“The Systematization of Penitence in Zoroastrianism in Light of Rabbinic and Islamic Literature"

Published with the assistance of the Neil Kreitman Foundation (U.K.)

Bulletin of the Asia Institute

New Series/Volume 22

2008

Zoroastrianism and Mary Boyce with Other Studies

Edited byCarol Altman Bromberg

v

Contents Ratanbai Katrak Lectures, Oxford 2009: Mary Boyce and the Study of Zoroastrianism Jenny Rose Introduction (with Editor’s Note) 1 Jenny Rose Bibliography of Mary Boyce (post-1984) 3 Elizabeth Tucker and Ratanbai Katrak Lectures at Oxford 7 Theo van Lint François de Blois Mary Boyce and the Quest for Zoroaster 9 Albert de Jong Regional Variation in Zoroastrianism: The Case of the Parthians 17 Frantz Grenet Mary Boyce’s Legacy for the Archaeologists 29 Philip G. Kreyenbroek On the Construction of Zoroastrianism in Western Iran 47 James R. Russell Magic Mountains, Milky Seas, Dragon Slayers, and Other Zoroastrian Archetypes 57 Alan Williams The Re-placement of Zoroastrian Iran: A New Reading of the Persian Qeṣṣe-ye Sanjān of Bahman Key Qobad Sanjana (1599) 79

Martin Schwartz On Aiiehiiā, Afflictress of Childbirth, and Pairikā: Two Avestan Demonesses (with an Appendix on the Indo-Iranian Shipwrecked Seaman) 95 Mihaela Timuş Légendes et savoirs périnataux chez les Zoroastriens 105 Yishai Kiel The Systematization of Penitence in Zoroastrianism in Light of Rabbinic and Islamic Literature 119Amriddin E. Berdimuradov, A New Discovery of Stamped Ossuaries near Shahr-i Gennadii Bogomolov, Sabz (Uzbekistan) 137 Margot Daeppen, and Nabi Khushvaktov Zsuzsanna Gulácsi The Life of Jesus According to the Diatessaron in Early Manichaean Art and Text 143 Henri-Paul Francfort A Note on the Hasanlu Bowl as Structural Network: Mitanni-Arya and Hurrian? 171 Ciro Lo Muzio Remarks on the Paintings from the Buddhist Monastery of Fayaz Tepe (Southern Uzbekistan) 189 Nicholas Sims-Williams Zandanījī Misidentified 207 and Geoffrey Khan Dieter Weber New Arguments for Dating the Documents from the “Pahlavi Archive” 215 David Frendo Religious Minorities and Religious Dissent in the Byzantine and Sasanian Empires (590–641): Sources for the Historical Background 223 Michael Shenkar Aniconism in the Religious Art of Pre-Islamic Iran and Central Asia 239

Review Kotwal and Kreyenbroek, eds. The Hērbedestān and Nērangestān. Vol. 4, Nērangestān, Fragard 3 (Prods Oktor Skjærvø) 257

Books Received 275 Abbreviations 277

Color plates including images from Berdimuradov et al., Zsuzsanna Gulácsi, Henri-Paul Francfort, Ciro Lo Muzio, and Nicholas Sims-Williams and Geoffrey Khan follow p. 170 in this volume.

vi

119

The Systematization of Penitence in Zoroastrianism in Light of Rabbinic and Islamic Literature

Y I S h a I K I e L

harvard university

Introduction

The concept of penitence and the idea of repenting for one’s wrongdoings is an important element in the Zoroastrian tradition. While the idea of peni-tence stems from earlier stages of the Zoroastrian tradition, the most coherent and elaborate treat-ment of this issue appears in chapter eight of the Šāyist nē Šāyist (commonly, in its New Persian form Šāyest nē Šāyest),1 a ninth or tenth century Zoroastrian compilation of oral traditions de-voted to legal and ritual matters, which includes detailed instructions pertaining to the penitential procedure. The text redactor outlines the vari-ous elements and components of the penitential procedure in the Zoroastrian tradition, largely including the acknowledgement of sin, mental contrition, verbal confession, renunciation of sin, commitment not to relapse into a state of sin in the future, and punitive and expiatory measures.

The traditions that are collected in Šāyist nē Šāyist 8—not unlike other Zoroastrian traditions that appear in ninth and tenth century Pahlavi works2—reflect a combination of earlier tradi-tions and innovative material that is the product of post-Sasanian3 reflections from the ninth and the tenth centuries.4 Pahlavi literature is in that respect a repository of oral traditions (the dēn),5 containing attributed and anonymous material, and “faithful” transmissions alongside later inno-vations. Simply assigning all of the Pahlavi liter-ature to a post-Sasanian date would thus be quite inaccurate, as would be the assigning of a Sasa-nian date. although the majority of the Pahlavi texts were indeed written down after the Muslim conquest, some of them were orally “composed” and perhaps written down during the late Sasa-

nian period, and other works that were composed during the ninth and the tenth centuries con-tain oral traditions that were produced in earlier periods—some of which reach all the way back to the avesta—as well as statements that are ex-plicitly attributed to named authorities6 and legal schools from the Sasanian period.7

Using Šāyist nē Šāyist 8 as the basis for a criti-cal-historical analysis of the idea of penitence in Zoroastrianism is necessarily a project fraught with difficulty, and especially any attempt to identify the earlier and later strands of the text. Unlike the relatively well-developed field of re-daction-criticism in the study of the Talmud,8 very few attempts have been made at applying similar critical methodologies in the study of the Pahlavi works. Notably, a recent attempt to apply a systematic methodology of literary “stratifica-tion” to the Pahlavi texts was made by alberto Cantera.9 In this study, however, I will circum-vent this methodological difficulty altogether by focusing on the composition and collection of the traditions on penitence—a process which appears to have taken place during the ninth and tenth centuries—within its immediate historical and intellectual context.

In this study, I will demonstrate that the traditions collected in Šāyist nē Šāyist 8 are reminiscent of—and perhaps even connected with—rabbinic procedures of penitence that are discussed by post-Talmudic authors who flour-ished from the ninth through the eleventh centu-ries in areas that were dominated by the abbasid intellectual culture. The basic components of the penitential process delineated by these post- Talmudic authors can essentially be found already in one form or another in the Talmudic corpus.

120

k i e l : The Systematization of Penitence in Zoroastrianism

While the Talmudic sources, however, devote a lengthy and in-depth discussion to various ele-ments of penitence, the systematization of these elements and their reorganization in a coherent legal and theological system is the unmistakable contribution of the post-Talmudic authors.

When examined as a whole, the structure of Šāyist nē Šāyist 8 appears to be particularly remi-niscent of the rabbinic genre of treatises on re-pentance, many of which predate Maimonides’ “Laws of Repentance” from the twelfth century (ca. 1167–1177). I shall illustrate, in this respect, that the various traditions concerning penitence scattered throughout the Talmudic literature and earlier layers of the Zoroastrian tradition were similarly systematized and developed during the abbasid period by Jewish and Zoroastrian authors.

To be sure, many of the developments that are characteristic of the rabbinic and Zoroastrian systems of penitence can also be found in the surrounding Islamic culture,10 and certain aspects can even be discerned in Christian literature.11 as we shall see below, the fundamental elements of the penitential procedure—namely, acknowledg-ment of sin, remorse, and a promise not to relapse into sin in the future—that are delineated in Jew-ish and Zoroastrian sources,12 were also discussed by hudjwīrī13 (tenth century) and Ghazālī14 (sec-ond half of the eleventh century). The subsequent discussion of the rabbinic and Zoroastrian peni-tential systems will thus take into account the various Muslim treatments of penitence, which are likewise engaged in the broader endeavor of systematizing and defining the laws of penitence.

Irano-Talmudica: Post-Talmudic Considerations

Recent developments in the field of Irano-Judaic studies have yielded important results for the contextualized study of the rabbinic and Pahlavi literary corpora. Pahlavi literature has proven, in this context, to be an indispensible source for the study of the Babylonian Talmud and the Babylo-nian Talmud in turn was revealed as no less an illuminating and insightful tool for the study of the Pahlavi literature.15

Scholars involved in this emerging field often grapple with the methodological difficulty inher-ent in juxtaposing two literary corpora composed and redacted centuries apart. While the Babylo-nian Talmud is by and large the product of the

Sasanian period, most of the extant Pahlavi liter-ature was composed, redacted, and written down during the ninth and tenth centuries.16 The crit-ical awareness of this chronological gap has re-sulted in the choice of several scholars to focus their attention in the field of Irano-Talmudica, only on Pahlavi works that reached their final forms during the Sasanian period, and are thus conceived of as relevant to the study of the Tal-mud. These works include, for the most part, the Pahlavi Wīdēwdād, the Pahlavi commentaries on the Hērbedestān and Nērangestān, and the Mādayān ī Hazar Dādestān. In this study, by contrast, I wish to explore, in light of contempo-raneous rabbinic material, precisely those Pahlavi traditions that were redacted and written down during the ninth and tenth centuries. By shifting the focus from the Sasanian period to the ninth and tenth centuries, I hope to demonstrate that even the “late” Pahlavi works are relevant to the study of rabbinic literature, albeit in its post- Talmudic form.17

Penitence in early Zoroastrianism

The notion of penitence and the ability to rec-tify one’s misconduct already appears in the Young avestan tradition. On several occasions, the Wīdēwdād18 uses the participle paitita- and noun paititi-, both from a verb paiti-i- whose lit-eral meaning is “go back (to), go toward,” in the sense of making amends and rectifying, although it is difficult to find a suitable english translation to fit all the texts.19 It is often accompanied by the noun āpərə-ti- “atonement” and its opposite an-āpərə-θa “unatonable, inexpiable” from a verb ā-par- the implication of which is paying (par-) back, paying a debt (pāra),20 to which Pahlavi puhl “punishment” is also related, as well as ci-θā- “penalty,” etymologically related to Latin poena and punire.

according to Wīdēwdād 18.68, Zarathustra in-quired of ahura Mazdā regarding the penitential requirements of a sinner who knowingly copu-lated with a menstruating woman. It is clear from ahura Mazdā’s response to this inquiry that it is not so much the punishment of the sinner that is at stake, but rather the rectification of his wrong-doings through the performance of good deeds. While Wīdēwdād 16.14–17 enumerates the lashes that ought to be inflicted upon a man who copulates with a menstruating woman21—em-

121


phasizing the punitive aspects of his penitence—Wīdēwdād 18.68 focuses on the rectification of his misconduct.

how can he repent (paititiš) ithow can he atone (āpərəitiš) for it,how might one drive away the deeds this one has

performed?22

Wīdēwdād 3.41–42 does not contain the term paitita-/paititi- but, no less importantly, de-scribes the overwhelming power of the Mas-dayasnian Daēnā (Pahlavi: dēn)—the Zoroastrian religion23—to eliminate all sorts of religious and moral misconduct.

