Introduction
A fascinating anecdote preserved in the Babylonian Talmud (b. ῾Abod. Zar. 17a) tells the story of a woman who comes before Rav Hisda and discloses to him that her younger son is the product of incestuous intercourse she has performed with her older son. Rav Hisda, in turn, rather than instructing her with regard to her penance, orders the preparation of her shrouds, thus indicating that her death is inescapable and imminent. Although the nature of the encounter between Rav Hisda and the sinner is not explicit in the story itself, the passage is situated within the Babylonian Talmud in the context of a broader legal and theological discussion centered on the penitential requirements for a person seeking to turn away from minut (heresy).Footnote 1
Footnote 2Footnote 3Footnote 4Footnote 5Footnote 6Footnote 7Footnote 8Footnote 9Footnote 10Footnote 11Footnote 12Footnote 13Footnote 14
[Does this mean that anyone who repents from minut will die? Was there not a certain woman who came before Rav Hisda confessing to him that the lightest among all the lightFootnote 15 sins she had committed was that her younger son was the issue of (incestuous intercourse she performed with) her older son? Whereupon Rav Hisda said: Get busy preparing her shrouds—but she did not die? That one did not altogether renounce her evildoing (and that is why she did not die). Some have this version: (Is it only) from minut that one dies if one repents, but not from other sins? Was there not that woman who came before Rav Hisda confessing to him that a light sin (perhaps the lightest sin) that she had committed was that her younger son was the issue of (incestuous intercourse with) her older son? Whereupon Rav Hisda said: Get busy preparing her shrouds—and she died. Since she said (regarding her guilt) that it was one of the lightest, it may be assumed that she was also guilty of minut.]
The present study attempts to elucidate this fascinating passage by exploring its underlying Zoroastrian context. Although I wish to make no definite claim about the “original” context of the story itself—as it is far too short and cryptic to decipher—I will argue that within its current redacted setting the story can be significantly illuminated by its contextual reading against the backdrop of contemporaneous Zoroastrian practice and belief. As the following analysis will demonstrate, certain Pahlavi texts pertaining to the issues of penitence and next-of-kin relations significantly enrich our ability to understand the passage and especially its peculiar and anomalous features.
In what follows, I shall argue that the woman in the story was engaged in the consummation of xwēdōdah (Av. xvaētuuadaθa), which is said in the Pahlavi texts to refer to marital unions between father and daughter, mother and son, or siblings, and to be one of the most pious and righteous acts possible. The role of xwēdōdah in the Zoroastrian penitential system—and particularly the idea that the consummation of xwēdōdah cancels the effects of a death sentence—will serve to illuminate several aspects of this cryptic passage. The penitential procedures prescribed in the Pahlavi texts, furthermore, will shed light on the penitential encounter that purportedly took place between Rav Hisda and the sinner.
Considering the legal and theological importance of xwēdōdah in Zoroastrianism, it would seem somewhat unlikely that the authors and transmitters of this story would discuss a case of incest between mother and son without having the Zoroastrian doctrine somewhere in their thoughts. While the rabbis address the matter of incestuous relations in several other contextsFootnote 16—namely, in their discussions of the Levitical abominations,Footnote 17 in their discussions of the Noahide laws of incest,Footnote 18 in their exegetical treatments of biblical stories relating to incest,Footnote 19 and even in enigmatic and playful riddles concerning incestuous unionsFootnote 20—in this passage the Babylonian Talmud relates an unprecedented story of incest between mother and son that purportedly took place in Sasanian Babylonia and that involved the ruling of a prominent rabbinic authority. The subsequent analysis of this passage against the backdrop of the Zoroastrian material is intended to unearth the underlying Zoroastrian connections in the story, and to elucidate the various ways in which the redactors of this talmudic passage engage, and react to, the Zoroastrian doctrine of xwēdōdah.
It is possible, of course, that the story preserves some form of historical kernel, perhaps even the memory of an actual encounter that took place in the third century. In pursuit of historical reconstructions of this sort, one may reach the conclusion that the clash between Rav Hisda's position and the confessor's expectations reflects a broader tension between resistant and acculturated currents among Babylonian Jewry in the early Sasanian period. Alternatively, the story may be reflective primarily of the world of its transmitters and redactors, in which case it would teach us more about the rabbis of the late Sasanian period who envisioned such an encounter. One way or another, the Zoroastrian background of the story must be elucidated in any attempt to appreciate its broader historical significance.
