. The
tendency of the rabbis was to make famine the punishment for
specific transgressions – the failure to give the tithes and otherdues from one’s produce, as a kind of quid pro quo (Avot 5:8;
Shab. 32b; for the contrary promise of abundance as a reward
for bringing tithes – cf. Mal. 3:10–11). As a result, fasting andsupplicatory prayers and fasts were instituted (see *Fasting and*Ta’anit – for biblical examples cf. Jer. 14:12 and Joel 2:14–15 forfamine caused through pestilence) and the prayers of both pious individuals and people possessing special virtues were regarded as effective in bringing the drought to an end (BM 85b;
TJ, Ta’an. 1:2, 65b). The rabbis permitted emigration from Ereẓ
Israel in the case of famine, but only when it reached serious
proportions (BB 91b; Gen. R. 25 end). Basing themselves on
Genesis 41:50 the rabbis (Taan. 11a) forbade procreation during the years of famine.
See also *Rain.
Add. Bibliography: A.L. Oppenheim, in: Iraq, 17 (1955),
77–8; W. Shea, in: ABD II, 769–73; A. Berlin, Lamentations (OTL;
2002), 75–76.
[Louis Isaac Rabinowitz]

FANO, town on the Adriatic coast of Italy. Jews lived in Fano
from the 14t century under special protection. In 1332 they
were prosperous enough to lend 1,000 ducats to the lord of
the city, Galeotto Malatesta. When all heretics were exiled in
1367, the Jewish community was unaffected. Besides moneylenders, it included customs farmers, physicians, and merchants and the Jews are said to have paid half the town taxes.
In 1464 the Jewish *badge was imposed. In 1492 a friar raised
a *blood libel against the Jews but the municipal council protected them. Between 1502 and 1517 Gershom *Soncino set up
his press in Fano, printing books in Hebrew as well as in otherlanguages. Altogether 15 Hebrew books came from his press
here, the earliest being the Me’ah Berakhot after the Roman rite
(1503), and possibly *Ibn Sahula’s Mashal ha-Kadmoni (second
edition with illustrations) which Soncino may have begun before 1500 while still in Brescia. Later appeared the Roke’aḥ , amaḥ zor according to the Roman rite, a siddur in *Judeo-Italian, the Kuzari, and Albo’s Sefer ha-Ikkarim. After his returnfrom Pesaro in 1516, he printed during that year and the next
the Arba’ah Turim of Jacob ben Asher. In 1542 Fano received

708

many of the Jews who had fled from Sicily. With the expulsion from the Papal States, to which Fano now belonged, theJews had to leave it; 25 loan bankers returned temporarily in
1587/88 in consequence of the liberal policies of Pope Sixtus V,
but with the reaction of 1593 the community ceased to exist.
In 1901 only three Jews lived in Fano.
Bibliography: Milano, Italia, index; Roth, Italy, index; Loevinson, in: REJ, 93 (1932), 169–71; D.W. Amram, Makers of Hebrew
Books in Italy (1909), index; H.D.B. Friedberg, Toledot ha-Defus haIvri bi-Medinot Italyah… (19562), 28, 30, 50, 52–53.
[Attilio Milano]

FANO, Italian family name, in use from about 1400. Noted are
AVIGDOR FANO (second half of 15t century), poet. His shortpoem Ozer Nashim was composed in reply to Sone ha-Nashim,an attack on the feminine sex by Abraham of Sarteano; MENAHEM AZARIAH DA *FANO, rabbi and kabbalist; Ezra BEN
ISAAC FANO (16t–17t centuries), scribe, rabbi, and kabbalist living in Venice and Mantua. The last copied and owned
valuable Hebrew manuscripts, some of which he personallyannotated and published. He probably visited Safed in the
1580s, and together with his friends and students R. Mordechai
Dato and Menahem Azariah da Fano and his Safed teacher R.
Israel Saruk helped disseminate the Safed Kabbalah in Italy.
He also wrote works on Kabbalah; JACOB BEN JOAB ELIJAHDA FANO (16t century), scholar and poet in Cento, Ferrara,
and Bologna. He composed an elegy on the Marrano martyrsof Ancona of 1555, which he published somewhat incongruously with a satire against women in his Shiltei ha-Gibborim(Ferrara, 1556). On papal instructions, the duke of Ferrara ordered the punishment of the author and burning of the volume, which is now very rare. Fano also wrote Petaḥ Tikvah
on the Ten Commandments, being the first part of a work
Zokher ha-Berit (unpublished); JOSEPH (Ippolito) DA FANO
(c. 1550–1630), communal leader. A notable figure in the Jewish community, he was on familiar terms with the dukes ofMantua and of Ferrara and was sometimes employed by themas an intermediary. Some time before 1628, he is said to havebeen raised to the rank of Marquis of Villimpenta, in whichcase he was the first Jew to be ennobled in Europe. The facts,
however, require further elucidation; ISAAC BERECHIAH BEN
JUDAH ARYEH FANO (17t century), rabbi and kabbalist in
Lugo. He composed liturgical poems and homilies.
Bibliography: Milano, Italia, index; Ghirondi-Neppi, index; Ravà, in: Educatore israelita, 22 (1874), 172–7; Kaufmann, in: REJ,
35 (1897), 84–90; 36 (1898), 108–11; Roth, in: JJS, 1 (1948/49), 144–6.
Add. Bibliography: Benayahu, in: Soloveitchik Jubilee Volume(1984), 786–855.
[Attilio Milano / Moti Benmelech (2nd ed.)]

FANO, GUIDO ALBERTO (1875–1961), composer, pianist,
conductor, teacher, and writer on music. Fano studied in
Padua with Vittorio Orefice and Cesare Pollini (piano). He
took a composition diploma at the Bologna Liceo Musicale(1897) and a law degree at the university (1901). He taught piENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6frbĪ, abŪ naṢ R muḥ ammad, alano at the Liceo Musicale in Bologna and became director of
the conservatories of Parma (1905–11), Naples (1912–16), andPalermo (1916–22). He ended his career at the Milan Conservatory (1922–38, 1945–47) as a piano teacher. His works include an opera, Iuturna (1903), La tentazione di Gesù (1909),
and Impressioni sinfoniche da Napoleone (1949) for orchestra;
Andante appassionato for violin and piano (1908); piano music: Sonatina op.5 (1906) and four fantasies, op.6 (1906), Sonata, E (1920), Imago, Solitudo (1933) and Rimembranze (1950);
and songs. Among his writings are Pensieri sulla musica (Bologna, 1903), I regi istituti musicali d’Italia e il disegno di ruolo peril Conservatorio di Milano (Parma, 1908), Le Studio del Pianoforte (3 vols., 1923–24), and Introduction to F. Fano: Giuseppe
Martucci: saggio biografico-critico (Milan, 1950), 7–13.

Ma’amarot (only parts have been printed, Venice, 1597); Kanfei
Yonah (Korzec, 1786), a kabbalistic work on prayer; and Gilgulei Neshamot (Prague, 1688) on the transmigration of thesoul. Many of his kabbalistic interpretations must have been
made for the first time in the course of sermons delivered byhim. Extant in manuscript are liturgical poems, elegies, comments on the teachings of Isaac Luria, and a voluminous correspondence. He died in Mantua.

Bibliography: Grove online; MGG; Dizionario biograficodegli italiani (1960– ); Dizionario enciclopedico universale della musica e dei musicisti.
[Israela Stein (2nd ed.)]°FĀRĀBĪ, ABŪ NAṢ R MUḤ AMMAD, AL (c. 870–c. 950),
one of the greatest philosophers of the medieval Islamic world.
Al-Fārābī had considerable influence on Jewish philosophers,
particularly *Maimonides. Having spent most of his life in*Baghdad, he became associated in 942 with the illustrious
court of Sayf al-Dawla, the Ḥ amdānid ruler of Syria, residing
mainly in *Aleppo.
Al-Fārābī played a major role in the dissemination ofancient philosophy in the Islamic world. His teacher was the
Nestorian Yuḥ annā ibn Ḥ aylān (see M. Meyerhof, Von Alexandrien nach Bagdad (1930), 405, 414, 416ff.). He was thus familiar with the Christian tradition of Aristotelian studies initiallycultivated in *Alexandria and transmitted by Syriac-speaking
Christians to the Islamic world. While in Baghdad, al-Fārābī
apparently had contacts with the Christian Baghdad school ofAristotelian studies, the leading member of which was Mattā
ibn Yūnus. Aristotle was studied together with his commentators, *Alexander of Aphrodisias and *Themistius, as well aswith commentators of the neoplatonic school of Alexandria(Ammonius son of Hermias and his pupils). The paramountphilosophical task al-Fārābī faced was to naturalize the pagan
philosophic tradition of antiquity within the confines of a society structured by a revealed law.

FANO, MENAHEM AZARIAH DA (1548–1620), Italian
rabbi and kabbalist. The scion of a wealthy family and a prolific author, he was a recognized authority on rabbinic law
and the foremost exponent in the West of the kabbalistic system of Moses *Cordovero. Under the influence of Israel *Sarug, who during his stay in Italy spread the knowledge of themystical system of Isaac *Luria, Menahem Azariah became
an admirer of the latter, though without departing from thesystem of Moses Cordovero. A pupil of R. Ishmael Ḥ anina
of Valmontone in Ferrara, he was active in Ferrara, Venice,Reggio, and Mantua. Together with his brothers he aided thevictims of the earthquake of 1570. He was a patron of Jewish learning, contributing funds for the publication of suchworks as Cordovero’s Pardes Rimmonim (Salonika, 1584) and
Joseph Caro’s commentary Kesef Mishneh (Venice, 1574–76)
on Maimonides’ Code.
Fano’s fame as a talmudist is borne out by the collectionof 130 responsa bearing his name which was published in 1600
in Venice and in 1788 in Dyhernfurth. His style of writing was
precise and he displayed considerable originality in the views
he expressed. He enjoyed great popularity as a teacher, attracting students from far and wide, from Germany as well as Italy. One of his disciples compared him to an angel of God in
appearance. His gentleness and humility showed themselvesin his refusal to answer adverse criticism leveled against him
by a contemporary scholar on account of certain statements
he made with regard to the ritual of the lulav on the festivalof Tabernacles. Amadeo Recanati dedicated to him his Italian translation of Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed; Isaiah*Horowitz praised his theological treatise Yonat Elem (Amsterdam, 1648) saying of it, “the overwhelming majority of his
words, and perhaps all of them, are true, and his Torah is true”(introduction to Novelot Ḥ okhmah (Basle, 1631) by Joseph*Delmedigo). Seventeen of his works have been published.
These include a summary of the legal decisions of Isaac *Alfasi and his own major work on the Kabbalah, entitled Asarah
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: L. Woidislawski, Toledot Rabbenu Menaḥ em
Azaryah mi-Fano (1903); S. Simonsohn, Toledot ha-Yehudim be-Dukkasut Mantovah (1964), 665, index, S.V.; M.A. Szulwas, Ḥ ayyei ha-Yehudim be-Italyah bi-Tekufat ha-Renaissance (1955) 196, 220.
[Samuel Rosenblatt]His Philosophy
The bulk of al-Fārābī’s teaching and writing was devoted tointerpreting Aristotle, particularly the logical works. He wrote
commentaries and paraphrases on the entire Organon. In natural philosophy he followed the Physics closely. His metaphysics is a blend of the Metaphysics and neoplatonism. Creation
is viewed by him as an atemporal process of emanation whichflows from the unique, unqualified First Being. Al-Fārābī combines the neoplatonic theory of emanation with the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic *cosmology which posits a system of celestial
spheres and their intelligences encompassing the sublunar
world. The intelligence of the last sphere (the moon) presides
over the sublunar world and is called the active *intellect. AlFārābī thus follows that interpretation of the nous poietikós(“active intellect”; De anima, 3), which regards it as a cosmic
entity. The active intellect is “the Giver of Forms” (wāhib alṣ uwar ; dator formarum): it conveys forms to the world, thus709

frbĪ, abŪ naṢ R muḥ ammad, alconstituting the rational structure of the universe. It also actualizes the potential intellect of the individual. Al-Fārābī’s theory of intellection is complicated and his various discussionsof the subject, mainly in the treatises “On the Intellect” andArāʾ Ahl al-Madīna al-Fāḍ ila (“The Opinion of the Citizensof the Virtuous City,” ed. by A. Nader, 1959) are not entirely
consistent. The individual potential (or material) intellect, influenced by the active intellect, becomes the intellect in act.
When it achieves perfection, it becomes what is termed theacquired intellect, which is said to be close to the active intellect. The one who achieves this perfection thereby becomesintelligizer (ʿāqil), intelligized (maʿqūl), and intellect (ʿaql), freefrom matter, and “divine” (see al-Siyāsa al-Madaniyya (“ThePolitical Regime,” ed. by F. Najjar (1964), 36). In “The Virtuous
City” (p. 31), this threefold identity is posited of God.
Al-Fārābī equates intellectual perfection with supremehappiness. The individual who achieves this perfection andhappiness is considered to be the philosopher or sage. If sucha person has the additional quality of a perfect imagination,
so that intelligible forms flow from the intellect to the imagination becoming embodied in sensible forms, he is more thana sage: he is a *prophet. The process by which the forms flowfrom the First Being through the active intellect to the particular intellect and then the imagination is called “revelation”(waḥ ī). To become a statesman, in addition to being a prophet,he needs also the power of persuasion in order to lead men to
the correct actions that bring happiness (“The Virtuous City,”
104). The prophet is thus essentially a philosopher, one who
is capable of conveying philosophical truth (theoretical andpractical) to the unreflective masses on the level of the imagination, in myths and symbols. The philosopher, lawgiver (i.e.,
prophet), and imām (head of the community) are ideally one
and the same person (Taḥ ṣ īl al-Saʿāda, “The Attainment ofHappiness,” tr. by M. Mahdi, in Alfarabi’s Philosophy of Platoand Aristotle (1962), paras. 57, 58). Religion is thus “an imitation of philosophy” (ibid., para. 55). This concept of prophecy
is traced by R. Walzer to certain ideas in middle Platonism(Greek into Arabic (1962), 206ff.). The identity of the philosopher and ruler is, of course, rooted ultimately in Plato’s concept of the philosopher-king in the Republic.

Fārābī’s political theory, but he apparently did not utilize thePolitics to an appreciable extent. Al-Fārābī’s choice of Plato’s
political philosophy had a determining effect upon the later
development of Islamic, as well as Jewish philosophy. In ethicaltheory Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics was of decisive influence(along with Porphyry’s now lost commentary).
Al-Fārābī’s political theory thus posits a fundamental
distinction in society between the elite (the sages who know
by reason) and the masses (the believers who apprehend byimagination). Philosophical truth is universal. It is adapted by
the prophets to the requirements of various groups and nations in the guise of religion. There are many religions; eachis an approximation (of greater or lesser validity) of the single
truth of reason (see, e.g., “The Political Regime,” 85ff.). Whilegiving priority to philosophy, al-Fārābī recognized the role ofreligion in human life as an instrument for the welfare of society and the edification of the unphilosophical masses. He wasinterested in preserving the masses from the possible pernicious effects of the truths of reason. Consequently, he wrote
esoterically so as not to disturb unreflective commitment toreligion and morality, as well as to evade persecution by religious and state authorities (L. Strauss, in Louis Ginzberg Jubilee Volume, 1 (1945), 357ff.).

Political Theory
Al-Fārābī’s political theory depends mainly on Plato, principally on the Republic and Laws. The Republic inspired his
typology of the corrupt and perfect political regimes in “The
Virtuous City” and “The Political Regime.” The elaboration ofa theory concerning the perfect city, the perfect nation, andthe perfect world state in the whole of the inhabited world(maʿmūra; oikoumene) is traced by Walzer to middle Platonic
developments (see Oriens, 16 (1963), 46ff.). Plato’s Laws was of
crucial importance for al-Fārābī (and Islamic philosophy ingeneral), for it envisioned a society based on a single divine
law comprehending both religious and civil aspects of life (seeL. Strauss, in REJ, 100 (1936), 2). Aristotle’s dictum, “man isby nature a political animal,” played an important role in al-

Influence on Jewish Thought
Al-Fārābī’s impact on medieval Jewish thought was considerable. In Hebrew texts he is called either by his Arabic name(Abū Naṣ r or al-Fārābī) or by the Hebrew equivalent of theformer (Abū Yeshaʿ). Abū Bakr is sometimes erroneously substituted for Abū Naṣ r.
Strauss (loc. cit.) first demonstrated the dominating influence of al-Fārābī’s political philosophy on *Maimonides.
Maimonides’ esteem for al-Fārābī, which no doubt encouraged the acceptance of the latter within Jewish philosophicalcircles, is clear from a letter he wrote to Samuel ibn Tibbon(see JQR, 25 (1934/35), 379). Maimonides recommended exclusively al-Fārābī’s works on logic and praised all his writings,
especially “The Book of Principles” (“The Political Regime”),
as impeccably excellent and worthy of study, adding, “for heis a great man.” In the introduction to his translation of The
Guide of the Perplexed (1963), S. Pines states that in theoretical and political science Maimonides followed al-Fārābī on
all points (p. lxxviii). The main lines of influence are traced
by Pines: Maimonides’ esoteric style and the tendency to embed “outrageously unorthodox statements” in a cryptic, veiled
context are fashioned according to the model of al-Fārābī
(see also Strauss, in Essays on Maimonides, ed. by S.W. Baron(1941), 37ff.). Maimonides was also influenced by al-Fārābī’s
negative assessment of the Kalām, as well as his treatment ofsuch crucial issues as creation, intellection, prophecy, andprovidence.
Extensive quotations in Maimonides’ Shemonah Perakim
are taken from al-Fārābī’s Fuṣ ūl al-Madanī (Aphorisms of theStatesman, ed. and tr. by D.M. Dunlop, 1961), as was shownby H. Davidson (in PAAJR, 31 (1963), 33–50). Al-Fārābī’s in-

710

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

faraj ben solomon da agrigento
fluence may also be discerned in Maimonides’ code of Jewish law. A passage in Mishneh Torah (Deʿot, 6:1), to the effectthat one who lives in an evil city should immigrate to a place
where the people are righteous or, if this is impossible, live inisolation, seems to reflect a similar statement in al-Fārābī’s
Aphorisms of the Statesman (para. 88). The comparison of
those who are physically infirm, and whose sense of taste isconsequently impaired, with those who are psychologicallyinfirm and morally corrupt (Deʿot, 2:1) is virtually a verbatim translation of a similar comparison by al-Fārābī in “ThePolitical Regime” (p. 83). It is possible that al-Fārābī’s specification and ordering of the ideas that should be taught in thevirtuous religious community (al-milla al-fāḍ ila) influenced
the choice of subjects treated and their sequence in Mishneh
Torah (Yesodei ha-Torah; cf. Kitāb al-Milla, “The Book of Religion,” ed. by M. Mahdi (1968), 44ff.).
Hebrew Translations
Many of al-Fārābī’s works were translated into Hebrew. M.
Steinschneider (Uebersetzungen, para. 158) lists eight. The microfilm collection of the Institute of Hebrew Manuscripts atthe Hebrew University in Jerusalem contains about 25 works,
including some interesting logical works not mentioned by
Steinschneider. A partial translation of the tripartite work thatcomprises “The Attainment of Happiness,” “The Philosophyof Plato,” and “The Philosophy of Aristotle,” together with themusic part of Iḥ ṣ āʾ al-ʿUlūm (“The Register of the Sciences”),
is contained in Shem Tov ibn *Falaquera’s Reshit Ḥ okhmah(see M. Steinschneider, Al-Farabi (1896), 176ff., 224ff.; Strauss,in MGWJ, 80 (1936), 96ff.). “The Political Regime” was translated in part under the title Sefer ha-Hatḥ alot (ed. by Z. Filipowski in Sefer ha-Asif, 1849). Falaquera often cites al-Fārābī
in his commentary on the Guide, Moreh ha-Moreh. According to S.O. Heller-Wilensky, Isaac ibn *Latīf quotes two wholechapters of “The Virtuous City” in his Shaʿar ha-Shamayim(in Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies, ed. by A. Altmann (1967), 196).
[Joel Kraemer]

As Musician
Al-Fārābī was one of the outstanding theorists of Arabic music and several Arabic sources extol his musical talent and his
excellence as an ‘ūd player. He wrote several treatises on musicof which the most famous are Kitāb al-Mūsīqī al-Kabīr (“TheGrand Book of Music”) and Iḥ ṣā’ al-ʿUlūm (“The Classification of the Sciences”) in which he enumerates all the known
sciences and defines their nature and object; part of the thirdchapter deals with the science of music. This work became
known in Medieval Europe through its several Latin translations (see H.G. Farmer, Arabic-Latin Writings on Music,
1934) and was translated into Hebrew by Kalonymus b. Kalonymus of Arles in 1314 under the title: Ma’amar be-Mispar
ha-Ḥ okhmot (see A. Shiloah, Yuval, 2 (1971), 115–27). Among
Jewish writers who used the section on music in their works
are Shem Tov ibn *Falaquera in his Reshit Ḥ okhma and Joseph
ibn *Aknin in chapter VII of his Ṭ ibb al-Nufūs. The section

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

on music as well as several passages compiled in the “Grand
Book of Music” is included in the Hebrew version of Ibn Salt’s
treatise on music and occurs in a Genizah fragment (British
Museum, Ms. Or.5565c).
[Amnon Shiloah (2nd ed.)]Bibliography: Brockelmann, Arab Lit., 1 (1943), 232ff.; supplement, 1 (1937), 375ff., 957ff.; N. Rescher, Al Farabi. An Annotated
Bibliography (1962); R. Walzer, in: EIs2 S.V. al-Farabi; H.G. Farmer,
Al-Fārabī’s Arabic Latin Writings on Music (19602), 3–16; H. Avenary,in Tatzlil, 3 (1963), 163.

FARAJ, MURAD (1866–1956), Egyptian Karaite author andtheologian. Born in *Cairo and trained as a lawyer, Faraj wasa government official during the reign of the khedive ʿAbbās
Ḥ ilmī (1892–1914). He took a keen interest in the problems of
the Egyptian Jewish community and was particularly active
among the *Karaites, whom he served for a time as dayyan.
After resigning this post, he practiced law until 1932, when heturned exclusively to literary pursuits.
Faraj, who wrote in Hebrew and Arabic, published some
30 volumes of poetry, religious works, and books on law.
Two books of verse, highly praised by the great Egyptian
poet Aḥ mad Shawqī, were Dīwān Murād (“Murad’s Poetical
Works,” 5 vols., 1912–29) and Al-Shuʿarāʾ al-Yahūd al-ʿArab(“The Jewish Poets in Arabic,” 1929; 19392). He also published
Shir ʿIvri mi-Meshorer ʿAravi (“A Hebrew Song of an ArabPoet,” 1945) in both Hebrew and Arabic. In his verse he wasa meticulous craftsman with a fondness for difficult and unusual expressions.
All but one of Faraj’s theological works were written in
Arabic. They include Al-Qarāʾūn wa-al-Rabbānūn (“The Karaites and the Rabbanites,” 1918); Al-Yahūdiyya (“Judaism,” 1920);
Tafsīr al-Tawrā (“Torah Commentary,” 1928); Al-Qudsiyyāt(“Holy Offerings,” translated into Hebrew by the author in
1923); Amthāl Sulaimān (“The Proverbs of Solomon,” 1938), an
Arabic translation of and commentary on the Book of Proverbs; and Ayyūb (“Job,” 1950), an Arabic translation of several
chapters of the Book of Job. Two books on linguistics wereUstādh al-ʿIbriyya (“The Hebrew Teacher,” 1925) and Multaqāal-Lughatayn al-ʿIbriyya wa-al-ʿArabiyya (“The Crossroads ofthe Hebrew and Arabic Languages,” 5 vols., 1930–50). Faraj
also wrote Al-Furūq al-Qānūniyya (“On Legal Differences,”1917) which, from 1928, became a standard textbook at Cairo
University. In addition to all of these works, Faraj publishedseveral legal dissertations and many articles and reviews. In
1936 he was elected a member of the Egyptian Academy for
the Arabic Language.
Add. bibliography: J.M. Landau, Jews in Nineteenth-Century Egypt (1969), index.
[Hayyim J. Cohen]

FARAJ (Moses) BEN SOLOMON DA AGRIGENTO(Girgenti), also known as Ferragut and Faraj ben Salim(13t century), physician, translator, and author. Faraj waspersonal physician and official translator to Charles I of An-

711

farbandjou, king of Sicily, for whom he translated several medical
treatises from Arabic into Latin. Among these are Liber Continens (Ar. Al-Ḥ āwī), a medical encyclopedia in 20 parts by
Rhazes (al-Rāzī), which he finished translating in 1279 andwhich was printed five times between 1486 and 1542; Tacuini
Aegritudinum ac Morborum Corporis…, a translation madein 1280 of the Taqwīm al-Abdān by Abū ʿAlī ibn Jazla; andDe Medicis Expertis by Pseudo-Galen. Faraj’s authorship ofother books cannot definitely be authenticated. However, if,
as seems likely, Faraj is the same person as Moses b. Solomon of Salerno, he is also the author of a commentary on the
Guide by *Maimonides. A picture of Faraj receiving the AlḤ āwī for translation from Charles I appears in a 13t-century
illuminated manuscript.

FARBAND, American Jewish Labor Zionist fraternal order.
The establishment of the Farband was first conceived in Philadelphia in 1908 by a small group headed by Meyer L. Brown
which sought to build a fraternal order in which Labor Zionists would feel at home – one that would combine fraternalbenefits and mutual aid with a Labor Zionist outlook andprogram. In the succeeding two years groups were formedin several cities, and on June 10–16 a founding conferenceof the national Farband took place in Rochester, New York.
It adopted the name Yiddish Natzionaler Arbeiter Farband(Jewish National Workers Alliance) and formulated the following program:
The JNWA strives to organize all Jewish workers on thefollowing principles:
1. Mutual help in case of need, sickness, and death.
2. Education of Jewish workers to full awareness of theirnational and social interests.
3. Support of all endeavors which lead to the national
liberation and renascence of the Jewish people… support of
all activities which lead to the strengthening and liberationof the working class.
With the then existing Jewish fraternal orders largely
devoid of ideological content, and with the only other Jewish workers order – the *Workmen’s Circle (Arbeiter Ring) –adopting an anti-Zionist position, Farband, with its socialistZionist viewpoint and program in Israel and America, grewin number from 1,000 in 1911 to 25,000 in 1946 and 40,000
in 1972.
In 1911 Farband developed the first modern insurance
and mutual benefit system for Jewish workers. The organization received its official charter, licensing it to sell various
insurance and medical plans, from the State of New York on
January 6, 1913, and from Canada in 1921. The main mutual
benefits of Farband include: life, accident, health, hospitalization, and juvenile insurance; a major medical plan; and savings and loan groups.
From its inception Farband was involved in Jewish communal affairs at home and abroad. In 1913 it fought against

the “literacy test” given to immigrants and protested against
the *Beilis Trial. During World War I Farband participated in
the establishment of the American Jewish Congress and thePeople’s Relief Committee, and sent many volunteers to fightin the ranks of the Jewish Legion. During World War II Farband campaigned actively to raise funds for the Labor Zionist
Committee for Relief and Rehabilitation. It also energeticallysupported the founding of the American Jewish Conferencein 1944. Farband has also been active in the civil rights struggle and has espoused many other liberal causes both in the
United States and Canada.
Farband concentrates much of its energies on culturalactivities. In addition to maintaining a network of day andevening schools, Farband established “educational bureaus” inthe 1920s to encourage Jewish cultural activities by promoting“Onegei Shabbat,” musical and drama presentations, seminars,
study groups, and lectures throughout the United States andCanada. Farband encourages its members to use Hebrew andYiddish and in cooperation with the Hillel Foundation has
since 1966 promoted the study of the Yiddish language andliterature on many campuses throughout the United States.
Farband supports the Jewish Teachers’ Seminary, the People’s
University in New York, the Farband Book Publishing Association, and a number of newspapers and periodicals in Yiddish, Hebrew, and English. It provides educational programs
during the summer months through its network of summer
camps: in 1926 Unser Camp (for adults) and Kinderwelt (foryouth) were created in New York. The educational and financial success of these camps stimulated the creation of similar
camps throughout the United States and Canada. Habonim is
the youth movement of the Farband, as well as of Po’alei Zion
and Pioneer Women.
As a Labor Zionist organization Farband has always
maintained strong ties with Ereẓ Israel and the State of Israel,
especially the workers’ groups there. At its founding conference, it resolved to institute obligatory taxes for the benefit
of workers in Ereẓ Israel. Important Israeli leaders, among
them David Ben-Gurion, Izhak Ben-Zvi, Golda Meir, andZalman Shazar, have frequently come to the United States toaddress its conventions and leaders. In 1919 Farband openeda branch in Ereẓ Israel, and during the Mandatory period andafter World War II it campaigned energetically and assistedwith funds and manpower in the creation of the Jewish State.
After the birth of Israel, Farband continued its work on behalf of the cooperative, pioneering sector through support of
the Histadrut. It consistently invested a part of its insurance
funds in bodies which promote its ideals and today is the largest investor in Ampal, the American investment arm associated with the Histadrut.
Since the 1930s the possibility of the unification of Po’alei
Zion and Farband has been discussed frequently, since bothshare the same Labor Zionist philosophy, the same goals in
America and Israel, and have cooperated on the most important national and international projects. In 1954, during Farband’s Montreal convention, Zalman Shazar, subsequently

712

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: Roth, Italy, 93–94.

[Attilio Milano]Farbstein, David ẓ evi
president of the State of Israel, personally offered his services
in this direction. However, only after the New York convention in 1967 did Farband seriously negotiate the unificationof Labor Zionist forces in America. The 22nd national convention, held in New York December 23–26, 1971, finally brought
this about by bringing into the legal framework of Farband
the members and branches of Poalei Zion and the American
Habonim Association, the latter comprising the alumni of
the Labor Zionist youth movement. The name was changed
to Labor Zionist Alliance. The national offices are in Farband
House, New York City, and regional offices are maintained inprincipal cities throughout the United States and Canada.
[Jehuda Reinharz]

The 22nd national convention, held in New York December 232–6, 1971, finally brought about the merger of Farband,
Poalei Zion, and the American Habonim Association, comprising the alumni of the Labor Zionist youth movement. The
name was changed to Labor Zionist Alliance and was changed
once again in 2004 to Ameinu.
[Daniel Mann (2nd ed.)]FARBER, MARVIN (1901–1980), U.S. philosopher, founderof the International Phenomenological Society in 1939 andeditor of the journal Philosophy and Phenomenological Research from 1940 and, from 1951, American Lectures in Philosophy. Farber was born in Buffalo, New York, and educated at
Harvard University and in Germany. He taught at Ohio State
University, State University of New York at Buffalo, and at the
University of Pennsylvania. Starting as an instructor in philosophy at the University of Buffalo in 1927, he became successively assistant professor, professor, department chairman,
acting dean of the graduate school, distinguished professor
and, in 1964, distinguished service professor.
Farber was the first to bring Husserl’s phenomenology tothe attention of American philosophers. In 1928 he publishedPhenomenology as a Method and as a Philosophical Discipline,
and in 1943 The Foundation of Phenomenology. He edited Philosophical Essays in Memory of Edmund Husserl (1940). Though
Farber was a follower of Husserl and expositor of contemporary German and French thought, he criticized the anti-scientific attitude of Husserl, Max Scheler, and others, as well as theanti-rationalist tendencies in other contemporary European
thinkers such as Heidegger. His views tended toward naturalism and pragmatism, as expressed in his volume Naturalism
and Subjectivism (1959) and in his many articles.
Other books by Farber include The Aims of Phenomenology: The Motives, Methods, and Impact of Husserl’s Thought(1966), Phenomenology and Existence: Toward a Philosophy
within Nature (1967), Foundation of Phenomenology: Edmund Husserl & the Quest for a Rigorous Science of Philosophy (1967), Basic Issues of Philosophy: Experience, Reality,and Human Values (1968), and The Search for an Alternative:
Philosophical Perspectives of Subjectivism & Marxism (with R.
Chisholm, 1984).
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Farber was a member of philosophy societies around theworld, such as the Institut Philosophe, Paris; International
Phenomenological Society (past president); American Philosophical Association (president of the Eastern Division), C.S.
Pierce Society, Symbolic Logic Association (executive committee), and American Association of University Professors,
Phi Beta Kappa.
Bibliography: H. Spiegelberg, The Phenomenological Movement, 2 (1960), 627–9; Add. Bibliography: D. Mathur, Naturalistic Philosophies of Experience: Studies in James, Dewey and Farber
against the Background of Husserl’s Phenomenology (1971).
[Richard H. Popkin / Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]FARBER, VIOLA (1931–1998), U.S. dancer, choreographer,and teacher. Of German birth, Farber arrived in the U.S. at theage of seven and became a citizen in 1944. She studied modern
dance with Katherine Litz, and Merce Cunningham and also
took ballet classes with Alfredo Corvino. In 1953, she becamea founding member of Cunningham’s company as a dancer
and choreographed some of its works until 1968. Among her
works from this period are Crises, Paired, and Nocturne. To theCunningham technique Farber, as a passionate dancer, added
her personal contribution of human warmth. Dense, demanding movement and a humorous, bounding enthusiasm characterized her style. In 1968, she founded her own company andbegan choreographing her own works. Most of her work has
been either set to original music or danced in silence. However, in one case her Dune and Nightshade was choreographed
to Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata. She also taught in Salt Lake
City and Columbus, Ohio, and served on the faculty of the
New York School of the Arts. In 1981–82, the French government appointed her director of the Centre National de Danse
Contemporaine at Angers, for which she created nine works,
including Nuage and Oiseaux-Pierres, continuing to maintainclose ties to France. Her choreographed piece Ainsi de suite
was performed at the Avignon Festival.
[Amnon Shiloah (2nd ed.)]FARBSTEIN, DAVID Ẓ EVI (1868–1953), Zionist Swiss politician. Farbstein was born in Warsaw and grew up in a traditional family. He worked at a bank in Warsaw to finance his
studies, distancing himself from his Orthodox upbringing.
During his studies in Berlin (1892–94) he joined the Russian Jewish Scientific Association and met with N. *Syrkin.
He continued his studies at the universities of Zurich andBerne (1894–97), graduating with a thesis on “the legal statusof the free and unfree worker in talmudic law.” In 1897 he received Swiss citizenship, became a member of the Cultusgemeinde and joined the Social Democratic Party. He protested
against the expulsion of Russian-Jewish peddlers from Zurich (1905/06) and led the opposition in the Cultusgemeinde
against the well-to-do Swiss-Jewish establishment. As a lawyer, he defended women who had had abortions. In 1902 hewas elected to the cantonal parliament, after 1904 to the city
parliament. Here he fought against the introduction of a 15-713

farbstein, joshua heschelyear waiting period for Orthodox East European Jews to apply
for Swiss citizenship, but he did not convince the bourgeois
majority (1920). He was the first Jewish member of the Swiss
parliament (the Nationalrat,” 1922–38). As a Zionist, he helped*Herzl set up the First Zionist Congress in Basle and drafted
the statutes of the *Jewish National Fund (Keren Kayemet leIsrael). Already in 1897 he founded the first Zionist group in
Zurich. After 1933 he fought Swiss fascism and opposed thepolicies of the leaders of the Swiss Federation of Jewish Communities as too compromising. He was instrumental in the
resignation of Saly Mayer from the presidency of the federation in 1943. He refuted the anti-Jewish allegations of Zurich
pastor Walter Hoch.

FARḤ I, family of financiers in *Damascus of Sephardi origin during the 18t and 19t centuries. The family arrived at
Damascus from *Aleppo in mid-18t century. Members of thisfamily held the position of *ṣ arrāf (“banker”) in the provinceof Damascus during the 1740s and possibly even earlier. It ap-

pears that members of this family also served as officials in thefinancial administration of the province and during the 1790s
the bookkeeping of the provincial treasury was entrusted tothem. The status and power of this family reached its climax
during the 19t century, when the responsibility for the affairsof the treasury of the provinces of Damascus and Sidon – thecenter of which was in *Acre – was handed over to one of its
members. The family could then undertake the financing oflarge-scale projects, including participation in the financingof the ḥ ajj (pilgrimage to Mecca) expenses, which was within
the domain of the governor of the Damascus Province as theorganizer of the ḥ ajj caravan.
The first member of this family to consolidate his position in Damascus was SAUL (Shihada) FARḥ I who lived there
in the second half of the 18t century. His position in the financial administration of the province enabled him to intervenewith the governor of Damascus in favor of the Christians. In
1770 he was a very wealthy man and had good connections
with prominent people in Istanbul. Solomon Farḥ i, probably
the father of Saul, died after torture in 1794.
The sons of Saul were RAPHAEL (died in Damascus,
1845), MOSES (died in Damascus, c. 1830), MENAḥ EM (diedin Damascus, c. 1830), JOSEPH (died in Damascus, c. 1830),
and ḥ AYYIM (died in Acre, 1820). RAPHAEL and JOSEPH inherited his position in Damascus and their cousin SOLOMON(Salmon) FARḥ I also shared their importance. The third son,ḥ AYYIM, entered the service of Aḥ mad al-Jazzār Pasha, thegovernor of the province of Sidon who had fixed his residencein Acre in about 1790. He held the position of ṣ arrāf and was
responsible for the treasury affairs during most of al-Jazzār’srule (until 1804). He distinguished himself during the standof Acre against Napoleon’s armies in 1799. His brother MOSES
was his assistant. In 1804 Ḥ ayyim was imprisoned, but on thedeath of al-Jazzār he was set free. He immediately joined in
the struggle for al-Jazzār’s succession as a supporter of Suleiman Pasha. Suleiman achieved the position of governor in1805 due to the assistance of Ḥ ayyim who intervened in his
favor in Constantinople. Suleiman had complete confidencein Ḥ ayyim, and he gave him a free hand in the administration and its finances. The Suleiman period (until 1818) was
one of consolidation for Ḥ ayyim and the family in general,
especially after Suleiman was also appointed governor of Damascus. Ḥ ayyim Farḥ i also chose Suleiman Pasha’s successor,
ʿAbdallah Pasha, whom he had helped rise to the position of
ketkhudā (or *kaḥ ya; administrative director) under Suleimanfrom 1814. In practice, Ḥ ayyim was the governor of the province from 1818. However, the thirst for power of ʿAbdallah andthe presence of men who slandered Ḥ ayyim before ʿAbdallahbrought about his downfall and he was executed (1820) at theheight of his glory. This was the first blow to strike the family.
Ḥ ayyim’s brothers attempted to avenge him and they participated in the war waged against ʿAbdallah by the governor ofDamascus. Because of its financial power, the family nevertheless continued to hold on to its firm position in Damascus, and Raphael Farḥ i was the chief sherif in Damascus. Ra-

714

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: H. Strauss-Zweig, David Farbstein. Juedischer
Sozialist – sozialistischer Jude (2002); Davar (June 22, 1953); Festschrift
zum 50-jaehrigen Bestehen des Schweizerischen Israelitischen Gemeindebundes (1954), 197ff. (his autobiography).
[Uri Kaufmann (2nd ed.)]FARBSTEIN, JOSHUA HESCHEL (1870–1948), leader ofthe *Mizrachi movement, head of the Warsaw Jewish community, and of the Jewish Community Council (Va’ad haKehillah) in Jerusalem (see Israel, Communal *Governance).
Born in Warsaw, Farbstein was active in the Ḥ ibbat Zion
movement, and, with the emergence of Herzl, joined the political Zionist movement. Together with his brother, DavidẒ evi *Farbstein, he attended the First Zionist Congress andwas the first to discuss the religious problems of the Zionist
movement in pre-Congress talks with Herzl. Farbstein participated in subsequent Congresses, representing Mizrachi
after its formation in 1902. He was president of the Zionist
Organization in Poland from 1915 to 1918 and was active during these years in obtaining extensive aid for war victims. A
founder of Mizrachi in Poland, he was its president between
1918 and 1931, president of the Keren Hayesod in Poland, amember of the Polish Sejm and of the city council of Warsaw,
and, between 1926 and 1931, president of the Warsaw Jewish
community. Farbstein settled in Jerusalem in 1931 and was amember of the Zionist Executive between 1931 and 1933. Together with Emanuel *Neumann, he devised the abortive plan
to lease 70,000 dunams in Transjordan for Jewish settlement.
In Jerusalem he was active in the Community Council, which
he headed between 1938 and 1945 (ultimately, as honorarypresident). Throughout his life he held leading posts in theworld Mizrachi movement.
Bibliography: Askan le-Mofet (1945), anthology of articles on J. Farbstein; L. Jaffe (ed.), Sefer ha-Congress (19502), 191–2,
343–4.
[Getzel Kressel]

farḤ I
phael’s children were David (died in Damascus, 1907), Aslan(born in 1828), Polica, and Meir. Meir had three sons: Moses,
Solomon, and Jacob. The son of Aslan was Joseph Farḥ i who
died in Beirut in 1840. There is a letter from the Farḥ i family
to Moses *Montefiore from 1849 signed by Menaḥ em Farhi;
Judah, Meir, and David, the sons of Raphael Farḥ i; Ezekiel,
Nathaniel, and Aaron, the sons of Joseph Farḥ i; and Solomon, the son of Joseph Farḥ i. In that year Montefiore lodged
in the house of Isaac Ḥ ayyim Farḥ i. The Egyptian conquestof Syria at the beginning of the 1830s struck a decisive blow at
the family, both in relation to its financial matters and its influence in the town. In 1834 the family lost its positions in thefinancial administration and that of ṣ arrāf, and only a few of
its members remained on the staff of the treasury and in theleadership of the Jewish millet. However, with the return ofOttoman rule in Syria in 1840, one of the members was again
appointed to the direction of the treasury administration, eventhough the family could not regain its former financial power.
During the 18t and 19t centuries the family members were
the rivals and opponents of powerful Christian families andsometimes found themselves in a perilous situation because
Muslim governors wanted to dismiss them from their positions. The new rivals of the Farḥ i family in Damascus werethe members of Albaḥ ri family. At the time of the *Damascus Affair the family lost its political influence and some ofits members were imprisoned. Aslan Farḥ i confessed because
he was afraid of torture.
As was the case with other wealthy Jewish families, theFarḥ is also played a role in fostering spiritual life and financial
support of the needy. Ḥ ayyim Farḥ i was a particularly generous donor to synagogues both in Damascus and in Acre.
He owned the magnificent Farḥ i Bible, which was named after him. After his execution it came into the possession of
the British consul in Damascus, and it was only restored to
the family nearly a century later. They established family religious trusts for the benefit of yeshivot and *kolelim, supported
scholars, assisted the needy, and arranged for employment intheir offices. They also initiated relations between the Jews ofDamascus and Palestine and those of Constantinople. As forthe relations between the Jews and the government, there isno definite evidence of their intervention, except for some
vague evidence concerning a tax exemption for the Jews of*Safed. After the death of Ḥ ayyim, there was a quarrel over
his estate in the Farḥ i family, which began in 1833 and continued for many years. The struggle was between the sons ofRaphael and their cousins Joseph Hai and Nissim Farḥ i, thesons of Menaḥ em. Rabbi Jacob Antebi, the chief rabbi of Damascus, wrote a decision in 1833, but Moses, the brother of
Hayyim Farhi, and, after the death of Moses, who lived in
Acre, his sons Mordecai and Menaḥ em rejected the decision.
They were supported by Rabbi Ḥ ayyim Nissim *Abulafia ofTiberias. Rabbi Abraham Ḥ ayyim *Gagin, the chief rabbi
of Jerusalem, defended the decision of Rabbi Antebi. Moses
Montefiore and Ẓ evi Hirsch Lehren also intervened. In 1847
the rabbis of Damascus wrote about the activity of Judah and
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

David, the sons of Raphael Farḥ i, against Isaac Ḥ ayyim Farḥ i,the son of Solomon, who was the translator of the French consul in Damascus. His relative David Farḥ i became the Turkish scribe of the French consul, and Nathaniel Farḥ i was thetreasurer of the consulate. Meir, the brother of Ḥ ayyim Farḥ i,
was murdered in 1822. He had married his second wife in 1818and she bore him his only son, Isaac Ḥ ayyim. The interior of
the house of the Farḥ i family in Damascus was very elegant.
In later generations the Farḥ i family settled in Beirut, Paris,
Italy, South America, and Israel. In 1854 Meir Farḥ i was appointed sherif in Damascus, but was later dismissed. Also in
1854 Nissan Farḥ i was appointed the representative of the Jews
in the Mejlis of Damascus.
[Aryeh Shmuelevitz/ Leah Bornstein-Makovetsky (2nd ed.)]

HILLEL BEN JACOB FARHI (1868–1940) poet, translator, and physician, also belonged to this family. Farḥ i, who wasborn in Damascus, studied medicine in *Beirut and London
and became a government doctor in *Cairo. In his spare time,
he pursued research into Hebrew and Arabic and translated
many Jewish religious works into Arabic. These include his
Siddur Farḥ i (1917), which contains an introduction to thehistory of prayer; Al-Urjūzah al-Fārḥ iyah (“Farḥ i’s Poem,”1914), comprising the 613 *Commandments in the form of an
Arabic poem; and Majmūʿat Farḥ i (“Farḥ i’s Collection,” 1922),
which contains the Passover *Haggadah, the Pirkei *Avot, and
the Azharot of Solomon ibn *Gabirol. Farḥ i’s verse translations
and his own poetry are marked by lucidity and simplicity. He
published a Hebrew version of the Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyām(1931) and, with Nissim Mallul, produced an Arabic translationof the Zikhronot le-Beit David by A.S. *Friedberg.
A well-known member of this family was ISAAC B. SOLOMON FARḥ I, the author of Tuv Yerushalayim (Jerusalem,
1842), Zekhut ha-Rabbim (Constantinople, 1829), Imrei Binah (Belgrade, 1837), Zekhut u-Mishor (Smyrna, 1850), Ẓ uf
Devash (Leghorn, 1849), Shevet Mishor (Belgrade, 1837), Matok la-Nefesh (Constantinople, 1828), Marpe la-Eẓ em (Constantinople, 1830), Matok mi-Devash (Jerusalem, 1842), Musar
Haskel (Constantinople, 1830), and Minei Metikah (Leghorn,1848), sermons for the Sabbath. NURI FARḥ I, a native of Damascus, settled in *Alexandria after having studied in Paris.
In Alexandria he engaged in commerce and wrote a historyof the Jews in the town from its foundation until his own
time, La Communauté Juive d’Alexandrie de l’Antiquité à nos
Jours (1945). Another member of this family, JOSEPH DAVID
FARḥ I (1878–1945), became the president of the Jewish community of Beirut.
[Hayyim J. Cohen]

Bibliography: Ben Zvi, Ereẓ Yisrael, index. Add. Bibliography: F. Librecht, in: Magazin fuer die Literatur des Auslandes (1850), 461–63, 503–4; T. Philipp, in: Cathedra, 34 (1985), 97–114;
E. Shochetman, in: Asufot, 6 (1993), 161–209; idem, in: Asufot 11(1998), 281–308; Y. Harel, Bisfinot shel Esh la-Ma’arav, Temurot beYahadut Surya bi-Tekufat ha-Reformot ha-Ottomaniot 1840–1880(2003), index; J.M. Landau, Jews in Nineteenth-Century Egypt (1969),
101, 338.

715

Farhi, Daniel
FARHI, DANIEL (1941– ), French reform rabbi. Farhi wasborn in Paris to a Jewish family of Turkish descent. He washidden and protected by a Protestant family during the war,began rabbinical studies in 1959, and was ordained a rabbi
in 1966. He chose to join the reform Union Libérale Israélite
de France, France’s first liberal Jewish congregation, locatedin Paris and known as “rue Copernic,” the street where its
main synagogue is located. In 1970, he became first rabbi
at the Copernic synagogue, a position that he left in 1977 tocreate a new liberal movement, the Mouvement Juif Libéralde France (MJLF), originally comprised of just 50 families
and subsequently growing to a few hundred. Dedicated tothe promotion of Reform Judaism, Farhi also emphasized in
his rabbinical activity the importance of inter-religious dialogue, especially with Islam and Christianity. Another main
axis of Farhi’s concerns was the memory of the Shoah and its
transmission, being himself an “enfant caché ” (hidden child).
Farhi was the first to introduce in France the celebration of
Yom Ha-Shoah in 1990, with a 24-hour-long recitation of thenames of French Jewish deportees and Holocaust victims. He
worked in close association with Serge and Beate *Klarsfeld
to foster public awareness of the Shoah. Farhi was imprisonedin Germany for trying to pursue Nazi criminals but managed
to organize a number of pilgrimages to Auschwitz. He was
eventually able to merge his two main concerns – religious
dialogue and transmission of the Shoah – when he joined
the inter-religious pilgrimage set up by Emile Shoufani, an
Arab-Israeli priest from Nazareth, which brought together at
Auschwitz Muslims, Christians, and Jews, Israeli and French.
Farhi wrote several books on Israel and the transmission of
Judaism (Parler aux enfants d’Israël), the problematics of liberal Judaism (Un judaïsme dans le siècle), and the Shoah (Audernier survivant), as well as two prayer books for Reform
communities, Siddour Taher Libénou and Mahzor Anénou.
Fahri also served on the editorial board of the MJLF review,
Tenou’a-Le Mouvement. He was awarded several prestigious
honors, including chevalier de l’ordre national du Mérite andchevalier de l’ordre national de la Légion d’honneur, a distinction that he received in 1993 from Simone *Veil, state ministerand Holocaust survivor.

ethics as a teacher at the Faculties of Medicine in Reims andParis.

[Dror Franck Sullaper (2nd ed.)]FARHI, MORIS (1935– ), writer, poet, and artist. Born in*Ankara, Farhi graduated from Robert College in *Istanbul
in 1954 and from the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art in London in 1956. A British subject since 1964, he pursued an acting
career for several years and began writing in the 1960s. Between 1960 and 1983 he worked primarily in television, writing numerous scripts for both the BBC and ITV. Many of his
poems have appeared in various U.S. and international publications. He became a member of English PEN in the mid1970s and joined its Writers in Prison Committee in 1988. In
2001 he was made a member of the Order of the British Empire in the Queen’s Birthday Honours List for “services to literature.” In November 2001 he was elected a vice president ofInternational PEN. He is a fellow of both the Royal Society of
Literature and the Royal Geographical Society. His publishedworks include The Pleasure of Your Death (1972); The Last ofDays (1983), a thriller played out in the Middle East against
the backdrop of Arab terrorism; Journey Through the Wilderness (1989), dealing with a Holocaust survivor’s search inSouth America for the Nazi who murdered his father; Children of the Rainbow (1999), about a gypsy survivor of Auschwitz; and Young Turk (2004), a series of interrelated stories
set in *Turkey.
[Rifat Bali (2nd ed.)]FARIA, FRANCISCO DE (b. c. 1650), Marrano adventurer.
Faria, who was born in Brazil, lived subsequently in Antwerp
as an artist, in Holland as an officer in the army, and in England as an interpreter to the Portuguese embassy. In 1680, at
the time of the so-called “Popish Plot,” he made some startling
but unfounded disclosures accusing the Portuguese ambassador of having attempted to bribe him to murder the Earl ofShaftesbury and others. He was rewarded for his revelations,but subsequently disappeared from view.

[Dror Franck Sullaper (2nd ed.)]Bibliography: Friedman, in: ajhsp, 20 (1911), 115–32 ( =his Early American Jews (1934), 127–45, 205–9); Roth, Mag Bibl, 125,
248.
[Cecil Roth]FARHI, GABRIEL (1968– ), French reform rabbi. Sonof leading reform rabbi, Daniel *Farhi, Gabriel completed
liberal rabbinical studies in London (Leo Baeck College),where he was ordained in 1996. Subsequently he was the
rabbi of the MJLF-Est synagogue, an offshoot of the movement’s main congregation. An advisor to the BBC for Jewish
affairs, Farhi also serves as the Israelite chaplain at the Georges
Pompidou European hospital and headed there a think tankon medical ethics. He was the first non-Orthodox rabbi to
be appointed as a chaplain in a French hospital. His keeninterest for bioethics, his intimate knowledge of the medical world, and his proximity to the sick and suffering
also led him to promote a liberal Jewish viewpoint on bio-

°FARINACCI, ROBERTO (1892–1945), leading antisemite in the Italian Fascist regime. A socialist until 1914, Farinacci became one of the founders of the Fascist movementin March 1919. He served as a member of the Gran Consiglio
del Fascismo, as a member of parliament, and, between 1925
and 1926, as Fascist Party secretary. Farinacci represented the
fanatic and extremist element in the Fascist leadership. In 1921
he founded a daily newspaper, Cremona Nuova, later renamed
Il Regime Fascista, which he edited until 1945. In this newspaper he advocated a strong line against the opponents of theregime, closer relations with Nazi Germany, and the adoptionof a racist, antisemitic policy. From 1938 he was one of those
who directed the Fascist government’s racist policy. His anti-

716

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

farkas, ladislaus
semitic book, La Chiesa e gli Ebrei, was published in 1938. He
also wrote Storia della rivoluzione fascista (3 vols., 1940). In
July 1943 he fled to Germany, but later returned to Italy, where
he was executed by Italian partisans in April 1945.
Bibliography: R. de Felice, Storia degli ebrei italiani sotto il
fascismo (1961); Roth, Italy, 522, 525; Milano, Italia, 691; P. Pellicano,
Ecco il diavolo, Israele! (1938); Starr, in: JSOS, 1 (1939), 105–24. Add.
Bibliography: H. Fornari, Mussolini’s Gadfly: Roberto Farinacci(1971); U.A. Grimaldi, Farinacci, il piu fascista (1972); R.A. Rozzi, I
cremonesi e Farinacci (1991).
[Daniel Carpi]

FARISSOL, ABRAHAM BEN MORDECAI (c. 1451–c. 1525),
Bible commentator, geographer, and polemicist. Born in Avignon, Abraham spent most of his life in Ferrara, Italy, where
he did most of his work, and in Mantua. He served as a cantor,
and for many years as a copyist, a task he performed with great
devotion and care. It seems that he was highly regarded by theJews of Ferrara, for they chose him to represent Judaism before
the duke of Ferrara in a religious dispute with two Dominican monks. Farissol’s main works are (1) Pirḥ ei Shoshannim, ashort commentary on the Torah, which was never printed but
is extant in manuscript; a commentary on Ecclesiastes, also inmanuscript; and a commentary on the Book of Job, printed
in the Bomberg Bible (Venice 1516–17). (2) Magen Avraham,
a work dedicated to the defense of Judaism in religious disputes, and containing in two separate chapters, polemical attacks against Christianity and Islam. Most of the work is based
upon the writings of earlier medieval Hebrew polemicists,
but parts were influenced by the author’s own experience inthe dispute in Ferrara. The work is still extant in manuscript.
(3) Iggeret Orḥ ot Olam, his most famous and most importantwork, is the first modern Hebrew work on geography (Ferrara
1524; Venice 1586; and many subsequent printings). Each of its
30 chapters deals with a certain geographical area or subject.
In addition, many cosmological and historical matters are also
treated. The author collected all the evidence he could regarding Jewish settlements in each country. The inclusion of a description of the New World makes Farissol the first Hebrew
writer to deal in detail with the newly-discovered America.
The 14t chapter of Iggeret Orḥ ot Olam, which deals mainlywith the settlements of the *Ten Lost Tribes, is of special interest. According to Farissol’s introduction to this chapter, it
is clear that what moved him to undertake this investigation
was the appearance in Italy in 1523 of David *Reuveni, manyof whose descriptions are included in this work.
Bibliography: Steinschneider, Cat Bod, 689–90; Benjacob,Oẓ ar, 9 no. 189, 296 no. 490; Graetz, Hist, 4 (1894), 411–3; Waxman,
Literature, 2 (19602), 485–7, 556.

FARISSOL, JACOB BEN Ḥ AYYIM (Comprat [Comprado],
Vidal Farissol; b. 1405?), Provençal Hebrew poet and philosophical commentator. At the age of 17 Farissol wrote Beit
Ya’akov (Ms.), a commentary to Judah Halevi’s Kuzari, basedon the lectures of his teacher Solomon b. Menahem Frat
Maimon; this commentary is in many ways similar to those
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6of his fellow students, Solomon b. Judah (Solomon Vivas) andNethanel Caspi. His commentary, like those of his fellow students, is important for the understanding and establishing of
the Hebrew text of the Kuzari. In the summer of 1453 Farissol was in Avignon and is apparently identical with the poet
Jacob who, in a piyyut (Mi Kamokha) for Hoshana Rabba, tellsof a thwarted Jewish persecution on Sept. 15, 1443. He also isthe author of a liturgical poem (Tamid) for the eve of the Day
of Atonement.
Bibliography: Zunz, Lit Poesie, 525; Literaturblatt des Orients, 10 (1849), 343; HB, 7 (1864), 27; 16 (1876), 127, no. 2; Steinschneider, Katalog … Berlin, 2 pt. 1 (1878), 110–5, no. 124, 141 (specimenof text); idem, Polemische und apologetische Literatur… (1877), 351;
Gross, Gal Jud, 6–7; ZHB, 13 (1909), 30.
[Jefim (Hayyim) Schirmann]

FARJEON, BENJAMIN LEOPOLD (1838–1903), English
novelist. Farjeon, who was born in London into an Orthodox family of North African origin, went to Australia at theage of 17. He eventually became editor and part owner of thefirst daily newspaper in New Zealand, the Otago Daily Times.
Returning to England in 1868, he published his first novel,
Grif (1870), a story of Australian life, which became his bestknown work. Farjeon modeled his work on Dickens and lateron Wilkie Collins, first writing Christmas pieces and thenmystery stories. His 40 novels included several with Jewish subjects, among them Solomon Isaacs (1877), Fair Jewess
and Aaron the Jew (1894), Miriam Rozella (1897), and Prideof Race (1900). He portrayed Jews sympathetically, but was
inclined to sentimentality. Farjeon married Margaret Jefferson, daughter of a famous American actor, and three of theirchildren – who had no connection with the Jewish community – were well-known writers. JOSEPH JEFFERSON FARJEON(1883–1955) wrote novels, plays, and The Compleat Smuggler(1938). HERBERT FARJEON (1887–1945) was drama critic forseveral London papers and wrote light verse and revues.
ELEANOR FARJEON (1881–1965) wrote fiction, verse for children and, with her brother Herbert, a comedy, The Two Bouquets (1936). She was the author of the famous hymn, “Morning Has Broken,” which has in recent years become a popular
hit song. Her depiction of her early life, A Nursery in the Nineties, gives a warm portrayal of her father. On her death, theChildren’s Book Circle of England established an annual award
in her honor. Her brother, HARRY FARJEON (1878–1948), wasa well-known composer of light classical music.
Bibliography: M.F. Modder, Jew in the Literature of England(1939), 311–7. Add. Bibliography: B. Cheyette, “From Apology to
Revolt: Benjamin Farjeon, Amt Levy, and the Post-Emacipation Jewish Novel, “ in: JHSET, 29 (1982–86), 253–66; A. l. Farjeon, Morning
Has Broken: A Biography of Eleanor Farjeon (1986); D.M. Blakelock,Eleanor: Portrait of a Farjeon (1966); ODNB online for Benjamin Farjeon and Eleanor Frajeon.

FARKAS, LADISLAUS (Wilhelm; 1904–1948), Israel physical chemist. Farkas was born in Dunaszerdahely, Slovakia,
the son of a pharmacist. From 1928 he worked at the Kaiser

717

farkas, ruth
Wilhelm Institute for Physical Chemistry in Berlin-Dahlem
as assistant to Fritz Haber. On the advent of Nazism in 1933,
Farkas moved to Cambridge and in 1934 joined the staff of
the Sieff Institute in Reḥ ovot and of the Hebrew Universityof Jerusalem, where he was subsequently appointed professor of physical chemistry. He was killed in an air crash
while on his way to the U.S. to buy scientific equipment.
He left his mark on a generation of students who were later
among Israel’s outstanding chemists. Farkas’ research covered
photochemistry, gas reactions, combustion, the chemistryof parahydrogen and heavy hydrogen, and the recovery ofbromine and the reactions of its compounds. During WorldWar II, he acted as secretary of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Palestine War Supply Board and was instrumental in developing local production methods for essential
chemicals from the resources of the Dead Sea. He laid thefoundations for the establishment of the Research Councilof Israel.
Bibliography: I. Farkas and E.P. Wigner, L. Farkas Memorial Volume (1952).
[Samuel Aaron Miller]

University’s Teachers College with a Distinguished Alumni
Award.
Add. Bibliography: A. Morin, Her Excellency (1995).

FARMERS’ FEDERATION OF ISRAEL (Hitaḥ adut ha-Ikkarim be-Yisrael), an association of private farmers in Israel.
It grew out of the Union of Moshavot in Judea and Samaria,
which was founded in 1920 with a membership of seven villages. The Federation is concerned with the professional, economic, cultural and social problems of its members and represents them vis-à-vis government agencies on marketing,taxation, transportation, and similar questions. By 1970 it had
local branches in the form of agricultural committees or cooperatives in 42 villages, and members in some 60 other villages were assisted through its institutions; its total membership was over 8,000 families. The Federation worked through14 associations for specific branches of agriculture and a number of affiliated companies, including mortgage and benefit
funds, and companies for supply, marketing, and transportation. Also affiliated were 80 agricultural, 10 citrus-growing,
and 11 transportation cooperatives, the Pardess citrus-growers’ syndicate and the wine-growers’ association of Rishon leZion and Zikhron Ya’akov. The Federation maintained an agricultural secondary school at Pardes Ḥ annah and supported
youth and sports clubs. It was among the founders of KuppatḤ olim Ammamit (People’s Sick Fund; now Kuppat Ḥ olim
Me’uḥ edet) which provides medical care for its members. It
took the initiative in expanding a number of older moshavot
through the absorption of new settlers and assisted in founding several new moshavim.

FARKAS, RUTH (née Lewis; 1906–1996), U.S. sociologist
and diplomat. Farkas was born in New York and gained degrees in education from New York University (B.A. and Ed.D.)
and Columbia (M.A. in sociology, 1932). She was a sociology
instructor at the New York University School of Educationfrom 1945 to 1955, and in 1962, she was appointed director of
the William Allison White Psychoanalytical Institute, and became chairman of President’s Advisory Council of the New
York University Graduate School of Social Work.
As a sociologist and educator she came to the attentionof Secretary of State Dean Rusk and was appointed a member of the Executive Committee of the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO and of the Department of State Foreign
Service Selection Board. She was also consultant sociologist
to the U.S. delegations to the International Conference on
Eradication of Illiteracy in Iran (1965) and the International
Conference of the Status and Rights of Women in Helsinki(1967). She served as chief delegate to the Conference of the
Pan-Pacific Southeast Asia Women’s Association in Australia
in 1961 and in New Zealand in 1972. Farkas was a member of
the President’s Special Education committee for Dissemination of Human Rights and of the President’s Committee for
the Handicapped. She served on Governor Rockefeller’s New
York State Women’s Advisory Council and on the Council of
the Child Study Association of America, and was the recipientof a number of awards for work with the handicapped and theaged. From 1965 she served as Consultant for Personnel andPublic Relations of Alexander’s Incorporated, founded by herhusband, George Farkas.
She was involved in many philanthropic activities
through the Role Foundation, which she established in 1967.
Farkas served as United States ambassador to Luxembourgfrom 1973 to 1976. In 1982 she was honored by Columbia

Bibliography: M. Kayserling, Geschichte der Juden in Portugal (1867), index; J. Mendes dos Remedios, Os judeus em Portugal(1895), index; S. Seligmann, in: ZHB, 12 (1908), 16–19; M.B. Amzalak,

718

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: Bustenai (weekly, 1929–39); Ikkarei Yisrael (monthly, 1959– ); Ikkarei Yisrael-Sefer ha-Shanah (Yearbook,
1950– ).
[Gedalyah Elkoshi]

FARO, city in S. Portugal, Algrave province. Jews were organized there as a community in the 15t century. The first bookto be printed in Portugal, the Hebrew Pentateuch, in squaretype and vocalized, was published in Faro in 1487 by Don
Samuel Porteira (see *Incunabula). By 1494 (or 1496?) the
Porteiras had printed at least 14 Talmud tractates, of whichfragments only have survived. At the expulsion from Portugalin 1497 David Porteira went to Pesaro (Italy) where he continued printing Talmud tractates. Traces of the Farense typecan also be found in Fez. Members of a Faro family (Marranos?) lived in Bayonne, London, Dublin, and Jamaica in the
17t and 18t centuries. At the beginning of the 19t century
Jews again settled in Faro; a cemetery was opened in 1820,
and a synagogue in 1850. Early in the 20t century the community comprised about 50 families. In 1970 there were no
more than five Jews living in the whole province, and the two
synagogues were in disuse.

fasting and fast days
Tipografia Hebraica em Portugal… (1922), 19–21; J. Bloch, in: Bulletinof the New York Public Library, 42 (1938), 26ff. Add. Bibliography: J.F. Mascarenhas, Dos documentos arqueológicos recentemente
achados sobre os judeus no Algarve, (1980); J.M. Abecassis, in: Anais
do Municipio de Faro; Boletim Cultural, 15 (1985), 45–74; idem, in:Memórias da Academia das Ciéncias de Lisboa, 25 (1986), 439–534; A.
Iria, in: Memórias da Academia das Ciéncias, 25 (1986), 293–438.

FASSŪTA, Christian-Arab village in western Upper Galilee,
Israel, 3 mi. (5 km.) northeast of Maʿalot, identified with Mifshata where the priestly family of Harim settled after the destruction of the Second Temple. In the Middle Ages, the village is mentioned by the poet Eliezer ha-Kallir. Cave tombs,
parts of ancient buildings, and cisterns have been found at
the site. Its inhabitants, most of whom belong to the GreekCatholic (Uniate) faith, are engaged principally in growing
olives, deciduous fruit, and tobacco. The village’s jurisdiction
extends over 0.3 sq. mi. (0.785 sq. km.). In 2002 its population was 2,860.
Bibliography: I. Ben Zvi, She’ar Yashuv (1927), 140ff.
[Efraim Orni]

studies, against a vast sweep of modern American history, beginning with the last part of the 19t century, the interweaving destinies and social mobility of immigrant families, oneof them being the Levy progeny. Fast’s television scriptwriting resulted in his receiving an Emmy award from the U.S.
National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences in 1977.
His autobiography, Being Red, appeared in 1990. His novel
The Bridge Builder’s Story (1995) traces a young gentile man’s
acceptance of his own life as he finds understanding throughidentification with both the suffering and survival of Jews in
the Holocaust. Scott Waring’s maturation, achieved throughanalysis, is a liberation from the past and an ability to createa life that comports with this new-found freedom.
Bibliography: Current Biography (April, 1943) S.V. Add.
Bibliography: A. Macdonald, Howard Fast: A Criticial Companion (1996).
[Harold U. Ribalow / Rohan Saxena and Lewis Fried (2nd ed.)]FASTING AND FAST DAYS, the precept (or custom) of refraining from eating and drinking.

FAST, HOWARD MELVIN (1914–2003), U.S. author, best
known for his imaginative historical novels as well as detective
fiction published under the name E.V. Cunningham. Fallen
Angel (1951) was published under the name of Walter Ericson.
Born and educated in New York City, Fast spent the Depression years of the 1930s working in many parts of the U.S. atvarious jobs. Some early novels had no success, but in 1937 hisstory The Children attracted favorable notice when it appearedin Story magazine. When his Place in the City was publishedin the same year, Fast quickly gained recognition. A numberof his works deal with American history, notably Conceived
in Liberty (1939), The Unvanquished (1942), Citizen Tom Paine(1943), Freedom Road (1944), and April Morning (1961). Fast
also wrote on themes involving injustice, as in The Passion of
Sacco and Vanzetti (1953), and on oppression as in The Last
Frontier (1942), an epic account of an American Indian tribe’s
attempted flight to Canada and in Spartacus (1952). During
the years 1943–56 Fast was an active member of the American
Communist Party, and in 1950 he was jailed for contempt ofCongress. One of the leading American leftist writers of the
1950s, he was awarded the Stalin Peace Prize in 1953. The later
excesses of the Stalin regime disillusioned him, however, andhe explained his break with Communism in The Naked God(1957). Despite his political activities, Fast wrote a number ofbooks on Jewish themes, including Haym Salomon: Son of Liberty (1941), a young people’s biography of the American Revolution’s financier. Two other historical works were Romance ofa People (1941) and a Picture-Book History of the Jews (1942),
written in collaboration with his wife. My Glorious Brothers(1949), generally considered one of Fast’s outstanding novels,
retells the story of the Maccabean revolt, while Moses, Princeof Egypt (1958) was planned as the first of a series of works on
the life of the great lawgiver. In his “Immigrants” novels, Fast

In the Bible
Although the origins of the ritual of fasting are obscure, several current theories claim that it originated as (1) a spiritual
preparation for partaking of a sacred meal (W.R. Smith);(2) a method for inducing a state of susceptibility to visions(E.B. Tylor); and (3) a means of providing new vitality during
periods of human or natural infertility (T.H. Gaster). Scriptural citations have been adduced to support all these theories, but fasting in the Bible clearly emerged in response to
more spiritual needs. The Hebrew root for fasting, ẓ wm (‫)צום‬,can be used both as a verb and a noun, e.g., “David fasted afast” (II Sam. 12:16), a meaning verified in the next verse:“he ate no food.” A synonymous idiom ʿinnah nefesh (lit.
“afflict the body”) includes fasting as part of a general regimen of abstinence, a broader meaning confirmed by the following:(a) laws annulling women’s vows and oaths that containthe phrase “all self-denying oaths to afflict her body” (Num.
30:14, cf. verses 3, 7, 10–13), referring to all forms of abstinence,
not just fasting; (b) Daniel, who expressly “afflicts himself ”(Dan. 10:12) not only by abstaining from choice food, meat,
and wine (in biblical terminology, he is not actually fasting)but also from anointing himself (10:3); and (c) the example ofKing David, who, in addition to fasting, sleeps on the ground,
does not change his clothes, and refrains from anointing andwashing (II Sam. 12:16–20, though the term ʿinnah nefesh is absent). In biblical poetry ẓ wm and ʿinnah nefesh are parallel but
not synonymous. Indeed, one verse (Isa. 58:5) indicates that it
is rather the root ẓ wm which has taken on the broader senseof ʿinnah nefesh: “…that a man should bow his head like a bulrush and make his bed on sackcloth and ashes, is this what
you call a fast…?” Thus, the rabbis declare that ʿinnah nefesh,
enjoined for the *Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:29, 31; 23:27–32),
consists not only of fasting but of other forms of self-denial

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6719

fasting and fast days
such as abstention from “washing, anointing, wearing shoes,
and cohabitation” (Yoma 8:1; cf. Targ. Jon., Lev. 16:29).
Fasting is attested in the oldest strata of biblical literature and there can be no doubt that spontaneous fasting was
widespread from earliest times both among individuals andgroups. In the ritual practiced in the First Temple, fasting wasclearly a permanent feature (Isa. 1:13, lxx; Jer. 36:9, “before theLord”; cf. Joel 1:14; 2:15–17). The death of a national leader (e.g.,
King Saul) could initiate a day-long fast (II Sam. 1:12), or, alternatively, the fast might be observed for seven days (I Sam.
31:13). The authority to proclaim a public fast was vested in theelders of the local community, who, however, could be pressured by the royal palace to proclaim a fast (e.g., for Naboth’s
undoing, I Kings 21:8–12).
The purposes of fasting are various. Its most widely attested function, for the community as well as the individual,
is to avert or terminate a calamity by eliciting God’s compassion. For example, God mitigates Ahab’s punishment because
he fasted and humbled himself (I Kings 21:27–29). King David
fasted in the hope that “the Lord will be gracious to me andthe boy will live. But now that he is dead why should I fast?”(II Sam. 12:22–23). Many other passages also indicate the useof fasting as a means of winning divine forgiveness (e.g., Ps.
35:13; 69:11; Ezra 10:6), implying that fasting is basically an actof penance, a ritual expression of remorse, submission, andsupplication.
Fasting was practiced as a preparation for communingwith the spirits of the dead or with the Deity, as when Saul
fasted the day before the appearance of Samuel’s apparition(I Sam. 28:20). To be vouchsafed a theophany, Moses fasted
for as long as 40 days (Ex. 34:28 [twice, according to Deut. 9:9,18]; Elijah, I Kings 19:8). On the two occasions when Daniel’s
prayers were answered by means of a vision (Dan. 9:20ff.;
10:7ff.), his preparatory rituals included fasting (Dan. 9:3;
10:3). That death occasioned a fast is implied by the couriers’
surprise when King David refused to fast after the death of theinfant son born to him by Bath-Sheba (II Sam. 12:21).
When a calamity, human or natural, threatened or struck
a whole community, a public fast was proclaimed. Thus, Israel
observed fasts in its wars against Benjamin (Judg. 20:26), thePhilistines (I Sam. 7:6; 14:24), and its Transjordanian enemies(II Chron. 20:3); similarly fasts were observed in the hope of
averting annihilation by the Babylonians (Jer. 36:3, 9; see below) and by the Persians (Esth. 4:3, 16). The purpose of fasts
during wartime was to seek God’s direct intervention (e.g.,
I Sam. 7:9ff.) or advice as transmitted through an oracle (e.g.,
Judg. 20:26–28). Fasting served as a means of supplicating God
to end a famine caused by a plague of locusts (Joel 1:14; 2:12,15), and to alleviate the oppression of foreign rule (Neh. 9:1).
As a preventive or intercessory measure, fasting was used toavert the threat of divine punishment, exemplified by the fastdeclared for Naboth’s alleged cursing of God (I Kings 21:9) andafter Jonah’s prophecy of Nineveh’s doom (3:5).
The biblical evidence thus far cited indicates that fasting, both individual and collective, was a spontaneous reac-tion to exigencies. In the pre-exilic period there is no recordof specific fast days in the annual calendar (except the Day of
Atonement), although some Bible critics even conjecture that
this, too, was originally an emergency rite and was fixed on thetenth of Tishri only at the end of the First Temple. There is arecord of a fast day in Jeremiah’s time (Jer. 36:3ff.), but this too
originated as an emergency rite (“a fast day was proclaimed,”verse 9) and was not repeated. That portion of Deutero-Isaiah which describes a fast (Isa. 58:3ff.) became the haftarah
reading for the Day of Atonement morning service, but the
text can hardly be speaking of an observance of the Day of
Atonement (cf. v. 4).
Fixed fast days are first mentioned by the post-Exilic
prophet Zechariah who proclaims the word of the Lord thus:“The fast of the fourth month, the fast of the fifth, the fast of
the seventh and the fast of the tenth…” (Zech. 8:19; cf. 7:3, 5).
Jewish tradition has it that these fasts commemorate the critical events which culminated in the destruction of the Temple:
the tenth of Tevet (the tenth month), the beginning of thesiege of Jerusalem; the 17t of Tammuz (the fourth month),
the breaching of the walls; the ninth of Av (the fifth month),when the Temple was destroyed; and the third of Tishri (theseventh month), when Gedaliah, the Babylonian-appointed
governor of Judah, was assassinated. Some scholars maintainthat these fast days are much older, marking the beginning ofa Lenten period which preceded the seasonal festivals, and towhich only later tradition affixed the events of the national
catastrophe. It is argued that the historical basis for the four
fast days coinciding with the events ascribed to them is weakin the light of present knowledge. Jeremiah dates the destruction of the First Temple to the tenth of Av (52:12ff.), whereas
II Kings claims the seventh (25:8ff.); there is, however, no biblical witness for the ninth. It is surprising that a permanent fast
day was proclaimed for the murder of Gedaliah, who was aBabylonian puppet and not a member of the House of David.
Lastly, there is no scriptural authority for the 17t of Tammuz
as the date for the breaching of the walls of Jerusalem.
Nevertheless, the claim of the Book of Zechariah (e.g.,7:5) that the four fasts were instituted upon the destructionof the state cannot be discounted. If, as it is now suggested,
the fast recorded in Jeremiah was prompted by the sackingof Ashkelon (November/December 604 b.c.e.) and by thesimilar fate which threatened Jerusalem, it is then conceivable that four different fast days sprang up simultaneously asa reaction to the trauma of destruction and exile. Moreover,would Zechariah have been asked whether the fasts shouldbe abolished if the historical reality of the Second Temple had
not rendered them meaningless? Indeed, the people consulted
the prophet Zechariah about abolishing the fasts only when
the Second Temple was approaching completion (Zech. 7:1;
cf. Ezra 6:15), a time which coincided with the end of the 70
years of exile predicted by Jeremiah (Zech. 7:5; cf. Jer. 25:12).
There is no need to look for other reasons to account for the
proclamation of the fasts than the destruction of Jerusalem
and the Temple.

720

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

fasting and fast days
Thus, fasting, a spontaneous phenomenon in the daysof the First Temple, may have entered the calendar as a regular and recurring event only after the exile. Finally, fasting as
a discipline, a routine for the pious, is attested only in postbiblical times in the Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and Qumran literature.

Fasting Laws and Customs
The laws of fasting detailed in talmudic literature and by halakhic authorities (Maim. Yad, Ta’aniyyot, 4; Tur and Sh. Ar.,OḤ , 579) have basically not changed from the biblical period.
Founded on very ancient popular and spontaneous customs,
they were, in the main, like the reasons for fasting, not peculiar
to the Jewish people, but current in the whole of the ancient
Near East. The description of a public fast held by the Phoenicians of Carthage, at the end of the second century b.c.e.
(Tertullian, De jejuniis 16), is almost identical to descriptionsof fasts in the Bible, in Second Temple literature, and in rabbinic sources.
The fast was accompanied by prayer (during the First
Temple period sacrifices were offered) and confession of sins
(Judg. 20:26; I Sam. 7:6; Ezra 10:1). From the Second Temple
period onward, the public fast was also accompanied by thereading of the Torah (Neh. 9:3). On solemn fasts (Ta’an. 4:1;
Tosef. Ta’an. 4:1), four prayers – Shaḥ arit, Ḥ aẓ ot (“noon”),
Minḥ ah, and Ne’ilat She’arim – were recited as well as Ma’ariv.
The *Amidah of the fast day consisted of 24 benedictions – “theeighteen of every day, to which another six were added” (Ta’an.
2:2–4; Ḥ emdah Genuzah (1863), nos. 160–1; Tur, OḤ , 579) – andthe liturgy was elaborated with special passages of supplication (Anenu – “Answer us!,” Ta’an. 14a), seliḥ ot, and prayers
for mercy. The central part of the service was the soundingof the shofar (Joel 2:1) or the ḥ aẓ oẓ erot (“trumpets”; I Macc.
3:54), trumpets (as main instruments) accompanied by horns(RH 3:4; Tosef. to RH 3:3). The blowing of shofarot and trumpets was performed in a different manner in the Temple andon the Temple Mount from the other localities (RH 27a; Ta’an.
16b); the exact procedure, however, is not known. (According
to one opinion, there was no blowing outside the Temple areaat all; see Ta’an. 2:4–5.) During the Middle Ages, in some Jew-

ish communities, shofarot were sounded, in others, trumpets(see Beit Yosef to Tur, OḤ , 579).
Prayers were generally held in the open (II Chron. 20:5;
Judith 4:11) and all the people humiliated themselves publicly
by tearing their clothes, wearing sackcloth (I Kings 21:27; Joel
2:13; Ps. 35:13; Judith 4:10, 8:5), and putting ashes or earth on
their heads (Isa. 58:5; Neh. 9:1; Joseph and Asenath, 10). The
cemetery was also visited. (For the various ways in which thesecustoms were understood see TJ, Ta’an. 2:1, 65a; Ta’an. 16a.) The
humiliation was applied even to the most holy objects; at times
also the priests (Joel 1:13; Judith 4:14–15), the king (Jonah 3:6),
or the nasi (Ta’an. 2:1) wore sackcloth and ashes. There were
those who covered even the altar with sackcloth (Judith 4:12),
and the ark, containing the Torah scrolls, was taken into thestreet and covered with ashes (Ta’an. 2:1). During the mass assembly (Joel 2:16; Judith 4:11), one of the elders would rebuke
the people and the affairs of the community were investigatedin order to determine who was the cause of the evil (I Kings
21:9–13; Ta’an. 2:1; Ta’an. 12b).
In many places young children and animals were obliged
to fast – a practice which prevailed not only among other nations (Jonah 3:5, 7; TJ, Ta’an. 2:1, 65b) but even in Israel (Judith 4:9–11; Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum
30:4–5; concerning the participation of the young children
cf. II Chron. 20:13; Joel 2:16). The sages, however, exemptedyoung children (and animals), the sick, those obliged to preserve their strength, and, in most cases, pregnant and nursing
women (Tosef. to Ta’an. 2:12; 3:2).
There is some similarity, especially in the case of thesolemn fasts, between the customs of fasting and those of*mourning. On ordinary fast days only food and drink wereprohibited, while on the important ones washing (for pleasure), anointing, the wearing of shoes (for pleasure), and cohabitation were also forbidden. People also refrained fromwork on these days (some, who were stricter, considered work
to be absolutely prohibited (TJ, Ta’an. 1:6, 64c)) and shops wereclosed (Ta’an. 1:5–6). It was also customary for some to sleepon the ground (II Sam. 12:16).
Ordinary fast days lasted for the duration of the daylight
hours; the important fasts were a full 24 hours. Fasts were held
either for one day or sometimes for a series of three or sevendays; occasionally even daily for a continued period. (Ta’an.
1:5–6; cf. also e.g., Judith 4:13). In exceptional cases, fasts werealso held on the Sabbath and the festivals, but it was usuallyforbidden to fast on those days; some authorities also forbade
fasting on the eve of the Sabbath, of festivals, and of the New
Moon. In order not to mar the celebration of joyful events in
Jewish history, Hananiah b. Hezekiah b. Garon (first centuryc.e.) compiled the *Megillat Ta’anit (“Scroll of Fasting”) whichlists 35 commemorative dates on which a public fast could not
be proclaimed. In time, however, the Megillat Ta’anit was abrogated. It was customary to hold public fast days on Mondays and Thursdays (Tosef. to Ta’an. 2:4); individuals, however, especially after the destruction of the Temple, took uponthemselves to fast every Monday and Thursday (Ta’an. 12a).

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

721[Jacob Milgrom]

Second Temple Period
During the Second Temple period, daily or biweekly fastings
were practiced for reasons of *asceticism, especially among
women (Judith 8:6; Luke 2:37; TJ, Ḥ ag 2:2, 77d), but also
among men (Luke 18:12; Mark 2:18), or in preparation for an
apocalyptic revelation (Dan. 10:3, 12; ii Bar. 12:5; 20:5–21:1; 43:3;
iv Ezra 5:13–20; 6:35; Sanh. 65b; TJ, Kil. 9:4, 32b). The Jewish literature of the Second Temple period also advocates fasting as
a way of atonement for sins committed either unintentionally(Ps. of Sol. 3:9) or even deliberately (Test. Patr., Sim. 3:4), or
to prevent them (ibid., Joseph 3:4; 4:8; 10:1–2). These reasonsfor fasting were strengthened by the destruction of the Second
Temple and even more by the repression of the *Bar Kokhba
revolt and the subsequent religious persecutions.

fasting and fast days
The halakhah is that in such cases the individual, in contrast
to the community, has to commit himself to fast during theafternoon of the preceding day (ibid.). It was also possible tofast for a specific number of hours (Ta’an. 11b–12a). On someoccasions, the fast was not a total one, but people refrained
only from meat, wine, anointment with oil, and other pleasures (Cowley, Aramaic, no. 30; Dan. 10:3; Test. Patr., Reu.
1:10; Judah 15:4; iv Ezra 9:24; as well as generally in talmudic
literature and in that of the Middle Ages).
The Purpose and Conception of Fasting
In the ancient Near East, prayer and fasting were advocatedas a means to have one’s requests fulfilled by the gods (Ahikar,
Armenian version, 2:49, from where, it appears, the idea wasderived in Tobit, short version, 2:8; cf. also Test. Patr., Ben.
1:4). The Bible emphasizes that the fast is not an end in itself
but only a means through which man can humble his heartand repent for his sins; his repentance must manifest itself in
his deeds (Joel 2:13; Jonah 3:8). The idea is especially stressedin Isaiah (58:3ff.) where the contrast is made between a fast
which is not accompanied by any real repentance, and whichis therefore unacceptable to God, and the true fast whichleads to God’s merciful forgiveness: “Is not this the fast that I
have chosen? To loose the fetters of wickedness, To undo thebands of the yoke, and to let the oppressed go free… Is it not
to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poorthat are cast out to thy house? When thou seest the naked,
that thou cover him… Then shalt thou call, and the Lord willanswer.”The Second Temple period literature also stressed that afast without sincere repentance is valueless and senseless (Test.
Patr., Ash. 2:8; 4:3; cf. ibid., Joseph 3:5 – in addition to the fast,
Joseph gave his food to the poor and the sick). In the Second
Temple period fasting was also seen as an “ascetic exercise”
which serves to purify man and bring him closer to God. Thisappears to have been the original significance of the fasts ofthe members of the *ma’amadot (Ta’an. 4:2–3 (supplement); cf.
*Theophrastus on the Jews who fasted during the offering of
the sacrifices, and Philo on the Day of Atonement). This conception of fasting closely resembles the concept of complete
abstinence and asceticism whose purpose is to induce ecstasy
and apocalyptic visions and is found not only in the apocalyptic literature of the Second Temple period (the *Qumransect seems to have held a “fast” day of which little is known),
but also among certain circles of talmudic rabbis, especiallyafter the destruction of the Temple. This “philosophy” led toan exaggerated propagation of fasting which, in turn, arouseda sharp counteraction in general rabbinic literature; the rabbis condemned ascetic women, especially widows and “fasting maids” (TJ, Sot. 3:4, 19a). R. *Yose even went further anddeclared: “The individual has no right to afflict himself byfasting, lest he become a burden on the community which
will then have to provide for him” (Tosef. Ta’an. 2:12); as did*Samuel, according to whose opinion “Whoever fasts is calleda sinner” (Ta’an. 11a).

722

The study of the Torah is of greater importance than fasting and therefore “a scholar has no right to fast because, in
doing so, he decreases the work of heaven” (Ta’an. 11a–b). This
led to a trend in the halakhah which sought to limit even public fasts and their severity, emphasizing however at the sametime the original significance of fasting – good deeds andrepentance. It found expression in *Saadiah Gaon’s opinion(Ketav ha-Tokhehah ve-ha-Hazharah – “Letter of Reproachand Warning”) that rather than keep a voluntary (or vowed)
fast, it is preferable for a person to desist from committing asin. Fasting was widely practiced by the mystics and the kabbalists, especially by *Ḥ asidei Ashkenaz, but the latter-dayḤ asidim were opposed to the idea.
In modern times, except for the Day of Atonement
and the Ninth of *Av, which are the two major fast days, otherstatutory fasts seem to lack general appeal. Orthodox authorities have, therefore, tried to reinvest some fast days withmore relevant meaning (e.g., declaring the Tenth of *Tevet asa fast day to commemorate those who perished during the
Nazi persecutions and whose *yahrzeit is unknown) but tono great avail. The extension of Jewish sovereignty over theentire city of Jerusalem (1967) has increased the tendency toabolish the fast days of the Third of Tishri (Fast of Gedaliah),
the Tenth of Tevet, and the 17t of *Tammuz (but not theNinth of *Av). Reform Judaism recognizes only one mandatory fast – the Day of Atonement. Its general attitude toward
other fast days (public or private) is negative, based upon
Isaiah 58:3–8.
[Moshe David Herr]Classification of Fasts
Fast days fall into three main categories: (1) fasts decreed in
the Bible or instituted to commemorate biblical events; (2)fasts decreed by the rabbis; (3) private fasts.
(1) FASTS DECREED OR MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE. The Day
of Atonement (Yom Kippur) on which it is commanded “Yeshall afflict your souls” so that the individual may be cleansed
from sins (Lev. 16:29–31; 23:27–32; Num. 29:7ff.); this is the
only fast ordained in the Pentateuch.
The Ninth of Av (Tishah be-Av), a day of mourning forthe destruction of the First and Second Temples (see Jer.
52:12–13 where, however, the date is given as the Tenth), andother calamitous occasions.
The 17t of Tammuz, in commemoration of the breaching of the walls of Jerusalem in the First Temple period (Jer.
39:2 where the date is the 9t) and *Titus breaching the wallsof Jerusalem, and of other calamities which befell the Jewish
people (Ta’an. 4:6, Ta’an. 28b, also Sh. Ar., OḤ , 549:2).
The Tenth of Tevet, in memory of the siege of Jerusalem
by *Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon (II Kings 25:1–2, Jer.
52:4ff.; Ezek. 24:1–2).
The Third of Tishri, called Ẓ om Gedalyah (the Fast of
Gedaliah), in memory of the slaying of Gedaliah and his associates (Jer. 41:1–2; II Kings 25:25).

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

fatimids
The Fast of *Esther (Ta’anit Ester) on the 13t of Adar, theday before *Purim (Esth. 4:16).
Besides the Day of Atonement, which is a pentateuchal
fast, the other four fast days were also already observed in
the period of the Second Temple. *Zechariah prophesied
that they would be transformed into days of joy and gladness (Zech. 8:19).
On the Day of Atonement and on the Ninth of Av, fasting is observed by total abstention from food and drink fromsunset until nightfall of the following day; on the other fastdays, the fast lasts only from before dawn until nightfall of
the same day. All fasts may be broken if danger to health isinvolved. Pregnant and nursing women are, under certain
circumstances, exempt from observance (Sh. Ar., OḤ , 50:1
(Isserles) and 554:5).
If one of the above occurs on a Sabbath, the fasting is delayed until Sunday (Meg. 1:3 and Meg. 5a); only in the case of
the Day of Atonement is the fast observed even on Sabbath.
In the case of the Fast of Esther, observance is on the preceding Thursday (Sh. Ar., OḤ , 686:2).
(2) FASTS DECREED BY THE RABBIS. It has become customary for the especially pious to fast from morning until evening
on the following days:
During the Ten Days of *Penitence (i.e., between
Rosh Ha-Shanah and the Day of Atonement) and as manydays as possible during the month of Elul (Sh. Ar., OḤ ,581:2).
The first Monday and Thursday, and the following Monday after *Passover and *Sukkot (Tur and Sh. Ar., OḤ , 492).
This fast was interpreted as an atonement for possible sinscommitted while in a state of drunkenness and gluttony during the holidays (see Tos. to Kid. 81a S.V. Sekava).
*ShOVaVIM TaT (initial letters of eight consecutive
weekly Pentateuch portions starting with Shemot which
are eight Thursdays of the winter months of an intercalatedyear).
During the *Three Weeks of Mourning between the 17tof Tammuz and the Ninth of Av (Tur. and Sh. Ar., OḤ , 551:16).
This fast was motivated by a profound grief for the destruction of Jerusalem.
The Seventh of *Adar, traditional date of the death ofMoses observed in many communities by the members of the*ḥ evra kaddisha (“burial society”) who fasted prior to theirannual banquet held on the evening of that same day.
Yom Kippur Katan (“Minor Yom Kippur”), the last dayof each month, on which many communities fasted and recited a special liturgy.
The eve of Passover, firstborn males’ fast. This fast is asymbol of the sanctification of the Jewish firstborn who were
saved during the tenth plague in Egypt (Ex. 13:1ff.). It is also
kept in order to stimulate the appetite for the *maẓ ẓ ah (“unleavened bread”) at the festive meal (Sof. 21:3).
Days commemorating disastrous events in Jewish history (full list in Tur and Sh. Ar., OḤ , 580:2).

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

PRIVATE FASTS. In addition to the fixed days listed above,
fasts are held on the following private occasions:
The anniversary (*yahrzeit) of a parent’s death or of thatof a teacher (Ned. 12a).
The groom and the bride fast on their wedding day until
the ceremony (Isserles to Sh. Ar., EH, 61:1), unless it is RoshḤ odesh (Isserles to Sh. Ar., OḤ , 573:1).
To avert the evil consequences of nightmares (Ta’anitḤ alom). In talmudic times, it was believed that bad dreams
could have pernicious effects (Shab. 11a). This fast was regarded as of such urgency that the rabbis permitted it evenon the Sabbath, but advocated fasting on a weekday as well asa repentance for having dishonored the Sabbath joy throughfasting (Ta’an. 12b; Ber. 31b). In later centuries, however, theobligatory nature of this fast was mitigated by halakhic authorities (see Sh. Ar., OḤ , 288, 5).
If a Torah scroll is dropped, it is customary for thosepresent to fast a day.
In the mishnaic period, the members of the *Sanhedrin
fasted on the day on which they sentenced a person to death(Sanh. 63a).
Bibliography: A. Buechler, Types of Jewish-Palestinian Piety(1922), 128–264; idem, Studies in Sin and Atonement (1928), 441–56;
M.S. Freiberger, Das Fasten im alten Israel (1927); G.F. Moore, Judaism (1927), index; M. Grintz, Sefer Yehudit (1957), index s.v. Ẓ om;
Allon, Meḥ karim, 2 (1958), 120–7; E. Samuel, in: Turei Yeshurun, 16(1970), 17–22. In the Bible: W.R. Smith, Lectures on the Religion of
the Semites, ed. by S.A. Cook (19273), 434, 673; J.A. Montgomery, in:jbl, 51 (1932), 183–213; T.H. Gaster, Festivals of the Jewish Year (1955),
190–211; Kaufmann, Y., Toledot, 4 (1956), 266–8; A. Malamat, in: iej
6 (1956), 251ff.; E.B. Tylor, in: EB, S.V. Fast. Post-biblical Period: Urbach, in: Sefer Yovel… Y. Baer (1960), 48–68; Lowy, in: jjs, 9 (1958),
19–38; Elbogen, Gottesdienst, index S.V. Fasttage.

FASTLICHT, ADOLFO (1905–1964), Mexican Zionist leader.
Born in Galicia, then part of Austria, he studied in traditional
and public schools there. He was also active in the Zionist
youth organizations. In 1925 he emigrated to Mexico, where heopened a dental workshop together with his brother. He continued his studies and graduated as a dentist. Fastlicht was involved in the establishment of the Organización Sionista Unida “Kadima” (the Zionist Federation) in 1925 and acted as its
vice president in 1929. In 1933 he traveled to Ereẓ Israel, where
he stayed a year. After his return he served as president of B’nai
B’rith, Maccabi, the Zionist Federation, the Anti Defamation
League, and the Comité Central – the umbrella organizationof the Jewish community that acted as its political representative. Fastlicht was the first honorary consul of the State ofIsrael in Mexico, promoted the organization of the Institutode Intercambio Cultural México-Israel, and was the honorarypresident of the Israeli-Mexican Commerce Chamber.
[Efraim Zadoff (2nd ed.)]

FATIMIDS, Shi’ite Muslim dynasty which ruled in *Egypt(969–1171), and in other parts of North Africa (*Tunisia, 909–723

fearing, kenneth
1051), and the Near East (*Syria, 969–1076 and *Palestine,
969–1099). The Fatimids traced their ancestry to Fāṭima, thedaughter of Muhammad, and ʿAlī, her husband, who, in theiropinion, was his only rightful successor. The Jews enjoyed areasonable degree of tolerance, security, and prosperity during their reign.
The establishment of the Fatimid dynasty resulted fromthe efforts of the Ismāʿīli branch of the Shi’a, which sought torestore the caliphate to the direct descendants of the Prophet
and to reconcile Islamic religion, based on divine revelation,with Greek philosophy, in order that the ideas of other religions could merge with their own. Hence, the members of thisIslamic sect were inclined to be tolerant. Their liberal attitude
toward non-Muslim subjects also stemmed from the fact thatthe great majority of their Muslim subjects remained faithful
to orthodox Sunni Islam and hostile to the Shi’ite caliphs whotherefore were forced to appoint Christian and Jewish intellectuals as officials and ministers. Christians could build new
churches without difficulty and celebrate their holidays withsolemn processions, sometimes attended by the caliphs themselves. The second Fatimid caliph of Egypt, al-ʿAzīz (975–996),
appointed two brothers of his Christian wife to the posts of
patriarch of *Jerusalem and *Alexandria respectively. While
Jews did not attain such exalted positions, they mostly enjoyed religious freedom and their civil rights were not curtailed. Usually the authorities did not enforce the repressive
laws of the Covenant of *Omar, which demanded that distinctive signs be worn by non-Muslims, and the duties of Jewish
merchants were less than those required by Islamic law. Recent research on *genizah documents has revealed considerable data on non-Jews, some from Christian countries, whowent to Egypt in the 11t century in order to convert to Judaism (see N. Golb, in Sefunot, 8 (1964), 85ff.; E. Ashtor, in Zion,
30 (1965), 69ff.)
The third caliph, al-Ḥ ākim (996–1020), however, persecuted non-Muslims during the latter part of his reign. In
1012, he took decisive action to humiliate non-Muslims andsegregate them from the “true believers” – the two aims of theCovenant of Omar. Jews and Christians were forbidden to ride
horses and to keep Muslim servants. Christian sources indicate that many churches were destroyed, including the Churchof the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. Many Christians and someJews embraced Islam or left the country to escape the persecutions. Al-Ḥ ākim’s measures served as the model for Muslim
zealots in the future. His successor al-Ẓ āhir (1020–34) and thelater Fatimids returned to the traditional policy of tolerance.
But genizah documents show that on occasion Jews were victims of the hatred of viziers and other dignitaries. Some were
Christians who attempted to harass the Jews and bring about
their dismissal from government posts. The Jewish officials,
called sar (“commander”) in Hebrew documents, protected
their coreligionists, appointed them to various posts, and gavethem government commissariat orders. They never rose to theposition of vizier, as some Christians did, but some held important posts at court, thus enhancing the social standing of

the community. The first of these dignitaries was the Jewish
court physician of Caliph al-Muʿizz, the first Fatimid of Egypt.
Some scholars have identified him with the general Jawhar orwith Yaʿqūb *Ibn Killis, a Jewish convert to Islam, who became
vizier in Cairo. However, B. *Lewis has proved that the Italian Jew Paltiel of Oria who appears in Megillat Aḥ ima’aẓ was
Mūsā b. Eleazar, the court physician of al-Muʿizz. In about
994, Manasseh b. Ibrāhīm al-Qazzāz, praised as a benefactor
of Syrian Jewry in Hebrew poems found in the genizah, became head of the administration in Syria when the ChristianʿĪsā b. Nestorius was appointed vizier of the caliph al-ʿAzīz.
The brothers Abū Saʿd and Abū Naṣ r (Hebr. Abraham andḤ esed) b. Sahl (Yashar; possibly Karaites) who were merchants from *Tustar, southwestern Persia, and influential at
the court in *Cairo in the second quarter of the 11t century,
were murdered in 1047. In the early 12t century, the Jew Abu
al-Munajjā Shaʿyā, chief minister of agriculture, ordered the
digging of a canal which still bears his name.
For various reasons, the economic policy of the Fatimids
was very advantageous for the Jews. The caliphs’ interest inincreasing trade between Egypt and other countries stemmed
partly from a belief that they could thus win converts to theirreligious persuasion. They succeeded in diverting the trade
between India and the Near East from the Persian Gulf to the
Red Sea which became the main artery of a great international
trade. Many Jewish merchants, of varying degrees of wealth,participated in the India trade, as the Fatimids neither createdmonopolies nor harassed small merchants and industrialists
in other ways in the manner of other Muslim rulers.
The Jewish communities of Egypt and Syria were headed
by a nagid, who was appointed by the Fatimid caliph (see*Nagid).
Medieval Jewish tradition ascribes the creation of thisposition to the Fatimids’ desire to remove the influence of the*exilarch on Egyptian Jewry. This view has been accepted bymodern scholars. S.D. *Goitein, however, holds that the officeof the nagid developed independent of the aspirations and thepolicies of the Fatimids. Apparently the first of the negidim was
Paltiel of Oria. Later on other court physicians held this post,
including Judah b. Saadiah (1065–79), his brother Mevorakh(1079–1110), and *Samuel b. Hananiah (c. 1140–59).