For the Daēnā of those who sacrifice to ahura Mazdā (the Mazdayasnian Daēnā), O Spitama Zarathustra, throws away the bond of the man who professes (it) . . . throws away the crime of murder . . . throws away the crime of killing an Orderly (man), throws away the crime of throw-ing out a corpse, throws away the crime of com-mitting an inexpiable deed, throws away the crime of a debt to be absolved in chains, throws away all those criminal deeds, whichever are be-ing performed.Just like that, O Spitama Zarathustra, does the Daēnā of those who sacrifice to ahura Mazdā wipe off the Orderly man’s every bad thought, ev-ery bad word, every bad deed, like the strongly speeding wind would wipe clear from the right the firmament.24 (When) here, O Zarathustra, a good deed well performed (is) being performed the good Daēnā of those who sacrifice to ahura Mazdā cuts off the penalty of an adult.

The avestan sources do not address penitence per se, as they are focused in fact on the notion of expiation of sin.25 But one way or another, the overwhelming power of the Daēnā to erase one’s sins and the nature and meaning of paitita-/paititi- (Pahlavi patīt, petīt, and other forms; com-monly pad patīt “in repentance, repentant,” also patītīg “repentant”), have attracted the minds of subsequent generations of Zoroastrians, who de-veloped the theological concept of penitence and formed various legal details regarding its particu-lar procedures.

The introductory formulas to the Yašts26 con-tain the following invocation in Pāzand or Zoro-astrian Middle or New Persian, which is repeated several times throughout the text.27 While the avestan usages of paitita-/paititi- are mainly in

the sense of rectification and making amends, the (Pāzand) term paitit is used in these formulas to-gether with the term pašēmąn to denote regret and remorse. This seems to indicate a shift from objective measures of rectification and punish-ment towards subjective measures of inward and mental repentance, such as contrition.28

I repent (paitit) and regret (pašēmąnōm) all my sins,

all bad thoughts, words, deeds,that I have thought, spoken, or performed in this

worldor have fallen unto or that have accrued to me.I repent and regret the three kinds—forgive!—all those sins of thinking, speaking, and acting,those of body or soul, in this world or in the other.

Both the objective and subjective aspects of penitence are attested throughout the Pahlavi literature, in various legal, moral, and narrative contexts.29 The most coherent and elaborate dis-cussion of penitence in Pahlavi literature appears in Šāyist nē Šāyist 8, which is devoted in its en-tirety to the matter of penitence. The following examination will thus be focused on this text in particular, as the basis of the discussion, while at-tention will occasionally be paid to other Pahlavi texts that supplement the discussion.

The “Laws of Penitence” in Šāyist nē Šāyist 8

Mary Boyce described the Šāyist nē Šāyist as a thematic compilation of Zoroastrian religious law. according to Boyce, an attempt was made during the abbasid period to excerpt passages pertaining to specific legal topics from the extant avesta and its Pahlavi rendering and exegesis, the Zand, and to reorganize these passages in a the-matic order.30

a step which must, however, have been made after the establishment of the canon was that of excerpting from the avesta passages relating to particular themes. . . a good illustration of the development is provided by the short treatise Šāyist nē Šāyist, which covers a number of miscellaneous topics, loosely joined by the thread of sin and ritual purification and atonement. Its matter derives directly from the Zand.

While Boyce’s description seems to be generally apt when applied to Šāyist nē Šāyist 8, as it represents

122


a systematic treatment of penitence making use of earlier traditions, her arguments need to be some-what modified and refined, as recent attempts to compare synoptic legal traditions from the extant Pahlavi literature have yielded a much more com-plex picture of transmission. Occasionally pas-sages from the Šāyist nē Šāyist appear to have been excerpted from the Pahlavi Wīdēwdād. In other cases, however, the Šāyist nē Šāyist preserves unique traditions—often in the name of Sasanian authorities or legal schools that flourished in the Sasanian period—that are absent from or even con-tradictory to other surviving works.31 The Šāyist nē Šāyist should thus be treated more carefully as a compilation that reflects both inherited traditions from the Sasanian period and later developments from the abbasid period.

There is little reason to doubt the fact that the basic penitential elements that are considered in Šāyist nē Šāyist 8 and other Pahlavi works al-ready existed in the Sasanian period. There are, in fact, several traditions concerning penitence that are explicitly attributed to named Sasanian au-thorities who were presumably active in the fifth or sixth centuries.32 although the authenticity of these attributions may be called into question, with lack of evidence to the contrary, these tradi-tions at least appear to reflect the opinions of the Sasanian sages.

The following analysis will demonstrate how these traditions were collected, organized, and systematized only during the ninth and tenth centuries. While the concepts of contrition, rec-tification of sin, and confession may have existed in Zoroastrianism prior to the Muslim conquest, the systematization and conceptualization of penitence and the formation of distinctive com-ponents of the penitential process seem to be the unmistakable contribution of the ninth and tenth centuries Pahlavi authors. Moreover, the system-atization of penitence appears to have affected the contents of earlier penitential teachings, as it sought to determine the essential and non-essen-tial components of the process.33

The Zoroastrian Punitive System

Before I proceed to the notion of penitence in the Pahlavi texts, I must first address the punitive and expiatory measures that are associated with the abandonment of sin.34 Zoroastrianism, from its

Young avestan form onwards, contains a detailed punitive system that addresses what we today regard as purely religious crimes alongside non-religious criminal matters. The majority of trans-gressions that generate punishment in Pahlavi literature are in fact in the category of “religious” and quite often even “ritual.”35 There are several lists of sins in the Pahlavi literature that define the various crimes according to their nature, the severity of their punishment, and other legal-religious criteria.36 although the terms used to designate the various grades of sin generally stem from the avesta, the first comprehensive classifi-cation system is found in Šāyist nē Šāyist 1.1–2 and the “Supplementary texts to ŠnŠ” 11:1–2 and 16:1–4. These texts enumerate a total of eight or nine grades of sin, namely āgrift, ōyrišt, framān, arduš, xwar, bāzā, and yāt (all of them of uncer-tain literal meanings) 37 culminating in the severe tanābuhl sin, “ ‘paying’ with one’s body.”38 By the ninth century, however, the crimes were by and large converted to monetary compensation, rang-ing from 1 drahm worth for minor transgressions to 1200 drahms for a tanābuhl sin.39

Considering the elaborate and detailed puni-tive system in Zoroastrianism, it would seem that the penitential procedures discussed in Šāyist nē Šāyist 8 are intended to supplement the punitive measures that already existed in earlier stages of the judicial system, by alluding to more “mental” aspects, as it were, which must accom-pany the punitive consequences and monetary compensation.40 In this respect, Šāyist nē Šāyist 8 demands contrition and remorse in thought, open confession, renunciation of the sin, and a commitment not to relapse into the path of sin in the future.

The elements of Penitence in Pahlavi Literature

The Pahlavi texts address at least four basic ele-ments of penitence, namely remorse, verbal con-fession, renunciation of sin, and a commitment not to sin again. according to Šāyist nē Šāyist 8.8, the process of penitence entails repentance “in thought” and “open” repentance. Repentance “in thought” involves a commitment not to relapse into the path of sin in the future, and “open” re-pentance must explicitly acknowledge the sins that were committed.

123


mard harw čiyōn az wināh pad patīt bē bawēd ā-š patītīh kār.

u-š āškārīhā ud menišnīhā pad patīt bawišn.ud āškārag kār ēd kū wināh ī dānēd kū-m ȷˇ ast ā-š

nāmčištīg bē gōwišn par.menišnīg kār ēd bawēd kū pad ēd menišn pad

patīt bawēd kū az nūn frāz wināh nē kunam.

In whatever way a man is repentant, his repen-tance counts.

and he should be repentant openly and in thought.“Open” works as follows: the sin that he knows

occurred to him he should state specifically.“In thought” works as follows: he is repentant,

thinking as follows: “From now on I shall not commit any sins.”41

a similar classification appears in Dēnkard book 3, where the basic elements of penitence are linked to the three elements in Zoroastrian ethics of thought, speech and action.

pašēmānīh ī menišnīg ud abaxšīh ī gōwišnīg-iz az wināh petīt ī kunišnīg

. . . Remorse in thought, and contrition in speech, and repentance from sin in action.42

The following passages from Dēnkard book 6 contain three basic elements of penitence: renun-ciation of sin, contrition, and (the promise of) not committing the sin again, but omit the element of verbal confession.43

ud patītīgīh ēd kē az wināh ī kerd abaxš ud pad patīt bawēd ud did ān wināh nē kunēd

Being “repentant” (patītīgīh) is this: one who is contrite for a sin committed and is repentant and will not commit said sin again.44

harw wināh ud māndag ī andar rōzgār pēšār būd pad ēn menišn kū did nē kunam az-iš abaxš ud pad patīt bawišn

One should be contrite for and repent from every sin and offence that was committed daily with the following thought: “I shall not do it again.”45

Below we shall see that several rabbinic and Muslim authors from the ninth through the eleventh centuries emphasized the very same elements of penitence—renunciation of sin, re-morse, asking for forgiveness, and commitment not to sin again—in their respective discussions of penitence. Of course, the decision as to which of the elements ought to be emphasized and re-

garded as essential for the penitential process varies from author to author. For instance, the difference of opinion regarding the significance of verbal confession in particular—as reflected in the varying positions of the Šāyist nē Šāyist and Dēnkard book 6—is likewise reflected in a con-temporaneous rabbinic dispute on the matter.

The elements of Penitence in Rabbinic and Islamic Literature

In the course of his overwhelming praises of Maimonides’ “Laws of Repentance,” Nahman-ides notes that rabbinic traditions relating to repentance can be found in the Talmud only spo-radically. Maimonides ought to be celebrated, therefore, for collecting and systematizing the rabbinic laws of repentance.46 While Maimonides’ contribution to the systematization of the laws of repentance cannot be disputed, there are in fact several pre-Maimonidean authors who composed treatises on repentance or otherwise devoted sys-tematic discussions to the matter of penitence.47

The first rabbinic author to devote a compre-hensive discussion to repentance and delineate the basic elements of teshuvah in Judaism was Rav Seʿadyah Gaon. The Gaon enumerates four basic components of the penitential procedure.

The tenth (class), finally, is that of the “penitent” who carries out the terms of repentance. Now these terms are four in number, to wit: (a) the re-nunciation of sin, (b) remorse, (c) the asking for forgiveness, (d) the assumption of the obligation not to relapse into sin. all four of these condi-tions are mentioned in one place in the Bible.48

Rav hefetz ben Yatzliah follows Seʿadyah Gaon and enumerates the very same four elements of teshuvah in his Sefer Ha-mitzvot.49 Similarly, Rav Nisim ben Yaakov in his Hibur Yafe Me-ha-yeshuʿah, writes the following:

Since God Most high is aware of the proneness of some people to engage in disobedient acts, he has made penitence available to them as a ref-uge for him who would betake himself thereto; provided, however, that his penitence satisfies four conditions. The first condition is the dis-continuance of the disobedient acts in which he is engaged. . . The second condition is that the penitent must show profound regret of the sins

124


which he has previously committed. . . The third condition is the pledge that the penitent will not return to any of his previous misdeeds. . . The fourth condition is (the penitent’s) seeking forgive-ness from his Lord, and imploring and beseeching him to forgive him for what he had misdone, and to pardon him for his previous errors. . . 50

Bahya ben Yoseph ibn Pakudah, who devoted the seventh section of his monumental ethical work Hovot Halvavot to repentance, similarly asserts that there are four basic elements of teshuvah. Notably, though, Bahya and Rav hefetz mention “confession” or the admitting of sin as part, or in the stead, of the element of asking for forgiveness (al-istighfār).

The elements essential to repentance are four in number: contrition for one’s former sins, deter-mined avoidance of them, admitting them and asking pardon for them, and undertaking in heart and conscience never to repeat them.51

Drawing on the classification suggested by his predecessors, Maimonides includes these four el-ements of teshuvah in the following passage.

What then is repentance?52 It consists in the sin-ner relinquishing his sin, putting it out of mind,53 and resolving never to repeat it, as it is said: “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the iniquitous, his designs” (Isa.55:7).he should moreover regret his transgression—as it is said, “Now that I have returned, I am re-gretful, having understood, I strike my thigh” (Jer.31:18)—and call to witness the Knower of [the heart’s] Secrets, that he [is resolved] never to do it again, as it is said: “[Say to him] . . . Never again will we call our handiwork ‘our god,’ for in You alone orphans find pity” (hos.14:3–4). he must also make spoken confession,54 articulating those inner resolutions.55

The third element in Seʿadyah Gaon’s list is al-istighfār, which essentially means “asking for forgiveness.”56 It is evident, however, from the use of the term in Bahya and Rav hefetz’ accounts, and from Maimonides’ remarks in his Sefer Hamitzvot,57 that it also encompasses the notion of “confession.”58 Maimonides’ mention of confession (וידוי) in the Mishneh Torah, however, appears to consist of a separate requirement that is not included in the notion of al-istighfār. at any rate, Maimonides’ inclusion of confession as an

essential prerequisite of penitence seems to have followed the footsteps of Bahya and Rav hefetz.59

Thus, these rabbinic authors’ classification of four penitential elements is significantly similar to that seen in the Pahlavi works, and it would seem, therefore, that a shared concern for sys-tematizing the laws of repentance motivated the rabbis and the dastwars, and similar assumptions guided their quest for a systematic classification of the basic elements of penitence.

To be sure, the various accounts differ with re-gard to certain details and even in their overall em-phasis. as we have seen, the insistence of Šāyist nē Šāyist 8 that mental contrition be accompa-nied by an open confession and a full disclosure of one’s wrongdoings is absent from the texts in Dēnkard book 6. Similarly, not all rabbinic au-thorities agreed with the innovative categoriza-tion of four elements of repentance. Rav Shmuel ben hofni, for one, clearly rejects the notion of al-istighfār—be it in the sense of “confession” or of “asking for forgiveness”—as a prerequisite in the process of penitence. In his commentary on the book of Deuteronomy, Rav Shmuel ben hofni offers the following logic to prove that al-istighfār is not really essential for repentance.

had the asking for forgiveness (al-istighfār) been an essential element of penitence, the repentance of a mute would be considered blemished. . .”60

Rav Shmuel ben hofni further argues that in certain cases, for instance, when there is a dif-ficulty involved in returning a stolen object, the renunciation of sin is not to be regarded as an es-sential element of penitence. Rav Shmuel is thus left with only two essential elements of penitence: remorsefulness and the decision not to sin again.61 The very same position was advocated, in fact, by ʿabd al-Djabbār b. aḥmad (tenth century), a Muʿtazilite theologian, who was a follower of the Shāfiʿī school of law. Interestingly, the latter also uses the example of returning a stolen object.62

The categorization of the essential components of penitence was the concern of several Muslim authors as well. The term tawbah with its vari-ous derivatives appears in the Qurʾān eighty-seven times, indicating the relative importance of repentance in Islam.63 By the tenth century, repentance was widely considered to be the first station on the Ṣūfī path. hudjwīrī, for one, pro-vides the following definition of the fundamental elements of penitence.

125


This saying comprises of three things which are involved in tawbah, namely, (1) remorse for dis-obedience, (2) immediate abandonment of sin, and (3) determination not to sin again.64

al-Ghazālī confronts a tradition according to which repentance should be defined as merely a state of contrition and regret, while no other ele-ments are necessary. This relatively lenient tra-dition is based on a hadīth, according to which the prophet is recorded to have said: “Contrition (nadam) is repentance (tawbah).”65 al-Ghazālī asserts, by contrast, that future abandonment of sin is likewise a prerequisite of the process.66

Repentance is a concept consisting of three suc-cessive and joined elements: acknowledgement, state (of remorse), and action. . . acknowledge-ment, regret, and the intent connected with aban-donment (of sin) in the present and future, and correction of the (sin perpetrated in the) past are three successive concepts within the process. The term penitence (tawbah) refers to this totality.67

The delineation of the essential components of the penitential process is, in fact, only part of a broader attempt to systematize the discourse on repentance. In this respect, we find many similari-ties between the rabbinic and Muslim philosophi-cal discussions of repentance that are absent from the Zoroastrian treatment. Thus, for instance, in both rabbinic68 and Muslim theology,69 we find a debate over whether repentance consists of a binding legal obligation or simply of a rational and moral ideal. Similarly, we find a systematic characterization of the different types of peni-tents in several rabbinic70 and Ṣūfī 71 accounts.

That being said, the debate over the relative importance of al-istighfār and verbal confession in the overall penitential process in Islam and Judaism is strikingly reminiscent of the shift in emphasis that is evident in the Pahlavi texts. as we have seen, while the passages from Šāyist nē Šāyist 8 and Dēnkard book 3 clearly articulate the need for verbal confession as an indispens-able penitential requirement, the passages from Dēnkard book 6 omit this requirement, stressing only the elements of remorse and not relapsing into sin. Needless to say, neither Shmuel ben hofni nor the authors of Dēnkard book 6, reject the idea of confession in and of itself, as it seems to figure prominently in earlier layers of both traditions.72 What is disputed in this context is only the status of confession as a prerequisite for

penitence, without which the process cannot be fulfilled.

In particular, the intimate connections of the rabbinic penitential system to its Zoroastrian and Muslim counterparts perhaps can be heightened when contrasted with other rabbinic systems of penitence, such as the one developed by ashke-nazi Jewish authors, who were associated with R. Yehudah he-hasid and the movement of the ashkenazi Pietism.73 The latter’s four-fold classi-fication of teshuvat ha-gader, teshuvat ha-baʾah, teshuvat ha-katuv, and teshuvat ha-mishkal, which bears many similarities to Christian pro-cedures of penance, clearly reflects a different set of theological and legal assumptions.

The Notions of patītīgīh and hirhur teshuvah

In contrast to the monetary and corporal measures of punishment, and unlike the verbal require-ment of confession, the element of being contrite and remorseful is essentially a mental category. according to Šāyist nē Šāyist 8.13, so it would seem, the mental act of contrition suffices in and of itself to render the sinner righteous. In fact, it is suggested that even without the extensive and detailed process of penance, if one is merely con-trite in thought, the way to hell is barred for him.

Nēryōsang guft ay škofttom sahē kū patītīgīh pad tuwānīgīh ā-š kār čē hād.

ēdōn ham-dādestān būd hēnd kūpatītīgīh hamē ka kunēnd harw čiyōn kunēnd

ud pēš ī harw kē kunēnd hamē ka-š menišnīg hāmbun-iz ast ā-š patītīgīh kerd bawēd.

ud ka-š margarzān abēr was kerd estēd ud az harw ēk menišnīg ȷˇ ud ȷˇ ud pad patīt bawēd ā-š az patītīgīh rāh ī ō dōšox nēst.

ud agar ēk ast ī aziš nē pad patīt ā-š rāh ī ō dōšox nē bast bawēd čē nē pad sūd ī Ohrmazd estēd.

Nēryōsang said: Yes,74 it would seem extremely strange75 that being repentant is according to (one’s) ability, that is, whatever its procedure may be.

They have agreed as follows:as long as they perform the act of repentance,

however they do it and before whomever they do it, as long as it is at all mental for him, then he will have performed the act of repentance (thereby).

126


and, if he has committed very many margarzān (death-worthy sins) and he has repented men-tally for each of them, then, for the act of repen-tance, there is no road to hell for him.76

and, if there is one for which he is not repentant, the road to hell is not closed for him, because it is not for the benefit of Ohrmazd.77

It is evident that the authors of this tradition, be it Nēryōsang himself or the Pahlavi redactors of the text, did not believe that the aforemen-tioned elements of penitence should be viewed as binding and absolute prerequisites. Rather, if one is merely contrite and remorseful in thought he will not go to hell. This position is quite remi-niscent of that of Rav Shmuel ben hofni and ʿabd al-Djabbār b. aḥmad, according to whom verbal confession and the asking for forgiveness, as well as the element of renouncing sin, are not to be regarded as binding and repentance can be carried out in their absence. The position of Nēryōsang is even more reminiscent of the hadīth tradition that “contrition is repentance,” which was inter-preted by certain Muslim theologians as reflect-ing the notion that remorse and inward contrition suffices in and of itself.

Inward concentration and related mental cat-egories already play a significant role in earlier stages of the Zoroastrian and rabbinic traditions.78 One perhaps can discern in the rabbinic and Pahlavi corpora several arenas in which mental categories are emphasized. 1. Certain religious activities are considered invalid when they are not accompanied by inward concentration and in-tent. The rabbis inquire, for instance, whether or not active commandments require intent/cogni-zance (kavana) at the time of their fulfillment.79 Similarly, several Pahlavi texts urge one “to do the worship and invocation of the gods well and with intent80 (pad nigerišn).”81 2. Mental activ-ities are considered sinful or meritorious in and of themselves, even when actions are not involved. This category includes the rabbinic idea of evil thoughts (hirhur ʿaverah) or thoughts being akin to actions (hirhur ke-maʿase).82 In a quite similar manner, numerous Pahlavi texts command the Masdayasnian adherent to “never think a sinful thing in his thoughts (pad menišn).”83 Recently, David Brodsky has attempted to show that these forms of intentionality and inward concentration are not only prevalent in rabbinic and Zoroastrian literature in general, but are in fact conceptual-

ized in a similar manner in the Babylonian Tal-mud and the Pahlavi texts.84

The emphasis that is placed by Šāyist nē Šāyist 8.13 on mental contrition, within the broader framework of the penitential process, should be interpreted in this context. One sense of the pas-sage is that along with the physical and verbal acts of penance and the performance of peniten-tial procedures, one must be contrite in thought. actions must be meaningful and must be accom-panied by inner concentration. The other side of the coin, however, is that genuine contrition suffices to render the sinner righteous in essence, even if he never actually performed the other parts of the process.

a similar notion was expressed by the earlier rabbis in their discussion of hirhur teshuvah (a thought of repentance) or “mental contrition.” an interesting legal anecdote determines that if a man has betrothed a woman on the condition that he is a righteous man, we must consider her as doubtfully betrothed to him, even if this man is clearly wicked. The reason that is given for this surprising legal decision is that the man may have repented in thought while he was proposing.85

Confessing to a Rad

In the remainder of this paper, I shall address an aspect of the Pahlavi penitential system that characterizes Zoroastrianism in particular and is unparalleled, for the most part, in the rabbinic system. This aspect concerns the idea that con-fession and contrition ought to be performed in the presence of a religious official and cannot be carried out in private. according to the ŠnŠ, the basic components of penitence cannot be carried out privately and must be performed in the pres-ence of a rad.86 Šāyist nē Šāyist 8.1 and 8.14 pro-pose a fundamental distinction, however, in that respect between sins that are committed against one’s fellow men and sins that are committed against one’s soul.87

wināh ī hamēmālān andar hamēmālān wizārišn. ud ān ī ruwānīg andar radān wizārišn.

ud ka-iz (ī) dēn-radān framāyēnd kunēnd wināh bē šawēd.

ud kerbag ī az ān frāz kunēnd uspurrīg bē rasēd.

a sin (against?) one’s fellow men (hamēmāl) should be resolved before one’s fellow men.

127


and a sin against one’s soul should be resolved before the rads.

and, also, if they do what the rads of the dēn command, the sin goes away.

and any good deed they perform thenceforth, comes (to them) complete.88

ka-š wināh andar hamēmālān kerd estēd(ud ēdōn bē šāyēd kerdan kū mērag dušmenišn

bē nē bawēd ud zan az zanīh bē nē hilēd u-š andar bē nē dārēd)

ā-š pēš hamēmālān pad patīt bawišn.ud ka nē pēš ī radān pad patīt bawišn.

If he has committed a sin against fellow men89

then he should be repentant before his fellow men.

and if not, then he should be repentant before the rads.

Šāyist nē Šāyist 8.1 seems to address the ele-ment of monetary compensation, while Šāyist nē Šāyist 8.14 addresses the element of repentance (patīt).90 Regarding both elements of penance, only sins that are committed against one’s soul require the presence of a rad, while sins that in-volve wrongdoings against one’s fellow men must be resolved with the relevant party and compen-sation should be made to him or her. When sins are committed “against the soul” and thus must be resolved in the presence of a rad, the peniten-tial instructions of the rad must be scrupulously carried out.

Several passages address the question of who is worthy of accepting confession from a sinner, stressing the spiritual responsibilities that are associated with holding this position. Šāyist nē Šāyist 8.9 instructs the rad (and perhaps also the offended party in cases of sins that involve wrong-doings against one’s fellow men) to listen care-fully to the sinner, and forbids the shaming of the sinner or the divulging of his secrets.

ud ān kē pēš patīt bawēd ā-š xūb bē niyōšišn u-š nē āwēnišn u-š rāz bē nē barišn.

čē ka pad wināh ī kerd bē āwēnēd ayāb rāz bē barēd ā-š hāwand bawēd.

and he before whom he shows repentance (con-fesses) should listen to him well and should not despise him91 and should not divulge his secrets.

For, if he despises (him) for the sins he has com-mitted or divulges his secrets, he becomes just like him.92

Regarding the prohibition of divulging the sin-ner’s secrets, Šāyist nē Šāyist 8.10 tells the story of Ādurbād son of Zardušt, who appointed one of his students to accept confessions from sinners. The student was not secretive enough, however, and divulged the secrets of his confessors. For his lack of secrecy, Ādurbād divested him of his newly acquired office and ordered him never to appear before him again. Despite the student’s genuine remorse, Ādurbād refused to let him re-sume his religious position.

Šāyist nē Šāyist 8.11 deals with the essential qualities required of a person who wishes to be appointed for the office of accepting confession. The passage discusses the requirements of know-ing the Zand by heart, knowing the details of the punishments that are suited for different kind of sins, and the need to “groom” oneself (perhaps metaphorically or spiritually, but not necessar-ily). There are some authorities, however, who require the undertaking of priestly education in the hērbedestān (“school” for hērbeds, Zoroas-trian scholar-priests) rather than the knowledge of the Zand by heart. This may suggest that only an “ordained” dastwar is authorized to accept confession, and not just anyone who has exten-sive knowledge of the Zand.93

The role of the rad in the penitential process is particularly emphasized in the case of sinners who are classified as margarzān (death-worthy). The margarzān category represents the severest level of sin in the Zoroastrian punitive system. The term margarzān is not mentioned in the avesta and is often used by Pahlavi glossators to explain another category of sin designated by the term tanābuhl. In other Pahlavi texts, however, including the ŠnŠ,94 the term margarzān desig-nates a separate grade of sin that is even severer than the tanābuhl. One way or another, while all the other categories of sin are documented,95 the Pahlavi texts concentrate above all on the catego-ries of tanābuhl and margarzān.96

Whether a margarzān sin can be expiated and atoned for is somewhat of puzzle since there seem to be contradicting statements on the matter in the extant Pahlavi literature.97 Šāyist nē Šāyist 8.5 requires in this regard that a margarzān sinner submit his body and property

128


solely to the rad (presumably for corporal and monetary punishment). If the sinner indeed sub-mits his body and property, fulfills the peniten-tial instructions that are prescribed by the rad, and is remorseful in thought, he will not go to hell and the good deeds that he performs will ac-crue to his account.

margarzān ka-š tan ud xwāstag ēwāz ō radān abespārd

ud pad wināh ī ȷˇ astag menišnīg pad patīt bawēdu-š radān pad kār ud kerbag dastwarīh dahēndā-š kār ud kerbag ī pēš kerd abāz rasēdud ka andar 3-šabag pādifrāh kunēnd ō dōšox nē

rasēd.

a person who is margarzān, if he has given up his body and property only to the rads and is mentally in contrition for the sin that occurred to him

and the rads give him guidance regarding work and good deeds,

then the work and good deeds he has done before come back to him.

and, if they punish him during the three-nights period (after his death), he will not go to hell.98

according to Šāyist nē Šāyist 8.6 and 8.21, the rad has the undisputed authority to order the death sentence for a margarzān, and the sinner is not redeemed unless he fulfills the instructions of his rad and submits himself to death.

ud agar rad sar brīdan framāyēd pad gyāg ahlaw.ud sidōš ōh yazišnu-š āmār ī sidōš abar nē bawēd.

and, if the rad orders his head to be cut, he be-comes ahlaw (“righteous”) on the spot,

and a sidōš (the third dawn after death ritual) should be celebrated

and the reckoning of the sidōš does not come upon him.99

ka margarzān-ēw kerd estēd ud menišnīg pad patīt bawēd

ud rad dānēd kū ka-š tan bē abāyēd dādan ā bē dahēd

pādixšāy ka-š bē ōzanēdhād čē pad sūd ī Ohrmazd estēd.

If he has committed a margarzān (sin) and he is mentally repentant

and the rad knows that: when he must give (over) his body, then he will give it (over),

is he (then) authorized to kill him? Yes, because it is to Ohrmazd’s benefit.100

Whether or not these passages reflect a custom that was actually practiced in the Sasanian or abbasid periods, if at all, is a separate question. It is clear, nevertheless, that in the minds of the priests who composed and transmitted these tra-ditions the process of repentance was not com-plete until the sinner confessed his sins to a rad and followed the penitential instructions that were inflicted by the latter to the extent of sub-mitting his body to death.

