Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 043

Monday, November 10 2003

• Re: Historical Timeline Redux
• Re: Historical Timeline Redux
• Re: Historical Timeline Redux
• Re: Hashgocha protis and suicide
• Re: Hashgocha protis and suicide
• Re: Torah in the little room
• Re: Torah in the little room
• Re: Torah in the little room
• Re: Islam, Xianity, and Us
• ibn Ezra on Esav and Yishmael
• RE: Avodah V12 #41
• Where there's a Halachic will... (was: Re: Kullos & Chumros)
• Re: Torah in the little room
• Re: Mabul
• Re: ibn Ezra on Esav and Yishmael
• Re: Hashgocha protis and suicide
• Mabul
• Oops; Demavend is not Ararat
• Entering the Temple Mount
• Re: Hashgocha protis and suicide
• RE: Historical time line redux
• Re: bathroom reading
• Re: Islam, Xianity, and Us
• Re: Historical Timeline Redux

From: "Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer"
> Herodotus does not mention the Jews

> How is it that in 500 B.C., at the twilight of the purported Kings of
> Israel, albeit sometime the Babylonian and the Persian exchange of power
> in the area, Herodotus has never heard of a race of people in the middle
> east that would be linked with the Israelites / Jews.

The best explanation I've heard is that pre-exile the Jews lived in
a land-locked region (Josephus, postexilic, says that Jews have no
experience with boats) which was not easily accessible to a traveller
who went mostly by boats.

Incidentally, if you read Menahem Stern's collection of comments by
classical writers about Jews you'll be amazed at how little the Jews
got noticed during bayis sheini (even by Alexander's contemporaries,
and he definitely stopped by).

David Riceman

At 08:42 AM 11/7/03, David Riceman wrote:
...
>The best explanation I've heard is that pre-exile the Jews lived in a
>land-locked region (Josephus, postexilic, says that Jews have no experience
>with boats) which was not easily accessible to a traveller who went mostly
>by boats.
...

Herodotus records many, many landlocked minuscule tribes, particularly if 
they had exotic customs. Doubtless Judaism qualifies, from a pagan 
viewpoint, on that count. So I find that explanation untenable.

YGB

From: "Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer"
> There can be only one conclusion drawn that does not blow all Jewish
> history up: That Herodotus lived at the period of Galus Bavel, when
> Chazal tell us there was period that EY was Judenrein. Since they did
> not exist as an independent people in their own land, Herodotus was not
> aware of them as an independent entity.

But isn't Herodotus's history set in the time of Darius, who (according
to H) was the successor of Cyrus's son, and wasn't Cyrus the person who
permitted the Jews to return to EY?

DR

RDE
> Looking at the Kafach edition - I don't see where it says one can not
> kill oneself. "Just as it is not in the hands of created beings their
> life and death similarly it is not in their hands their livelihood and
> their sustenance, clothing and other physical needs."

meaning one cannot kill oneself

RDE
> However he then states that despite that life and death is determined
> by G-d, if one places himself in danger by drinking poison, or not eating
> or playing with lions - there is no guarantee that he won't die and one is
> prohibited to test G-d. Placing one self in danger has two consequences
> "he will succeed in killing himself and he will be held accountable as
> if he had killed another person even though that other person's death
> was because of the decree of G-d and His discretion nevertheless we have
> been warned by G-d not to cause the death of another person and to the
> degree that we are close to the victim the punishment is greater... so
> therefore if one kills himself he is without doubt liable to severe
> punishment and suffering...."

and ChL continues or he won't kill himself and will sacrifice zchuyos
and has committed a sin. Seemingly the actions of the indiv are not
convincing for the desired result. that's why ChL answers that there
are 2 equal choices of result.

if ChL held like Tos that the indiv can successfully kill himself it
should be pashut that he has sinned and not need that para quoted to
apologize for that punishment.

it seems the ChL is apologizing for the punishment of the suicide because
the result of death was predetermined by G-d.