724

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: Mann, Egypt; Fischel, Islam, 44ff.; S.D.
Goitein, A Mediterranean Society, 1 (1967), index; idem, in: JQR, 53(1962/63), 117ff.; E. Ashtor, in: Zion, 30 (1965), 143ff.; B. Lewis, in: Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 30 (1967), 177–81.
Add. Bibliography: M. Gil, A History of Palestine (634–1099)(1992); M.R. Cohen, Jewish Self-Government in Medieval Egypt(1980).
[Eliyahu Ashtor]

FEARING, KENNETH (1902–1961), U.S. poet and novelist.
Fearing was born in Chicago and graduated from the University of Wisconsin and later settled in New York. He is regarded as a significant voice in 20t-century American poetry.
His verse, mainly satirical, was written in the vernacular andgave expression to the nightmarish quality of urban life dur-

fear of god
ing the late 1930s and 1940s. His first volume of poetry, Angel Arms, was published in 1929. This was followed by Poems(1935), Dead Reckoning (1938), Collected Poems (1940), Afternoon of a Pawnbroker (1943), Stranger at Coney Island (1948),
and New and Selected Poems (1956). The movies, newspapers,
comic strips, radio, and advertising were all targets for hismordant attacks, as was the American faith in success andwealth. Fearing’s effects are achieved by a mastery of objective presentation, which anticipated the surrealist manner, pop
poetry, and concrete trends of a later generation of American
poets. Fearing’s first novel, The Hospital (1939) was followedby The Dagger in the Mind (1941); Clark Gifford’s Body (1942);
The Big Clock (1946), the story of a manhunt; The Loneliest
Girl in the World (1951); The Generous Heart (1954); and The
Crozart Story (1960).
Bibliography: S.J. Kunitz (ed.), Twentieth Century Authors(First Supplement) (1955), 319. Add. Bibliography: R. Barnard,
The Great Depression and the Culture of Abundance: Kenneth Fearing, Nathanael West and Mass Culture in the 1930s (1995); A. Anderson, Fear Ruled Them All: Kenneth Fearing’s Literature of Corporate
Conspiracy (2003).
[David Ignatow]

When a person wishes to commit a transgression he says, ‘I
hope no man will see me’” (Ber. 28b). The characteristic of
the God-fearing man is that he “speaketh truth in his heart”(Ps. 15:2; BB 88a).
The fear of God complements knowledge of the Torah.
According to one opinion it is only through fear of heaven that
one can arrive at true knowledge of the Torah: “He who possesses learning without the fear of heaven is like a treasurer
who is entrusted with the inner keys but not with the outer.
How is he to enter?” Another opinion is: “Woe to him who
has no courtyard yet makes a gate for it,” since it is throughknowledge that one attains fear of God (Shab. 31a–b). Since
fear of God is a state of mind and an ethical attitude, it canbest be acquired by considering and following the example
of one’s teacher by waiting on him, with the result that oneof the consequences of depriving a disciple of the privilege ofwaiting upon his master is that he deprives him of the fear of
God (Ket. 96a). The quality and practice of fear of God depend upon man alone. The statement upon which is based thefundamental Jewish doctrine of the absolute free *will of man
is couched in the words “Everything is in the hands of heaven
except the fear of heaven.” The proof verse for this statement
is “what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the
Lord” (Deut. 10:12), and, countering this, the Talmud asks, “Isthen fear of heaven such a small thing?” answering that it was
only Moses who so regarded it (Ber. 33b).
For the relationship between fear of God and love of God
see *Love and Fear of God.

FEAR OF GOD (Heb. yirat elohim, but in the Talmud yiratshamayim, lit. “fear of Heaven”), ethical religious concept,
sometimes confused with yirat ḥ et, “the fear of sin,” but infact quite distinct from it. The daily private prayer of Rav (Ber.
16a), which has been incorporated in the Ashkenazi liturgy
in the Blessing for the New Moon, speaks of “a life of fear of
Heaven and of fear of sin.” In the latter, “fear” is to be understood in the sense of apprehension of the consequences of sin
but in the former in the sense of “reverence”; as such it refers
to an ethical outlook and a religious attitude, which is distinct
from the actual performance of the commandments. “Fear ofGod” frequently occurs in the Bible, particularly with regard
to Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22:12), and
it is mentioned as that which God primarily desires of man(Deut. 10:12). Nevertheless it does not seem to have an exact
connotation in the Bible (see *Love and Fear of God), and it
was the rabbis who formulated the doctrine of Fear of God
with some precision. Basing itself on Leviticus 19:14 (and similar verses, e.g., 19:32, 25:17, 36:43), the Sifra (in loc. cf. Kid.
32b) maintains that the phrase “thou shalt fear thy God” isused only for those commandments which “are known to theheart” (“the sin is known to the heart of the person who commits it, but other men cannot detect it” – Rashi in loc.) i.e.,there are no social sanctions attached to it, and the impulse
behind its performance is reverence for God. This is, in fact,reflected in Exodus 1:17 and it is emphasized, from a slightly
different aspect, in the famous maxim of Antigonus of *Sokho,“Be as servants who serve their master without thought ofreward, but let the fear of heaven be upon thee” (Avot 1:3). It
was spelled out by Johanan b. Zakkai, when on his deathbed
he enjoined his disciples: “Let the fear of Heaven be upon you
as the fear of flesh and blood.” In answer to their surprised
query “and not more?” he answered, “If only it were as much!

The traditional attitude toward the fear (yir’ah) of God wasthus ambivalent: it was highly valued, but at the same time
was regarded as inferior to the love of God. (Cf. “Love andFear of God; see TB Sota 31a). Later Jewish thought attempted
to resolve this ambivalence by positing the fear of God as anequivocal term. *Bahya ibn Paquda (11t century), in his Duties of the Heart 10:6, characterized two different types of fear
as a lower “fear of punishment” and a higher “fear of [divine]
glory.” Abraham *Ibn Daud (early 12t century) differentiatedbetween “fear of harm” (analogous to the fear of a snake biteor of a king’s punishment) and “fear of greatness,” analogous
to respect for an exalted person, such as a prophet, who would
not harm a person (The Exalted Faith VI). Maimonides (late12t century) categorized the fear of God as a positive commandment. Nevertheless, the halakhic status he accorded to
the fear of God did not prevent it from being presented indiverse ways. In his Book of the Commandments (commandment #4), Maimonides characterized it as “the fear of punishment,” whereas in his Code he characterized it as the feeling of
human insignificance deriving from contemplation of God’s“great and wonderful actions and creations” (Foundations of
the Torah 2:1). Nevertheless, later in the Code Maimonides
presents “service based on fear” as a religiously inferior typeof behavior of “the ignorant (ʿamei ha-arez), women and children,” deriving from their hope for reward and fear of punishment (Laws of Repentance 10:1). At the end of his Guide of the

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

725[Louis Isaac Rabinowitz]

feather, leonard
Perplexed (3:52), Maimonides characterizes fear as resulting
from the entire system of commandments, and as expressing
a sense of shame in the presence of God. Isaac Arama (15t
century) differentiates among three types of fear in his Bindingof Isaac (ch. 92): in addition to the sublime fear of greatness
and inferior “fear not for its own sake” he posits a fear whichis the fruit of belief in the divine will, which makes possible
undetermined events. In another work (Ḥ azut Kashah, ch. 3)
Arama characterizes this third type of fear as a supra-philosophical rank, because, in his view, although the philosophersrecognized God’s supreme greatness, they did not fear God,
since in their view God could not harm people.
The fear of God was also characterized in diverse ways
in the Kabbalah by means of the different *sefirot: fear was
symbolized by the sefirot “wisdom” (ḥ okhmah) (based on
Job 28:28), “understanding (binah) (based on Proverbs 1:7),“power” (gevurah), which has the same gematria (numerical value) as yir’ah (fear), or “kingdom” (malkhut) (based on
Mishnah Sanhedrin 2:5).
[Hannah Kasher (2nd ed.)]Bibliography: Urbach, Ḥ azal, 348–370. Add. Bibliography: H. Kreisel, Maimonides’ Political Thought: Studies in Ethics,
Law and the Human Ideal (1999), ch. 7.

FEATHER, LEONARD (1914–1994), jazz critic, producer,
composer, lyricist, and instrumentalist. Feather was born into
an upper-middle-class Jewish family in the London suburbs
and was supposed to follow his father into the family garment
business, but after a friend played Louis Armstrong’s “WestSide Blues” for him in a local record store, young Leonard decided on another career path. He had already been studying
piano and clarinet, so his musical knowledge was greater thanmany of his early competitors. At the urging of the American
record producer and critic John Hammond, Feather madehis way to the United States in 1935 and never looked back.
He quickly became an influential critic at Esquire and Metronome, eventually landing the job of jazz critic at the Los Angeles Times. More important, Feather was a prolific author,
responsible for several key texts including The Encyclopediaof Jazz (co-edited with Ira Gitler) and the pioneering volume
Inside Bebop (1949), his first book, and countless liner notes.
From his pulpit at the LA Times, Feather was also a tireless opponent of segregation and racism in jazz at a time when few
regular jobs were open to African-American musicians.
Bibliography: G. Giddins, “Leonard Feather, 1914–1980,”
in: The Village Voice (Sept. 29, 1980); “The Leonard Feather Scrapbooks,” at: www.leonardfeather.com; P. Watrous, “Leonard Feather,
80, Composer and the Dean of Jazz Critics,” in: New York Times(Sept. 24, 1994).
[George Robinson (2nd ed.)]FEDER, ERNST (Ernesto A., pseudonym: Spectator; 1881–1964), German lawyer and journalist. Born into a liberal German-Jewish family in Berlin, Feder studied law, economics,
and history, completing his Ph.D. with a prize-winning thesis (Verantwortlichkeit fuer fremdes Verschulden nach dem

726

Buergerlichen Gesetzbuche) at Berlin University in 1902. From
1907, he worked as an independent lawyer in Berlin, joined by
Arthur Loewe in 1911. He also contributed to several legal andeconomic journals. In 1918, together with Theodor *Wolff andothers, he founded the German Democratic Party (DDP) andwas elected its chairman. From 1919 to 1931, he was domestic
politics editor of the Berliner Tageblatt, the leading democraticliberal paper of the Weimar Republic (edited by Wolff from1907 to 1933). Owing to a dispute with the publisher, Feder
resigned in 1931 and resumed private law practice besides
working as a freelance writer and journalist. He was elected amember of several press associations and judicial bodies, including the Tribunal d’Honneur International des Journalistsin The Hague (1931–33). An ardent supporter of post-imperial
democratic Germany, Feder rejected Zionism and was active in
Jewish communal organizations like the *Central-Verein. He
was a close friend of leading German-Jewish figures like Paul*Nathan and James *Simon (cf. LBI YB, 10 (1965), 3–23).
In 1933, Feder managed to flee via Switzerland to Paris
where he gave lectures at the Collège libre des Sciences Sociales and the Institut de Droit International, contributed tovarious papers like Mass und Wert (est. by Thomas *Mann)and Aufbau, and frequently traveled to Denmark, Finland, andTunisia. After being interned at the Camp de la Braconne, hefled to Brazil in July 1941. In Rio de Janeiro, he continued lecturing and writing well over 40 papers in Brazil and abroad.
After he was awarded the Bundesverdienstkreuz in 1952, he
was personally invited by Theodor Heuss and others to return to West Berlin, where he lived from 1957 until his deathin 1964. His literary papers were donated to the Leo Baeck Institute New York. Among his published works are numerous
legal and economic studies (cf. ABJ, 6 (1998), 509–513), several biographies, and historical studies: Theodor Barth undder demokratische Gedanke (1919); Hugo Preuss. Ein Lebensbild (1926); Politik und Humanitaet. Paul Nathan. Ein Lebensbild (1929; cf. LBI YB, 3 (1958), 60–80); Bismarcks grosses Spiel.
Die geheimen Tagebuecher Ludwig Bambergers (1932); and Les
Huguenots en Allemagne (1935). Feder’s memoirs, Encontros /Encuentros (1944/45), originally appeared in Portuguese andSpanish (German edition: Begegnungen. Die Großen der Welt
im Zwiegespräch, 1950). His diaries were first published by A.
Paucker, “Searchlight on the Decline of the Weimar Republic – The Diaries of Ernst Feder,” in: LBI YB, 13 (1968), 161–234;
Heute sprach ich mit … Tagebuecher eines Berliner Publizisten
1926–1932, ed. C. Lowenthal-Hensel / A. Paucker (1971).
Bibliography: Aufbau, no. 12 (1956); MB (April 17, 1964 and1965); W. Roeder (ed.), International Biographical Dictionary of Central European Emigrés 1933–1945, vol. I (1980), 168; H. Schmuck (ed.),Jewish Biographical Archive, F. 237 (1995), 140–45; Series II, F. II/145(2003), 197–204; R. Heuer (ed.), Archiv Bibliographia Judaica, vol. VI(1998), 505–13 (incl. bibl.).
[Johannes Valentin Schwarz (2nd ed.)]FEDER, RICHARD (1875–1970), Czech rabbi; from 1953
chief rabbi of Moravia residing in Brno, and from 1961 also
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

federbusch, simonchief rabbi of Bohemia. After graduating at the Vienna rabbinical seminary, he officiated in Kojetin and other communities, where the preaching was conducted in Czech (Louny,
Roudnice nad Labem, and Kolin). During the war he was sent
to the concentration camp of Theresienstadt where he was active as a rabbi. A prolific writer, Feder wrote popular works on
Jewish lore and conducted research on the history of the communities of Roudnice nad Labem and Kolin. His main works
are Židovská tragedie (“Jewish Tragedy,” 1947), one of the firstbooks published on the Holocaust; Židovské besídky (“Jewish Tales”; several volumes) for children; Hebrejská učebnice(1923), a textbook of Hebrew, also in German; Židé a kreštáné
(“Jews and Christians,” 1919); Židovství a židé (“Jews and Judaism,” 1955); and Sinai (1955), a textbook of Jewish religious
instruction. In 1965 the state conferred on Feder a medal inrecognition of his part in reconstruction and his “uncompromising stand in the fight against fascism and for peace.”
Bibliography: Věstnik židovských náboženskýchobci v československu, 27, no. 8 (1965), 1–2; 27, no. 11 (1965), 2–3; A. Charim, Die toten Gemeinden (1966), 29–36; R. Iltis, in: Židovská ročenka (1965/66),
78; R. Feder, ibid., 31–38; (1960/61), 28–37.

FEDER, TOBIAS (pseudonym of Tobias Gutman; c. 1760–
1817), Haskalah writer, poet, and grammarian, born in Przedborz, near Cracow. Supporting himself by teaching, proofreading, and commerce, he wandered through Galicia, Poland,
and Russia. In Galicia he associated himself with the leading
Haskalah writers, differing from them in his sharp polemicstyle directed against all those whose views on science and literature differed from his own. He was a versatile writer andwrote plays, satires, and studies in linguistics and grammar,
seeking to synthesize Haskalah and tradition. However, themajor part of his work was apparently lost and only a small
fraction ever published, most of it posthumously. His works
include: Kol Nehi (Warsaw, 1798), an elegy on *Elijah b. Solomon, the Vilna Gaon – and Shem u-She’erit (first publishedin Lemberg, 1877), a collection of poems. He also wrote poems in honor of Czar Alexander I’s victory over Napoleon,
Shir Haẓ laḥ at Aleksander be-Ḥ aẓ oto et Mitkomemav (1814)
and Simḥ ah ve-Sason la-Yehudim (Berdichev, 1814). Severalof his smaller works were published in the Hebrew newspaper Ḥ avaẓ ẓ elet. His early grammatical work Beit Toviyyah (nolonger extant) formed the basis for the introduction to Hebrew
grammar in his Mevasser Tov (Mohilev, 1820?), which included
a work on the Masorah, Menorat Shelomo of R. Phoebus of
Dubrovno, as well as poems and novellae. Feder was also theauthor of the first anti-Yiddish polemic work in Hebrew Kol
Meḥ aẓ eẓ im (Berdichev, 1816; Lemberg, 1853) which was directed against Mendel *Levin’s Yiddish translation of the biblical book of Proverbs. Publication of this polemic was, however, withheld, at the request of Levin’s friends, until after thedeath of both men.

FEDERATIONS OF COMMUNITIES, TERRITORIAL.
Throughout the Middle Ages and early modern times individual Jewish communities, though jealous of their independence, formed on occasion federations on a district, regional,
or countrywide basis. These were prompted in the Middle
Ages in many instances by external needs, principally the
obligation imposed by the government to collect state andother taxes on a corporate basis, and in others by internal
need and trends. Such consolidations were largely sporadic
and came into being for a specific purpose. In some countries,
however, they were of long duration. *Synods in France andother countries brought communities together to consult on
matters of mutual interest and to adopt regulations, mainlyon the internal social, moral, judicial, and political affairs of
the communities. Frequently conferences were convened forsuch purposes.
In Aragon communities of entire districts formed intocollecta for tax collection. In other countries also the insistenceof the state authorities to bargain on taxes with the communities of the entire domain, or at least of a wide region, resulted
in the formation of federations, some ephemeral, and somemore lasting; some were formed on Jewish initiative and others ordered by the state. Many of these federations of communities, once engaged in a common enterprise, utilized theirmutual contacts to further their internal needs. Such were the*Councils of the Lands of Poland-Lithuania, and Bohemia andMoravia in the late Middle Ages as well as the *Landjudenschaft of German principalities up to the 18t century.
In modern times much of the organization of the newtype Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform congregations has
been based on territorial federation. Freed from the task oftax collection they serve on a voluntary basis the religious requirements, social needs, and aims of the trend to which they
adhere within the boundaries of the state. The formation ofsuch federations received considerable stimulus through thegrowing sense of patriotism to the state, the break-up of theold local community, the wish of opponent religious camps
to secure a countrywide framework to strengthen their positions, and the rapid development of modern communications
systems. The movements to *autonomism and the implementation of *minority rights also considerably influenced the formation of federations between the two world wars.
See also history of individual countries in Europe;*United States; *Va’ad Le’ummi, *Takkanot.
Bibliography: Baron, Community, 3 (1942), index; O.I.
Janowsky, Change and Challenge, a History of 50 years of JWB(1966).
[Isaac Levitats]

Bibliography: Klausner, Sifrut, 1 (19522), 239ff., and see bibliography for Mendel *Levin.
[Getzel Kressel]

FEDERBUSCH, SIMON (1892–1969), rabbi, author, andZionist leader. Federbusch was born in Narol, Galicia. He
was ordained by prominent rabbis in Poland before WorldWar I and also received a rabbinical degree from the Vienna*Israelitisch-Theologische Lehranstalt in 1923. He settled in
Lvov (Lemberg) and was a member of the Polish Sejm (parlia-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6727

Federman, Maxment) from 1922 to 1928, and vigorously supported legislation
for Jewish education and for the rehabilitation of Jewish war
victims. Active in the Mizrachi movement from his student
days, Federbusch helped found Ha-Po’el ha-Mizrachi and waspresident of the Mizrachi Organization of Galicia from 1924 to
1930. During those years he edited Gilyonot, a Hebrew weekly,
and Mizraḥ ah, a Hebrew monthly. In 1930 he became rabbiof the United Hebrew Congregation of Helsinki, Finland, andthe following year was elected chief rabbi of Finland. In thisposition he promoted interfaith understanding, helped defeat
a bill banning sheḥ itah, and helped secure Finnish entry visas
for many Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany.
In 1940 he moved to New York City, where he was rabbi
and principal of the Yeshiva Rabbi Israel Salanter (Bronx), a
position he held until his death. He was president of Ha-Po’el
Ha-Mizrachi of America from 1942 to 1948. From 1944 he waschairman of the *Histadrut Ivrit. He was a member of the executive of *Brit Ivrit Olamit (“The World Hebrew Union”), theexecutive of the World Jewish Congress, the World Zionist Actions Committee, the World Mizrachi Council, and the presidium of the World Federation of Polish Jews.
Federbusch was the author of many articles and scholarly works in Hebrew, German, Yiddish, English, Polish,
and Swedish on rabbinical literature, Jewish philosophy andethics, and religious Zionist thought. He tried to clarify contemporary problems in the light of classical Jewish sources.
Among his works are Shelemut ha-Yahadut (1929), Iyyunim(1929), Ha-Musar ve-ha-Mishpat be-Yisrael (1943, 19472), Mishpat ha-Melukhah be-Yisrael (1952), Ha-Lashon ha-Ivrit beYisrael u-ve-Ammim (1967), World Jewry Today (1959), andḤ ikrei Yahadut (1965). He also edited a number of books,
such as Maimonides, His Teachings and Personality (1956),
Rashi, His Teachings and Personality (1958), and Ḥ okhmat
Yisrael be-Ma’arav Eiropah (3 vols., 1958–1965; vol. 3 entitledḤ okhmat Yisrael be-Eiropah) on modern European Jewish
scholars.

win labor support for the reopening of Canadian immigration and, especially, the removal of barriers to Jewish immigration. He represented labor in fur industry negotiations with
the Canadian government regarding the postwar admissionof Jewish furriers to Canada from Europe. When the government agreed to the admission of 500 fur workers and theirfamilies, Federman was part of the Canadian team that visited Displaced Persons camps in Germany, Austria, and Italy
to select the workers.
An ardent Zionist, Federman was chairman of *Aḥ dut
ha-Avodah-Poalei Zion and instrumental in establishing a
vocational training school in Upper Galilee in 1961. In addition, he was active in numerous labor and communal organizations in Toronto, including the Trades and Labour Council,
the Executive Trade Union Committee, the Histadrut, the Jewish Labour Committee, the Borochov School, the Co-Operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) and its successor, theNew Democratic Party. Following an upsurge in antisemitic
hate activity in Toronto in the early 1960s, Federman joined
the Community Anti-Nazi Committee of the Canadian Jewish Congress.
[Frank Bialystok (2nd ed.)]FEDERMAN, MAX (1902–1991), Canadian labor leader andZionist. Federman was born in Dzialoszyce, Poland, and in
1920 joined his father, who had previously immigrated to Toronto. Federman found work in the fur industry and became
active in the International Union of Fur and Leather Workers.
A committed Socialist and strident anti-Communist, he spent
20 years battling Communist infiltration of his union and wasregularly denounced as a class renegade in the Vochenblatt,the Yiddish Communist weekly in Toronto. In 1935, his union
split along ideological lines and finally dissolved in 1955. The
union’s members joined the Amalgamated Meat Cutters of the
AFL/CIO. Federman eventually became manager of the union’s
Fur and Leather Department in Toronto.
Federman was also active on behalf of the Toronto Jewish community. In the aftermath of World War II he helped

FEDERN, PAUL (1871–1950), Austrian psychoanalyst. Federn, the son of a distinguished Viennese physician, graduated from the medical school in Vienna. In 1904 he joined
Freud’s inner circle, being preceded only by three physicians:
Adler, Stekel, and Reitler. His initial studies and publications
combined the viewpoints of biology and psychology. In 1912
he contributed papers on sexual subjects and night fears andin 1913–14 papers on sadism, masochism, and dream interpretation, stressing the ego psychological point of view. He
also wrote on telepathy and extrasensory perception. During
World War I he was a doctor in the Austrian army. Federndevoted himself to the training of analysts and was the chairman of the education committee of the Vienna Society. Hisinterest in social psychology led to a major work, a study ofthe psychology of revolution, Zur Psychologie der Revolution:
Die vaterlose Gesellschaft (1919). In the 1920s he wrote papers
on many psychoanalytic issues. After Freud’s illness in 1924
Federn became his deputy, and continued that function until
1938, when he immigrated to the United States. Federn’s mostoriginal findings were in the field of ego psychology and thepsychoses. He contributed greatly to the understanding of
the manifestations of the ego, the sources of its feeling, andthe nature of its attachments to objects. His study of the ego,
especially in dreams, neuroses, and schizophrenia, permitted
him to develop important concepts – at times at variance withthose of Freud – which came to be applied in new methods tothe therapy of the psychoses. From 1940 the dynamics of thepsychosis became clearer to him, and he published papers on
the analysis of psychosis (1943) and on the psychotherapy oflatent schizophrenia (1949). In his will, Federn entrusted Eduardo Weiss with editing his works on ego psychology, whichappeared as Ego Psychology and the Psychoses (1953).

728

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: D. Telsner, in: J.L. Maimon (ed.), Sefer
Yovel… S. Federbush (1960), 9–40 (incl. bibl.).
[Gershon Hadas]feidman, giora
Bibliography: E. Weiss, in: F.G. Alexander et al. (eds.), Psychoanalytic Pioneers (1966), 142–59. Add. Bibliography: M.T.
Melo de Carvalho, Paul Federn – une autre voie pour la théorie du moi(1996); E. Federn, “Thirty- five Years with Freud – 100t Anniversaryof Paul Federn, October 13, 1971,” in: Psyche, 10 (1971), 721–37.
[Louis Miller]

FEFER, ITZIK (1900–1952), Soviet Yiddish poet. Fefer wasborn in the Ukrainian shtetl of Shpola. He first joined the Jewish Labor Bund but, in 1919, became a member of the Communist Party. Soon after his debut as a Yiddish poet (1920),
he became prominent in Soviet-Yiddish literature. In 1922 heformulated his literary credo of proste reyd (“simple speech”).
By nature lyrical and even sentimental, his Yiddish was richand idiomatic and his verses rhythmic and musical. He harnessed himself to the party line, and played a central role in
the Soviet-Yiddish literary hierarchy. His works, which appeared in Soviet-Yiddish magazines, were often collected andpublished. Though he wrote the well-known poem “Stalin,”
he also wrote “Ikh bin a Yid” (“I Am a Jew”) during WorldWar II when the party permitted such poems. His poems Shotens fun Varshever Geto (“Shadows of the Warsaw Ghetto”)
are a valuable contribution to the literature of the Holocaust.
He also wrote poems about Birobidzhan, the Jewish autonomous region in the Russian Far East, as well as nature poetry
and poems for children.
In 1943 Fefer visited the U.S., Canada, Mexico, and the
U.K. with Shloyme *Mikhoels, as a representative of the Jewish *Anti-Fascist Committee. Arrested in the Stalinist antiJewish purges in 1948, he was killed on August 12, 1952. In the
1990s, the publication of archival materials revealed his roleas an informer for the Soviet secret police.

vice Society. His book The Making of a Rabbi appeared in
1980.
Add. Bibliography: B. Klein, An Oral History of the Jewish
Community in the South: interview with Julian Feidelman (1968).
[Abram Vossen Goodman]

FEIBUSCH, HANS (1898–1998), English painter, sculptor,
and lithographer. Born in Frankfurt, Germany, the son of adentist, he served in World War I and in 1930 was awarded theGerman state prize for painters. His early work was destroyedby the Nazis. Feibusch came to England in 1933 and was naturalized in 1940. He is especially well known for his murals inchurches – including Chichester Cathedral – public buildings,
and private houses. These depict classical mythology as well as
religious subjects. Emphasizing the human figure, they are elegant and decorative, with a feeling for gesture and rhythm. He
also executed colored lithographs and wrote Mural Painting
and The Revelation of St. John (both 1946), and produced Old
Testament figures as well for Stern Hall, London. For much of
his life in Britain Feibusch was closely associated with Anglicanism; at the end of his long life he returned to Judaism, anddied three weeks short of his hundredth birthday.
Add. Bibliography: P. Foster (ed.), Feibusch Murals: Chichester and Beyond (1997); ODNB online.

FEIBELMAN, JULIAN BECK (1897–1980), U.S. Reform
rabbi. Feibelman was born in Jackson, Mississippi. After
serving in the army during World War I, he was ordained
at Hebrew Union College (1926). Feibelman served as assistantrabbi of Reform Congregation Keneseth Israel in Philadelphia,
and from 1936 he was rabbi of Temple Sinai in New Orleans,Louisiana. Active in New Orleans community life, he was
the spokesman for the Jewish community and a central
figure in ecumenism in the area. Feibelman was a lecturer at
Tulane University. He served as president of the Louisiana
Society for Social Hygiene and the New Orleans Family Ser-FEIDMAN, GIORA (1936– ) clarinetist, fourth generationof a klezmer dynasty. Born in Argentina, he studied clarinet with his father, a well-known Klezmer, and from age 14
played with his father at Jewish weddings. He studied at the
Buenos Aires conservatory and at 18 was leading clarinetist of
the Colon theater orchestra. On the recommendation of Paul
*Kletzki, Feidman joined the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra
in 1957, playing with it until 1974. During this period he taught
at the Tel Aviv Academy of Music and participated in radio
recordings of Israeli folk music. Feidman turned to Klezmer
music only in the mid-1960s. When recording for Kol Israel,
he decided spontaneously to record the popular tune “Silk Pyjamas” in Klezmer style; it was received so well that Feidman
repeated his initiative several times. Feidman concluded that
“this is what the Israeli public yearns for.”In 1969 Feidman was a soloist at the first ḥ asidic music
festival. There he met the well-known, self-taught Klezmer
Moshe (Musa) Berlin, who invited him to play at Meron,
where Giora was introduced to Israeli Klezmers and encountered a repertoire influenced by Greek, Turkish and Arab music, new to him. From the outset his playing was distinguishedby two styles of performance: one, the familiar eastern European enriched by Feidman’s restrained, gentle style with which
he performed Ḥ asidic tunes, and improvisatory pieces which
he termed “tefillah” (prayer); the other, his innovative use ofa bass-clarinet in addition to clarinet, in the course of a single
tune. He toured abroad popularizing Klezmer music among
Jewish and non-Jewish audiences, bringing it to concert halls
and even to churches and monasteries. His Master classes in
Israel and abroad helped entice young musicians, Jewish and

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6729

Bibliography: S. Niger, Yidishe Shrayber in Sovet-Rusland(1958); J. Glatstein, In Tokh Genumen (1960); I. Yonasovitch, Mit
Yidishe Shrayber in Rusland (1949); S. Bickel, Shrayber fun Mayn Dor(1964); Y.Y. Cohen (ed.), Pirsumim Yehudiyyim bi-Verit ha-Mo’aẓ ot(1917–1960) (1961); M. Basok, Mivḥ ar Shirat Yidish (1963); S. Meltzer(ed. and tr.), Al Naharot (1956); J. Leftwich, The Golden Peacock (1939,1961); B.Z. Goldberg, The Jewish Problem in the Soviet Union (1961),
index. Add. Bibliography: I. Howe et al. (eds.), The Penguin Bookof Modern Yiddish Verse (1988); J. Rubenstein and V.P. Naumov (eds.),
Stalin’s Secret Pogrom: The Postwar Inquisition of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee (2001); G. Estraikh, in: Shofar, 3 (2002), 14–31.
[Melech Ravitch / Gennady Estraikh (2nd ed.)]feierberg, mordecai ze’ev
gentile, to this type of music and Klezmer bands began tosprout in Israel and Europe. Feidman did not hesitate to infuse his “Klezmer music” (which included traditional Ḥ asidic
niggunim, Yiddish songs and a few select Israeli tunes) withartistic music, both classical and modern, fitting Klezmer’s
openness. Feidman’s publications include dozens of recorded
albums and about fifteen anthologies from his repertoire. Hismusic was featured in many films, among them Schindler’s
List and Love Story.
His father LEVI FEIDMAN (1903–1980) was born inKishinev, to a Klezmorim family. His father Gedaliah and his
grandfather both played the trombone. Gedaliah’s band, which
included Gypsy musicians, played at both Jewish and nonJewish events, with a repertoire based mainly on Jewish material and its style Jewish-Bessarabian, with Gypsy influences.
After World War I, Levi moved to Argentina. In Buenos Aires
he supported himself playing the saxophone but also learned
the clarinet and bass-clarinet. By 21 he had already mastered
the clarinets, all the saxophones, flute and piccolo and playedwith different bands. After immigrating to Israel in 1965, hequickly integrated into the Israeli music scene, playing in theopera orchestra and at weddings with various Klezmorim. The
Klezmer convention in his memory led to the annual convention at Elkana led by the Klezmer Musa Berlin.
FEIERBERG, MORDECAI ZE’EV (1874–1899), Hebrew
writer. Born in Novograd-Volynsk (Volhynia, Russia) into afamily of devout Ḥ asidim, Feierberg spent his childhood in avillage, where he was tutored by his father, a shoḥ et. The family
returned to the city when Feierberg was about ten. His studies,while concentrating mainly on Gemara and posekim, since hewas expected to become a shoḥ et, also included medieval religious philosophy (*Maimonides, *Judah Halevi), Kabbalah,
and ḥ asidic works. Subsequently, he came under the influenceof the Haskalah and began reading the Bible and modern Hebrew literature. His secular studies led to a serious conflict
between him and his strict father who beat him mercilessly
and repeatedly drove him out of the house. Feierberg, however, was not deterred. In a final attempt to bring him back to
the traditional fold, his father betrothed him to the daughterof the shoḥ et of an adjoining town and set him up as a grocer. The store however, became a center for the maskilim andḤ ovevei Zion of Novograd-Volynsk and the engagement was
broken because Feierberg, always sickly, contracted tuberculosis. Feierberg’s literary career began in 1896 when he went
to Warsaw, then a center of the Hebrew press and modern Hebrew literature, and submitted a collection of poems and stories to Nahum *Sokolow, the editor of *Ha-Ẓ efirah. Sokolow
advised the novice writer to give up poetry and concentrateon fiction. His first story, “Ya’akov ha-Shomer” (“Jacob the
Watchman,” in: Ha-Ẓ efirah, 1897), appeared a year later. His
other five short stories were published in 1897 and 1898; threeof them – “Ha-Egel” (“The Calf,” 1899), “Ha-Kame’a” (“TheAmulet,” 1897), and “Ba-Erev” (“In the Evening,” 1898) – in theprestigious monthly Ha-Shilo’aḥ , founded by *Aḥ ad Ha-Am;
and the other two – “Ha-Ẓ elalim” (“The Shadows”) and “LeilAviv” (“A Spring Night”) – in Lu’aḥ Aḥ i’asaf (1898). Turning
to journalism for a short period, Feierberg also wrote featurearticles on Jewish life in Novograd-Volynsk for the daily HaMeliẓ . Aḥ ad Ha-Am, who had befriended and thought highlyof him, obtained a stipend for him from the well-known tea
merchant K. *Wissotzky. Free from economic dependenceon his hostile father, Feierberg, at long last, could give vent to
his creative powers. They found expression in his major work
“Le’an?” (“Whither?”). While it was being prepared for press
in Ha-Shilo’aḥ (Aḥ ad Ha-Am made substantial alterations
with the author’s assent), Feierberg was planning to compose
an extensive historical narrative on Israel Ba’al Shem Tov, thefounder of Ḥ asidism. The work, as well as other of his literary projects, was never written. He died of tuberculosis in thespring of 1899, before “Le’an?” appeared in print. Two polemical articles on Hebrew literature and on the contemporaneous
Jewish intelligentsia were printed posthumously. The first edition of his collected works appeared in 1904. Further editions
have appeared since; the most extensive one was edited by E.
Steinman (Tel Aviv, 1941).
Feierberg’s stories, articles, journalistic reports, and letters barely comprise a single thin volume and while most of
his works lack artistic maturity, his contemporaries and modern critics have recognized in him an original literary mind.
His stories, among the most important landmarks in modern
Hebrew fiction, express the spiritual-cultural conflict between
adherence to traditional Jewish life and the aspiration toward
a secular, modern, “European” cultural existence. The theme,
expressed earlier by Haskalah authors who considered it their
duty to inculcate secular-humanistic values into Jewish life in
the 1890s, with such writers as Feierberg, Ḥ .N. *Bialik, and
M.J. *Berdyczewski, was exposed in all its tragic depth.
Feierberg’s greatness as a writer can be attributed not
only to his sensitive aesthetic intuitiveness but, in spite of his
youth and inexperience, to an original literary ideology whosebasic principles he crystallized. Feierberg thought that thefunction of Hebrew literature was to describe authentically“the image of our (Jewish) innermost world”; that is, to express the particular outlook of the contemporary East European Jew as conditioned by his education, traditions, andenvironment. He also believed in a particular Jewish “viewof the world,” stating that “The air a Jew breathes, the sky hesees, the earth he treads, and all the external sights revealed
to him acquire a different form and shape in his soul fromwhat they really are or how they are perceived by other people.” Though he conceded that this special “form and shape”
stemmed from a distortion of the national Jewish life by the“poison” that had tainted the national existence of the Jewish
people for generations, he demanded that the Hebrew author(and he for one fulfilled this demand) express it. Only in thisway could Hebrew literature make a valuable contribution toworld literature. “Indeed the Hebrew tragedy can drown out
the tumult of Rome.” Feierberg felt that Hebrew literature

730

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Y. Mazor]

feierberg, mordecai ze’ev
should have remained rooted within the East European Jewish ghetto; it should not have tried to detach its themes andphysical, as well as mental landscapes, from their environment; and should not have turned toward the “wide world” ofEurope, as was the cry of many contemporaneous influential
Hebrew authors. It should not depict the Jewish world fromthe outside, nor criticize its defects in the light of foreign values, nor emphasize the physical-external aspects of Jewish life
specifying its economic and cultural structure; but through theartistic and aesthetic power of the narrative as such, Hebrew
literature should directly express the “Jewish situation” fromwithin. To develop this literary art, the young Feierberg had
to break with the tradition of the Hebrew fiction, especiallythe literature of the Haskalah and the trend followed by mostof the contemporaneous Hebrew writers of his day. He had to
evolve the genre of the lyrical story which focuses on personal
situations, usually of a distressing nature, that are symbolic of
the “Jewish condition” as a whole. Feierberg thus introduced
into Hebrew fiction the genre of the confessional lyrical shortstory in which the deep personal distress of an individual becomes a symbol. The genre also greatly influenced Berdyczewski, Brenner, and Gnessin and became a basic literary formof 20t-century Hebrew fiction.
Feierberg was but a trailblazer in a genre whose development demanded rigid literary and mental discipline. His tendency toward the use of affected language, hyperboles, andsentimental clichés was one of a number of his shortcomings.
Another was his failure at times to achieve a viable synthesis
between form and content and the idea to be expressed, i.e.,
direct lyrical expression of his turbulent world and the literary-descriptive frameworks in which he wanted to cast it. The
artistic quality of his works is in direct relation to the successwith which he achieved this synthesis.
“Ya’akov ha-Shomer,” a weak groping toward this aesthetic synthesis, has for protagonist a Jewish soldier of the daysof Czar Nicholas II who had been impressed into the Russian
Army. Taken from his parents’ home at a tender age he returns
to the margins of Jewish society after years in a distant gentile
environment. The life of such a Jew (then extensively describedin Hebrew and Yiddish literature) symbolized for Feierberg
the theme that was to form the core of all his works: the relationship (“the border-state”) between life in the traditional
Jewish community and life outside of it, between loyalty to
the spiritual ascetic tradition and the yearning for nature andthe life of the senses. He saw himself and his generation torn
between these opposing polarities. In “Ya’akov ha-Shomer” thetension in Feierberg the man in giving personal expression to
his innermost belief prevented the writer from portraying theprotagonist convincingly. A certain discrepancy also exists
between the significance with which Feierberg invested thehero’s experience and the experience as such. Estrangementfrom Judaism was forced on Ya’akov the watchman externallyand his experience is therefore not a valid representation of thespiritual state of the Jew wavering between two worlds. The
Jewish czarist soldier, too weak a vehicle to carry the symbol,

only partly answers the author’s needs of emotional and mental expression and the synthesis between content and self-expression is therefore not realized.
In two of his later stories, “Ha-Ẓ elalim” and “Leil Aviv,”
Feierberg broke almost completely with the traditional concepts of plot and character and composed poetic-prose fragments through which he gave direct, bare, and discursivelyrical expression to the “border-state.” Despite the literary
sincerity and passages of great beauty and power (especiallyin “Leil Aviv”), the desired synthesis is only partially achieved.
In the absence of the rigors of a narrative framework, the stories became infused with sentimentalism expressed in undisciplined language.
The three short stories, “Ba-Erev,” “Ha-Kame’a,” and “HaEgel,” were written as childhood reminiscences of Ḥ ofni Ba’alDimyon (“Hophni the Imaginative”), the hero-narrator. As
Feierberg had written to Aḥ ad Ha-Am, in the Ḥ ofni stories he intended to create a “complete world of the Jew” whowould be a kind of “hero of the times.” He wanted to develop
the idea and proceed from Ḥ ofni’s childhood to later periods in his life. He died, however, before he had time to complete the project. In the tales of Ḥ ofni’s childhood, Feierberg
used a narrative-reminiscing expository style which, while
restraining his language and his sentimental temperament,
fully expressed his personality. Artistically, “Ba-Erev” is considered his best work. The story is divided into two parts: inthe first, Ḥ ofni reminisces about his ḥ eder studies during thelong winter nights; in the second, he reconstructs a legend told
by his mother on coming home from the ḥ eder. A seemingly
popular ḥ asidic tale, the legend serves Feierberg as a symbol
through which he could clearly and most effectively express
the spiritual “border state” in which Ḥ ofni would have foundhimself as a young man. Both parts form a single “world” ofoppression and gloom conveying a struggle between loyalty
to an ancient and ascetic culture, absolute in its demands ofadherence, and a powerful yearning toward a different world.
Life in this world of great tension is an endless “trial”; failurelurks everywhere and the burden of responsibility oppresses
to the breaking point.
In “Ha-Kame’a,” in which Ḥ ofni recalls his childhoodnightmares, this view is sharply expressed, though in a morediscursive and less narrative symbolic manner. During thesenights of terror he senses the distress and tension that lay instore for him. The talisman, a “weapon” with which Ḥ ofni’s
father and the old kabbalist from the Klaus equipped him, isfrom the start seen as insufficient protection and too light an
arm for the fierce battle ahead of him. In “Ha-Egel” Feierberg
deviates from his regular themes. Ḥ ofni reminisces on his
love for a calf. The description of the child’s terrible shock at
his parents’ indifference toward the young calf they intended
for slaughter portends the depression and isolation of a man
whose moral sensitivity would make him lose his sense ofidentity with his environment. It presages the “border state”
of suspension between being within and without, belonging
and revolt.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6731

feierstein, ricardo
In “Le’an?” Feierberg dwells in minute detail on the sensitive, thinking individual who detaches himself and is cut off
from the historical Jewish community. The hero, Naḥ man, isthe leader prototype, but he has lost contact with his community. His character and education makes him an “aristocrat”,
an “elected” Jew. The scion of a rabbinical dynasty, his father
educates him to be a “soldier” (the same idea also appears in“Ha-Kame’a”) and to assume a life of responsibility in the unceasing battle to protect Judaism from secular inroads. His
detachment from the community begins at a very early age
when he was taught to regard the “normal” Jewish existence
around him as a frivolity which he himself morally could notafford to lead. At this stage one type of alienation is apparent –a detachment between the community and its representative,
between the public and the individual who is able to personify ideally the values in which all believe. Naḥ man, the ideal,
wants to perform great deeds: he wants to heal the historicalschism in the fate of the Jewish people by hastening the coming of the Messiah. In his search for a way, he steeps himself
in the holy books; years pass and he despairs of messianic redemption. He then becomes interested in the Haskalah, thusalienating himself completely. Naḥ man’s loss of faith in Divine
Providence is sudden and swift and his position in the Jewish
community becomes a “border state” of unbearable tension
which finds concrete expression in the synagogue on the Ninthof *Av: “The whole congregation is praying, it has one heart
now, and he – the other heart – is lonely and separated fromthe community, cut off from his people … And how he would
have liked to rejoin his people! He would have given his life
for the bond. But how could he? No, he had undone the knotof his own free will and could not tie it again ….” This senseof separation is like a hidden disease within Naḥ man, but atlast the rift between him and his father and the community
breaks out in the open with his symbolic act of extinguishing the candle in the synagogue on the Day of Atonement.
Naḥ man now lapses into a mental state which the community
interprets as madness. Toward the end of the story he makesa final attempt at rejoining his people. In a speech at a Ḥ ibbat
Zion gathering, he propounds the idea of national renaissanceand a return to the East. This speech is Naḥ man’s last call andoutcry, he then fades away and dies.
Structurally weak, because Feierberg tried to incorporate
the Naḥ man story into a narrative of reminiscences (as a continuation of the Ḥ ofni stories), “Le’an?” is nevertheless one of
the great literary achievements in Hebrew fiction. The tragic
proportions of its hero have been attained by few figures in
Hebrew literature. The story gives full expression to the torment of the Jew who is torn between the temporal historicalmoment and his sense of responsibility toward the Jewish
heritage of the ages and toward Jewish history. By grapplingsincerely and honestly with the tragic problem of the Diaspora
Jew in a modern world, Feierberg left an indelible imprint on
modern Hebrew literature.
An English translation of Whither and Other Stories appeared in 1973 and “The Calf ” was included in G. Abramson

FEIERSTEIN, RICARDO (1942– ), Argentinian writer.
Feierstein was born in Buenos Aires. In his youth he joined
Zionist and socialist movements; later he lived for some years
on a kibbutz. His literary writings, his achievements as editor of the journal Raíces and director of the Milá and Acervo
Cultural publishing houses, and his contributions to periodicals reflect his continuous involvement with Jewish cultural
life in Argentina. In his writing, Feierstein seeks to close thegap between ideologically oriented and aesthetic literature.
His poetry, narratives, and essays seek to build a harmonious
individual identity as an Argentinian, a Jew, and a socialist,
and the successes and failures of such attempts lie at the coreof his writing. His poem “Nosotros, la generación del desierto”(“We, the Generation of the Wilderness,” 1984, tr. 1989) speaks
for a whole generation that lives between historical eventsand conflicting trends, unable to establish its own ground.
The trilogy of novels Sinfonía inocente exposes the unrealized
coming-of-age of an Argentinian Jew from adolescence (Entre la izquierda y la pared, 1983), to his kibbutz experience (Elcaramelo descompuesto, 1979), to his search for reintegration
in a politically shattered Argentina (Escala uno en cincuenta.
1984). In Mestizo (1988; tr. 2000), a murder mystery frames thesearch for a fullly realized Argentinian-Jewish identity, while
his later novel, La logia del umbral (2002), exposes the painful
collective failure of such a project (especially in the shadow of
the AMIA terrorist bombing in 1994). His views of Argentinian Jewry and their existential experience as a dynamic cultural mestizaje (a term meaning racial but also cultural mix
in Latin America) are discussed in his books Judaísmo 2000
(1988) and Contraexilio y mestizaje: Ser judío en la Argentina(1990). He also edited Historia de los judíos argentinos (1993);
Cuentos judíos latinoamericanos (1989); Cien años de narrativa
judeo-argentina 1889–1989 (1990). His poems and stories have

732

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6(ed.), The Oxford Book of Hebrew Short Stories (1996). For
other works which have been translated into English see
Goell, Bibliography.
Bibliography: M.J. Berdyczewski, Ma’amarim (1922), 266f.;
J.H. Brenner, Ketavim, 2 (19532), 241–3; J. Fichmann, Ruḥ ot Menaggenot (1953), 277–83; S. Ẓ emaḥ , Massah u-Vikkoret (1954), 9–26;
B. Kurzweil, Sifrutenu ha-Ḥ adashah-Hemshekh o Mahpekhah? (1965),
149–71; J. Klausner, Yoẓ erim u-Vonim, 2 (1929), 165–82; S. Rawidowitz, in: Ha-Tekufah, 11 (1921), 399–419; E. Steinman, Be-Ma’gal haDorot (1944), 87–112; A. Sha’anan, Ha-Sifrut ha-Ivrit ha-Ḥ adashahli-Zeramehah. 2 (1962), 249–66; Waxman, Literature, 4 (1960), 54–62.
Add. Bibliography: E. Avisar, “Samkhut ha-Av u-Ze’akat ha-Ben
be-‘Le’an,’ ” in: Hadoar, 53 (1974), 372–74; A.L. Mintz, “Mordecai Zev
Feierberg and the Reveries of Redemption,” in: AJSR, 2 (1977), 171–99;
S. Werses, in: Moznayim, 48:5–6 (1979), 280–91; M. Bosak, “Rabbi
Naḥ man mi-Braslav ke-Model le-Gibboro shel ‘Le’an,’” in: Mabu’a, 15(1980); D. Steinhart, “Figures of Thought; Psycho-Narration in the
Fiction of Berdichewsky, Bershadsky and Feierberg,” in: Prooftexts,
8:2 (1988), 197–217; H. Bar Yosef, “Eyzeh min Romantikan Haya Feierberg?” in: Bikoret u-Farshanut, 23 (1988) 87–116; G.Shaked, Ha-Sipporet ha-Ivrit, 1 (1997), 206–13; Aberbach, “David, Mordecai Ze’ev
Feierberg,” in: Jewish Quarterly, 46:2 (1999), 51–52.
[Dan Miron]feigenbaum, aryeh
been translated into English, French, German, and Hebrew.
Feierstein was visiting lecturer at American and German universities, and received awards in Argentina and Mexico.
Bibliography: R. DiAntonio and N. Glickman, Tradition
and Innovation: Reflections on Latin American Jewish Writing (1993);
R. Gardiol, The Silver Candelabra and Other Stories – A Century ofJewish Argentine Literature (1997); N. Lindstrom, Jewish Issues inArgentine Literature (1989); D.B. Lockhart, Jewish Writers of Latin
America. A Dictionary (1997); L. Senkman, La identidad judía en laliteratura argentina (1983); S.A. Sadow and J. Kates, We, the Generation in the Wilderness (1989).
[Florinda Goldberg (2nd ed.)]

FEIFFER, JULES (1929– ), U.S. cartoonist and writer. Bornin the Bronx, New York, Feiffer studied at James Monroe HighSchool and entered the Art Students’ League. From 1947 to1951 he studied at the Pratt Institute while working as an assistant on the comic The Spirit. Growing up, he had always assumed that The Spirit was Jewish. In 1949 he created his first
Sunday cartoon page feature, Clifford. He served in the U.S.
Army from 1951 to 1953, working with a cartoon animation
unit. Upon leaving the army, Feiffer worked in a number ofjobs until in 1956, the New York weekly magazine The Village
Voice began to publish his cartoons. His comic strip, which
was simply called Feiffer, was an immediate success and appeared regularly in The Village Voice and was also internationally syndicated. His satirical cartoons made moral andpolitical statements on a wide range of contemporary issues,
both political and personal – from nuclear holocaust, the arms
race, and presidential politics to male-female relationships andhuman fears, and neuroses – and were characterized by therevelation of the private thoughts of his characters. After appearing weekly for 43 years, Feiffer’s last syndicated cartoon
strip was published on June 18, 2000.
Although known primarily for his cartoons, Feiffer has
also achieved success as a playwright, screenwriter, and novelist. His plays of the late 1960s, Little Murders (1967), God
Bless (1968), and The White House Murder Case (1969), were
all highly political. Little Murders, which depicted the horrors of urban life, was later made into a film. In 1963, he cameout against the Vietnam War, subsequently speaking at peacedemonstrations in Washington.
His screenplay for the 1971 movie Carnal Knowledge andhis play Knock Knock (1976) dealt with more personal issues,
the former with middle-age crisis and the latter with social
values. His play Grownups (1981) focused on interfamily relationships and conflicts. He also wrote the screenplay forthe film comedy I Want to Go Home (1989), directed by Alan
Resnais and starring Adolph Green, as well as the script forthe 1991 TV series The Nudnik Show.
In 1986 Feiffer received the Pulitzer Prize in editorial
cartooning, and in 2004 was honored with the Ian McLellan
Hunter Award by the Writers Guild of America.
Among Feiffer’s many published works are Sick Sick Sick:
A Guide to Non-Confident Living (1958); Great Comic Book
Heroes (1965), a critical history of the comic book super-heENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6roes of the late 1930s and early 1940s; Jules Feiffer’s America,
from Eisenhower to Reagan (1982); Marriage Is an invasionof Privacy, and Other Dangerous Views (1984); Ronald Reagan in Movie America: A Jules Feiffer Production (1988); andPresident Bill: A Graphic Epic (with W. Brown, 1990). Someof his many books for children include The Man in the Ceiling (1993); A Barrel of Laughs, a Vale of Tears (1995); Tantrum(1997); Meanwhile (1997); I Lost My Bear (1998); and Bark,
George (1999).
Add. Bibliography: K. McAuliffe, The Great American
Newspaper: The Rise and Fall of the Village Voice (1978); S. Heller (ed.),Man Bites Man: Two Decades of Satiric Art – 1960–1980 (1981).
[Susan Strul / Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]

FEIGEL, SIGI (1921–2004), Swiss Jewish community leader.
Born into a Russian-Jewish family, Feigel grew up in the central Swiss Catholic village of Hergiswil (Nidwalden), isolated
from any organized Jewish community. In his youth, he experienced much Catholic anti-Judaism. After serving in the
Swiss army (1939–45), he studied law at Zurich University andgraduated with a doctoral degree in law. He entered the textile
firm of his father-in-law, serving as its director until 1977. He
was president of the Jewish community of Zurich in 1972–86,
initiating a program of lectures by prominent figures and thus
getting the Jewish community much publicity. Among the lecturers were Bruno *Kreisky, Axel Springer, and Willy *Brandt.
He fought for the enlargement of the Jewish Oberer Friesenberg cemetery in Zurich, meeting opposition in right-wing
circles. As a prominent media figure, he helped win popularsupport for the Anti-Racism Law (1993). With his colleague
Rolf *Bloch, he tried to mediate between American-Jewish
demands and Swiss politicians and bankers in the 1995–96
Swiss bank account affair. He seems to have coined the phrase,“Justice for the victims, fairness for Switzerland.” He founded
several foundations to fight racism, xenophobia, and antisemitism, and for the housing of homeless young people. He also
initiated the re-writing of textbooks on Jewish history andreligion in Switzerland. After selling the textile firm (1977),
he returned to law studies and received the Zurich lawyer’s
diploma at the age of 62. He wrote the standard commentaryon the Swiss Anti-Racism Law. The Jewish community chose
him as its honorary president.
Bibliography: K. Obermueller, Schweizer auf Bewaehrung(1998); Antisemitismus: Umgang mit einer Herausforderung: Festschrift
zum 70. Geburtstag (1991); S. Feigel, Der Erziehungszweck im schweiz.
Strafvollzug (1949).
[Uri Kaufmann (2nd ed.)]

FEIGENBAUM, ARYEH (1885–1981), Israel ophthalmologist. Born in Lemberg, Feigenbaum trained in Vienna andemigrated to Ereẓ Israel in 1913. He became head of theeye department of the Straus Health Center, Jerusalem, andconducted a vigorous campaign against trachoma, serving
hundreds of Arabs and Jews a day in his clinics. In 1914 heorganized a trachoma conference, the first of its kind, in Pal-733

feigenbaum, benjaminestine and wrote and published the report and recommendations.
From 1922 to 1954 Feigenbaum was head of the ophthalmological department of the Hadassah Hospital and in 1938
first chairman of the pre-faculty of medicine. He was a founderand editor of the first Hebrew medical journal Harefuah (1920)
and of Acta Medica Orientalia (1942). In 1927 he wrote the first
Hebrew textbook on ophthalmology, Ha-Ayin.
Bibliography: Harefuah, 70 (1966), 473–7.
[Lucien Harris]

FEIGENBAUM, BENJAMIN (1860–1932), Yiddish journalist, essayist, editor, and pamphleteer. Born in Warsaw, the sonof ḥ asidic parents, he rejected the religious traditions in which
he had been brought up and developed into a militant atheist and agitator for socialism. Leaving home, he proceeded in1884 to Antwerp, in 1887 to London, where he wrote for Yiddish and Hebrew periodicals and published pamphlets onsocialism, reaching the United States in 1891. In America, hejoined the United Hebrew Trades, writing tracts to win the
support of Jewish laborers for socialism and atheism. He also
wrote for the Forverts and Arbeter-Tsaytung, and for the literary monthly Tsukunft, of which he was editor for a time. He
wrote his essays under several pseudonyms including Shabbes,
Shabsovitch, and Sh. Peshes. In 1900 he became general secretary of the newly formed Arbeter Ring (*Workmen’s Circle),which he established firmly before resigning in 1903. In 1909
he served as chairman of the mass meeting which sanctioned
the general strike of the waist and dress trade, the so-called“uprising of 20,000.” His publications include Vi Kumt a Yid
tsu Sotsyalizmus (1889); Kosher un Treyfe un Andere Mitsves(1909); Yidishkayt un Sotsyalizm (1942).
Bibliography: Rejzen, Leksikon, 3 (1929), 44–49; L. Kobrin,
Mayne Fuftsik Yor in Amerike (1966), 64–75. Add. Bibliography:
Bal-Makhshoves, Populere Visnshaftlekhe Literatur (1910), 76–83; M.
Shtarkman, in: YIVO Bleter, 4 (1932), 354–87; M. Osherovitch, Geshikhte fun Forverts (1947), 43–56.
[Melvyn Dubofsky / Marc Miller (2nd ed.)]

FEIGENBAUM, ISAAC HAKOHEN (1826–1911), Polishrabbi and posek. Feigenbaum studied under R. Isaac Meir
Alter of Gur (*Gora Kalwaria). In 1893 he founded the first
periodical devoted to rabbinic studies, the monthly Sha’arei
Torah, to which leading contemporary rabbis contributed, andin which he himself wrote the leading article. The journal was
continued after his death by his son, Israel Isser Feigenbaum,
and ceased publication only at the outbreak of World War II.
Among Feigenbaum’s works are a critical edition of the Urim
ve-Tummim of Jonathan *Eybeschuetz with his own commentary (Warsaw, 1881). Feigenbaum was one of the few Polishrabbis, particularly among the Ḥ asidim (he was an adherentof the *Kotsk dynasty), who was an ardent supporter of theḤ ibbat Zion movement. He was a member of the Menuḥ ahve-Naḥ alah Society of Warsaw which founded *Reḥ ovot, andhe himself purchased land under the aegis of the society.

734

Bibliography: J.J. Feigenbaum, Or Penei Yiẓ ḥ ak (1939, reprint 1966).
[Louis Isaac Rabinowitz]

FEIGENBERG, MEÏR (1923– ), Danish theater manager.
After academic studies in Stockholm and practical theater
work in Copenhagen, Feigenberg became director of the Riddersalen Theater from 1947 to 1950 and of the Frederiksberg
Theatre (now Dr. Dantes Aveny) in 1950–52 with a repertoire
ranging from Ibsen and Chekhov to Kjell Abell and Tennessee Williams. Feigenberg was director of the New Theatre in
1966–69 and the Danish Theater in 1974–91, which he led witha sure sense of balance between the highbrow and the popular, between the classical and the modern, sometimes in collaboration with the Royal Theater.
[Bent Lexner (2nd ed.)]FEIGIN, DOV (1907–2000), Israel sculptor. Feigin was bornin Lugansk, Russia, and immigrated to Palestine in 1927. He
studied in Paris between 1933 and 1937, and in 1947–48 was oneof the founders of the New Horizons Group which tried to introduce modernism to Israel art. In 1962, he created a monumental sculpture in stone at Miẓ peh Ramon in the Negev. Before 1950, Feigin worked in stone and concrete, and produced
massive human forms, in post-cubist style. An example is themonument at Reḥ ovot In Memory of Our Warriors, a relief
characterized by its sharply defined contours. His later work
became abstract and he composed linear forms in bronze,
copper, and iron. Feigin won several prizes: in 1945–46 theDizengoff prize, in 1953 the Haifa Municipality prize, and in1985 the Sandberg prize from the Israel Museum.
Bibliography: B. Tammuz and M. Wykes-Joyce, Art in
Israel (1966), 152–3; H. Gamzu, Painting and Sculpture in Israel (1951),
113–5.
[Yona Fischer]

FEIGIN, SAMUEL ISAAC (1893–1950), Orientalist and biblical scholar. Feigin was born in Krichev. As a youth he went
to Palestine; he completed his studies at the Hebrew Teachers’ College in Jerusalem and fought in the Ottoman Army
during World War I. Feigin emigrated to the United States in1920 and studied at Yale University until 1923. He held several
teaching posts and then in 1932 joined the staff of the Oriental
Institute of the University of Chicago. He also taught at theCollege of Jewish Studies and the Hebrew Theological College(both in Chicago). Feigin’s main interest was ancient Babylonian civilization and its relation to biblical life and literature.
He wrote Mi-Sitrei he-ʿAvar (“From the Secrets of the Past,”
1943), a collection of scholarly studies on biblical themes, andAnshei Sefer (1950), a collection of biographical essays. He also
contributed important articles to scholarly journals.
Bibliography: Irwin, in: JNES, 9 (1950), 121–3.
[Samuel Sandmel]

FEIGL, BEDRICH (Friedrich; 1884–1966), Czech painterand graphic artist. In 1907, he was a founder of the Osma group
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

feiler, arthur(“The Eight”) which, with Emil Filla as its leading personality, marked the break of Czech art with traditional classicism.
This break profoundly influenced modern Czech painting.
Feigl created the best work of his expressionistic period withhis landscapes of Copenhagen, Berlin, and the fishing villages on the French Riviera. He is, however, best known forhis sketches of Prague ghetto life. Feigl also did book illustrations (H. Politzer, ed., Sippurim, 1937). After escaping from
Nazi-occupied Prague, Feigl spent World War II in London.
Here, he prepared the plates for the first Czechoslovak postwar banknotes.
Bibliography: G. Marzynski, Friedrich Feigl (Ger., 1921);
Příruční slovník naučný, 1 (1962), 711.
[Avigdor Dagan]

FEIGL, FRITZ (1891–1971), analytical chemist and a leaderof the Brazilian Jewish community. Feigl was born in Vienna
and served as an officer in the Austrian Army in World War I.
He joined the staff of the Technische Hochschule in Vienna
in the early 1920s and became professor of chemistry there in
1935. The Anschluss of 1938 forced him out of his position andhe emigrated to Brazil, where in 1941 he became head of the
Ministry of Agriculture’s mineral production laboratory. In
1953 he was appointed professor of chemistry at the Universityof Brazil. In his work on chemical analysis and microanalysis
Feigl specialized mainly in spot tests, on which he became aworld authority. He was the main pioneer of new proceduresin this field. His books include Spot Test Analysis (2 vols., 1934),
Theory, Practice, and Uses of Spot Tests in Qualitative Analysis(1938), Laboratory Manual of Spot Tests (1944), and Chemistryof Specific Selective and Sensitive Reactions (1949). Feigl was
active in communal and Zionist activities in Brazil, where heserved as president of the Confederation of Jewish Federations. In 1951 he became a member of the world executive of
the World Jewish Congress. He was a member of the board ofgovernors of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and of the
Weizmann Institute of Science in Reḥ ovot.
[Samuel Aaron Miller]

until he retired in 1971. He was appointed regents professorof the University of Minnesota in 1967.
In 1949 he and his colleague Wilfrid Sellars edited Readings in Philosophical Analysis, which became a standard textof analytic philosophy and logical empiricism. That year theyand several other colleagues founded the Philosophical Studies journal. In 1953 he and May Brodbeck edited Readings in
the Philosophy of Science, which became the standard anthology in the field.
In 1953 Feigl obtained a grant to establish the Minnesota
Center for Philosophy of Science. The first such institution ofits kind in the country, if not the world, it drew philosophersof science from around the globe to participate in workshops
and collaborative research.
Feigl served on the governing board of the Philosophy of
Science Association and was a founding member (1934) of theeditorial board of Philosophy of Science, which later became
the official journal of the Association. He was president of theWestern Division of the American Philosophical Association(1961–62). His first book, Theorie und Erfahrung in der Physik(“Theory and Experience in Physics”), was published in 1929.
In his writings, Feigl attempted to formulate and defend theprinciples of the doctrine of logical positivism (also called“consistent empiricism” and “logical empiricism” – the lattername by Feigl). The main tenet of this theory is that meaningfulstatements must be empirically verified. Feigl gradually moved
away from a strict interpretation of this principle to a position
that allows for different categories of meaningfulness.
Other books by Feigl include The “Mental” and the “Physical”: The Essay and a Postscript (1967) and The Foundationsof Science and the Concepts of Psychology and Psychoanalysis(with M. Scriven, 1976). He also edited Concepts, Theories &the Mind-Body Problem (1972).
Bibliography: H. Feigl and W. Sellars (eds.), Readings in
Philosophical Analysis (1949); P. Feyerabend and G. Maxwell (eds.),
Mind, Matter, and Method; Essays in Philosophy and Science in Honor
of Herbert Feigl (1966), contains a bibliography of his work. Add.
Bibliography: R. Cohen (ed.), Herbert Feigl: Inquiries & Provocations, Selected Writings 1929 to 1974 (2001).
[Avrum Stroll / Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]

FEIGL, HERBERT (1902–1988), U.S. philosopher and oneof the founders of the Vienna Circle discussion group, whichespoused the doctrine of logical positivism. He was born inReichenberg, Bohemia. In 1922, antisemitism in German universities led Feigl to the University of Vienna, where he received his Ph.D. in philosophy in 1927. At the university Feigl,
influenced by Moritz Schlick, became interested in philosophical problems in the foundations of physics. In 1924, with
Schlick and Friedrich Waissman, he assembled a discussion
group that was later called the “Vienna Circle.”
Feigl emigrated to the United States late in 1930 on an International Rockefeller Fellowship and spent nine months at
Harvard University, whose faculty he regarded as the American equivalent of the Vienna Circle. He taught at the University of Iowa (1931–40), and in 1940 became professor of philosophy at the University of Minnesota, where he remained

FEILER, ARTHUR (1879–1942), economist. Born in Breslau,
he was a contributor to the financial section of the Frankfurter
Zeitung, from 1903 to 1910, and from 1910 to 1930 was a senior
editor of the paper. He taught at the University of Frankfurt forsome time during the late 1920s, and at the Graduate Business
School in Koenigsberg from 1932 to 1933. In 1933 he emigrated
to the United States where he worked at the graduate facultyof the New School for Social Research in New York. His numerous publications include Die Konjunkturperiode 1907–13
in Deutschland (1914); Amerika-Europa: Erfahrungen einer
Reise (1926); America Seen Through German Eyes (1928); Das
Experiment des Bolschewismus (19303); and (with M. Ascoli)
Fascism for Whom? (1938).

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6735[Edith Hirsch]feinberg
FEINBERG, family of pioneer settlers in Ereẓ Israel.
YOSEF FEINBERG (1855–1902) was born in Simferopol
in the Crimea, the son of wealthy parents, and studied chemistry at Swiss and German universities. Aroused by the 1881
pogroms, he went to Ereẓ Israel in the spring of 1882, taking
a large sum of money. He joined Zalman *Levontin in founding *Rishon le-Zion on land which he helped to buy. Feinberg
went to Western Europe and succeeded in gaining Baron Edmond de *Rothschild’s support for the idea of Jewish settlement in Ereẓ Israel. However, Feinberg opposed the Baron’spaternalistic system of management, and after a dispute in1887 with the Baron’s representative, Yehoshua *Ossowetzky,
he was forced to sell his property and leave the settlement, together with other founding members. He bought an oil press
in Lydda, but was forced to sell it because of financial straits.
He then opened a pharmacy in Jaffa. He was among those who
received Theodor *Herzl in Ereẓ Israel in 1898.
ISRAEL (“Lotik”; 1865–1911) younger brother of Yosef,
was born in Sebastopol, Crimea. In the early 1880s Israel settled in Rishon le-Zion, where he married Fania Belkind, amember of *Bilu. Leaving Rishon le-Zion with his brother,
Feinberg settled in Gederah, where he was one of the settlement’s first watchmen (1891) and organized the planting of eucalyptus groves to drain the swamps. In 1898 he moved withhis family to *Ḥ aderah, but, contracting malaria, was forced
to move to Jerusalem. The family returned to Ḥ aderah a few
years later, and Feinberg tried to reestablish his farm there
but died as a result of the debilitating effects of malaria andhard labor.
AVSHALOM (1889–1917) cofounder of *Nili, son of Israel.
He was born in Gederah and as a young man he studied in
France. Upon his return he worked at the agricultural station set up by Aharon *Aaronsohn at Athlit. A few months after the outbreak of World War I, he and Aaronsohn founded
the anti-Turkish intelligence network, Nili. In 1915 Feinberg
reached Egypt on an American ship, establishing contact with
British naval intelligence, who returned him to Athlit. When
Aaronsohn went to England to negotiate with the government,
Feinberg, Sarah *Aaronsohn, and Joseph *Lishansky continued to develop the intelligence ring, impatiently awaiting theresults of Aaronsohn’s mission. In 1917 Feinberg again set out
for Egypt, this time on foot, along with Lishansky, but wasshot and killed by Bedouin near the British front in Sinai. In
1967, after the Six-Day War, Feinberg’s remains were discovered near Rafa under a palm tree which had sprung from dateseeds he carried with him on his journey. He was reburied on
Mount Herzl in Jerusalem and given a state funeral. Feinberg
was one of the romantic figures of his time. His letters andmemoirs, preserved in the Nili archives at *Zikhron Ya’akov,
offer an insight into the world of the first generation born inthe new Jewish settlements. His letters and memoirs were published under the title Avshalom (1971) by A. Amir.
Bibliography: A. Yaari, Goodly Heritage (1958), index; A.
Engle, Nili Spies (1959), index; D. Idelevitch (ed.), Rishon le-Ẓ iyyon(1941), 41–47,507; M. Smilansky, Mishpaḥ at ha-Adamah, 1 (19542),

736

159–62; 2 (1954), 72–77; Dinur, Haganah, 1 pt. 1 (1954), 80f., 279,
354–62; 1, pt. 2 (1956), 730–3; J. Yaari-Poleskin, Ḥ olemim ve-Loḥ amim
(19643), 103–9; E. Livneh (ed.), Nili: Toledoteha shel He’azah Medinit (1961).
[Yehuda Slutsky]

FEINBERG, ABRAHAM (1908–1998), U.S. businessman
and organization leader. Feinberg, who was born in New
York City, received his law degrees from Fordham and New
York University. He occupied a number of prominent executive positions, among them chairmanship of the board of the
Kayser-Roth Corporation until 1964 and chairmanship of theexecutive committee of the American Bank and Trust Company. He served for several years on the New York City Boardof Education. Feinberg was highly active in American Jewish
life and on behalf of the State of Israel. He helped to organize
Jewish support for Democratic presidential candidates (e.g.,
John F. Kennedy). He had a long relationship with Brandeis
University, serving as a trustee in 1953; chairman of the boardof trustees from 1954 to 1961; a Brandeis Fellow in 1953; andwas awarded an honorary doctorate in 1961. And through his
generous donation, the International Center for Ethics, Justice and Public Life was established at Brandeis University.
Feinberg and his family also endowed the Feinberg Graduate
School at the Weizmann Institute in Israel.
Feinberg was the founder and first president of Americans for Haganah, a group formed in the early 1940s to help
provide arms and other critical materials to the yishuv in Palestine. He offered his home to Zionist leaders who were trying
to gain support of the U.S. government, and he aided European Jews seeking refuge. He accompanied Chaim *Weizmann, Israel’s first president, to his first meeting with President Harry Truman. Active in American politics, Feinberg
worked informally with the United States and Israeli governments during Middle East crises, led many Democratic fundraisers, and served as a confidant to U.S. presidents Harry Truman, John Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson.
In 1960 Feinberg was named B’nai B’rith’s Man of theYear, an event that was attended by Harry Truman.
Feinberg served as president of the Development Corporation for Israel, which conducts the worldwide sale ofIsrael Bonds, and as president of the American Committee
for the Weizmann Institute of Science. In 1966 he led a syndicate of American Jewish businessmen that successfully bid
for a franchise to produce and sell Coca-Cola in Israel, thus
breaking the company’s long-standing acquiescence to the
Arab boycott.
In 1983 Feinberg established three scholarships at theWeizmann Institute (The Belle and Philip Feinberg Scholarship; The Lillian Feinberg Scholarship; and The Shirley andJudge Wilfred Feinberg Scholarship). Feinberg also supported
numerous medical causes, including schizophrenia research inboth New York and Israel. He endowed the psychiatric wingat Schneider Children’s Medical Center for Israel.
[Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Feinberg, Kenneth
FEINBERG, ABRAHAM L. (1899–1986), Reform rabbi andactivist. Feinberg was born in Bellaire, Ohio, to immigrantparents from Grinkishok (Grinkiskis), Lithuania, which Feinberg referred to as “the birthplace of my spirit.” He earned a
B.A. from the University of Cincinnati and was ordained at
Hebrew Union College in 1924. After ordination he served ina number of American pulpits but left the rabbinate in 1929
to embark on a singing career as Arthur Frome. He returnedto the pulpit in 1935 in response to Hitler’s growing strengthand attacks on the Jews. In 1943 he accepted a position at Toronto’s Holy Blossom Temple, the premier Reform congregation in Canada. During his tenure, the Holy Blossom grew
rapidly, a testimony to Feinberg’s skills as religious leader, andespecially as a preacher. He extended his influence by being ahighly successful radio orator.
A firm believer in the prophetic ethic as emphasizedin Reform Judaism, Feinberg had supported various leftwing causes while in the United States, and threw himself
into the Canadian scene with energy. Holding that Canada should be free of all forms of prejudice, he spoke out
against antisemitism and racism including Canada’s wartime treatment of the Japanese and discrimination against
blacks in Canada. He was a crucial presence on the Joint
Public Relations Committee of the Canadian Jewish Congress
and B’nai B’rith, pressing the committee to protest mandatory
prayers and Christmas carols in Ontario public schools andto lobby for fair employment and housing practices in Ontario. Feinberg became an outspoken advocate of nuclear
disarmament and chaired the Toronto Committee for Disarmament while he continued his advocacy of civil rights
as the vice president of the Toronto Association for Civil
Rights. Feinberg’s political activism led to surveillance by
Royal Canadian Mounted Police intelligence officers. An
RCMP file eventually released to his daughter contained
1,100 pages, with even more devoured by the RCMP’s shredder.
Feinberg retired from Holy Blossom in 1961 and wasnamed rabbi emeritus. He continued his activism, protesting the war in Vietnam, and in late 1966 and early 1967 led
a delegation to meet with Ho Chi Minh. In 1972 he moved
to Berkeley, California, to be near his son Jonathan but relocated across the Bay to be the rabbi for Glide Memorial
Church, which catered to “the outcasts of our social system.”
He also became a spokesman for “gray lib,” fighting oppression of the elderly. He subsequently moved to Reno, Nevada,where he continued his advocacy for the elderly. At age 70
Feinberg resumed his singing career and released 10 songs,
but his most famous performance was singing “Give Peace a
Chance,” with John Lennon and Yoko Ono in their Montreal
hotel room in 1969.
Feinberg was the author of three books, Storm the Gates
of Jericho (1964); Rabbi Feinberg’s Hanoi Diary (1968); Sex
and the Pulpit (1981). He also wrote numerous magazine andnewspaper articles.

FEINBERG, DAVID (1840–1916), Russian communal leader.
Born in Kovno (Kaunas), Lithuania, Feinberg studied law at
St. Petersburg University. While in his twenties he attained a
responsible position in the St. Petersburg-Warsaw railroad
company and was active in promoting the organization of
a community in St. Petersburg. Feinberg was instrumental
in obtaining, with the support of Baron Horace Guenzburg,
Samuel *Poliakoff, and others, authorization for building thefirst synagogue as well as for the establishment of a Jewish
cemetery there. He enlisted the support of Adolphe Crémieux,
Baron Maurice de Hirsch, and Sir Moses Montefiore in the
struggle of Russian Jewry for rights. When the *Jewish Colonization Association (ICA) was founded in 1891 Feinberg became its secretary-general and was active in promoting Jewish
agricultural settlement in *Argentina, where one of the settlements was named after him. During World War I he did muchto relieve the sufferings of refugees.
Bibliography: S. Ginsburg, Amolike Peterburg (1944), 111–
24; Feinberg, in: He-Avar, 4 (1956), 20–36; I. Halpern, Yehudim veYahadut be-Mizraḥ Eiropah (1969), 372–3.

[Richard Menkis (2nd ed.)]

FEINBERG, KENNETH (1945– ), U.S. attorney, expert inmediation and alternative dispute resolution. Born and raisedin Brockton, Mass., Feinberg graduated cum laude from the
University of Massachusetts in 1967 and from New York University School of Law, where he was articles editor of the Law
Review, in 1970. He served as law clerk to Chief Judge Stanley
H. Fuld, New York State Court of Appeals, from 1970 to 1972.
He was assistant U.S. attorney, Southern District of New York,
from 1972 to 1975 and special counsel, U.S. Senate Committee
on the Judiciary, from 1975 to 1980. Feinberg served as administrative assistant to Senator Edward M. Kennedy from 1977 to
1979. He was a partner in the firm of Kaye, Scholer, Fierman,
Hays & Handler from 1980 to 1992, then founded The Feinberg Group in Washington, D.C., in 1993. He was also a lecturer at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, New York
University School of Law, University of Virginia Law School,
and Columbia Law School.
Feinberg served as mediator and arbiter in thousands ofdisputes, involving such issues as breach of contract, product liability, civil fraud, and various environmental matters.
He served as court-appointed special settlement master inseveral high-profile cases, including the Agent Orange product liability litigation, the RICO class action concerning theShoreham Nuclear Facility, and many asbestos personal injury litigations. He was the first trustee of the Dalkon Shield
Claimants’ Trust. Feinberg was one of three arbitrators chosen to determine the fair market value of the Zapruder filmof the John F. Kennedy assassination, and he was one of two
arbitrators selected to determine the allocation of legal feesin the Holocaust slave labor litigation.
In 2001 Feinberg was appointed Special Master of theFederal September 11t Victim Compensation Fund by Attorney General John Ashcroft. The Fund was created by federal
legislation to compensate victims and families of victims in-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6737

feinberg, leon
jured or killed in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,
provided they relinquished their right to sue. Working for 33
months entirely pro bono, Feinberg developed the preliminary
regulations governing the administration of the fund and solicited comments and criticism, which were often harsh. He
held more than two dozen “town hall meetings” with families, in addition to personal meetings. Feinberg administered
all aspects of the program, which awarded $7 billion. Families who were dissatisfied with an award could appeal throughan informal hearing; Feinberg personally presided over morethan 900 of the 1,600 hearings. At the end of the process, hewon the admiration of many of his former critics, who praised
his fairness and his willingness to adjust some aspects of boththe procedure and the awards.
In 2005 Feinberg published his book What Is Life Worth?
The Unprecedented Effort to Compensate the Victims of 9/11, in
which he details the immense challenges and difficult emotional components of his work with victims’ families. A member of the National Judicial Panel and the recipient of numerous honors, he was named Lawyer of the Year by the National
Law Journal in 2004.
[Dorothy Bauhoff (2nd ed.)]

FEINBERG, LEON (Yehude-Arye-Leyb / Leonid Grebniov; 1897–1969), Yiddish journalist, novelist, and poet. Born
in Kodyma (Ukraine), he studied at the University of Moscow,fought as a Red Guard in the Civil War, immigrated to Palestine, and traveled the world as a sailor, before settling in the
U.S. His first volume of Russian poetry (1914) was influenced by
Symbolism. Although he continued writing in Russian (further
volumes 1919, 1923, 1947), he also began writing in Yiddish. He
was on the staff of the Yiddish daily Frayhayt, and the monthly
Der Hamer. A feature writer (and later city editor) for Der Tog,
he served as president of the New York Yiddish PEN Club. His
fifteen novels include the verse novels Der Farmishpeter Dor
(“The Condemned Generation,” 1954) and Der Gebentshter
Dor (“The Blessed Generation,” 1962) which depict the lives of
two generations of Jews who were caught in the net of the Russian Revolution but succeeded in immigrating to America andPalestine. Der Khorever Dor (“The Ruined Generation,” 1967)
describes the lives of those who remained in Russia and faced
the realities of Soviet life. English translations of his work are
to be found in J. Leftwich, The Golden Peacock (1940), and J.B.
Cooperman, America in Yiddish Poetry (1967).
Bibliography: Rejzen, Leksikon, 3 (1929), 57–60. Add. Bibliography: LNYL 7 (1968), 349–53; G.G. Branover (ed.), Rossiĭskaiaevreĭskaia entsiklopediia, 3 (1997), 189–90; G. Estraikh, In Harness:
Yiddish Writers’ Romance with Communism (2005), 96–8.
[Israel Ch. Biletzky / Jerold C. Frakes (2nd ed.)]

FEINBERG, LOUIS (1887–1949), U.S. Conservative rabbi
and community leader. Born in Rossieny, Lithuania, Feinberg
was brought to the United States in 1903. He was educated in
the public schools of Philadelphia and graduated from the
University of Pennsylvania with a B.A. His Jewish education738

was received at the Talmud Torah, Gratz and Dropsie Colleges, and Yeshivah Mishkan Israel. He entered the Jewish
Theological Seminary, was ordained in 1916, graduating withhonors and serving as valedictorian of his class. He served
two years as rabbi of Congregation Ohel Jacob in Philadelphia. In 1918, he came to Cincinnati as rabbi of Adath Israel(organized in 1847). He was the first of the modern American
rabbis to come to Cincinnati. He emphasized the Saturday
morning service, introducing weekly sermons in English andcongregational singing. He organized the Adathean Society
to involve young men and women in congregational activity.
He established a congregational school when it became apparent that many members’ children were not attending the
local Talmud Torah schools. In 1933, he introduced a combined graduation and confirmation service and thus, for the
first time in a traditional synagogue, girls became eligible for
confirmation. In 1947, the congregation adopted an amendment to the constitution which provided for representationof women on the Board of Trustees.
As the congregation grew, he advocated for the enlargement of the synagogue, eventually undertaking a significant
building fund campaign. In 1927, a magnificent stone building was erected at a cost of $450,000. Several of its features
exhibited Rabbi Feinberg’s influence: the interior decoration
developed by Dr. Boris *Schatz of the *Bezalel School of Arts
and Crafts in Palestine, and the monumental dome comprising the ceiling of the sanctuary, its rim inscribed with Hebrew
inscriptions from the Pentateuch, prophets, medieval philosophers, and the modern poet Ḥ ayyim Naḥ man *Bialik, selected
and arranged by Rabbi Feinberg.
In addition to his activity within the congregation, Feinberg took a prominent role in the larger community. He served
as president of the local Board of Rabbis and on the boards of
the Bureau of Jewish Education, United Jewish Social Agencies, and Jewish Community Council. He was active in Mizrachi and in the Zionist Organization of America. A passionate
Zionist, he helped establish a Palestine Scholarship Program in
the community, which enabled five young members of his congregation to spend an entire year in Israel. He was a founderof the *Young Judea movement, and an editor of Our Jewish
Youth which later became Young Judean. In 1937, at the ageof 50, he visited Palestine himself for the first time. He called
Zionism “the newest development of the Messianic idea.”
Feinberg was a member of the Law Committee of theJewish Theological Seminary and was a founder of the Menorah Society at the University of Pennsylvania. He translated
the Laws of Charity from the Shulḥ an Arukh for the New York
School of Philanthropy, published articles on Jewish law in
Hebrew, Yiddish, and English, and wrote short stories about
Jewish life under the pseudonym Yishuvnik. A graduate fellowship at JTS was created in his memory, and the congregation sponsored the publication of a posthumous collectionof his essays, The Spiritual Foundations of Judaism, edited by
Emanual Gamoran.
[Nancy Klein (2nd ed.)]

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Feingold, Russell
FEINBERG, NATHAN (1895–?), international jurist. Born
in Kovno (Kaunas), Lithuania, Feinberg studied internationallaw in Zurich and Geneva. In 1919–21 he was departmental
head of the Ministry of Jewish Affairs in Lithuania; 1922–24
secretary of the *Comité des Délégations Juives at Paris; andhe conducted a private law practice in Palestine in 1925–27 andagain in 1934–35. From 1931–33 he lectured at Geneva University. In 1945 he was appointed lecturer in international relations at the Hebrew University, in 1947 also in internationallaw, and professor in 1949; he was the first dean of the university’s Faculty of Law (1949–51). Feinberg served from 1962
as one of Israel’s representatives on the International Courtof Arbitration in the Hague. His published work is mainly
concerned with Jewish minority status in post-World War I
Europe (La question des minorités à la Conférence de la Paix
1919–20, 1929); with the Palestine mandate in internationallaw (Some Problems of the Palestine Mandate, 1936; Ereẓ Yisrael bi-Tekufat ha-Mandat u-Medinat Yisrael, 1963); with the
Jewish defense against Hitler and the Nazis (Ha-Ma’arakhah
ha-Yehudit neged Hitler…, 1957); as well as with the Arab-Jewish conflict (Arab-Israel Conflict in International Law, 1970).
Feinberg was co-editor of the Jewish Year Book of International
Law (1949) and edited a volume of studies in public international law in memory of Sir Hersh Lauterpacht (1962).
FEINBERG, ROBERT (1912–1975), U.S. labor lawyer andarbitrator. He was labor counsel of the United Jewish Appeal,
the Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of New York, the National Jewish Welfare Board, the Development Corporation
for Israel, the Jewish Child Care Association of New York, theJewish Board of Guardians, the National Council of Jewish
Women, the Jewish Family Service, the Jewish Association for
Service, and other philanthropic agencies and organizations.
Feinberg was senior partner in the law firm of Guggenheimer
and Untermyer, and held positions with the National War
Labor Board and the National Wage Stabilization Board.

deau, “Sur Samuil Feinberg,” in: Cycle Scalkottas, Paris 1998–1999(1999), incl. catalogue of works.
[Marina Rizarev (2nd ed.)]

FEINBRUNDOTHAN, NAOMI (1900–1995), Israel botanist. Born in Moscow and raised in Kishinev, Feinbrun-Dothan immigrated to Palestine in 1924. Working with Alexander*Eig, she helped gather the plants which formed the basis for
the Hebrew University’s herbarium. She was part of the Hebrew University from its establishment, becoming a full professor in botany in 1966. She was instrumental in preparationand publishing of Flora Palaestina. In 1991 she was awarded
the Israel Prize for knowledge of the Land of Israel.
[Fern Lee Seckbach (2nd ed.)]

FEINGOLD, DAVID SIDNEY (1922– ), chemist. Feingold
was born in the United States and studied at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Zurich. He
immigrated to Israel in 1949 and obtained his Ph.D. at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem before joining the department of
microbiological chemistry at the Hadassah Medical School. He
received the Israel Prize for exact sciences (1957) jointly withhis colleagues Gad Avigad and Shlomo Hestrin. He returnedto the University of California (1956) and was appointed professor of microbiology at the University of Pittsburgh Schoolof Medicine (1966). Feingold’s research concerned sugar metabolism in bacteria and the bean sprout phaseolus aureus
and in particular the synthesis of polysaccharides in bacterial cell walls. He also studied the implications for clinicalinfections, particularly by pseudomonas, and anti-bacterial
chemotherapy.

Add. Bibliography: NG2; V. Belyayev, Samuil Feinberg(1927); L. Sabaneyev, Modern Russian Composers (1927); I. Likhacheva(ed.), S. Ye. Feinberg: Pianist, kompozitor, issledovatel’ (1984); C. Siro-

FEINGOLD, RUSSELL (1953– ), U.S. senator. Feingold wasborn in Janeville, Wisc., which had a small Jewish community and no synagogue, so Feingold and his sister were taken
on a 90-mile round trip to attend Hebrew school at a Reformcongregation. As a high school student he won the state debating championship and then went on to earn his B.A. withhonors from the University of Wisconsin in Madison, where
he was elected to Phi Betta Kappa. He then attended Oxford
on a Rhodes Scholarship (1976) and then Harvard Law School(LL.B., 1979). His interest in politics was intense and after a
few years in private practice, at the age of 29 he was electedto the Wisconsin State Senate, where he served for 10 years,
earning his spurs as chair of the Committee on Aging, Banking, and Communication.
He challenged incumbent Senator Robert Kasten (R-WI)
who had heavy support from the Jewish community becauseof his chairmanship of the influential Foreign Operations SubCommittee of the Appropriations Committee, the sub-committee where foreign aid is allocated. Despite Feingold’s clear
Jewish identity, under the incumbency rule, pro-Israel PACs
and politically active Jews supported Kasten. If an incumbent had a strong pro-Israel record, Jewish political activists
continued their support regardless of whom the challenger

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6739[Milton Ridvas Konvitz]

FEINBERG, SAMUEL YEVGENYEVICH (1890–1962), pianist and composer. Born in Odessa, Feinberg graduated from
the Moscow Conservatory in 1911 (as a pianist, class of Goldenveizer) and was appointed professor of piano (from 1922)
and director of the piano faculty from 1936 until his death.
As a composer he studied with Zhilyaev and was a memberof the ASM (Association of Contemporary Music). His music
was modernist and influenced by Scriabin, although it frequently contained folklore elements. Among his compositions were three piano concertos: 1931, 1944 (awarded the Stalin Prize), and 1947; 12 piano sonatas; and a sonata for violin
and piano. He wrote Sudba muzykalnoy formy (“The FutureMusical Form,” 1968) and Pianizm kak iskusstvo (“The Art ofPiano Playing,” 1968).

feinman, sigmund
was. Thus, Feingold was widely outspent. Characteristically,
he made light of his lack of Jewish support, expressing shockthat his support for Israel and Jewish bona-fides were called
into question. “I am the only candidate for the Senate whose
sister is a rabbi living in Israel,” he would say. Feingold madehis modest support a badge of honor. He won a surprising
victory.
In the Senate Feingold was a fiscal hawk, attacking unwarranted expenditures in the federal budget. His national
prominence came from his co-sponsorship with Senator John
McCain of the McCain-Feingold bill that attempted to limit
campaign spending and soft-money contributions. They did
not succeed in passing their bill during his first term. Feingold
placed stringent restrictions on his own fundraising for reelection. Caught in a close race, he refused an offer of $500,000
from the Democratic National Committee and voters gave
him a narrow victory. McCain-Feingold finally became law
early in the Bush Administration. And once again in his reelection bid of 2004, Feingold held fast to his own standards
despite serious political opposition.
His positions were generally liberal. Feingold voted
against an antiterrorism measure because he objected toits provisions regarding inmates on death row. He fought aconstitutional amendment to prohibit flag burning in keeping with Wisconsin’s progressive tradition. He was an earlyand consistent opponent of the war in Iraq, believing that it
diverted attention from the fight against terrorism. Though
Wisconsin had fewer than 30,000 Jews it was represented bya second Jewish senator as well, Herbert *Kohl.
Bibliography: L.S. Maisel and I. Forman, Jews in American Politics (2001); K.F. Stone, The Congressional Minyan: The Jews
of Capitol Hill (2002).
[Michael Berenbaum (2nd ed.)]

FEINMAN, SIGMUND (1862–1909), Yiddish actor-manager.
Born near Kishinev, Feinman acted in Bessarabia and Romania, went to New York in 1886, and worked with *Adler, *Mogulesko, and *Kessler, doing his best work in Jacob Gordin’s
plays. Returning to Europe in 1906, he and his wife Dinah(formerly married to Jacob Adler) established a reputation in
London and on the Continent. He played Othello in Romania,
1909, and died while rehearsing in Lodz. Manuscripts of Feinman’s own plays and translations were acquired by the *YIVOInstitute. His wife DINAH FEINMAN (1862–1946) acted in A
Doll’s House, Mirele Efros, and La Dame aux Camélias.

FEINSTEIN, ARYEH LOEB (1821–1903), Lithuanian scholar
and writer. Feinstein was born in Damachev near BrestLitovsk. He was a successful businessman in that city, active
in communal affairs, and wrote a history of its Jewish community, Ir Tehillah (1886, repr. 1968). He also published a
Passover Haggadah with commentary, Talpiyyot (1870), anda commentary on Psalms under the same title (1896). Among
his other works are Migdal David (1895), on talmudic discussions of David and his dynasty; Divrei Ḥ akhamim ve-Ḥ idotam(1895), on the *Rabbah b. Bar Ḥ ana tales; and Elef ha-Magen(1900), linguistic studies.
Bibliography: Kressel, Leksikon, 2 (1967), 626–7; EG, 2(1955), index.

FEINSTEIN, DIANNE GOLDMAN (1933– ), U.S. Democratic senator from California. Feinstein was a centrist legislator and a pioneering politician. She was the first woman tobe elected president of San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors(1969), mayor of San Francisco (1978), nominated by a major
party for governor of California (1990), elected U.S. senatorfrom California (1992), and appointed to the Senate Judiciary
Committee (1993).
The daughter of Dr. Leon Goldman, a prominent surgeon,
and his wife Betty (Rosenburg), Feinstein started a public service career at a young age. Born and raised in San Francisco,
she attended Stanford University where she won her first election as vice president of the Student Body. Upon graduation in1955 she was awarded a Coro Foundation fellowship to study
public policy. Five years later the governor appointed her tothe California Women’s Board of Terms and Parole, where she
served until 1966. Elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1969, Feinstein served for nine years, five years as
Board president. She was serving in this capacity in 1978 when
Mayor George Moscone was assassinated in his city hall office. Feinstein became the acting mayor. A year later, she waselected in her own right, serving the city from 1978 to 1988
when term limits forced her from office. In 1990 the Democratic Party nominated Feinstein for governor, she was narrowly defeated. Two years later, California voters sent her tothe U.S. Senate to fill two years of a vacated seat; she was subsequently elected to full six-year terms in 1994 and 2000.
For much of her career Feinstein focused on crime prevention. As mayor of San Francisco she cut the crime rate 27
percent. A successful advocate for victims of crime and crime
prevention, she was instrumental in passing the Gun-Free
Schools Act (1994); the Hate Crimes Sentencing Enforcement
Act (1993); the Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control
Act (1996); and the Assault Weapons Ban 1994–2004. Supportive of the Jewish community, Feinstein was a member ofCongregation Emanu-El in San Francisco, California, where
she was confirmed.

FEINSINGER, JOSHUA (Shaye; 1839–1872), Russian ḥ azzan.
Born in Lithuania, Feinsinger was taught singing by his father,himself a ḥ azzan. After completing his musical training, hebecame chief ḥ azzan in the Polish town of Leczyca. In 1868
he was appointed chief ḥ azzan in Vilna. Possessing a phenomenal voice and originality of expression, Feinsinger became famous as one of the greatest ḥ azzanim of the mid-19t
century. His most notable compositions were for the *Yoẓ erprayers for the Sefirah Sabbaths.

Bibliography: A.F. Kahn and G. Matthews, “120 Years of
Women’s Activism,” in: A.F. Kahn and M. Dollinger (eds.), California Jews (2003).
[Ava F. Kahn (2nd ed.)]740

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

feinstein, moses
FEINSTEIN, ELAINE (1930– ), English novelist, poet, andtranslator. Born in Bootle, Feinstein was educated at Cambridge University. She has worked as an editor for the Cambridge University Press and lectured in English at Bishop’s
Stortford Training College and the University of Essex until
1970. She is now a full-time writer. Feinstein published her firstnovel, The Circle, in 1970. She also translated The Selected Poems of Marina Tsvetayeva (1971) and Three Russian Poets: Margarita Aliger, Yunna Moritz, Bella Akhmadulina, (1978). As an
editor she chose the Selected Poems of John Clare (1968) and,with Fay Weldon, New Stories 4 (1979). She has also publishedvolumes of short stories and plays, Breath (1975) and Echoes(1980). The Holocaust is central to Children of the Rose (1975)
and The Border (1984). She also wrote a book on the blues
singer Bessie Smith (1985).
Her prodigious literary output includes volumes of poetry such as The Magic Apple Tree (1971), At The Edge (1972)
and The Celebrants and Other Poems (1973). Feinstein is regarded as an important English novelist. She has described
her early fiction as an “extension” of her poetry as her novels
combine the poetic with a larger historical canvas. Her fiction, therefore, has ranged through European history and,at the same time, has retained a poetic use of language andmyth. With remarkable economy, several of Feinstein’s novels, Children of the Rose (1975), The Ecstasy of Dr. Miriam Garner (1976), The Shadow Master (1978), and The Border (1984),
incorporate the violence, fanaticism, and pseudoapocalyptic
character of modern history. The ever-present themes of exileand betrayal in Feinstein’s novels are given a wider historicaldimension which shapes the lives of her cosmopolitan characters. The Survivors (1982), an autobiographical novel, has
an exclusively English setting and uses the compressed formof a conventional family saga. Feinstein is also a biographerof note, having written lives of Pushkin (1998), Ted Hughes(2001), and Lawrence’s Women (1993), about the love life of
D.H. Lawrence.
Feinstein consciously writes in a Central European literary tradition. She is the first post-war English-Jewish novelist to successfully eschew the parochial concerns and formsof expression of the Anglo-Jewish novel and has located her
sense of Jewishness in a wider European context. The Border
is a representative example of Feinstein’s ability to express
in an exciting love story a multifarious vision of the world
made up of history and autobiography, poetry and myth,
literature and science. In this way, Feinstein has managed
to broaden the concerns of the Anglo-Jewish novel and develop a lasting poetic voice in a distinct and imaginative
manner.

of the Jews of using the trolley on the Sabbath, and wrote a
treatise, Imrei Shabbat (1874), in which he vehemently opposed
this custom. He published Torat Immekha (1886), in which he
opposed other practices of Baghdadi Jews. In *Cochin (which
he visited twice) he took the side of the “Non-White Jews,” ashe called the “Black Jews,” and fought for their emancipation,
maintaining that they were actually the early settlers while the“White Jews” were newcomers. He expressed these views in
his Mashbit Milḥ amot (1889) which he submitted to the Cochin Jews and to the chief rabbi of Jerusalem, Meir Panigel.
His report appeared as a supplement to the second edition of
his Imrei Shabbat (1889).
Bibliography: A. Yaari, Ha-Defus ha-Ivri be-Arẓ ot haMizraḥ , 2 (1940), 29, 30; idem, in: Sinai, 4 (1939), 416–21; 26 (1950),
342–4; D.S. Sassoon, Ohel Dawid, 2 (1932), 966–7; Bar-Giora, in: Sefunot, 1 (1947), 265–6.
[Walter Joseph Fischel]

FEINSTEIN, MEIR (1927–1947), Jew condemned to deathby the British in Palestine. Feinstein was born in the Old Cityof Jerusalem. In his youth he went to work in the kibbutz of
Negbah, where he joined the *Palmaḥ , and at the age of 16
volunteered for service in the British army. In 1946 he joined
the I.ẓ .L. and on Oct. 30 took part in an attack on the railway
station of Jerusalem. During his get-away, fire was opened on
him from a passing car and he was badly wounded in his left
hand. As a result, whereas his companions managed to escape,he took refuge in a house and the bloodstains enabled his pursuers to find him. After his left hand was amputated he was put
on trial and sentenced to death on Apr. 3, 1947. He shared thecondemned cell with Moshe *Barazani, and the date of their
execution was fixed for the morning of the 21st. At 9 p.m. on
the previous evening, they placed an explosive charge, which
had been smuggled into the cell, between their hearts and set
it off, thus cheating the gallows.
Bibliography: Y. Nedava, Olei-ha-Gardom (1966); Y. Gurion, Ha-Niẓ ẓ aḥ on Olei Gardom (1971).

FEINSTEIN, Ḥ AYYIM JACOB HAKOHEN (second halfof the 19t century), emissary from Safed who visited the Jewish communities in the Orient, including Aden, Yemen, andIndia. He was in the last country three times, in 1866, 1873, and1887. While in Calcutta, he noted disapprovingly the practice

FEINSTEIN, MOSES (1895–1986), rabbi and leader of American Orthodoxy. Feinstein was born in Uzda, near Minsk, Belorussia, where his father, from whom he received his earlyeducation, was rabbi. In 1921 he became rabbi of Luban, near
Minsk, where he served until he immigrated to the UnitedStates in 1937. There Feinstein was appointed rosh yeshivah of
New York’s Metivta Tiferet Jerusalem. Under his guidance, it
became one of the leading American yeshivot. Feinstein arrived in America with three children: Faye Gittel, who married a distinguished rabbi, Moses Shisgal; Shifra, who married
Rabbi Dr. Moses Tendler, long-time rabbi in Monsey, New
York, as well as teacher of Talmud and professor of biology
at Yeshiva University; and David, who succeeded his father
as the head of Metivta Tiferet Jerusalem. A son, Reuven, wasborn in America. He became the head of the Metivta Tiferet
Jerusalem branch in Staten Island, New York City.
After World War II, Feinstein became one of the leading
figures in Orthodox Jewry in America. After the death of the

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6741[Bryan Cheyette]feinstein, moses
rosh yeshivah of the Lakewood Yeshiva, Rabbi Aaron *Kotler, Feinstein became the acknowledged leader of Orthodoxy.
While he did address broader, communal issues throughout
his lifetime, his major impact was in the realm of Halakhah.
His reputation grew rapidly to the point that his rulings were
accepted as authoritative by Orthodox Jews throughout theworld. Feinstein’s responsa are entitled Iggerot Moshe, the first
four volumes follow the Shulḥ an Arukh: Oraḥ Ḥ ayyim (1959),
Yoreh De’ah (1959), Even ha-Ezer (1961), and Ḥ oshen Mishpat(1963), while subsequent volumes (1973, 2 vols. in 1981, 1996)
contain responsa from different sections of the Shulḥ an Arukh.
A detailed index to Iggerot Moshe, entitled Yad Moshe was published in 1987. He also published his talmudic novellae entitledDibrot Moshe to Bava Kamma in two volumes (1946, 1953), to
Bava Meẓ ia (1966), to Shabbat in two volumes (1971, 1976), to
Kiddushin and Yevamot (1979), to Gittin (1982), to Ḥ ulin and
Nedarim (1983), and to Ketubbot and Pesaḥ im (1984). Darash
Moshe, his sermons on the weekly Torah reading and the holidays, were published posthumously in 1988.
Feinstein’s world view encompassed the world of Torah.
“My entire world view,” he wrote (Iggerot Moshe 2:11), “stems
only from knowledge of Torah without any mixture of outsideideas, whose judgment is truth whether it is strict or lenient.
Arguments derived from foreign outlooks or false opinionsof the heart are nothing.” Nevertheless, Feinstein was keenly
aware of the world around him, constantly applying the principles of Torah law to new situations and circumstances. Indeed,
when he dealt with medical problems, he always consulted
with leading physicians, often asking for a second opinion. He
demanded to understand the medical issues in depth. Feinstein served as the posek (halakhic decisor) for many medical
students and doctors as well as for the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists.
Feinstein’s responsa deal with a very broad range of issues
and topics. He devoted a great deal of time to grappling withproblems in Jewish education. He had little tolerance for theteaching of secular studies; however, he permitted it because ofgovernment regulations (ibid. 3:83). He demanded that science
textbooks agree with the idea that God created the world (ibid.
3:73). He was unyielding in his opposition to coed classes, but
he did allow women to teach boys, acknowledging the realityof the educational world in America. He required fathers to
pay for the tuition for their daughters’ education.
The Modern Orthodox community in America also
looked to Rabbi Feinstein for halakhic guidance. At times,
his answers to their questions exhibited a flexibility he did notshow to the ultra-Orthodox community. For instance, Feinstein permitted fathers to be present at school performanceswhere girls under the age of 11 sang, even though he frowned
upon the practice (ibid. 1:26).
Other topics that received his attention include the heightof the meḥ iẓ ah (partition) in the synagogue, the use of glassin constructing a meḥ iẓ ah, renting a hotel ballroom for HighHoly Day services, allowing an American owner of an Israeli
factory to keep his factory open on the second day of Yom

742

Tov, the status of children conceived through artificial insemination, and allowing shoḥ atim (ritual slaughterers) toform their own union.
Feinstein, highly regarded for his dedication and selflessness, was elected to positions of importance in the Orthodox
Jewish world. He was president of the *Union of Orthodox
Rabbis and chairman of the American branch of the Mo’eẓ etGedolei ha-Torah of Agudat Israel. He was also active in guiding and obtaining support for Orthodox Israeli educational
institutions, particularly the Ḥ innukh Aẓ ma’i school system
of Agudat Israel. Despite his public, communal involvement
and his role as the leading posek of the second half of the 20tcentury, Feinstein was renowned for his simple lifestyle, hispiety, and his humility.
Feinstein passed away during the night before the Fastof Esther, March 23, 1986. Over 150,000 people attended thefuneral services in New York. Eulogies were given by rabbis
from the entire spectrum of Orthodoxy, from a representativeof the Satmar ḥ asidic community to two speakers from Yeshiva University. He was buried three days later in Jerusalem.
An obituary notice appeared in the “Milestones” section ofTime magazine (April 7, 1986, p. 42). Perhaps the most tellingindication of his impact on Orthodox Jewry in the 20t century is the saying that every rabbi receiving Orthodox ordination in America needed two things upon graduation: A lu’aḥ ,a calendar that lists all the changes in the prayer services, andRabbi Moses Feinstein’s telephone number.
Bibliography: O. Rand (ed.), Toledot Anshei Shem (1950),
98. A. Rakefet (Rothkoff), in: Niv ha-Midrashia (Spring-Summer
1971), 58–71; I. Robinson, in: Judaism, 35 (1986), 35–46; M.D. Angel,
in: Tradition, 23:3 (1988), 41–52; N. Baumel Joseph, in: American Jewish History, 83:2 (1995), 205–22; W. Kelman, in: Survey of Jewish Affairs 1987 (1988), 173–87; M.D. Tendler, in: Pioneers in Jewish Medical
Ethics (1997), 55–68; F. Rosner, in: Pioneers in Jewish Medical Ethics(1997), 47–75; N. Sherman, in: Jewish Observer, 19:7 (1986), 8–30; S.
Finkelman, Reb Moshe: The Life and Ideals of HaGaon Rabbi Moshe
Feinstein (1986); D. Hartman, “Setiyah u-Gevulot ba-Halakhah haOrtodoxit be-Et ha-Ḥ adashah,” dissertation (2003).
[David Derovan (2nd ed.)]

FEINSTEIN, MOSES (1896–1964), Hebrew poet and educator. Born in Russia, Feinstein arrived in the United Statesin 1912. He devoted his life to Herzliah – the Hebrew Academy and Teachers’ Institute which he founded in New Yorkin 1921. His volumes of poetry are the lyrical Shirim ve-Sonettot (“Poems and Sonnets,” 1935); Ḥ alom ve-Goral (“Dreamand Destiny,” 1937), a description of a journey to Palestine;and Abraham Abulafia (1957), a philosophical poem about
the 13t-century mystic. Feinstein’s collected poems appeared
posthumously in a volume called Al Saf ha-Sof (“At the Threshold of the End,” 1964).
Bibliography: Silberschlag, in: JBA, 23 (1965/66), 70–76; A.
Epstein, Soferim Ivrim ba-Amerikah, 1 (1952), 125–41; R. Wallenrod,
The Literature of Modern Israel (1956), index; Waxman, Literature, 4(19602), 1072–73; 5 (19602), 192–4.
[Eisig Silberschlag]

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Feith, Douglas J.
FEINSTONE, MORRIS (1878–1945), U.S. labor leader. Feinstone, born in Warsaw, was trained as a woodcarver there.
After completing school he emigrated to England where hebecame president of a woodcarvers’ union in London (1895).
Later in Birmingham he was active in the beginnings of the
British Labour Party. In 1910 Feinstone emigrated to the U.S.
where he found employment in various skilled trades, securing permanent work in the umbrella industry. He soon became
an official of the Umbrella Handle and Stick Makers’ Union
and an important figure in the United Hebrew Trades, an organization which sheltered the smaller and weaker American
Jewish trade unions. Feinstone was a close associate of theorganization’s outstanding leader, Max Pine, whom he succeeded as United Hebrew Trades’ secretary in 1928. Feinstone
continued Pine’s policy of supporting the socialist labor sector in Jewish Palestine through the Histadrut. He also represented the United Hebrew Trades on the executive board of
the Central Trades and Labor Council of Greater New York,wrote articles in the New York Call and the Yiddish Jewish
Daily Forward endorsing socialism and labor Zionism, andworked for the establishment of an independent labor party.
With the advent of the New Deal, Feinstone’s socialist teachings were incorporated by the American Labor Party, which
satisfied his desire for a working class political organization.
Thereafter, until his death he concentrated on obtaining support for Jewish labor in Palestine.
[Melvyn Dubofsky]

FEIS, HERBERT (1893–1972), U.S. economic historian. Feis,
who was born in New York City, was an instructor in economics at Harvard (1920–21), associate professor at the Universityof Kansas (1922–25), and professor and head of the department of economics at the University of Cincinnati (1926–29).
Between 1922 and 1927 he was U.S. adviser to the International
Labor Office of the League of Nations. In 1930, he becamea member of the staff of the Council on Foreign Relations,in 1931 economic adviser to the U.S. State Department, andfrom 1937 to 1943 he was adviser on international economics.
Feis was a special adviser to the U.S. secretary of war
from 1944 to 1946, and during that period was chief technical adviser to the World Economic and Monetary Conferencein London. From 1948 he was a member of the Institute forAdvanced Study at Princeton. His many publications include
Europe, The World’s Banker 1870–1914 (1930, 19653), The Spanish Story (1948, 19662), The Road to Pearl Harbor (1950, 19642),
The Diplomacy of the Dollar (1950, 19652), The China Tangle(1953, 19653), Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin (1957, 19662), Between
War and Peace – the Potsdam Conference (1960, 19672), Japan
Subdued (1961), Foreign Aid and Foreign Policy (1964, 19662),
1933: Characters in Crisis (1966), The Atomic Bomb & the Endof World War II (1966), and The Birth of Israel: The Tousled
Diplomatic Bed (1969). Feis was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in1961 for Between War and Peace, which dealt with the originsof the Cold War.
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

In 1982 the American Historical Association establishedthe Herbert Feis Award, which is offered annually to recognize the scholarly interests of historians outside academe andthe importance of the work of independent scholars in the
United States.
Feis’ wife, Ruth, was the granddaughter of James Garfield,
the 20t president of the United States.
Bibliography: Current Biography Yearbook, 1961 (1962),
156–8. Add. Bibliography: D. Yergler, Herbert Feis, Wilsonian
Internationalism, and America’s Technological-Democracy (1993).
[Joachim O. Ronall / Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]FEITELSON, MENAHEM MENDEL (1870–1912), Hebrew
writer and critic. Feitelson, who was born in Mikhailovka,
Crimea, taught in Melitopol, and was active in the Hebrew
Language Association in that city. A contributor to the Hebrew press from his youth, he later published articles of topicalinterest and literary criticism. He wrote for Ha-Meliẓ (a comprehensive study of Mendele Mokher Seforim), Ha-Ẓ efirah,
and other journals. After publishing Meḥ karim be-Korot Yisrael (1890), he gave up writing for a time, taught in Sebastopol, and at the turn of the century settled in Yekaterinoslav.
There he wrote a series of articles on Hebrew writers for HaShilo’aḥ and also contributed to other periodicals. Unable tofind employment in the literary centers of Eastern Europe, hegrew increasingly depressed and committed suicide in 1912.
The immediate reason for Feitelson’s suicide is believed to be
Mendele’s insulting remarks to him regarding the essay he had
written on Mendele. I. Cohen edited a collection of Feitelson’s
prose, Beḥ inot ve-Ha’arakhot (1970), which includes an essayon the writer by A.B. Jaffe.
Bibliography: F. Lachower, in: M.M. Feitelson, Ketavim(1914); N. Goren, Mevakkerim be-Sifrutenu (1944), 59–68; Waxman,
Literature, 4 (19602), 412–3; J. Barzilai, Ha-Shilo’aḥ 1896–1927 (1964),[index to Ha-Shilo’aḥ ], 41.
[Getzel Kressel]

FEITH, DOUGLAS J. (1953– ), U.S. government adviser.
Born and reared in Philadelphia, where his father, Dalck
Feith, a Holocaust survivor, was a prominent businessman
and philanthropist. Feith was educated at Harvard College(magna cum laude 1975) and Georgetown University Law
Center (magna cum laude 1978). He began his public careerin 1975, working as an intern on Senator Henry M. (“Scoop”)
Jackson’s Subcommittee on Investigations. Feith then servedin the Reagan Administration as a National Security Council
Middle East specialist and as Richard Perle’s deputy at the Pentagon. Throughout the 1990s, he advised Republican membersof Congress on a range of national security matters, including
the Gulf War, arms control, and Bosnia. Feith has written numerous newspaper and journal articles on national security
issues such as terrorism, missile defenses, chemical weapons,
U.S.-Soviet relations, and the Middle East
In July 2001 Feith was appointed by President George W.
Bush as under secretary of defense for policy, effectively the743feiwel, berthold
third-ranking civilian position in the U.S. Department of Defense. Following the September 11, 2001, attack on the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon, Feith played an importantrole in developing U.S. government strategy for the war on
terrorism, advising Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld on policy
issues relating to Afghanistan, Iraq, and other aspects of thewar. Feith was instrumental also in other defense initiatives,
including realigning the U.S. global defense posture, adding
new members to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization andreforming NATO’s military and civilian structures, creating
new U.S. defense ties in South Asia, launching of the Global
Peace Operations Initiative to increase the capacity of various
countries to send forces abroad to keep or enforce the peaceand negotiating with Russia the Moscow Treaty on offensive
nuclear weapons.
Like a number of Jewish intellectuals who grew up inliberal, pro-Franklin Delano Roosevelt homes, Feith came toidentify himself with a group of “neo-conservatives” serving
in or supporting the Reagan Administration who viewed theCold War as a clash of basic philosophical principles, not justa great power contest. Feith also staked out contrarian views
on such issues as the “oil weapon” (he thought its power exaggerated and the financial costs would be high for whateverstate tried to use it), arms control treaties (he thought theirbenefits were illusory), and the Oslo peace process (he predicted it would fail as a result of Arafat’s deficient statesmanship and lack of commitment to peace). Those views generated controversy and helped make him a lightning rod later
for critics of the Iraq War of 2003. While rejecting the label ofWilsonian idealism, Feith, along with Natan *Sharansky andPaul Wolfowitz, has helped elaborate the idea, which President George W. Bush has made central to U.S. foreign policy,
that democratic institutions are the route to peace and prosperity and that peoples in the Middle East, as elsewhere, will
choose freedom and democratic political institutions if given
the chance.
Feith’s community work included service as president of
the Charles E. Smith Jewish Day School.
[Mark Feldman (2nd ed.)]

FEIWEL, BERTHOLD (1875–1937), Zionist leader and poet.
Born in Pohrlitz, Moravia, Feiwel began his higher education in Brno, where he founded the Zionist student organization Veritas. In 1893 he studied law at Vienna University andbecame Herzl’s close associate, helping to organize the First
Zionist Congress in 1897. He contributed to the central organof the Zionist Organization, Die Welt, and became its editorin-chief in 1901. In his articles he emphasized that Zionism
cannot content itself with the political and diplomatic activityof its leaders; it must also bring about the renewal of Jewish
spiritual and social life in the Diaspora. At the first Conference of Austrian Zionists at Olmuetz (1901), Feiwel introduced
a program of Zionist Diaspora activity, arguing that Zionism
means not only the Jewish people seeking refuge in Ereẓ Israel,
but also preparing itself (in the Diaspora) for its future com-744

monwealth. Diaspora work covered the whole range of Jewish
life in the countries of dispersion: political, economic, cultural,and sporting activities. When his program was rejected by
the Zionist Executive, Feiwel resigned as editor of Die Welt
and, together with Martin Buber, Chaim Weizmann, andothers, created the Democratic Fraction as an oppositiongroup at the Fifth Zionist Congress. Together with Martin
Buber, Davis Trietsch, and the painter E.M. Lilien, Feiwel
founded the *Juedischer Verlag, a publishing house that distributed mainly German translations of Hebrew and Yiddish
literature.
In 1903, after the *Kishinev pogrom, Feiwel published
Die Judenmassacres in Kischinew under the pseudonym Told.
Based on an on-the-spot investigation, this book shocked
public opinion. Feiwel had close contacts with Jewish authors
in Eastern Europe and became a gifted translator of theirworks. In the book Junge Harfen (1914) he presented theirmodern poetry. The Juedischer Almanach (1902), an anthology edited by Feiwel, as well as Lieder des Ghetto (1902, 1920),
translations of poems of the Yiddish poet Morris Rosenfeld
with drawings by E.M. Lilien, also had considerable literaryinfluence. After World War I (1919), Feiwel’s friend Weizmann
summoned him to London to become his political and economic adviser. When Keren Hayesod was founded (1920),
Feiwel became one of its first directors. In 1933 he settled in
Jerusalem.
Bibliography: Berthold Feiwel ha-Ish u-Fo’alo (1959); Ch.
Weizmann, Trial and Error (1949), index. Add. Bibliography:
A. Schenker, Der juedische Verlag 1902–1938 – Zwischen Aufbruch,
Bluete und Vernichtung (2003).
[Samuel Hugo Bergman]FEJÉR, LEOPOLD (1880–1959), Hungarian mathematician.
Fejér was educated in Budapest and Berlin. He spent a year
in Berlin where he met H.A. Schwarz who had a decisive influence on his mathematical career. He was appointed professor at Budapest in 1911 and elected to full membership in the
Hungarian Academy of Sciences in 1930. After being dismissedfrom his chair during World War II he narrowly escaped being killed by the fascist regime. Fejér’s Ph.D. thesis contained
the classic result now known as Fejér’s theorem that “a Fourier
series is Cesàro summable (C,1) to the value of the function
at each point of continuity.” This key result gave great impetus to further developments in Fourier and divergent series.
A complete list of his publications is given in Matematikai
Lapok (vol. 1 (1950), 267–72).
Bibliography: G. Pólya, in: Journal of the London Mathematical Society, 36 (1961), 501–6.
[Barry Spain]

FEJTÖ, FRANÇOIS (Ferenc; 1906– ), author, critic, andjournalist. Fejtö was born in Zagreb. Together with P. Ignotus and A. József, he was a founder of the Hungarian literary
journal Szép Szó (Budapest, 1935). In 1938 he was accused by
the Budapest police of being a Communist and fled from HunENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6Felder, Gedalia
gary, settling in Paris. An expert on Eastern European politics,
Fejtö was a prominent socialist and an independent thinker.
Both in his political writings and in his fiction he was preoccupied with the Jewish question, particularly the relationshipof Jews and Communists. His works include Érzelmes utazás(“Sentimental Journey,” 1937), Chine–URSS, la fin d’une hégémonie (1964), Henri Heine (1946), and Le printemps des peuples dans les pays communistes (1960).
Bibliography: Magyar Irodalmi Lexikon, 1 (1963), 341.
[Baruch Yaron]

FEKETE, MICHAEL (1886–1957), Israel mathematician.
Born at Zenta, Hungary, Fekete was associated with the Hungarian School of Mathematics and was assistant at Budapest
University from 1912 to 1919. In 1928 he accepted a positionas lecturer at the Institute of Mathematics in the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, becoming professor in the following year.
From 1946 to 1948 he was rector of the university. A dedicatedteacher, he laid the foundations of mathematical studies andresearch there, and played an important part in the development of his department.
Fekete’s many and varied contributions included the theory of numbers, algebraic equations, and above all the theoryof functions. He considered his greatest achievement to havebeen the discovery of the transfinite diameter, which won him
the Israel Prize for the exact sciences in 1955.

FELDBERG, LEON (1910– ), South African newspaper publisher and editor. Son of the rabbi of Krok, Lithuania, he went
to yeshivot in Ponevezh and Slobodka, and received a rabbinical diploma. He started his journalistic career in Riga, working for Yiddish newspapers. In 1929, he emigrated to South
Africa and, after serving as a minister and teacher, went intobusiness. In 1936 he established the weekly South African Jewish Times, which he edited until 1969. He also set up a printing
and publishing plant and issued the South African Jewish Year
Book (1960, 1961) and South African Jewry (1965, 1967).
[Lewis Sowden]

FELD, JACOB (1899–1975), U.S. civil engineer. Born in Austria, Feld was taken to the U.S. in 1906. He was a graduate ofCity College, N.Y., and got his Ph.D. from the University ofCincinnati. His engineering designs and constructions include the New York Coliseum, Guggenheim Museum, Yonkers Raceway, Sixth Avenue Subway of N.Y.C., airfields, anda naval training station. He was a special consultant to the
U.S. Air Force and in 1959 became chairman of the engineering division, New York Academy of Science and later becamepresident of the academy and a fellow of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), which cited him in 1969 as
Metropolitan Engineer of the Year. Feld was active in Jewish
community affairs.

FELDER, GEDALIA (1921/2–1991), Canadian rabbi andhalakhic authority. Felder was born in Iczuki-dolne in Galicia and studied in the local yeshivah and with other rabbis
in Poland, including Yeshivat Keter Torah Radomsk in Cracow. His father, Hersch, immigrated to Canada in 1930, living briefly in Winnipeg and then in Montreal before bringing
his family to Canada in 1937. Felder continued his studies inMontreal and then in Toronto under Rabbi Abraham Priceat his Yeshivat Torat Chaim. Felder received his ordinationfrom Price in 1940.
Between 1940 and 1949 Felder served as rabbi for several small Jewish communities in southern Ontario: Sarnia(1941–43), Belleville (1943–45), and Brantford (1945–49). Oneof his students in the last town spoke of the menschlichkeit ofFelder and the warm reception students received in his household. Between 1943 and 1945 Felder was a part-time chaplain
with the Royal Canadian Air Force for Trenton and District.
In 1949 Felder moved to Toronto, where he remained for the
rest of his life. Upon his arrival, Felder assumed the pulpit ofShomrei Shabbos, a synagogue founded by Galician Jews in
the late 19t century. He taught at Price’s Yeshivat Torat Chaim
and was a staunch supporter of the Eitz Chaim Talmud Torah,
the school established by Polish Jews several decades earlier.
In Toronto, he also served for years as the chairman of the
Va’ad ha-Kashrut of the Central Region (i.e., Ontario) of theCanadian Jewish Congress, and was a supporter of the Mizrachi organization. Felder did not cut himself off from non-Orthodox Jews, participating in the Toronto Rabbinical Fellowship, which brought together for discussion rabbis of various
denominations, including, among others, Walter Wurzberger(Orthodox), Stuart *Rosenberg (Conservative), and Gunther*Plaut (Reform).
Felder achieved an international reputation on the basisof his halakhic works: the Yesodei Yeshurun (6 vols., 1954–70),
which deals with laws regarding the liturgy, the Sabbath, andPassover; the two-volume Naḥ alat Ẓ evi (1952–72) in which hegrapples with the thorny issues of adoption, proselytes, anddivorce; some of his early responsa are collected in She’elot
u-Teshuvot She’elat Yeshurun (1964); and in 1977 Felder published an edition of Sefer Tanya Rabbati, a work attributed toJehiel ben Jekuthiel ha-Rofe Anav of 13t century Italy. Felder
also published in a host of journals devoted to halakhic issues. In recognition of Felder’s erudition, he was appointed

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6745

Bibliography: J.C. Poggendorf, Biographisch-literarisches
Handwoerterbuch, 2 (1937), S.V. (incls. list of his works).
[David Maisel]

FELD, ISAAC (1862–1922), poet who wrote in German. Bornin Lvov, Feld studied and practiced law, in addition to teaching throughout his life. One of the members of Ḥ ovevei Zionin Galicia, his Dort wo die Zeder was a very popular Zionist
song. It first appeared in the journal Selbstemanzipation in theearly 1880s, and was later included in many German, Yiddish,and Hebrew anthologies of Jewish songs. It was published withmusic in the Blauweiss Liederbuch (1914).
Add. Bibliography: N.M. Gelber, Toledot ha-Tenu’ah haẒ iyyonit be-Galicia, index.
[Getzel Kressel]

Feldheim, Philipp
one of the five members of the Beth Din of the RabbinicalCouncil of America.

[Richard Menkis (2nd ed.)]

FELDHEIM, PHILIPP (1901–1990), U.S. publisher of sacred books and translations in English translation. Born in
Vienna, Feldheim was sent away to a series of yeshivot in Europe where he studied under the direction of Rabbi JosephẒ evi *Duschinksy. He returned to Vienna, where he was active in communal affairs, most especially Agudat Israel. Arrested on *Kristallnacht Feldheim resolved to leave Austria
and immigrated to the United States with thirty dollars in his
pocket. He settled in Williamsburg, where he first sold books
from his apartment and received shipments of Jewish sacredbooks from Europe. From his apartment he moved to rented
quarters and then decided to publish books instead of only
importing them.
He was involved in printing the first Talmud to be printed
in the United States. He moved to Washington Heights in 1950,
where he came under the influence of Rabbi Joseph *Breuer,
who encouraged him to translate important Jewish books
into English, much as the community in Germany had madesacred works available in German. Feldheim undertook the
publication of the English translation of the writings of Rabbi
Samson Raphael Hirsch and Rabbi Elie Monk, and such works
as The Path of the Just and the Gates of Repentance and Irving
Bunim’s Ethics from Sinai. He was both a distributor and publisher and spearheaded the creation of an English-language
ultra-Orthodox corpus of works, essential for reaching a newgeneration of Jews comfortable in the English language.
[Michael Berenbaum (2nd ed.)]

FELDMAN, ABRAHAM JEHIEL (1893–1977), U.S. Reform rabbi and a Zionist leader. Feldman was born in Kiev,
Ukraine, immigrating to New York in 1906 and settling in thelower East Side. He went to college at the University of Cincinatti where he received his B.A. (1917) and he was ordained
at Hebrew Union College (1918). He then served in pulpits at
the Free Synagogue in Flushing, the Congregation Childrenof Israel in Athens, Georgia, and Keneseth Israel in Philadelphia, where the illness of the senior rabbi forced him to assume responsibilities ordinarily not given to a younger rabbi.
In 1925, he moved to Beth Israel of Hartford, Conn., where
he served as rabbi until his retirement in 1968, setting a tradition of longevity that was to mark the religious leadershipof Connecticut’s capital. In the New Deal, he served as education director for the National Recovery Administration inConnecticut and later was State Chairman of the National Recovery Administration Adjustment Board. He was a founderwith Samuel Neusner of the Connecticut Jewish Ledger andserved as editor until 1977. He was a master orator, who feltthat the sermon may not only inform the mind but shape theheart. He perceived himself as the Jewish ambassador to the
non-Jewish world and taught a course at the Hartford Theological Seminary. A distinguished leader in state and commu-

746

nal affairs, he has also been prominent in rabbinical circles
and was president of the Central Conference of American
Rabbis during 1947–49, President of the interdenominational
Synagogue Council of America (1955–57). A prolific author
and journalist, activist rabbi and communal Rabbi Feldman
wrote 26 books and many scholarly articles as well as literally
thousands of journalistic pieces. Among his books are Why
I am a Zionist (1945) and American Reform Rabbi (1965), as
well as many articles.
Bibliography: L. Karol, “Rabbinic Leadership in the Reform
Movement as Reflected in the Life and Writings of Abraham Jehiel
Feldman” (Rabbinic Thesis, Hebrew Union College); A.J. Feldman,
The American Jew (1964).
[Abram Vossen Goodman]

FELDMAN, HERMAN (1889–1969), U.S. army officer. Born
in New York, Feldman joined the army as a private in thefield artillery. During World War I he was sent to France andwas commissioned in the field artillery. During World War II
Feldman again served in the quartermaster corps, eventually
being promoted to major general. At the end of the war, Feldman was awarded the Legion of Merit for outstanding services
in England and North Africa. A second Legion of Merit wasawarded by Admiral Nimitz for outstanding service in the
Pacific. He also earned the Distinguished Service Medal andArmy Commendation Medal for his service in World War II.
In 1949 Feldman was nominated by President Truman as quartermaster general. He retired in 1951 after a distinguished 43year army career.

[Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]

FELDMAN, IRVING (1928– ), U.S. poet. Feldman taught
at Kenyon College from 1958 to 1964, and subsequently at the
New York State University in Buffalo. His poetry, including
The Pripet Marshes (1965), is frequently on Jewish themes. In
his reading of Feldman’s poetry, found in The Hollins Critic of
February 1997, David Slavitt has called the poem “The Pripet
Marches” “one of the dozen or so most interesting and powerful poems of our generation.” Feldman’s poems are found,as well, in his Collected Poems, 1954–2004 (2004).
Bibliography: H. Schweizer (ed.), The Poetry of Irving Feldman (1992).
[Lewis Fried (2nd ed.)]

FELDMAN, LOUIS H. (1926– ), U.S. professor of classics
and literature. Born in Hartford, Connecticut, Feldman received his undergraduate degree from Trinity College in 1946,
and his master’s degree in 1947; his doctoral degree in classicalphilology is from Harvard University (1951). He was a teaching
fellow at Trinity in 1951 and 1952, then an instructor in classics
in 1952 and 1953. He was an instructor at Hobart and William
Smith Colleges from 1953 to 1955, then joined Yeshiva University of New York as an instructor in humanities and history. He
was an assistant professor at Yeshiva University from 1956 to
1961, an associate professor from 1961, and he was appointed
a professor of classics in 1966. He subsequently became the
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

feldman, sandra
Abraham Wouk Family Professor of Classics and Literature.
Feldman served as associate editor of Classical Weekly from1955 to 1957 and as managing editor of Classical World from1957 to 1959.
Feldman is renowned as a scholar of Hellenistic civilization, specifically of the works of Josephus. A fellow of theAmerican Academy for Jewish Research, he received numerous fellowships and awards, including a Ford Foundation fellowship (1951–52), a Guggenheim fellowship (1963), a grantfrom the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture (1969), anda grant from the American Philosophical Association (1972).
He was named a senior fellow of the American Council of
Learned Societies in 1971, a Littauer Foundation fellow in 1973,
and a Wurzweiler Foundation fellow in 1974.
Feldman’s works include Scholarship on Philo and Josephus, 1937–1962 (1963), Josephus and Modern Scholarship,
1937–1980 (1984), Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian (1993),
Studies in Hellenistic Judaism (1998), and Studies in Josephus’
Rewritten Bible (1998). He was editor and translator of Jewish
Antiquities, Books 18–20 (1965) and editor of Jewish Life andThought among Greeks and Romans: Primary Readings (1996).
He coedited, with Gohei Hata, Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity (1987) and Josephus, the Bible, and History (1989). Feldman contributed extensively to journals in his field, and he
was departmental editor of Hellenistic literature for the firstedition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica and a contributor to theEncyclopaedia Brittanica.
[Dorothy Bauhoff (2nd ed.)]

FELDMAN, MARTIN (“Marty”; 1934–1982), British comedian and scriptwriter. Born in London to Orthodox Jewish
parents, Marty Feldman left school at 15 and, in 1957, joined
the BBC as a staff writer, continuing for ten years as a televisionand radio comedy scriptwriter for such shows as BBC radio’s
Round the Horne. From 1967 he was chiefly an actor, his trademark bulging eyes and gangling frame being instantly recognizable. He became internationally famous in the five years
after he moved to Hollywood in 1974, co-starring with Gene
*Wilder in such cult comedies as Young Frankenstein (1974),
in which he played “Igor,” and Silent Movie (1976). Like many
clowns, in private life Feldman was a sad, unhappy man. Hisbulging eyes were caused by a chronic thyroid deficiency, andhis manic-depressive personality led to dependence on drugs
and alcohol. He died of a heart attack at the age of 48.
Bibliography: ODNB.
[William D. Rubinstein (2nd ed.)]

FELDMAN, MIROSLAV (1899–1976), Yugoslav poet andplaywright. A practicing physician, Feldman was born in Virovitica. His first poems appeared in 1920. Later collections
included Ratna lirika (“War Lyrics,” 1947) and Pitat će kako
je bilo (“They Will Ask How It Was,” 1959). Among his successful dramas were Zec (“Rabbit,” 1932), Profesor Žić (1934),
U pozadini (“Behind the Lines,” 1939, 19532), and Doći će dan
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6(“The Day Will Come,” 1951). Feldman, who dealt mainly with
war and love themes, was president of the Croatian Writers’
Association (1955). He also wrote theatrical pieces and in 1976
was awarded the AVNOJ prize (the highest literary award). At
first a Zionist, he later embraced Communism.
FELDMAN, MORTON (1926–1987), U.S. composer. Born in
New York City, Feldman began studying the piano with Vera
Maurina-Press at the age of 12 (the work Madame Press Died
Last Week at Ninety was written in 1970 in her memory), andlater studied composition and counterpoint with Wallingford
Riegger and Stefan *Wolpe. With composers John Cage, Earle
Brown, and Christian Wolff and pianist David Tudor, he became part of an American avant-garde group interested inbringing to music the same aesthetic concepts of art and expression that had marked the abstract expressionist American
painters (such as de Kooning and Pollock) of the early 1950s.
His earliest works, Projections (1950–51), explored the fieldof indeterminacy in music and the use of graphic notation.
Although Feldman later varied and combined his methodsof notating works, he was always concerned with examining
the extreme limits of slowness (in durations and tempi) andsoftness (of dynamic range) of which music is capable, andwith timbres created by non-traditional methods, e.g., pianosounds produced without traditional forms of attack. His output was large: many piano pieces for soloist and combinationsof two and three pianos, notably Last Pieces; and orchestraland ensemble works – Numbers, for nine instruments; Atlantis(1958); Structures for Orchestra (1960–62); Out of Last Pieces;
For Franz Kline, for soprano and four other players; Rabbi
Akiba, for soprano and ten instruments; On Time and the Instrumental Factor, for small orchestra (1969); and the seriesof pieces for solo viola and various groupings of accompanying instruments entitled The Viola in My Life. He worked
on films, and collaborated on the ballet Summerspace (1966)
with choreographer Merce Cunningham and painter Robert
Rauschenberg. In 1971 Feldman wrote Rothko Chapel for soloists, chorus, and instrumental ensemble which was commissioned as a tribute to the painter, who had died a year before. Some of the composer’s late works reflected his interestin the woven patterns in Anatolian rugs and in Jasper John’scrosshatch paintings (Why Patterns, 1978, Crippled Symmetry,
1983). Coptic Light (1986), Feldman’s last orchestral work, wasinspired by the early Coptic textiles at the Louvre. Feldman
defended his aesthetics in a number of essays (Essays, ed. W.
Zimmermann, Kerpen, 1985).
Add. Bibliography: NG2; MGG2; T. DeLio (ed.), The Musicof Morton Feldman (1985).
[Max Loppert / Yulia Kreinin (2nd ed.)]

FELDMAN, SANDRA (1939–2005), U.S. teacher, trade union
activist, and labor union executive. Born in New York City to
Milton and Frances Abramowitz, Feldman earned an M.A.
degree in English literature from New York University. Active in the civil rights movement of the 1960s, she also taught

747

feldman, shimshon simon
elementary school on the Lower East Side of Manhattan. In
1966 Feldman became a full-time field representative for New
York City’s United Federation of Teachers. She worked her way
through the ranks following in the footsteps of her mentor, Albert *Shanker. In 1986, she became the first woman presidentof the largest local union in the United States. She served until 1997, when on May 6, the national American Federation ofTeacher’s executive council unanimously elected her the 15t
president of the national organization. In the same month, she
was also elected a vice president of the American Federation ofLabor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO).
As a public school educator, Feldman devoted herself
to improving the working conditions of teachers, promoting
higher educational standards for students, and strengthening curricula in the schools. During her tenure as presidentof the American Federation of Teachers, the organization experienced record growth, representing more than one million
educators, healthcare professionals, public employees, and retirees. Feldman’s second husband was Arthur Barnes, former
president of the New York Urban Coalition.
Feldman supported the rights and concerns of children,
women, and workers on local, national, and global levels
through her association with the Council on Competitiveness,
the International Rescue Committee, the A. Philip Randolph
Institute, the Jewish Labor Committee, the Coalition of Labor
Women, the New York Urban League, Women’s Forum, Women’s Committee on Refugee Children, Child Labor Coalition,
the United States Committee for UNICEF, and the National
Council of Americans to Prevent Handgun Violence.
Bibliography: R. Holub. “Feldman, Sandra,” in: P.E. Hyman
and D. Dash Moore (eds.), Jewish Women in America: An Historical
Encyclopedia, vol. 1 (1997), 404–5; “Feldman, Sandra,” in: Who’s Who
in America 2004, vol. 1, 1568–69. Website: www.aft.org.

death. As editor of the Cracow monthly Krytyka (1901–14) andas a literary critic, Feldman was prominent in the progressive literary movement, Mloda Polska (“Young Poland”). His
critical works include Współczesna literatura polska (“Contemporary Polish Literature,” 1903, 19308), a study whichroused considerable controversy owing to his radical opinions; and Współczesna krytyka literacka w Polsce (“Contemporary Literary Criticism in Poland,” 1905). Among Feldman’s political books are Stronnictwa i programy polityczne w
Galicji, 1846–1906 (“Political Parties and Programs in Galicia
1846–1906,” 2 vols., 1907); and Dzieje polskiej myśli politycznej
w okresie porozbiorowym (“History of Polish Political Thought
since the Partitions,” 3 vols., 1920). Although Feldman wrote
novels on Jewish themes, his unsympathetic attitude became
increasingly evident. Two works on Jewish problems were
Asymilatorzy syoniści i polacy (“Assimilationists, Zionists andPoles,” 1893); and Stosunek Adama Mickiewicza do Żydów
(“Mickiewicz’s Attitude to the Jews,” 1890).
Wilhelm Feldman’s son JóZEF (1899–1946), historian,
was professor at the Jagellonian University of Cracow. His
books include Polska i sprawa wschodnia 1709–1714 (“Poland
and the Eastern Question 1709–1714,” 1926) and Problem polsko-niemiecki w dziejach (1946, tr. of previous version PolishGerman Antagonism in History, 1935).
Bibliography: Pamęci Wilhelma Feldmana (1927), incls.
bibl.; E. Mendlesohn, in: Slavic Review, 18 (1969), 577–90; Księga
Pamiątkowa ku czci Józefa Feldmana (= K. Tymieniecki and Z. Woyciechowski (eds.), Roczniki Historyczne, no. 18, 1949), incls. Frenchsummaries; Polski Słownik Biograficzny, 6 (1948), 396–404. Add.
Bibliography: E. Mendelsohn, “Wilhelm Feldman ve-Alfred Nosig,
Hitbollut ve-Ẓ iyyonut be-Lvov,” in: Galed II, 89–111.
[Moshe Altbauer]

FELDMAN, WILHELM (1868–1919), Polish author andcritic. Born in Zbaraz, Galicia, he was of ḥ asidic origin, but
advocated assimilation and was in fact converted before his

FELDSHUH, TOVAH (1952– ), U.S. actress. Born Terri Sue
Feldshuh in New York, she attended Scarsdale High School,
Sarah Lawrence College, and the University of Minnesota,
studying drama under Uta Hagen. She switched to using her
Hebrew name Tovah when a boyfriend in college complainedthat Terri Sue sounded too Southern, in marked contrast to
generations of Jewish actors who changed their names. She
made her stage debut in July 1971 playing small parts in Cyranode Bergerac at the Guthrie in Minneapolis. Her Broadway debut followed in 1973, when she played two parts in the musicalCyrano. In 1974 Feldshuh appeared as Myriam in the comedy
Dreyfus in Rehearsal on Broadway, in the title role in Yentl at
the Brooklyn Academy of Music Playhouse, and in the musical revue Rodgers & Hart at the beginning of 1975. In October
1975, she reprised her role in Yentl on Broadway at the Eugene
O’Neill Theater, which earned her a Tony nomination and a
Theater World Award. Feldshuh’s extensive and acclaimed film
and television career includes appearances on the soap opera
Ryan’s Hope (1975) and in the made-for-TV movie The Amazing Howard Hughes (1977) as Katharine Hepburn, followed
by her role as Czech freedom fighter Helena Slomova in the1978 TV mini-series Holocaust. Years later, Feldshuh would

748

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6[Peggy K. Pearlstein (2nd ed.)]

FELDMAN, SHIMSHON SIMON (1909–1995), leader of
the Jewish Ashkenazi community of Mexico. He was born inSkvira, Ukraine, and studied in a talmud torah, and in a Russian public school. His mother died before his 13t birthday,
and in 1924 he immigrated alone to Mexico. During his firstyears there he worked as a peddler. In 1928 he opened his first
shop and brought his father and brothers to Mexico. In the
1930s he prospered and at the end of World War II owned anumber of factories. In 1942 he joined the Board of the Ashkenazi Nidhei Isroel congregation. In 1942 he became its president – a position he held for 50 years. In this role he dedicatedhimself to the strengthening of Jewish education and to thedevelopment of Jewish schools, to religious community life, tosupplying Jewish and non-Jewish needs, and to giving moral
and material support to the State of Israel.
[Efraim Zadoff (2nd ed.)]felix libertate
also narrate the film testimony at the U.S. Holocaust Museum.
From 1991, she had a repeat role as defense attorney Danielle
Melnick on the crime drama Law & Order. Her feature film
roles include The Idolmaker (1980), Daniel (1983), Brewster’sMillions (1985), Saying Kaddish (1991), Citizen Cohn (1992), A
Walk On the Moon (1999), and Kissing Jessica Stein (2001). In
1989, Feldshuh returned to Broadway as Maria in Lend Me a
Tenor at the Royale Theater, which earned her a third Tonynomination. Her fourth Tony nomination came in 2004 forher one-woman show about the life of Golda Meir, Golda’s Balcony. Other awards and nominations include four Drama Deskawards, four Outer Critics Circle awards, the Obie, the Emmy,
the Eleanor Roosevelt Humanities Award, Hadassah’s Myrtle
Wreath, and the Israel Peace Medal. Married to attorney Andrew Harris-Levy, Feldshuh has two children. Pulitzer Prizenominated playwright David Feldshuh is her brother.
[Adam Wills (2nd ed.)]

FELEKY, GÉZA (1890–1936), Hungarian journalist, author,
and art critic. Born in Budapest, he wrote on art for Nyugat(“West”) and later joined the liberal newspapers, Pesti Napló(“Budapest Daily”) and Világ (“World”). He was editor in chiefof Világ (1920–25), and later became a director of Magyar Hirlap (“Hungarian News”). He strove to regain Jewish rights lostunder the Horthy regency and was author of historical essays,
including Kaiser und Krieg (1933).
°FELIX, ANTONIUS, procurator of Judea 52–60 C.E. He
was a brother of the freedman Pallas, who was influential in
Rome. Felix, appointed to the procuratorship by the emperor
Claudius, married Drusilla, daughter of Agrippa I (cf. Acts
24:24). Felix’s period of office was one of constant unrest. Tacitus (Historiae 5:9; Annales 12:54) states scathingly that “withall manner of cruelty and lust he exercised royal function in
the spirit of a slave.” Immediately on his arrival in Judea heseized Eleazar b. Dinai, the leader of the *Sicarii, together witha number of his men, and sent them in chains to Rome; hecrucified many more. Taking advantage of the hostility of theSicarii toward certain classes among the Jews, Felix encouraged them to assassinate the high priest Jonathan, who hadpresumed to advise him on how to conduct affairs in Judea. He
ruthlessly crushed any real or imaginary attempt at rebellion.
Believing an exhortation by a prophet to go into the wilderness to be an incitement to insurrection, he dispatched a force
which killed many who had been persuaded to go there (Jos.,
Ant., 20:166). An Egyptian prophet promised to demonstrate
to the masses his power to make the walls of Jerusalem fall ata simple command. When he arrived at the Mount of Olives
with his followers, Felix attacked them and killed many, although the prophet himself escaped (cf. Acts 21:38). In Caesarea, the residence of the procurator, a civic dispute between
the Syrians and the Jews erupted into violence. When the Jews
refused to desist, Felix sent soldiers against them. During Felix’s term of office, the apostle Paul was imprisoned. According to the New Testament, he was kept in custody to please the
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Jews (Acts 23:24; 24:27), but this motive is difficult to accept
in view of all that transpired during Felix’s procuratorship.
The more probable explanation is that Paul’s being a Romancitizen prevented Felix from treating him as he had others. In
60 C.E. Felix was succeeded by *Festus Porcius, under whom
the conflict in Caesarea continued.
Bibliography: Jos., Loeb (ed.), vol. 9, index; Pauly-Wissowa,
2 (1894), 2616–18, no. 54; Schuerer, Hist, 180, 228–34.
[Lea Roth]

FELIX LIBERTATE (Lat. “Happy through Freedom”), nameof a society founded in Amsterdam in February 1795 with theobject of attaining Jewish emancipation in the Netherlands
and spreading enlightened ideas among Amsterdam Jewry.
The society was sponsored by a number of prominent – mainly
Ashkenazi – Jews, including M.S. *Asser and Dr. H. de H.
Lemon, who wanted to enlist opinion both inside and outside
the Jewish community for obtaining full civic rights for the
Jews. Leaders of Amsterdam Jewry, who did not allow themto spread their views in the synagogue, opposed their activities. Contrary to the Orangist majority of the Jewish community, the members of Felix Libertate were sympathizers of
the party of the Radical Patriots. Attempts by the municipal
council to intervene in the dispute were unsuccessful. One of
the first acts of Felix Libertate was the translation of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen into Yiddish.
Felix Libertate failed to win general approval from other revolutionary societies, although one-third of the membershipwas not Jewish. They therefore conducted an active campaign
both verbally and in print to have their resolution for Jewish
emancipation accepted. Pamphlets were published by M.S.
Asser and David *Friedrichsfeld, among others, stressing thecompetence of Jews as active citizens and a republican universalist outlook. On September 2, 1796, the National Assembly
declared complete emancipation. Subsequently, Felix Libertate
demanded a revision of the statutes of the Amsterdam Ashkenazi community, especially those regulating its governing
body and care of the poor. When the parnasim rejected theseclaims, 21 members seceded from the community and founded
the Adath Jessurun congregation, whose members were excommunicated by the existing parnasim. The two communities engaged in bitter controversy and both published a Yiddish journal entitled “Discourse” (Yid. ‫)דישקוהרש‬, one issued
by the older body, the so-called “Alte Kehile” and the otherby the “Naye Kehile” (1797–98). When two members of Felix
Libertate, Bromet and Lemon, were elected to the National
Assembly, they dismissed the parnasim with the help of thegovernment in March 1798. However, the parnasim succeeded
in having the dismissal annulled when a less extreme groupcame to power (June 1798). Subsequently, Felix Libertate discontinued its activities. The Adath Jessurun congregation existed until it was reunited with the old kehillah by a decree ofKing Louis Bonaparte in 1808.
Bibliography: Bloom, in: Essays … Salo Wittmayer Baron(1959), 105–22; M.E. Bolle, De opheffing van de autonomie der Kehilloth749

feller, abraham howard
in Nederland 1796 (1960); Bloemgarten, in: Studia Rosenthaliana, 1
pt. 1 (1967), 66–99, pt. 2, 45–70; 2 pt. 1 (1968), 42–65. Add. Bibliography: J. Michman, Dutch Jewry during the Emancipation Period 1787–1815. Gothic Turrets on a Corinthian Building (1995); J. Michman and M. Aptroot, Storm in the Community. Yiddish Polemical
Pamphlets of Amsterdam Jewry 1797–1798 (2002).
[Jozeph Michman (Melkman) / Bart Wallet (2nd ed.)]