While the practice of confession and submis-sion to a rad is unique to Zoroastrianism, there are in fact several rabbinic and Muslim parallels of the notion of submitting oneself to death in the course of penitence. The Babylonian Talmud, for instance, tells the story of elazar ben Dordya, who after committing numerous sexual trans-gressions willingly submits himself to death in order to repent for his sins.101 Similarly, according to a well-attested hadīth, a woman who commit-ted adultery is said to have repeatedly submitted herself to death in the presence of the Prophet, until the latter finally agreed to carry out her death-wish.102

To the best of my knowledge, however, the practice of confessing to, or in the presence of, a religious authority—a practice that comprises one of the fundamental elements of Roman-Cath-olic Christianity103—is rarely attested in Jewish circles of late antiquity and the medieval period, at least until the thirteenth century. With the ex-ception of a single Talmudic passage perhaps, the idea of confessing to a sage or a religious author-ity is first advocated in a Jewish context by Rabbi Yehudah he-hasid in his ethical treatise Sefer Hasidim.104

It is not altogether clear how the different as-pects of the penitential system—namely, the pay-ment of punitive and compensatory damages, the penitential requirements (remorse, renunciation of sin, acknowledgement and confession, and the decision not to relapse into sin in the future), and the particular decisions of the rad in each case—which are discussed in the Pahlavi texts, relate to one another. It is noteworthy, however, that a similar ambiguity characterizes the Muslim and Jewish discussions of penitence as well. In this regard, one gets a sense of partial overlapping be-tween the realms of teshuvah (repentance) and

129


kaparah (expiation), and between tawbah (repen-tance) and takfīr (expiation).

Conclusions

In this article, I have attempted to explore several points of affinity that appear to exist between the Pahlavi writings on penitence and the rabbinic and Muslim discussions, from the ninth through the eleventh centuries. My findings suggest that in all three cultures, a similar endeavor was un-dertaken to systematize the laws of penitence, and create a coherent legal and theological system of penitence. In all three cultures, moreover, the emphasis was placed on defining the fundamental elements of the penitential procedure, although the exact definition of these elements differs, of course, from author to author.

The very same disputes—concerning the ele-ments that ought to be regarded as indispensable prerequisites of penitence—seem to run like a thread through all three religious traditions. Cer-tain authorities seem to have held that the feeling of remorse suffices to render a sinner righteous. Others seem to have required a conscious deci-sion not to relapse into sin in the future, while yet others insisted that all four elements of peni-tence be carried out, namely, renunciation of sin, remorse, asking for forgiveness, and a decision not to sin again. another dispute concerned the necessity of open and verbal confession in the process.

On the other hand, I have examined several fea-tures that are unique to Zoroastrianism, and that are unparalleled in the rabbinic and Islamic tradi-tions. These features hinge on the idea of confes-sion to, or in the presence of, a religious official who has the undisputed authority to instruct the sinner’s penance, even to the extent of ordering his death. however, I have only touched in this regard on a few of the many questions relating to penitence that are discussed in the Zoroastrian, rabbinic, and Muslim literature. Further research will hopefully elucidate more aspects of these fas-cinating cultural intersections.

The overall similarity that exists between the rabbinic, Muslim, and Zoroastrian discussions of the penitential process begs the question of whether and to what extent the three systems are actually related. Should the affinities be treated

as unrelated analogous developments of indepen-dent cultures or are we dealing with more inti-mate connections?105 While I make no claim of specific genealogical dependency, intentionally avoiding the use of unwarranted comparative terminology such as “influence,” “borrowing,” and the like, I believe that the evidence indeed suggests that the religious authorities of all three religions were engaged in a broader cultural dis-course, in an attempt to systematize the laws of penitence and coherently define the basic compo-nents of the process.

Notes

* I would like to thank Prods Oktor Skjærvø and Bernard Septimus for their invaluable and illuminating comments.

1. The name of the work probably means: “that which is appropriate and that which is not appropri-ate,” see J. C. Tavadia, Šāyast nē Šāyast: A Pahlavi Text on Religious Customs (hamburg, 1930), pp. 1–25. Com-pare the expression “dharma and a-dharma” in hindu legal literature. See, for instance, Mīmāmsā Paribhāṣā of Krṣna Yajvan: Sanskrit Text with an English Trans-lation and an Elaborate Introduction, ed. B. P. Bhatta-charya (Calcutta, 1998), p. 23. For the eighth chapter of this work and the laws of repentance in particular, see Tavadia, Šāyist nē Šāyist, pp. 104–15; J. Jany, “Criminal Justice in Sasanian Persia,” IA 42 (2007), pp. 348–61.

2. There are several surveys of the extant Pahlavi literature which address the scope and content of this corpus. Besides theological and ritual compilations, the Pahlavi corpus includes legal codes, epic and histori-cal works, and even wisdom literature. See M. Boyce, “Middle Persian Literature,” in handbuch der Orien-talistik 4.2.1, Iranistik: Literatur, ed. B. Spuler (Leiden, 1968), pp. 31–66; J. de Menasce, “Zoroastrian Pahlavi Writings,” CHIr, vol. 3.2, ed. e. Yarshater, pp. 1166–95; J. C. Tavadia, Die mittelpersische Sprache und Liter-atur der Zarathustrier, ed. h. Junker (Leipzig, 1956); C. Cereti, La Letteratura Pahlavi: Introduzione ai testi con riferimenti alla storia degli studi ed alla tradizione manoscritta (Milan, 2001); M. Macuch, “Pahlavi Liter-ature,” in The Literature of Pre-Islamic Iran, Compan-ion Volume 1 to A History of Persian Literature, ed. R. e. emmerick, M. Macuch, and e. Yarshater (London, 2008), pp. 116 –96.

3. The Sasanians ruled over most of the Near and Middle east for over four centuries (224–650 c.e.), and succeeded the achemenids (560–330 b.c.e.) and the Par-thians/arsacids (ca. 240 b.c.e.–224 c.e.).

130


4. For a discussion of various Sasanian and post-Sa-sanian elements inherent in the ninth and tenth cen-turies Pahlavi works, see, for instance, h. W. Bailey, Zoroastrian Problems in the Ninth-Century Books (Oxford, 1971); S. Shaked, From Zoroastrian Iran to Islam: Studies in Religious History and Intercultural Contacts (aldershot, 1995).

5. The oral nature of Zoroastrian literature is dis-cussed in Bailey, Zoroastrian Problems, pp. 149–76; P. huyse, “Late Sasanian Society between Orality and Literacy,” in The Sasanian Era, The Idea of Iran, vol. 3, ed. V. S. Curtis and S. Stewart (London, 2008), pp. 140–53; P. Kreyenbroek, “The Zoroastrian Tradition from an Oralist’s Point of View,” in K. R. Cama Orien-tal Institute, 2nd International Congress Proceedings (5th to 8th January, 1995), ed. h. J. M. Desai and h. N. Modi (Bombay, 1996), pp. 221–37; P. O. Skjærvø, “The Importance of Orality for the Study of Old Iranian Lit-erature and Myth,” Nāme-ye Irān-e Bāstān 5:1–2 (2007 [2005–2006]), pp. 1–23; idem, “The Zoroastrian Oral Tradition as Reflected in the Text,” Proceedings of the Salamanca Conference (forthcoming); S. Secunda, “The Sasanian ‘Stam’: Orality and the Composition of Baby-lonian Rabbinic and Zoroastrian Legal Literature,” in The Talmud in Its Iranian Context, ed. C. Bakhos and R. Shayegan (Tübingen, 2010), pp. 140–60.

6. a list of the named authorities can be found in a. Cantera, Studien zur Pahlavi-Übersetzung des Avesta (Wiesbaden, 2004), pp. 164–239; P. Gignoux, “La con-troverse dans le mazdéisme tardif,” in La controverse religieuse et ses formes, ed. a. Le Bolluec (Paris, 1995), pp. 127–49; S. Secunda, “On the age of the Zoroastrian authorities of the Zand,” IA 47 (2012), pp. 317–49.

7. For the existence of legal schools in Zoroastrian-ism, see esp., Šāyist nē Šāyist 1.3–4; Tavadia, Šāyist nē Šāyist, pp. 28–29; Nāmagīhā ī Mānuščihr 1.5; J. Jany, “The Four Sources of Law in Zoroastrian and Islamic Jurisprudence,” Islamic Law and Society 12:3 (2005), pp. 303–7; P. G. Kreyenbroek, “On the Concept of Spiri-tual authority in Zoroastrianism,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 17 (1994), pp. 1–15.

8. The eclectic nature of the Babylonian Talmud is widely accepted. The Talmud incorporates baraitot of tannaitic (and allegedly tannaitic) origin, amoraic dicta attributed to Palestinian and Babylonian sages from sev-eral generations, anonymous comments, and dialectic discussions. The “higher” critical study of a Talmudic sugya involves the separation of tannaitic and amoraic material from the anonymous stammaitic layer, inas-much as this distinction is possible, the identification of “late” elements in baraitot and attributed amoraic dicta, and the reconstruction of earlier stammaitic ma-terial or “proto-sugyot,” which perhaps comprise an earlier stage in the production of the sugya. See, for in-stance, S. Y. Friedman, “a Critical Study of Yevamot X with a Methodological Introduction” (hebrew), in Texts and Studies, Analecta Judaica, vol. 1, ed. h. Z. Dimi-

trovsky (New York, 1977), pp. 283–301; idem, Talmudic Studies: Investigating the Sugya, Variant Readings and Aggada (New York, 2010), pp. 37–135; D. halivni, Mid-rash, Mishnah and Gemara: The Jewish Predilection for Justified Law (Cambridge, Mass., 1986), pp. 76–92; idem, “aspects of the Formation of the Talmud,” in Creation and Composition, ed. J. Rubenstein (Tübingen, 2005), pp. 339–60; idem, Sources and Traditions: A Source Crit-ical Commentary on the Talmud. Tractate Baba Bathra (Jerusalem, 2007), pp. 1–148; M. Vidas, Traditions and the Formation of the Talmud, Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 2009, pp. 1–26.

9. Cantera, Studien zur Pahlavi-Übersetzung des Avesta, pp. 164–239. Preliminary remarks on the use of “Talmudic” techniques in the critical study of Pahlavi literature are given by Secunda, “The Sasanian ‘Stam’,” pp. 140–60.

