"Epigraphical" Rabbis, Helios, and Psalm 19: Were the Synagogues of Archaeology and the Synagogues of the Sages One and the Same?

T H E JE W I S H Q UA R T E R LY R E V I E W, Vol. 94, No. 1 (Winter 2004) 27–76 ARTICLES ‘‘Epigraphical’’ Rabbis, Helios, and Psalm 19 Were the Synagogues of Archaeology and the Synagogues of the Sages One and the Same? S T UAR T S . M I L L E R INTRODUCTION HALAKHIC SOURCES FROM THE talmudic era until the present frequently refer to the synagogue (bet keneset) and the house of study (bet midrash) in the same context, conveying the sense that the rabbis have always regarded the bet keneset as an institution akin to the academy. Indeed , rabbinic use of the phrase, ‘‘houses of assembly [i.e., synagogues] and houses of study’’ (batte kenesiyot u-vatte midrashot) is so idiomatic one can only conclude that, whenever and wherever they lived, the rabbis perceived not only the bet midrash but also the bet keneset as under their influence and jurisdiction.1 Despite this well entrenched rabbinic perspective, contemporary traditional synagogues display a significant degree of liturgical, architectural, and artistic variation that oftentimes does not conform to recognized haI wish to thank Professor Lee I. Levine, who invited me to present my preliminary thoughts on this topic before a Yale University faculty forum in March 2000. Professors Steven Fine of the University of Cincinnati, Jay Berkovitz of the University of Massachusetts, and Gary Rendsburg of Cornell University read earlier drafts of this study and offered welcome criticism, which compelled me to reconsider or further augment some of my views. 1. A simple search for twçrdm ytbw twysnk ytb in the Bar Ilan Judaic Library database reveals that the phrase was in continuous use from antiquity to the present in contexts that suggest that the two institutions were often perceived as ‘‘rabbinic .’’ For its use in talmudic sources, see the discussion below of yMeg 3, 74a and cf. S. S. Miller, ‘‘The Rabbis and the Non-Existent Monolithic Synagogue,’’ Jews, Christians, and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue: Cultural Interaction during the Greco-Roman Period, ed., S. Fine (London/New York, 1999), 63–64. The Jewish Quarterly Review (Winter 2004) Copyright 䉷 2004 Center for Advanced Judaic Studies. All rights reserved. 28 JQR 94:1 (2004) lakhic opinion.2 This, of course, is not a new phenomenon. From the talmudic era to our own times, the rabbis have questioned synagogue practices that clashed with or even threatened some basic halakhic principles . Of particular concern to the rabbis, surprising in view of its continued prevalence today, has been the use of figurative art that might be construed either as a violation of the second commandment or of Ex 20:20 (‘‘. . . you shall not make any gods of silver, nor shall you make for yourselves any gods of gold’’).3 Drawing upon earlier talmudic sources, medieval arbiters of halakhah (poskim) struggled with such questions as whether depictions of animals (and humans) in synagogues should be seen as violations of the biblical proscriptions on imagery or, at the very least, as distractions from the concentration required for prayer.4 Most famously, R. Elyakim ben Joseph of Mainz (late twelfth century) re2 . The variety found in construction of the meh .itsah separating men and women in the orthodox synagogue comes readily to mind, but so do many liturgical practices that are either not sanctioned or are outright prohibited by many or even most authorities. On the meh .itsah, see B. Litvin, ed., The Sanctity of the Synagogue : The Case for Mechitzah—Separation between Men and Women in the Synagogue— Based on Jewish Law, History, and Philosophy, from Sources Old and New (3rd rev. ed., Hoboken, 1987). For a discussion of the interplay of custom (minhag) and rabbinic authority where liturgy is concerned, see R. Langer, To Worship God Properly: Tensions between Liturgical Custom and Halakhah in Judaism (Cincinnati, 1998). Cf. D. Sperber, Minhage Yisra’el: Meqorot Ve-Toledot (7 vols., Jerusalem, 1990–2003), I: 20–38 and II: 76–125, who discusses halakhic responses to ‘‘wrongful custom’’ (minhag ta‘ut) in general and includes several examples that pertain to the synagogue . 3. These concerns are raised already in tannaitic sources. See Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishmael...