Jubilee Volume in Honor of Israel Francus - Dr. Geoffrey Herman's ...

ל א ר ש י ל ת ר א פ ת 

TifereT LeyisraeL 

Jubilee Volume 

in Honor of 

Israel Francus 

Edited by 

Joel Roth 

Menahem Schmelzer 

Yaacov Francus

Tiferet Leyisrael: Jubilee Volume in Honor of Israel Francus 

© 2010 by The Jewish Theological Seminary of America 

All Rights Reserved. 

No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or 

mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, 

without permission in writing from The Jewish Theological Seminary. 

book and cover Design by Jonathan Kremer 

Composition by Miles B. Cohen 

ISBN-13: 978-0-87334-151-6

vii Preface 

Contents 

ix Abbreviations 

1 Israel Francus 

A Biography 

Yitzchak Francus 

5 Israel Francus 

A Personal Tribute 

Ismar Schorsch 

7 Professor Israel Francus 

An Appreciation 

Leonard R. Levy 

13 Ribbono shel ‘Olam / God, Dominus: What Does It Mean? 

José Faur 

31 “Bury My Coffin Deep!” 

Zoroastrian Exhumation in Jewish and Christian Sources 

Geoffrey Herman 

61 The Adiabenian Royal Family in Rabbinic Literature of Late Antiquity 

Richard Kalmin 

79 The Sabbath As a Sanctuary in Space 

David Kraemer 

93 The Decisive Shift: From Geonim to Rabbi Yitsh ˙ ak Alfasi 

Leonard R. Levy

131 Textual Criticism As a Prerequisite for the Study of Rabbinic Thought 

On God Not Giving Recompense for Fulfilling Commandments and 

on the Immutability of the Created World 

Chaim Milikowsky 

153 “Like Torah Scrolls That Are Rolled Up”: 

The Story of the Death of Rabbi Eliezer in Sanhedrin 68a 

Devora Steinmetz 

181 “So Why Did the Sages Say, ‘Until Midnight’?” 

On M. Berakhot 1:1 

Burton L. Visotzky 

189 Applying Jewish Law to New Circumstances 

Elliot N. Dorff 

201 Caesarean Birth and Pidyon Haben 

Mayer Rabinowitz 

207 Gufei Torah: The Limit to Halakhic Pluralism 

Joel Roth

ןכות 

רבד חתפ ז 

ארפסה רקיעל ״םיאולימד אתליכמ״ לש הסחי 1 

גרבדלוג םהרבא 

הבר תישארב שרדמב תוינוויה םילימה 21 

ןמשריה םחנמ 

סוצנרפ תטישב תרוקיבו ןויע 35 

אשונב םינושאר תקולחמל םימרוגהו ילבבה דומלתב ״הנוהכל םוגפ״ חנומה תרדגה לע 

םארגלימ ש״י 

יאבה ירבד וא םתייווהכ םירבד 43 

״ארקמה תוינומדק״ו ימא ׳ר — ״םבל היה שרחה“ 

ןמדירפ אביקע יכדרמ 

הנשויל הרטע 51 

)ד״מ ה״פ ,ו״מ ד״פ תועובש( תוינשמ יתש לש ןהילוגלגב יגולודותמ ןויע 

ןמדירפ הדוהי אמש 

םילעופ תוריכשב תותיירב יתש 63 

סוצנרפ בקעי 

תוירוה תכסמב תוינשמה רדסל 89 

דלפנייטש הירא יבצ 

רדסה ליל לש ירוקמה ללהה — ״לודגה ללה״ 115 

דרא יטומ 

הווצמל הצקומ 169 

ץיבונב השמ

הירמל םירמ ןיב 183 

?ל״זח תורפסב תילאידיאה השיאה תומדל םירמ התייה דציכ 

ןמסורג םהרבא 

ןיכס אלא הרימש ול ןיא 195 

ידורב לאימחרי 

םירשעה האמב תובושתה תורפסב םיעדמב שומישה 207 

ןיקנילוג דוד 

ילבבה דומלתב תורחא תויגוסו ןיבוריע תכסמ לע הזינגה ןמ םינואגה תובושת 219 

גיצנד ןמחנ 

״ןידה ןמ ןיגרהנ ןיא״ 235 

ם״במרה לש הכלהה תסיפתב קרפ 

הקשנה דוד 

?ומצע ינפב לגר וא םימולשת — ינש חספ 255 

לטימע הדוהי ברה 

״יעצמא ליכשמ״ ןיעמ — ״םושלש לומת״בש תדמח 263 

ץלוה םהרבא 

הדוהי אנבר ןב רוחבה סומינולק אנברל ןיאושינל רצוי טויפ 275 

רצלמש ׳ח םחנמ 

הליפתה חסונ לע דרפס שוריג תעפשה 289 

ירובת ףסוי 

היפרגוילביב 309 

סוצנרפ לארשי ימוסרפ

“Bury My Coffin Deep!” 

Zoroastrian Exhumation in 

Jewish and Christian Sources 

Geoffrey Herman 

A colorful mosaic of nations and religious communities 

filled the expansive regions of the Sasanian Empire.1 Although Zoroastrianism, 

the predominant religion,2 was promoted consistently by the king dom,3 the relationship 

between the kingdom and the non-Zoroastrian religious communities and 

I would like to thank Aaron Amit, Ab de Jong,Yaakov Elman, Richard Kalmin, and Shai Secunda 

for their valuable critical comments and suggestions. Abbreviations used: AMS = P. Bedjan, Acta 

Martyrum et Sanctorum, Paris II, 1891; IV, 1894. The dates for the deaths of talmudic rabbis are, 

unless otherwise stated, taken from the “Epistle of Rav Sherira Gaon.” Although the historical 

veracity of these dates is not assumed automatically here, they are judged as close enough to provide 

parameters for the discussion of talmudic sources. 

1 For a recent survey on the Sasanian Empire, see J. Wiesehöfer, Ancient Persia from 550 B.C. to 

650 A.D., trans. A. Azodi (London, 1996), 153–221. The classic, though out of date, monograph 

is A. Christensen, L’Iran sous les Sassanides (Copenhagen, 19442). 

2 Describing Sasanian Zoroastrianism is a complex matter. For an important discussion, see 

S. Shaked, Dualism in Transformation: Varieties of Religion in Sasanian Iran (London, 1994), 

esp. 71–98. Cf. J. Duchesne-Guillemin, “Zoroastrian Religion,” The Cambridge History of Iran, 

vol. 3 (2), ed. E. Yarshater (Cambridge, 1983), 866–906; Ph. Gignoux and B. A. Litvinsky, 

“Religions and Religious Movements — I, Zoroastrianism,” in History of Civilizations of Central 

Asia, vol. 3, The Crossroads of Civilizations: A.D. 250 to 750, ed. B. Litvinsky, Zhang Guang-da, 

and R. Shabani Samghabadi (Paris, 1996), 403–12; M. Stausberg, Die Religion Zarathushtras, 

Geschichte-Gegenwart-Rituale (Stuttgart, 2002), Bd. 1, 205–62. 

3 Cf. K. Mosig-Walburg, Die frühen sasanidischen Könige als Vertreter und Förderer der zara thustrischen 

Religion (Frankfurt, 1982). Cf. J. Wiesehöfer, “‘Geteilte Loyalitäten’. Religiöse Minderheiten 

des 3. und 4. Jahrhunderts im Spannungsfeld zwischen Rom und dem sāsānidischen Iran,” 

Klio 75 (1993): 362–82. 

31 

tiferet leyisrael : : jubilee volume in honor of israel francus

tiferet leyisrael : : jubilee volume in honor of israel francus 

32 

practices was dynamic.4 Whereas religious toleration was the rule, the changing political 

situation would invariably lead to dramatic shifts in religious policy. Thus, we 

find that the vicissitudes of both internal and foreign policy would bring about the 

advancement of radical (Zoroastrian) clerical elements at the expense of the interests 

of the non-Zoroastrian inhabitants of the empire; or alternatively, where more 

expedient, would utilize well-placed Christian bishops in the cause of international 

diplomacy.5 Evidently, the particular points of friction between each non-Zoroastrian 

community and the Zoroastrians weighed heavily on the individual relationship 

between the two. Manichaeism was hounded with particular vigor due to its proximity 

to Zoroastrianism and missionary activity; the conversion of Rome to Christianity 

would make the Sasanian Christians suspect;6 and active missionary activity by Christians 

among high-placed Zoroastrians, or among the Armenians who had formerly 

been Zoroastrian, thereby crossing established boundaries, might particularly irritate 

the circles of the Sasanian nobility.7 We also encounter friction of a different nature, 

where there is no tangible “threat” to the devout members of the Zoroastrian religion, 

but where the religious practices of non-Zoroastrians impinged upon the religious 

beliefs of Zoroastrians. The latter would, on occasion, attempt to restrict them or prevent 

them from fulfilling their religious practice. The issue I wish to examine in this 

paper, burial rites, belongs to this category. 

The funerary rites typically practiced by the Jews and Christians living in the 

Sasanian Empire (224–651 C.e.) differed from those generally associated with Zoroastrians 

in this period. Zoroastrians practiced the exposure of the corpse shortly after 

death in an open space to be consumed by dogs and birds, whereas Jews and Christians 

4 Cf. M. Boyce, “Toleranz und Intoleranz im Zoroastrismus,” Saeculum 21, no. 4 (1970): 

325–43. On Zoroastrian religion and state in the Sasanian empire, see R. N. Frye, “Notes on the 

Early Sassanian State and Church,” Studi orientalistici in onore di G. Levi Della Vida, 1 (Rome, 

1956), 314–35; Shaked, Transformation, 109; Shaked, “Administrative Functions of Priests in 

the Sasanian Period,” Proceedings of the First European Conference of Iranian Studies, pt. 1, ed. 

Gh. Gnoli and A. Panaino (Rome, 1990), 261–73; Z. Rubin, “The Sasanid Monarchy,” in The 

Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 14, ed. Averil Cameron, et al. (Cambridge University Press, 2000), 

647–51; The different views are summarized in K. Schippmann, Grundzüge der Geschichte des 

sasanidischen Reiches, Darmstadt (1990), 92–102. 

5 See N. G. Garsoïan, “Le rôle de l’hiérarchie chrétienne dans les relations diplomatiques entre 

Byzance et les Sassanides,” Revue des Études Arméniennes N.S. 10 (1973–74), 119–38; L. Sako, Le 

role de la hiérarchie syriaque orientale dans les rapports diplomatiques entre la Perse et Byzance aux 

Ve – Viie siècles (Paris, 1986). 

6 F. Decret, “Les conséquences sur la christianisme en Perse de l’affrontement des empires 

romain et sassanide de Shapur I à Yezdegerd I,” Recherches Augustiniennes 14 (1979), 91–152; 

S. Brock, “Christians in the Sasanian Empire: A Case of Divided Loyalties,” in Religion and 

National Identity (Studies in Church History), 18, ed. S. Mews (Oxford, 1982), 1–19. 

7 On this explanation for anti-Christian persecution at the end of the reign of Yazdgird I, see 

esp., L. van Rompay, “Impetuous Martyrs? The Situation of the Persian Christians in the Last 

Years of Yazdgard I (419–20)” in Martyrium in multidisciplinary perspective. Memorial Louis 

Reekmans, ed. M. Lamberigts and P. van Deun (Leuven, 1995), 363–75.

generally interred their dead in the earth.8 Literary sources from the Sasanian era 

provide evidence of efforts by Zoroastrians to impose their method of burial upon 

non-Zoroastrians, and my purpose in this article is to explore this evidence.9 For the 

Jews the evidence is provided by the Babylonian Talmud;10 for the Christians it comes 

from a number of different places, but particularly from the rich, extensive, and distinctive 

martyrology literature that was composed in Syriac and deals with Christian 

martyrdom in the Sasanian Empire.11 

8 For Christians, apart from depositing the corpses of martyrs in martyria, the sources usually 

refer to their burial. The Babylonian Talmud assumes the existence of cemeteries, cf. b. Ber. 18b. 

Obviously, in view of the expanse of the Sasanian Empire and the time frame we are considering, 

we can expect to find considerable variation. For instance, ossuaries from the Sasanian era 

discovered in Merv, in today’s Turkmenistan, appear to testify to similar practices of Jews and 

Zoroastrians in this period. For further reservations and literature, see below. 

9 I shall not deal with the actual burial practices of Sasanian Jews and Christians in this article, 

or their relationship to one another, but only in their response to Zoroastrian practice and interference. 

Likewise, this article will not address perceptions of death, resurrection, the afterlife, 

eschatology, or the relationship of any of these topics to actual burial practices. 

10 For a recent survey on the Babylonian Talmud, see R. Kalmin, “The Formation and Character 

of the Babylonian Talmud,” The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period, vol. 4 of The Cambridge History of 

Judaism, ed. S. Katz (Cambridge, 2006), 840–76. For a recent survey on Sasanian Jewry, see I. M. 