RDE
> By putting himself in danger e.g., jumping out of an airplane - he
> is subject to the laws of nature.

no such thing according to ChL

RDE
> Thus he has the free will to create or expose himself to danger and
> even though his life span was decreed by Heaven - he will only be saved
> by miracle at the expense of his merit. The Chovas Halevavos uses the
> expression "killing himself" twice.

i think ChL means the action of the indiv which does NOT determine result.

RDE
> Chovas HaLevavos and Tosfos(Kesubos 30a) state - as well as Chazal -
> that the Heavenly decree of life span is only relevant when one is not
> in a place of danger - but since one can place himself in danger he can
> commit suicide.

this is certainly not clear in Chazal. this is a fair paraphrase of Tos.
the ChL says placing oneself in danger is a sin which can result in
a punishment of early death. this is very different from the causal
reality of Tos.

Further Chazal quotes which you provide don't prove if placing oneself
in danger is merely a sin (ChL) or can be causal (Tos)

RDE
> In sum: I don't see any dispute that a person can kill himself- even
though lifespan is decreed in Heaven - because he has free will and can
freely subject himself to natural danger.

again Tos.  To ChL one is not subject to natural danger.

Gut Shabbos,
Shlomo Goldstein

R' Shlomo Goldstein wrote:
> ChL says one cannot kill oneself.   One can try.  If so ordained
> you die and are punished for trying.  If ordained otherwise, you
> live and are punished for trying.  Tos says one can surely kill
> oneself  WITHOUT  it being previously ordained.

I'm not sure why this is bedavka about suicide, but anyway...

What if the attempt is foiled by preventing the opportunity to arise.
Would the person be punished for hirhurei aveirah? And if so, are you
suggesting the same punishment as if he was permitted to succeed?

In general, would you assert that someone who tried to steal but was
caught leaving the store really committed the same cheit as one who
wasn't caught?

R' Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> Looking at the Kafach edition - I don't see where it says one can
> not kill oneself. "Just as it is not in the hands of created beings
> their life and death similarly it is not in their hands their
> livelihood and their sustenance, clothing and other physical needs."
> However he then states that despite that life and death is
> determined by G-d, if one places himself in danger by drinking
> poison, or not eating or playing with lions
>  - there is no guarantee that he won't die and one is prohibited to test
> G-d. Placing one self in danger has two consequences "he will
> succeed in killing himself and he will be held accountable as if he
> had killed another person even though that other person's death was
> because of the decree of G-d and His discretion nevertheless we have
> been warned by G-d not to cause the death of another person and to
> the degree that we are close to the victim the punishment is
> greater... so therefore if one kills himself he is without doubt
> liable to severe punishment and suffering...."

I think the basic problem here is in assuming absolutes when the issue is
really better measured by degree. The greater the sakanah implied by the
teva of the situation, the greater the merit required to be saved from it.

On another level, HQBH deciding that teva should be preserved in that
case is itself His choice as to how events should play out. He chose an
orderly universe in which bechirah is possible because doubting Him is
possible and because one can forecast the consequences of one's choices
(at least on a statistical level).

For HP to be in play, one's individual fate has to override that need.
The greater the violation of predictability, the greater the need.

Thus the tanna's "Hakol biydei Shamayim chutz mitzinim upachin".
(Which I'm not sure is the same shitah as the one about "chutz miyir'as
Shamayim". Perhaps we aren't supposed to make the two fit.) It's not
fully biydei Shamayim; in many (most?) cases Hashem will value our
experiencing the natural consequences of our actions over issues of
merit and tailored outcomes.

In addition to the zeh vezeh goreim approach, we can also suggest a
hainu hach instead. We can divide things by level of abstraction. It's
equally true that I jumped because I felt pain as saying that I jumped
because some particular neuron fired. Different levels of abstraction
can yeild different levels of explanation.

Hashem could be ensuring that every outcome is what's best for that
person's development into a ish shaleim veyarei Hashem while on another
level insuring that teva is obeyed.