10. On repentance in Islam, see, for instance, M. ayoub, “Repentance in the Islamic Tradition,” in Repentance: A Comparative Perspective, ed. a. etzioni and D. e. Carney (Lanham, Md., 1997), pp. 96–121; M. al-Fatlāwī, al-Tawbah wa-al-Tāʾibūn (Beirut, 1405/1985); F. M. Denny, “The Qurʾanic Vocabulary of Repentance: Orientations and attitudes,” Journal of the american academy of Religion 47.4 (1980), pp. 649–64; idem, “Tawba,” Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition (2012), available at: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com; U. Rubin, “Repentance and Penance,” Encyclopae-dia of the Qurʾān (2012).

11. The literature on Christian notions of penitence is vast. See, for instance, Encyclopedia of Early Chris-tianity, ed. e. Ferguson et al. (New York, 1997), vol. 1, pp. 273–74; vol. 2, pp. 891–93; The Encyclopedia of Christianity, ed. e. Fahlbusch et al. (Grand Rapids, 1999), vol. 1, pp. 634–36; J. Chryssavgis, Repentance and Confession in the Orthodox Church, (Brookline, Mass., 1990); M. hepworth and B. S. Turner, Con-fession: Studies in Deviance and Religion (London, 1982); T. Tentler, Sin and Confession on the Eve of the Reformation (Princeton, 1977); h. C. Lea, A His-tory of Auricular Confession and Indulgences in the Latin Church, 3 vols. (Philadelphia, 1896); O. D. Wat-kins, A History of Penance, 2 vols. (London, 1920); J. T. McNeill and h. M. Gamer, Medieval Handbooks of Penance: A Translation of the Principal Libri Po-enitentiales (New York, 1938), pp. 23–50; Repentance in Christian Theology, ed. G. T. Smith and M. J. Boda (Collegeville, Minn., 2006); a. Firey, A New History of Penance (Leiden, 2008).

12. See a detailed discussion of these sources below.13. hudjwīrī, trans. R. a. Nicholson, The Kashf al-

maḥjúb: The Oldest Persian Treatise on Ṣúfiism (Lon-don, 1936), pp. 294–99.

14. Ghazālī, Iḥyāʾ ʿulūm al-dīn, Kitāb al-tawba (Cairo, 1358/1939) iv, pp. 4–59; Al-Ghazzali on Repen-tance, trans. with an Introduction by M. S. Stern (New Delhi, 1990).

131


15. Some of the more recent publications in the field include Y. elman, “The Other in the Mirror: Iranians and Jews View One another: Questions of Identity, Conversion, and exogamy in the Fifth-Century Iranian empire, Part 1,” BAI 19 (2009 [2005]), pp. 15–26; idem, “The Other in the Mirror: Iranians and Jews View One another: Questions of Identity, Conversion, and ex-ogamy in the Fifth-Century Iranian empire, Part 2,” BAI 20 (2010 [2006]), 25–46; idem, “Toward an Intel-lectual history of Sasanian Law: an Intergenerational Dispute in hērbedestān 9 and Its Rabbinic Parallels,” in The Talmud in Its Iranian Context, ed. C. Bakhos and R. Shayegan (Tübingen, 2010), pp. 21–57; Secunda, “The Sasanian ‘Stam’,” pp. 140–60; idem, “Learning from a Magus/Like Giving a Tongue to a Wolf,” BAI 19 (2009 [2005]), pp. 51–57; idem, “Reading the Bavli in Iran,” Jewish Quarterly Review 100.2 (2010), pp. 310–42; G. herman, “ ‘Bury My Coffin Deep’: Zoroastrian exhumation in Jewish and Christian Sources,” in Tife-ret Leyisrael: Jubilee Volume in Honor of Israel Francus (New York, 2010), pp. 31–59; Y. Kiel, “Selected Topics in Laws of Ritual Defilement: Between the Babylonian Talmud and Pahlavi Literature,” Ph.D. diss., The he-brew University of Jerusalem, 2011.

16. This methodological issue is discussed at length in the introductory chapter of Shai Secunda’s forthcom-ing book. I would like to thank him for kindly sharing and discussing his research with me over the past few years.

17. an interesting illustration of the fruitfulness of a contextualized study of the ninth and tenth centuries Pahlavi works and the Geonic responsa can be found in O. Irshai, “The apostate as an Inheritor in Responsa of the Geonim: Foundations of the Ruling and Parallels in Gentile Law” (hebrew), Shenaton ha-mishpat ha-ivri (an nual of the Institute for Research in Jewish Law), pp. 11–12 (1984–1986), p. 457.

18. On the name of the Wīdēwdād see esp. e. Ben-veniste, “Que Signifie Vidēvdād,” in W. B. Henning Memorial Volume, ed. M. Boyce and I. Gershevitch (London, 1970), pp. 37–42; D. L. Bishop, “Form and Content in the Videvdad: a Study of Change and Con-tinuity in the Zoroastrian Tradition,” Ph.D. diss., Co-lumbia University, 1974. and see of late: P. O. Skjærvø, “The Videvdad: Its Ritual-Mythical Significance,” in The Idea of Iran, vol. 2: The Age of the Parthians, ed. V. S. Curtis and S. Stewart (London, 2007), pp. 105–62. Important information about the manuscript tradition of the Wīdēwdād can be obtained from alberto Can-tera’s “Vidēvdād Project,” available on line, at: www.videvdad. com.

19. This meaning is given in C. Bartholomae, Alt-iranisches Wörterbuch (Berlin, 1904 [1979]), p. 829. See, for instance, V.3.21; V.5.26; V.9.50. a useful dis-cussion of this term in avestan and Pahlavi literature is provided by J. P. asmussen, Xuāstvānīft: Studies in Manichaeism (Copenhagen, 1965), pp. 26–90.

20. Bernard Septimus pointed out to me that several of the (contextual) nuances of paitita- and paititi- are reminiscent of the biblical and post-biblical notions of unburdening the weight of a sin and paying off a debt. For the use of these parables in Judaism and Christian-ity, see G. a. anderson, Sin: A History (New haven, 2009).

21. See S. Secunda, “’Dashtana – Ki Derekh Nashim Li’: a Study of the Babylonian Rabbinic Laws of Men-struation in Relation to Corresponding Zoroastrian Texts,” Ph.D. diss., Yeshiva University, 2007, pp. 310–13.

22. V.18.68. The translations (a few approximate) of all the avestan texts were generously provided by Prof. Prods Oktor Skjærvø.

23. The Daēnā, in this context, more accurately denotes the personified manifestation of the religious tradition.

24. It is worthy of note that the symbolism used in this avestan passage is somewhat reminiscent of bib-lical verses that stress the power of repentance. The motif of the wind wiping away one’s sins reminds one, for instance, of Isa. 44:22.

25. The notions of penitence and expiation are clearly distinguished in the Pahlavi literature, to be discussed below.

26. The Yašts are a Young avestan collection of hymns addressed to individual deities, such as Miθra, etc.

27. Darmesteter, vol. 2, p. 332.28. a similar shift towards inward and mental cat-

egories is evident in the Zoroastrian legal system. See Y. Kiel, “Cognizance of Sin and Punishment in the Babylonian Talmud and Pahlavi Literature: a Com-parative analysis,” in Oqimta: Studies in the Talmu-dic and Rabbinic Literature, ed. S. Friedman and a. Tal (forthcoming).

29. See, for instance, Dēnkard book.3.67.2–3, 3.272.8–9; Rivāyat ī Ēmēd ī ašwahištān 26 in N. Safa-Isfehani, Rivāyat ī Hēmīt ī ašawahistān: Edition, Tran-scription and Translation; A Study in Zoroastrian Law, harvard Iranian Series 2 (Cambridge, Mass., 1980), pp. 183–88; Dēnkard book. 6.50,168, in S. Shaked, The Wisdom of the Sasanian Sages: Dēnkard VI, Persian heritage Series 34 (Boulder, Colo., 1979), 19,67.

30. Boyce, “Middle Persian Literature,” p. 39.31. Several examples can be found in Cantera,

Pahlavi-Übersetzung, pp. 220–29; Secunda, “The Sa-sanian ‘Stam’,” pp. 147–50; Kiel, “Ritual Defilement,” pp. 18–19.

32. See, for instance, Šāyist nē Šāyist 8.10, 8.13, 8.17, 8.18, 8.23; Dēnkard book 6, a4, in Shaked, Wis-dom, p. 131.

33. I would like to thank Bernard Septimus for elu-cidating this point.

34. The distinction made in the Pahlavi texts be-tween patītīh (repentance) and tōzišn (expiation) largely corresponds to the hebrew distinction between

132


teshuvah and kaparah, and the arabic distinction be-tween tawbah and takfīr. This important distinction will be further considered below.

35. J. Jany, “Criminal Justice,” pp. 347–61.36. The avesta prescribes an increasing number of

lashes for various sins that fall under one category or for sins that were committed several times. Wīdēwdād 4.1–10, for instance, requires 300 lashes for the breach of a word-contract, 600 for a contract “smoothed by the hands,” and so on, reaching 1,000 lashes for the breach of a contract “the size of a land.” Similar sequences of lashes are prescribed for striking different kinds of dogs (Wīdēwdād 13.12–16), for repeatedly having sex-ual relations with a menstruating woman (Wīdēwdād 16.14–17), and so forth. Maria Macuch suggested that the original corporal penalty of lashes was gradually replaced by monetary fines, as evident in the ninth century texts, see M. Macuch, “On the Treatment of animals in Zoroastrian Law,” in Iranica Selecta: Stud-ies in Honour of Professor Wojciech Skalmowski on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, Silk Road Studies 8, ed. a. van Tongerloo (Turnhout, 2003), pp. 177–78. Janos Jany has suggested in this regard that the exaggerated number of strikes in the avesta is merely a symbolic expression of the relative grade of the crime, see Jany, “Criminal Justice,” pp. 347–61. In the Pahlavi texts, another important classification system of reli-gious transgressions includes the distinction between the categories of “intentional sin,” “reckless negli-gence,” and crimes committed “under constraint.” See, for instance: S. Shaked, “Religious actions evaluated by Intention: Zoroastrian Concepts Shared with Juda-ism,” in Shoshanat Yaakov: Ancient Jewish and Ira-nian Studies in Honor of Yaakov Elman, ed. S. Secunda and S. Fine (Leiden, 2012), pp. 403–14; elman, “Intel-lectual history,” pp. 21–57; Macuch, “Treatment of animals,” pp. 109–29.

