AGURSKY, MIKHAIL
(1933-1991), Russian historian and activist. Agursky was born in Moscow, the son of Shmuel Agursky, a noted Soviet party activist and historian of the revolutionary movement who was arrested in 1938 and exiled to Kazakhstan for five years. Mikhail received his Ph.D. in the field of cybernetics in 1969. He took part in the civil rights movements in the U.S.S.R. and in Samizdat (self-publishing), contributing to the anthology Izpodglyb ("From the Underground"). In 1975 he emigrated to Israel and worked at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. In 1979 he received a doctorate from the University of Paris for his thesis "The National-Bolshevist Ideology," which was published in Paris in Russian in 1980. He also wrote "The Soviet Golem" (Russ., 1983), Third Rome: National Bolshevism in the U.S.S.R. (1987), "Trade Relations between the Soviet Union and the Countries of the Middle East" (Heb., 1990), and with Margaret Shklovski the anthology "Literary Heritage; Gorky and the Jewish Question" (Russ., 1986).
AGURSKY, SAMUEL
(1884-c. 1948), Communist author. Agursky, who was born in Grodno, joined the Bund and fled Russia in 1905 because of his involvement in revolutionary activities. He eventually went to the United States and contributed to the Jewish anarchist press. He returned to Russia in 1917 and helped found the Jewish section of the Communist Party *Yevsektsiya. In 1919, when deputizing for S. *Dimanstein, the commissar for Jewish affairs, Agursky issued an order closing the Jewish communal institutions. He wrote on the history of the Jewish labor movement and edited collections of historical and literary works. He disappeared at the time of the 1948 anti-Jewish purges. Agursky’s writings include Der Yidisher Arbeter in der Komunistisher Bavegung, 1917-1925 ("The Jewish Worker in the Communist Movement, 1917-25," 1926); Di Yidishe Komisaryaten un di Yidishe Komu-
AGUR SON OF JAKEH
(Heb 
, an otherwise unknown figure mentioned in the enigmatic title to Proverbs 30:1-33. Possibly the title refers only to the first 14 verses since the Septuagint separates these two sections, placing the first between Proverbs 24:22 and 23 and the second following Proverbs 24:33. It was already pointed out by Rabbenu *Tam (Jacob b. Meir) that the aluqah (nplVj?(V); "leech") in Proverbs 30:15 may refer to a different sage with the name Alukah (in the category of names such as Nahash ("serpent"), Parosh ("flea"), etc.); hence the second section is to be attributed to another sage, Alukah. This assumption is borne out by the marked difference in content between the two sections, the first being in the nature of an ethical admonitory disquisition (in the spirit of Job 42:2), while the second consists mainly of numerical aphorisms. It has been suggested that ha-Massa (X^BH) in Proverbs 30:1 should be amended to ha-Massa’i (‘X^BH; "the Massaite"), since Proverbs 31:1ft. is attributed to the mother of a king of Massa (cf. Gen. 25:14; 1 Chron. 1:30), one of the *Kenite peoples whose wisdom the Israelites admired.
AGUS, IRVING ABRAHAM
(1910-1984), U.S. educator and scholar; brother of Jacob *Agus. Agus was born in Swis-locz, Poland, and studied at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem (1926-27), and at Dropsie College (1937). He served as educational director in Memphis, Tenn. (1939-45), dean of the Harry Fischel Research School in Talmud (Jerusalem, 1947-49), and principal of the Akiba Academy in Philadelphia (1949-51). From 1951 he was professor of Jewish history at Yeshiva University. Using responsa literature as a primary historical source, Agus wrote extensively on Jewish life in the Middle Ages. Among his works are Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg (2 vols., 1947), describing Jewish life in 13th-century Germany, and Teshuvot Baalei ha-Tosafot, an edition of previously unpublished responsa by the Tosafists (1954). His later writings concentrated on Jewish communal life in pre-Crusade Europe, showing that the Franco-German Jews, though a small group, were able to preserve talmudic traditions by their great devotion to study and observance of Judaism. In Urban Civilization in Pre-Crusade Europe (2 vols., 1965) Agus credits these Ashkenazi Jewish communities, which excelled in commercial ventures, with providing the prototype of town life and organization in Catholic Europe.
AGUS, JACOB B.
(1911-1986), U.S. rabbi and philosopher. Agus (Agushewitz) was born into a distinguished rabbinical family in the shtetl of Sislevitch (Swislocz), situated in the Grodno Dubornik region of Poland. After receiving tutoring at home and in the local heder, he joined his older brothers as a student at the Mizrachi-linked Takhemoni yeshivah in Bialystok.
In 1925 the Agushewitzes migrated to Palestine. Unfortunately, the economic conditions and the religious life of the yishuv were not favorable and in 1927 the Agushewitz family moved again, this time to America, where Jacob’s father, R. Judah Leib, had relocated a year earlier to fill the position of rabbi in an East Side New York synagogue.
The family settled in Boro Park (Brooklyn) and Jacob attended the high school connected with Yeshiva University. After completing high school, he continued both his rabbinical and secular studies at the newly established Yeshiva University. He received his rabbinical ordination (*semikhah) in 1933. After two further years of intensive rabbinical study, he received the traditional yoreh yoreh yaddin yaddin semikhah in 1935.
In 1935 Agus took his first full-time rabbinical position in Norfolk, Virginia. One year later he left Norfolk for Harvard University, where he enrolled in the graduate program in philosophy. At Harvard, his two main teachers were Professor Harry A. Wolfson and Professor Ernest Hocking. Agus’ doctoral dissertation was published in 1940 under the title Modern Philosophies of Judaism. It critically examined the thought of the influential German triumvirate of Hermann *Cohen, Franz *Rosenzweig, and Martin *Buber, as well as the work of Mordecai *Kaplan, who in 1934 had published the classic Judaism as a Civilization.
While in the Boston area, Agus paid his way by taking on a rabbinical position in Cambridge and he continued his rabbinical learning with R. Joseph *Soloveitchik.
At Harvard, for the first time in his life, Agus encountered serious, even intense, criticism of traditional Judaism. In response, he decided to devote much of his energy for the rest of his life to explicating, disseminating, and defending the ethical and humanistic values embodied in the Jewish tradition, and in particular, how these values were interpreted by its intellectual and philosophical elites.
After receiving his doctorate from Harvard, Agus accepted the post of rabbi at the Agudas Achim Congregation in Chicago. Though the congregation permitted mixed seating, it was still considered an Orthodox synagogue. In this freer midwestern environment, removed from the yeshivah world of his student days, the orthodoxy of Yeshiva University, and the intensity of Jewish Boston, Agus began to have doubts about the intellectual claims and dogmatic premises of Orthodox Judaism. In particular, he began to redefine the meaning of halakhah and its relationship to reason and independent ethical norms.
In 1943, disenchanted with his Chicago pulpit, Agus accepted a call to Dayton, Ohio. During this period he also attempted to gather support for an agenda of change and halakhic reform at the Orthodox Rabbinical Council of America (rca) convention in 1944 and 1945. When this failed he decided to break decisively with the organized Orthodox community and its institutions. He officially broke with the rca in 1946-47 and joined instead the Conservative movement’s Rabbinical Assembly. In this new context he became a powerful presence and an agent of change, serving on the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards for nearly 40 years, until his death.
In 1950, R. Agus accepted the position of rabbi at the newly formed Conservative congregation Beth El in Baltimore. A small congregation of some 50 families when he arrived, it grew over his three decades as its rabbi into a major congregation. During this period Agus also continued his scholarly work. He was a regular contributor to a variety of Jewish periodicals, such as the Menorah Journal, Judaism, Midstream, and The Reconstructionist, and he served on several of their editorial boards. He also occasionally published in Hebrew journals. At the same time, he began to teach at Johns Hopkins University in an adjunct capacity, to lecture at B’nai B’rith institutes, and to speak at colleges and seminaries around the country. In 1959 he published his well-known study The Evolution of Jewish Thought, an outgrowth of his lectures.
Beginning in 1968 Agus, while continuing his rabbinical duties in Baltimore, accepted a joint appointment as professor of rabbinic civilization at the new Reconstructionist Rabbinical College in Philadelphia and at Temple University. In addition, he worked with the American Jewish Committee at both the local and the national level on various communal issues, with the Synagogue Council of America on Jewish-Christian issues, with a host of Jewish communal agencies, and he was active in Jewish-Christian dialogue in the hope of reducing antisemitism and helping to restructure the Christian understanding of Jews and Judaism.
Among Agus’ writings are Modern Philosophies of Judaism (1941); Banner of Jerusalem (1946), a study of the life and thought of R. Abraham Isaac *Kook; Guideposts in Modern Judaism (1954); The Meaning of Jewish History (2 vols., 1963); The Vision and the Way (1966); Dialogue and Tradition (1969); and The Jewish Quest (1983).Some of his letters to Toynbee are printed in Toynbee’s "Reconsiderations" the 12th volume of his Study of History.
ALIA
(Ahai; fourth century), Palestinian amora. Born in Lydda, Aha studied halakhah under R. *Yose b. Hanina and aggadah under R. *Tanhum b. Hiyya, and transmitted the teachings of most of the contemporary Palestinian authorities. He is extensively quoted in the Jerusalem Talmud, but seldom in the Babylonian. His younger colleagues called him "the Light of Israel" (tj, Shab. 6:9, 8c). His statement that "the Temple will be rebuilt before the reestablishment of the Da-vidic dynasty" possibly refers to his hopes for the rebuilding of the Temple by the Emperor *Julian the Apostate. Ah a declared that "The Divine Presence (Shekhinah) never departed from the Western Wall of the Temple." An anti-Christian polemical note can be detected in some of his discourses, of which a typical example is: "’There is one that is alone; there is none other…’ (Eccles. 4:8). this refers to God, as it is written, ‘The Lord is our God, the Lord is One,’ ‘there is none other’ – i.e., He has no partner in His world; nor does He have a son or a brother." After the Musaf sermon on the Day of Atonement he would announce that whoever had children should go and give them food and drink (tj, Yoma 6:4, 43d). He furthermore declared that anyone who inflicted excessive corporal punishment on a pupil should be excommunicated (tj, mk 3:1, 81d). It is related that on the day of his death stars were visible at noontime (tj, Av. Zar. 3:1, 42c).
AHAB
(Heb 
"paternal uncle"), son of *Omri and king of Israel (1 Kings 16:29-22:40). Ahab reigned over the Israelite kingdom in Samaria for 22 years (c. 874-852 B.c.E.).
Foreign Affairs
Ahab continued his father’s policy in the cultivation of peaceful and friendly relations with the kingdom of Judah in the south and with that of Phoenicia in the north. The pact with Judah was sealed with the marriage of *Athaliah, who was either Ahab’s sister or his daughter, and *Jehoram son of King Jehoshaphat of Judah (11 Kings 8:18; 11 Chron. 18:1). The alliance between the Israelite kingdom and Tyre was also a continuation of the policy initiated by his father Omri. From the economic viewpoint the two states were complementary. The economy of Tyre and Sidon was based on trade and manufacture, whereas Israel owed her wealth to agricultural produce. Thus, Tyre supplied Israel with the products of her industries and with technical skills, chiefly in the spheres of building and skilled craftsmanship (see *Samaria). In return Israel supplied agricultural products (cf. 1 Kings 5:21-25; 9:10-11; Ezek. 27:17).
The triangular alliance among Judah, Israel, and Tyre had important economic implications, since these three states constituted a geographic unit extending from the Mediterranean in the northwest, to the desert and the Red Sea in the southeast. Tyre marketed her produce on the main trade routes, which passed through Israel and Judah, to the Arabian Peninsula and Egypt. Israel and Judah benefited from the levying of customs tolls on the caravans that made their way from the Arabian Peninsula northward to Philistia and Phoenicia, and vice versa. This alliance did not have the power to alleviate the political and military pressure exerted on Israel by Damascus, which had already been her most formidable enemy in the time of *Asa. The threat from Damascus had increased greatly in the period of the house of Omri. *Ben-Hadad, king of Damascus, was neither satisfied with the conquest of areas in north Transjordan nor prepared to make do with the bazaars of the Damascus merchants in Samaria, but aimed at imposing his rule on the whole kingdom, intending to make its king one of the several vassal rulers who owed him fealty (1 Kings 20:1-6).
The Battle of Karkar, 853 b.c.e., to which Ahab contributed 2,000 chariots and 10,000 infantry.
In the biblical account three wars are mentioned between Ahab and the Arameans, although it is not precisely clear when the first two took place. In the first confrontation (20:1-22), Ben-Hadad succeeded, together with 32 vassal kings, in penetrating into the heart of the Israelite kingdom, and even laid siege to Samaria. It is conceivable that the serious economic plight of the kingdom (17:1-16), which was the result of a period of severe drought and scarcity, facilitated Ben-Hadad’s speedy penetration into the very heart of Israelite territory. However, he did not succeed in conquering Samaria. Ben-Hadad’s insulting demand from the Israelite king (20:3-6) and his arrogant attitude to the people and their king (20:10) caused the unification of the people under Ahab’s rule and a surge of national enthusiasm which was shared by the prophets (20:13-14, 28). The defeat inflicted on Ben-Hadad in this confrontation by Ahab warded off the immediate danger but did not remove the long-term threat to Samaria’s security. Thus, one year later (20:22, 26), Ben-Hadad once again prepared his troops for battle, assembling them on this occasion at *Aphek. Ahab’s second victory drastically altered the power equilibrium between the two states. Ben-Hadad not only restored the Israelite cities which had previously fallen into his possession but even granted Israelite merchants monopolistic trading rights in Damascus (20:34).
According to the biblical evidence, the third and final war was preceded by a three-year period during which there was no friction between Aram and Israel (22:1). Certain scholars connect this period of calm in the relations between the two states with what is related in the inscription of Shalma-neser 111, king of Assyria, concerning his battle at Karkar in Syria in the sixth year of his reign (853 b.c.e.) against an alliance of 12 kings of Syria and Israel. Hadadezer, king of Aram, Irhuleni, king of Hamath, and Ahab, king of Israel (Akk. A-ha-ab-bu mat Sir-’i-la-a-ia) stood at the head of the alliance. Th e greater Assyrian threat forced the states of Syria and Israel to lay aside their internal feuds and unite in a political and military alliance capable of combating the danger of Assyrian aggression. Ahab’s status among the allies and his part in the war was prominent. He was given third place in the list of allies, immediately after Hadadezer and Irhuleni, and he himself is said to have provided 2,000 chariots, more than half the total number. In addition, Ahab contributed 10,000 infantry to the battle array. Shalmaneser 111 claimed that he defeated these allies, but the evidence indicates that if the Assyrian king was not defeated, then, at the very least, the battle ended in a stalemate. With the removal of the Assyrian threat from Israel there was a considerable increase in the internal conflicts among the local powers. The Aramean-lsra-elite conflict caused the revolt of Mesha, king of Moab (see *Mesha Stele), a vassal who paid an annual tribute to the king of Israel. However, it is not certain whether Mesha had already freed himself of Israelite rule in Ahab’s lifetime, or whether he succeeded in doing so only after his death (Mesha Stele, 7-8; 11 Kings 1:1; 3:4-5).
Damascus and Samaria did not reach an agreement concerning the disputed area in north Transjordan. Ahab, with the support of King *Jehoshaphat of Judah, set out for Ramoth-Gilead with the intention of restoring it to Israelite rule. Ahab, for some unknown reason, on this occasion chose to disguise himself as a soldier in the ranks. It is hard to believe that this action was prompted merely by fear, since Ahab’s behavior, from the moment he was lethally wounded by an arrow to his death later in the evening of the same day, demonstrated his courage and his hope that the battle would not end in defeat for Israel (1 Kings 22). The description of Ahab’s death in battle in 1 Kings 22:34-38 is inconsistent with the notice in v. 40 (ibid.) that he "slept with his ancestors," which is otherwise used only of peaceful death, and points to originally separate accounts.
Internal Affairs
Ahab’s foreign policy brought about vast changes in the economy of the Israelite kingdom, both in helping to strengthen the administration and in increasing the state’s military potential. Ahab completed the building of the city Samaria, including the acropolis and the royal palace within it, and surrounded the city with a strong, high wall. In the same way, Ahab saw to the fortification of additional cities, such as Jericho (1 Kings 16:34). Archaeological evidence shows that other cities, such as Hazor, Shechem, and Megiddo, expanded in the reign of Ahab and their outer, defensive walls were reinforced. It would seem that the "stables" excavated at Megiddo served Ahab’s chariot troops. In the various regions ("provinces") he appointed army officers (20:14-15) who were responsible for the security of the province and for the farming of taxes. The widespread fortification of cities, beautiful palaces with ivory ornamentation (22:39), the "Samarian" pottery, easily distinguishable for its high quality craftsmanship and artistic level, and the imported luxury goods, all indicate a period of economic prosperity. Ahab’s chariots, mentioned in the inscription of Shalmane-ser hi, and also the stables which were excavated at Megiddo, suggest that the kingdom of Israel benefited not only from the Arabian trade conducted along the main arteries of the trade routes which crossed the territories of Judah and Israel but also from the chariot and horse trading between Egypt and Anatolia (cf. 10:28-29). However, the judgment of the author of the Books of Kings on Ahab is very harsh, because of the affair of *Naboth the Jezreelite (i Kings 21) and because of the establishment of the cult of the Tyrian Baal in Samaria. Ahab coveted the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite and offered to buy it or to exchange it for another (21:1-2), but Naboth was unwilling to give up his family inheritance (cf. Lev. 25:14-28). According to the biblical account Ahab accepted Naboth’s refusal, but his wife *Jezebel arranged to have Naboth accused falsely of insulting God and Naboth was tried and executed and his property was confiscated by the king’s treasury. The Naboth episode was symptomatic of the internal frictions under the rule of the house of Omri. It illustrates the ruthless conduct of the ruling class and the frequently cruel eviction of the small farmer from his land.
The wars with Aram and the years of drought which beset the country obviously caused great hardship to the small farmers, who were reduced to debt and were later compelled to give up their land or even to sell their children into slavery for want of funds to clear their obligations (cf. ii Kings 4:1). On the other hand, economic prosperity brought great wealth to the nobility and to the rich merchants who engaged in barter with the traders from Tyre. The introduction of a chariot force created a new military aristocracy, structurally opposed to the framework of a patriarchal tribal society. By entrusting authority to the army commanders in the "provinces," Ahab dealt a hard blow to the clan leaders ("the elders of Israel"). Sooner or later an effective opposition was bound to rise against the ruling class, an opposition which would be composed naturally of all those elements which had suffered from and had been embittered by Ahab’s rule. This opposition movement was championed by the prophets, led by the prophet *Elijah from Gilead.
Just as the deception in the Naboth incident was contrived by Jezebel, who represents the Phoenician element in the house of Omri, so the cult of Baal from Tyre penetrated into Samaria as a result of Jezebel’s efforts to implant Phoenician culture in Israel. From reading the biblical account one has the impression that the worship of Baal and Asherah constituted a grave danger to the Israelite cult (i Kings 16:31-33). A sanctuary was built to Baal in the center of Samaria. Some 450 priests of Baal and 400 prophets of Asherah enjoyed royal protection and ate at Jezebel’s table (i Kings 18:19; ii Kings 10:21). Mt. Carmel, lying on the border between Israel and Phoenicia, was the site of the impressive altar of Baal, whereas the altar of the Lord was destroyed (i Kings 18:30). The cult of Baal involved the persecution of the faithful followers of God and his prophets (18:4, 13), among whom was Elijah, who symbolized the uncompromising fighter against tyrannical rule and its crimes on the one hand, and the cult of Baal on the other (18:17-41; 19:10-14; 21:17-24). Ahab himself was not a zealous follower of Baal (his children bore Yahwistic names) and did not deny all the ancient Israelite traditions. On the one hand, he believed in what the Israelite prophets said, consulted with them before military campaigns, and even showed submission and repented after the prophet’s rebuke concerning the murder of Naboth (18:46; 20:13-14, 28; 21:27-29; 22:16-18). But, on the other hand, Ahab granted freedom of action and unlimited authority to Jezebel in all administrative spheres. The biblical historiographer, who culled most of his information concerning Ahab’s reign from the biographical literature on the prophets and the miracles they performed (cf. ii Kings 8:4), condemned Ahab for not showing any resistance to Jezebel’s incitement (i Kings 21:25), and because, in his opinion, Ahab bore the responsibility for his wife’s deeds. It also must be observed that then, as now, political opposition may be couched in religious terms, and vice versa.