Internal Difficulties and Anomalies
The present attempt to uncover the Iranian context of a talmudic narrative is informed by recent studies that have illustrated the indispensability of the Iranian component in the study of the Babylonian Talmud.Footnote 21 We are often reminded, however, in the context of the comparative study of rabbinic literature that one ought to be sensitive to the internal dynamics of a text before seeking to contextualize it within a broader cultural framework.Footnote 22 While I tend to agree with this methodological precaution, I must stress that, when a talmudic text displays inherent anomalies that cannot be explained in a satisfactory manner within its immediate rabbinic context, it often displays broader concerns reflected in adjacent cultures. The passage under discussion is thus not only cryptic and puzzling, but also displays anomalous and atypical anxieties, a fact that supports the likelihood of the rabbis’ engagement with broader cultural concerns.Footnote 23
Before I turn to the extra-rabbinic evidence to elucidate the passage, I shall first discuss the internal difficulties and questions it raises. First, the idea of “penitential death”Footnote 24 (death that functions as part of the penitential process and not in the context of criminal procedure) and the notion that death is, at times, the “last resort” of penitence available for certain sins, although anticipated in earlier rabbinic literature,Footnote 25 is particularly emphasized in the talmudic discussion of b. ῾Abod. Zar. 17a. Besides the confession story, in which Rav Hisda declares that the sinner must die in order to repent, the notion of penitential death surfaces again in the adjacent narrative about the repentance of Elazar b. Dordya. In this context, Elazar realizes that there is no “way out” from the sins he has committed, comes to terms with the fact that he must die in order to repent, and eventually embraces his penitential death willingly. In our passage, by contrast, the sinner learns about her penance only from her encounter with Rav Hisda. In other words, a religious authority is not involved in the penitential death of Elazar, while Rav Hisda figures prominently in the penitential death of the confessor.
Second, the disclosure of one's sins in the presence of a rabbi and his involvement in the specific penitential procedures that ought to be inflicted on the sinner appear to be somewhat anomalous in the broader context of rabbinic discourse on repentance. Although the rabbis have much to say about confession,Footnote 26 sinners are normally encouraged to conceal their sins from other human beings and reveal them only to God.Footnote 27 It is not entirely clear why the sinner approaches Rav Hisda in the first place, but in the context of the broader talmudic discussion on penitence, it seems that this scene is perceived by the redactors as reflecting the disclosure of one's sins to a religious authority in order to receive some sort of penitential guidance.Footnote 28
Third, in the course of her exchange with Rav Hisda the sinner describes the sin of having incestuous intercourse with her son as the “lightest” of her crimes. It is likely that this expression is only meant as hyperbole so as to emphasize the severity of the other sins she has committed. However, in light of contemporary Zoroastrian rhetoric, which describes the performance of xwēdōdah as the “greatest” of all religious acts (see below), it is possible to view this expression as a response to the same type of rhetoric. After all, even if the Talmud wishes to convey the message that this woman was guilty of other grievous crimes—perhaps even the sin of minut as suggested by the anonymous redactors—it is difficult to imagine any other crime in light of which sexual copulation between mother and son might be termed a “light” offense. One should be reminded in this regard of the Levitical verses that stipulate that “the man who lies with his father's wife has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.”Footnote 29 This sentence is interpreted by the rabbis as referring to death by stoning,Footnote 30 a punishment that is considered by most rabbis to be the most severe class of penalty issued in the entire punitive system.Footnote 31 Whichever laws this woman may have transgressed, the classification (however rhetorical) of sexual intercourse between mother and son as the “lightest of light sins” (
) is remarkable, even when it is placed in the mouth of an ignorant sinner.
Fourth, it is not altogether clear why the redactors assume that the woman in the story is not only a sexual deviant, but also guilty of minut. In fact, it is this underlying assumption, namely, that the woman must be guilty of minut, which makes the story relevant in the broader context of the talmudic discussion, which is centered on the possibility of penitence in the case of minut. While the story, in and of itself, contains no indication that the woman is in fact guilty of minut, the anonymous redactors place the story in a context that suggests that the sin of minut is at stake and, if that is not clear enough, the discussion straightforwardly concludes with the assertion that the woman is in fact guilty of minut.
In order to understand the supposed relevance of minut to the story, one must consider the two different versions in which the story is transmitted in the Babylonian Talmud. The first version of the story presumes—although the reason for this assumption is absent—that the woman is guilty of minut (along with her sexual crime) and therefore inquires why it is that she does not die in the course of her penitential endeavor given the general talmudic conviction that in order to repent for minut one must die in the process.