> This is also found in the Chagiga(4b): ... Once the Angel of Death
> said to his messenger "Go bring me Miriam the hairdresser". By mistake
> the messenger brought Miriam the nursemaid. When the Angel of Death
> noted that it was the wrong person, the messenger said he would take
> her back. The Angel of death replied that since she had been brought
> she should stay and be counted in the quota. But if it wasn't her time
> to die how was it possible that she died? It was possible because she
> burnt her foot while using the oven and that impaired her mazel. R'
> Bibi bar Abaye asked the Angel of Death whether he was allowed to take
> someone before their allotted time? He answered that the verse
> (Mishlei 13:23) says It is taken away without justice.

I can't explain the late dating of the story, as RBbA lived too late for
what I'm about to suggest. But it seemed obvious to me that this story
is making a statement about Xianity. "Mary Magdalene" translates to
"Miriam the hairdresser". As opposed to Yeishu's mom.

This doesn't bear on why RDE cited the aggadita, that the Miriam with
the burnt foot may die of impaired mazal rather than HP.

:-)BBii
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org               The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                - R' Binyamin Hecht

In Avodah V12 #41 dated 11/6/03 
> My wife loves to tell the story of when she was in seminary, and one of
> her BT roommates used to keep her mind busy by reciting, "Here I am, in
> the bathroom, not thinking any Torah thoughts!!" The irony was not lost
> on anyone, even that girl herself, because we all know that reminding
> ourselves of the issur is already a violation of it.

I'm not so sure that all thoughts of Torah are absolutely forbidden in
the little room. What if you see your kid about to switch off the light
in there and you say, "Don't forget, it's Shabbos"? Or you're in there
putting on your makeup and the kid walks in eating a cookie and you say,
"You're not allowed to eat in here." Or you reach for a washcloth and
then remind yourself you can't use it because it's Shabbos. Or you
use the spray deoderant instead of the roll-on because it's Shabbos.
Or you cut your nails in there and take care to keep them all on the
tissue rather than let them go flying. Or in the prep room at the
mikva, you read a list that is posted there: "Did you comb your hair?
Remove nail polish? Etc etc." Or for that matter, you make a hefsek
tahara or do a bedika. The more I think about it, the longer the list
gets of Torah-related thoughts and actions that are not only permitted,
but required, in the little room. Thinking, "I should not learn Torah
in here" is hardly out of line.

One of the things I occasionally think about in there is, if that lady
in the Gemara who never let the walls of her house see her hair--if she
had had a proper bathroom, would she have let the walls of her bathroom
see her hair? Is the bathroom a place where a lower level of tznius
obtains than, say, a bedroom? When you're all alone, I'm talking.

--Toby Katz

R"n Toby Katz pointed out <<< I'm not so sure that all thoughts of
Torah are absolutely forbidden in the little room. What if you see your
kid about to switch off the light in there and you say, "Don't forget,
it's Shabbos"? >>>

Yes indeed, to stop someone from violating halacha *IS* allowed there.
See Mishna Brurah siman 85 for many applications of this, and explanations
of how far it goes - and how far it does not go, too.

Akiva Miller

From: kennethgmiller@juno.com
> R"n Toby Katz pointed out <<< I'm not so sure that all thoughts of Torah
> are absolutely forbidden in the little room.  What if you see your kid
> about to switch off the light in there and you say, "Don't forget, it's
> Shabbos"? >>>

> Yes indeed, to stop someone from violating halacha *IS* allowed there.

After I sent in that posting I thought of more examples of thinking
Torah thoughts or doing Torah-related activities in the little room,
because I had to wash out a pair of tzitzis in the sink. And while
I was doing that, I was thinking, "This is actually a mitzva, washing
tzitzis, because I am doing it myself rather than washing them in the
washing machine or giving them to the cleaning lady to wash"--both of
which methods of cleaning are not acceptable, according to my husband.
Washing the tzitzis was certainly mutar; was thinking about washing
them ossur?

--Toby Katz

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
> I find it noteworthy in this little comparative religion thread that
> Moslems only use one sheim, and it's middas hadin

Have you forgotten the "ninety nine names of God"? There's a long
history of the problem of attributes which ir related if you want to
add some content.

