Study versus Sustenance: A Rabbinic Dilemma in Its Zoroastrian and Manichaean Context

Abstract

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...

The Babylonian Talmud in its cultural context

“…Among studies that move in this direction, most explore the Talmud and Manichaean sources alongside other materials – primarily Zoroastrian or Syriac Christian. One of the most prolific scholars who has begun actively incorporating Manichaean sources is Yishai Kiel, who has written about Adam and Eve (), Enoch (), and the evil inclination (forthcoming; also note Kiel, ). We also find a number of other scholars who engage with Manichaean materials in a substantive way in their analysis (e.g., Elman, ; Herman, ; Kiperwasser, ).…”

“…Recently, scholars have begun simultaneously bringing multiple bodies of literature to bear in their analyses with more regularity. For example, Yifat Monnickendam (2019) One of the most prolific scholars who has begun actively incorporating Manichaean sources is Yishai Kiel, who has written about Adam and Eve (2015a), Enoch (2015b), and the evil inclination (forthcoming; also note Kiel, 2014b).…”