The seeming lack of any connection between the story itself and the sin of minut, which is discussed in the editorial stratum, resulted in several scribal attempts to emend the text. The New York ms initially contained the word 
(“from heresy,” “from idolatry”) in the original talmudic introduction to the story, but the word was crossed out (either by the same scribe or by another hand) and the word 
(“from [other] sins”) was written in the margin to replace it, thus shifting the focus of the inquiry to sins other than minut. In contrast, the Munich ms duplicates the talmudic deduction from the second version of the story, according to which the woman must be guilty of minut since she describes her sexual crime as relatively “light.” Although this clause may have redundantly been copied from the second version of the story, which does in fact contain this clause, it may also be a deliberate interpolation that is meant to account for the lack of explicit mention of minut in the first version of the story. However, the best extant textual witness for b. ῾Abod. Zar., namely the Paris ms, contains no such emendation, thus representing the lectio difficilior.
But, even according to the second version of the story, where the textual witnesses clearly contain the deduction—namely, that the woman must be guilty of minut since she describes her sexual crime as relatively “light”—the underlying logic is hardly convincing. The tension that exists between the internal message of the story and the objective of its incorporation into the broader talmudic discussion seems to reflect, therefore, a deliberate attempt on the part of the anonymous redactors to appropriate an otherwise unrelated rabbinic anecdote concerned with incest and connect it to the matter of penitence on account of minut.
An Early Rabbinic Interpretation
Before attempting to resolve these difficulties, I must first call attention to a parallel tradition that appears in Eccl. Rab. 1:8. While the extent to which the redactors of Eccl. Rab. incorporated Babylonian traditions is still debated,Footnote 32 in this case it is rather self-evident that the Eccl. Rab. account is based on the story in b. ῾Abod. Zar. 17a and not the other way around.
[There was a woman who came before R. [Eliezer] to convert. She said to him: “Rabbi, accept me!” He said to her: “Articulate your actions.” She said to him, “My younger son is from (= the issue of incestuous intercourse with) my older son.” He reproached her. She went to R. Yehoshua and he accepted her. His (= R. Yehoshua’s) students said to him: “R. Eliezer is distancing and you are bringing closer!?” He said to them: “Since she decided to convert she will never live, as it says: ‘Those who go to her will never come back,’ and if they do, ‘they will not regain the paths of life.’”]Footnote 33
This account is probably a hybrid of the confession story in b. ῾Abod. Zar. 17a and the genre known from b. Šabb. 31a of a potential convert to Judaism who is first rejected by the “strict” figure of Shammai and then accepted by the “soft” figure of Hillel. Indeed, both R. Eliezer, who is associated with the “school” of Shammai, and R. Yehoshua, who is associated with the “school” of Hillel, uphold the characteristics attributed to their predecessors in b. Šabb. 31a.
While the context of the woman's appearance before Rav Hisda in the Babylonian account remains ambiguous, in Eccl. Rab. the woman is presented not as a Jewish confessor, but as a non-Jewish woman who seeks to convert to Judaism. This shift is probably intended to explain the underlying connection between incest and minut exhibited in the original talmudic story. Since the talmudic deduction (that the woman must be guilty of minut since she describes her sexual crime as relatively “light”) is somewhat weak, the expression “the lightest of my light sins” is altogether omitted in the Eccl. Rab. version and instead the woman is portrayed as a convert. In other words, the confessional context of the Babylonian version was replaced by a conversion scene in order to explain the woman's engagement in “heresy.”
Although it is not impossible to interpret the Babylonian story along similar lines, as reflecting a conversion scene rather than a confessional encounter, it does not seem very likely that this was the intended reading. While the Babylonian Talmud contains other stories in which non-Jews are depicted as approaching rabbis in order to convert,Footnote 34 there is nothing in the terminology of b. ῾Abod. Zar. 17a to warrant such an interpretation. If conversion were at stake, we would expect the woman to say something like “convert me,” “accept me,” or “bring me under the wings of the divine presence.” But instead she simply announces, “My younger son is from my older son,” indicating the confession of her sins. In what follows, I will attempt to make sense of the Babylonian version of the story in light of its broader cultural context.