Gafni, “The Political, Social, and Economic History of Babylonian Jewry 224–638 CE,” The Late 

Roman-Rabbinic Period, vol. 4 of The Cambridge History of Judaism, ed. S. Katz (Cambridge, 

2006), 792–820. 

11 The standard edition of the collection of Syriac Acts of the Persian Martyrs is P. Bedjan, 

Acta Martyrum et Sanctorum, vol. 2 (1891) and 4 (1894), Leipzig. This is not a fully critical 

edition but has not been surpassed as a whole. On these acts, see P. Devos, “Les martyrs persans 

à travers leurs actes syriaques,” in Atti del convegno sul’ tema: La Persia e il mondo grecoromano 

(Roma 11–14 aprile 1965) (Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1966), 213–25; 

G. Wiessner, Untersuchungen zur Syrischen Literaturgeschichte I: Zur Märtyrerüberlieferung aus 

der Christenverfolgung Schapurs II (Göttingen: Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften 

in Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse, 1967); and the detailed review by S. Brock, Journal 

of Theological Studies 19 (1968): 300–9. German translations for a selection of these martyrdoms 

are available in O. Braun, Ausgewählte Akten persischer Märtyrer (Kempten u. München, 

1915); and G. Hoffmann, Auszüge aus syrischen Akten persischer Märtyrer (Leipzig, 1880; repr., 

Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint Ltd., 1966); H. Feige, Die Geschichte des Mâr ‘Abhdîšô‘ 

und seines Jüngers Mâr Qardagh, 2 vols. (Kiel, 1890). Some are now available in English translation; 

see, e.g., J. T. Walker, The Legend of Mar Qardagh (Berkeley, 2006), 19–69 (and the review 

by A. N. Palmer, Hugoye 10, no. 1 (Winter, 2007); S. Brock and S. A. Harvey, trans., Holy Women 

of the Syrian Orient, Transformation of the Classical Heritage 13 (Berkeley, 1987). The best full 

study on Sasanian Christianity is J. Labourt, Le Christianisme dans l’empire perse sous la dynastie 

Sassanide (Paris, 1904). See, also, J. M. Fiey, Jalons pour une histoire de l’ église en Iraq, CSCO, 

Subsidia 36 (Louvain 1970); M.-L. Chaumont, La Christianisation de l’Empire Iranien: Des 

origines aux grandes persécutions du IVe siècle (Lovanii, 1988). For a survey, see J. P. Asmussen, 

“Christians in Iran,” Cambridge History of Iran 3(2), ed. E. Yarshater (Cambridge, 1983), 924–48. 

On the relationship between the Christians and the Sasanian kingdom and Zoroastrian religion, 

see P. Asmussen, “Das Christentum in Iran und sein Verhältnis zum Zoroastrismus,” 

Studia Theologica 16 (1962): i–xx; G. Wiessner, “Zur Auseinandersetzung zwischen Christentum 

und Zoroastrismus in Iran,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, suppl. I, 

Teil 2 (1969): 411–17; A. V. Williams, “Zoroastrians and Christians in Sasanian Iran,” Bulletin 

of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 78 (1996): 37–53. For a recent discussion 

33 

geoffrey herman : : zoroastrian exhumation in jeWish and christian sources


34 

Although this phenomenon has been noted in scholarship, little effort has been 

invested in determining its extent. Some scholars, particularly those considering the 

Jewish sources, have suggested that it was marginal,12 but they have not conducted 

a detailed study of the data. Furthermore, a close comparison of the contemporary 

Christian material with the Jewish sources has not been undertaken. For the 

Christians, the evidence of exhumation often appears within the context of martyrdoms, 

where it is generally subordinate to their main focus — the suffering and 

execution of the martyr. The extensive and varied pertinent Christian material is, 

however, cited only sporadically in scholarship, but there has not been an effort, to my 

knowledge, to collect this material in any one study. Here I shall bring together and 

discuss Jewish and Christian sources that I have found and introduce some additional 

pertinent material that I have not encountered elsewhere in the scholarly literature.13 

Naturally, different kinds of sources raise different issues and questions that must be 

addressed, and one cannot expect the discussion of the different sources to be even. 

For example, it is unnecessary to present each of the multiple martyrology narratives 

in detail due to their repetitive nature; whereas the talmudic sources discussed here 

often are more opaque and require a more detailed analysis. Hopefully, with this 

broad basis, we will be better placed to evaluate the extent of the phenomenon and 

its impact on the lives of non-Zoroastrians in the Sasanian Empire. Before examining 

the Jewish and Christian sources, it is useful to first review briefly the Persian customs 

from the perspective of the Zoroastrian sources, themselves. 

on the anti-Christian persecution, see J. Rist, “Die Verfolgung der Christen im spätantiken 

Sasanidenreich: Ursachen, Verlauf, und Folgen,” Oriens Christianus 80 (1996) 17–42. 

12 See, e.g., among more recent studies: M. Beer, “Notes on Three Edicts against the Jews of 

Babylonia in the Third Century C.e.,” [in Hebrew] in Irano-Judaica, Studies Relating to Jewish 

Contact with Persian Culture throughout the Ages, ed. S. Shaked (Jerusalem, 1982), 37; R. Brody, 

“Judaism in the Sasanian Empire: A Case Study in Religious Coexistence,” Irano-Judaica, 

vol. 2, ed. S. Shaked and A. Netzer (Jerusalem, 1990), 52–62; Shaked, Transformation, 42; 

D. C. Kraemer, The Meanings of Death in Rabbinic Judaism (London, 2000), 95–98; I. Gafni, 

“Babylonian Rabbinic Culture,” in Cultures of the Jews: A New History, ed. D. Biale (New York, 

2000), 236–38. Although the sources tend to treat the imposition of foreign burial rites as oppression 

or persecution, many scholars of Babylonian Jewry have emphasized the Zoroastrian perspective, 

whereby it is the particular Zoroastrian concern for their own religious beliefs that has 

motivated them to pursue this policy. Scholars’ understanding of this phenomenon cannot be 

divorced from their approach to the status of the Jews in Sasanian Babylonia, in general, and the 

extent to which Jews enjoyed religious peace. E.g., Brody (above), stresses the relative absence of all 

aspects of religious oppression. 

13 I can make no claim to have gathered all the Christian sources as I have not conducted an 

exhaustive search of the Syriac material, particularly the martyrdom narratives, or probed all 

avenues of potential data.

Zoroastrian Burial Practice 

Historically, Persian burial customs varied and included burial in tombs. Certainly in 

the Achaemenid era and afterwards, more than one method of burial was practiced 

by Iranian peoples.14 It appears that this was less the case by the Sasanian era. For 

this period, the best known burial practice associated with the Persians — the officially 

sanctioned Zoroastrian practice — which indeed drew the attention of outside 

observers and that is attested in the Zoroastrian literature that has reached us, is the 

excarnation of the corpse through exposure to dogs and birds. This is referred to in 

the Pahlavi Zoroastrian literature as the “tearing up of birds and dogs” (darrēnišn ī sag 

ud way).15 Some sources note that after the flesh was consumed, the bare bones were 

buried.16 How did the Zoroastrians explain their practice? 

14 This topic is controversial, and the literature is extensive. References to further literature may 

be found in the items cited in this note. See Frantz Grenet, Les pratiques funéraires dans l’Asie 

Centrale sédentaire de la conquête grecque à l’ islamisation, Publication de l’URA 29, Mémoire 

no. 1 (Paris, 1984), 31–44; Shaked, Transformation, 39–42, emphasizes the diversity of practice 

among Zoroastrians even in the Sasanian era. See also Stausberg, Die Religion Zarathushtras, 

Bd. I, 231–33; Stausberg, Die Religion Zarathushtras, Geschichte-Gegenwart-Rituale (Stuttgart: 

Köln, Bd. III, 2004). Already Agathias (Histories vol. 2, no. 23, 8–10) asserts, with a curious knack 

for the archaeological, that the custom in those parts prior to the Sasanian era had condoned burial 

in tombs. See A. De Jong, Traditions of the Magi. Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin Literature, 

Religions in the Graeco-Roman World, vol. 133 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 432–44. 

15 The earliest classical testimony appears in the works of Herodotus (Hist., I. 140; cf. Strabo, 

Geogr., 15, 3.18), where the custom is attributed to the magi as distinct from the Persians. Sextus 

Empiricus (Outlines of Pyrrhonism, 3.227) writes that the Hyrcanians give dead bodies to the 

dogs. Non-Zoroastrian testimony from the Sasanian era also refers to birds and dogs, such as in 

the description of Theodoret (Graec. Affect. Curatio. IX, 33) and Procopius, Wars, I, 12, 4; and cf. 

Agathangelos and the Mar Abba and Mar Jacob, the Secretary martyrdoms cited below. Agathias 

(Histories II, 22, 5–6; 23, 1–5) includes a detailed description of the Persian funerary customs, for 

which, see the commentary by De Jong, Traditions of the Magi, 235–44, 443–44. It is prompted 

by the description of the exposure of the Persian general Mermeroēs (Mihr-Mihrōy). There is also 

Agathias’s story of the two Greeks who found an unburied corpse and buried it; subsequently 

a man appeared before one of them in a dream, warning them not to bury it. The next day they 

found that some Persians had unearthed the deceased again (Histories, II. 31); Procopius (Wars, I, 

xi, 35) writes that the important Persian general (artēštārān-Sālār), Seoses (Sīyāvuš), was accused 

of burying his mother. This was added to the alleged crimes of the accused, who was executed. For 

an overview and reference to more sources, see Encyclopaedia Iranica, s.v. “Corpse.” 

16 The third century Latin writer (Junianus Justinus, citing Pompeius Trogus (ca. 5 C.e.) writes 

that the Persians exposed their dead to the birds and dogs, the bare bones being covered in earth 

(Epitome, 41.3.5). Cf., too, the Martyrdom of Miles cited below. There is evidence of secondary 

burial of the bones, involving their placement in ossuaries or charnel houses. It has been maintained 

by some scholars that this was subsequent to excarnation; however, Shaked, “Some Legal 

and Administrative Terms of the Sasanian Period,” Acta Iranica 5, Monumentum H. S. Nyberg II 

(Tehran, 1975), 224–25 has noted that a Middle Persian tomb inscription found in Eqlīd in Iran, 

appears to have the deceased Zoroastrian noble laid in the tomb on the day following his death — 

which would preclude the fulfillment of Zoroastrian ritual as prescribed in the Zoroastrian religious 

literature. 

35 



36 

The most ancient essential Zoroastrian religious text advocating exposure, and 

treating the subject in some detail, is the Wīdēwdād.17 This work is, to a large degree, 

concerned with the pollution attending a recent corpse and ways to reduce it. The 

statements there are both prescriptive and polemical, clearly alluding to a diverse 

funerary reality. The Zoroastrian approach to burial derives from their attitude to 

the earth. Spəntā Ārmaitī (= “Bounteous Devotion”) is one of the Amesha Spentas or 

divine creations presiding over the earth. Death, which is the evil brought about by 

Ahreman, the force of evil, fills the corpse with demonic content, nasā. The burial of 

a corpse filled with nasā would contaminate the earth.18 Therefore, they prohibited 

inhumation and considered exhumation a virtuous deed.19 Far from covering up the 

corpse, we find in Zoroastrian scriptures the conviction that the sun’s rays benefit 

the deceased. Exposure to the rays of the sun — on the fourth day after death, called 

xwaršēd nigerišn — “sight [of the body] by the sun,” is prescribed. From the Muslim 

era onward, the practice has been to bury in an enclosed structure, open to the sky 

called a daxma (= tomb), and widely known as a “tower of silence,”20 separated from 

centers of population.21 The origin of this practice is little known, but there is no compelling 

literary or archaeological evidence for it from the Sasanian era. It seems likely 

that in that period, exposure was not practiced in confined areas.22 

It is of interest that the Zoroastrian notion of the corpse contaminating the 

earth was not limited to Zoroastrians. Concern and efforts to preserve the sanctity 

of the earth might also address its contamination by non-Zoroastrians.23 Thereby, 

17 Chapters 5–8 deal with burial. See H. Humbach, “Bestattungsformen in Vidēvdāt,” Zeitschrift 

für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der Indogermanischen Sprachen 72 (1958): 

99–105; A. Cantera, “Über die Zwischenlagerung der Leichen im Zoroastrismus,” Archäologische 

Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 34 (2002): 415–31. 

18 According to Wīdēwdād, 3: 8–9, graves and daxmas grieve the divinity. 

19 Wīdēwdād, 3:12. Cf. also Pahlavi Rivāyat of Ādur-Farnbāg (BTA Bombay, 1969), 93, 96, 

109. 

20 On the origin of this term, see J. J. Modi, The Religious Ceremonies and Customs of the Parsees 

(Bombay, 1922), 67n1. 