In the Aggadah
Ahab was one of the three or four kings who have no portion in the world to come (Sanh. 10:2). Over the gates of Samaria, he placed the inscription, "Ahab denies the God of Israel." Influenced by Jezebel, he became such an enthusiastic idolater that he left no hilltop in Israel without an idol before which he bowed, and he substituted the names of idols for the Divine Name in the Torah. Nevertheless, Ahab possessed some redeeming features. He was generous in support of scholars and revered the Torah (Sanh. 102b). As a reward for the honor he gave to the Torah, written in the 22 letters of the alphabet, Ahab was permitted to reign for 22 years (ibid.). According to R. Levi (tj Ta’an. 4:2, 68a; Gen. R. 98:8), a genealogical table of Jerusalem mentioned that Ben Kovesin (or Bet Koveshin) was one of the descendants of Ahab. Although it is difficult to determine the trustworthiness of this tradition, it does indicate that the attitude of the rabbis toward Ahab was not completely unfavorable.
Ahab was so wealthy that each of his 70 (or 140) children had both summer and winter palaces (Esth. R. 1:12). He is said to have ruled over the whole world and his dominion extended over 252 (or 232; ser 9) kingdoms (Esth. R. 1:5). His merits might have outweighed his sins, had it not been for the killing of Naboth. On his death, 36,000 mourning warriors marched before his bier (bk 17a).
AHAB
(Heb 
son of Kolaiah, a false prophet in Baby lon. He was among the persons exiled from Judah to Babylonia by Nebuchadnezzar together with King Joiachin. He and Zedekiah son of Maaseiah purported to be prophets and stirred up unrest among the exiles (Jer. 29:21ff.). Jeremiah asserts that they were also guilty of adultery, a phenomenon not unknown among fanatics in his (23:14) and other ages. Jeremiah predicted that their death by burning at Nebuchadnezzar’s command would become a standard by which people would curse (29:22).
AHA BAR HANINA
(c. 300 c.e.), Palestinian teacher. He came from the "south," i.e., Lydda, and when he moved to Galilee, he took with him much of the halakhic tradition which he had acquired there from R. *Joshua b. Levi (Suk. 54a). In Tiberias he studied under R. Assi from whom he received the tradition of R. Johanan (Sanh. 42a) and also received instruction from Abbahu. The Aha mentioned in the Talmud without patronymic is often Ah a b. H anina. R. Nah man, one of the great Babylonian teachers, relies on Aha b. H anina, and often takes his opinion into account (Er. 64a). Despite his Palestinian origin, his teachings are found mostly in the Babylonian Talmud. Some scholars maintain that he visited Babylonia and studied under R. Huna. An aggadist, he particularly inveighed against slander (Ar. 15b). Ah a attached great importance to the study of the Torah even under difficult economic circumstances such as he himself experienced (Sot. 49a). He emphasized the importance of congregational prayer and of performing good deeds, especially visiting the sick (Ber. 8a), and he said "he who visits the sick removes one-sixtieth of their suffering" (Ber. 8a; Ned. 39b).
AH A BAR RAV
(end fourth century and beginning fifth century c.e.), Babylonian amora. He was a pupil of Ravina I. Many of his opinions were reported by his grandson R. Me-shariyya, who belonged to the school of the *savoraim. The quotations in the Talmud reveal the wide gamut of halakhic problems in which Ah a was interested. He disputed with Ravina with regard to ritual slaughter (Hul. 33a), about liability for damages (Sanh. 76b), and concerning the right of a firstborn to a double portion of the inheritance, including loans due to the deceased (bb 124b).
AHA BEN JACOB
(c. 300 c.e.), Babylonian amora. He was a disciple of Huna and older contemporary of Abbaye and Rava. He taught in the city of Paphunia (Epiphania), near Pumbed-ita (Kid. 35a). Aha held discussions with R. *Nahman, and although the latter was unable to answer his questions (cf. bk 40a), he often cites Nahman as his authority (bb 52a). He also held discussions with Abbaye and Rava (Hor. 6b; H ul. 10b) and took issue with H isda (cf. Bezah 33b). His differences of opinion with Rava extended also to the aggadah (Shab. 87b). Nevertheless, Rava had great respect for him and praised him as "a great man" (bk 40a). On one occasion Aha asserted that "Satan and Peninnah had as their true intent the service of God." At this point, the talmudic story continues, Satan appeared and in gratitude kissed Ah a’s feet (bb 16a). Several other talmudic stories concerning Ah a also involve Satan (cf. tj, Shab. 2:3, 5b; Suk. 38a; Men. 62a). A tendency toward mysticism can be detected in several of his statements (H ag. 13a; 13b, etc.).
In addition to his reputation as a scholar he was famous for his piety. Miracles are attributed to him and a story is told of his exorcising a demon (Kid. 29b). Miraculous events are also related regarding his death (bb 14a). His son (Kid. 29b) and grandson (Sot. 49a), both named Jacob, were also scholars.
AHAD HA-AM
(Asher Hirsch Ginsberg; 1856-1927), Hebrew essayist, thinker, and leader of *Hibbat Zion movement. Ah ad Ha-Am was born in Skvira, Kiev Province in Russia. He received a traditional Jewish education in the home of his father, a H asid who was a wealthy village merchant. He studied Talmud and medieval philosophy with a private teacher, and was deeply influenced by Maimonides’ Guide to the Perplexed. He read the literature of the Haskalah, and studied Russian, German, French, English, and Latin – independently. After his marriage in 1873, he continued his studies, particularly philosophy and science, at home. He tried several times to enter a university, but family obligations and his unwillingness to meet certain formal requirements disrupted his academic plans and he remained self-taught. As a result of powerful rationalist tendencies he first gave up H asidism and then abandoned all religious faith.
In 1884 he settled in Odessa, an important center of Hebrew literature and H ibbat Zion. He remained there, with brief intervals, until 1907, coming into contact with its foremost authors and communal figures. In Odessa he was drawn into public affairs as a member of the H ovevei Zion Committee under Leon *Pinsker’s leadership. His first important article, Lo Zeh ha-Derekh (1889, The Wrong Way, 1962), vigorously criticized the H ovevei Zion’s policy of immediate settlement in Erez Israel and advocated instead educational work as the groundwork for more dedicated and purposeful settlement. Written under the pseudonym Ah ad Ha-Am ("One of the People"), the controversial essay made its author famous and unintentionally propelled him into intensive literary activity. His articles, most of which were published in *Ha-Meliz, all dealt with subjects connected with Judaism, the settlement of Erez Israel, and Hibbat Z ion. At this time, the secret order of *Benei Moshe, which sought to realize the ideas expressed in his first article, was founded with Ah ad Ha-Am as its spiritual leader. The order existed for eight years, during which his literary activity was directly or indirectly connected with its work (Nissayon she-Lo Hizliah; "An Unsuccessful Attempt").