Confessing to a Religious Authority
To the best of my knowledge, the practice of disclosing one's sins to a religious authority, a practice comprising one of the basic doctrines of Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christianity,Footnote 35 is, for the most part, absent from the Jewish thought of late antiquity and the early medieval period, at least until the thirteenth century. The idea of disclosing one's sins to a sage or a religious authority is first advocated in a Jewish context by R. Yehudah Hehasid (“the pious”) in his ethical treatise Sefer Hasidim.Footnote 36 To emphasize the unusualness of this approach among Jewish writers, however, we should point out that even R. Yehudah Hehasid'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 disclosure of sins to a religious authority.Footnote 37
The regnant rabbinic position, according to which one ought to conceal one's sins from other people and reveal them only to God, underscores the isolation of the motif of disclosing sins in the presence of a rabbi in b. ῾Abod. Zar. 17a. While the context in which the woman appears before Rav Hisda remains somewhat obscure, it is evident from the broader talmudic backdrop that the scene is perceived by the redactors as reflecting voluntary disclosure of sins for the sake of “confession” and penitential guidance.Footnote 38 According to the version in Eccl. Rab., by contrast, the woman appears before the rabbi for the sake of conversion, while it is the rabbi who inquires about her actions. This (Palestinian) interpretation of the story, although placed in a similar penitential context, undermines the motif of voluntary and “confessional” disclosure of sins that characterizes the original Babylonian story. Before I examine the Zoroastrian notion of confession to a rad (religious authority) and the role of next-of-kin marriages in the Zoroastrian penitential system—a context that I believe to be the cultural and religious reality reflected in our passage—I would like to explore a Christian parallel to the talmudic story.Footnote 39
Michal Bar-Asher Siegal has recently called attention to several intriguing similarities between certain talmudic depictions of penitence and sayings and stories found in the Apophthegmata Patrum, the sayings of the Egyptian desert fathers.Footnote 40 Most notably, her analysis of the Elazar bar Dordya story in b. ῾Abod. Zar. 17a has unearthed significant affinities with the Christian genre of the repentant whore and the “Paesia” story found in the Apophthegmata in particular.Footnote 41
The Rav Hisda story is perhaps reminiscent of another tradition found in the Apophthegmata. The following anecdote is told about Abba Ammonas:
Abba Ammonas advanced to the point where his goodness was so great, he took no notice of wickedness. Thus, having become bishop, someone brought a young girl who was pregnant to him, saying: “See what this unhappy wretch has done; give her a penance.” But he, having marked the young girl's womb with the sign of the cross, commanded that six pairs of fine linen sheets should be given her, saying: “It is for fear that, when she comes to give birth, she may die, she or the child, and have nothing for the burial.” But her accusers resumed, “Why did you do that? Give her a punishment.” But he said to them: “Look, brothers, she is near to death. What am I to do?” Then he sent her away and no old man dared accuse anyone any more.Footnote 42
In both stories, a woman stands before a religious authority—a rabbi or an abba—in a penitential context. In both stories the sin involved consists of one form or another of fornication. And in both stories the religious authority orders the preparation of shrouds for the sinner, under the assumption that she is likely to die. Of course, the differences are likewise considerable. In the Talmud, the woman comes to the rabbi on her own initiative, while according to the monastic tradition the girl is brought to the abba.Footnote 43 The point of the monastic story, moreover, is to emphasize the goodness of the abba, who sees no evil in others. He orders the preparation of the shrouds as an act of charity, as the girl is pregnant and she or her baby might die in labor. It seems, however, that Abba Ammonas might be worried that the girl will die in labor precisely because of her sin, and not merely because of natural causes. If this interpretation is correct, then the abba is in fact envisioning the girl's death just as Rav Hisda does in the talmudic story.
Certain elements that are present in the rabbinic story or in its immediate talmudic context are absent from the monastic tradition. These elements include a voluntary disclosure of the sin to a religious authority; an unsuccessful attempt by the sinner to minimize the severity of her sins; incestuous relations between mother and son; and the concern with heresy.Footnote 44
In what follows I would like to suggest, therefore, that while the monastic tradition illuminates certain aspects of the talmudic story, our passage reflects, first and foremost, the Zoroastrian notion of penitence and confession to a rad, and the Zoroastrian doctrine of next-of-kin relations. Unlike the Elazar bar Dordya story that seems to reflect the monastic genre of stories about repenting harlots, I believe that the story of Rav Hisda and the penitent reflects a different cultural setting altogether. The peculiarities in the talmudic passage can be significantly illuminated when viewed against the backdrop of Pahlavi discourse on penitence and the role of next-of-kin relations in Zoroastrianism.
Confessing to a Rad
The significance of repentance in Zoroastrianism emerges already in the Young Avestan tradition and especially in the Videvdad.Footnote 45 The Pahlavi texts further discuss the details of the mental, verbal, and physical elements of the penitential process, namely remorse, verbal confession, commitment not to relapse into sin in the future, monetary compensation, and physical punishment.Footnote 46
According to the Pahlavi tradition, confession, contrition, and remorse must be performed in the presence of a rad and cannot be carried out in private.Footnote 47 A fundamental distinction is made, however, between sins committed against one's fellow humans and sins committed against one's soul, as only the latter require the presence of a rad:Footnote 48
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 fellowmen [hamēmāl] should be resolved among one's fellowmen. And a sin against one's soul should be resolved among the rads.And, also, if they do what the rads of the religious tradition [dēn] command, the sin goes away. And (the merit of) any good deed they perform thenceforth comes (to them) complete.]Footnote 49
ka-š wināh andar hamēmālān kerd estēd . . .