David Riceman

[Bounced from Areivim, in pursuit of the other bounced posts from this
thread. -mi]

I once had occasion to translate Mossad Harav Kook's version of ibn Ezra
amd offer it here since its on the areivim plate and not everyone will
have access to this text. --Zvi Basser GEN 27:40

... And other people say -- How is it that God said "and the older shall
serve the younger" and also that Isaac said "and you shall serve your
brother"? (When did Esau serve Jacob?) And Saadya Gaon dealt with the
question with a broken reed (ineffectively) by referring the prediction to
the verse "And he went to another land on account of Jacob his brother ."
But he forgot that it was in this land that Jacob "bowed down to the
ground (to Esau) seven times". And the correct answer in my eyes is
that the blessing of a prophet is equal to prayer and God listens to the
prophet's prayer. For the essential part of the blessing refers to their
(Jacob's and Esau's) descendants.

Those who are intellectually asleep not having been wakened from their
idle slumber think that we are in an "exile of Edom." However this is
not true. (The real) Edom was certainly under the power of Judea, and
so Scripture states "and Edom revolted from under the power of Judah."
Also "Joab destroyed every male in Edom " Since Edom had once been
under the power of Judah they rejoiced on the day of our downfall and
they told the Babylonians "Destroy Jerusalem until its foundation."
And more injurious to Israel than the evil that they experienced (from
Babylonia) was Edom's taunting them. This is the meaning of "Be happy
and rejoice daughter of Edom,." Also "You should not have rejoiced about
the children of Judah in their doom." Also in the time of Hyrcanus the
Elder the defenders of Jerusalem desolated them and enforced brit mila
upon them (Edom).

Also in the days of Agrippa when Jerusalem was besieged regiments of
Edomites came to help Judea.

Actually the Roman nation which sent us into exile is descendended
from the Kittim. And the Targum translates "ships coming from Kittim"
to refer to Rome. This term in fact designated the very kingdom of the
Greeks as explained in the book of Daniel. Now indeed there were just a
few people who eventually undertook the new faith which held that a man
had made himself a god and as they preserved their religion until the
days of Constantine who renewed the whole religion and put on his flag
the image of that man (Jesus) ; and before that time there was no one in
the world who had accepted the new religion except for a few Edomites.
And for this reason Rome who then accepted Christianity is called by us
"the Kingdom of Edom" (although they are not).

Similarly today people call Egyptians and Sabians and Elamites-
"Ishmaelites" even though there is no one amongst them from the
descendants of Ishmael except for a very small number.

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
> There are rishonim who class "A-llah" differently than other such
> names. It is cognate to the Hebrew "Elo-ah" (which many of you might
> mispronounce "E-loha"). It is therefore akin to one of the 7 sheimos
> in a way that 'God' isn't.

I always thought that "A-llah" was cognate with the Hebrew "Illah"
(ayin, lamed, heh), meaning the first cause (this would still be midas
hadin). I don't know arabic though, so am perhaps mistaken.

Jonathan Ostroff

Someone wrote <<< Micha is correct that legabei Agunos we have a tradition
to be meikel. But I am disappointed that O poskim have been unable to
nail a solid solution using the above models... >>>

And R' Micha Berger responded <<< How quickly do you expect halakhah to
move? How many farmers went into poverty because they couldn't secure a
loan and the heter iska wasn't promulgated yet? Historical events never
seem as far apart as contemporary ones. The agunah problem only became
accute when the notion of kehillah collapsed. Around 75 years ago,
most centers of population had batei dinim with the power to deal with
mesarvei get. >>>

ZGG! I feel this response should repeated over and over until memorized.
The poor farmers is a great example, and perhaps some of us can think
of even more such examples.

We must not let it appear that our hearts are hardened to people in
tough situations, but neither can we insult the Torah's way of doing
things. It is unfortunate that some people will remeain in these tough
situations until a solution is worked out, but we can't have unrealistic
expectations either.

Akiva Miller

T613K@aol.com wrote:
> Is the bathroom a place where a lower level of tznius
>obtains than, say, a bedroom? When you're all alone, I'm talking.

Yes. See Igros Moshe YD III 47.3 282 concerning getting dressed in the 
bathroom rather than under blanket

          Daniel Eidensohn

R' Micha Berger wrote:
>None of which helps address the physical evidence of continuity of
>"Adamic" cultures even in Mesopotamia through the period in question.

What is the criteria for identifying a culture as being 'Adamic' or
otherwise, according to R' Noson Weisz? Judging from the article it
would appear to be the existence of written records kept by the culture.

If so, we can ask a specific question: are there any cultures with a
written record that have physical evidence of continuity through the
flood period? If not, this would be a fairly strong support for R' Weisz
theory. If they do exist, however, we have to consider the possibility
that the date of the flood was simply miscalculated, by a few hundred
years. R' Weisz states in the article:

"About 6,000 years ago, seemingly out of nowhere there is a record of a
remarkable change in this stable Stone Age pattern of human remains in
one particular area of the planet, Mesopotamia."

I'm not an expert in archaeology or anthropology, but from what I gather
this statement is true. This means that we are not anymore looking for
a discontinuity, but rather the formation/start of a new culture...one
that included written records. If we can find some lower bound for the
time coordinate t of this event, and t = (6000 +/- e) for a sufficiently
small e, then we have support for R' Weisz 's theory (which is certainly
fascinating).

Leonid Portnoy

>Those who are intellectually asleep not having been wakened from their
>idle slumber think that we are in an "exile of Edom." However this is
>not true. (The real) Edom was certainly under the power of Judea, and
>so Scripture states "and Edom revolted from under the power of Judah."
>Also "Joab destroyed every male in Edom " Since Edom had once been
>under the power of Judah they rejoiced on the day of our downfall and
>they told the Babylonians "Destroy Jerusalem until its foundation."
>And more injurious to Israel than the evil that they experienced (from
>Babylonia) was Edom's taunting them. This is the meaning of "Be happy
>and rejoice daughter of Edom,." Also "You should not have rejoiced about
>the children of Judah in their doom." Also in the time of Hyrcanus the
>Elder the defenders of Jerusalem desolated them and enforced brit mila
>upon them (Edom).

There is a real problem understanding where the Arabs fit into the 
scheme of galus Edom. For those who are interested in a comprensive 
review of the relevant sources there is a sefer "Matzmiach Yeshuah" by 
R' Alexander Mendelbaum - author lives in Har Nof phone 651 8312.

                            Daniel Eidensohn

Gil@aishdas.org wrote:
>R' Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>>How then does one understand suicide according
>>to the view that suffering - even at the hand of
>>a person - is always a Heavenly decree? Does that
>>mean that there is a Heavenly decree that this
>>person must die and that he should be his own
>>murderer?

>R' Elchanan Wasserman posits that this is a machlokes rishonim.

>Tosafos in Kesuvos 30a sv ha-kol write that one may commit suicide
>even if it has not been previously ordained - "de-ha vadai she-be-yado
>le-hamis atzmo".

>REW in Kovetz Ma'amarim, peirushei aggados on "ha-kol biydei shamayim"
>cites this tosafos and suggests that the Chovos HaLevavos disagrees.

R' Gil Student asserted that according to R' Elchanan Wasserman there
is a machlokes rishonim. According to my reading [page 54] he makes no
such assertion. Rather he raises questions from a number of sources
against Tosfos (Kesubos 30a) which says that one can in fact commit
suicide and Tosfos doesn't say it is a gezera. "The Gilyon Tosfos asks
from Avos 4:22 and according to what we mentioned before that one can
not kill himself if it wasn't decreed. Chovas HaLevavos states 'it is
not correct for a person to place himself in danger and rely on G-d's
decrees about how long he will live...even though his death will be
because of G-d's decree...Tosfos' words also require study from what he
concludes concerning sickness...

Thus he is searching for a reconciliation of apparently disparate facts
rather than asserting or even suggesting there is a machlokes rishonim.

> In addition, I wanted to add some historical context. Many people seem
> to think that early geology and paleontology were used as weapons
> against the Torah's authenticity R"L. However, many of the greatest
> of the early (approx. 1790-1850) figures in this field were deeply
> devout (usually Protestant, though later Catholic scholars contributed
> to geosciences). They truly struggled to reconcile their discoveries
> w/Bereishis [and a lot of them had an excellent command of Hebrew, but
> not TSBP]. It would be instructive to look at their solutions to see how
> early scientists tried to be true to both their faith and science. [Albeit
> their methodology may be utterly non-Torahdik, as it were].

The early discoveries were commented by the Tiferes Isroel in the intro
to the Mishna commentary and the Netsiv in parshas Noach. The latter
says of the fossils that they were remnants of the grafted animals that
the generation of the flood produced by perverting natural laws and that
the fossils became available at his time in order to demonstate G-d's
greatness to the world that is beiginning to lose emuna, ayein sham
(apologize for no reference but I have no access to them now).

[Email #2. -mi]

The Kuzati also considers the evidence form Indian works for much longer
duration of the world than the Torah and dismisses them as fables and
made-up stories. How reliable is the Chinese chronology and how far does
it extend; does anyone know?

M. Levin

Hi. Brief correction. Demavend is a mountain in Iran important to
Zoroastrians. No connection to Noach.

Agri Dagh IS another name for the mtn. currently named Ararat. It is
also called Mt. Massis.

Best, Ariel

 From R' Yitzchak (ben R' Ovadiah) Yosef's Yalkut Yosef vol. 2 p. 280:

"It is prohibited to enter today the Temple Mount that is the place of
the mikdash, including the entire area of the heichal, the courtyards and
the chayil, because we are all impure... Therefore, one who enters the
mikdash today is liable for an issur karet. It is a mitzvah to publicize
these matters to remove the stumbling block from the way of our people."

Gil Student

R' Daniel Edeinsohn wrote:
>R' Gil Student asserted that according to R' Elchanan
>Wasserman there is a machlokes rishonim. According to
>my reading [page 54] he makes no such assertion. Rather
>he raises questions from a number of sources against
>Tosfos (Kesubos 30a) which says that one can in fact
>commit suicide and Tosfos doesn't say it is a gezera.

That is not at all how I read the piece. REW quotes Tosafos and then
offers another approach ("lulei divreihem"). He then tries to bolster
his approach, that is different from that of Tosafos, and among others
quotes the Chovos HaLevavos as support for his own approach.

I did not see any attempt for reconciliation and that is not how I have
understood this piece or heard it quoted (by e.g. the sho'el u-meishiv
in one yeshiva I attended) in the many years since it first came to
my attention.

Gil Student

RYGB
> There can be only one conclusion drawn that does not blow all Jewish
> history up: That Herodotus lived at the period of Galus Bavel, when
> Chazal tell us there was period that EY was Judenrein. Since they did
> not exist as an independent people in their own land, Herodotus was not
> aware of them as an independent entity.

> We know very little about Herodotus, but we place him in the mid 400's
> (see <http://www.herodotuswebsite.co.uk/>). That is very close to our
> tradition of Galus Bavel in approximately 420 BCE. Certainly nowhere
> near 586.

Actually, from 586 until the mid 5th century the Jewish presence in eretz
yisrael would have been minimal, as initial shivat zion was so small.
However, right around the destruction, israel was involved in a major
battle of bavel - so would have been known. You provided a nice proof
for 586 over 420..

Meir Shinnar

R Eli Turkel wrote:
> I believe there is a psak from R. Chaim David Halevi zt"l (chief
> rabbi of TA) forbidding bringing anything in Hebrew letters to the
> bathroom. He interpreted Ktav Ashuri as including modern Hebrew
> letters even with a completely secular content.

Does this means he holds that *bedi'eved*, an item of sta"m which is
written in part or in total in contemporary Hebrew print would be kosher?