FELLER, ABRAHAM HOWARD (1905–1952), U.S. lawyer
and government official. Feller was born in New York City. He
taught at Harvard from 1931 to 1934, specializing in international law. Entering government service in Washington, Feller
worked in a variety of federal agencies for the next 12 years,
as special assistant to the U.S. Attorney General’s Office, as
legal consultant to the Office of Lend-Lease Administration,and during World War II as general counsel of the Office of
War Information and general counsel of the UN Relief and Rehabilitation Administration. In 1946 he was appointed general
counsel to the United Nations, a position in which he functioned as chief legal adviser to Secretary-General Trygve Lie.
Several days after Lie’s resignation in 1952, Feller leaped to his
death from his New York apartment. Although he himself had
made no such declaration, his suicide was widely interpreted
both nationally and internationally as a protest against the
Senate Internal Security Committee’s investigation of alleged“Communist penetration” of the American delegation to the
UN. His book The United Nations and the World Community(1952) appeared shortly before his death.
FELLER, SHNEYUR ZALMAN (1913– ), lawyer. He wasborn in Botosani (North Moldavia) and studied law at the
University of Jassy. In 1944, as a refugee in the Soviet Union,
Feller was appointed public prosecutor in Kishinev. He returned to Romania in 1946 and worked as a lawyer in Botosani
where he was also deputy mayor and president of the Jewish
community. From 1948 he was successively judge and publicprosecutor. He held other high offices in the Ministry of Justice and in 1951 was appointed professor of jurisprudence at
the University of Bucharest. Between 1949 and 1961 he published many articles and notes on criminal law and drafted
the Romanian penal code. Feller, who emigrated to Israel in
1963, joined the Hebrew University in 1965, and became professor of criminal law in 1968. In 1971 he was named dean of
the Law Faculty and in 1972 he became a full professor. In 1981
he retired from the Hebrew University, but continued to teachvoluntarily at the Faculty and at the Ramat Gan Law College.
In 1994 he was awarded the Israel Prize.

versity, where he was appointed professor of economics andsubsequently chairman of the department. Regarded as oneof America’s premier economists, Fellner served the UnitedStates government as consulting expert to the U.S. Treasury
Department and the National Securities Board. In 1973 he wasappointed by President Nixon to the U.S. Council of Economic
Advisers. That year he was also appointed one of the first resident scholars of the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. He also served as a policy adviser to the*European Community.
His major publications include a treatise on War Inflation(1942), Monetary Policies and Full Employment (1946), Competition among the Few (1949), Trends and Cycles in Economic
Activity (1956), Emergence and Content of Modern Economic
Analysis (1960), Probability and Profit (1965), Maintaining and
Restoring Balance in International Payments (1966), Ten Economic Studies in the Tradition of Irving Fisher (1967), Towards
a Reconstruction of Macroeconomics (1976), Contemporary
Economic Problems (1978–81), and Economic Theory Amidst
Political Currents: The Spreading Interest in Monetarism andin the Theory of Market (1982).
Bibliography: B. Balassa, Economic Progress, Private Values,
and Public Policy: Essays in Honor of William Fellner (1972); J. Marshall, William J. Fellner: A Bio-Bibliography (1992).
[Joachim O. Ronall / Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]

FELMAN, AHARON LEIB (1867–1893), pioneer in citrus
culture in Ereẓ Israel and author of the first Hebrew book on
the subject. Felman was born in Mezhirech and in 1884 hesettled in Ereẓ Israel with his family. He worked in his father’sorchard near Jaffa, learning citrus culture from the Arabs. Felman saw the future of Jewish settlement in Ereẓ Israel in theplanting of groves on the Coastal Plain, and to train future settlers he wrote a short book on citrus culture entitled Ma’yan
Gannim (“Spring of the Gardens”), printed in Jerusalem in
1891. It is written in the language of the Mishnah and deals
with many aspects of citrus culture, from the purchase of land
to the planting of trees, their care, and the cure for various diseases. He died in Petaḥ Tikvah.
Bibliography: A. Felman, Ḥ aluẓ ei ha-Pardesanut ha-Ivrit
be-Ereẓ Yisrael (19401, 115–7; Tolkowsky, Peri Eẓ Hadar (1966), 253f.
[Avraham Yaari]

FELLNER, WILLIAM JOHN (1905–1983), U.S. economist.
Fellner was born in Budapest and studied at the university
there. Fellner’s main interests lay in economic analysis andmonetary policies. He was a partner in an industrial enterprise and lectured in economics in Budapest before going to
the U.S. in 1938. He taught economics first at the Universityof California at Berkeley and, beginning in 1952, at Yale Uni-

FELS, U.S. family of manufacturers and philanthropists.
JOSEPH FELS (1853–1914) was born in Halifax County,
Virginia. After living in North Carolina, the Fels family moved
to Baltimore, where Joseph left school at 15 to join his father’ssoap manufacturing business. In 1875 he went into the soap
business on his own in Philadelphia. He began manufacturingsoap and washing powders by the naphtha process in 1893, andby 1896 the Fels-Naphtha Company’s products were so successful that Fels was able to devote most of his time to philanthropic causes. He came to believe that his fortune had beenamassed by robbing society, and sought to spend it on causesthat would end the unregulated free enterprise system which

750

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

felzenbaum, michaelallowed some men to accumulate great wealth at the expenseof others. In 1905 he was converted to Henry George’s “singletax” philosophy, which Fels preferred to call “Christianity.” Fels
believed that God had given land to all the people of the earth,and tax on the unearned increments of landowners would enable all society’s members to share the land’s bounties. Substantial financial contributions by Fels helped the single tax
movement throughout the world, especially in England, where
he and his wife lived during 1901–11. He proselytized for the
single tax wherever he traveled, as well as for various political reform movements. Fels financed colonies in the UnitedStates and England that provided work for the unemployed;
he supported the women’s suffrage movement in the Western world, and helped social welfare agencies in England.
Fels organized the first mass deputation of English women
to present petitions to Parliament describing the plight of thepoor in London’s East End. He was one of the first American
manufacturers to institute profit sharing for his workers. Fels
backed the Zionist movement and was active in the Jewish
Territorial Organization.
MARY FELS (1863–1953). a distant cousin of her husband
Joseph, was born in Sembach, Bavaria, and was taken to the
U.S. in 1869. She helped her husband with his projects until
his death, after which she concentrated her efforts on Zionist
activities. She organized the Joseph Fels Foundation in 1925 toadvance human welfare through education and to promote theexchange of culture and ideas, especially between the UnitedStates and Ereẓ Israel. Mary Fels edited the magazine The Public (1917–19) and wrote a biography of her husband (1916).
SAMUEL SIMEON FELS (1869–1950), Joseph’s younger
brother, was born in Yanceyville, N.C. A partner in the FelsNaphtha Company, he funded the Fels Planetarium in Philadelphia (1934). In 1936 he established the Samuel S. Fels Fundto promote research in the natural and physical sciences. He
also created the Fels Institute of Local and State Government
at the University of Pennsylvania.

in Mobile, Alabama. He was a founder and secretary of the
Chicago Juedisches Reformverein. A statement of Reform
views which he published in 1859, Kol Kore ba-Midbar: Ueber Juedische Reform, attracted some attention, and when the
Reformverein developed into the Sinai Congregation, he became its first rabbi (1861). He was ordained by Einhorn andSamuel Adler. In 1864 Felsenthal became rabbi of the newly
formed Zion Congregation, which he headed until his retirement in 1887. Felsenthal was a constant student and, though
he wrote no books, wielded a ready pen. When questions on
ritual came to him, he generally took an advanced Reformview. In several instances he dissented from the proposals of
Isaac M. *Wise. Thus, he strongly opposed the establishmentof a rabbinical seminary, believing that conditions in America
did not provide a satisfactory foundation. On the other hand,
he advocated Jewish day schools. In 1879 he declined a professorship at Hebrew Union College. In later years Felsenthal became concerned with the threat to the Jews in America posedby religious indifference, and feeling that the course taken by
Reform was preparing a “beautiful death” for Judaism, became
an enthusiastic supporter of the Zionist movement. Felsenthal
was a founder of the Jewish Publication Society of America
and of the American Jewish Historical Society.
Bibliography: E. Felsenthal (ed.), Bernhard Felsenthal,
Teacher in Israel (1924), includes extracts from his writings and bibliography; Stolz, in: CCARY, 18 (1908), 161; idem, in: AJHSP, 17 (1909),
218–22. Universal Jewish Encyclopedia (1941) 4: 273–274. Add. Bibliography: K. Olitzky, L. Sussman, and M.H. Stern, Reform Judaismin America: A Biographical Dictionary and Sourcebook (1993).
[Sefton D. Temkin]

FELSENTHAL, BERNHARD (1822–1908), U.S. Reform
rabbi. Felsenthal was born in Munchweile, Germany. He intended to enter the Bavarian civil service, but seeing no prospect of being admitted, he attended a teachers’ seminary at*Kaiserslautern and taught in Jewish schools before settlingin the U.S. in 1854. There Felsenthal served a congregationin Madison, Indiana, as officiant and teacher; then in 1858
he moved to Chicago as clerk in a banking house, while also
devoting himself to rabbinical and theological study. Deeply
influenced by David *Einhorn, Felsenthal became one of thefirst protagonists of Reform Judaism in the Midwest. He wasa strong opponent of slavery and refused to accept a pulpit

FELZENBAUM, MICHAEL (Mikhoel; 1951– ), Yiddish
writer. Born in Vassilkoe (Ukraine), Felzenbaum studied
drama in Leningrad (1968–74) and then founded the Yiddish
Cultural Society in Belz, where he was active in the theater and
the Pedagogical Institute (1974–88). In 1991 he immigrated to
Israel. As co-founder and later editor of the annual Naye Vegn
(1992), executive director of the Yiddish Culture Center in Tel
Aviv, and head of the H. Leyvik Publishing House, he won theDovid Hofshteyn Prize (1999) for his multifaceted and sociallyprovocative work. His dramatic and narrative œuvre, which
unites the Jewish, modern Yiddish, and European and American literary traditions, is marked by a postmodern, “post-Yiddish” character. An antithetical process operates in his improvised intertextual world that strives toward primordial chaos,
where nothing begins at the beginning, but everything is revealed in its grotesque and absurd dimensions. Traditional
myths and fairy tales function as empty, anachronistic vessels
without creative-metaphorical significance in the post-Holocaust world. While the prose works display earthy and mordant qualities, his poems exhibit a sensitivity and thoroughly
developed spontaneity characteristic of folk songs. His works
appeared in the most important Yiddish literary journals; hisbook publications are Es Kumt der Tog (“Day Arrives,” 1992),
A Libe Regn (“Rain of Love,” 1994), Der Nakht-Malekh (“An-ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6751

Bibliography: Steffens, in: American Magazine (Oct. 1910),
744–6; M. Fels, Joseph Fels, His Life-Work (1916); Howe, in: Survey (March 28, 1914), 812–3; Zangwill, in: Voice of Jerusalem (1921),
337–49; New York Times (May 17, 1953), 88; Kellogg, in: Survey, 86(1950), 135.
[Robert Asher]feminism
gel of the Night,” 1997), Un Itst Ikh Bin Dayn Nign (“And Now
I Am Your Melody,” 1998), and Shabesdike Shvebelekh (“Sabbath Matches,” 2003).

Jewish Feminism and its Impact Prior to the 1960s
Although modern Jewish feminist movements were inspiredin large measure by Enlightenment claims regarding humanequality and dignity, proto-feminist efforts to raise women’ssocial and religious position can be found in many Jewish
communities prior to the 19t century. Tracing shifts in gender ideology and in women’s actual status is difficult, however,
because of the paucity of sources written by women prior to
the 17t-century memoir by *Glueckel of Hameln. References
to women in male-authored documents, particularly responsa
literature and legal documents, give some evidence of sporadic
agitations for change in women’s status in Jewish communal
life and religious life. For example, numerous sources indicatethat in Germany and France between 1000 and 1300, a timeof high economic and social status for Jewish women, womendemanded increased involvement in religious life, including
the voluntary assumption of commandments from which they
were exempt in talmudic Judaism (Grossman).
Critical evaluation of the position of women within Judaism also appears as part of Christian traditions of anti-Judaism. In the Niẓ ẓ aḥ on Vetus, an anthology of 12t- and 13tcentury Jewish-Christian polemic in northern France andGermany, Christians criticized Jews for not including women
within the covenant: “We baptize both males and females andin that way we accept our faith, but in your case only men
and not women can be circumcised.” In the Juden Buchlein(1519), Victor von Karben mocks the refusal of Jews to include
women in a prayer quorum. This critique continued in thenotorious anti-Jewish text, Johann Eisenmenger’s Entdecktes
Judentum (1700), and women’s inferior status within Judaism
became a major theme among German (and some American)
Protestant (and some Catholic) theologians in the 19t andearly 20t centuries (J. Plaskow, K. von Kellenbach, S. Heschel).
The inferior status of women within Judaism was presented
in order to denigrate Judaism as “Oriental” and “primitive”
and to challenge whether Jews should be accorded emancipation into European society. Jewish women’s inferiority was

also cited in Christian theological writings to argue that Jesus
treated women as equals whereas other rabbis of his day did
not, a claim with little historical grounding. Jewish apologetic
responses to such charges began in 19t-century Germany witharguments that Judaism honors and elevates women’s status
in the home and community by exempting them from the religious obligations of study and public prayer incumbent on
men. The nature of these charges and counter-charges made itdifficult to articulate Jewish feminist criticisms of sexism.
Jewish enlightenment and, later, socialist critics of Jewish
communal and religious structures often fought for women’s
rights, but feminists did not always ally themselves with secularism and against religion as a means to improve women’s
status. With modern pressures to reshape both gender roles
and the status of minority groups, Jewish women had to await
emancipation as both Jews and as women to enter secular society. While Jews were permitted entry into German universities
in the early 19t century, women were excluded until the 1890s.
At the same time, some European feminist organizations did
not admit Jews. Rather, early efforts at redressing gender imbalance attempted to enhance women’s educational opportunities and position within the Jewish community, creatingsocial service and charitable organizations run by women.
The *Juedischer Frauenbund (Jewish Women’s Organization)
was founded in Germany in 1904 by Bertha *Pappenheim andstrove to win voting rights for women within Jewish communal affairs. Within the United States, Rebecca *Gratz foundedthe 19t-century Sunday school movement that created newroles for women in Jewish education. The tradition of Jewish women’s *salons was significant not only as a new, neutral
space for Christians and Jews to meet, but as an emerging
culture of conversation and reflection on gender and Jewish
identity. Indeed, Jewish women intellectuals, from the 18t tothe 20t centuries, frequently found greater resonance within
Christian society, and were sometimes only reluctantly admitted to Jewish intellectual circles; Martin *Buber, for example, initially did not want to admit women to the Juedisches
Lehrhaus, the adult Jewish educational center he founded inFrankfurt am Main in 1920 (Friedman).
Changes in women’s status within the synagogue cameslowly. In mid-19t century Germany, teenage girls were given
ceremonies of *confirmation along with boys in Reform congregations, similar to ceremonies prevalent in churches, but
women still sat separately from men in the synagogue. Mixed
seating in the synagogue was first introduced in the UnitedStates in 1851 in Albany, New York, and in 1854 at Temple
Emanu-El in New York City. It became common in the UnitedStates after 1869 when many new post-Civil War synagogues
opened but did not spread to European Reform synagogues
until much later and then only tentatively (Goldman).
Conversely, modernity also saw the distinct spheres ofwomen’s traditional expressions of Judaism minimized oreliminated by non-Orthodox Jews, such as *mikveh observance (immersion in the ritual bath following menstruation and childbirth), which declined radically in the modern

752

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: A. Starck, “Interview with Mikhoel Felsenbaum,” in: The Mendele Review (Feb. 15, 2004); idem, “A Critical Studyof Mikhoel Felsenbaum’s ‘Shabesdike shvebelekh,’ ” ibid. (shakti.
trincoll.edu/~mendele/tmrarc.htm); idem, “Shabesdike Shvebelekh: A
Postmodernist Novel by Mikhoel Felsenbaum,” in: J. Sherman (ed.),Yiddish after the Holocaust (2004), 300–18; V. Tchernin, in: Shabesdike Shvebelekh (2003), 9–12.
[Astrid Starck (2nd ed.)]FEMINISM, both a political movement seeking social equities for women and an ideological movement analyzing awide range of phenomena in terms of gender politics. Jewish feminism in the modern era has played a significant andtransformative role in virtually every area of Jewish religious,
social, and intellectual life.

feminism

The Impact of Feminism Since the 1960s
Jewish women, including Betty *Friedan, Gloria *Steinem,
and Letty Cottin *Pogrebin, have been in the forefront of theSecond Wave feminist movement in the United States that began in the late 1960s. The re-emergence of a Jewish feminist
movement, as part of the Second Feminist wave, led to majorchanges in women’s status in Judaism and to a flourishing ofJewish feminist scholarship and theology. The most dramaticchange in Judaism for many centuries came with the equalityof women in synagogue worship, a movement led by American Jewish feminists and which has gradually extended to Jewish communities elsewhere in the world. The public honoringof young women in the synagogue, the Bat Mitzvah, became
widespread by the late 1960s, followed by decisions by Reform,
Reconstructionist, and Conservative denominations of Judaism to include women in the prayer quorum, call women to
the Torah, and allow women to lead synagogue worship services. Perhaps the most striking transformation from previous Jewish practice has been the ordination of women as rabbis (see *Semikhah).
The first ordination of a woman as a Reform rabbi took
place in Germany in 1935; she was Regina *Jonas, murdered at
Auschwitz in 1944. Ordination of women as rabbis and cantors
was initiated in the United States in the 1970s by Reform Judaism (1972) and was subsequently adopted by the Reconstructionist (1974) and Conservative (1984 for rabbis, 1986 for cantors) movements. Several hundred women rabbis and cantors
have been ordained thus far in the United States, and in Britain. Commissions within the Reform, Reconstructionist, andConservative movements have revised the prayer book *liturgy to use inclusive or gender-neutral language and include
references to the biblical matriarchs as well as patriarchs. Feminist biblical commentaries, written from a range of religious
perspectives, have also been published (Frankel; Goldstein;
Kates and Reimer). Numerous collections of feminist rituals
and blessings to mark occasions in women’s lives have beendeveloped, including feminist Passover liturgies, prayers forthe birth and weaning of a baby, and ceremonies for naming
baby girls (see *Birth), egalitarian wedding services for heteroand homosexual couples (see *Marriage), and celebration of*Rosh Ḥ odesh, the New Moon, as a women’s holiday.
Within Orthodoxy at the beginning of the 21st century,
women now have opportunities for studying rabbinic texts,
heretofore limited to men. With training in particular areas ofJewish law, women serve as legal advisors to Orthodox womenregarding issues connected with divorce and niddah observance. Orthodox women have established women-only prayer
groups and institutions for studying rabbinic texts, and a few
Orthodox synagogues have started to permit women to readfrom the Torah under certain circumstances and conditions,deliver a sermon, and even lead the service. Several clauses
have been proposed for inclusion in the *ketubbah (religious
marriage contract) that would provide recourse for a woman
whose husband refuses to grant her a Jewish divorce, thoughnone has yet attained universal approval by Orthodox rabbis.
The problem of the *agunah remains a central issue for Orthodox feminists, particularly in Israel, where the Orthodox rabbinate has exclusive control over Jewish marriage and divorce.
Organizations of Orthodox women attempting to address the
problem of the agunah include the Jewish Orthodox Feminist
Alliance, and Getting Equitable Treatment.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6753

era, though revived in the late 20t century. Since the mikveh
served as a gathering place for women to socialize and also
to exert authority in the absence of men, its decline undermined women’s opportunities to assemble away from malepresence. Further, the falloff in adherence to Jewish law weakened women’s status as sources of domestic and gendered legal expertise, particularly concerning laws of kashrut. Traditionally entrusted with responsibility for the laws of *niddah
and kashrut, women had been viewed with the moral trust,intellectual ability, and religious commitment necessary for
their strict adherence to those often complex laws. Still, maleauthorities, whether fathers, husbands, or rabbis, always retained ultimate control over adherence to laws within women’s domain.
The modern era opened new public and communal religious and educational opportunities for women. Pressure
from the changes in secular society that encouraged womenand men to take advantage of equalizing educational and vocational opportunities affected the Jewish world, too. Educational reforms in the Orthodox and ḥ asidic communities of Eastern Europe in the early 20t century, led by Sara
*Schnirer, established a network of schools for religious girls,*Beth Jacob, and the liberal rabbinical seminaries establishedin Europe and the United States in the late 19t century permitted some women to attend courses, although not to receive
rabbinic ordination.
The United States had a small and relatively uneducatedJewish community prior to the 1880s. Women received only
minimal Jewish education and were not voting members of
the community. The demography quickly shifted at the turnof the century, as over two million Jews from Eastern Europe
arrived as immigrants between 1881 and 1924. They included
women who had been exposed to political organizing andanalysis, and who soon became major forces in the nascentlabor, socialist, anarchist, and communist movements in New
York and other cities in the early years of the 20t century. Rose
*Schneiderman, for example, was a leader of the *Women’s
Trade Union League, the campaign for women’s suffrage, andthe *International Ladies Garment Workers Union. However,once those movements were institutionalized – as labor unions
and political parties – women were removed from leadership
positions. Separate women’s organizations also played an important role within Jewish communal life in the United States;
the *National Council of Jewish Women, founded by Hannah
Greenebaum *Solomon at the 1893 World Parliament of Religions in Chicago, initially provided educational and vocational training for immigrants through a series of *”settlement
houses” established in impoverished urban areas.

feminism
By contrast, the Reform movement has entirely eliminated the *get, the divorce decree given by a man to his wife,
while the Conservative movement has developed a clause thatcan be inserted into a ketubbah that allows a bet din (court ofJewish law) to issue a get to a woman if her husband refuses to
do so. Since 1980, the Reconstructionist movement has usedan egalitarian get that can be issued by either spouse.
Feminism, Zionism, and the State of Israel
During its early years, the political Zionist movement, centered in Europe in the late 19t and early 20t centuries, harbored considerable ambivalence toward women. Although*Zionism presented itself as an emancipatory movement for
Jews, positions of political leadership were firmly maintained
in men’s hands. The Zionist negation of the Diaspora waslinked to a negation of piety, and overcoming the Diaspora
meant “becoming a man” (le-hitgaber). During the early waves
of immigration to Palestine prior to statehood, women worked
alongside men in the cultivation of farmland; they have also
served with men in Jewish self-defense forces prior to and after
the foundation of the state. Yet with the establishment of theState of Israel, women were not granted proportional roles ofpower within the government, even though Israel’s Declaration of Independence proclaimed full equality (Herzog; Hazelton). Instead, a myth of gender equality within the Statewas promoted to disguise the reality of women’s subservience.
Thus, while women held traditionally male positions within
the kibbutz system, few men took on traditionally female positions, such as childcare, and while women are drafted into
the Israeli army, they are generally assigned subordinate tasks
and are not given combat duty. Most problematic, since theOrthodox rabbinate holds full legal control over marriage anddivorce, women’s freedom to initiate and control marital relationships is impeded and women rabbis are disempowered.
Women are also prohibited from public communal prayer at
Jewish holy sites, such as the Western Wall in Jerusalem, despite years of court challenges by feminist groups.
Although a woman, Golda *Meir served as Israel’s prime
minister from 1969 to 1974; few women have held senior positions within the Israeli cabinet or parliament. Given the central role of army service in establishing careers within the political and financial arenas, the unequal position of women in
the Israeli military has had long-term career consequences.
Racial discrimination within Israel against Jews from nonEuropean backgrounds and the Israeli emphasis on large
families has also affected women’s ability to acquire an education, escape poverty, and achieve career success. Nevertheless, women are increasingly educated and constitute a highpercentage of the Israeli workforce. The Israel Women’s Network, founded by Alice Shalvi in 1984, is an advocacy groupfor women’s rights that concentrates on legislative and political efforts to overcome discrimination against women in theworkplace, military, religious courts, and in the healthcare andeducational arenas. With particular attention to violence andsexual harassment, the IWN helped secure passage in 1998 of

754

legislation criminalizing sexual harassment and holding boththe harasser and employer responsible for civil damages.
Throughout the modern era women managed to retainsome influence in Zionist social service organizations within
the Jewish communities of North America and Europe, collecting and distributing funds and goods, and running schools
and vocational training programs. Those activities, a central
feature of maintaining Jewish communal cohesion, became thebasis for modern women’s organizations, such as *Hadassah,
the National Council of Jewish Women, *WIZO, *Na’amat, and
Women’s *ORT (Organization for Rehabilitation and Training),
which became wealthy and powerful institutions during thecourse of the 20t century.
In the aftermath of the 1967 Arab-Israeli war that left
Israel with control of the West Bank and Gaza, several feminist
organizations emerged that called for return of the occupied
territories to Palestinian control, and condemned the violence
and impoverishment in those territories. Women in Black,founded in 1988 to hold weekly silent vigils of Israeli and Palestinian women calling for an end to the occupation, soon became an international peace network and has been nominatedfor the Nobel Peace Prize. New Profile is a feminist organization that seeks to change Israel from a militarized to a peaceseeking culture, and works especially on educating children
for peace (see essays in Fuchs, Israeli Women’s Studies).
Feminist Scholarship
Historical study of Jews, which began in the 19t century, wasinitially seen as a manly endeavor and women’s lives and contributions were virtually ignored in chronicles of the Jewish experience. The growth of the field of women’s studies, particularly in the United States, helped establish a counterpart within
Jewish Studies. Feminist analysis has criticized masculinist
biases in describing the Jewish past, but has also used historicism to justify feminist innovations (see *Historians, Women).
Feminist analyses of rabbinic literature have uncovered legal precedents for changing halakhic prescriptions regarding
women (Hauptman) and interpretive patterns of leniency inestablishing Jewish law (Biale), as well as patterns of genderedrhetoric in rabbinic literature that create the masculinity of
men and of God (Boyarin; Baskin; Eilberg-Schwartz).
Feminist attention to gender has also exposed the malebiases in describing Jewish experience (Koltun; Heschel;
Rutenberg). Modernity has been elevated as rational, progressive, and male by describing pre-modern Judaism via
tropes of nostalgia using female metaphors. Modern Judaism
was described as both positively masculine, in seeking political and religious emancipation, and negatively feminine, as inHaskalah literature in which leaving the Jewish fold and associating with Christians was described as a kind of prostitution(Feiner). In early 20t century debates over which language
was more appropriate for Jews, Yiddish or Hebrew, the former
was viewed as an effeminate, women’s language, while Hebrew
was valorized as male. Few women writing modern Hebrew
or Yiddish literature were accorded the same recognition for
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

feminism
their work as their male colleagues by a literary establishment
dominated by men, and few writings by women have been included in the “canon” (Seidman; Fuchs).
In the early years of women’s studies, the task seemed
to be fairly straightforward. Textual expressions of misogyny
and male-centeredness were demonstrated, and even if thethinker had been dead for centuries, his influence was generally said to continue to this day, as part of a long chain of patriarchal tradition. More recently, however, feminist scholars
have developed more complex analyses, demonstrating ambivalences toward women within the same thinker and text, andalso turning to metaphorical uses of masculine and feminine
imagery in matters not explicitly related to men and women.
Male privilege is not always a straightforward matter. For instance, classical and modern Jewish texts evoke an identification between men and the male God, yet undermine that
identification by depicting all Jews, including men, as female
in relationship to God.
Feminists differ in how to interpret women’s experienceand power in patriarchal structures. Some find ways in which
women turned their exclusion from aspects of Judaism into
a positive experience. C. Weissler has discovered numerous
prayers traditionally recited by early modern women as they
undertook various domestic duties, such as baking ḥ allah andkindling Sabbath lights (Voices of the Matriarchs (1998); see*Tkhines; *Liturgy). S. Sered has found that women respond tothe male-oriented religious system by becoming ritual experts
within the female sphere, sacralizing and holding authority
over the domestic sphere and the laws of niddah and mikveh.
Excluded from the realm of men, she argues, women redefine
their realm as normative and meaningful. J. Bahloul’s study ofAlgerian Jewish women delineated a strong social network of
women. Still other feminists argue that finding women’s empowerment in female spheres mandated by men undermines
arguments for gender equality and may romanticize women’s
experience unjustifiably.
Perhaps the most controversial field of feminist scholarship is study of gender and the Holocaust (Ofer and Weitzman,eds.). Women were more likely than men to be chosen by the
Judenraete for deportation from ghettos to death camps, andwomen were more likely than men to be selected for immediate gassing upon arrival at the death camps. J. Ringelheim
suggests that women and children made up 60 to 70 percentof those gassed in the initial selections. Based on deportation and death figures as well as the numbers of Jews in DP
camps at the end of the war, Ringelheim concludes that more
Jewish women were deported and killed than Jewish men, adisparity due to Nazi policies of killing pregnant women andthose who arrived at camps with children, as well as the farlarger percentage of elderly women than men among Jewish deportees.
Feminist Analyses of Judaism
During the 1970s feminist critics began to expose the absenceof women’s voices within the male-dominated structures pro-

moted by Judaism’s exclusively male-authored texts. Feminists
also strove to reconstruct the lost voices of women, trying to recover evidence of women’s history and self-understanding thatwould allow a more diversified picture of the multiple Judaismsthat have flourished throughout the Jewish past. While Judaism traditionally defines itself as a divinely revealed religion,
its beliefs and practices have been interpreted and regulated
almost exclusively by male authorities until the modern period.
Feminist analysis has pointed out that men have created thelegal systems articulated in the Mishnah, Talmud, and codes ofJewish law, and acted as supreme arbiters of its interpretation
by reserving the rabbinate for men. Courts of Jewish law were
historically run by male rabbis, and women were excluded as
witnesses in most court cases. In rabbinic law, men may contract a marriage or divorce a wife, but women can neither acquire a husband nor divorce him. Women enter into rabbinic
discourse as objects of discussion, when their ritual purity, sexual control, or marital status impinges upon men’s lives.
Many Jewish feminists have suggested that the insistenceon overwhelmingly male imagery for God was a deliberate
effort to strengthen the male-dominated institutional arrangements of Jewish life and undergird male authority over
women in the religious and societal realms. As a result, feminist analysis views Jewish texts with suspicion for their collusion with societal patriarchy in silencing women’s voices, or,even worse, as creating patriarchal oppression and endowing
it with the aura of divine sanction. At the same time, somefeminists have culled biblical and rabbinic texts to find counter-patriarchal traditions that support principles of justiceand equality, or voices of trickster women seeking to correcthalakhic inequities (Pardes; Adler). Even as D. Setel argued
that the prophet Hosea’s metaphor of Israel as God’s adulterous wife was pornographic, R. Adler noted that God’s reunionwith the adulterous Israel, which violates Deuteronomic law(20:4) mandating a husband’s divorce of an adulterous wife,
might be understood as a “constructive violation” of Jewish
law – “the metaphor that preserves the covenant breaks thelaw” (Adler, 163–64).
By the 1980s, Jewish feminist theology (see *Theology,
Feminist) began redefining classical, male-authored Jewish
understandings of God, as well as associated concepts, such asrevelation, the problem of evil, and the nature of prayer. Basing their critique of Judaism on the premise that all experienceis gender-based, theologians like J. Plaskow and R. Adler demanded a reconsideration of theological and ethical categories
assumed to be universal, but which, they argued, reify men’s
experience and have little relevance to women. Jewish feminist theology flourished in particular in the United States, supported by the growth of the academic field of women’s studies at American universities and by the theoretical insights ofChristian feminist theology.
Under the influence of postmodernism, feminist thought
has attempted to denaturalize assumptions regarding women,emphasizing the social rather than biological creation of“woman” and the attendant assumptions regarding hetero-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6755

feminism
normativity. An ideology of compulsory heterosexuality, notinnate inclination, feminists argue, has pressured women into
marriage with men and defined homosexuality as sinful. Feminist analysis has noted that in contrast to male homosexuality, lesbianism was never clearly defined in biblical literature,and never condemned with the severity of male homosexuality in rabbinic literature. Similarly, the condemnation of malemasturbation in rabbinic texts finds no female counterpart,and the genital self-examination by women that is mandated
in rabbinic laws regulating the laws of niddah replicates masturbatory acts. Freedom of sexual expression for women andmen is considered central to women’s rights but also essential
to reclaiming women’s control over their bodies after centuries
in which fathers, husbands, and male rabbis regulated women’s
lives (Schneer and Aviv; Magonet).
*Lesbian Jewish identity as both homosocial and homosexual has been marginalized in the recent efflorescence ofqueer Jewish studies and its attention to the (male) body as asite of Jewish cultural, sexual, and religious identity. Lesbian
thinkers have emphasized the body as a source of the spiritual,celebrating manifestations of women’s sexuality and arguingthe centrality of eroticism to religiosity (Plaskow, Standing
Again at Sinai). Although numerous gay and lesbian synagogues, as well as a World Congregation of Gay and Lesbian
Jewish Organizations have been founded in recent decades,
only the Reform and Reconstructionist rabbinical seminaries
ordain openly gay and lesbian rabbis (R. Alpart, S.L. Elwell, andS. Idelson, eds. Lesbian Rabbis: The First Generation (2001)).
Adler has argued that the traditional male-only environments of rabbinic study not only fostered homoeroticism,but was dominated by a “methodolatry” that revolved aroundmale concerns, omitting those of women. Responding to ahusband’s post-World War II query, asking a rabbi if he is halakhically obligated to divorce his wife because her incarceration in a concentration camp may have included forced intercourse, Adler notes that only the man’s requirements form
the question and not those of his wife. In responding to theabsence of women from the formative practices and exegeses of rabbinic Judaism, Plaskow insists that women as wellas men stood at Sinai and received God’s revelation, and that
their experiences and interpretations should be included as
equally normative as the rabbinic law developed by men in
response to the revelation.
Other feminist analyses of halakhah proceed differently.
Both R. Biale and Hauptman have pointed to halakhic interpretations that have been favorable to women, and to sociological processes of analyzing halakhah that result in lenientconclusions. These scholars explain certain traditional practices, such as excluding women from being called to the Torah
for an aliyah, as reflections of particular social settings, notas eternal legal dicta.

analyzing language. Instead of viewing power solely as hierarchical domination, feminist theory, influenced by M. Foucault,
has come to understand power as capillary, a disciplinary
regime maintaining its force not only through conventionalsources of domination, but also through the unconventional,
including language itself. Complementing Foucault’s understanding of the exercise of power are studies by Gramsci
and Althusser of the consent of the disempowered to regimensthat maintain their subjugation. Changing the understanding of power opens new ways to interpret women’s position
within Judaism. T. El-Or’s study of ḥ aredi (ultra-Orthodox)
women demonstrates that their education is designed to keepthem in a state of ignorance and subordination to men. By
contrast, Sered’s studies argue that women’s piety and rituals create a sense of personal self-worth and permit female
religious leadership within women-only domains, such as the
mikveh and ezrat nashim. L. Levitt has challenged classicalliberalism as a tool of feminist empowerment, and M. Peskowitz has called for greater attention to the ideological function of rabbinic texts in creating power structures and the adherence to them. Surprisingly little attention has been given
by Jewish feminism to theorizing race and class, in contrast
to other feminisms. E. Shohat has written on Arab-Jewish identity and the biases toward Europe in Jewish selfunderstanding, and K. Brodkin has described How Jews Became White Folks (1999) in the United States. Feminist efforts to address antisemitism as part of a larger critique ofracism are notable within a multicultural atmosphere thathas tended to ignore Jewish experience (Biale, Galchinsky,
and Heschel, eds.; M. Brettschneider, ed.; Bulkin, Pratt, andSmith, eds.).
Contemporary attention to the ways Jewish women’s
experiences have differed from those of men has led to bothinternal and external critiques of Judaism. While countless
Jewish theologians in previous generations proclaimed themoral superiority of Jewish law, most disregarded the ethical significance of the inferior status of women in Jewish law.
Written in apologetic terms for a wider Christian readership,
traditional Jewish theology tended to defend the traditional,
subordinate role of women as an expression of respect for afemininity that is considered intrinsic and not culturally produced. Jewish feminism has struggled with the fine line between its critique of Judaism’s sexism and antisemitic attacks
on Judaism.

Changes in Feminist Theory
Postmodernism, which has had a strong influence on feminist
theory, has changed the modes of understanding power andBibliography: A. Grossman, Pious and Rebellious: Jewish
Women in Medieval Europe (2004); J. Plaskow, “Feminist Anti-Judaism and the Christian God,” in: Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, 7:2 (1991), 99–108; K. von Kellenbach. Anti-Judaism in Feminist
Religious Writings (1994); S. Heschel, “Configurations of Patriarchy,
Judaism and Nazism in German Feminist Thought,” in: T. Rudavsky(ed.), Gender and Judaism (1995); idem, “Jüdische-feministische Theologie und Antijudaismus in christlich-feministischer Theologie,” inL. Siegele-Wenschkewitz (ed.), Feministische Theologie und die Verantwortung für die Geschitchte (1988); M. Friedman, Martin Buber’sLife and Work: The Early Years 1878–1923 (1981); K. Goldman, Beyond
the Synagogue Gallery: Finding a Place for Women in American Ju-

756

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6fenyŐ, miksa
daism (2000); E. Frankel, The Five Books of Miriam (1998); E. Goldstein, The Women’s Torah Commentary (2000); J.A. Kates and G.T.
Reimer, Reading Ruth (1994); L. Hazelton, Israeli Women (1977); H.
Herzog, Gendering Politics: Women in Israel (1999); E. Fuchs, Israeli
Women’s Studies: A Reader (2005); J. Hauptman, Rereading the Rabbis(1998); R. Biale, Women and Jewish Law (1984); D. Boyarin, Carnal
Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture (1993); J.R. Baskin, Midrashic
Women: Formations of the Feminine in Rabbinic Literature (2002);
H. Eilberg-Schwartz. God’s Phallus and Other Problems for Men andMonotheism (1994); E. Koltun, The Jewish Woman: New Perspectives(1976); S. Heschel (ed.), On Being a Jewish Feminist (1983; rep. 1995);
D. Rutenberg (ed.), Yentl’s Revenge: The Next Generation of Jewish
Feminism (2003); S. Feiner, The Jewish Enlightenment (2003); N. Seidman, A Marriage Made in Heaven: The Sexual Politics of Hebrew
and Yiddish (1997); E. Fuchs, Israeli Mythogenies (1987); S.S. Sered,
Women as Ritual Experts (1992); J. Bahloul, The Architecture of Memory (1996); D. Ofer and L. Weitzman (eds.), Women in the Holocaust(1999); J. Ringelheim, in: T. Wobbe (ed.), Nach Osten nationalsozialistisher Verbrechen (1992); I. Pardes, Countertraditions in the Bible: A
Feminist Approach (1992); R. Adler, Engendering Judaism: An Inclusive Theology and Ethics (1997); J. Plaskow, Standing Again at Sinai(1990); D. Schneer and C. Aviv, Queer Jews (2002); J. Magonet (ed.),Jewish Explorations of Sexuality (1995); T. El-Or, Educated and Ignorant: Ultraorthodox Jewish Women and their World (1994); L. Levitt,
Jews and Feminism: The Ambivalent Search for Home (1997); M. Peskowitz, Spinning Fantasies: Rabbis, Gender and History (1997); D. Biale, M. Galchinsky, and S. Heschel (eds.), Insider, Outsider: American
Jews and Multiculturalism (1998); M. Brettschneider (ed.), The Narrow Bridge: Jewish Views on Multiculturalism (1996); E. Bulkin, M.B.
Pratt, and B. Smith (eds.), Yours in Struggle: Three Feminist Perspectives on Anti-Semitism and Racism (1984).
[Susannah Heschel (2nd ed.)]

FENICHEL, OTTO (1897–1946), Austrian psychoanalyst.
Born in Vienna, he moved to Berlin in 1922 and studied at
the Psycho-Analytic Institute under Max *Eitingon and in1926 joined the staff. With the coming of the Nazi regime heleft Berlin in 1933 and went to Norway and Prague, where hetaught. In 1938 he went to the U.S. and taught in Los Angeles.
He wrote two important textbooks on psychoanalysis, The
Outline of Clinical Psychoanalysis (1934) and The Psychoanalytic Theory of Neurosis (1945). Some of these contributions
have become classics in their field, for example, “Elements ofa psychoanalytic theory of anti-Semitism” in which he tried to
trace the sources of anti-Jewish prejudice. The Psychoanalytic
Theory of Neurosis is a systematic, comprehensive, and detailed
study of every major form of neurosis from a psychoanalytic
point of view. The theoretical formulations are painstakingly
worked out along with old, new, and controversial points ofview. Freud’s thinking is followed historically on each issue,
along with the major contributions of Karl Abraham, Sándor
Ferenczi, and Ernest Jones. In addition, there is an encyclopedic bibliography containing more than 1,600 items. Fenichel
also wrote a short monograph, Problems of Psychoanalytic
Technique (1941), which is a classic in its systematic clarity
and scientific discipline. His collected papers were publishedin two series in 1953–54.

FENICHEL, SAMUEL (d. 1893), Hungarian scientific explorer. Fenichel was born in Nagyenyed. Although he was afrail young man, he had by the age of 20 explored the Dobruja
swamps of Romania for zoological specimens. Then, in spite ofhis health, he spent 14 months exploring New Guinea, where
he collected hundreds of specimens of birds, many of them
unknown species. He also gathered more than 10,000 specimens of butterflies. The variety of his collection and its careful documentation make it of special scientific significance.
He died in New Guinea.
Bibliography: Wininger, Biog.

FENNEL (Heb. ‫ ֶק ַצח‬, keẓ aḥ ), an herb, the sowing and threshing of which are described by Isaiah (28:25, 27). Fennel is theplant Nigella sativa, whose black seeds are used as a condiment. It was used as a condiment in talmudic times, being
sprinkled on dough before it was baked (Tosef., TY 1:2; Men.
23b). Different views were expressed on its medicinal andnutritional value, one being that it is good for the heart (Ber.
40a), another that too much of it is injurious to the heart(Kal., ch. 1), and yet another that its pungent smell is harmful(Ber., ibid). Galen, and following him Asaph ha-Rofe, recommended fennel for nasal inflammation (L. Venetianer, Asaf
Judaeus, 1 (1915), 172). In Israel three species of fennel growwild, a cultivated species being raised to a limited extent for
use as a condiment.
Bibliography: Loew, Flora, 3 (1924), 120–3; J. Feliks, Olamha-Ẓ ome’aḥ ha-Mikra’i (19682), 184. Add Bibliography: Feliks,
Ha-Ẓ ome’aḥ , 147.
[Jehuda Feliks]

FÉNYES, ADOLF (1867–1945), Hungarian painter. He wasborn in Budapest, where he studied law and painting. Fényes
participated in the establishment of the Hungarian associationof painters and sculptors. In his early work there is evidence of
the influence of naturalism, but later there is a strong impressionist influence, especially in his somber scenes of poverty.
His work reflects his considerable development and includes
biblical subjects. Fényes painted monumental scenes fromnature. He represented Hungarian painting in many international exhibitions and his name was well known outside Hungary. He died in Budapest of starvation and suffering shortly
after the Holocaust.
Bibliography: Magyar Zsidó Lexikon (1929), 274–5; uje, 4(1941), 274.
[Baruch Yaron]FENYŐ, LÁSZLÓ (1902–1945), Hungarian poet. Born intopoverty, Fenyő wrote pessimistic verse protesting against thecruelty of the world. His first collection, Épites orgonája (“Organ of the Building,” 1922), was banned, and a volume of selected poems, Elitélt (“The Judged,” 1959), appeared 14 years
after his murder by the Nazis.

[Hilel Klein]FENYŐ (formerly Fleischman), MIKSA (1877–1972), Hungarian author and literary critic. Fenyő, who was born in

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6757

feodosiya
Mélykút, was secretary of the Union of Industrialists for 40
years until he left Hungary for New York in 1948. Fenyő wasa founder and an editor of the periodical Nyugat. He soughtto raise the standards of Hungarian literature and education
to those of Western Europe, and his scholarly researches andessays did much to contribute to such an improvement. Fenyő
became a convert to Christianity. However, in his memoirs,
he includes an important description of contemporary Jewish society. He did the same in the diary Az elsodort ország(“The Destroyed Country,” 1964), written secretly during the
Holocaust while hiding among “Aryans” in Hungary. His main
works are Casanova (1912); Bethlen István (“Count István
Bethlen,” 1937); and his recollections of Nyugat, Följegyzések
a “Nyugat” folyóiratról és környékéről (1960).

the total) in 1926 and 2,922 (6.5) in 1939. After the February Revolution (1917) three Jews (Zionists) served on the local council. Between the wars there was a Yiddish school anda Jewish section in the local Teachers College. Feodosiya was
occupied by the Germans on November 2, 1941. A ghetto wasorganized, and on December 4, 1941 Einsatzkommando 10b
murdered 1,700 Jews (according to another document, 2,500).
In February-May 1942 the last 200 Jews were killed. In 1970
the Jewish population of Feodosiya consisted of Crimean andRussian Jews and Karaites. There was no synagogue. Many leftduring the mass emigration of the 1990s.

Bibliography: A. Szerb, Magyar Irodalmtörténet (1943),
447–8; Irodalmi Lexikon (1927), 310; Magyar Zsidó Lexikon (1929),
275; Magyar Irodalmi Lexikon, 1 (1963), 347.
[Baruch Yaron][Yehuda Slutsky / Shmuel Spector (2nd ed.)]

FEODOSIYA (Theodosia; Black Sea port in Crimea, Ukraine;
one of the most ancient towns). Founded during the Hellenistic period as the Greek colony of Theodosia, it was called
Kaffa (Caffa) until the Russian conquest (1783). The Jewish
settlement was also one of the oldest on Russian territory, its
beginnings dating from the Hellenistic period. The old synagogue of Feodosiya, thought to be the most ancient in Russia,
had an inscription which testified to its construction in 909.
Under the rule of the Republic of Genoa from 1266, Feodosiya
became the center of the Genoese colonies on the Black Sea. In
order to attract merchants from all nations there, freedom of
religion was granted for all Christian sects, Muslims, and Jews.
The traveler Schiltberg, who visited Feodosiya at the beginningof the 15t century, relates of the existence of two communities in the town – a *Rabbanite and a *Karaite one. The Jews
engaged in commerce and maintained relations with the Near
East and Poland. The constitution of the town, proclaimed in
Genoa in 1449, called on the consul and city elders to protect
the Jews as all members of other religions, “from any robbery,from scheming against their property when one of them diedintestate, and from other molestations of the bishop.”
The situation of the Jews remained unchanged when thegovernment of the town was transferred to the Bank of San
Giorgio, a powerful financial company that administered theeastern colonies of Genoa (1453–75). The community continued to develop under Turkish rule also (1475–1783). At the beginning of the 16t century *Moses b. Jacob of Kiev, of Lithuanian origin, held rabbinical office in Feodosiya. He composeda uniform siddur for all the Jews of Crimea (the Kaffa rite) andinstituted 18 takkanot for the community.
After annexation by Russia, Feodosiya was incorporated
in the *Pale of Settlement. In 1897 there were 3,109 Jews in
the town (12.9 of the total population), mainly Ashkenazim
who had emigrated from Lithuania and Ukraine. On Oct. 17,
1905, pogroms accompanied by murder and looting broke out.
The Jewish population of Feodosiya numbered 3,248 (11.3 of758

Bibliography: I. Markon, in: Zikkaron le-Avraham Eliyahu
Harkavy (1908), 449–69; E. Farfel, Beit Keneset ha-Attik ha-Nimẓ abe-Ir Feodosiya (1912).

FERARU, LEON (originally Otto Enselberg; 1887–1961), Romanian poet. Born in Braila, Feraru took his penname fromhis father’s occupation as a blacksmith (Rom. fierar). As aschoolboy he was a Jewish socialist. Upon completing highschool he began to study medicine in Bucharest, but had toleave because of antisemitic persecution. In 1907 he emigrated
to France, where he studied literature in Montpellier, receiving a degree in 1913, when he emigrated to the United States.
Before emigrating, Feraru published poems on social themes(among them the fate of the working woman) and articles inRomanian literary periodicals, among them Viata Romaneasca(Romanian Life) and the Jewish periodicals Lumea Israelita
and Egalitatea. After emigrating to the U.S. he continued tocompose Romanian verse on social themes, on the landscapeof his native country, and on his Jewish family. He published
two volumes of poems in Romanian, both in Bucharest, Maghernita veche si alte versuri din anii tineri (“The Old Hovel
and Other Poems of My Youth,” 1926) and Arabescuri (“Arabesques,” 1937), being considered a universalist poet. Feraru
taught Romanian language and literature at Canadian andAmerican universities: Toronto; Columbia (1917–26); Long
Island (1927–47). He also published scholarly studies in English, among them The Development of Romanian Poetry (1929)
and edited the periodicals Romanian Literary News and The
Romanian Review.
Bibliography: D. Safran, Completare la judaismul roman(1981), 74–9; A.B. Joffe, Bi-Sedot Zarim (1996), 160–2, 459; A. Mirodan, Dictionar neconventional, 2 (1997), 268–72.
[Lucian-Zeev Herscovici (2nd ed.)]