ā-š pēš hamēmālān pad patīt bawišn.
ud ka nē pēš ī radān pad patīt bawišn.
[If he has committed a sin against (his) fellowmen . . .
then he should be contrite before his fellowmen. And if not, then he should be contrite before the rads.]Footnote 50
The first of these passages addresses the element of monetary compensation, while the second addresses the element of contrition. Regarding both elements of penitence, the author makes it clear that only sins committed against one's soul require the presence of a rad, while sins involving wrongdoing against one's fellow humans must be resolved with the relevant party and compensation should be made to him or her. When sins are committed against the soul and must, therefore, be resolved in the presence of a rad, the penitential instructions of the rad must be scrupulously carried out.
Several Pahlavi texts address the question of who is worthy of accepting confession from sinners, emphasizing the spiritual responsibility associated with holding the position of rad. The following text instructs the rad (and perhaps also the offended party in cases of wrongdoing against one's fellow human) to listen carefully to the sinner and forbids the shaming of the sinner or the divulging of the sinner's 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 contrition (confesses) should listen to him well and should not despise himFootnote 51 and should not divulge his secrets.Footnote 52
For, if he despises (him) for the sins he has committed or divulges his secrets, he becomes just like him.]Footnote 53
Regarding the prohibition on divulging the confessor's secrets, a subsequent passage tells the story of Ādurbād, son of Zardušt, who appoints one of his students to accept confession from sinners. The student is not secretive enough, however, and divulges the secrets of his confessors. For his lack of secrecy, Ādurbād divests him of his newly acquired office and orders that he never appear before him again. Despite the student's genuine remorse, Ādurbād refuses to let him resume his status as confessional authority.Footnote 54
Another passage deals with the qualities required of a person who seeks to be appointed to a confessional office.Footnote 55 The text considers the person's knowledge of the Zand (the traditional translation and commentary on the Avesta), his knowledge of the punitive measures suitable for different types of sins, and the requirement of “grooming” himself (perhaps metaphorically or spiritually). There are some authorities, however, who also require the undertaking of priestly education in the hērbedestān (the official institution of priestly training), beyond mere knowledge of the Zand. These authorities seem to hold that only an “ordained” priest is authorized to accept confession, and not simply anyone who has extensive knowledge of the Zand.Footnote 56
The role of the rad in the penitential process is particularly emphasized in the case of offenders who are classified as margarzān (worthy of death). The category of margarzān represents the severest class of sin in the Pahlavi punitive system. While the term is not mentioned in the Avesta, it is often used by the Pahlavi glossators to explain the punitive class of tanābuhl (Av. tanu-perθa, “whose body is forfeit”). In some Pahlavi texts, however, the term margarzān designates a distinct class of sinFootnote 57 that is even severer than tanābuhl.Footnote 58
Whether it is possible to atone for a margarzān sin (with or without death) is somewhat of a puzzle since there are contradicting statements on the matter in the extant Pahlavi literature.Footnote 59 The following passage requires, in this regard, that margarzān sinners submit body and property solely to their rad for corporal and monetary punishment. If sinners indeed submit their body and property, fulfill the penitential instructions prescribed by the rad, and are remorseful in thought, they will not go to hell and the good deeds they perform prior to the sin will accrue to their account:
margarzān ka-š tan ud xwāstag ēwāz ō radān abespārd
ud pad wināh ī jastag menišnīg pad patīt bawēd
u-š radān pad kār ud kerbag dastwarīh dahēnd
ā-š kār ud kerbag ī pēš kerd abāz rasēd
ud ka andar 3-šabag pādifrāh kunēnd ō dōšox nē rasēd.
[A person who is margarzān (worthy of death), when he has given up body and property only to the rads and is in contrition in thought 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-night period (after his death), he will not go to hell.]Footnote 60
According to the following passages, the rad has the undisputed authority to order the death sentence for margarzān offenders and the sinners are not redeemed unless they fulfill the instructions of the rad and submit themselves to death:
ud agar rad sar brīdan framāyēd pad gyāg ahlaw.
ud sidōš ōh yazišn
u-š āmār ī sidōš abar nē bawēd.
[And, if the rad orders his head to be cut, he becomes ahlaw (righteous) on the spot, and a sidōš (the third dawn after the death ritual) should be celebrated (on his behalf), and the reckoning of the sidōš does not come upon him.]Footnote 61
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 ōzanēd
hād čē pad sūd ī Ohrmazd estēd.