21 “A mountainous high place” (be ō kōfag waxš gyāg) — Dādestān ī Dēnīg, Qu. 14; Qu. 16:13; 

17:2. Cf. Wīdēwdād, 6: 44–45. For a detailed description of the recent practice among the 

Zoroastrians, see Modi (previous note), 49–82; M. Stausberg, Die Religion Zarathushtras, 

Geschichte — Gegenwart — Rituale, 2–3. 

22 This is indeed the impression provided by some of the Jewish and Christian sources we examine 

below. See also Wīdēwdād 6: 49–51. 

23 J. Russell, Zoroastrianism in Armenia (Cambridge, Mass., 1987), 336–37, who cites the following 

source: GBd, 31, 23–4\ = \MS TD2 f. 105b: Dahom armen pahlom dād, u-š petyārag nasānigānīh 

wēš mad, ku ānōh wēš kunēnd. Translation: “Armenia was created the tenth best (of the 

countries) and in opposition to it came much burial of corpses, that is, they practice it much there.” 

See also Bundahišn 33.21; C. G. Cereti, Zand ī wahmen yasn (Rome, 1995), 187 ff.; and see the 

interesting article by Oliver Nicholson, “Two Notes on Dara,” American Journal of Archaeology 89, 

no. 4 (1985) 663–71.

the “virtuous” deed of exhumation, as mentioned in the Wīdēwdād, could be applied 

to the exhumation of non-Zoroastrians. We now review the Christian and Jewish 

sources that address the issue of Zoroastrian interference in burial rites. 

The Christian Evidence 

The imposition of exposure of the corpses of Christian martyrs is mentioned fairly 

extensively in the martyrological literature of Persian Christianity. As with other 

such martyrdom texts, one encounters an uneven mixture of legend and history. The 

typological Persian Christian-martyr passion narrative tends to include the exposure 

of the martyr, the guard set over it, and theft of the corpse by local Christians.24 Some 

accounts dwell on the exposure and assert its miraculous ineffectiveness to underscore 

the ultimate posthumous victory of the martyr over his oppressors. Others perfunctorily 

record the martyr’s exposure toward the conclusion of their accounts. 

In the Martyrdom of Miles, bishop of Susa et. al., dated 341 C.e., we hear of the 

exposure of the martyr’s corpse to the animals and birds,25 along with the explanation 

that “the Persians do not bury until the flesh has been wasted away from the bones, 

and afterwards they cover up the bones.”26 So, too, we find in the Greek version of the 

martyrology of the virgin, Ia, the following description: “they instructed the guards 

to watch over her remains, so that no-one might bury her before the birds of the sky 

descend and consume the body, since it was not the custom amongst the Persians 

to bury the corpse lest the earth become contaminated.”27 Guards28 were generally 

24 The precise relationship and debt of these Persian martyrdom acts to Eusebius’s Martyrs of 

Palestine remains to be determined. Eusebius brings two cases where the martyrs’ corpses were 

exposed under guard. In the first case (Antoninus, Zebinus, et al.) animals devoured the corpses; 

in the second (Pamphilus, Vales, et al.) the animals miraculously did not touch them, and they 

received an honorable burial. The motif of the theft of the corpse has been explained as a case of 

imitatio Christi; see Asmussen, “Christians in Iran,” 937 and recently by Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the 

Talmud (Princeton, 2007), 120–22. It is, however, clearly derived from the exhumation issue we 

are dealing with here. 

25 Also in the martyrdom of Bar Šibia (AMS 2, 283), the corpses of the martyrs were left to the 

wild animals and birds: אימשד אתחרפו ארב תויח תלכא ןוהירגפו; and cf., too, Mar Petion (AMS 2, 

584); and Mar Jacob the Secretary (AMS 4,198–99). The reference to “[wild] animals and birds [of 

the sky]” is biblically inspired. The Acts of Shirin is rare in explicitly referring to the use of dogs for 

this purpose. See Devas, AB 112 (1994), 30–31. The dogs miraculously do not touch the corpse. 

26 אמרג ןמ ארסב לפנתמד אמדע ןירבק אל איסרפד לטמ )ןוהירגפ אתחרפו אתויח ילכאו). S. E. Assemani, 

Acta sanctorum martyrum orientalium et occidentalium, 1–2 (Romae, 1748), 1, 79; AMS 2, 275. 

27 J. Bidez and F. Cumont, Le Mages hellénisés. Zoroastre, Ostanès et Hystaspe d’après la tradition 

grecque (Paris, 1938 repr. Paris, 1973), 2, 83n2; H. Delehaye, Actes des martyrs persans, Patrologia 

Orientalis, 2, 7.11, 460–61. 

28 Typically reserved for the pyag — the lowly foot soldier. 

37 



38 

stationed to enforce the exposure of the martyrs’ corpses.29 One source has them stationed 

for ten days.30 As several accounts assert, it was only through theft, bribery, or 

miraculous intervention that the martyrs might receive a Christian burial.31 Whereas 

the miraculous preservation of the corpse in its pristine condition as a vindication 

of saintliness is a well known topos in this period, we find it applied to the unique 

situation of exposure in these Christian sources. It is evoked in Armenian Christian 

sources, where the persecutors were Sasanians. Agathangelos relates that after nine 

days, no animal, dog, or bird had touched the corpses of the martyrs,32 and a similar 

tale appears in History of Vardan by Elishé who writes on the period of Yazdgird II.33 

Incidentally, the matter of exposure features quite prominently in this latter source. 

29 E.g., Elishé, History of Vardan and the Armenian War, trans. R. W. Thomson (London: 

Harvard Univ. Press, 1982), 226; Mar Giwargis, Histoire de Mar-Jabalaha, de trois autres patriarches, 

d’un prêtre et de deux laïques, nestoriens, ed. P. Bedjan (Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1895), 

552; and many more. 

30 Mar Petion, AMS 2, 628. 

31 Labourt, Le Christianisme, 62. The guards over Pusai’s corpse fled from hail (AMS 2, 230; 

Braun, Ausgewählte Akten, 74–75); those of Anāhīd were deterred by a swarm of wasps (AMS 2, 

599). On a whole series of unnatural phenomena culminating in the disappearance of the martyr’s 

corpse, see AMS 2, 390. The corpse of Pusai’s daughter, Martha, was redeemed through a bribe 

to the guards (AMS 2, 240; Braun, Ausgewählte Akten, 81), as was Mar Jacob the Secretary’s 

corpse (AMS 4, 198–99). The corpse of Mar Jacob Intercisus was stolen only after attempts to 

bribe the guards failed (AMS 2, 557). On the theft of the corpse from guards, see also AMS 2, 56 

(Mar Šapur); 206 (Šime‘on bar Saba‘e); 374; 391; 505 (Mar Qardagh). The body of Anastasius the 

Persian was thrown to the dogs, but they did not touch it. See B. Flusin, Saint Anastase le Perse et 

l’ histoire de la Palestine au début du VIIe siècle, 1–2 (Paris, 1992). See also AMS 2, 295, that details 

the swift burial of 127 martyrs in common graves far away from view “for fear of the magi.” 

32 R. W. Thomson, Agathangelos History of the Armenians (Albany, 1976), 223, 225. See also 

ibid., 207, on the exposure of the protomartyrs of Armenia, SS. Gaiane, Rhipsime, and their 

companions. 

33 Elishé, History of Vardan, 228. These Christian sources might be compared to the Jewish 

response — particularly as heard from Babylonian amoraim — to the punishment of the defenders 

of Bethar. The Palestinian Talmud (Taan. 4, 69a) relates the following: 

ירופיצל אירביט ןימכ לימ רשע הנומש לע לימ רשע הנומש עשרה סוניירדאל היה לודג םרכ 

רחא ךלמ דמעש דע ורבקיש םהילע רזג אלו םיידי טושיפו המוק אלמ רתיב יגורהמ רדג ופיקהו 

.ורבקיש םהילע רזגו 

The wicked Hadrian had a large vineyard of 18 mil by 18 mil, as from Tiberius to 

Sepphoris, and he made a fence around it from the dead of Bethar standing upright 

with outstretched hands. And he did not decree that they be buried, until a different 

king arose and he decreed that they be buried. 

We have here a depiction of mass crucifixion serving as both punishment and as a warning 

to others. The Palestinian Talmud continues to provide the following statement: אנוה בר רמ 

הרובקל ונתינש ,ביטמהו ,וחירסה אלש בוטה ,ביטמהו בוטה העבקנ הרובקל רתיב יגורה ונתינשמ “As Rav 

Huna said: when the dead of Bethar were allowed to be buried ‘the One who is good, and who 

does good’ was instituted, ‘the One who is good’ — that they did not decompose; and ‘who does 

good’ — that they were allowed to be buried.” (Babylonian Talmud parallels: Ber. 48b; Taan. 31a; 

B. Bat. 121b — all in the name of Rav Matana.) The Babylonian amoraim emphasized that the 

corpses did not decompose, and they even connected the event to an important liturgical innovation 

— the addition of the fourth blessing to the Grace after Meals, the blessing ביטמהו בוטה. See

There, the Sasanian king explicitly accuses the Christians: ”you have buried the dead 

in the ground and corrupted the earth.”34 Later, in the course of relating military 

successes against the Persians, the narrator can gloat with irony, declaring: “they put 

to the sword numerous magi who had come ready to bring ruin to the country, these 

they threw out as carrion for the birds of heaven and beasts of the earth.”35 

The Syriac composition on St. Peroz from Bei Lapat begins its account by relating 

that “in the year 733 of the Greek calendar (= 422 C.e.), the first year of the reign of 

Warahrān [V], king of the Persians . . . in accordance with the instruction of the head 

of the magi, the cursed Mihršāpūr, they exhumed the dead that had lain buried since 

the days of his father (that is, King Yazdgird I),36 and scattered them before the sun, 

and this decree remained in place for five years.”37 The martyrdom of the catholicos 

Mar Aba provides an interesting scene within the precincts of the capital city of 

Ctesiphon, where the magi desire to cast Mar Aba’s corpse to the dogs, but a determined 

gathering of Christians prevent this.38 According to another Christian martyrological 

text, St. George’s body was placed on the peak of a mountain as prey for the 

birds.39 Theodoret, who was writing from beyond the Sasanian empire and speaking 

of the practice of exposure of the dead to “birds and dogs,” states that Persian converts 

to Christianity “do not now tolerate this practice but bury their dead in the earth, 

disregarding the cruel laws that forbid interment, and show no fear of the cruelty of 

those who punish them.”40 

The burial issue was important enough that in a supplement to the peace accord 

between Emperor Justinian and King Xūsrō I in 562 C.e., dealing with the condition 

of the Christian inhabitants of the Sasanian empire, a specific stipulation was included 

that permitted Christians to bury their dead in graves in accordance with their 

also b. B. Mets. 83b regarding the preservation of the flesh after death and b. Shab. 152b with 

respect to the bones not turning into dust. 

34 Elishe, History of Vardan, 97–98. 

35 Elishe, History of Vardan, 129. 

36 Is it reading too much into this source to see it as indicating that prior to Yazdgird I such a 

decree was in force? 

37 AMS 4, 254: אינש אנה אנדקופ יוק דכ אשמש ןיעל ןונא ארדו קפא יוהבהבא ינש ןמ ווה ןירבקד אתימו 

שמח; Braun, Ausgewählte Akten, 163; Hoffmann, Auszüge, 39. 

38 P. Bedjan, Histoire de Mar-Jabalaha (Paris, 1895), 270: אדתשנ אבלכלד אשוגמ ןמ דקפתא. 

39 See F. Cumont, “La plus ancienne légende de saint George,” Revue de l’Histoire des Reli gions 

114 (1936): 29 f. 

40 Sermo 9. 35 Théodoret de Cyr, Thérapeutique des Maladies Helléniques, t. 2 (Paris: P. Canivet, 

2001), 346 [English translation from M. Boyce, Zoroastrians, Their Religious Beliefs and Practices 

(London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1979), 121]. According to the martyrology text of Išō‘-sabran, 

upon the death of a Christian convert, the Christians feared that it would not be possible to bury 

her in accordance with Christian custom. Their fears were allayed, however, when it transpired 

that her Zoroastrian husband had secretly also converted to Christianity and arranged a Christian 

burial for her; see J-B. Chabot, Histoire de Jésus-Sabran (1897), 513. 

39 



40 

custom.41 This stipulation, in addition to the comment by Theodoret cited above, suggest 

that it was not only in cases of the public execution of Christians that the method 

of exposure was imposed upon the Christian — an impression one might have from 

the litany of martyrdom testimonies we have referred to above.42 

The issue of burial recurs among the classical authors who dealt with the Persians. 