FERBER, EDNA (1887–1968), U.S. novelist and playwright.
She was born into a middle-class family in Kalamazoo, Michigan, and at the age of 17 became a newspaper reporter inAppleton, Wisconsin. Later she went to the Milwaukee Journal and the Chicago Tribune. Her first novel, Dawn O’Hara,
appeared in 1911, but it was a series of short stories collectedunder the title Emma Mc-Chesney and Co. (1915) that established her as a professional writer. Edna Ferber wrote morethan a score of novels, some superficial, some serious, but all
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

ferdinandsmoothly and persuasively written. They deal with the life ofordinary Americans and in many the central character is awoman. Fanny Herself (1917) is the story of a small-town Jewish girl; So Big (1924), the story of a woman’s struggle for independence, won the Pulitzer Prize in 1924. Show Boat (1926)
became a successful musical; Cimarron (1930), Saratoga Trunk(1941), and Giant (1952) were all best-selling novels whichwere made into motion pictures. Dinner at Eight (1932) andStage Door (1936), both written in collaboration with George
S. *Kaufman, were her best-known plays. Edna Ferber wrote
comparatively little about Jews and Judaism, but in her first
autobiography, A Peculiar Treasure (1939), she depicted withhumor and understanding her life in a small Jewish community, and she identified herself closely with the Jewish plightduring the Nazi years. Her second autobiography, A Kind of
Magic (1963), includes her impressions of the State of Israel.
Bibliography: S.I. Kunitz and H. Haycraft (eds.), Twentieth Century Authors (19502), S.V., and supplement I (1955); Brenn andSpencer, in: Bulletin of Bibliography, 22 (1958), 152–6.
[Harold U. Ribalow]

FERBER, HERBERT (Silvers; 1906–1991), U.S. sculptor andpainter. A native of New York City, Ferber was born Herbert
Ferber Silvers. While studying at the City University of New
York and Columbia University, where he received a B.S. (1927)
and a D.D.S. (1930), Ferber also took classes at the Beaux Arts
Institute of Design (1927–30) and the National Academy of
Design (1930).
His early direct carvings in wood from the 1930s employed techniques similar to William *Zorach’s and Jo *Davidson’s. These small figurative sculptures engaged social justicethemes, popular with painters such as Raphael *Soyer and Ben*Shahn. The Midtown Galleries mounted Ferber’s first solo exhibition in December 1937. In the late 1940s, Ferber eschewed
figuration and began welding bronze, lead, copper, and brass
as he developed his mature open-form abstract style of sculpture. Akin to Abstract Expressionist painters, Ferber derived
inspiration from Surrealist imagery and ancient myth.
Ferber’s work was commissioned by B’nai Israel Synagogue, Millburn, New Jersey (1951); Temple Anshe Chesed,
Cleveland, Ohio (1956); and Temple of Aaron, St. Paul, Minnesota (1956). An eight by twelve foot abstractly renderedburning bush made of jagged lead-coated copper adorns awedge-shaped panel projecting from the facade of the B’nai
Israel congregation. Titled And the Bush Was Not Consumed,
this symbolic representation evokes the impression of flamesthrough an open biomorphic style that incorporates snaking
vertical and spiral forms. Ferber’s textured sculpture identifies
the building and serves as a metaphor for the Jewish people.
Indeed, the rabbi of the congregation felt that like the Jewish
people, the bush was burned but not consumed. This commission was the impetus for several other sculptures designed
specifically for walls.
During the 1960s Ferber began a series titled Homage to
Piranesi in which he enclosed rhythmic forms in wire cages.
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

In March 1961 Ferber’s Sculpture as Environment was installed
in a room at the Whitney Museum of American Art. One of
the first sculptures designed to encompass indoor space on alarge scale, the work helped to stimulate a larger movementof installation art in the early 1970s. A year later Ferber’s firstmajor retrospective was shown at the Walker Art Gallery in
Minneapolis. Houston’s Museum of Fine Arts held a retrospective in 1981.
Lesser known are Ferber’s canvases and works on paper.
These abstract images typically show the influence of color
field painting, as exemplified by Marc *Rothko and Barnett*Newman.
Bibliography: E.C. Goossen, R. Goldwater, and I. Sandler,
Three American Sculptors: Ferber, Hare, and Lassaw (1959); A. Kampf,
Contemporary Synagogue Art: Developments in the United States,
1945–1965 (1966), 75–79; E.C. Goossen, Herbert Ferber (1981); W.C.
Agee, Herbert Ferber: Sculpture, Painting, Drawing: 1945–1980 (1983);
L. Verderame, The Founder of Sculpture as Environment: Herbert Ferber (1906–1991) (1998).
[Samantha Baskind (2nd ed.)]

FERBER, Ẓ EVI HIRSCH (1879–1966), English rabbi. Ferber
was born in Kovno and studied in Lithuanian yeshivot. In 1911
he settled in England and after teaching Talmud in Manchester was appointed rabbi of the West End Talmud Torah Synagogue in London, where he remained until his retirement in
1954. His congregation had its own cemetery, and a numberof other small congregations were associated with his, mainly
for the benefits of burial. As a result Ferber was able to be independent of the official religious organizations, a situationof which he took full advantage. He was a witty and eloquentpreacher in the style of the old-fashioned Lithuanian maggidim. Ferber was a prolific writer, mainly on homiletic but
also on halakhic subjects; most of his publications were in theform of pamphlets. His most important work was Kerem haẒ evi, a halakhic and aggadic commentary on the Pentateuch(1920–38). He also wrote a commentary on the Passover Haggadah under the same title (1958).
Bibliography: Yahadut Lita, 3 (1967), 79.
[Louis Isaac Rabinowitz]°FERDINAND, name of three Holy Roman emperors.
FERDINAND I ruler of Austria; emperor, 1556–64. On
his accession to the Austrian throne in 1527 Ferdinand I confirmed the customary Jewish privileges. He opposed the expulsion of *Prague Jewry in 1541, permitting the Jew Hermann
to print Hebrew books there and punished the ringleaders of anti-Jewish outbursts in *Litomerice and *Zatec. In
1551 he ordered the Jews within his realm to wear a yellow*badge. Many of his expulsion decrees for Lower Austria,
Silesia, Prague, and Vienna, issued in the 1540s and 1550s,
were averted or only partially applied after payments by theJews. In 1557 he canceled the safe conducts granted to Bohemian Jews, granting them later in exceptional cases. He
authorized the Jesuits of Prague in 1561 to undertake the759

ferdinand, philip*censorship of Hebrew books and forced the Jews to attend
their sermons. As emperor he confirmed the privileges accorded to the Jews within the empire.
Ferdinand II king of Bohemia from 1617 and of Hungary
from 1621; emperor, 1619–37. A fanatic Catholic and protagonist of the Counter-Reformation in his domains, Ferdinand II
was preoccupied for most of his reign with combating Protestantism. The first emperor to employ *court Jews, he was dependent on Jewish financiers, mainly Jacob Bassevi *Treuenberg. For his protection during the Thirty Years’ War, the Jews
of Bohemia had to pay onerous taxes. Ferdinand ignored thepetitions of the city council of *Vienna to expel the Jews, instead granting them successively more favorable privileges(that of 1624 was granted “in perpetuity”). He secured the return of the communities expelled from *Hanau and *Mantua.
He allowed the Vienna community to build a synagogue in1624 (insisting that they settle in a separate quarter), permitted the enlargement of the *Prague Jewish quarter in 1627, andcommuted the death sentence on Yom Tov Lippmann *Heller
to a heavy fine. For all these benefits, however, the Jews had
to pay large emoluments.
Ferdinand III emperor, 1637–57; son of Ferdinand II. Immediately after his accession the Vienna city council urgently
petitioned him to expel the Jews; though refusing to do this,Ferdinand III placed them under the jurisdiction of the municipality until 1641, and did not confirm their privileges until
Nov. 5, 1638. These were renewed and expanded in 1645 in return for substantial payment. An expulsion order was averted
in 1652 on payment of 35,000 florins, and Ferdinand granted
the Vienna community broader privileges and internal jurisdiction in return for thrice that sum. In 1650 he ordered thatJews be allowed to remain only in places where they had beenin residence in 1618. He gave his court Jew, Hirschel *Mayer,widespread power over the Vienna community.

Bibliography: Stein, in: Essays… J.H. Hertz (1942), 397–412;
DNB, s.v.; H.P. Stokes, Studies in Anglo-Jewish History (1913), 209–11.
Add. Bibliography: ODNB online.
[Cecil Roth]FERDINAND, PHILIP (1556–1599), English Hebraist. Ferdinand, who was born in Poland as a Jew, lived for some timein Constantinople. He became in turn a Roman Catholic anda Protestant, and then went to England, where he taught Hebrew first at Oxford and then at Cambridge. In 1597 he published in Cambridge Haec sunt verba Dei, a Latin translationof the 613 Commandments and of other excerpts from rabbinical literature. In 1598 he went to teach Hebrew at Leiden,
where the Christian historian and philologist Joseph Scaliger
was one of his pupils. He died soon afterwards.

°FERDINAND (1452–1516) and ISABELLA (1451–1504),
the monarchs whose marriage created the union of Castileand Aragon which formed the Kingdom of *Spain. Becauseof their religious zeal, they became known as the “Catholicmonarchs.” A popular tradition, partly corroborated by documents, credits Jewish and *Converso courtiers with a primaryrole in arranging the marriage contract concluded in 1469 between Isabella, heiress to the crown of Castile, and Ferdinand,prince of Aragon. On the death of Henry IV in 1474, Isabella
and Ferdinand began to reign in Castile, then with the accession of Ferdinand to the throne of Aragon in 1479, the tworealms were united.
In its first phase their policy adhered to the traditionof relative tolerance which characterized the attitude of thekings of Christian Spain. Generally, this was expressed in their
willingness to extend their protection to Jewish communities
or individuals whenever they were subjected to outbursts ofmob hatred and fury instigated by monks. At the same time
the Catholic monarchs employed Jews like Abraham *Seneor,
Meir *Melamed, Isaac and Joseph *Abrabanel, and Conversos
like Alfonso de la *Cavalleria, Gabriel *Sánchez, and Luis de*Santangel in the administration of the state.
The first sign of deterioration in their attitude toward theJews can be detected when, at a session of the Cortes held in
April 1476 at Madrigal, the monarchs promulgated sweeping
edicts for judicial and administrative reforms, including revocation of all the rights of the *aljamas (“communities”) to
exercise criminal jurisdiction. Resolving that unified Spainshould also be united in faith, they determined to eradicate thesin of heresy which had spread amid the Conversos, namely
the tendency to revert to Judaism. In this they were clearly influenced by their desire to win the support of both the clergy
and the burghers, who demanded that extreme measures betaken against the Conversos. The outcome of all these pressures was the establishment of the Spanish *Inquisition in
1480. Traditionally, Isabella has been regarded as the living
symbol of the religious awakening in Spain, but an examination of the letters exchanged between the king and the queen
shows that they acted in perfect accord, moved by the same
fanatical urge.
As the Inquisition’s investigations in the 1480s provedthat the Conversos did indeed tend to revert to Judaism inlarge numbers, the monarchs concluded that, owing to theclose relations between Jews and Conversos, the latter would
persist in their heresy. The decision to expel the Jews may havebeen foreshadowed by the eviction from Andalusia in 1483,
but the general expulsion order was promulgated on March
31, 1492. During the three months given to the Jews of Spain
to prepare their departure, the royal couple endeavored toensure that the expulsion took place in accordance with their

760

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: Wischnitzer, in: jsos, 16 (1954), 338–9; G.
Wolf, Geschichte der Juden in Wien (1876), 21–25; M. Grunwald,
Vienna (1936), index; H. Tietze, Die Juden Wiens (1935), 47; Popper,in: mgwj, 38 (1894), 371–9; I. Schwarz, Geschichte der Juden in Wien
(1913), 50–51; Dubnow, Weltgesch, 6 (1927), 219, 222–27; BondyDworský, 1–2 (1906), 348, 371–492, 973 passim; A.F. Pribram, Urkunden und Akten zur Geschichte der Juden in Wien, 1 (1918), 123–74; D.
Kaufmann, Die letzte Vertreibung der Juden aus Wien (1889), 32–65;
Wolf, in: MGWJ, 10 (1861), 370–3, 426–30; J. Fraenkel (ed.), The Jews
in Austria (1967), 320–1.
[Henry Wasserman]fernandes villareal, manoel
instructions, lest the Jews be robbed of their property; but
this was often to no avail. On July 30, 1493, they issued a letter of protection to all Jewish exiles returning to Spain from
Portugal to be baptized, pledging that their property would
then be restored to them without loss. It seems that in theirdecision to expel the Jews from Spain, Ferdinand and Isabella
were motivated principally by arguments of a political and religious nature, for the sake of which they were willing to sacrifice every other practical consideration.

Bibliography: S. Lorand, in: F. Alexander et al. (eds.), Psychoanalytic Pioneers (1966), 14–35, incl. bibl.; E. Jones, The Life andWork of Sigmund Freud, 2 (1955), index; I. De Forest, The Leaven ofLove (1954), incl. bibl.; F. Auld, in: IESS, 5 (1968), 367–9, incl. bibl.
Add. Bibliography: E. Falzeder and E. Brabant (eds.), Correspondence of Sigmund Freud and Sandor Ferenczi, 3 vols. (1994, 1996,
2000); M. Stanton, Sandor Ferenczi: Reconsidering Active Intervention (1993); A.W. Rachman, Sandor Ferenczi: The Psychotherapist of
Tenderness and Passion (1996); P.L. Rudnytsky, P. Giampieri-Deutsch,
and A.Bokay (eds.), Fernczi’s Turn in Psychoanalysis (1996).

Bibliography: F. Fernández-Armesto, Ferdinand and Isabella (1975). For further bibliography see under *Spain.

[Louis Miller]

FERENCZI (Fraenkel), SÁNDOR (1873–1933), Hungarian
psychoanalyst and psychiatrist. Born in Miskolc, Hungary,Ferenczi became interested in hypnosis and in 1900 began
the practice of neurology and psychiatry in Budapest. Ferenczi was the closest friend of *Freud, whom he first met in
1908, and they exchanged more than 1,000 letters. An inspiring lecturer on psychoanalysis and an outstanding therapist,
Ferenczi was the senior member of Freud’s group. In 1909 heaccompanied Freud to the United States and became a central figure in the psychoanalytic movement. Ferenczi’s initial
papers (1908) were on psychosexual disturbances, and in papers issued in 1911 he set out for the first time the difference
between active and passive homosexuality and its relation toparanoia. In 1913 Ferenczi wrote his classic essay, Entwicklungsstufen des Wirklichkeitssinnes, in which he described,on the basis of his analytical experience and observation ofchildren, the child’s view of his own omnipotence and the development of his sense of reality. In the works written in thisperiod Ferenczi expanded and checked Freud’s findings andindicated new applications and approaches. In 1924 he published a creative and theoretical book: Versuch einer Genitaltheorie (Thalassa: A Theory of Genitality, 1938). Here he correlated biology with psychology and invented the method of“bioanalysis,” relating sexual drives to the act of returning to
the womb. Ferenczi developed a technique of active therapy,
requesting the patient to act or behave in a certain way. He
discussed this technique in an essay (1921) and reviewed it
in 1925 with his Kontraindikazionen der aktiven psychoanalitischen Technik. In 1926 he published Further Contributions
to the Theory and Technique of Psychoanalysis, a work which
elaborated and systematized his technique and also contained
many clinical essays, such as those on hysteria and tics. He was
the first to emphasize the great importance of loving bodily
contact with the mother for the child’s development, as wellas the dangers of too intense stimulation of the baby by adults.
Freud became highly critical of some of Ferenczi’s experiments
in technique and by 1931 Ferenczi began to revise some of his
methods, as they had not achieved the anticipated results.
However, his ideas on the early object relations of the infant
and their impact on personality development, and his ideas
about the deeper functions of the ego dealt with areas which
preoccupy analytical thinking and have produced a numberof controversial theories.
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

FERKAUF, EUGENE (1921– ), U.S. businessman and philanthropist. Born in Brooklyn, N.Y., Ferkauf learned the retailing business from his father, who owned two luggage stores in
Manhattan. After serving in World War II, he began his own
business career in 1948 with a modest retail discount store in
New York. This grew into the E.J. Korvette chain of discountstores, which at the height of its success included 45 department stores and 60 supermarkets. At one point in the early
1960s Korvette was opening one big new store every sevenweeks. In 1962 Ferkauf appeared on the cover of Time magazine with the banner headline “Discounting Gets Respectable” and a feature story entitled “Everybody Loves a Bargain”(July 6). However, Ferkauf and his executives found it difficult
to administer the chain as it grew larger. In 1968 Korvette’s
merged with Spartans Industries, which abandoned the discount model. Ferkauf resigned from the combine shortly afterward. Five years later the firm was sold to Arlen Realty.
Arlen later sold it to a French firm. In 1980, Korvette’s ceased
operations altogether.
Ferkauf was a prominent contributor to Jewish educational funds in the U.S. and Israel, and endowed a graduate
school of social services at Yeshiva University, New York, ahigh school at Or Yehudah, Israel, and four hospitals to serve
underprivileged communities in South America. Ferkauf
was also a patron of the arts, as shown by his support of New
York’s Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art and the Lincoln
Center of the Performing Arts. In Israel, he and his wife, Estelle, sponsored the Administration Wing of the Bezalel Academy of Art and Design. Ferkauf was also the main promoterof Atid, a commercial organization set up to stimulate Israel
exports to the U.S. He was made an honorary life memberof the Board of Governors of the Technion in Haifa. Ferkauf
wrote the book Going into Business: How to Do It, by the Man
Who Did It (1977).
Add. Bibliography: R. Sobel, When Giants Stumble: Classic Business Blunders and How to Avoid Them (1999); I. Barmash, The
Self-Made Man: Stress and Success American Style (2003); R. Spector,
Category Killers: The Retail Revolution and Its Impact on Consumer
Culture (2005).
[Joachim O. Ronall / Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)FERNANDES VILLAREAL, MANOEL (1608–1652), Portuguese soldier, diplomat, and author. He was a prominent
businessman and writer. Born in Lisbon of *Marrano de-761

fernberger, samuelscent, Fernandes Villareal became a captain in the Portuguese
Army. He eventually went to live in France, settling in Rouenin about 1638. An agent of the House of Braganza, he was fora time Portuguese consul general in Paris, where he entered
the circle of Cardinal Richelieu. Under Richelieu, France welcomed Iberian refugees, many of whom were New Christians.
He supported Portugal’s efforts to achieve independence andin 1642 he became a close advisor of the Portuguese ambassador, Dom Vasco Luis da Gama. He headed two centerswhich were in charge of Portuguese propaganda in support ofPortuguese independence. As a reward for his services he wasappointed to the post of regulating trade between Portugal
and France. He prepared some economic programs for thewelfare of the newly reestablished Portuguese kingdom andhoped to curtail the power of the Inquisition. He planned
the return to Portugal of New Christian merchants. Under
his influence an attempt was made to abolish any distinction between Old and New Christians and a pardon was
granted in February 1649 to all Portuguese who would returnfrom exile. It was then that Fernandes de Villareal decided
to return to Portugal for a visit. While visiting Lisbon in
1649–50, Fernandes Villareal was denounced as a Judaizer
by a friar who was a literary rival. The Inquisition uncovered
his “New Christian” origin and secret adherence to Judaism,and Fernandes Villareal was condemned to death. He wasgarroted on Dec. 1, 1652. A few years after his death, some of
his relatives officially reverted to Judaism in Leghorn. Fernandes Villareal wrote, in Portuguese and Spanish, works onhistory, politics, and military techniques. These include his
Epítome genealógico del Duque de Richelieu y discursos políticos (Pamplona, 1641), a panegyric dedicated to Richelieu. The
title of the 1642 edition was El político cristianíssimo o dicursos políticos sobre algunas acciones de la vida del … Duque deRichelieu. He was inspired by Machiavelli’s Discorsi and Principe. He also wrote the poem El color verde a la divina Celia(Madrid, 1637) and a play, El Príncipe Vendido (Paris, 1643).
He was destined, however, to be remembered more as a tragic
victim of the Inquisition than as a writer. While his works had
no influence in Spain, in Portugal they were received withgreat interest.

Fernberger wrote an article detailing the early history of
the American Psychological Association (APA), a professionalorganization for psychologists founded in 1892 and incorporated in 1925. Considered a classic in the history of psychology,
the article, entitled “The American Psychological Association:
A Historical Summary, 1892–1930,” was first published in thePsychological Bulletin in 1932. In 1937 Fernberger published
Elementary General Psychology.
[Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]FERNHOF, ISAAC (1868–1919), Hebrew author, editor,and poet. Born in Buchach, Galicia, he was a teacher all his
life, first in his native town, then in Zlochow, and finally in
Stanislav. During World War I he went to Bohemia, where
he taught Galician refugee children. In 1918 he returned to
Stanislav, then under Ukrainian rule, and suffered dire poverty and famine. He died there soon after. Fernhof beganwriting poetry and articles in the late 1880s, and later published Sifrei Sha’ashu’im (1896–99), a small literary periodical to which leading writers such as Tchernichowsky, Peretz,
Brainin, Klausner, and others contributed. Subsequently hetried unsuccessfully to publish literary journals (Ha-Ẓ a’ir,
Ha-Yarden). A book of his stories, Me-Aggadot ha-Ḥ ayyim,
appeared in 1908. He left a series of stories depicting Mitnaggedim which were published long after his death as Sefer
ha-Mitnaggedim (ed. Israel Cohen, 1952). This includes anarticle published after the appearance of Herzl’s Jewish Statein which Fernhof prophetically refers to the utopian state by
the name of “Israel.”
Bibliography: R. Fahn, in: Ba-Derekh (March 9, 1934);
idem, in: Haolam, 32 (1939), 394–5; Arim ve-Immahot be-Yisrael –Sefer Stanislav (1952), 182, and index of names; M. Henish, Mi-Bayitu-mi-Ḥ uẓ (1961), 263–5; Rabbi Binyamin, Mishpeḥ ot Soferim (1960),
136–8; Sefer Buczacz (1957), 122–31; I. Cohen, Sha’ar Soferim (1962),
397–403.
[Getzel Kressel]

FERNBERGER, SAMUEL (1887–1956), U.S. psychologist.
Born in Pennsylvania, Fernberger received his Ph.D. in psychology from the University of Pennsylvania in 1912. Heserved as professor at Clark University for eight years, andthen at the University of Pennsylvania from 1920. He is best
known for his work in psychophysics, sensation, perception,and the history of psychology.

FERRARA, city in N. central Italy, with an ancient and renowned Jewish community. An inscription dating from
Roman times and a document of 1088 may relate to local Jewish life. Privileges enjoyed by Jews were recorded in 1275. In thesame century two tosafists both named R. Moses b. Meir lived
in Ferrara, and perhaps also the philosopher *Hillel b. Samuelof Verona. In the early years of the 14t century some Jews wereheavily fined by the Inquisition. Two sonnets by Francesco di
Vannozzo (1376) reflect the popular resentment against certain
Jews. About 1435 *Elijah of Ferrara settled in Jerusalem. Fromthe middle of the 15t century a period of prosperity began forthe community, thanks to the protection of the House of Este.
In 1448, on Lionello d’ Este’s request, Pope Nicholas V curbed
the anti-Jewish sermons of the friars; in 1451 Duke Borso declared that he would protect the Jews who entered his lands;
in 1473 Ercole I, in opposition to papal demands, protected
his Jewish subjects, particularly the moneylenders. In 1481 heauthorized Samuel Melli of Rome to buy a mansion in Ferrara

762

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: Roth, Marranos, 159–60, 340; J. Caro Baroja,
Judíos en la España moderna y contemporánea, 2 (1962), 128–9; Kayserling, Bibl, 109. Add. bibliography: I.S. Révah, in: Iberida, 1(1959), 181–207; M. Gendreau-Massaloux and C. Hubard Rose, in:
REJ, 136 (1977), 368–87; H.P. Salomon, in: Inquisição, vol. 2 (1989–90),
765–73.
[Kenneth R. Scholberg / Yom Tov Assis (2nd ed.)]ferrara
and turn it into a synagogue, which is still used. At this time
the geographer Abraham Farissol lived in Ferrara, as well as
Abraham Sarfati, teacher of Hebrew at the University of Ferrara, and, in 1477, the printer Abraham b. Ḥ ayyim the Dyer
(dei Tintori) of Pesaro (see below).
The policy of giving refuge to persecuted Jews, especiallythose who could prove useful, was continued by all successive Este dukes. In 1492, when the first refugees from Spain
appeared in Italy, Ercole I allowed some of them to settle in
Ferrara, promising to let them have their own leaders andjudges, permitting them to practice commerce and medicine,and granting them tax reductions. This was the beginningof the Spanish community in Ferrara, which set up its own
synagogue and separate administration. In 1532 Ercole II issued another permit allowing Jews from Bohemia and othercountries in Central Europe to come and settle in Ferrara.
This was the origin of the German group in Ferrara which
also established its own synagogue. In 1524 and 1538 the same
duke gave encouragement to the Marranos and in 1553 they
were specifically allowed to return to the Jewish faith. In 1540
an invitation to settle in Ferrara was extended to the harassed
Jews of Milan and one year later to those banished from the
kingdom of Naples. In 1569, when the Jews were expelled fromthe Papal States (except Rome and Ancona), many from Bologna settled in Ferrara. In the middle of the 16t century there
were ten synagogues in Ferrara. However, although the dukes
spared their Jews from Church oppression, they allowed the
Talmud to be burned in 1553. In 1554 a congress of delegatesfrom the Italian communities was held in Ferrara to decideon precautionary measures, including the precensorship ofHebrew books.
Among the outstanding personalities in Ferrara at thattime were Don Samuel *Abrabanel, the last leader of Neapolitan Jewry, the Marrano Gracia *Nasi, *Amatus Lusitanus, whotaught medicine at the University of Ferrara, the *Usque family, and the engineer Abraham Colorni. In the sphere of Jewish
learning there were the poets Jacob *Fano and Abraham dei
Galicchi *Jagel, the physicians Moses and Azriel *Alatino, thechronicler Samuel Usque, his kinsman the printer Abraham
Usque (see below), and the polymath Azariah dei *Rossi.

a *blood libel charge in 1721. In spite of this the life of Jews in
Ferrara was far more tolerable than in Rome.
The Jewish population numbered 1,500 persons in 1601,
was at much the same level in 1703 (328 families), and rose to
2,000 in the 19t century. Outstanding personalities included
the rabbi and physician Isaac *Lampronti, author of the talmudic encyclopedia Paḥ ad Yiẓ ḥ ak, and the rabbis Jacob Daniel *Olmo, poet, and Solomon *Finzi, author of an introduction to the Talmud. In 1796, after the French occupation, Jews
were granted equal civil rights and in 1797 the ghetto’s gateswere removed. The successive alternations in Ferrara of Austrian, French, and finally, in 1814, papal rule were reflected in
the vicissitudes of Jewish life. In 1826 the Jews were locked up
in the ghetto once more, but in 1859–60 they finally obtained
their freedom when Ferrara became part of the Italian kingdom. For the next 80 years there was a new period of prosperity, Jews being appointed to high public offices in the town’s
administration and taking a prominent part in the affairs of
the Italian Jewish community. Renzo Ravenna was sindaco(“mayor”) before the Fascist crisis, and Felice Ravenna waspresident of the Union of Jewish Communities from 1933 to1937. In spite of this the Jewish population dwindled becauseof steady emigration.
[Attilio Milano]

The Holocaust Period and After
In 1936 the community of Ferrara had 760 members. On Sept.
24, 1941, the synagogue was devastated by the fascists. During
the autumn-winter 1943 about 200 Jews were sent to extermination camps, of whom only five returned. Three more Jews
were killed in the streets on Nov. 14–15, 1943. The Jewish population in Ferrara was reduced to 200 at the end of the war.
The population further dropped to 150 in 1970 and 100 at the
beginning of the 21st century.
[Sergio DellaPergola]

When Ferrara passed under the rule of the Church in
1598, the condition of the Jews grew much worse. In the same
year the Jewish *badge was introduced. In the following year
all real estate had to be sold, synagogues were limited to three,
one for each rite, and the loan banks were closed; however thislast decree was repealed a short time later, the banks being finally closed only in 1683. In 1624 the construction of a ghetto
was decreed and two years later the Jews were confined to it.
The Jews were forced to be present at conversionist sermons
and Jewish physicians were forbidden to attend to Christians.
A similar state of affairs persisted throughout the 17t and 18t
centuries; from time to time the situation was exacerbated by
mob attacks on the ghetto (1648, 1651, 1705, 1747, 1754) and by

Hebrew Printing in Ferrara
Under the enlightened rule of the House of Este, Hebrew
printing flourished twice for short periods in Ferrara in the
15t and 16t centuries. In 1477 *Abraham b. Ḥ ayyim the Dyer
(dei Tintori; ‫ ; ִמן ַה ּצוֹ ְב ִעים‬min ha-ẓ ove’im), of Pesaro, using
Abraham *Conat’s type, printed here Levi b. Gerson’s commentary on Job, and finished printing the edition of Tur,
Yoreh De’ah which Conat had begun in Mantua. The second
somewhat longer period extended from 1551 to 1558, when
first Samuel ibn Askara Ẓ arefati of Pesaro and then Abraham
Usque, partly with the former’s assistance, printed well over
30 books in Ferrara. Among the first was Isaac Abrabanel’s
Ma’yenei ha-Yeshu’ah and Jedaiah ha-Penini’s Beḥ inat Olam.
Under Usque, halakhic, theological, and liturgical items wereprinted, among them the first editions of Menahem ibn Ẓ eraḥ ’s
Ẓ edah la-Derekh (1554), Ḥ asdai Crescas’ Or Adonai (1556), Jonah Gerondi’s Issur ve-Hetter, and Jacob Fano’s Shiltei ha-Gibborim (including an elegy on the Marrano martyrs of Ancona),
1556. Apparently complaints by the Church about this publication led to the closing of the press. Usque also printed a num-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6763[Alexander Carlebach]ferrer, vicente
ber of works mainly, but not exclusively, of Jewish significancein Spanish and Portuguese, including the Ferrara Bible (1553)
and the “Consolation for the Tribulations of Israel” by SamuelUsque (1553). Toward the end of the 17t century an attempt
at reviving Hebrew printing at Ferrara was made by the nonJewish printer Girolamo Filoni, who printed in 1693 a handsome small prayer book (Siddur mi-Berakhah), compiled by
J. Nisim and Abraham Ḥ ayyim da Fano, printers from Mantua. Filoni also issued a broadsheet primer with the Hebrew
alphabet and some basic prayers. Shortly after, Filoni melted
down his Hebrew type and converted it into a Latin font. The
takkanot of the Ferrara community of 1767 provided for lessgifted pupils of the Jewish school (Talmud Torah) to attend
the workshop of the printer Salvador Serri to learn the craftof Hebrew printing, both for their own good and for the preservation of this important craft (see Asaf, Mekorot 2 (1930),
206–8). No other evidence of Hebrew printing in Ferrara atthat period is available.
Bibliography: A. Pesaro, Memorie storiche sulla comunitàisraelitica ferrarese (1878); idem, Appendice alle memorie… (1880);
A. Balleti, Gli ebrei e gli estensi (19302); Milano, Bibliotheca, index;
idem, in: RMI, 33 (1967), 364ff.; Kaufmann, in: REJ, 20 (1890), 34–72;
Perreau, in: Vessillo israelitico, 27 (1879), 108–10, 139–42; Terracini,in: RMI, 18 (1952), 3–11, 63–72, 113–21; G.B. De’Rossi, De typographia
hebraeo-ferrariensi commentarius historicus… (1780); Magrini, in:
RMI, 10 (1935/36), 126–32; Roth, in: HUCA, 10 (1935), 466–8; idem, in:Modern Language Review, 38 (1943), 307–17; Ḥ .D. Friedberg, Toledot
ha-Defus ha-Ivri be-Italyah (19562), 26ff.

°FERRER, VICENTE (c. 1350–1419), Dominican friar, canonized by the Catholic Church. Some scholars consider that
he was directly responsible for the anti-Jewish persecutionsin Spain of 1391. However, it seems that he was on his way to
Avignon at the time. In a Lenten sermon delivered in Valencia after the disorders, he condemned the behavior of the rioters. Ferrer advocated conversion to Christianity from conviction and emphasized more than once the Jewish origin ofJesus. Nevertheless his appearances provoked mass demonstrations accompanied by anti-Jewish outbursts. These took
place in particular in the first and second decades of the 15tcentury. The conversion of *Solomon ha-Levi, rabbi of Burgos, and possibly that of Don Samuel *Abrabanel of Seville,
are attributable to Ferrer’s direct influence.
After the 1391 persecutions, when the problem of *Conversos arose, Ferrer initiated the policy toward the Jews
adopted by the antipope Benedict XIII, by Ferdinand I of
Aragon for whose choice as king in 1409 Ferrer was responsible, and by the queen mother Catalina, regent of Castile.
This policy was embodied in social and communal, economic
and legal restrictions in Aragon and Castile. In 1412, Ferrer
collaborated with Pablo de Santa María in formulating thelaws of Valladolid directed against the Jews. He used his
influence to implement a program to evict the Jews fromtheir quarters lest they should have a bad influence on theChristians, i.e., the Conversos, who still lived in their former homes.

764

Throughout this period, Ferrer went from place to placepreaching. As a result of his sermons, the populace more thanonce refused to sell the Jews food supplies and other necessities. The Jews of Tamarite de Litera complained to Ferdinand I
that they were afraid that anti-Jewish riots would occur as aresult of Ferrer’s sermons, and the king ordered the city officials to protect them (May 25, 1414). The Jews of Aynsa moved
out of town when they heard that Ferrer was coming to preach
there, and returned only after he had left (1414). Ferdinandcompelled the Jews and Moors to listen to Ferrer’s sermons
and imposed heavy fines upon those who were absent. At theheight of the disputation of *Tortosa (November 1413) Ferdinand wrote to Ferrer in Majorca, asking him to go to Tortosain order to bring about the conversion of the Jews assembled
there. From there he was to proceed to Saragossa, where theconversion of numerous Jews was also anticipated. A vessel
was placed at the friar’s disposal for this purpose. In May 1414
Ferdinand wrote to Ferrer rejoicing over the conversion of 122
Jews in Guadalajara. Ferrer evidently attempted to persuade
the Jews to come to the baptismal font by all means except
physical force. In 1408 he was in Italy where *Bernardino da
Siena heard him preach in Alessandria and was thereby stimulated to imitate him.
Ferrer wrote several theological tracts but his sermons,
numbering over 6,000, form his principal work. These he delivered in Catalan and they were then summarized in Latin.
Bibliography: Baer, Spain, index S.V. Vincent Ferrer; J.E.
Martínez Ferrando, San Vicente Ferrer y la casa Real de Aragón(1955), incl. bibl.
[Haim Beinart and Zvi Avneri]

FERRIS, IRIS (1910–1970), Indian educator and social
worker. Iris Ferris, who was born in Calcutta, became headmistress of one of the city’s secondary schools while still in her
twenties. She was active in the local Jewish Women’s League.
A member of the Girl Guide movement from childhood, sherose to become commissioner for training in West Bengal. In
1953 she settled in London and joined the staff of the world
bureau of the Girl Guide movement of which she soon became general secretary.

[Flower Elias]

FERRIZUEL, JOSEPH HANASI (called Cidellus: “Little
Cid” or “Chief”; d.c. 1145), physician of Alfonso VI of Castile.
He was allotted property in and around Toledo after its capturein 1085 during the Christian reconquest. Ferrizuel was active
on behalf of the Jews of Guadalajara when this town was occupied the same year. His position at court is indicated by thepart he played in proposing a marriage for the king’s daughter
Urraca on behalf of the Castilian nobles. When the proposal
was rejected by Alfonso, Ferrizuel lost favor. Ferrizuel gave assistance to the Jews who fled from areas under Muslim rule in
Spain to the Christian kingdoms in the north. However, Abraham ibn Daud relates that he treated the Karaites ruthlessly
and expelled them from all the citadels in Castile. Judah Halevi
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

festivals
dedicated several poems to him and to his nephew Solomon b.
Ferrizuel, who was murdered on his return from a successfulpolitical mission abroad, and subsequently mourned by thepoet. In 1110, a year after Alfonso’s death, Ferrizuel was oneof the witnesses and signatories to a charter of immunities
granted by Queen Urraca. Nothing about Ferrizuel is known
after this date. He had probably died by 1145, when Alfonso VII
gave his property to the Cathedral of Toledo.
Bibliography: Baer, Spain, index S.V. Joseph Ferrizuel; Baer,
Urkunden, 2 (1936), 14, 552 n. l; idem, in: Zion, 1 (1936), 17; Abraham
ibn Daud, Book of Tradition – Sefer ha-Qabbalah, ed. and tr. by G.
Cohen (1967), index.
[Haim Beinart]

FESELA (Federación Sefaradí Latinoamericana), roof organization of the Sephardi communities of Latin America,
affiliated to the World Sephardi Federation as well as to theWorld Zionist Organization. FESELA was founded in 1972 in
Lima (Peru) during the Conference of Jewish Communities in
Latin America by a group of young Sephardi leaders representing the new leadership of Sephardim born in Latin America.
They were seeking representation in the World Zionist Organization not through political parties but on the basis of theirethnic identity – as Sephardim.
The executive of FESELA is rotated: every two years a different president and secretary – from a different country –must be elected, and the seat of FESELA moves to their respective country. Membership in FESELA is institutional and not
personal, and each country is entitled to one vote. In addition
to Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Guatemala, Mexico,
Panama, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela, the Cuban Sephardi
community of Miami is also active on the board.
The main objectives of FESELA are to represent the Sephardi communities of Latin America, to strengthen Sephardi
identity, to combat assimilation, to promote the Zionist cause.
and to support the State of Israel. FESELA promotes culturalactivities of Sephardim in Latin America and supports the
publication of Sefardica, a journal published by CIDICSEF –Centro de Investigación y Difusión de la Cultura Sefaradí(Center for the Study and Diffusion of Sephardi Culture) in
Buenos Aires.
[Margalit Bejarano (2nd ed.)]FESTIVALS (Heb. ‫ ַחג‬, ḥ ag; ‫מוֹ ֵעד‬, mo’ed; or ‫יוֹ ם טוֹ ב‬, yom tov).

ered in some respects a festival in its own right, (c) the New
Year (*Rosh Ha-Shanah) and the Day of *Atonement, (d)*Rosh Ḥ odesh, the first day of the lunar month. These divisions can however be still further divided. Rosh Ha-Shanah
and the Day of Atonement, while obviously belonging to asingle pattern, nevertheless differ from each other completely.
The three *pilgrim festivals, too, although similar in many aspects differ in detail. There is, furthermore, a decided difference between the first and last festival days and the middle
days termed ḥ ol ha-mo’ed (see below). The second category
too can be subdivided: *Purim and *Ḥ anukkah; the first being biblical (Book of Esther) and the second from the Hasmonean period; memorial days such as *Lag ba-Omer (medieval)and the 15t of *Av (mishnaic) to which may be added *Tu biShevat; thirdly, certain festival days added in modern times
to mark historic events of Jewish importance. Apart from theabove are also festival days of individuals or communities torecord salvation or a similar event.
A festival is characterized by three factors: (1) rejoicing,which mostly takes the form of ceremonial meals (with the
exception of the Day of Atonement), and, on the more important biblical festivals, the prohibition of work; (2) the liturgy(or in Temple times, the special sacrificial service); and (3)special ceremonials of the festival, such as eating of maẓ ẓ ot
on Passover (biblical injunction), lighting of the candles ofḤ annukah (talmudic), and the planting of saplings on Tu biShevat (custom).
The liturgy is in effect dictated by the type of festival.
The main changes from everyday prayer are mainly in (a) the*Amidah, (b) the addition of *Hallel, (c) the reading of the*Torah, (d) the *Musaf service representing the special sacrifices of the day (for details, see below – Liturgy). It can generally be stated that the less important the festival, the lesschanges are made in the liturgy. On Sabbath, the pilgrim festivals, and the high holidays, it is customary for the woman
to light *candles accompanied by a special benediction, and(except Sabbath) also by the she-heḥ eyanu, whereas the man
makes sanctification (Kiddush) over wine (except on the Day
of Atonement). It is interesting to note that the national dayof mourning, Ninth of *Av, is also regarded in a sense as a festival, as it is termed “mo’ed” in Lamentations (1:15), and, according to tradition, will be the greatest festival in the time tocome (with reference to Jer. 31:13).

Introduction
The root of ‫ ַחג‬is ‫ ָחגֹג‬ḥ agog, to celebrate, or possibly ‫ חוּג‬ḥ ug, togo round. It is related to the Arabic ḥ ajja which means to go ona pilgrimage from which comes ḥ ajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca.
The term mo’ed means an appointed place, time, or season.
The festivals can be divided into two main categories
each of which can be subdivided: (1) those commanded by thePentateuch, and (2) those added later.
The Pentateuchal festivals are (a) the *Sabbath (notstrictly a festival), (b) the three pilgrim festivals, *Passover,*Shavuot, and *Sukkot, with Shemini Aẓ ret which is consid-

In the Bible
The festivals mentioned in the Pentateuch as “feasts” (‫ַח ִ ּגים‬ḥ aggim) are Passover (Ex. 12:14), also called “the feast of unleavened bread”; Shavuot, otherwise “the feast of harvest” (Ex.
23:16) or the “day of the first fruits”; and *Sukkot, also known
as “the feast of ingathering” (ibid.) and sometimes called simply “feast” (ḥ ag) in the Bible. The sages, too, mostly use theterm ḥ ag by itself to refer to Sukkot. Common to all three
festivals is the pilgrimage to Jerusalem from which the term(‫“ ׁ ָשֱדֹ ׁש ְרגָ לִ ים‬the three pilgrim festivals”) is derived. The term
“appointed seasons” (mo’adim) in the Pentateuch, however, in-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6765

festivals
cludes also Rosh Ha-Shanah and the Day of Atonement, as in
the verse “These are the appointed seasons of the Lord, evenholy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their appointed
season” (Lev. 23:4). At times the term “appointed seasons” isused for all the days which are “holy convocations,” including
the Sabbath. Rosh Ḥ odesh, on which work is not forbidden
by biblical injunction and which is not mentioned at all withthe festivals in Leviticus, is nevertheless included among “theappointed seasons” in the section on sacrifices (Num. 28:11). It
seems that the prophets, too, sometimes use “appointed seasons” to refer to the Sabbath and Rosh Ḥ odesh though mostly
these days are not indicated. In one instance only the threepilgrim festivals are included “on the appointed seasons, threetimes in the year” (II Chron. 8:13). Thus the term “season” generally has a wider meaning in the Bible than “feast” because
only the three pilgrim festivals are called “feast,” whereas “season” usually comprises also Rosh Ha-Shanah and the Day of
Atonement. A day of feasting and joy, whether fixed by individuals or established by the whole people to be observed bysucceeding generations, which does not entail special sacrifices, is called yom tov (I Sam. 25:8; Esth. 8:17).
The festivals, like the Sabbath, have their origin in Divine commandments. Leviticus commands not only “it is a
Sabbath unto the Lord” (23:3) and “the Sabbaths of the Lord,”
but also “the appointed seasons of the Lord” (23:4, 44). In the
Bible the common expression “feast of the Lord” (see Hos.
9:5) or “a feast to the Lord” refers to Passover as well as to
Shavuot and to Sukkot. Similarly, the festival which the children of Israel were to celebrate with sacrifices to the Lord in
the wilderness is termed “feast.” Aaron, too, at the incident of
the golden calf, proclaims “Tomorrow shall be a feast to theLord” (Ex. 32:5).
The Source of the Festivals
In the pagan religions of the ancient East, the festivals were
established by man in order to find favor with the deity andprevent disasters. It was against this concept that the prophets
militated (cf. *Sacrifices). The biblical concept, on the other
hand, is the exact antithesis, for not only are the festivals commanded by God but the service on these days as well. The festival sacrifices (Musaf ) are not offered for any material reward,
but in obedience to the Divine command. Among the sins of*Jeroboam is mentioned his ordainment of a feast “like unto
the feast that is in Judah” on the 15t of the eighth month “inthe month which he had devised of his own heart,” and hisbringing sacrifices on it (I Kings 12:32–33). Apart from this incident, there is no mention in the Bible of alterations to the festivals as stated in the Pentateuch or the creation of new ones;“the feast of the Lord from year to year in Shiloh” (Judg. 21:19)
is seemingly one of the festivals mentioned in the Pentateuch.
In the Bible various reasons are given for the festivals. Someare specifically connected with the exodus from Egypt. Passover, the feast of unleavened bread, is celebrated on the anniversary of the day that God led the children of Israel out of
Egypt. The paschal lamb was commanded for all generations766

to commemorate “that He passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt” (Ex. 12:27) and the unleavened breadis in memory of the haste with which the Israelites left Egypt.
Similarly, the reason for dwelling in tabernacles on Sukkot is“that your generations may know that I made the children of
Israel to dwell in booths when I brought them out of the landof Egypt” (Lev. 23:43); and even for Shavuot it is said, “Andthou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt;and thou shalt observe and do these statutes” (Deut. 16:12; cf.
Naḥ manides ad loc.; cf. Deut. 5:15 on Sabbath). The recital on
the offering of the first fruits also testifies to the exodus from
Egypt (Deut. 26:5–10). Together with their theological-historical sources, the festivals are also connected with the annual
agricultural cycle. Shavuot is the festival “of the first fruits ofwheat harvest” (Ex. 34:22) on which two loaves made fromthe new wheat crop were offered; hence its names: “the harvest feast” and “the day of the first fruits.” Sukkot is “the feastof the ingathering” at the end of the agricultural year when
the ingathering from the threshing floor and the winepress iscompleted. Even Passover, in the spring, apart from the commemoration of the exodus, has an agricultural basis. The Omer
sacrifice of the new barley was offered on the second day of thefestival and permitted the partaking of the new grain crop.
The festivals thus seem to be rooted in two distinct
sources which, according to some scholars, are independentof each other. They claim that the agricultural festivals antedate their theological-historical source, specifically pointing
to the fact that Passover and Sukkot are celebrated in seasons
when night and day are roughly of equal length. Their contention, however, is unacceptable since each festival in thePentateuch is based on two distinct types of reasons statedsometimes even in the same paragraph. In the case of Passover, the agricultural motif is added to the clearly historicalaspect of the festival, while with Sukkot, the historical aspectof the festival is added to the agricultural although this historical aspect is not specifically connected with the time of
the year of Sukkot. At any rate the distinction between “theancient folk festivals” and the later “theological festivals” isdoubtful. Contrary to the three pilgrim festivals which are
mentioned in the Bible together with their double motifs, noreason, save it being a Divine precept, is given for the day of“memorial proclaimed with the blast of horns” (i.e., the later
Rosh Ha-Shanah), celebrated on the first day of the seventhmonth. The Day of Atonement, however, was inaugurated forthe atonement of sins.
Celebration of the Festival
The Pentateuch cites two specific commandments in connection with the “seasons of the Lord, holy convocations”: work is
forbidden and, as a remembrance, sacrifices are to be brought
to the accompaniment of trumpet blowing before the Lord
(Num. 10:10). The Bible also specifically commands rejoicing
on Shavuot (Deut. 16:11) and especially on Sukkot (Lev. 23:40;
Deut. 16:14–15; cf. Neh. 8:17). Such commandments, however,were common to all the festivals, as is proven for instance by
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

TISHRI

49

32

2

15



29

30

Simḥ at Torah in Israel only

14



28

1

13




27

Second day holiday
in Diaspora only42

Yom ha-Sho’ah
27 (Day of Holocaust) 12

44

43

41
11

40
10




39
9

26

38
8

25 Ḥ ANUKKAH

Calendar of festivals and fasts of the Jewish year (for Sephardi and Ashkenazi dates of Seliḥ ot prayer see *Seliḥ ot).

JEWISH HOLIDAY

23 SIMḤ AT TORAH

37
7

22

35

34

36

19

18

17

33

31

3 18 Lag ba-Omer

30




PESAḤ
15 (Passover)
16

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22 7

6

 Seliḥ ot prayer

48

19
YOM HA’AẒ MA’UT
5 (Independence Day)

5

(Seﬁraḥ period) begins

47

18



46

SHAVUOT
21 6 (Pentecost)

45

17

SIVAN
16

IYYAR

Fast of the
14 Firstborn

NISAN

PESAḤ
21 Last Day

 Pilgrimage festivals  Counting of the Omer

15 Shushan Purim

14 PURIM

13 Fast of Esther

ADAR

20

MIN0R HOLIDAYSHEVAT

15 Tu bi-Shevat

2

Fast of
10 Tenth of Tevet
1TEVET

21 Hoshanah Rabba
SHEMINI AZERET
22 SIMḤ AT TORAH1

KISLEV

20

19

18

17

16

ḥ ol ha-mo’ed

SUKKOT
15 (Tabernacles)

YOM KIPPUR
10 (Day of Atornement)

Ten Days of
Penitence

3 Fast of Gedaliah

HESHVANḥ ol ha-mo’ed

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6
TAMMUZ

Fast of Seventeenth
17 of Tamuz

Three Weeks of Mourning

ROSH HASHANAH
1 (New Year)ROSH HASHANAH
2 (New Year)
Nine Days

15 Fifteenth of Av

Fast of
9 Tishah be-Avi

AV



























































ELUL

festivals

767

festivals
the great rejoicings on Passover (Ezra 6:22; II Chron. 30:21ff.)
and those “on the first day of the seventh month” (Neh. 8:2,
9ff.). These celebrations, especially when the people gatheredin the Temple, are testified to by Isaiah: “Ye shall have a song as
in the night when a feast is hallowed; And gladness of heart, as
when one goeth with a pipe to come into the mountain of theLord to the Rock of Israel” (30:29). The festivals are therefore
referred to as days of mirth, gladness, and joy. It seems thatthe rejoicing of the people at the golden calf – “[they] offered
burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings and the people
sat down to eat and drink and rose up to make merry” (Ex.
32:6) – was typical of all festive celebrations, in which the huge
feast as well as dancing occupied a prominent place. The celebrations were, however, limited by the sanctity of the festival,
and there is no hint in the Bible of the orgies, wildness, andpromiscuous abandon connected with the pagan festivals in
the ancient Near East. The Pentateuch even stresses the factthat the rejoicings are of the whole community, including
slaves, and commands not to forget the levite, the proselyte,
the orphan, or the widow (Deut. 16:11, 14). During the early
Second Temple period it was customary to send presents tothe needy on the festivals (Neh. 8:10–12).

through prayers and psalms follow the tradition of theirforefathers. Therefore the Day of Atonement is also a festival though the partaking of food is forbidden and there is
no wild rejoicing, merrymaking, and dancing accompanied
by song and music which arouse uncontrollable desires. Ignorance of the nature of true happiness leads people to assume
that on the festivals joy is to be achieved through physicalindulgences (Philo, Spec. 2:193–4). Philo further states thatthe true significance of the festival is to find pleasure andenjoyment through meditation about the world and the harmony existing in it (ibid., 2:52). Were man’s virtue constantly
to rule his desires, his whole life, from his birth to the day hedies, would be one long festival (ibid., 2:42).