[If he has committed a margarzān and is mentally contrite and the rad knows that, when he must give (over) his body, then he will give it (over). Is he authorized to kill him? Yes, because it is to Ohrmazd's benefit.]Footnote 62
Whether or not these passages reflect a custom that was actually practiced during the Sasanian period is unclear, but what can be said with some certainty is that, in the minds of the priests who composed and transmitted these traditions, the process of penitence was not complete until the sinner had confessed his or her sins to a rad and followed the penitential instructions inflicted by the rad, even to the extent of acquiescing to one's own death.
Rav Hisda as Rad
Before I discuss the role of xwēdōdah in the Zoroastrian penitential system and its significance for the talmudic passage, I would like to contextualize the “confessional encounter,” in and of itself, with the Pahlavi treatment of penitence. My reading suggests that the Babylonian redactors of the story were familiar, in one way or another, with contemporaneous Zoroastrian penitential procedures. It makes no difference for the purposes of the present argument whether the procedures described in the Pahlavi works were actually practiced during the Sasanian period—and thus the Babylonian rabbis would have possibly witnessed those practices—or whether we are dealing with literary traditions with which the rabbis were somehow familiar. The fact of the matter is that the talmudic passage reflects crucial elements of the Zoroastrian discourse on penitence and, at the same time, is somewhat at odds with other rabbinic texts on repentance.
In light of the inconsistency of the confession story in b. ῾Abod. Zar. 17a with other rabbinic reports on penitence, I suspect that the Talmud is knowingly invoking the Zoroastrian backdrop of confession to a rad. While the story itself does not necessarily reflect a “confession scene,” it was the conscious choice of the redactors to incorporate this story into a broader discussion of repentance. In that respect, the authors seem to invoke the Zoroastrian notion of confessing to a rad by portraying the encounter between Rav Hisda and the sinner in a similar way: the rabbi listens to a confession, determines the penitential measures for the sin, and ultimately exercises his “authority” to announce the unavoidability of the sinner's death. While, in the limited context of the story itself, Rav Hisda may simply be assuming the devastating effects of a grievous sin, in the context of the broader talmudic discussion he is in fact determining that death is the only way to atone for the sins that were disclosed to him.
There are several points of similarity between the function of the rad in the Pahlavi penitential system and Rav Hisda's role in the talmudic story: 1) Rav Hisda, like a rad, is consulted with regard to a matter of penitence. 2) Rav Hisda foresees/predicts the death of the confessor, which means, according to the redactors, that death is the only penitential path available for the sins under consideration. Similarly, the rad has the undisputed authority to determine whether death is necessary for rectification. 3) Both Rav Hisda and the rad do not function as criminal judges in this equation, in the sense that a judge may issue a “death sentence” in a criminal context. Rav Hisda simply informs us that death is unavoidable if penitence is indeed desired. According to one version of the story, moreover, Rav Hisda's prediction of death is not fulfilled since the penitence is insincere. Similarly, Zoroastrians who commit sins against their souls are encouraged to approach a rad and submit their bodies to his authority. If the rad believes that a sinner has sincerely submitted his or her body he may decide that death is necessary. 4) As a rabbi, Rav Hisda's authority in the confession scene does not seem to depend on his spiritual or prophetic abilities but rather on the knowledge he possesses in the religious tradition. Similarly, the rad's authority to receive confession depends primarily on his religious knowledge—his ability to memorize the Zand, his knowledge of sins and punishments, and his priestly education. 5) The underlying assumption of both the talmudic and Zoroastrian discussions is that certain crimes—whether labeled margarzān or minut—are considered so severe that full rectification can only be achieved upon the sinner's death.
“Xwēdōdah Cancels a Margarzān”
I will now turn to the Zoroastrian doctrine of xwēdōdah, which underlies the incestuous encounter reported in the talmudic story. In this context, I will not attempt to survey all of the different aspects of this important Zoroastrian doctrine,Footnote 63 but mainly its role in the penitential system, as this issue in particular seems to inform the talmudic story.
