Ascetic systems commonly exhibit some sort of conflict between spiritual pursuits and mundane needs. This article contextualizes the particular rabbinic dilemma of study versus sustenance within the broader context of the Zoroastrian tradition and its critique of the Manichaean Elect. The rabbis shared with their Zoroastrian contemporaries not only the perception of a religious tension between agriculture and the pursuit of religious studies, but also a multifaceted array of possible solutions that attempt to harmonize, mitigate, or otherwise resolve this theological and practical tension. While the basic conflict between study and sustenance is already formulated in tannaitic works, it is argued that the unique perspective offered by the Babylonian Talmud engages, and perhaps reacts to, the Iranian tradition.275 associated with asceticism, the difficulty inherent in delineating its basic contours, and the profound differences of opinion that exist on the matter in the extant rabbinic texts. 3 Realizing the complexity and nuance of asceticism, some scholars have suggested expanding the range of ideologies and practices associated with asceticism, to include mainstream rabbinic practices and beliefs. 4 Steven Fraade has suggested an important working definition, which appears to be broad enough to include significant rabbinic practices and yet is sufficiently narrow to exclude other forms of religious and spiritual expressions that can by no account be rendered ascetic. By his definition, asceticism is "the exercise of disciplined effort toward the goal of spiritual perfection (however understood) which requires abstention (whether total or partial, permanent or temporary, individualistic or communalistic) from the satisfaction of otherwise permitted earthly, creaturely desires." 5 Using a similar methodology, Michael Satlow and Eliezer Diamond have independently concluded that the ideal of talmud torah functions in rabbinic culture as an ascetic ideology, as the rabbis often advocate intellectual, spiritual, and physical toil, as well as different forms of abstention and restraint, in the course of Torah study. 6 This does not mean, of course, that asceticism is the only prism through which the rabbis viewed the study of Torah, nor does it indicate that all the rabbis shared this point of view, but simply that asceticism is one of several lenses through which the rabbis construed the ideology of talmud torah. As Satlow writes: Culture, by Eliezer Diamond, JAAR 73, no. 3 (2005): 911-913; Lawrence M. Wills, "Ascetic Theology before Asceticism? Jewish Narratives and the Decentering of the Self," JAAR 74, no. 4 (2006): 902-925; Yishai Kiel, "'Al taʽanit u-meniʽat mazon ba-talmud ha-bavli le-'or ha-'ide'ologyah ha-zoro'astrit," Jewish Studies Internet Journal 12 (2013): 1-28.3. General studies relating to asceticism tend to distinguish between different types of ascetic expressions. Scholars have distinguished between total and partial abstention; permanent and temporary forms of renunciation; individualistic and co...

This study attempts to broaden the Judeo-Christian prism through which the rabbinic legends of Adam and Eve are frequently examined in scholarship, by offering a contextual and synoptic reading of Babylonian rabbinic traditions pertaining to the first human couple against the backdrop of the Zoroastrian and Manichaean creation myths. The findings demonstrate that, while some of the themes and motifs found in the Babylonian rabbinic tradition are continuous with the ancient Jewish and Christian heritage, others are absent from, or occupy a peripheral role in, ancient Jewish and Christian traditions and, at the same time, are reminiscent of Iranian mythology. The study posits that the syncretic tendencies that pervaded the Sasanian culture facilitated the incorporation of Zoroastrian and Manichaean themes into the Babylonian legends, which were in turn creatively repackaged and adapted to the rabbinic tradition and world-view.

The article examines the reception and transmission of traditions about the figure of Enoch/Metatron in Sasanian Babylonia, and particularly the emergence of Metatron speculation in the Babylonian Talmud and 3 Enoch, by reading these traditions in light of Zoroastrian and Manichaean reports of the Iranian hero, Yima. The figure of Enoch/Metatron was reimagined and reconfigured by the Babylonian authors so as to resemble local Yima traditions, though the process of translating and repackaging the figure of Enoch in the image of his Iranian counterpart was not merely a conscious act of comparison, in which an analogy is drawn in an attempt to highlight particular aspects common to both figures; it was an expression of a more comprehensive discourse of identification.Beyond close parallels in the depictions of these figures, the connections between Metatron speculation and the Zoroastrian and Manichaean Yima traditions are supported by an identification of Yima with the son of man implied in two Sogdian fragments of the Manichaean Book of Giants. The syncretic atmosphere that pervaded Sasanian culture in general and the Manichaean identification of Yima with the son of man in particular facilitated, and perhaps reinforced, the refiguring of Enoch/Metatron in the Babylonian Talmud and 3 Enoch in the image of local Yima traditions.

Within this close textual analysis of the Babylonian Talmud, Yishai Kiel explores rabbinic discussions of sex in light of cultural assumptions and dispositions that pervaded the cultures of late antiquity and particularly the Iranian world. By negotiating the Iranian context of the rabbinic discussion alongside the Christian backdrop, this groundbreaking volume presents a balanced and nuanced portrayal of the rabbinic discourse on sexuality and situates rabbinic discussions of sex more broadly at the crossroads of late antique cultures. The study is divided into two thematic sections: the first centers on the broader aspects of rabbinic discourse on sexuality while the second hones in on rabbinic discussions of sexual prohibitions and the classification of permissible and prohibited partnerships, with particular attention to rabbinic discussions of incest. Essential reading for scholars and graduate students of Judaic studies, early Christianity, and Iranian studies, as well as those interested in religious studies and comparative religion.

No abstract