In the Apocrypha and Hellenistic Jewish Literature
During the early Second Temple period the laws of the Sabbath and festivals came to be very strictly observed. The festivals were celebrated with great rejoicings and it was customary
to invite the poor to the feasting (Tob. 2:1–2). Many would go
up to Jerusalem on all the festivals. During the persecutionsof Antiochus, observance of the Sabbath and festivals was
forbidden. *Demetrius, however, declared the Sabbaths, New
Moons, and festivals, including three days before and after, tobe holidays for all Jews in the Seleucid kingdom (testified to in
his letter to Jonathan the Maccabee; I Macc. 10:34).
In contrast to the Greek and Roman festival celebrations
which were accompanied by gluttonous, drunken, and bacchanalian revelries, Hellenistic Jewish writers stressed the uniqueness of the Jewish festivals. *Philo claims that the cessationof work on the festival was a possible danger since eating anddrinking arouse lust and other low instincts. Giving vent tothese feelings without restriction could lead to vice and limitless evil since the festival would serve as a protective means
against retribution. The lawgiver therefore did not permit
his people to celebrate their festivals in the way of other nations but commanded them first to purify themselves throughthe restriction of their desires for pleasure at the very timeof their celebrations. Then they were to gather at the Temple
to participate in the hymns, prayers, and sacrifices so thatthe place, the sight, and the service would influence theirfiner senses – sight and hearing – with a spirit of piety. Last
but not least, by commanding the sacrifice of a sin-offering,
he warned the people to stop sinning; for it seems that a person would not transgress at the very time he asks for forgiveness. Those gathered for the festive banquet do not come to
stuff themselves with meat and wine like other nations, but

In Talmudic Literature
The term ḥ aggim, as referring to Jewish festivals, hardly occurs in rabbinical literature (except in prayers which are in
an archaic language). Instead, the festivals mentioned in the
Bible are called mo’adot. Mo’ed (though not ha-mo’ed) in the
singular is mostly applied to the intermediate days, especiallyto distinguish them from festival days on which no work at all
is allowed. These are usually called yom tov. As in the Bible,
yom tov was also applied in rabbinic literature to days of rejoicing (general or private) not mentioned in the Pentateuch, andon which work was allowed. These were either new festivals
ordained for all times or days of rejoicing for certain events.
It is doubtful whether the Day of Atonement was included in
the term yom tov (but see Ta’an. 4:8).
The commandment concerning the feast of unleavened
bread, that “… no manner of work shall be done in them…,
save that which every man must eat, that only may be doneby you” (Ex. 12:16), was interpreted by the sages to meanthat work, for purposes of eating, is allowed on all those festivals (Sif. Num. 147) on which “servile work” is prohibitedby the Pentateuch. (In contrast to the Sabbath and the Day
of Atonement where it is ordained “ye shall do no work.”)
The types of work forbidden on the Sabbath but allowed onyom tov for the purpose of eating (Beẓ ah 5:2) are kneading,baking, slaughtering, skinning, salting, cutting, burning, andcarrying (the last two are also permitted for purposes otherthan eating; Beẓ ah 12a–b). Hunting, reaping, sheaf binding,threshing, winnowing, selecting, and grinding are forbidden(as to sifting, opinion is divided). Types of work for the indirect preparation of food (‫ )מכשירי אוכל נפש‬are permitted.
The differentiation between the types of work allowed andthose forbidden is apparently based on customs prevalent at
the time. Except for the work permitted for the sake of foodand some other minor allowances made (see Beẓ ah 5:1), everything forbidden on the Sabbath is also forbidden on thefestivals. Moreover, the prohibition of handling *mukẓ eh(non-usable) objects is stricter on the festivals than on the
Sabbath so that the festival prohibitions should not be taken
lightly (Beẓ ah 2a–b).
The festivals are also similar to the Sabbath in rejoicing
and in honoring the day. All halakhic Midrashim interpret the768

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

festivals
term “holy convocation” to mean that the festivals are to be
sanctified “with food and drink and clean clothes” and “theDay of Atonement, on which there is no food or drink, theTorah states that one must honor it with clean clothes” (Shab.
119a). It was usual to cut one’s hair before the festivals. Similarly, it was the custom, later incorporated in the halakhah,
not to work or eat in the late afternoon preceding the festival. In the Middle Ages, it became customary to light a candle on the eve of the festival and to recite a blessing, as on the
Sabbath. Rejoicing on the festival involved eating and drinking (concerning the prohibition of fasting see Judith 8:6; TJ,
Ta’an. 2:12) and giving presents to the women and children.
During the tannaitic period the sages disputed the question
as to how a person should spend the festival: “R. Eliezer saysthat a person should either eat and drink or sit and study on
the festival; R. Joshua declares that a person’s time should be
divided between eating and drinking and the house of learning.” R. Johanan, the amora, found support in the Scriptures
for both opinions (Pes. 68b; cf. Beẓ ah 15b; Sif. Deut. 135, issimilar to R. Joshua’s opinion). The amoraim also disagreed
on the similar question as to whether the festivals were meant
for the study of Torah, or whether eating and drinking was
the main reason and permission to study the Torah on them
but a secondary consideration (TJ, Shab. 15:3). According to
the sources, it seems that it was customary to go to the bet hamidrash both on the eve of the festival as well as in the morning. Prayers, however, were shortened because of the festive
meal. The sages, while stating that “the festivals were given to
Israel only for their own pleasure” (S. Buber (ed.), MidrashTanḥ uma (1885), Mid. Tanḥ uma Gen. 4), nevertheless noted
the difference between Israel and the nations: “You grant thenations many festivals and they eat, drink, and are wanton,
they go to the theater, the circus, and anger You by word anddeed; but Israel is not so. You grant them festivals and theyeat, drink, and rejoice, and go to the synagogues and battei
midrash (“houses of learning”) and multiply their prayers,
their festival offerings, and their sacrifices” (Pd RK 340–1).
It seems that R. Joshua’s opinion (“half to the Lord and half
for yourselves”) was practiced and became halakhah. However, practices of drunkenness and licentiousness are alsomentioned (Beẓ ah 4a; Kid. 81a); R. Abba bar Memel, a Palestinian amora, states, “Did they not forbid work on the intermediate days only in order that people should eat, drink,and diligently study the Torah? But they eat, drink, and arewanton” (TJ, MK 2:3) – exactly as the Midrash describes thegentile nations.
Paul opposed the observance of the Sabbath and thefestivals (Gal. 4:10; Col. 2:16). Traces of the Jewish-Christiandispute concerning the festivals are found in the Midrash (S.
Buber (ed.), Midrash Tanḥ uma (1885), Pinḥ as, para. 17). The
sharp condemnation by the sages of “he who despises the festivals” (Avot 3:12; Pes. 118a) is probably directed against theChristian heretics, and probably because of them the observance of the Sabbath and the festivals was stressed so strongly
in Ereẓ Israel. Later, in the Middle Ages, Judah Halevi statesthat the festivals were the main factor which upheld Israel in
its exile (Kuzari 3:10).

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6769

The Intermediate Days
Apart from the laws governing the musaf sacrifices on the festivals, nothing is stated about the festival days following thefirst day of Passover and Sukkot, respectively, which the sages
called ḥ olo shel mo’ed or just mo’ed. They taught that these days
are also to be considered as days of “holy convocation.” Only
partial work is permitted on them for “the Torah gave the sages
the power of determining on which day it is forbidden to dowork and on which day it is allowed; which work is forbidden
and which allowed” (Sif. Deut. 135). Generally, work which
prevents deterioration or loss is permitted on the intermediate
days; where this is not the case, work is forbidden. It is forbidden to delay work in order to do it on the intermediate days
except for public works. In Ereẓ Israel stringent laws were imposed whereby no work at all was done, even if it was required
for the festival itself. The halakhah, however, conformed to the
Babylonian practice which allowed some work (as mentioned
above). All must rejoice on the intermediate days; thus marriage is not permitted on these days as rejoicing should not bemixed, ein me’arevim simḥ ah be-simḥ ah (MK 8b).
[Moshe David Herr]

Second Days of Festivals
In the Diaspora an extra day (in Heb. yom tov sheni shel galuyyot) is added to each of the biblical festival days, except forḥ ol ha-mo’ed and the Day of Atonement. The practice originated because of the uncertainty in the Diaspora of the day on
which the Sanhedrin announced the New Moon. Later, whenastronomical calculations were relied upon, the sages declaredthat the custom should nevertheless be accepted as permanent.
Although the Day of Atonement was an exception, as a double
fast day was considered too difficult, there were individuals
who observed two days. Rosh Ha-Shanah, on the other hand,
gradually came to be observed as a two-day festival even in
Ereẓ Israel; beginnings of the custom here, too, are to be foundin the Second Temple period (RH 4:4), although it became universal only in the Middle Ages. With regard to Passover andSukkot, the first day of ḥ ol ha-mo’ed was observed as a full festival day in the Diaspora while an additional day was added at
the end. Thus on Passover a second seder is held on the secondnight and an eighth day is added. The day following Shemini
Aẓ eret at the completion of Sukkot became known as Simḥ atTorah, the “Rejoicing of the Law.” As long as the new moon
was determined by visual evidence, there was no fixed date for
Shavuot, so that the day of the festival was not in any doubt
as it was always on the 50t day counting from the second dayof Passover, which day would have been ratified in good timeby the Sanhedrin messengers. Despite this, a second day wasobserved in the Diaspora for Shavuot as well. It would appear
that certain sources regard the second day as a punishment
and that for its observance no reward is to be expected (TJ,
Eruv. 3:9). The only difference in observance between the additional days and regular festival days is in the practice con-festivals
cerning burial, the use of medicine (Sh. Ar., Oḥ , 496:2), andlaws regarding nolad (the appearance or creation of something
not previously in existence). An egg, for instance, which waslaid on the first day of the festival remains forbidden all thatday but may be eaten on the second day (ibid. 513:5). On thesecond day of Rosh Ha-Shanah, however, nolad is not permitted to be used because the two days are considered one longday. Certain trends in Conservative Judaism have made thesecond festival day optional, while the Reform has abolishedit altogether, even for Rosh Ha-Shanah.
A person from Ereẓ Israel who temporarily visits the Diaspora has to observe the additional day when in company,
so as not to arouse controversy (ibid. 496:3, cf. Pes. 4:1; see*Domicile). A visitor to Ereẓ Israel, however, observes only
one day if he has any intention of staying. According to Ẓ evi
Hirsch *Ashkenazi, even without such intention he observes
one day only (Ḥ akham Ẓ evi, resp. no. 167).

lel. In contrast to Ereẓ Israel, the priests recite the *priestly
blessing in the Diaspora only during the Musaf service of thefestivals (excluding Rosh Ḥ odesh). When one of the festival
days is followed by the Sabbath, a procedure known as *eruv
tavshilin permits the preparation of food on the festival for the
Sabbath, which would otherwise be prohibited.
The “good days” mentioned in *Megillat Ta’anit, of whichsome are also mentioned in other sources, were all establishedin the Second Temple period. Save for Ḥ anukkah and Purim
all have long disappeared, the last one being Nicanor’s Day(13t Adar) which was still observed in Ereẓ Israel in the seventh to ninth centuries. During the Middle Ages and in modern times other days became commonly accepted as “gooddays,” some without any official standing. These are Lag baOmer, the 15t of Av, and Tu bi-Shevat, and lately Israel *Independence Day, which is also celebrated as a holiday withspecial prayers and Hallel.

LiturgyOn the three pilgrim festivals and on the high holidays aspecial *Amidah is recited while on Rosh Ḥ odesh and ḥ ol
ha-mo’ed the ordinary weekday Amidah is said. In both, the*ya’aleh ve-yavo prayer is included, as also in the Grace after
Meals. On Ḥ anukkah and Purim *al ha-nissim, recounting
the miracles of the particular festival, is said in both Amidah
and Grace. The Amidah is followed by *Hallel, preceded andcompleted by a benediction. On Shavuot, Sukkot (includingḥ ol ha’mo’ed), Shemini Aẓ eret, and Ḥ anukkah, Hallel is recited in its complete form. On Passover full Hallel is recitedon the first day(s) only but not on ḥ ol ha-mo’ed or on the last
festival day(s) when only “half ” Hallel is recited. Full Hallel isalso recited during the seder and in many congregations also
at the conclusion of the evening service on Passover eve. On
Rosh Ha-Shanah and the Day of Atonement, Hallel is deleted
as these are days of judgment. On Purim, too, Hallel is notrecited. On Rosh Ḥ odesh “half ” Hallel is recited (a Babylonian custom). The Torah reading on the festivals is from two
scrolls: the first portion always contains a reference to the festivals, while the second is from Numbers 28–29 concerning
the special sacrifice of the day. On Simḥ at Torah three scrolls
are read: in the first the Pentateuch is concluded; in the second it is begun again; while from the third the reading is of
the sacrifices of the day. Unlike on the Sabbath, there is no
reading at the afternoon service, except on the Day of Atonement. On the other hand, in many congregations the Torah
is read on Simḥ at Torah eve. It is customary to read the Songof Songs on the Sabbath during Passover and Ecclesiastes on
the Sabbath of Sukkot. On Shavuot the Book of Ruth is readand on Purim the Book of Esther. Lamentations is read on
the Ninth of Av. On all the Pentateuchal festivals, includingḥ ol ha-mo’ed and Rosh Ḥ odesh, the *Musaf Amidah is recitedwhich corresponds to the special sacrifices of the day. On RoshḤ odesh the *tefillin are taken off before Musaf, while on ḥ ol
ha-mo’ed tefillin are not used except according to Ashkenazi
practice in the Diaspora, when they are taken off before Hal-

Women and the Festivals
Women are responsible for obeying all of Judaism’s negative
commandments and for observing most of the positive commandments. These positive precepts include celebrating the
Sabbath and all of the holy days and festivals of the Jewish year
(TB Pes. 109a). However, women are exempt from the following positive mitzvot linked to festivals and holy days: hearing
the shofar on Rosh ha-Shanah, dwelling in a sukkah during
the Sukkot festival, waving the lulav on Sukkot, and counting the omer. Since these are all commandments that are tobe performed at fixed times of the year, they conform to the
exemption of women from time-bound mitzvot prescribedin Kid. 1:7. Yet, the Talmud specifically obligates women toother time-bound festival observances, generally rituals thattake place in the home. These include kiddush (sanctificationof wine) on the Sabbath (Ber. 20b), and, according to mostauthorities, on the festivals as well; kindling Sabbath and festival lights and the Hanukkah lamp (Shab. 23a); listening to
the reading of the megillah (Scroll of Esther) on Purim (Meg.
4a); and eating maẓ ẓ ah (Pes. 43b) and drinking four cups ofwine at the Passover seder (Pes.108a).
A number of rabbinic authorities have held that a woman’s voluntary performance of those festival mitzvot fromwhich she is halakhically exempt should be understood as apraiseworthy personal minhag (custom) or permitted as a fulfillment of an individual neder (vow). Authorities have been
divided over whether one who observes an optional mitzvah
may recite the benediction that usually accompanies the performance of that precept. R. Moses *Isserles (the Rema, 1525 or
1530–1572) maintained that a woman could recite the blessingin this case (Sh. Ar., Oraḥ Ḥ ayyim 589:6) and this became thecustom among Ashkenazi Jews. Thus, a woman may choose tolisten to the shofar or may sound it herself, and she may recite
the appropriate blessing (Oḥ 589:6). A woman may not soundthe shofar on behalf of others, according to the principle that
only one who is obligated to perform a precept may perform
it for others (Oḥ 589:1).

770

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

festschriftenTwo of the three commandments specifically associatedwith women in rabbinic tradition are connected with Sabbath observance (Shab. 2:6). These are the kindling of Sabbath lights before sunset (hadlakah) and removing some ofthe dough from the Sabbath loaf and burning it in the ovenin remembrance of Temple sacrifice (ḥ allah). These two obligations may also be performed by a man if no woman is present; however, the Shulḥ an Arukh rules that a woman takes
precedence over a man in kindling the Sabbath lights for herhousehold (Oḥ 263:2, 3).
Women, like men, are required to fast and afflict themselves in various ways on the Day of Atonement and to refrainfrom doing any work (Suk. 28b); they are also obligated to observe all other mandated fast days. Pregnant women are expected to fast (Oḥ 617:1). If a pregnant woman says she must
eat, she may be given incremental amounts of liquid and thenfood until she is satisfied (Oḥ 617:1). A woman in childbirth,from the onset of labor until three days after the birth of herchild, must eat normally (Oḥ 617:4). A nursing mother should
fast unless her fasting will jeopardize her child’s health.
Men have traditionally observed Simḥ at Torah with festive celebration, particularly circular processions (hakafot)
around the synagogue, and joyous dancing, with the Torah
scrolls. In recent years many women have initiated separate
women’s hakafot with the Torah scrolls. There is no halakhic
objection to this practice since a woman, like a man, is permitted to touch and hold the Torah scroll at all times (YD 282:9).
Some contemporary Orthodox authorities, however, oppose
this innovation because they link it with their perceptions offeminism as a threat to traditional Jewish life.
Rosh Ḥ odesh, the festival marking the New Moon andthe start of each month, is strongly associated with womenin Jewish tradition. In some eras in the Jewish past, women’s
abstention from work on Rosh Ḥ odesh was encouraged; theShulḥ an Arukh says women may work on Rosh Ḥ odesh but
praises Jewish women who refrain from doing so (Oḥ 417:1).
Women are forbidden to fast on Rosh Ḥ odesh (Oḥ 418:1) and
it is a mitzvah for them to feast (Oḥ 419:1). However, womenare exempt from the obligation to bless the New Moon on its
appearance, since this is a time-bound positive precept (Halikhot Betah 16:10). In recent decades, many Jewish women havereclaimed their traditional association with this day, forming
Rosh Ḥ odesh groups for study and fellowship.

Passover Companion: Women’s Reflections on the Festival of Freedom(2003); ibid., The Women’s Seder Sourcebook: Rituals and Readings for
Use at the Passover Seder (2003; R. Biale, Women in Jewish Law: An
Exploration of Women’s Issues in Halakhic Sources (1995); E.M. Broner, Bringing Home the Light: A Jewish Woman’s Handbook of Rituals(1999); M. Kaufman, The Woman in Jewish Law and Tradition (1993);
G. Twersky Reimer and J.A. Kates (eds.), Beginning Anew: A Woman’s
Companion to the High Holy Days (1997).

FESTSCHRIFTEN (from German; lit. “festival writings”).
A Festschrift is usually a volume of articles by several authors
for a celebration, especially a volume of learned essays, by students, colleagues, and admirers to honor a scholar on a special
anniversary. The custom of publishing Festschriften became
popular in academic circles in Germany in the 19t century
and was eagerly adopted by the Jewish scholarly community as
well, particularly to honor the birthdays or memory of prominent rabbis, teachers at rabbinical seminaries, and private
scholars. An institution, such as a rabbinical seminary, a Jewish school, or a society could also be honored. The contents ofthese books usually consist of a brief dedication or biographical sketch of the person honored, a list of his writings, and aseries of scholarly contributions in the field of his interest.
Early examples of this genre were published in Central Europe when modern Jewish scholarship was striving toachieve recognition within the general community of scholars. At that time formal recognition of scholarship in Jewish
subjects was generally denied, except for Bible scholarship;even that field, however, was conceived as an exclusively
theological discipline reserved for Christian scholars. Thus
the Festschriften served the apologetic tendency prevalent in
the early period of modern Jewish learning. With the spreadof the methods of modern Jewish scholarship from Germany
to other countries, Festschriften also became popular, andthis type of literature continues to be published in Israel andthe Diaspora. Generally, the main subject of a Festschrift is
not the honoree, but in some cases memorial volumes may
consist primarily of the literary remains of the person. A related development is the publication of hundreds of memorial volumes dedicated to the Jewish communities that weredestroyed during the Holocaust; usually they take the formof reminiscences of the survivors.

Bibliography: G.F. Moore, Judaism, 2 (1927), 40–54; E.
Rackman, Sabbath and Festivals in the Modern Age (1961); Y. Vainstein, Cycle of the Jewish Year (19612); H. Schauss, Guide to Jewish HolyDays (1962); S.Y. Zevin, Ha-Mo’adim ba-Halakhah (196310); Y.L. Barukh and Y.T. Levinsky (eds.), Sefer ha-Mo’adim, 8 vols. (1963–656);
S. Goren, Torat ha-Mo’adim (1964); E. Kitov, Book of Our Heritage, 1(1968). See also the bibliographies attached to the articles on the individual festivals. ON SECOND DAYS OF FESTIVALS: Conservative
Judaism, 24:2 (Winter 1970), 21–59. Add. Bibliography: P.V.
Adelman, Miriam’s Well: Rituals for Jewish Women Around the Year(1986); S. Cohen Anisfeld, T. Mohr, and C. Spector (eds.), The Women’s

Lists and Indexes
A list of Festschriften, “Jubilee, Memorial, and Tribute Volumes” (in: Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, 1941), enumerates
over a hundred titles for the period 1864–1941. The bibliographical quarterly Kirjath Sepher regularly published a list ofworks under the heading Kevaẓ im (“collections”), from whicha fairly complete bibliography of Jewish Festschriften can bederived. Nearly a hundred Festschriften honoring Jewish educational institutions and published from 1834 on are listed
by Leah Y. Mishkin (in: sbb, 5 (1961), 92–101). Many of these,
however, have the institutions as their principal subject.
An analytical Festschrift is An Index to Jewish Festschriften (1937) by J.R. Marcus and A. Bilgray, which analyzes

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

771[Judith R. Baskin (2nd ed.)]festus, porcius
54 works by author, title, and subject. A general index to Festschriften that analyzes a substantial number of works of Jewish
interest is Articles on Antiquity in Festschriften, and Index; theAncient Near East, the Old Testament, Greece, Rome, Roman
Law, Byzantium (1962) by Dorothy Rounds.
I. Joel’s Reshimat Ma’amarim be-Madda’ei ha-Yahadut(1969, “List of Articles on Jewish Studies”), the first volume
of a projected series, analyzes periodicals and collections, including Festschriften published in 1966.
Index to Festschriften in Jewish Studies (1971), compiled
and edited by Charles Berlin, gives a comprehensive list of 243
Festschriften with an alphabetical list of authors and articles,
and a detailed index. It excludes the Festschriften indexed by
Marcus and Bilgray.

rounded by Fettmilch, the self-styled “new Haman,” and his
followers, and the whole community was forced to leave thecity. Meanwhile the emperor had issued an order for Fettmilch’s arrest. On March 10, 1616, he and six associates were
hanged and quartered; after its return the community commemorated the date annually as the “Purim Winz” (“Purim
of Vincent”) with the reading of the Megillat Vinẓ composed
by Elhanan b. Abraham Helin in Hebrew and Yiddish (publ.
Frankfurt, 1616).
Bibliography: A. Freimann and I. Kracauer, Frankfort(1929), 73–107 (Eng.); I. Kracauer, Geschichte der Juden in Frankfurt
a.M., 1 (1925), 358–410; idem, in: ZGJD, 4 (1890), 127–69, 319–65; 5(1892), 1–26; D. Gans, Ẓ emaḥ David ha-Shalem (1966), 228 (introd.
in English); Baron, Social2, 14 (1969), 190–7.

[Theodore Wiener]°FESTUS, PORCIUS, Roman procurator of Judea 60–62 C.E.
Under his rule the sect of Jewish patriots known as the *Sicarii
greatly increased in number, although, according to Josephus,
the procurator made every effort to curb their activity. Festus
sent his troops to suppress a “deceiver” who led the people
into the wilderness promising them victory, and many of themwere killed (Jos., Ant., 20:188). Soon after his appointment
Nero decided the dispute in *Caesarea between the Syrians
and the Jews in such a way as to make the Syrians the mastersof the city; this aroused considerable unrest among the Jewish population. Another legacy of the procuratorship of Felix
was the trial of the apostle Paul, whom Festus sent to Rometo be tried after a number of hearings. During his procuratorship Agrippa II added an upper story to the former Hasmonean palace in order to be able to overlook the Temple court.
The priests countered by erecting a wall screening the Temple from the palace. For military reasons Festus ordered thiswall to be demolished but nevertheless permitted the priests
to send a delegation to Rome to appeal his decision. Nero was
persuaded by his wife, *Poppaea Sabina, to decide in their favor and the wall was allowed to stand. Festus died suddenly
in Ereẓ Israel in 62 C.E. and was later succeeded by *Albinus.

FEUCHTWANG, DAVID (1864–1936), rabbi and scholar. After studying in Vienna and Berlin, Feuchtwang succeeded his
father Meir as rabbi in *Mikulov, Moravia, in 1892. In 1903 hebecame rabbi in Vienna and succeeded H.P. *Chajes as chief
rabbi (1927). Feuchtwang contributed numerous articles toboth Jewish and non-Jewish scholarly journals. Among his
published work are Nachum im Lichte der Assyriologie (1888),
Das Wasseropfer und die damit verbundenen Zeremonien(1911), Der Tierkreis in der Tradition und im synagogalen Ritus (1913), and Studien zum Buche Ruth (1925). He also wrote a
study of the Hebrew tombstone inscriptions of Mikulov. Several volumes of his sermons and lectures were published.

°FETTMILCH, VINCENT (d. 1616), anti-Jewish guild leader
in *Frankfurt. In 1612 he presented a petition to the emperor
accusing the senate of Frankfurt of corruption and favoring
Jews. Though the petition was ignored, he exploited the economic crisis and religious strife to agitate against the senate
and the Jews. The populace disregarded two imperial warnings and were unappeased by the expulsion of 60 poor Jewish families. On Aug. 5, 1614, they attacked the ghetto gates,
which were forced open after five hours. The Jewish defenders rushed to join their women and children, who were hiding in the cemetery. Two Jews and one Gentile lost their lives
and the pillage continued until noon. The cemetery was sur-

FEUCHTWANGER, LION (1884–1958), German historical novelist. Feuchtwanger was born into a Bavarian-Jewish
family. Coming from the Jewish community of Fuerth the
Feuchtwangers settled in Munich in the mid-1840s, established a successful private bank and a factory for margarine,
and were very active in the Orthodox Synagogenverein Ohel
Jakob. Lion Feuchtwanger studied philosophy at Berlin andMunich; in 1907 he received his doctorate from the University of Munich for a thesis on Heine’s Rabbi of Bacherach. As ayoung man he was mainly interested in drama. He wrote abouta dozen plays, three of them in collaboration with Brecht. It
was after World War I that Feuchtwanger’s name first became
known. His greatest success came with Jud Suess (1925; English edition Jew Suess, 1926; U.S. edition Power, 1927), a novel
about Joseph Suess *Oppenheimer, the 18t-century court Jew,
which he had originally written as a play. In 1939 this world
best seller, which had already been made into a motion picturein Britain, was used by the Nazis as the basis for a viciously
antisemitic film. Feuchtwanger’s other big success of the 1920s
was Die haessliche Herzogin Margarete Maultasch (1923; The
Ugly Duchess, 1927), a psychological study of an Austrian historical figure. Erfolg (1930; Success, 1930) daringly exposed
the moral corruption of postwar Germany. It was during
this period that he began writing his *Josephus trilogy – Der
juedische Krieg (1932; Josephus, 1932), Die Soehne (1935; The
Jew of Rome, 1936), and Der Tag wird kommen (1941; The Day
Will Come, 1942). Lion Feuchtwanger’s brother Ludwig was a

772

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: Jos., Wars, 2:271; Jos., Ant. 20:182, 185–8; Acts
24:27; 25:1–26: 32; Schuerer, Hist, 194, 233f., 239f.; Klausner, Bayit
Sheni, 5 (19635), 36–37; Paul-Wissowa, 43 (1953), 220–7, no. 36.
[Lea Roth]Feuer, Leon Israel
well-known figure in the cultural life of the Weimar Republic. Until 1933 he was the editor of the Duncker & Humblot
publishing house in Munich.
Feuchtwanger spent the winter of 1932/33 on a lecture
tour of the U.S. and was there when Hitler came to power. He
never returned to Germany, but settled in the south of France.
After the French collapse in June 1940, the Vichy regime put
him into a concentration camp. With the help of American
friends he managed to escape over the Pyrenees and, as a resultof the intervention of President Roosevelt, was able to enterthe U.S., where he spent the rest of his life. The novel Die Geschwister Oppenheim (1933; The Oppermanns, 1934) deals withthe fate of a German-Jewish family in the early days of Nazirule. A trip to the U.S.S.R. produced Moskau 1937, which included an historic interview with Stalin. The years of exile inFrance inspired several novels, including Simone (1944; Eng.
tr., 1944), Exil (1939; Paris Gazette, 1940), and Unholdes Frankreich (1942; The Devil in France, 1941). When he was living in
Pacific Palisades, California, Feuchtwanger wrote more best
sellers, including Waffen fuer America (2 vols, 1947–48; Proud
Destiny, 1947), the story of Benjamin Franklin’s activities inFrance; Goya (1951; This Is the Hour, 1952); Narrenweisheit,oder Tod und Verklaerung des Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1952; ’tis
Folly to be Wise… 1953); Spanische Ballade (1955, also published1955 under the title Die Juedin von Toledo; Raquel the Jewessof Toledo, 1956), and Jefta und seine Tochter (1957; Jephta andhis Daughter, 1958). Many of these books were translated into
more than 30 languages. Feuchtwanger’s play Wahn, oder derTeufel in Boston (1946) is a penetrating study of Cotton Mather
and his times. The 30,000-volume Feuchtwanger Memorial
Library, bequeathed to the University of Southern California,
was the novelist’s third collection; previous libraries were lostin Nazi Germany and occupied France. After World War II,
Feuchtwanger received awards and honors from both Westand East Germany.

of the Organic Nitro Chemistry Series, Wiley-VCH. He is alsoa fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, the American Chemical Society, and the Royal Society of Chemistry.

[Sharon Zrachya (2nd ed.)]FEUER, HENRY (1912– ), U.S. organic chemist. Born in
the Ukraine, Feuer went to U.S. in 1941. He joined Toledo
Hospital, Ohio, and subsequently became a faculty member
at Purdue University (1946). He was appointed professor ofchemistry there in 1961 and professor emeritus in 1979. In
1964–71 he was visiting professor at the Hebrew Universityof Jerusalem; in 1971 he was visiting professor at the Indian
Institute of Technology and in 1979 at the Beijing Institute ofTechnology. His contributions to scientific journals deal withorganic nitrogen compounds, viscosity, absorption of gases,
and rocket propellants. From 1962 to 1989 he was president ofOrganic Electronic Spectral Data, Inc. and managing editor

FEUER, LEON ISRAEL (1903–1984), U.S. Reform rabbi, orator, and Zionist leader. Feuer was born in Hazleton, Pennsylvania, and ordained at Hebrew Union College in 1927. He received his B.A. from the University of Cincinnati in 1925, anhonorary D.D. from HUC-JIR in 1955, and an honorary doctorate from Bowling Green University in 1975. He served his
entire rabbinic career in Ohio, first at Temple Tifereth Israelin Cleveland (1927–34) and then at the Collingwood Avenue
Temple, Congregation Shomer Emunim in Toledo (1934–74),
where he also lectured at the University of Toledo. He gained
a reputation as an eloquent and outspoken supporter of liberal social legislation to end racial inequality as well as toprotect the rights of workers, the unemployed, women, andchildren. During the 1930s, Feuer joined forces with Unitarian Minister Rev. Walter Cole to combat the antisemitic radio
diatribes of Father Charles Coughlin, raising secret financing
to purchase airtime and ghostwriting rebuttal speeches forCole to broadcast.
Feuer rose to his greatest prominence as an early and influential leader of the Zionist movement in the United States.
His book Why a Jewish State?, published in 1942, was the firstin the English language to advocate an independent Jewish
commonwealth in Palestine. In 1943, he became director of
the Washington bureau of the American Zionist Emergency
Council, obtaining a year’s leave of absence from his congregation to head the effort to persuade U.S. political leaders to
support the idea of a sovereign Jewish nation. A consummate lobbyist, Feuer convinced representatives and senatorsin Congress not only to oppose Britain’s White Paper restricting Jewish immigration to Palestine but also to pass resolutions calling for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine afterWorld War II. In 1945, Feuer was elected vice president of theZionist Organization of America and attended the following
year’s World Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland; as the
ZOA delegation’s floor whip, he was effective at instilling unityof purpose in achieving the goals of this assembly at such a
critical juncture in history.
With the establishment of the State of Israel as the Jewish homeland, Feuer returned to active leadership roles in his
community and the Reform movement. He was the organizing chairman of the Jewish Welfare Federation of Toledo andserved successively as president of the Toledo Zionist District, the Toledo Lodge of B’nai B’rith, the Jewish Community
Council, the United Jewish Fund, and the Toledo United Nations Association. After holding several key CCAR positions,
including chairman of the Committee on Justice and Peace
and the CCAR-UAHC Joint Social Action Commission, andvice president (1961–63), Feuer was elected president of the*Central Conference of American Rabbis in 1963. He was a

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6773

Bibliography: Lion Feuchtwanger zum 70. Geburtstag(1954), contains bibliography; NDB, 5 (1957), 109–10; Zohn, in: Jewish Quarterly (Winter 1958/59), 3–4; Lion Feuchtwanger zum Gedenken (1959); Yuill, in: German Men of Letters, 3 (1964), 179–206. Add.
Bibliography: L. Kahn, Insight and Action. The Life and Work of
Lion Feuchtwanger (1975); J. Pischel, Lion Feuchtwanger – Versuchüber ein Leben (1984).
[Harry Zohn / Heike Specht (2nd ed.)]feuer, lewis samuelproponent of stronger Jewish education requirements in the
Reform movement, particularly with regard to customs, ceremonies, and Hebrew. Following his term of office (1963–65),
he was appointed a public member of the executive of theAmerican section of the Jewish Agency, the governing bodyof the World Zionist Organization (1966–71). He also servedon an International Commission to study revising the WZO.
Upon his retirement from the pulpit in 1974, Feuer joined thefaculty of Emory University as a visiting professor. He also coauthored two scholarly works: The Jew and His Religion (1935)
and Jewish Literature since the Bible (2 vols., 1937, 1941).
Bibliography: K.M. Olitzky, L.J. Sussman, and M.H. Stern,
Reform Judaism in America: A Biographical Dictionary and Sourcebook (1993).
[Bezalel Gordon (2nd ed.)]FEUER, LEWIS SAMUEL (1912–2002), U.S. educator. Feuer
was born in New York. He taught philosophy and social sciences at City College of New York, Vassar, the University ofVermont, and the University of California at Berkeley from1957 to 1966. In 1966 he was appointed professor of sociology
at the University of Toronto, where he taught sociological theory until 1976. He is the author of Psychoanalysis and Ethics(1955), Spinoza and the Rise of Liberalism (1958), The ScientificIntellectual: The Psychological & Sociological Origins of Modern
Science (1963), The Conflict of Generations: The Character andSignificance of Student Movements (1968), and Marx and theIntellectuals (1969). He edited Marx and Engels: Basic Writings
on Politics and Philosophy (1959). His special interest was in
the sociology of ideas. In his study of Spinoza, he related thephilosopher’s thought to the political and economic currentsof his time. In The Conflict of Generations and other works,
he studied the psychoanalytical and personal factors in socialand political thought. He also criticized the theory that therise of Protestantism has been mainly responsible for scientific inquiry and development. Later books by Feuer include
Einstein and the Generations of Science (1974), Ideology and theIdeologists (1975), Philosophy, History, and Social Action: Essays in Honor of Lewis Feuer: With an Autobiographical Essay
by Lewis Feuer (1988), and Varieties of Scientific Experience:
Emotive Aims in Scientific Hypotheses (1995).
[Ben G. Kayfetz / Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)FEUERLICHT, MORRIS MARCUS (1879–1959), U.S. Reform rabbi. Feuerlicht was born in Hungary and ordained at*Hebrew Union College in 1901. He spent his entire rabbinic
career in Indiana, first as rabbi of Temple Israel in Lafayette(1901–4) and then of Indianapolis Hebrew Congregation inIndianapolis (1904–51), where he also was a member of thefaculty of Butler University. Feuerlicht espoused the philosophy that Judaism’s spiritual heritage could contribute much toAmerican life and translated this into respected social activism, to the extent that The Indianapolis Times hailed him as“a man in whom the qualities of greatness transcend all thelittle differences of creed, nationality and sect that divide us.”774

The paper went on to call Feuerlicht “…one of the true assetsof the State of Indiana… [a] violent foe of the Ku Klux Klan…
[an] orator who bested the famed attorney Clarence Darrowin a [public] debate… [and an effective mediator] who settled
many strikes.”
In 1927, Feuerlicht was one of the founders of the National Conference of Christians and Jews (renamed the National Conference for Community and Justice in the 1990s).
Locally, he was one of the founders of the Marion County
chapter of the American Red Cross, as well as the founder andfirst director of the Indianapolis Family Welfare Society. He
served successive terms as president of a number of civic organizations, including the Indiana Conference of Social Work,the Children’s Aid Association of Indianapolis, and the Indiana Library and Historical Board. He also served as a civilian
chaplain at Fort Benjamin Harrison.
In the realm of scholarship, Feuerlicht, a member of theAmerican Oriental Society, was a contributor to the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia and wrote Judaism’s Contribution to
the Founding of the Republic, published by the Jewish Tract
Commission.
Bibliography: K.M. Olitzky, L.J. Sussman, and M.H. Stern,
Reform Judaism in America: A Biographical Dictionary and Sourcebook (1993).
[Bezalel Gordon (2nd ed.)]FEUERMANN, EMANUEL (1902–1942), cellist. Born in
Kolomea, Galicia, and taken to Vienna at the age of seven,
Feuermann gave his first public recitals in 1913. He was ateacher at Cologne Conservatory from 1918 until 1923 andbecame well known as a soloist. He was on the staff of the
Berlin Hochschule fuer Musik (1929–33), but emigrated to
the United States in 1938. There he performed as a soloist andmade notable appearances in trios with Jascha Heifetz andArtur Rubinstein, and was acclaimed as one of the great cellists of his time.
FEUERRING, MAXIMILIAN (1896–1985), painter. Feuerring worked as an art teacher and art critic in various countries. In World War II he served with the Polish Army and was
taken prisoner. In 1948, he organized in Munich the Painters
in Exile exhibition, in which he participated with fellow Jewish P.O.W.s. A prolific artist, his paintings reflect the continuous search for problems and conflicts of spiritual or emotional
origin. He struggled to integrate the known and the unknown,
the formed and the unformed into an organic unity. Feuerring, who lived in Sydney from 1950, twice represented Australia at the São Paulo Biennial and was awarded the Albury
Art Prize. He is sometimes known by his Polish surname of
Feurring-Emefowicza.
FEUERSTEIN, family of leaders of U.S. Orthodoxy. The
Feuersteins, who made their fortune in textiles in Massachusetts, trace their history in the United States to the 1893 arrival in New York of HENRY (Naftali) from Hungary. Instilled
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

feuerstein, reuven
with the unyielding Orthodoxy that nurtured such rabbis as
Moshe *Teitelbaum, founder of the Satmar ḥ asidic dynasty
who hailed from the same town, Feuerstein went beyond hismodest beginnings as a peddler who plied his wares throughout New York’s Hudson Valley to found a sweater mill in
Malden, Massachusetts. Soon he became one of a handful ofprosperous American businessmen who remained staunchly
Orthodox and as such an important supporter of Orthodox institutions. In the 1920s Henry traveled to Palestine,
meeting with both Rabbis Abraham I. *Kook, who backed
the religious Zionist idea of the emergent “New Yishuv,” andJoseph Ḥ ayyim *Sonnenfeld, the staunchly anti-Zionist leaderof Orthodoxy in Jerusalem. He helped sustain Jerusalem’s
Hungarian community, of which his mother became a member.
SAMUEL (1892–1983), eldest of Henry’s three children, allof whom were American-born, expanded both the family concern for Orthodox community needs and the family business,
which by the end of World War I as Malden Knitting Mills
was worth a then extraordinary million dollars. In the late
1930s and even more after the Holocaust as Orthodoxy in
America grew exponentially, the Feuersteins became key figures in helping sustain an expanding number of its institutions – locally, nationally, and internationally. As such they
were linked with most of the movement’s prominent rabbinic
leaders in the 20t century, who looked to them for counsel
and economic aid. Feuerstein was close to such rabbis as Leo*Jung, supporting the Vaad Hatzalah (Rescue Committee) in
its efforts to save refugees from the Nazis, and Joseph B. *Soloveitchik, helping to found Maimonides, a coeducational
Modern Orthodox Jewish day school in Boston (of which
he served as board chair). Samuel also helped Shraga Feivel*Mendelowitz found Torah Umesorah (the National Societyfor Hebrew Day Schools) and served as its president. In 1953
he founded the Young Israel of Brookline, and was instrumental in hiring as its first permanent rabbi, Irving “Yitz”*Greenberg.
MOSES (1916– ), eldest of Samuel’s five children and educated in Ascher’s Institute (Switzerland), Yeshiva College (B.A.
1936), and the Harvard Business School, took on many of the
Orthodox communal leadership roles in the next generation.
Like his father, he acted as an important link between the traditionalist and modernist wings of Orthodoxy. Most prominently he served as chairman of Torah Umesorah as well aspresident of the *Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations ofAmerica. Under his presidency from 1954 to 1966, the Union
became the largest Orthodox Jewish umbrella organization in
the United States. Its certification of foods as kosher as a notfor-profit public service, totally free of the element of personal
gain and private vestment, became decisive in making suchguarantees reliable and kosher foods widely available. Once
the OU seal became the national standard of kashrut, companies of high standing seeking acceptance of their products by
Jewish consumers began, spontaneously, to turn to the Orthodox Union for that purpose. Moses also mediated between

native and European-educated elements in American Orthodoxy, easing tensions between immigrants, who were swelling
its ranks, and those who had constituted it in the past.
After Moses’ mother, Janette (Kaplan), died, his father
married Mitzi Landau. The eldest of their three children,
AARON (1926- ), educated at Boston Latin School and later
Yeshiva College (B.A. 1947), became CEO of the family business. He expanded its products and presided over its growth
into a multimillion dollar textile corporation, now called
Malden Mills. Famous for the production of the immensely
popular and innovative fleece insulation fabrics under the
trademark Polartec, Aaron oversaw the opening of new headquarters in Lawrence, Massachusetts. The success of the company helped the family increase its support for countless Jewish institutions. While other textile manufacturers relocatedto the Southern United States and later to Latin America or
the Far East in search of lower labor costs and higher profits, Malden Mills, under Aaron’s leadership, alone remainedin the Northeast, loyal to its workers and unwilling to abandon its roots. In December 1995, the Lawrence mill suffereda devastating fire. Confounding expectations that he would
relocate where the labor was cheaper, Aaron chose at a costof $1.5 million per week to continue to pay his idle workers
with full benefits for over three months, while he struggled
to rebuild and battled with insurance companies who wereslow to cover his losses. Explaining his motivation as coming from his Judaism, which taught him that good ethics wasgood business, Feuerstein often quoted Jeremiah (9:22): “Letthe rich man not glory in his riches,” but rather show kindness, justice, and righteousness in his actions. He became anational hero, receiving numerous awards and honors as wellas an invitation to a joint session of the U.S. Congress. He
succeeded in rebuilding, and in 2004 Congress approved $21
million for Polartec garments for the U.S. military in the 2005
Defense Spending Bill.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6775[Samuel C. Heilman (2nd ed.)]FEUERSTEIN, BEDŘICH (1892–1934), Czech architect andstage designer. He was responsible for introducing elementsof futurism and cubism in Czechoslovakia after World War I,
demonstrated in his design for the Institute of Military Geography in Prague (1924). In 1925–27 he was in Tokyo, studying Japanese architecture. His stage designs for many plays
produced in the National Theater in Prague, the satirical theater Osvobozené Divadlo, and other leading Czech theaters,
showed great originality. Best known were his designs forČapek’s R.U.R. (1920).
[Avigdor Dagan]

FEUERSTEIN, REUVEN (1921–2005), Israeli psychologist.
Born in Botosani, Romania, Feuerstein studied at the Universityof Geneva under such mentors as Jean Piaget and received
his Ph.D. in developmental psychology at the Sorbonne. After qualifying as a teacher, he helped set up a special schoolfor the children of Jews taken to Nazi labor camps. Afterfeuerstein, reuven
settling in Israel in 1944, he taught child survivors of the
Holocaust and directed Youth Aliyah’s psychological service.
After directing the psychological services of Youth Aliyahin Europe (1951–55), he was appointed director of the YouthAliyah child guidance clinic and the Canadian HadassahWizo Research Institute in Jerusalem. His work is set forthin his book (with M. Richelle and the collaboration of Z.
Rey) Children of the Mellah (Yaldei ha-Melaḥ ; Jerusalem,1963).
Feuerstein believes that every human being can be modified to reach a higher level of functioning irrespective of age
and regardless of the cause of a problem or the severity of acondition. In 1965 he established his Jerusalem research institute, which has become a mecca for families with problem
children. Two of the items he developed are particularly wellknown: the Learning Potential Assessment Devices, for evaluating learning potential; and the Instrumental Enrichment
Program, for improving an individual’s way of thinking andfunctioning. Worldwide, there are more than 1,000 research
projects that implement his work, involving all age groups
from infants to the elderly, and every ability level from the severely retarded to the highly gifted.

From 1970 Feuerstein served as professor in the Schoolof Education at Bar-Ilan University in Israel. He was directorof the Hadassah-Wizo-Canada Research Institute in Jerusalem as well as the Center for Development of Human Potential in Jerusalem. In 1990, France’s president François Mitterand honored Feuerstein for his work in training French
workers, managers, and executives in the skills of intelligence.
In 1992 he was awarded the Israel Prize in social sciences.
Books by Feuerstein include The Dynamic Assessment ofRetarded Performers: The Learning Potential Assessment Device, Theory, Instruments, and Techniques (with Y. Rand andM. Hoffman, 1979), Instrumental Enrichment: An Intervention
Program for Cognitive Modifiability (1980), and Don’t Accept
Me As I Am: Helping “Retarded” People to Excel (with Y. Rand
and J. Rynders, 1988).

776

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6

Bibliography: S. Howard, Changing Children’s Minds: Feuerstein’s Revolution in the Teaching of Intelligence (1993); N. Blagg, Can
We Teach Intelligence? A Comprehensive Evaluation of Feuerstein’s Instrumental Enrichment Programme (1990); A. Kozulin and Y. Rand
(eds.), Experience of Mediated Learning: An Impact of Feuerstein’s
Theory in Education and Psychology (2000).
[Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]Shavuot—festival of the first fruits—celebrated in a kibbutz in Israel with the presentation of first fruits. In the Temple
period, Shavuot was the time when the individual farmer would set out with his neighbors in joyous procession to
Jerusalem, bringing a selection of his ripe first fruits (bikkurim) as a thanksgiving offering. Photo: Z. Radovan, Jerusalem.

The Jewish holy days and festivals fall into two categories: those commanded by
the Pentateuch, such as Sabbath, Rosh Ha-Shanah, Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur),and the Pilgrim Festivals (Passover, Shavuot, and Sukkot), and those
added later, such as Purim (1st–2nd century c.e.) and Hanukkah(2nd century).
.
All these are observed in various ways by Jews around the world.

sabbath and festivals

(opposite page) TOP: Yemenite Jews celebrate the last day of Hanukkah.
.
The traditional stone-made hanukkiyyah, also called a menorah,
is fully lit. Photo: Z. Radovan, Jerusalem.
(opposite page) BOTTOM: A Jewish family from Bukhara celebrating
their first Hanukkah
in Israel. Photo: Z. Radovan, Jerusalem.
.
(this page): Three young children practice Sabbath candle lighting
at a day school in Berlin. © David H. Wells/Corbis.

ABOVE: An Israeli man
and his daughters burn foodcontaining leavening as partof their preparation for
Passover. © Ronen
Zvulun/Reuters/Corbis.
RIGHT: A young boy
pats down the soil arounda sapling he has just planted
for the Tu Bi-Shevat
holiday—the “New Yearfor Trees”—Herzliyya,
Israel, 2000. © Hanan
Isachar/Corbis.

ABOVE: An Israeli man
and his daughters burn foodcontaining leavening as partof their preparation for
Passover. © Ronen
Zvulun/Reuters/Corbis.
LEFT: A young boy
pats down the soil arounda sapling he has just planted
for the Tu Bi-Shevat
holiday—the “New Yearfor Trees”—Herzliyya,
Israel, 2000. © Hanan
Isachar/Corbis.

An Israeli girl kneels as
a man waves a chicken overher head during a kaparot
ceremony in Bnei Brak,
Israel, 2005. Kaparot isperformed before Yom
Kippur, and it is believedthat sins from the past year
are transferred to thechicken. The bird is thenslaughtered and given to thepoor. Photo by David
Silverman/Getty Images.

ABOVE: Laden table at the Maimuna festival—a celebration held by all Maghrebi Jews and many Easterncommunities after the closing of the last day of Passover, which, according to tradition, is the anniversary ofthe death of Maimonides’ father Maimon ben Joseph. Photo: Nathan Alpert, Israel Government Press Office.
(opposite page): The Deller Family Sukkah. Permanently at the Israel Museum Jerusalem, painted wood withtraditional symbolic pictures, Fischach, Southern Germany, c. 1837. Wood, oil paint. 196/1. Gift of the Dellerfamily with the help of Dr. Heinrich Feuchtwanger. Photo © The Israel Museum, Jerusalem, by Avraham Hay.

Israeli youth carry a Torah scroll during the celebration of Simhat. Torah(Rejoicing over the Law) at Rabin’s square in Tel Aviv, 2005. © Eyal Ofer/Corbis.
Purim, Adloyada festival, Tel Aviv. Photo: David Harris.

REVELATION