Xwēdōdah is commonly mentioned in Pahlavi literature among the most righteous deeds in Zoroastrianism. The Mēnōy Xrād mentions xwēdōdah among the greatest deeds, alongside rādīh (generosity), rāstīh (truthfulness), the celebration of the gāhānbār festivals, and the recitation of the dēn (religious tradition).Footnote 64 The very same virtues and good deeds are mentioned by Kerdīr in his third-century inscription on the Kaʻba-ye Zardošt at Naqš-e Rostam near Persepolis.Footnote 65 Alongside his other religious achievements, Kerdīr mentions that he performed (kerd) xwēdōdahs.Footnote 66 Prods Oktor Skjærvø concludes that, although the inscription does not elaborate on the matter, it confirms the existence of the term and practice of xwēdōdah at the beginning of the third century.Footnote 67
If one accepts the basic historicity of the talmudic story, the Talmud may provide another important piece of evidence regarding the practice of xwēdōdah in the early Sasanian period, as Rav Hisda was more or less a contemporary of Kerdīr. Whether the woman in the story was a Zoroastrian who sought to convert to Judaism or an acculturated Jew, she was probably engaged in the consummation of xwēdōdah. One must keep in mind, however, that the third-century setting of the story may be fictitious, and the story may very well reflect the historical and cultural reality of the late Sasanian period and the time of the redaction of the Babylonian Talmud.
The Pahlavi Rivāyat Accompanying the Dādestān ī Dēnīg contains a somewhat different list of the greatest deeds in Zoroastrianism and accords the highest virtue to the performance of xwēdōdah:
gyāg-ēw paydāg kū ohrmazd bē ō zardušt guft kū čahār tis ēn pahlom
yazišn ī ohrmazd ī xwadāy
ud ātaxš ēsm ud bōy ud zōhr dādan
ud mard ī ahlaw šnāyēnīdan
ud kē abāg burdār ayāb duxt ayāb abāg xwah xwēdōdah kunēd
ud az ān hamāg ān meh ud weh ud pahlom kē xwēdōdah kunēd
[In one place (it is) revealed that Ohrmazd said to Zarathustra: “These (are) the four best things: worship of Ohrmazd, the Lord; and offering firewood and incense and oblation (to) the fire; and satisfying (the needs of) the priest; and he who practices xwēdōdah with (his) mother or daughter or with (his) sister. And of all those, he who practices xwēdōdah is greatest and best and foremost.”]Footnote 68
The second and third chapters of the Hērbedestān discuss the relative merit of different religious acts, such as going to the hērbedestān (the priestly “study-house”) in pursuit of priestly education and maintaining the family estate.Footnote 69 In one passage, the relative merit of xwēdōdah is contrasted with that of going to the hērbedestān:
kirbag az hērbedestān kerdan kirbag ōh bawēd nē ēdōn bawēd čiyōn xwēdōdah čē ēn dō tis ān tis ēw
ast kē ēdōn gōwēd hād ān-iz har dō ōh bawēd
ān and hērbedestān kerdan čiyōn yašt-ēw bē kerdan
[The merit from going to hērbedestān is a merit in the usual way. It is not like xwēdōdah, for the latter is two things, the former one thing. There is one who says: Well, both those, too, are in the usual way. Going to do priestly studies is as much as performing one yasna (worship, ritual).]Footnote 70
While this passage is somewhat ambiguous, there seems to be a dispute among the sages as to whether xwēdōdah is considered more meritorious than going to the hērbedestān in pursuit of priestly studies or whether they are equally meritorious.
In a list of advice ascribed to Zarathustra in Dēnkard 5.9.13–14, xwēdōdah is mentioned as one of the foremost ways to veil severe sins. Here, xwēdōdah is not only regarded as meritorious but is also believed to counter the effects of sin:
ud abārīg ī padīrag ān ī abar wināh guft paydāg
andar hudēnīh āstuwānīh pad-iz yašt kardan andarrōn ēd sē āstūwānīh ī ast ērīh hudēnīh ud yašt kardan xwēdōdah ud abestāg yaštan ud gāhānbār ud abārīg ptw’l (?) ī yazdān
[And (as for) the rest (of the merits) that veil the worst sins it is said (that the following are) manifest: believing in the good dēn [religious tradition] and (believing) in the performance of sacrifices—in which there are these three beliefs: in Iranian-ness, in the good dēn, and in the performance of sacrifices—xwēdōdah, the performing (reciting) of the Avesta and the gāhānbār, and the rest of the . . . of the Gods.]Footnote 71
In another Pahlavi text it is taught that xwēdōdah obliterates the effects of a margarzān offense. According to a tradition preserved in ŠnŠ 8.18, despite the severity of margarzān sins, the consummation of xwēdōdah is considered so meritorious and praiseworthy that it utterly cancels the effects of a margarzān. This notion is particularly illuminating in the context of the talmudic story. While the Pahlavi texts maintain that xwēdōdah cancels a death-deserving sin, Rav Hisda seems to maintain that incestuous intercourse between mother and son is precisely the type of sin that causes the death of the offender. The implications of this juxtaposition will be further appreciated below.
Narseh-burzmihr ēn wāzag sē guft kū
xwēdōdah margarzān bē kanēd. . .