In 1891 Ahad Ha-Am visited Erez Israel and summed up his impressions in Emet me-Erez Yisrael ("Truth from Erez Israel"), a strongly critical survey of the economic, social, and spiritual aspects of the Jewish settlements. In 1893 he paid a second visit, and published similar criticisms. Although this effort failed, he acquired great influence as manager of the Ahi’asaf publishing house and editor of the monthly *Ha-Shiloah – posts which he assumed in 1896. Ha-Shiloah, the most important organ of Zionism and Hebrew literature in Eastern Europe, served a broad Jewish readership, contributed to the development of modern Hebrew literature, and provided Ahad Ha-Am with a platform for a series of historic controversies. Immediately after the magazine was founded, a debate broke out between himself and "the young men" (M.J. *Berdyczewski, O. *Thon, and M. *Ehrenpreis), who sought to encourage the writing of Hebrew literature in all phases of life, and bring about a transformation of values in Jewish culture. Ahad Ha-Am, however, feared that writing that was not specifically Jewish was premature and might lead to the severance of Jewish cultural continuity. He instead advocated concentration on Jewish problems and Jewish scholarship (Li-She’elat ha-Sifrut ha-Ivrit; "On the Question of Hebrew Literature").
This controversy - characteristic then of the clashing tendencies in Hebrew literature – was followed by the great debate on the political Zionism of *Herzl and *Nordau, in the wake of the First Zionist Congress at Basel. The realistic and pessimistic Ahad Ha-Am was wary lest an extensive and premature campaign would end in failure and disappointment. He had no faith in the efficacy of Herzlian diplomacy and was troubled by the estrangement of Herzl and Nordau from Jewish values and culture. He accused them of neglecting cultural work which he regarded as paramount, and through which he hoped to prepare the people for Zionism and protect them against cultural sterility and assimilation (Ha-Ziyyonut ha-Medinit; "Political Zionism"). In 1900, after visiting Erez Israel again, he took part in the Hovevei Zion delegation to Baron Edmond de *Rothschild in Paris. His articles severely criticized the Baron’s officials in Palestine, their dictatorial attitude, the ensuing degeneration among the settlers, and the neglect of national values in the education system of the *Alliance Israelite Universelle (Battei ha-Sefer be-Yafo ("The Schools in Jaffa") and Ha-Yishuv ve-Epitropsav ("The Yishuv and its Patrons")). The question of Hebrew national education and assimilation in the West also occupied much of his attention at the time.
In 1903 Ahad Ha-Am retired from the time-consuming editorship of Ha-Shiloah and took up a post with the Wis-sotzky tea firm, intending to devote himself to his neglected literary pursuits. However, he continued his public activities. Following the Kishinev pogroms, he encouraged Jewish self-defense and after the Sixth Zionist Congress, intervened vigorously in the debate on the Uganda Plan, which he regarded as a natural consequence of the detachment of political Zionism from Jewish values. At the conclusion of this debate he devoted himself to writing on subjects not directly connected with current events. He apparently hoped to expound his theories in a comprehensive and systematic form, and wrote a number of essays on these lines (Moshe, Basar va-Ruah, Shilton ha-Sekhel; Eng. ed. 1962), but failing health and perhaps inner obstacles prevented him from achieving his aim.
In 1907, after a private visit to Erez Israel, he moved to London where he continued his public activity. He played a role in obtaining the *Balfour Declaration, yet was not overwhelmed by the Zionist movement’s enthusiasm following the Declaration. Ahad Ha-Am perceived its limitations, especially in connection with the Arab question (see, on the Arabs, the Introduction to the 1905 edition of Al Parashat Derakhim), and evidently had a better appreciation of its true significance than his colleagues. During this period, his literary work was much diminished.
In 1922 he settled in Erez Israel, where he remained until his death. He completed his four-volume collected essays started in 1895, Al Parashat Derakhim, dictated several topics of memoirs, and edited his letters (6 vols. (1923-25), and in a more comprehensive edition, edited by L. Simon and Y. Pogravinsky (1957-60)).
A self-confessed stranger to literature, Ahad Ha-Am entered it by chance; in time, however, he developed a carefully chiseled, lucid, and precise style, a desire for consistency, and a profound sense of responsibility. His failure to systemize his teachings in a comprehensive work may have been the result of lack of time, or of his reluctance to undertake a great task. His natural skepticism and his lack of confidence, governed to a considerable extent by the limitations of education and character, also led him to recoil in the face of the audacity of the "young authors" and the daring of political Zionism. His estimation of himself, then, as an occasional writer, was correct. His articles, including even those based on an all-embracing world outlook, are basically the responsible reactions to contemporary problems of a pragmatic thinker, deeply devoted to his aims, but considerably influenced in his arguments by varying conditions and circumstances. This was largely the consequence of the fact that Ahad Ha-Am owed his ideas to incompatible sources: positivism and idealism, but never succeeded in working out systematically the relation between the two. Nevertheless, they are historically significant and express the self-questioning of the generation that brought about a momentous change of direction in Jewish history. Ahad Ha-Am’s reservations concerning political Zionism, the immediate settlement of Erez Israel, and the Zionist movement’s elation regarding the Balfour Declaration were primarily based upon his misgivings about the tendency to haste which is characteristic of every mass messianic awakening. Ahad Ha-Am feared that Zionism might have the same end as other such movements in Jewish history that led to despair and disastrous disintegration (Ha-Bokhim; "They Who Weep"). He may never have believed wholeheartedly in the reality of the Zionist solution, even on the limited scale of his own definition. He clearly saw the political and economic problems and felt that they could not be overcome.
In his very first article Lo Zeh ha-Derekh he ascribed the difficulties of Jewish settlement in Erez; Israel to the weakness of the national consciousness among the Jews. A great enterprise demands a readiness on the part of the masses to sacrifice their private advantage for the sake of the community, but as a result of dispersion and the distress of exile, the Jews had not grown accustomed to such altruism. When they came to the homeland, they expected rapid economic success and immediately gave way to despair when this was not forthcoming. Hence, he believed, the pace of settlement should be slowed down, and be preceded by intensive education to prepare the people for self-sacrifice and to strengthen its national consciousness. In other words, the decisive test should be postponed indefinitely, on the implied assumption that the work of preparation for the realization of the aim would in itself constitute a partial solution. It would not, indeed, solve what Ah ad Ha-Am defined as "the question of the Jews," namely, the economic, social, and political problems of the Jewish masses. In any case, he felt that Zionism would not solve these problems. On the other hand, it could solve what he defined as "the question of Judaism"; that is, it could create a new type of Jew, proud of his Jewishness and deeply rooted in it, thus ensuring the continuation of the spiritual creativity of Judaism and the Jews’ devotion to their people.
These pragmatic considerations are the starting-point for a first theoretical analysis of the question: What is the nature and the source of the national consciousness? How is it weakened and how can it be strengthened? It is characteristic, again, of Ahad Ha-Am’s pragmatic method that, despite his sensitivity to the weak national consciousness among the Jews, he did not study the cultural and historical bases for such national consciousness, but assumed its existence as a natural fact. When the Jews of Germany, France, and Britain asked "Why do we have to remain Jews?" Ahad Ha-Am replied that the question was not legitimate. Just as a man does not ask why he has to be a particular individual, so the Jew cannot ask why he must remain a Jew; this is a given fact that cannot be changed by volition. On the assumption that nationality is naturally acquired, he builds a characteristic analogy between the "individual ego" and the "national ego," which represents the nation’s collective identity and embraces all individuals throughout the generations. He did not systematically explain this concept, but his intention is suggested in his distinction between a person’s attitude toward his people and toward humanity. The latter is "abstract;" a person rationally understands the unity of all men, recognizes his bonds with them, and his moral duty toward them. But this abstraction is not sufficient to arouse his love for the individual as such. The attitude to the nation is "tangible," that is, emotional. It is not derived from thought, but from a natural, biological impulse. Every individual carries from birth a sense of belonging to the group into which he was born; the family, tribe, or nationality, which is the foundation of his existence (Ha-Adam ba-Ohel; "Man in his Tent"). The "national ego" is, therefore, anchored in the "individual ego."