Procopius, when he writes of the efforts of the king Kavād to persuade Gorgenes, the 

king of the Iberians, who was a Christian, to adopt the Zoroastrian religion, notes 

specifically the custom of not burying beneath the earth but throwing the corpse “to 

the birds and to the dogs.”43 

An early hitherto unnoticed allusion to a problem echoes in the comments made 

by Aphrahat, who was writing in the year 336 C.e.44 The subject is the verses in 

Deut. 34: 5–6 that describe the burial of Moses and states that its location was kept 

secret. Some Jewish and Christian commentators have offered the explanation that 

the grave of Moses was hidden to prevent it from becoming the focus of Jewish or 

Gentile veneration.45 Aphrahat says this, too, but appears to be unique amongst the 

patristic writers in adding as a second reason that the Moabites, in whose territory the 

grave would be, would not come and throw his bones out of the tomb (ןמ יהומרג ןודשנו 

הרבק).46 If he is attributing practices to the Moabites that were in fact familiar to him 

from his own times and region, as seems reasonable, then Aphrahat is providing the 

earliest Christian allusion to the Zoroastrian exhumation practice, which also precedes 

the commencement of the Great Persecution under Šāpūr II. This would then 

suggest a Zoroastrian activism in the realm of exhumation that preceded the official 

41 Menander, Exc. de Leg Rom. 3 in Blockley, The History of Menander the Guardsman (Liverpool, 

1985), fragment 6, 1, 405–7, p. 76; see A. Guillaumont, “Justinien et l’église de Perse,” 

Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 23–24 (1969–70): 49. 

42 One may also query the propriety of including the exposure of deceased martyrs in a list of 

“peines et supplices” as does Christelle Jullien, “Peines et Supplices dans les Actes des martyrs persans 

et droit sassanide: Nouvelles prospections,” Studia Iranica 22 (2004): 264–65. Evidently, it is 

only from the Christian perspective that such treatment might be judged a punishment. Only in 

one account was the exposure undertaken while the victim is still alive — in the case of Anāhīd — 

and this account reveals imagination in excess. 

43 Wars I, 12, 4. 

44 Aphrahat provides the date himself; see Demonst. 22:25, Aphratis sapientis Persae Demonstrationes, 

in Patrologia Syriaca II, ed. J. Parisot (Paris, 1894–1907), col. 1044. 

45 See R. Schröter, “‘Bar-Hebraeus’ Scholien zu Gen. 49.50. Exod. 14. 15. Deut. 32–34 u. Jud. 5,” 

Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 24 (1870), 509, 556–57; S. Funk, Die 

Haggadische Elementen in den Homilien des Aphraates des persischen Weise (Wien, 1891), 50; 

L. Ginzberg, Die Haggada bei den Kirchenvätern — Numeri — Deuteronomium (New York, 1929), 

517–18. These scholars note the similarity between Jewish and Christian exegesis on this issue, 

citing Origen (Selecta in Num., Migne’s edition, 12, 578B) and Theodoret (Interr. 43, Deut.) in 

addition to Aphrahat. They do not, however, address the unique nature of Aphrahat’s comments. 

46 Demonst. 8, 9: “On the dead coming back to life,” Parisot, Aphratis sapientis Persae, cols. 

376–80: הרבק ןמ יהומרג ןודשנו . . . .ןונא ןודשנו . . . יהומרג ןולגנו . . . איבאומ ןותאנ אלד.

erosion of the legal status of Christianity and the era of mass martyrdoms that began 

a few years later. We shall now turn to the Jewish sources. 

Exhumation in the Babylonian Talmud 

The Babylonian Talmud traditions on exhumation are not inconsiderable. There are 

three separate sources that relate to the exhumation of Jewish corpses by Zoroastrians 

and a fourth that is a developed discussion on the Jewish requirement of burial, which 

makes sense within the context of the exhumation controversy.47 An additional source 

is discussed in an appendix. It deals with the question of using Gentiles for the burial 

of Jews on a Jewish festival (when burial is not allowed by Jews). Because it is not 

strictly about Zoroastrian interference in the Jewish burial practices, it is discussed in 

the appendix, but as it has mostly been omitted from earlier scholarly discussion on 

this topic, unjustifiably so, in my view, it is subjected there to a more detailed study. 

We shall now take a look at the four sources, beginning with b. B. Bat. 58a:48 

הנתמ 52רב יבוט ברד 51אתרעמא אטמ יכ 50,יבכש 49טיטח הוהד אשוגמא אוהה 

57)יתירחא( הנשל 56.היקבש 55ךנימ אתוטמב :ל״א 54,ייבא אתא 53,הינקידב הישפת 

60איזגו ארפסמ יתייאד דע 59היקבש אל 58,ייבא אתא .הינקידב הישפת אתא ,רדה 

.הינקידל 

47 In addition to these sources, a homily on the toponym, Shinear, that appears in Gen. Rab. 37 

(Theodor-Albeck edition, 346) [y. Ber. 4, 7b] may be related. It is as follows: קונשתב םיתמש ,רענש 

ץחרמו רנ אלב. 

48 According to Vilna edition. Meaningful variants from the Talmud MSS appear in the notes. 

Abbreviations used: MS Escorial G-I-3 = E; Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale — II.1.8–9 = 

F; MS Hamburg 165 = H; MS Munich 95 = M; MS Oxford Opp. 249 (369) = O; MS Paris, 

Bibliotheque Nationale — Suppl. Heb. 1337 = P; Vatican, Bibliotheca Apostolica, Ebr. 115 = V. 

49 טיטח] H: טייחמ אק; EF: טיטח אק; M: טטחק; O: טטחמ אק; P: טיטחמ אק; V: טטחמ. 

50 יבכש] H: אתרעמ; PV: יבכיש. 

51 אתרעמא] EH: היתרעמ; M: ׳תרעמל; OP: היתרעמל; F: אתרעמל. 

52 רב] EH: בר רב. 

53 הינקידב] P: הינאמב; M: missing. 

54 ייבא] H: הובא; E: ויבא; O: ימא. 

55 ךנימ] H: וכינמ; EPV: הינימ; M: ׳ינימ. 

56 היקבש] H: היקבש היקבש. 

57 יתירחא] M: ׳ירחא; EHOPV: missing. 

58 ייבא] H: הובא. 

59 היקבש אל] E: היקבש אלו הינימ אתוטמב יעב; O: ׳ינימ אעב היקבש אלו; P: אל הינימ אתוטמב אעב 

היקבש. 

60 איזגו] E: הויזגו; F: הוזיגו; H: וזגו; M: ׳ייזגו; O: הזוזגו; P: היל יזגו; V: הייזגו. 

41 



42 

A certain magus used to exhume the deceased. When he came to the 

[burial] cave of Rav Tobi bar Matana he [i.e., the deceased] seized him by 

his beard. Abaye came. He said to him [i.e., to the deceased]: I ask of you 

to let him go! The following year he returned, came [and the deceased] 

seized him by his beard. Abaye came, [but] he would not let him go, so 

he had to bring scissors and cut off his beard. 

This entertaining and vivid anecdote, probably set in the region of Pumbedita where 

Abaye resided, addresses nevertheless a serious problem. Since Abaye (d. 337/8 C.e.) 

appears in this source,61 and the deceased, too, as we learn from elsewhere,62 had been 

a contemporary of Abaye, it is set in the reign of Šāpūr II, whose hostile policy toward 

Christianity we already noted. This magus (and hence what he represents) is no itinerate 

and zealous monk seeking provocation. He bares the mark of authority. Abaye’s 

role is illustrative. Not only is he portrayed as powerless to prevent this magus, but 

his intercession is all for the purpose of extricating this magus from his predicament. 

The requirement for maintaining public relations with the magi perhaps overrides 

any contemplation of forthright protest at their practice. Whereas in this story the 

deceased rabbi from the underworld has the upper hand, there is more than a hint 

that in the upper world we are dealing with a recurrent phenomenon for which the 

magi may well have had a free hand.63 In the following source, from b. Yev. 63b, the 

theme of exhumation features within a broader reflection on Persian persecutory 

measures:64 

.]אכ ,בל םירבד[ ’םסיעכא לבנ יוגב .A 

.םירבח ולא :רמא ןנחוי יבר 

66.לפנ 65אגש — לבבל ירבח ותא :ןנחוי ׳רל היל ורמא .B 

67.ביתי ץירת — אדחוש ילבקמ :היל ורמא 

61 MS Hamburg has הובא (= his father) in place of ייבא (Abaye) both times in this source. However, 

it would surely be odd if the father of the deceased (who was not young) might be involved 

here. Furthermore, if this was the original version of the source, one would have expected him to 

be referred to by name (i.e., Matana). 

62 See, e.g., b. Moed Kat. 16a. 

63 Cf. Kraemer, The Meanings of Death, 96, who views this as an “isolated incident, speaking (at 

most) of a single zealous soul.” 

64 Presented here according to the Vilna edition. MSS readings will be referred to when relevant. 

65 For discussion on this verb and the variants, see Beer, “Notes on Three Edicts,” 25n2. 

66 לפנ] Missing in the Arukh. 

67 The uncommon couplet ביתי ץירת appears in connection with Rabbi Yoh ˙ anan in b. B. Kam. 

117b and in connection with Persians in b. Ber. 46b. In B. Kam., in fact, Rabbi Yoh ˙ anan, prior 

to sitting up also underwent an experience equivalent to לפנ אגש in the loss of his seat. I discuss 

the significance of the Persian background to this B. Kam. source in “The Story of Rav Kahana 

(b. B. Kam. 117a–b) in Light of Armeno-Persian Sources,” Irano-Judaica, vol. 4, ed. S. Shaked 

(Jerusalem: Ben Zvi Institute, 2008), 53–86.

:׳ג ינפמ ׳ג לע ורזג .C 

;תונתמה ינפמ רשבה לע ורזג 

;הליבטה ינפמ תואצחרמה לע ורזג 

,םדיא םויב םיחמשש ינפמ יבכש יטטחמ אק 

.]וט בי א לאומש[ ’םכיתובאבו םכב ׳ה די התיהו‘ 68,רמאנש .D 

69.ןיטטחתמ םיתמ םייח ןועב :רמ רמאד ,יבכש יטוטח וז :לאומש רב הבר רמא 

לע ןמודל ורבקי אלו ופסאי אל‘ [ב-א ,ח והימרי[ ביתכ :יראמ רב הברל אבר ל״א .E 

!’םייחמ תומ רחבנו‘ ]ג ,ח והימרי[ ביתכו ,’ויהי המדאה ינפ 

.םנהיגב ולפיו ואטחיו הזה םלועב ויחי אלש — םיעשרל ’תומ רחבנ‘ :היל רמא 

A. ‘I shall vex them with a foolish nation’ (Deut. 32:21). 

Rabbi Yoh ˙ anan said: These are the h ˙ abārs.70 

B. They said to him: the h ˙ abārs have come to Babylonia — 

He collapsed(?)71 and fell. 

They said to him: They accept bribes — 

He straightened himself and sat down. 

C. They decreed concerning three matters on account of three: 

They decreed concerning meat on account of the priestly gifts; 

They decreed on public baths on account of ritual immersion; 

They exhume the dead because they are joyous on their festivals. 

D. (as it is said:)72 “And the hand of the Lord shall be upon you and 

upon your fathers” (1 Sam. 12:15). 

Rabbah bar Shemuel said: This is the exhumation of the dead, as the 

master stated: for the sin of the living, the dead are exhumed. 

E. Rava said to Rabbah bar Mari: It is written: “They shall not be 

gathered, nor buried, they shall be as dung upon the face of the earth” 

(Jer. 8:1–2). And it is written: “and death shall be chosen rather than 

life” (Jer. 8:3). 

He said to him: “death shall be chosen” — for the sinners, for they 

should not live in this world and sin and fall into Gehinna.” 

68 רמאנש: Absent in MSS, see Dikdukei soferim hashalem, massekhet yevamot (Jerusalem, 1986). 

69 ןיטטחתמ] the MSS have ןיטטחנ. 

70 See below. 

71 The meaning is uncertain. M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (Ramat 

Gan, 2002), 1108: “perh[aps] to bend over.” See above, n65. 

72 This phrase is missing in MSS. 

43 



44 

This source has been subject to detailed analysis over the decades on account 

of its explicit reference to the persecution of Babylonian Jewry in the Sasanian era.73 

Nevertheless, much is still lacking from the scholarly discussion of this source. There 

is a need to address the relationship between the scriptural verse that introduces 

this source and the rest, to account for the connecting parts, and how the source is 

constructed as a whole. Here, I shall attempt to account for its literary structure, language, 

and themes within the framework of its homiletic context. In addition, I shall 

probe its intertextual relationship to other talmudic sources; suggest a Persian stylistic 

parallel, and attempt to determine its date. 