-mi

R Gershon Dubin wrote:
> Avrohom was midas hachesed, giving to others, whose "down side" is
> over indulgence in self. This came out in Yishmael and his tendency
> to zenus. Yitzchok was midas hagevura, self-control, whose down
> side, control over others, was manifested in Esav until ultimately
> we come to Yaakov who is the bechir ha'avos.

Note that neither is really an excess of the middah but rather an
application of the middah to others rather than the harder job of applying
it to oneself.

Yishma'el was not "meracheim al ha'achzarim" in general, giving to
others when inappropriate. He gave to himself. Similarly, Esav was not
masochistically aescetic. He controlled others.

Yaakov's middah is emes, which has no self vs other distinction. One
can only be honest to others if one isn't fooling oneself.

-mi

The following is from Josephus, Antiquities 8:10 (which is about
Rechav'am):
    So when Shishak had taken the city without fighting, because Rehoboam
    was afraid, and received him into it, yet did not Shishak stand to
    the covenants he had made, but he spoiled the temple, and emptied the
    treasures of God, and those of the king, and carried off innumerable
    ten thousands of gold and silver, and left nothing at all behind
    him. He also took away the bucklers of gold, and the shields, which
    Solomon the king had made; nay, he did not leave the golden quivers
    which David had taken from the king of Zobah, and had dedicated to
    God; and when he had thus done, he returned to his own kingdom. Now
    Herodotus of Halicarnassus mentions this expedition, having only
    mistaken the king's name; and [in saying that] he made war upon many
    other nations also, and brought Syria of Palestine into subjection,
    and took the men that were therein prisoners without fighting.

    Now it is manifest that he intended to declare that our nation was
    subdued by him; for he saith that he left behind him pillars in the
    land of those that delivered themselves up to him without fighting,
    and engraved upon them the secret parts of women. Now our king
    Rehoboam delivered up our city without fighting. He says withal (28)
    that the Ethiopians learned to circumcise their privy parts from the
    Egyptians, with this addition, that the Phoenicians and Syrians that
    live in Palestine confess that they learned it of the Egyptians. Yet
    it is evident that no other of the Syrians that live in Palestine,
    besides us alone, are circumcised. But as to such matters, let every
    one speak what is agreeable to his own opinion.

Note that Josephus refers to "no other of the Syrians that live in
Palestine, besides us alone". Which gives weight to the contents of
the bracketed insert in footnote 28 in Whiston's translation. Here's
the footnote:

    Herodotus, as here quoted by Josephus, and as this passage still
    stands in his present copies, B. II. Ch. 14, affirms, that
        "the Phoenicians and Syrians in Palestine [which last are
        generally supposed to denote the Jews] owned their receiving
        circumcision from the Egyptians;"
    whereas it is abundantly evident that the Jews received their
    circumcision from the patriarch Abraham, Genesis 17:9-14; ... as
    I conclude the Egyptian priests themselves did also. It is not
    therefore very unlikely that Herodotus, because the Jews had lived
    long in Egypt, and came out of it circumcised, did thereupon think
    they had learned that circumcision in Egypt, and had it not broke.
    Manetho, the famous Egyptian chronologer and historian, who knew the
    history of his own country much better than Herodotus, complains
    frequently of his mistakes about their affairs, as does Josephus
    more than once in this chapter. Nor indeed does Herodotus seem at all
    acquainted with the affairs of the Jews; for as he never names them,
    so little or nothing of what he says about them, their country, or
    maritime cities, two of which he alone mentions, Cadytus and Jenysus,
    proves true; nor indeed do there appear to have ever been any such
    cities on their coast.

I would think that one needn't be a ma'amin (or a Christian, as Whiston
was, I ellided his NT references to milah), to see ourselves in this
group of Syrians that came from Egypt. Particularly since Josephus also
calls us a kind of Syrian.

Second, Jerodotus didn't know the geography of Israel. It seems his
coverage on our part of the world was weak. That he didn't know much about
Judaism or our people is unsurprising. But still, we do get some mention.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org        I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org   "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (413) 403-9905      "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]