37. For instance, a yāt is prescribed for pouring water on unclean places, see Šāyist nē Šāyist 2:51; a framān is prescribed for a menstruating woman who glances at fire or water, for bringing water into an un-clean house, and for walking without a kustīg (sacred girdle), see Šāyist nē Šāyist 3:27–28, Šāyist nē Šāyist 2:51; Šāyist nē Šāyist 4:10; a xwar is prescribed for having sexual intercourse with a non-Iranian, see Hērbedestān 12.29, and is also mentioned in Pahlavi Wīdēwdād 3.14; and an arduš is prescribed for a dis-ciple who does not study the Avesta and Zand prop-erly, see Hērbedestān 17.1.

38. Šāyist nē Šāyist Suppl. 11:1–2 includes a ninth category of srōšōčaranām, thus altering the avestan meaning that refers to a whip with which the lashes were given, see Macuch, “Treatment of animals,” pp. 109–29. The lists, to be sure, do not agree on several other details of classification, cf. V.13.12.

39. Šāyist nē Šāyist 1:2.40. Tavadia, Šāyist nē Šāyist, pp. 104–15; Jany,

“Criminal Justice,” 348–61.

41. The texts and the translations of the Šāyist nē Šāyist were generously provided by Prods Oktor Skjærvø, who patiently read through the entire eighth chapter with me during our joint reading sessions at harvard University.

42. Dēnkard book 3.14.2, but cf. trans. J. P. de Me-nasce, Le troisiėme livre du Dēnkard (Paris, 1973), p. 37. The exact implications of the three different terms for penitence, contrition, and remorse are not entirely clear.

43. as we shall see below, the verbal confession is also not mentioned by Ghazālī and hudjwīrī as an essential element of the penitential process, but is considered by several rabbinic authors to be an indis-pensable component of penitence.

44. Dēnkard book 6.50; ed. Shaked, Wisdom, p. 19.45. Dēnkard book 6.e31d; ed. Shaked, Wisdom,

p. 201.46. For a recent critical edition and commentary

on Maimonides’ “Laws of Repentance,” see a. Kadari, Studies in Repentance: Law, Philosophy, and Educa-tional Thought in Maimonides’ Hilkhot Teshuvah (Beʾer Sheva, 2010). Nahmanides’ praises are cited in Kadari, Repentance, p. 11.

47. The pre-Maimonidean works on repentance are discussed in S. abramson, “Four Chapters Relating to the Rambam” (hebrew), Sinai 70 (1972), pp. 26–27; Kadari, Repentance, pp. 11–16. aside from the authors who will be discussed below in greater detail, several other rabbinic authors who wrote on repentance ought to be mentioned here with regard to the systematiza-tion of the topic. R. Yehudah ben Barzillai, the author of Sefer Ha-ʿitim, composed a section on the laws of repentance as part of his monumental legal work. Un-fortunately, the relevant parts of Sefer Ha-ʿitim did not survive, see Yehudah ben Barzillai al-Bargeloni, Pe-rush Sefer Yetzirah, ed. Z. h. halbershtam (Jerusalem, 1970), p. 218; Yitzhak ibn Giʾat composed a section on the laws of repentance as part of his Halakhot Kelulot, see S. abramson, “Rav Yosef the head of the Seder,” Kiryat Sefer 26 (1950), p. 87, n. 47; avraham bar hiyya devoted a whole section to repentance in his work Hegyon Ha-nefesh Ha-ʿatzuvah, see his Hegyon Hane-fesh Ha-ʿatzuvah (Jerusalem, 1972), p. 35.

48. Seʿadyah Gaon, The Book of Beliefs and Opin-ions, trans. S. Rosenblatt (New haven, 1948), 5:5, p. 220. Cf. the translation in Seʿadyah Gaon, The Book of Doctrines and Beliefs, trans. and annotated a. alt-mann (Indianapolis, 2002), p. 133. The same classifica-tion of the four components of teshuvah is mentioned by Seʿadyah in Sidur Rav Seʿadyah Gaon, ed. I. David-zon, S. asaf, and Y. Yoel (Jerusalem, 1985), 258; Perushe Rasag al Ha-Torah, ed. Y. Kapah (Jerusalem, 1963), pp. 170–74. Kapah mistakenly copied from the manuscript of Seʿadyah’s commentary on the Torah “three” instead of “four” components of teshuvah. See S. abramson, Rav Nisim Gaon: Hamishah Sefarim, Seridim Me- hiburav (Jerusalem, 1958), pp. 423; a. Greenbaum,

133


“Gidre ha-teshuvah al pi ha-gaon Rav Shmuel ben hofni,” Sinai 77 (1975), p. 98, n. 6.

49. M. Zucker, “Ketaʿim hadashim Mi-sefer ha-mitzvot Le-rabbi hefez ben Yatzliah,” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 29 (1960–1961), p. 35.

50. An Elegant Composition Concerning Relief af-ter Adversity, Nissim ben Jacob ibn Shahin, trans. from the arabic with Introduction and Notes by W. M. Brin-ner (Northvale, N. J., 1996), pp. 138 –43.

51. Bahya ben Joseph ibn Pakuda, The Book of Di-rection to the Duties of the Heart, trans. from the original arabic by M. Mansoor with S. arenson and S. Dannhauser (London, 1973), pp. 333–35. On the im-portance of this section in Bahya’s work, see the com-ments of J. Dan, On Sanctity: Religion, Ethics, and Mysticism in Judaism and Other Religions (Jerusalem, 1998), pp. 405–6.

52. That is, what is the essence of teshuvah, as op-posed to its most perfect manifestation mentioned in the previous passage (2:1). For the notion of varying levels of repentance in Islam, cf. Ghazālī, Iḥyāʾ ʿulūm al-dīn, pp. 44–45; hudjwīrī, The Kashf al-maḥjúb, p. 295; ayoub, “Repentance,” pp. 108–11.

53. Interestingly, the Islamic authors disagree, whether the repentant ought to remember his sins or put them out of his mind. See hudjwīrī, The Kashf al-maḥjúb, pp. 296–97; ayoub, “Repentance,” p. 113.

54. For a comprehensive discussion of how the ele-ment of confession relates to the other three elements of penitence in Maimonides’ classification, see Kadari, Repentance, pp. 41–56.

55. Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Repen-tance 2:2. The translation follows Bernard Septimus’ forthcoming edition. I would like to thank Professor Septimus for the gracious permission to use his edition.

56. See for instance J. Blau, Dictionary of Medieval Judeo-Arabic Texts (Jerusalem, 2006), pp. 480–81.

57. Maimonides, Sefer Hamitzvot, Positive Com-mandments, p. 73.

58. Greenbaum, “Gidre ha-teshuvah,” p. 98, n. 9; Zucker, Perushe Rasag, p. 310; Kadari, Repentance, p. 49, n. 20.

59. Kadari, Repentance, p. 49, n. 20.60. Rav Shmuel ben hofni, Commentary on Deu-

teronomy 4:28–41; Greenbaum, “Gidre ha-teshuvah,” pp. 106–8; Kadari, Repentance, p. 49; Zucker, “Frag-ments,” pp. 8–9. Greenbaum, “Gidre ha-teshuvah,” mentions in fact several rabbinic authorities who held the same position.

61. Rav Shmuel ben hofni, Commentary on Deu-teronomy 4:28–41; Greenbaum, “Gidre ha-teshuvah,” 106–8; Zucker, “Fragments,” 8–9.

62. ʿabd al-Djabbār b. aḥmad, Al-Mughnī, 14:348; Zucker, “Fragments,” pp. 7–8.

63. For the Qurʾānic notion of repentance, see Denny, “Qurʾanic Vocabulary,” pp. 649–64; ayoub, “Repen-tance,” pp. 98–103; Rubin, “Repentance and Penance.”

64. See hudjwīrī, The Kashf al-maḥjúb, p. 294.65. See ayoub, “Repentance,” p. 102.66. See Zucker, “Fragments,” p. 7, n. 9.67. Stern, Al-Ghazzali on Repentance, pp. 31–32.68. Rav hefez ben Yatzliah, for instance, counts

repentance as a mitzvah, a binding obligation, see M. Zucker, “Ketaʿim hadashim Mi-sefer ha-mitzvot Le-rabbi hefez ben Yatzliah,” Proceedings of the Amer-ican Academy for Jewish Research 29 (1960–1961), p. 35. Others, such as Rav Shmu’el Gaon, do not count repentance as a binding mitzvah, see the useful discus-sion of a. Kadari, Studies in Repentance: Law, Phi-losophy, and Educational Thought in Maimonides’ Hilkhot Teshuvah (Be’er Sheva, 2010), pp. 32–38.

69. See, for instance, Mahdī al-Fatlāwī, al-Taw-bah wa-al-Tāʾibūn (Beirut, 1405/1985), pp. 102–3; Ghazālī, Iḥyāʾ ʿulūm al-dīn, Kitāb al-tawba (Cairo 1358/1939) iv, 9; ayoub, “Repentance in the Islamic Tradition,” pp. 104, 115.

70. See, for instance, Zucker, “Ketaʿim Mi-perush ha-Gaon Rav Shmuel ben hofni al Parashat Va-etha-nan,” Ale Sefer 5 (1978) 6; a. Greenbaum, “Gidre ha-teshuvah al pi ha-gaon Rav Shmuel ben hofni,” Sinai 77 (1975), p. 105; Kadari, Repentance, pp. 41–48.

71. See, for instance Ghazālī, Iḥyāʾ ʿulūm al-dīn, pp. 44–45; hudjwīrī, trans. R. a. Nicholson, The Kashf al-maḥjúb: The Oldest Persian Treatise on Ṣúfiism (Lon-don, 1936), pp. 294–99; ayoub, “Repentance,” pp. 11–114.

72. an early rabbinic tradition that clearly acknowl-edges the importance and even obligation of confession can be found in Sifre Zuta on Numbers 5:5 (h. S. horo-vitz ed., Sifre and Sifre Zuta on Numbers [Frankfurt, 1917], pp. 229–30).