First, we have R. Yoh ˙ anan’s interpretation of a prophetic scriptural verse (A) and 

his response to the news of the arrival of the h ˙ abārei to Babylonia (B). The application 

of the term, h ˙ abār, literally “charmer” for Zoroastrian priests, the magi, in this and 

other sources is well known.74 The Babylonian Talmud conveys its concern with regard 

to the h ˙ abārei and offers a reassuring response by a major third-century C.e. rabbinic 

figure from Palestine. In consideration of the geopolitical divide between Palestine 

and Babylonia on the one hand and the highly local theme that is being referred to, 

it is unnecessary to treat the attribution to R. Yoh ˙ anan as historical, and therefore as 

indicating the date of this source, but there is no apparent reason for suspecting the 

other attributions in this tradition, which are all to Babylonian amoraim.75 

Next we have the enumeration of the three persecutory decrees (C). The rest of 

this source (D–E) is connected to the last of the decrees — concerning exhumation. A 

non-specific scriptural verse is identified as referring to exhumation on the basis of a 

different rabbinic tradition (D). Finally we have the resolution of a perceived contradiction 

between two adjacent scriptural verses (E). E is brought here due to the striking 

similarity of the verses discussed to the Zoroastrian exposure practice. 

This source appears in its location within the talmudic tractate due to its exegesis 

of the scriptural verse, םסיעכא לבנ יוגב.76 Immediately preceding our source, this verse 

is the subject of other interpretations. The לבנ יוג is then identified by R. Yoh ˙ anan as 

73 See esp. the important studies by Beer, “Notes on Three Edicts”; and Kalmin, Jewish Babylonia, 

132–37. 

74 See, esp., E. S. Rosenthal, “For the Talmudic Dictionary — Talmudica Iranica,” Irano-Judaica, 

ed. S. Shaked (Jerusalem, 1982), 38–134 [Hebrew], 71–73, n23. In addition to the sources cited 

there, cf. y. Ter. 46c where the statement ריעז רבחב אלו ריעז ימורב אל יסכמ אל (to which cf. Gen. 

Rab., 63:8: ריעז רילוגב אלו ריעז ימורב אל) has been understood as h ˙ abār; see S. Krauss, Monumenta 

Talmudica, vol. 5. Geschichte (Wien u. Leipzig, 1914), 78, but M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish 

Palestinian Aramaic (Jerusalem, 2002), 185, understands the word as h ˙ aver. 

75 Cf. Kalmin, Jewish Babylonia, 132–33; 137. 

76 However, one might already see a hint of things to come in the surprising homily brought 

shortly before on 63a: המדאב תורדה תוחפשמ וליפא (ג ,בי תישארב) המדאה תוחפשמ לכ ]ךב וכרבתנו] 

לארשי ליבשב אלא תוכרבתמ ןיא “‘and all the families of the earth shall be blessed through you’ 

[Gen. 12:3] — even the families that reside in the earth are only blessed on account of Israel.” This 

formulation appears only here in the Babylonian Talmud.

the magi, but no explanation for this identification is supplied. A basis for associating 

the magi with a “foolish nation” does not come to mind. It might, however, be noted 

that this verse already is interpreted creatively in other rabbinic sources. In Sifrei 

Deut. (320) this “foolish nation” is identified with the minim (= heretics) and this 

and additional candidates are proposed within the talmudic sugya that immediately 

precedes our source.77 The correlation between לבנ יוג and the h ˙ abārei is presumably 

derived associatively from the meaning of the root לבנ, that is behind the word הלבנ, 

that is corpse/carrion.78 If this is so, then we can understand that the issue of exhumation 

is central to this source from beginning to end. We shall return to this later. 

Interest in the Persians is not limited to the content of this tradition. The literary 

structure of R. Yoh ˙ anan’s reflex response (B), which is quite unique to the Babylonian 

Talmud, appropriately mimics a format familiar from Pahlavi sources. In Ayādgār-i 

Zarērān (“The Memorial of Zarer”), a Sasanian epic narrative,79 King Wištāsp is 

informed by the sorcerer Jāmasp that victory in the upcoming battle will come at the 

price of the death of many of his brothers and sons. The king, “when he heard these 

words he fell to the earth from his blessed throne.”80 Promises by some of his bravest 

warriors to slaughter substantial numbers of the enemy would not convince him to 

return to his throne. To these entreaties he “did not stand up nor look up.”81 It is only 

after the devout oath of Spandyād to kill the entire enemy that “he rose up and sat 

back upon the Kayanid throne.”82 The Bundahišn (“Primal Creation”), a work viewed 

by many scholars as belonging, in essence, to the late Sasanian era83 also includes a 

comparable scene. It is related: “when the evil spirit saw his own impotence, and that 

of his fellow demons before the righteous man,84 he was stupefied.”85 He remained in 

77 These include additional nations whose modesty falls below the standards of the exegete and 

a bad wife with a steep marital contract (making divorce difficult). With minor variations, these 

(with the exception of the wife) appear in Sifrei Deut. (Finkelstein ed., 367) — some set on the 

previous clause םע אלב םעינקא ינאו. 

78 This is a common root in Hebrew and Aramaic and refers to both human corpse and animal 

carcass. See, e.g., The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon, s.v. הלבנ; 

Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, s.v. הלבנ. 

79 On the date of this composition, see my article “Iranian Epic Motifs in Josephus’ Antiquities 

(XVIII, 314–370),” JJS 57, no. 2 (autumn 2006): 258n57. 

80 Sentence 50: pas wištāsp-šā ka-š ān saxwan āšnūd az farroxān-gāh ō zamīg ōbast. The Pahlavi 

text cited here is based on the edition of Jamaspji Dastur Minocherji Jamasp-Asana, Pahlavi Texts, 

[re-edited with] transcription [and] trans. Said Orian (Tehran, 1992), in the TITUS text database, 

titus.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/etcs/iran/miran/mpers/jamasp/jamas.htm. 

81 Sentences 54, 56, 58: nē āxēzēd nē abāz nigerēd. 

82 Sentence 62: wištāsp-šā abar āxēzēd ud abāz ō kay-gāh nišīnēd. 

83 See Encyclopaedia Iranica, s.v. “Bundahišn” for a survey on the question of dating. 

84 Probably Gāyōmard — the first man. 

85 Indian Bundahišn, 3, 1. Additional examples of this structure can be found in the Shahnameh. 

See, e.g., Kaiomart, I, 40. 

45 



46 

this manner for 3,000 years86 despite the entreaties of the demons to “rise up” until 

the wicked Jēh promised to torment the righteous man, the good creatures, water, the 

plants, and fire. All this greatly pleased the evil spirit who now recovered. 

What can this literary parallel tell us? Both specific and more general conclusions 

might be suggested. It may be seen as (further) evidence of contact between the 

authors of this scene and the literary milieu from which these Persian sources have 

been drawn.87 If this formula is viewed as a literary topos in the literature of the region, 

then we are reminded that the Babylonian Talmud, too, reflects this literature.88 It is 

interesting that the correlation between the Persian usage of this topos and its appearance 

here in the Babylonian Talmud is fairly precise, with both involving a confrontation 

with some evil force(s): the Zoroastrian examples have the devout Zoroastrians 

against the evil; in the Babylonian Talmud, ironically the h ˙ abārei, that is, “pious 

Zoroastrians” are themselves portrayed as wicked. 

We now turn to the section on the three decrees (C) and its relationship to 

the preceding and subsequent sections. To appreciate how this source has been constructed, 

it is necessary to return to the scriptural citation and view it in context. The 

following is the scriptural verse: 

םהילבהב ינוסעכ 

םסיעכא לבנ יוגב 

לא אלב ינואנק םה 

םע אלב םאינקא ינאו 

They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; 

They have vexed me with their vanities: 

And I will move them to jealousy with that which is not a people; 

I will vex them with a foolish nation. 

86 Sē hazār sāl pad stardīh nibast. The Pahlavi text cited here is based on the edition of Bundahišn 

Hindī, ed. Raqī Behzādī, in the TITUS text database (titus.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/etcs/iran/ 

miran/mpers/bundahis/bunda.htm). 

87 On the relationship between the Babylonian Talmud and Zoroastrian literature, see esp. 

the studies by Yakov Elman, e.g., Y. Elman, “Acculturation to Elite Persian Norms and Modes 

of Thought in the Babylonian Jewish Community of Late Antiquity,” in Neti’ot Ledavid, Jubilee 

Volume for David Weiss Halivni, ed. Yaakov Elman, Ephraim Bezalel Halivni, and Zvi 

Arie Steinfeld (Jerusalem: Orhot Press, 2004), 31–56; Y. Elman, “Middle Persian Culture and 

Babylonian Sages: Accommodation and Resistance in the Shaping of Rabbinic Legal Traditions,” 

in Cambridge Companion to Rabbinic Literature, ed. Charlotte E. Fonrobert and Martin S. Jaffee 

(Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007), 165–97. 

88 For other examples, cf. D. Sperber, “On the Unfortunate Adventures of Rav Kahana: A Passage 

of Saboraic Polemic from Sasanian Persia,” Irano-Judaica, ed. S. Shaked (Jerusalem, 1982): 

83–100, repr. as “The Misfortunes of Rav Kahana: A Passage of Post-Talmudic Polemic,” in 

D. Sperber, Magic and Folklore in Rabbinic Literature (Ramat Gan, 1994): 145–64; and my articles: 

“Ahasuerus, the Former Stable-Master of Belshazzar and the Wicked Alexander of Macedon: 

Two Parallels between the Babylonian Talmud and Persian Sources,” AJSR, 29:2 (2005): 283–97; 

and “Iranian Epic Motifs in Josephus’ Antiquities (XVIII, 314–370),” JJS 57, no. 2 (2006): 

245–68; “The Story of Rav Kahana.”

This verse depicts a scenario whereby God will punish his people in a manner suited 

to their sins. The close parallel language accentuates the measure for measure theme. 

This structure has carried over to the talmudic source and underlies the measure for 

measure format of the description of the three decrees (C). We can see, then, that the 

presentation of the decrees, in the form that we have them, are integral to the homily 

attributed to R. Yoh ˙ anan.89 

The decrees are presented as divine punishment90 for the sins enumerated, and 

as we have seen, they are linked to the scriptural verse cited in A. The connection 

to the verse may account for the choice of topics depicted in the decrees. The first 

decree, which relates to the consumption of meat, appears to be particularly suited to 

the sense of הלבנ, but it is also the only one of the decrees concerning which there is 

uncertainty regarding its precise nature. Elsewhere I have suggested explaining it as 

connected to the differing practices of ritual animal slaughter between Jews (and eastern 

Christians) and Zoroastrians, a matter that crops up here and there in Christian 

martyrology texts.91 The second decree relates directly to purity and defilement, but 

particularly it is the third decree that makes the most sense as a homily on the words 

לבנ יוג. Although it differs from the other two in its language and terminology,92 it 

actually corresponds remarkably well with the theme of the scriptural verse in a way 

that the other two transgressions do not. In the verse, God’s jealousy is due to the 

idolatrous practices of the Israelites, and in the talmudic source, the sin is rejoicing on 

pagan festivals. 

Richard Kalmin’s recent source-critical study of this tradition has examined 

the evolution of this tradition and asserted that Rabbah bar Shemuel’s statement (D) 

originally stood as an independent tradition. The basis for his argument is the discordance 

of the third decree with respect to the others — both its structure and language 

differ from the other two. This independent tradition (D) was then the source for 

89 One of the questions that has engaged scholars dealing with this source is the relationship 

between sections B and C. For earlier scholars, who read this source as literal historical record, 

this question had repercussions for establishing the historical chronology of the historical events 

depicted here. See Kalmin, Jewish Babylonia, 132–33, 135–36, who discusses this point and provides 

the pertinent references. 

90 םסיעכא in the sense of “punish.” Targum Onkelos: ןוניזיגרא. Cf. Arabic زجر. 

91 Zoroastrians killed the animals they wished to eat by strangulation and/or stunning. The 

blood was not drained from the animal during the process of killing it. The Jews and eastern 

Christians slaughtered in a manner that removed the blood. In some Christian martyrdom narratives, 

the martyr is ordered to eat “blood.” This may be how these texts describe the command 

to consume meat from which blood has not been removed, i.e., animals slaughtered according to 

Zoroastrian prescriptions. On the Zoroastrian practice, cf. E. Benveniste, “La terminologie iranienne 

du sacrifice,” Journal Asiatique 252 (1964): 45–58; P. Gignoux, “Dietary Laws in Pre-Islamic 

and Post-Sasanian Iran: A Comparative Survey,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 17, 16–42. 

Further details and references appear in my master’s thesis, “Hakohanim bebavel bitkufat hatalmud” 

(MA thesis, Hebrew University, 1998), 147–51 [Hebrew]; Kalmin, Jewish Babylonia, 134. 

92 See below. 

47 



48 

the inclusion of exhumation to a hypothesized separate source that contained only 

the first two decrees and perhaps the earlier part of this source (A–B). So whereas 

the Talmud presents Rabbah bar Shemuel’s statement as affirming the tradition on 

the three decrees, from the perspective of the redaction of the material, it may have 

preceded it.93 We must now inquire how his explanation can be reconciled with the 

centrality of the exhumation theme within the tradition as a whole. 