This leads to a second analogy, found in many of Ahad Ha-Am’s essays (Heshbon ha-Nefesh (Summa Summartum, 1962)). The individual acts, as Darwin taught, in obedience to the "will to live." This is an elemental impulse that needs no justification; it is a given fact. The nation also acts through its own "will to live." However, this means that each individual aspires to exist with his nation and to maintain its existence; in this sense the "national will to live" is an outcome of the individual will to live" Moreover, under natural conditions the individual regards the survival of the nation as taking precedence over his own survival, because the nation is his biological base and will continue to exist even after the death of the individual. Hence, the individual naturally regards himself as an ephemeral cell in an organism that existed before him and will continue to exist after he is gone. In his desire to survive, he wishes to perpetuate his people, and through the same impulse he will be prepared, in time of need, to sacrifice his personal survival for that of the nation.
Ahad Ha-Am asked how this natural feeling has been weakened among the Jews. How have they arrived at a situation in which they prefer their personal survival to the survival of their people? And he responded that this is a result of the unnatural conditions of exile. On the one hand, it is apparently caused by social, political, and economic distress, factors not deeply probed by Ah ad Ha-Am, no doubt because he did not regard Zionism as a solution for such problems. On the other hand, he analyzed the spiritual situation of Judaism in modern times, which he presented without enquiry or proof, as an independent cause of the weakening of the Jews’ national consciousness. This weakening he ascribed to two causes: first, the paralysis of the spiritual creative powers of traditional Judaism in the Diaspora, which had become enslaved to the written word (Ha-Torah she-ba-Lev; "Torah of the Heart") and, second, the tremendous force of Europe’s vibrant and creative culture. While the educated young Jew admired and identified with European culture, he despised the heritage of his fathers and could not identify with it. If Jews wished to halt this process, they must revive the creative power of traditional Judaism and combat the Jewish intellectual’s self-deprecation in the face of European culture, in order to revive his identification with his pride in his heritage (Ha-Musar ha-Leummi; "National Morality").
Ahad Ha-Am did not probe why such an effort should be made. He assumed the existence of the national feeling, if only in a weak and distorted form, both in the souls of the zealots of a petrified tradition and also in those of the assimi-lationists. In denying this national feeling, or its obligations, he felt that assimilationists denied themselves and were living in "slavery in the midst of freedom," as well as in moral and spiritual distress. Only when they returned to a complete life in the midst of their people would they return to themselves (Avdut be-Tokh Hlerut; "Slavery in Freedom," 1962). But what was it that really bound the Jewish intellectual to his heritage? Ahad Ha-Am tried to discover this bond in the primary impulse of "the national will to existence." This will not only demands loyalty to the heritage of Judaism but directly molds its specific content. Thus, Ah ad Ha-Am thought he could arouse the devotees of tradition to adapt it to the new conditions, as a duty derived from these values themselves, and persuade those Jews who had assimilationist tendencies to recognize the vital bond between themselves and their people’s heritage. In general he argued (as in Avar ve-Atid; ‘Past and Future," 1962) that since the "ego" is a combination of past and future, and the suppression of one of these dimensions suppresses the "ego," therefore every Jew, if he is loyal to himself, must keep faith with the past but adapt its values to the needs of survival in the future. He tried to show in detail (in Mukdam u-Meuhar ba-Hayyim; "Precession and Succession in Life") that even the specific values of the Jewish faith, such as monotheism or the messianic vision, are only functions of the national will to existence, for they can be cherished in an existential attachment to the past and concurrently adapted to the thoughtways of an adherent of modern European culture, in an attempt to perpetuate the national existence.
In this way, Ah ad Ha-Am expressed his ambivalent attitude to tradition, an attitude characteristic of the generation that received a traditional education in childhood but discarded tradition upon reaching maturity. He identified himself with the tradition as an inseparable part of his cultural personality; that is, his memories. But he could no longer define his world outlook and his way of life in its terms. He therefore exchanged the belief that certain values were absolute imperatives for an emotional attachment to such values, and sought in them a reflection of his attitude to them. At the same time, Ah ad Ha-Am did not ignore the difficulties caused by this ambivalence. Asserting that certain values are part of the ancient heritage which maintained the nation in the past, he realized, was insufficient to ensure a positive attitude to them in the present. If we seek to guarantee the nation’s survival in the future, we must identify ourselves with the values of its heritage for their own sake. Thus, Ah ad Ha-Am sought those values with which the Jewish intellectual could directly identify himself. While in some essays he based the national bond on the "will to live" of the "national ego" in terms drawn from positivism, in others (such as Moshe and Ha-Musar ha- Leummi), he based the national bond with Judaism on a specific ideal in terms drawn from idealist philosophy. The ideal of Judaism is the ideal of absolute justice, which is "the quest for truth in action," and which was revealed in prophecy. The inner content of the Jewish faith is pure morality, which Judaism bequeathed to European culture and to which it remained faithful in all its historical metamorphoses.
The contradiction between this concept and the previous one is obvious, and they have only one common denominator, the pragmatic considerations which underlie both. Ahad Ha-Am’s purpose in these essays was not to define the essence of Judaism in general, but to seek those values with which the Jewish intellectual could identify and of which he could be proud. He was therefore able, as it were, to go back on his own statements and in several essays (such as Al Shetei ha-Se’ipim; "Two Domains") declare that the essence of Judaism is absolute monotheism, and not undiluted morality. He adopted this attitude during his dispute with Liberal Judaism, which displayed tendencies to assimilation on the assumption of an identity between the ethical ideal of Judaism and that of modern European humanism. To the extent that this identity did not lead to the preservation of the national uniqueness but blurred its identity, he repudiated it and made a new start in his search for the characteristic values of Judaism.
The same degree of ambivalence is revealed in Ah ad Ha-Am’s attitude to the halakhah. For pragmatic reasons he found it convenient not to deal with this question, but his general statements about the petrified tradition aroused strong reactions even from rabbis who were favorable to H ibbat Zion. He therefore had to consider the question of halakhah in the hope of maintaining a modus vivendi between the religious and secular wings of Judaism (Divrei Shalom; "Words of Peace"). This modus vivendi was based, of course, on the assumption that both sides were concerned for the continued existence of the Jewish people as a people with a distinct spiritual identity, and regarded the return to Zion as the solution. On this basis the debate on the content of Judaism could be postponed to the distant future. But it was clear that the secular and religious wings had certain expectations of each other. Ahad Ha-Am’s problem was to formulate these expectations without immediately destroying the basis common to both wings. Hence, he rejected Reform by an unqualified acceptance of the Orthodox view, without examining the arguments of the reformers on their merits, arguing that the words of the Torah could not be taken as divine commands and then corrected according to human understanding; the correction undermined the fundamental assumption of religion and thus made itself superfluous. On the other hand, however, Ahad Ha-Am could not abandon his demand for changes in the halakhah in order to adapt it to the way of life of the modern Jew; nor could he conceal the fact that changes in the halakhah had indeed taken place in the past. He found the solution in a historical formula: religion is subject not to reform but to development. In other words those who introduce changes in it do not do so deliberately, as reformers. Instead, after their world view has changed and under the influence of contemporary conditions, they interpret tradition as if they had planned to uphold those things they consider true and obligatory. Ah ad Ha-Am therefore believed that the influence of life in Erez Israel would lead to the development of religion, and there would no longer be any need to directly demand changes in the halakhah.
In their new framework Jewish social and cultural life would be enriched and broadened and the very existence of the Jews as members of one nation would not be endangered.
There were several foundations for Ahad Ha-Am’s version of practical Zionism: his distrust of an impetuous and premature attempt to carry out a great enterprise; his disbelief in the reality of the Zionist program as a solution to the Jewish problem; and the aspiration to solve the problem of Judaism by reviving its unfettered spiritual creativity and strengthening the Jews’ identification with their reinvigorated heritage (Dr. Pinsker u-Mahbarto; "Pinsker and his Brochure" in: Federation of American Zionists, 1911, and Tehiyyat ha-Ruah; "The Spiritual Revival," 1962). He did not present the vision of the ingathering of the exiles in Erez Israel even as an ultimate long-term goal. Most of the Jewish people would continue to exist in exile, on the assumption that its social and economic situation would ultimately improve and it would achieve equality of civic rights. In any case, the solution to the "question of the Jews" should be sought, in his view, in the lands of the Diaspora. Those who were troubled by "the question of Judaism" would settle in Erez Israel, where they would maintain a Jewish State which would serve as a "spiritual center" for the Diaspora. Its independent society, which would be entirely Jewish, would constitute a focus of emotional identification with Judaism, and the spiritual values that would be created in Erez Israel would nourish all parts of the people and ensure its continued existence and unity. After the Balfour Declaration, Ahad Ha-Am presented another argument for his limited program; consideration for the national rights of the Palestine Arabs.
Ahad Ha-Am’s works not only influenced his disciples and admirers, but also prompted debates and criticism which fertilized modern Jewish thought to the extent that every stream in Zionism has been influenced by the challenge of his writings. After the establishment of the State of Israel, his doctrines, both political and theoretical, were submitted to renewed criticism, but his essays are still studied and are an influential factor in Jewish thought both in the Diaspora and Israel. One of the most influential authors and thinkers of his generation, his articles and essays constitute one of the major achievements of modern Hebrew literature.
AH AI
(Aha; late fifth and early sixth century), Babylonian scholar of the period of transition between the amoraim and the savoraim, at the time of the final redaction of the Talmud. Since most of his statements aim at resolving problems or clarifying matters in their more or less final form, they are generally prefaced by such distinctive formulae as "pS ("he raised an objection") and rWS ("he explained"). He is mentioned together with other savoraim (Hul. 59b; Ta’an. 18b). Sages of Erez Israel wrote to their colleagues in Babylonia, "Give heed to the opinion of R. Ah ai, for he enlightens the eyes of the Diaspora" (Hul., loc. cit.). The Epistle of *Sherira Gaon (ed. Lewin, 38) refers to three savoraim named Ahai or Aha: Aha of Bei H attim (a place near Nehardea), Ah ai b. Huna who died in 505 c.e., and Aha the son of Rabbah b. Abbuha who died on the Day of Atonement in 510 c.e. Ahai without a cognomen is probably All ai b. Huna.
AH AI BEN JOSIAH
(end of second century), Babylonian halakhist at the close of the tannaitic period. His father Josiah was a pupil of R. Ishmael. Ah ai’s statements are quoted several times in the halakhic Midrashim of the school of Ishmael, the Mekhilta on Exodus and the Sifre on Numbers. Toward the end of Judah ha-Nasi’s life Ah ai placed the inhabitants of a certain town in Babylonia under the ban because they had desecrated the Sabbath (Kid. 72a). Among Ah ai’s adages are "He who gazes at a woman is bound to come to sin, and he who looks even at a woman’s heel will have unworthy children" (Ned. 20a); "He who buys grain in the market is like an infant whose mother has died and who is taken from one wet nurse to another, but is never satisfied. But he who eats of his own produce is like an infant raised at his mother’s breast" (arn1, 31). He applied the verse "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master a bondman" (Deut. 23:16) to a slave who escaped from another land to Erez Israel (Git. 45a). It is assumed that he established the yeshivah in H uzal in Babylonia, known after his death as "the school of Ah ai," which was famous in the early third century and became the nucleus of Rav’s yeshivah (tj, Av. Zar. 4:1, 43d; Ma’as. 4:6, 51c)
AHA (Ahai) OF SHABHA
(680-752), scholar of the Pumbe-dita yeshivah in the geonic period and author of She’iltot ("Questions"). He came from Shabha, which is adjacent to Basra. When a vacancy occurred in the geonate of Pumbedita a few years before the death of Aha, the exilarch Solomon b. H asdai appointed Natronai Kahana b. Emunah of Baghdad, a pupil of Ah a, as gaon (748). Incensed at this slight, Ah a left Babylonia (c. 750) and settled in Palestine. His departure deeply affected his contemporaries and many followed him.
By the next generation a considerable number of Babylonian Jews were settled in Palestine. In many places they even built separate synagogues following the Babylonian ritual. The She’iltot (always so called, and not by the more correct name Sheelata), was the first book written after the close of the Talmud to be attributed to its author. Much of its subject matter is very old, even antedating the final redaction of the Talmud. There are statements in the She’iltot that do not appear in the Talmud or which are there in a different version. It also contains "reversed discussions" (i.e., where the statements of the disputants are reversed, contradictory, or different from those in the standard texts). Other portions belong to the period of the savoraim and of the first geonim. A number of decisions cited by the geonim as the tradition of "many generations" or which refer to "earliest authorities" are verbally reproduced in the She’iltot. Even the legal terminology is identical with that of the legal decisions of the savoraim as transmitted by the geonim. Nevertheless, apart from his quotation of the decisions of other authorities, it can be assumed that some of the halakhic decisions are his own.
Both in content and in form, She’iltot is unique in Jewish literature. It is unlike midrashic literature since its halakhic elements exceed its aggadic. However, it has some similarity to Midrash Yelammedenu in that both deal with halakhah derived from Scripture. It is also without parallel in the literature of the Codes, being arranged neither according to subject matter nor according to the sequence of the sections in which the Pentateuch is divided. Aha’s method is to connect decisions of the Oral Law with the Written Law. The connections are often original and even surprising, though sometimes unconvincing. Often he bases a legal decision not upon its hal-akhic source in the Torah but on its narrative portion. The laws of theft and robbery, for example, are based on Genesis 6:13: "And the earth is filled of violence because of them." For the laws of the study of the Torah he finds a passage in the section of Lekh Lekha. In the section Va-Yiggash, which tells of the famine in Egypt, the author launches a remarkable attack on hoarders and profiteers: "And he who acts thus shall obtain no forgiveness." She’iltot thus concerns itself not only with the ritual commandments but also with the "duties of the heart," the ethical obligations required of man. Time and again he denounces unethical conduct and praises high moral standards; some of the she’iltot are elevating ethical discourses. The book is written in Aramaic; had it been translated into good Hebrew, it would doubtless have enjoyed wide popularity. Various scholars agree that the She’iltot consists of sermons delivered during ordinary Sabbaths as well as on the Shabbta de-Rigla (the first Sabbath of the academic term, a month before Sukkot) and during the Sabbaths of the *kallah months. It was almost certainly the custom during the geonic era to give the she’ilta form of sermon in the synagogue of the yeshivah. Some assert that both types of lecture (the metivta and the perek) delivered at the Babylonian academies remained in the archives of the academy and only during the geonic period were they copied and edited. (See *Academies in Babylonia and Palestine.) The topics included in She’iltot are those on which discourses were delivered by the amoraim before the close of the Talmud and during the early geonic period. According to this opinion the She’iltot contain such discourses which were assembled and edited by Ah a (Mirsky).
Each she’ilta is divided into four parts. The first serves as a general introduction to the subject, speaks of the value and significance of the particular commandments, and serves as a preparation for the question that is to be discussed. The second part is always introduced with the words: "but it is necessary that you learn," or in an abridged form: "but it is necessary," followed by the question. Then comes the third part, the homi-letical part, which begins: "Praised be the Lord, who has given us the Torah and the commandments through our teacher Moses to instruct the people of Israel," after which the preacher proceeds from subject to subject. The fourth part is introduced by the formula: "With respect to the question I have set before you.," and then answers the question propounded in the second part. Some assume that the lecture was called "she’ilta" because its most important part is the question and its solution. However, not all the she’iltot have come down in their complete form: in most of them the third part is missing. One she’ilta is to be found in the Talmud itself (Shab. 30a) and it appears that this pattern of public sermon is ancient.
Many scholars have dealt with the question of whether Aha wrote the book of She’iltot while he was still in Babylonia or after his immigration to Palestine. Some are of the opinion that Ah a began it in Babylonia and completed it in Palestine. There are indications which point to its having been written in both countries. According to Weiss, Graetz, and Poznanski, the She’iltot was compiled in Babylonia. L. Ginzberg, basing himself upon linguistic evidence, thought that the book was compiled in Palestine. On the other hand, J.N. Epstein concluded that its language is the Aramaic of the Talmud with the special nuances of the Aramaic of the geonim, and that therefore it was probably compiled in Babylonia. One problem still inadequately investigated is the extent to which the She’iltot makes use of the Jerusalem Talmud. Some scholars (Ratner and Reifmann) maintain that this is a major source. Poznanski, on the other hand, points to only seven passages definitely taken from the Jerusalem Talmud. Ginzberg and Ka-minka refute much of the evidence supporting the view that the She’iltot made use of the Jerusalem Talmud.
The She’iltot has come down in a fragmentary and defective form. In its extant state it contains 171 she’iltot, some repeated twice or even three times, some fragmentary. Tcher-nowitz has endeavored to explain the unusual repetitions on the assumption that the She’iltot was directed against the Karaites who were making considerable progress at that time. Aha’s sermons deal particularly with those commandments which the Karaites disregarded, particularly those of rabbinic provenance. In various manuscripts, especially in the Cairo Genizah, there are she’iltot and parts of she’iltot not to be found in the extant editions. Excerpts of she’iltot are to be found also in the Halakhot Gedolot and in several other sources. Some scholars think that Halakhot Gedolot was composed before the She’iltot, whereas others maintain the opposite view, holding that Halakhot Gedolot drew upon the She’iltot. Halakhot Pesu-kot is also considered to be later than the She’iltot. It seems probable that after the publication of She’iltot, the geonim continued to preach she’iltot orally and that these formed the basis of the Halakhot Pesukot which were later compiled by the disciples of Yehudai Gaon. Special mention should be made of the book Ve-Hizhir, apparently written in Palestine in the tenth century, which contains a large number of she’iltot. A whole literature of she’iltot then grew up which used Aha’s book as a prototype. The rishonim also made great use of the She’iltot.
She’iltot was first published in Venice in 1566. Other editions worthy of mention are (1) She’iltot with the commentaries She’ilat Shalom and Rishon le-Ziyyon, by Isaiah Berlin Pick (1786); (2) with the commentary Toafot Reem of Isaac Pardo (1811); (3) with Haamek Sheelah of Naphtali Zevi Judah *Ber-lin, considered the most complete commentary (1861-67; 2nd edition, with additions and supplements, 1947-52); (4) with the commentary Rekah Mordekhai of Eliezer Mordecai Keneg (1940); (5) a new edition with a voluminous introduction, commentary, and variae lectiones, published by S.K. Mirsky (Genesis and Exodus, in 3 vols., 1959-63). Mirsky mentions 11 manuscripts of She’iltot and 4 commentaries which have never been published.
AHARON, EZRA
(1903-1995), composer, ‘ud player, and singer. Aharon was born in Baghdad, where he acquired a sound reputation as a versatile musician and a leading virtuoso and composer. The His Master’s Voice and Baidaphon companies recorded many of his compositions. He was selected by the Iraqi authorities to head a group of musicians to represent his country at the First International Congress of Arab Music held in Cairo in 1932. The delegation comprised six Jewish instrumentalists plus a vocalist who was a Muslim. The participants in the Congress, including the composers Bartok and Hindemith and the musicologists Robert *Lach-mann, Curt *Sachs, and H.G. Farmer, chose Aharon as the best musician present. He came to Palestine in 1934 and settled in Jerusalem, where a year later a group of notables, including Professor David *Yellin, future second president of Israel Izhak *Ben-Zvi, the renowned educator David Avisar, his great supporter Robert Lachmann, and others, established in his honor a special society for the promotion of Israeli Oriental song. When the first radio station was established in Jerusalem in 1936 by the British Mandatory government, he was selected by composer Karl *Salomon to head a special section of Jewish Oriental music. After the establishment of the state, Aharon founded and directed an Oriental ensemble at Kol Israel. He composed 270 Hebrew songs including synagogal piyyutim, melodies set to poems of famous medieval and contemporary Hebrew poets, such as *Bialik, *Tchernichowsky, *Shimoni, and Sh. *Shalom, as well as about 200 instrumental and vocal Arabic pieces, which represent a landmark in the history of Palestinian and Judeo-Arabic music. In the performance of his Hebrew compositions he appeared together with Western and Oriental musicians; Arabs and Jewish Oriental musicians played and sang his Arabic compositions. Written scores exist for a great portion of his works.