73. J. Dan, Hasidut Ashkenaz Be-toldot Hamah-shava Ha-yehudit (Tel-aviv, 1990), vol. 2, pp. 55–97; idem, Rabbi Yehudah He-hasid (Jerusalem, 2006), pp. 87–102; I. G. Marcus, Piety and Society: The Jewish Pietists of Medieval Germany (Leiden, 1981); idem, “The Penitential Writings of the hasidim of ashke-naz,” in Studies in Jewish Mysticism, Philosophy, and Ethical Literature Presented to Isaiah Tishbi on His Seventy-fifth Birthday (Jerusalem, 1986), pp. 369–84; idem, “hasidei ashkenaz—Private Penitentials: an Introduction and Descriptive Catalogue of Their Man-uscripts and early editions,” in Studies in Jewish Mys-ticism, ed. J. Dan (New York, 1981), pp. 57–83.

74. On the particle ay, see P. O. Skjærvø, “On the Terminology and Style of the Pahlavi Scholastic Lit-erature,” in The Talmud in Its Iranian Context, pp. 178–205.

75. Cf. Tavadia, Šāyist nē Šāyist, p. 109, who trans-lates: “astonishing.”

76. Concerning the connection between penitence and the barring of the way to hell, cf. Qurʾān 40:7.

77. Šāyist nē Šāyist 8.13, cf. Tavadia, Šāyist nē Šāyist, 104–15.

78. The emphasis on mental categories in rabbinic literature is well documented. To mention only several

134


contributors to this realization, see J. Bazak, “The ele-ment of Intention in the Performance of Mitzvot Com-pared to the element of Intention in Current Criminal Law,” The Jewish Law Association Studies 14: The Jerusalem 2002 Conference Volume, ed. h. Gamoran (Binghamton, 2004), pp. 9–15; M. higger, “Intention in Talmudic Law,” Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1927; B. Jackson, “Liability for Mere Intention in early Jew-ish Law,” Hebrew Union College Annual 42 (1971), pp. 197–225; h. eilberg-Schwartz, The Human Will in Juda-ism: The Mishnah’s Philosophy of Intention (atlanta, 1986); and cf. B. Jackson’s review of eilberg-Schwartz in Jewish Quarterly Review 81.1–2 (1990), pp. 179–88; also see of late, S. Strauch-Schick, “Intention in the Babylo-nian Talmud: an Intellectual history,” Ph.D. diss., Ber-nard Revel Graduate School, Yeshivah University, 2011. The importance of mental categories in Zoroastrian-ism is discussed in Macuch, “Treatment of animals,” pp. 109–29; elman, “Intellectual history,” pp. 21–57; Shaked, “Religious actions,” pp. 403–14; and see of late: D. Brodsky, “ ‘Hirhur ke-maʿaseh damei’ (‘Thought is akin to action’): The Importance of Thought in Zoroas-trianism and the Development of a Babylonian Rabbinic Motif,” Irano-Judaica 7, ed. S. Shaked and a. Netzer, Je-rusalem: Ben Zvi Institute (forthcoming); Kiel, “Cogni-zance of Sin and Punishment in the Babylonian Talmud and Pahlavi Literature.”

79. See, for instance, mBer 2:1; mMeg 2:2; mRh 3:7; tBer 2:2; tRh 2:6–7; yBer 2:5 5a; bBer 13a; beruv 95b; bPes 114b; bRh 28b. Interestingly, the conceptualiza-tion of inward concentration (kavanah) as an abstract category culminates in the Babylonian Talmud. The conceptualizing tendency of the Babylonian Talmud is discussed in: L. Moscovitz, Talmudic Reasoning: From Casuistics to Conceptualization, Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 89 (Tübingen, 2002). The cat-egory of inward concentration (kavanah) must not be conflated with the adjacent rabbinic category of inten-tion (mahshavah), according to which wrong intention has the ability to invalidate a sacrifice or render imple-ments and foodstuff susceptible to ritual impurity. The derivatives of mahshavah appear some hundreds of times throughout the mishnaic and toseftan orders of Sacrifices and Purities and are extensively discussed by eilberg-Schwartz, The Human Will.

80. Lit. “with observance.”81. MX. 31.5. This and other related texts are dis-

cussed in: Shaked, “Religious actions,” 403–14.82. See, for instance, bYom 28b–29a; bBB 16a; bBB

164b; bShab 64a–b; ecclesiastes Rabbah 1:5, 2:6.83. Dēnkard book 6.236. This and other related texts

are discussed in: Brodsky, “hirhur.”84. Brodsky, “hirhur.”85. See, for instance, bSan 96b; bGit 57b; bQid 49b;

ecclesiastes Rabbah 10; Lamentations Rabbah 23.86. The designations rad and dastwar both denote a

religious authority. The terms seem to function inter-

changeably in the Pahlavi texts. On the responsibili-ties connected with this office, see esp. Kreyenbroek, “Spiritual authority,” pp. 1–15.

87. This division is strikingly reminiscent of the rabbinic distinction that is made between sins that are committed against one’s fellow men and sins that are committed against God, see, for instance, mYom 8:9; S. Shaked, “Items of Dress and Other Objects,” Irano- Judaica 3, ed. S. Shaked and a. Netzer (Jerusalem, 1994), p. 109, n. 53; Jany, “Criminal Justice,” p. 355; Macuch, “Treatment of animals,” pp. 173–74.

88. Šāyist nē Šāyist 8.1.89. The text in parenthesis translates: “and it can be

done in such a way that the husband is not evil-minded and does not release the wife from wife-hood and he does not keep her inside.” This passage can be either an example of a sin that was committed against one’s fellow men, i.e. a husband who refuses to release his wife despite her wish to divorce him, or simply mis-placed text.

90. These two aspects belong to the realms of expia-tion and repentance, respectively.

91. For the notion of not despising a sinner, see fur-ther: Dēnkard book 6.13, 14, 228. The early rabbis sim-ilarly forbade the practice of “reminding” a repentant of his previous sins. See esp. Sifra, Behar, 4:2; mB.M 4:10; bB.M 58b.

92. Šāyist nē Šāyist 8.9.93. For different categories of religious knowledge

and authority, see esp. Kreyenbroek, “Spiritual author-ity,” pp. 1–15; Vidas, “Traditions and the Formation of the Talmud,” pp. 134–92. Vidas points out in this re-gard a fascinating resemblance that exists between the Babylonian Talmud’s typology of tanna vs. haham and the Zoroastrian typology of hērbed vs. hāwišt. While the term hāwišt often refers to a “priestly student” as opposed to the hērbed, the “priestly teacher.” in other cases, the hāwišt designates a scholar-priest who re-cites the avesta, while the hērbed designates a scholar-priest who knows the Zand and the Šāyist nē Šāyist (that which is appropriate and that which is not appro-priate). Some of these texts are cited and analyzed in: P. G. Kreyenbroek, “The Dādestān ī Dēnīg on Priests,” Indo-Iranian Journal 30 (1987), pp. 185–208.

94. See, for instance, Šāyist nē Šāyist 2.81–82.95. For instance, a yāt is prescribed for pouring

water on unclean places, see Šāyist nē Šāyist 2:51; a framān is prescribed for a menstruating woman who glances at fire or water, for bringing water into an un-clean house, and for walking without a kustīg (sacred girdle), see Šāyist nē Šāyist 3:27–28; Šāyist nē Šāyist 2:51; Šāyist nē Šāyist 4:10; a xwar is prescribed for having sexual intercourse with a non-Iranian, see: Hērbedestān 12.29, and is also mentioned in Pahlavi Wīdēwdād 3.14; and an arduš is prescribed for a dis-ciple who does not study the Avesta and Zand prop-erly, see Hērbedestān 17.1.

135


96. Jany, “Criminal Justice,” pp. 367–70, con-tains a useful—although not comprehensive—survey of different crimes that are regarded as tanābuhl and margarzān.

97. according to Šāyist nē Šāyist 2:107–108 (cf. Pahlavi Wīdēwdād 3.14) margarzān sinners have no purification or redemption, while Šāyist nē Šāyist 8:5–6 and Šāyist nē Šāyist 8:18 prescribe a process of expiation for margarzān sinners. See Jany, “Criminal Justice,” pp. 348–61.

98. Šāyist nē Šāyist 8.5; cf. Šāyist nē Šāyist 8.2.99. Šāyist nē Šāyist 8.6.

100. Šāyist nē Šāyist 8.21.101. baZ 17a. For recent attempts to interpret the

elazar ben Dordya story in a Christian context, see Michal Bar-asher Siegal, “Literary analogies in Rab-binic and Christian Monastic Literature,” Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 2010, pp. 202–49; and see also: M. Bal-berg, “Between heterotopias and Utopias: Two Rab-binic Stories about Journeys to Prostitutes,” Jerusalem Studies in Hebrew Literature 23 (2008), pp. 191–214.

102. See, for instance, ayoub, “Repentance,” p. 103.103. On confession in early Christianity see our

previous references. For general remarks on this topic,

see: Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, ed. e. Ferguson et al. (New York , 1997), vol. 1, pp. 273–74; vol. 2, pp. 891–93, and references.

104. Sefer Hasidim According to the Parma Man-uscript, ed. J. Wistinetzki and J. Freimann (Frankfurt am Main, 1924, repr. Jerusalem, 1969), 43 (p. 41); 630 (p. 169); 52–53 (pp. 44–45); Dan, R. Yehudah He- Hasid, pp. 94–99; Marcus, “The Penitential Writings,” pp. 369–84; idem, “hasidei ashkenaz,” pp. 57–83. To em-phasize the isolation of this approach among Jewish writers, however, suffice it to say that even R. Yehu-dah he-hasid’s great student, R. elazar of Worms, who followed many of his master’s instructions regarding the life of piety, seems to have rejected his master’s teachings on the issue of confession in the presence of a religious authority. See, for instance: Dan, R. Yehudah He-Hasid, p. 99; Marcus, Pietism, pp. 370–73.

105. On the distinction between analogous and genealogical connections, see especially: J. Z. Smith, Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Chris-tianities and Religions of Late Antiquity (Chicago, 1990), pp. 46–53.

“The Systematization of Penitence in Zoroastrianism in Light of Rabbinic and Islamic Literature"

Documents

Transcript of “The Systematization of Penitence in Zoroastrianism in Light of Rabbinic and Islamic Literature"