Although it is possible that a tradition that included only the first two decrees 

stood independently, it is unlikely that such a tradition was linked to the exposition 

of the verse םסיעכא לבנ יוגב.94 It appears more plausible that A and the third decree 

concerning exhumation came together in a singular redactional step. B might have 

been brought in at a later stage, or (hypothetically, at least) initially existed independently 

as a separate source. It is noteworthy that the comforting response that the 

habārei 

can be bribed — אדחוש ילבקמ — are the very words appearing elsewhere in 

˙ 

the Babylonian Talmud as Abaye’s reason to doubt the finality of decisions rendered 

by Persian courts.95 The recurrence of an unusual phrase in two sources that relate to 

Persians is no coincidence. It could be the redactor at work, but it might alternatively 

be taken as a hint to the date when B (and the entire tradition?) was composed. 

The fact that Rabbah bar Shemuel also belongs to the mid-fourth century96 is of 

particular interest as it corresponds with the other complaint of exhumation in the 

Jewish sources that involves Abaye (d. 337/8 C.e.) that we looked at above. This is also 

the period of some of the earliest Christian exhumation sources such as Aphrahat, as 

I suggested above, and the martyrdom of Miles. 

Rabbah bar Shemuel sees the curse, םכיתובאבו םכב ׳ה די התיהו from the Book 

of Samuel as referring to exhumation, supported by an unattributed and otherwise 

unknown statement, ןיטטחנ םיתמ םייח ןועב97 (i.e., “for the sin of the living, the dead are 

exhumed”). This is surely based on a wordplay אטח/טטח, assuming the replacement 

of the synonyms אטח with ןוע. The notion of exposure as a “measure for measure” 

punishment for “sin” is then intrinsic and ingrained in the very language. Therefore, 

its relationship to the third decree is readily appreciated. There immediately follows 

a homily on a biblical prooftext cited by Rava to Rava bar Mari, both contemporaries 

of Rabbah bar Shemuel. Underlying this homily, too, is the טטח/אטח wordplay. The 

point made is that the exposure of sinners in their death is preferable to their life of 

93 Kalmin, Jewish Babylonia, 132–37. 

94 It is true that the decree concerning meat offers a close connection to the key word לבנ, but the 

meaning of this decree remains uncertain, and the third decree is obviously closer. 

95 Git. 28b. See above, n67. It should be observed then how Rabbi Yoh ˙ anan’s response to the 

arrival of the h ˙ abārei here uses two separate uncommon phrases that appear elsewhere in the 

Babylonian Talmud with reference to the Persians. 

96 See b. Ber. 22b. 

97 ןיטטחנ: This is the version in the MSS.

sin while alive. This biblical text from Jeremiah, foretelling the exhumation and denial 

of burial of the unworthy nobility of Judah, is associatively and aptly attached to the 

preceding dialogue.98 The appropriateness of this biblical verse is revealed not just in 

the image of exhumation it evokes, but also due to its explicit reference to exposure 

before the sun (among the other celestial bodies), which as we recalled above, is requisite 

in Zoroastrian custom and also mentioned explicitly in one of the Syriac martyrdom 

texts (St. Peroz from Bei Lapat). This verse recurs in another major Babylonian 

Talmud discussion of relevance. 

In a discussion that begins on b. Sanh. 46b,99 set on a mishnah that describes 

the burial of people who have been executed by the rabbinic court, we find a quest 

for a biblical prooftext for burial in the earth that climaxes with a challenge by the 

Sasanian king Šāpūr II to Rav H ˙ ama: “Whence is burial mandated for you by the 

Torah?” (וכל אנמ הרותה ןמ הרובק).100 The tone of this talmudic discussion is striking. 

Rav H ˙ ama has no answer for the king, and Rav Ah ˙ a bar Yaakov calls him a fool for 

his inability to respond.101 The scriptural verse ונרבקת רבק יכ (Deut. 21:23) that earlier 

in this same discussion was viewed merely as a biblical allusion (זמר) for burial is now 

advanced as a proof. This suggestion is subsequently rejected, thereby vindicating 

Rav H ˙ ama and admitting to the lack of any scriptural prooftext for burial.102 For 

explicit examples of the practice of burial — in the case of Moses — and the curse of 

non-burial for which this Jeremiah verse is adduced, it is suggested that they could 

be understood as “tradition” (אגהנמ) and thus not of the same valence as Scripture. 

The discussion moves to explore the essence of burial. The question is raised as to 

whether burial serves to avoid disgrace — that is, the disgrace of remaining unburied, 

or whether it serves as atonement for the deceased. If the latter is the case, the Talmud 

observes that it would be possible for someone to choose to forgo atonement and not 

be buried. A parallel discussion then follows with respect to the issue of the eulogy. 

This question is ultimately resolved with the citation of a tannaitic source in the name 

of Rabbi Nathan, as follows: 

98 Contrast its exposition in Sifrei Num., Shelah, 112 (Horovitz ed., 122) and see below. 

99 Cf. the further appearance in b. Sanh. 96b. 

100 וכל אנמ: This is the version found in the MSS. The editio princeps reads: ןינמ. Other noteworthy 

studies on this source include: M. Beer, The Babylonian Exilarchate in the Arsacid and 

Sassanian Period (Tel Aviv, 1976 2 ), 212–13 [Hebrew], who discusses the political background; 

and E. Ahdut, “Jewish Zoroastrian Polemics in the Babylonian Talmud,” Irano-Judaica, vol.4, 

ed. S. Shaked and A. Netzer (Jerusalem, 1999), 19–26 [Hebrew]); and M. Sabato, “Kevurah min 

hatorah minayin,” Netu’ im 4 (Kislev, 1997): 60–66 [Hebrew]. Note Sabato’s reconstruction of the 

Persian word arzān within this sugya on the basis of early and better textual witnesses where less 

reliable textual witnesses had given the word זגרא/ןורא. It seems that the sense of this word within 

the context of the sugya probably requires further elucidation. 

101 Rav Ah ˙ a bar Yaakov’s abrasiveness also features elsewhere in the Babylonian Talmud. 

102 Cf. Kalmin, Jewish Babylonia, 97. 

49 



50 

,רבקנ אלו דפסנ אלו תמ .התימה רחאל ונממ ןיערפנש תמל הפי ןמיס ׳מוא ןתנ ׳ר 

ןיערפנש תמל הפי ןמיס אוה הז — ותטמ לע ןיפלזמ םימשג ויהש וא ותררוג הייח וא 

.התימה רחאל ונממ 

It is a good sign for the deceased if payment is exacted from him after 

his death. A corpse that is not eulogized, and not buried, or that a wild 

animal dragged103 him, or that rain fell upon his bier — this is a good 

sign for the deceased. 

The sugya sees this statement as resolving the question. Because these actions 

atone the deceased, it is indeed the honor of the deceased at stake, and therefore an 

honor he would be entitled to forgo.104 

The very topic discussed in this sugya from Sanhedrin lacks a Palestinian parallel 

— which in itself suggests its particular significance for Babylonian Jews. A scriptural 

verse and baraita that evoke the Zoroastrian practice have been consciously 

brought into the discussion. The abrupt tone intimates that the topic was alive and 

not merely academic. Finally, the fact that the Rabbis cited here lived during the reign 

of Šāpūr II also situates this tradition, or at least significant parts of it, together with 

the two earlier Jewish sources we considered and Christian sources, in the same tense 

era that included war and intensive anti-Christian persecution.105 

103 Note the variant in Sifrei Num.: ותלכא (“consumed him”). 

104 This baraita, it might be noted, also appears in Sifrei Num.: 

וא היח ותלכא רבקנ אלו דפסנ אל תמ ותתימ רחאל ונממ ןיערפנש םדאל בוט ןמיס ׳מוא ןתנ ׳ר 

.ותתימ רחאל ונממ ונממ ןיערפנש ול בוט ןמיס םימשג וילע ודריש 

Rabbi Nathan said: It is a good sign for the deceased when he is punished after 

his death. A corpse that is not eulogized, and not buried, or that a wild animal 

consumed him, or that rain fell upon him — this is a good sign for him when he is 

punished after his death. 

Note the minor variations in this text. However, it adds at the end, as follows (according to MS 

Vat. Ebr. 32 with punctuation added): ואיצוי ייי םאנ איהה תעב ׳נש רבדל רכיז רבדל היאר ןיאש יפ לע ףאו 

הדוהי ךלמ תומצע תא “and even though there is no proof for the matter, there is an allusion, as it is 

said: ‘At that time, says the Lord, they shall remove the bones of the king of Judah.’” The wrong 

verse has surely been cited here, and Sifrei should have cited Jer. 16:4 — a verse that parallels three 

of the four good signs and is more than a mere “allusion.” 

105 There has been contention over the date of this source. The Talmud MSS all agree regarding 

the names of the Rabbis in this tradition. The issue is that Rav Ah ˙ a bar Yaakov’s floruit has been 

placed in the first half of the fourth century whereas Rav H ˙ ama (d. 377 C.e.) more rightly fits a 

slightly later period. Therefore, some have posited the existence of a second earlier Rav H ˙ ama; cf. 

Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi (Tel Aviv, 1987 3 ), 409; Beer, “Notes on 

Three Edicts,” 35; and I. M. Gafni, The Jews of Babylonia in the Talmudic Era (Jerusalem, 1990), 

254 [Hebrew]. Cf. also Ahdut’s proposal (“Jewish Zoroastrian Polemics,” 19–21) who places it 

in the reign of Šāpūr I. Kraemer (The Meanings of Death, 97) also seems to place it in the reign 

of Šāpūr I but without comment. However, the concern is a little unwarranted. The primary 

reason for placing Rav Ah ˙ a bar Yaakov so much earlier is the tradition in b. Yev. 64b that he was 

present at the pirka (= public lecture) of Rav Huna (d. 297 C.e.). Whether this tradition is historically 

credible or not, it should be observed that he usually appears in the Babylonian Talmud as 

a contemporary of Abaye (d. 337/8 C.e.), Rava (d. 352 C.e.), and even Rav Nah ˙ man bar Yitsh ˙ ak

It would appear that the same concerns that stimulated the previous reflection 

on the status of burial, inspired the introduction of exhumation to places where we 

might not have expected to find it. Thus, awareness of the exhumation problem is 

reflected in the way in which the Babylonian Talmud reworks a Palestinian apocalyptic 

tradition. This tradition is found in the Palestinian midrashic collections, 

Lamentations Rabbah and Canticles Rabbah, as follows:106 

לש וילגר הפצ ,לארשי ץרא ירבקב רושק יסרפ סוס תיאר םא ,יאחוי ןב ןועמש ׳ר ינת 

.חישמה ךלמ 

Rabbi Shim’on, the son of Yoh ˙ ai taught: When you shall see a Persian 

horse tethered to the graves of the Land of Israel — expect the feet of the 

King Messiah. 

This tannaitic prediction connects messianic expectations with Persian conquest. It 

seems that the mention of the graves here refers to the expectancy for the revival of 

the dead, and this is associated with Persian victory. Indeed, it has been viewed by 

historians as articulating the hope of Palestinian Jews that redemption will come with 

the help of a Persian victory over the Roman Empire.107 However, comparison with 

its Babylonian adaptation is illuminating (b. Sanh. 98b):108 

:ןהל רמא ותריטפ תעשב . . . אמסיק ןב יסוי יבר 

,ינורא יל וקימעה 

;וב רשקנ םייסרפלש סוס ןיאש לבבבש לקדו לקד לכ ךל ןיאש 

.ןבת וב לכוא םיידמלש סוס ןיאש לארשי-ץראבש ןוראו ןורא לכ ךל ןיאו 

Rabbi Yosé the son of Kisma . . . when he lay dying he said to them: 

Bury my coffin deep! 

For there is not one palm tree in Babylonia to which a Persian horse 

will not be tethered; 

(d. 356 C.e.); see, e.g., b. Shab. 87a–b; Kid. 29b; Hor. 6b; H ˙ ul. 10b, and b. Git. 31b according to the 

version of Arukh and a gaon (Otsar hage’onim, Git. 230). On the other hand, it is not necessary to 

accept the approach of some scholars, who like Rav Sherira Gaon, formulate Babylonian Jewry’s 

institutional development in linear terms such that only the greatest living rabbi in his generation 

might be imagined as responding to the Sasanian king. Hence Rav H ˙ ama might have been imagined 

in conversation with the Sasanian monarch at an earlier time — before the death of Rava, for 

instance. On the use of the Babylonian Talmud of the name Šāpūr as a generic term for Sasanian 

monarchs, see what I have written in “Ahasuerus, the Former Stable-Master of Belshazzar and 

the Wicked Alexander of Macedon: Two Parallels between the Babylonian Talmud and Persian 

Sources,” AJS Review 29, no. 2 (2005): 290–91. 

106 Lam. Rab. 1, 13 (Buber ed., 77); Cant. Rab., 8, 10. 

107 See, e.g., J. Darmesteter, “Les Parthes à Jérusalem,” Journal Asiatique 9 (1894): 53; M. Avi-Yonah, 

The Jews under Roman and Byzantine Rule (Jerusalem 1984), 66; J. Neusner, A History of the Jews 

in Babylonia, vol. 1 (Leiden, 1965), 30, 79; Gafni, The Jews of Babylonia, 28; Menachem Mor, The 

Bar-Kochba Revolt: Its Extent and Effect (Jerusalem 1991), 240. 

108 According to MS Herzog. 

51 



52 

Nor one coffin in the Land of Israel from which a Median horse will 

not eat straw. 

The statement here is now in the name of a different second century rabbi, Rabbi 

Yosé the son of Kisma. As part of a series of apocalyptic statements that envision the 

extension of the Persian Empire to encompass Palestine, he conveys his anxiety that 

the Persians will exhume his tomb if he is not buried deep enough. In the process of 

reformulating this Palestinian tradition and giving it a more oracular and poetic style, 

the Babylonian Talmud has slipped in an explicit reference to Babylonia and has also 

adapted it in accordance with its own perspective. The Persian conquest, itself, then 

is not depicted in this Babylonian version, as the harbinger of salvation to the Jews, 

as has been assumed by some scholars,109 but as the extension of the Persian “persecution” 

to Palestine. 

Conclusions 

In this paper we have brought together thirty Christian sources that refer to the 

Zoroastrian exhumation of Christians. These have been drawn from diverse genres 

such as martyrology, exegesis, diplomacy, and historical chronicle. A smaller number 

of talmudic sources have been discussed, but what they lack in quantity they make 

up for in quality. Their true significance lies in their manner of grappling with the 

subject through penetrating reflection, exegesis, humor, and careful artistry. The totality 

of the Jewish and Christian sources indicates that the matter of exhumation was 

a troublesome factor for the non-Zoroastrians residing in the Sasanian empire, at 

least for certain periods of the Sasanian era. The dates of the sources produce some 

interesting results. The Jewish sources clearly cluster in the mid-fourth century. This is 

when we encounter the exhumation issue for the first time in the Babylonian Talmud 

in a dateable source. Similarly the Christian sources begin within this time frame, 

and so it is unlikely that the active exhumation of non-Zoroastrians occurred before 

then. It also suggests that the period of acute anti-Christian activity was paralleled 

in some way in the Jewish experience under the Sasanians. This is not to suggest that 

in general Jews suffered persecution in the same manner or extent as the Christians 

in this period. It does, however point to a synchronized common plight for both of 

these non-Zoroastrian communities. A probable explanation for this is that the shift 

in imperial policy that resulted in active persecution of Christians manifested itself 

broadly as encouraging a Zoroastrian activism. It thus legitimated the meddling in the 

practices of all non-Zoroastrians where these offended Zoroastrian sensibilities. This 

intrusion of common religious practice would, so the sources suggest, periodically 

109 Mor, The Bar-Kochba Revolt, e.g., cites, the Babylonian Talmud and not the Palestinian version 

of the tradition.

cease to be a major factor in better times, such as periods of peace or dynastic stability. 

The Jewish and Christian sources, each with their own focus on the exhumation phenomenon, 

when examined together, have been mutually enriching. Notwithstanding 

the volume of Christian martyrdom narratives, the Jewish sources remind us that it 

was not just about martyrdom, nor was it uniquely anti-Christian. The Christians, 

with their agonistic ethos, integrated it into their tradition of persecution. The Jews, 

as they watched the periodic mass persecution of Christians and Manichaeans, could 

take the bitter with the sweet. Exhumation invited introspection on the importance 

and ritual status of burial and tested the limits of endurance. Ultimately, however, 

while a troubling interference in their religious practice, it affected Jews who had 

already died — but it would not become something to die for. 

APPEnDIx 

ןנישייח ירבח אכיאד אנדיאהו 

Whereas the other sources studied in the body of this article relate to the imposition 

of Zoroastrian burial practices on non-Zoroastrians, the following source from 

b. Bets. 6a, addresses more broadly the issue of having non-Jews handle the burial of 

a Jew and alludes to the complications involved when these non-Jews happen to be 

Zoroastrians.110 

וב וקסעתי ינש בוט םויב תמ ;םיממע וב וקסעתי ןושאר בוט םויב תמ :אבר רמא 

111. . . .לארשי 

.היל ןניהשמ — יהתשא אל לבא ,יהתשאד אלא ןרמא אל :ארטוז רמ רמא 

.היל ןניהשמ אל ימנ ,יהתשא אלד בג לע ףא :רמא ישא בר 

זגימלו אמילג היל זגימל וליפא — ןנבר הויוש לוחכ תמ יבגל ינש בוט םוי ?אמעט יאמ 

.אסא היל 

.ןנישייח ירבח אכיאד אנדיאהו :אניבר רמא 

Rava said: If someone dies on the first day of a festival, Gentiles should 

tend to it [= the burial]; on the second day of the festival, Jews should 

tend to it. . . . 

Mar Zutra said: He only said this where it [= the burial] had [already] 

been delayed [and the corpse was in danger of decomposing], but if it 

had not been delayed, we postpone [the burial]. 

Rav Ashi responded: Even if it had not been delayed, we still do not 

postpone it. What is the reason for this? The second day of the festival 

110 According to the Vilna edition. Relevant textual variants are discussed below. 

111 The source until here appears also in b. Bets. 22a–b and Shab. 139a–b. 

53 



54 

has been regarded by the Rabbis as [having the labor prohibitions of] a 

weekday with respect to [the activities needed for tending to] a corpse — 

even for [such as] cutting a garment and cutting myrtle. 

Ravina said: but now that there are h ˙ abārei we are concerned. 

The fourth-century amora Rava rules on the laws governing burial of a Jewish corpse 

on a two-day festival — as observed in the Diaspora. Three later amoraim: Mar Zutra, 

Rav Ashi, and Ravina then discuss his ruling. 

The issue of burial on the festival also appears elsewhere in the Babylonian 

Talmud. In Sanh. 26b, we hear of a case where Jewish gravediggers buried someone 

on the first day of the Festival of Weeks.112 They were declared invalid as witnesses 

by Rav Papa (d. 376 C.e.), but rehabilitated by Rav Huna, the son of Rav Yehoshua. 

This source involves rabbis from Naresh113 whose floruit was in the mid-fourth 

century C.e. 

A source of more immediate relevance appears in Shab. 139a–b. There, we hear 

of a series of questions submitted by the Jews of Kashkar, one of which relates to 

burial on a festival day. The answer sent by Rav Menashya prohibited burial by Jew 

or Gentile on either of the two days. This is challenged by reference to both Rava’s 

ruling above and an incident that occurred in the synagogue of Maon — a village in 

Palestine, regarding one who died on a Sabbath day that was adjacent to a festival 

day. Burial on the Sabbath was not possible, and a two-day delay in the burial was 

to be avoided. We are told that Rabbi Yoh ˙ anan ruled in that case that the deceased 

be buried by Gentiles on the festival day, itself. The Talmud rejects Rav Menashya’s 

response to the Kashkarites in favor of the superior authority of R. Yoh ˙ anan and 

Rava, and reasons that such stringency had only been applied because the Kashkarites 

were not knowledgeable in Torah, and unable to handle legal subtleties, so leniency 

in this area would lead to unjustifiable leniency in other aspects of the observance of 

the festivals.114 

The debate between Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi could be understood, in a sense, 

as evaluating the relationship between the Maon precedent and Rava’s ruling. The 

question only arose in Palestine on account of the festival occurring adjacent to the 

112 I thank Aharon Amit for reminding me of this source. 

113 For discussion on the location of Naresh, see A .Oppenheimer (in collaboration with B. Isaac 

and M. Lecker), Babylonia Judaica in the Talmudic Period (Wiesbaden, 1983), 262–64. 

114 This is the source: 

:אישנמ ברל לאומש רמא יולד הישפנ חנ ליזאדא ?והמ בוט םויב תמ . . . יולל רכשב ינב היל וחלש 

בוט םויב אל ןיאמרא אלו ןיאדוהי אל היב וקסעתי אל תמ :והל חלש . . . והל חלש תמיכח יא 

אתשינכ יבב הוה אדבוע :יסא יבר רמא תליש רב הדוהי יבר רמאהו .ינש בוט םויב אלו ןושאר 

ןנחוי יברד הימקל ותאו — הירחאלמ יא הינפלמ יא אנעדי אלו — תבשל ךומסה בוט םויב ןועמד 

ינש בוט םויב ;ןיממע וב וקסעתי ןושאר בוט םויב תמ :אבר רמאו .ןיממע היב וקסעתי :והל רמאו 

.הציבב ןכ ןיאש המ ,הנשה שאר לש ינש בוט םויב וליפאו — לארשי וב וקסעתי

Sabbath day, and were it not for such an occurrence, burial would have been delayed 

until after the festival or Sabbath. It seems reasonable to enquire whether Rava’s ruling 

should be applicable only in a case of delay. The question is particularly applicable 

with respect to the first festival day, this being the case dealt with in the Palestinian 

precedent. Where there is no calendrical uncertainty, and the first day of the festival is 

known to be the correct date for the festival, the first day essentially possesses greater 

sanctity. This would seem to be the underlying assumption here — evidenced from 

both Rava’s distinction between the two days and Rav Ashi’s statement of leniency 

with respect to burial on the second day. 

The medieval commentaries on the Talmud hotly debated how to understand 

the disagreement between Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi. They disputed whether they were 

discussing both festival days or only one of them, or whether they were both discussing 

the same day(s). It also was debated whether the permission for a Jew to deal with 

the burial on the second day was ab initio or only where no Gentile option presented 

itself.115 All medieval commentaries concurred that Ravina’s remark, “but now that 

there are h ˙ abārei, we are concerned” related to the issue of burial on the second day 

of the festival by Jews, which it prohibited. Therefore, the concern about the h ˙ abārei 

was explained as pertaining to Rav Ashi’s leniency on the second day of the festival. 

Already in a geonic responsum, apparently written by Rav Natronay Gaon (ninth 

century C.e.),116 we find the remark that if one would allow Jews to bury their dead 

on the second festival day, the h ˙ abārei might say: “deal with our dead just as you deal 

with your own dead.”117 This argument is repeated by the eleventh century talmud 

commentator, Rabbeinu H ˙ ananel118 and in slightly modified form by Rashi119 and 

subsequent commentators. Discussion among medieval legists related to whether the 

concern on account of the h ˙ abārei, as they understood it, still applied in their own 

times. The question of Jews performing a burial on the second festival day indeed 

aroused intense disagreement among the medieval Rabbis, and an incident in the 

115 See the survey and sociological analysis of the legal opinions in J. Katz, The Sabbath Gentile 

(Jerusalem, 1983), 166–72 [Hebrew], English translation by Yoel Lerner as The “Shabbes Goy”: A 

Study in Halakhic Flexibility (Philadelphia, 1989), 217–25. 

116 See L. Ginzberg, Geonica, vol. 2 (New York, 1909), 216. 

117 םכלש םיתמב ןיקסעתמ םתאש םשכ וניתמב וקסעתה. Y. Brody, Teshuvot Rav Natronay bar Hilay 

Gaon, vol. 1 (Jerusalem, 1994), 282. 

118 רחמל ןניהשמו ןנישייחו םכלש ט״ויב ונלש תמה ורבקת םכלש תמה םירבוק םתאש ןויכ לארשיל םירמואש. 

This is cited anonymously in the Arukh, s.v. רבח. 

119 םהל םירמואש י״ע ןהמ ןיחדנ ויה ט״יבו ,ןתכאלמ תושעל לארשי תא ןיפוכו ,םייסרפ ימיב ויהש העשר המוא 

הכאלמל םתוא ופוכי םהיתמ ןירבקמ םתוא וארי םאו ,אוה ט״י. Rashi’s understanding of the h ˙ abārs as a 

separate nation (also at b. Shab. 10a: םייסרפ ינבמ המוא and b. Shab. 45a) probably is influenced by 

the exegetical context of b. Yev. 63b. 

55 



56 

French town of Melun, where the permissive opinion was followed, evoked a harsh 

response from Rabbeinu Tam and became quite a cause celebre.120 

Despite the potential realm of interpretation available for this short sugya, 

it would seem that the importance of preserving the sanctity of the second day of 

the festival, already from the earliest stages of talmud commentary,121 determined 

the path followed by the commentators and lead them to disregard the connection 

between the question of burial by a Gentile, “concern” (!) for the h ˙ abārei, and the 

talmudic evidence of exhumation — that even explicitly refers to h ˙ abārei! 122 It was 

left to Wissenschaft scholars to connect this tradition with Zoroastrian exhumation 

customs. Nahum Zvi Gezau, writing in 1887, proposed that in the days of Ravina, 

the influence of the Zoroastrian priests grew and therefore Ravina’s statement relates 

directly to the first part of Rava’s meimra — “If someone dies on the first day of a 

festival, Gentiles should tend to it” — and not to the subsequent dispute between 

Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi to which it follows. Ravina, he argued, was concerned lest 

the Gentiles show disrespect towards the deceased — and so stated that it is better 

to postpone the burial to the second day of the festival and have Jews handle the 

burial.123 Alexander Kohut, too, sensed that the two issues should be connected. He, 

however, remaining within the interpretative parameters of the medieval commentators 

and assuming that Ravina’s comment related to the dispute between Mar Zutra 

and Rav Ashi about burial on the second day of the festival, suggested that since the 

Zoroastrians would at any rate remove the corpse from the grave, it was improper 

to profane the festival day for no purpose.124 However, this approach was rejected 

120 See E. E. Urbach, The Tosaphists: Their History, Writings and Methods (Jerusalem, 1968)3, 70 

[Hebrew]. My thanks to Judah Galinsky for guidance on this topic. 

121 The approach of She’ iltot (She’ iltot Derav Ahai Ga’on, Mirsky ed., vol. 4, 159) that increased 

severity with regard to the second day — considering the dispensation for a Jew to bury on the 

second day of the festival as limited to a situation where no Gentile option is available, may well 

have been spurred by Ah ˙ a me-Shabh ˙ a’s strictness about the second day festival and calendrical 

uncertainty in the early geonic era. See Sacha Stern, Calendar and Community (Oxford, 2001), 

186–87. 

122 b. Yev. 63b. See discussion above. 

123 N. Z. Gezau, Al Naharot Bavel (Warsaw, 1887) 39n8: 

םירבחהש ןעי יכ ,רחא ןפואב םש שרפמ יתייה ,]א״ע ו =[ ל״נה הציבב ל״ז וניתובר ישוריפ אלול 

םהיתועשר שדחל ופיסוה םדי הרבגש אניבר ןמזב כ״ע ,הרובקה עונמלו יבכש טטחל םכרד היה 

וקסעתי ןושאר ט״ויב תמ״ :אבר רמאמ תישאר לע יאק אניבר יכ רשפאו .םינפלמ ושעש ומכ הזב 

ולזלזי אמש ״םיוג י״ע תושעל אלש ןנישייח״ ירבח יחיכשד אנדיאהד אניבר רמא ז״עו ״ןיממע וב 

ףוסבל דע אניבר רטנד אהו .רחמ םויל ותוהשהל בטומו םתנומא דגנ אוהש ותרובקבו תמה דובכב 

.םהיניעב בטוהו רודה ילודגל ישוריפ יתרמאו .יוהיש ןינעל יארומא יגילפ ארקיעמד םושמ 

124 Arukh Completum, s.v רבח: 

םירבחהש רבדה םעט יכ ראבל יתלאוהו :ג״ס תומביב ל״זר רמאמ ׳יפב ירובד יתבחרה אשוגמא ׳עבו 

םירבקנה םיאיצומ ויה ןכל םהיתמ תא רובקלמ םלצא התיה המוצע הרזגש ינפמ יבכש יטטחמ ויה 

ןנישייח ירבח אכיאד אנדיאהו ל״נה הציבב אניבר רמא םעטה הזמ קפס ילבו לארשי ירבקמ ףא

early on — first by Louis Ginzberg.125 Ginzberg basically adopted Rashi’s explanation 

mentioned above for Ravina’s concern and added his own contribution. He sought 

to link it to a later period — to the era of the latter Ravina, and to the disturbances 

connected to the revolutionary figure in Sasanian history called Mazdak.126 Although 

Ginzberg’s hypothesis is not supported by any sources,127 it nevertheless appears to 

have impacted upon others. This Betsah tradition is not to be found in the discussions 

of later scholars such as Moshe Beer128 or Eliezer Shimshon Rosenthal,129 who devoted 

detailed studies to the subject of Persian persecution of Jews in the Sasanian era. Only 

Robert Brody, en passant, while discussing this geonic responsum, briefly reaffirmed 

the relevance of Persian funerary customs to the sugya, although he did not decide 

between the proposals of Gezau and Kohut.130 

The need to connect this source with the exhumation issue seems self-evident, 

but determining its precise meaning is less clear. One possibility assumes that Ravina’s 

remark responds directly to Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi’s comments. He might be suggesting 

a change that has occurred recently (i.e., אנדיאה). It is interesting that one of 

the Christian sources refers to the specific circumstances close to the period of the 

death of Rav Ashi in 427 C.e. The Syriac work on St. Peroz from Bei Lapat, which 

we mentioned above, describes a systematic policy of exhumation in the year 422 

C.e. Other martyrology texts also confirm the renewal of anti-Christian persecution 

at the end of the reign of Yazdgird I and in the beginning of the reign of Warahrān V.131 

Theodoret, too, writing in the era of Warahrān V appears to confirm this state of 

affairs.132 This would, then, supply a fairly precise chronological context for Ravina’s 

statement, not the arrival of the h ˙ abārei, but their return to a position of influence 

over the crown, following a more tolerant era under Yazdgird I, who reigned from 

רבקב ורפחי םירבחה יכ שוחל שיש ינש ט״ויב ורבקלמ לדחנו תמה תא רחמל ןניהשמ רמולכ 

.ט״ויה תא ונללח םנחב כ״או תמה ואיצויו 

125 Ginzberg, Geonica, 216. 

126 Cf., too, S. Funk, Die Juden in Babylonien 200–500, vol. 2 (Berlin, 1908), 116, published one 

year earlier. 

127 Cf. Brody, Teshuvot, 283–84n6. 

128 M. Beer, “Notes on Three Edicts,” 25–37. 

129 Rosenthal, “For the Talmudic Dictionary.” But cf. S. Krauss, Paras veromi batalmud 

uvamidrashim (Jerusalem, 1948), 153. 

130 Cf. Brody, Teshuvot, 283n6. Cf., too, Kraemer, The Meanings of Death, 96, who writes as follows: 

“A statement attributed to Ravina at Bezah 6a, declaring that “now that there are fellows [sic] 

we are concerned,” is very ambiguous. This statement says something about burial on the second 

day of the festival, but it is not clear what. It may mean that Jews had to bury their dead as soon as 

possible out of fear that “fellows” of the Zoroastrian faith would interfere, but other interpretations 

are equally reasonable.” 

131 E.g., Mar Jacob the intercisus; see van Rompay, “Impetuous Martyrs.” 

132 See above. 

57 



58 

399 to 420 C.e. and was known for his toleration of the religious minorities of the 

empire. 

Although this proposal is tempting, it should be recalled that the other — 

explicit — talmudic references to exhumation all date to the period of Šāpūr II. In 

addition, there is evidence that Ravina died before Rav Ashi,133 but this evidence has 

recently been reinterpreted and this assumption brought into question.134 In view of 

the prevalence of the issue in the course of the fourth century, including the period 

of Rava, the possibility of difficulties with the date of Ravina, and some additional 

considerations to be noted below, one is inclined to prefer the solution offered 120 

years ago by Gezau with some minor alterations. He proposed that Ravina is relating 

directly to the first part of Rava’s statement and addressing the possibility that 

Gentiles handle the burial. Although other Babylonian Talmud sources have automatically 

linked the term h ˙ abārei with the Zoroastrian clergy, who actively interfered 

in the lives of non-Zoroastrians,135 it might be possible to assume that here h ˙ abārei 

refers more broadly to members of the Zoroastrian faith.136 Ravina would then be 

implying that where the Gentile population is Zoroastrian, it would be impossible or 

unwise to seek their help in Jewish burials. 

The version of this talmudic source that is preserved in two Genizah fragments 

might be seen as supporting such an interpretation because the reference to h ˙ abārei 

appears to be less dramatic. One of the fragments, Cambridge TS FI(2) 62, has for 

Ravina’s remark the following: היל ןניהשמ ירבח אכיאד ןנדאהו אניבר ׳מא “Ravina said: 

but now that there are h ˙ abārei we postpone it.”137 The other fragment is St. Petersberg, 

133 First, the date for Ravina’s death is given as 422 C.e. in the version of Seder Tanna’ im 

Ve’amora’im that appears in the Mah ˙ zor Vitri (Hurwitz ed., 483); second, b. Moed Kat. 25a–b has 

been understood as evidence that Ravina died in the lifetime of Rav Ashi. 

134 See A. Cohen, Ravina and Contemporary Sages: Studies in the Chronology of Late Babylonian 

Amoraim (Ramat Gan, 2001), 109–40. The problem of establishing a viable chronological explanation 

for all the Babylonia Talmud sources on Rabbis by the name of Ravina is one of the major 

challenges in talmudic prosopography. A. Cohen’s book is the most recent detailed study on the 

subject. Cf. R. Kalmin, The Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud: Amoraic or Saboraic? (Cincinnati, 

1989), 23–24, 32–34. 

135 B. Git. 16b; Shab. 11a; 45a. 

136 The use of magi to refer to Zoroastrians in general is widespread in the ancient literature. 

137 One might wonder whether this ןניהשמ is not simply a scribal error because this phrase is 

prominent immediately beforehand in the sugya. The fact that this reading appears in more than 

one witness reduces this possibility. ןניהשמ also provides a straightforward understanding of the 

sugya (see below). Finally, it may be noted that although the term ןניהשמ is prominent in this sugya, 

it is considerably less common than ןנישייח in the Babylonian Talmud as a whole. The graphic likeness, 

aided by the memory of the reputation of the h ˙ abārei in other Babylonian Talmud sources 

might have facilitated a move from original ןניהשמ to ןנישייח. Although an assessment of the quality 

of this fragment as a whole is beyond the limited objectives of this paper, it should be noted 

that it does suffer from a case of homoioteleuton in our source: It has the following reading: רמ ׳מאו 

ולפאו ,ןנבר הויוש / לוחכ תמ יבגל ינש בוט םוי ?ט״מ .היל ןניהשמ יהתשא אל לבא יהתשאד / אלא ןרמא אל ארטוז 

אסא היל דגמלו אמילג היל זגמל.

Anton. 891. Here although much of the text is unclear, the word ןנהש?מ? (“we postpone”) 

in Ravina’s statement is visible.138 In light of these textual witnesses, we should 

take a closer look at Rabbeinu H ˙ ananel’s commentary. His commentary ends by 

saying that due to the h ˙ abārei: רחמל ןניהשמו ןנישייחו “so we are concerned and we postpone 

to the morrow.” This might be seen now as a composite version, implying that the 

version attested in these Genizah fragments — “we postpone” — was also available to 

him. The salient point here is that the reading of the Genizah fragments exchanges 

a declaration of apprehension with a more neutral recommendation to postpone the 

funeral. 

Upon removing the “concern” from the discussion, Ravina’s statement need no 

longer be seen as relating to active Zoroastrian interference in Jewish life — or death. 

Apart from the antiquity and importance of these Talmud versions, one can add in 

their favor that the situation before us is indeed one where Jews are soliciting the 

help of Gentiles. The application of the key phrase, אנדיאהו (“but now”) here would 

then not be temporal, but to assert, in a dignified manner, Ravina’s divergence from 

the legal opinion of his colleagues and elders. It distinguishes between the theoretical 

law — as formulated in Palestine by R. Yoh ˙ anan and in Babylonia by Rava, on 

the one hand, and the practical law as determined by the particular circumstance of 

Babylonian Jewry, on the other.139 

However, it is not necessary to assume that Ravina is referring directly to Rava’s 

statement as Gezau had proposed. He may have been responding directly to the dispute 

between Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi. The reading ןניהשמ agrees with such an understanding. 

It is necessary, however, to assume that Mar Zutra is addressing either the 

issue of the first day of the festival, or both days — but not exclusively the second day. 

Rav Ashi, taking the more lenient position, only sees it necessary to justify permitting 

Jewish labor on the second day, perhaps leniency with respect to Gentile labor on the 

festival being self-evident. Here Ravina requires postponing the burial from the first 

day to the second. Since he has mentioned h ˙ abārei, it would have been manifestly 

clear in his own times that he was addressing the issue of burial on the first day by 

Gentiles, and because Rav Ashi had provided the justification for Jewish labor on the 

second day of the festival in any event, there is no reason to assume that Ravina was 

urging the postponement of the burial until after both days of the festival, as some 

commentators have assumed. 

138 St. Petersberg, Anton. 891, published by A. Y. Katsch, Ginzei talmud bavli (Jerusalem, 1976), 

91. 

139 Compare the use of אנדיאה in the following cases where it may be understood as functioning 

in a similar manner: b. Avod. Zar. 16a; Shab. 10b [= Bets. 16a] (םיפשכל ןנישייחד אנדיאהו); Shab. 95a 

(׳וכו ירש ןועמש יברכ ןל אריבסד אנדיאהו); Eruv. 100b; Meg. 31a (׳וכו אמוי ימוי ירת אכיאד אנדיאהו); 

Kid. 71b [= B. Kam. 113a] (ןנישייח יאמר אכיאד אנדיאהו). 

59

Jubilee Volume in Honor of Israel Francus - Dr. Geoffrey Herman's ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?