[Narseh-burzmihr said the following three things: xwēdōdah cancels a margarzān (sin) . . .]Footnote 72
A similar notion is expressed in the anonymous Pahlavi Rivāyat Accompanying the Dādestān ī Dēnīg:
ēn-iz kū xwēdōdah ēdōn abd ī ān ī garāntom wināh čiyōn jādūgīh ī margarzān bōxtišn az dōšox
[This also (is revealed), that xwēdōdah is so miraculous, it is the salvation from hell (from) the most grievous sin, such as death-deserving sorcery.]Footnote 73
In light of the Zoroastrian doctrine according to which the consummation of xwēdōdah functions as a means of penance that cancels the effects of a death-deserving crime, I would like to propose that the talmudic story functions as a rabbinic “counternarrative” to the merit associated with xwēdōdah in Zoroastrianism. While in the Pahlavi texts the consummation of the righteous and pious act of xwēdōdah prevents the death of a sinner, in the talmudic story the performance of incest is precisely what brings Rav Hisda to order the preparation of the sinner's shrouds. The very same act of mother-son sexual engagement that is considered to be so meritorious in the Zoroastrian tradition—to the extent of preventing the lethal effects of a crime worthy of death—becomes the source of death for the sinner in the talmudic narrative.
In the Talmud, the sinner does not acknowledge the severity of her sin, but maintains that her sin is the “lightest of light sins.” If this is not merely a literary flourish, it is tempting to speculate that the sinner is portrayed as an acculturated Jewish woman who simply acts in accordance with the norms of her Zoroastrian environment. It may be the case that the sinner genuinely does not understand why the rabbis are making such a fuss over her “natural” sexual preferences.Footnote 74 The Talmud thus conveys a sense of disproportion between the “Jewish” attitude towards incest reflected in Rav Hisda's response and the partially “Zoroastrian” attitude reflected by the lay confessor. The latter seems to understand that in the context of her religious tradition, incest is not a merit—after all she is confessing a sinFootnote 75—but she fails to appreciate the severity of the act in the religious hierarchy of sins.
It is possible, although far from certain, that the story preserves some form of historical kernel, perhaps even the memory of a real encounter that took place in the third century. If this is the case, the clash between Rav Hisda's position and the confessor's expectations may reflect the tensions that existed between resistant and acculturated Babylonian Jews in the early Sasanian period. It seems more likely, however, that the story reflects, first and foremost, the concerns of its creators and editors, in which case the story would tell us more about the rabbis of the late Sasanian period who imagined such an encounter. But even if the confessor and her incestuous story are merely figments of the rabbis’ imaginations, her character is typologically constructed as a way to engage the problem of Jewish acculturation to Zoroastrian norms.
The performance of xwēdōdah by a Zoroastrian is compared in the Pahlavi texts to the conversion of an infidel and his return to the good religious tradition (dēn). This notion seems to illuminate the connection made in the Babylonian Talmud between repenting from minut and incest. While the Pahlavi texts compare the merit of xwēdōdah with the merit of repenting and turning from the evil religion to Zoroastrianism, the Babylonian Talmud implicitly connects the sin of incest with the inexpiable sin of minut.
ud ag-dēn-ēw kerbag ēn meh ka az dād ī ag-dēnīh bē ō weh-dēn āyēd
ud weh-dēn pas az ān ka-š yašt kard kerbag-ēw ēn meh ka xwēdōdah kunēd
čē ān xwēdōdahīh rāy kū ēdōn arzōmand ud sahīg ud mahist zanišn ī dēwān
[And (for) an infidel this (is) the greatest virtue, if he comes from the law of evil religion to the good religion; and (for) the man of the good religion, after he has performed worship, this (is) the greatest virtue, if he performs xwēdōdah, for on account of that xwēdōdah, which (is) so valuable and worthy and very great, (there is) the smiting of demons.]Footnote 76
Above, I questioned the logic of the talmudic inference, according to which if incest is the lightest of the confessor's crimes then she must have also been guilty of minut. This deduction is hardly necessary and assumes, rather arbitrarily, that minut is worse than sexual abominations. The Zoroastrian context provides us, I believe, with the solution to this puzzle. The reason the Talmud assumes that the confessor is guilty of minut is not because of some obscure deduction suggesting that the confessor must have done something worse than incest. In contrast to this understanding of the passage, I propose that the reason minut is assumed (
) has to do with the fact that the confessor acts as a perfectly righteous Zoroastrian. In other words, the fact that the confessor refers to her incestuous engagement in such a relaxed manner suggests that she is a Zoroastrian or an acculturated Jew who complies with Zoroastrian norms.Footnote 77 The reason, then, that the redactors incorporated this confessional anecdote in the first place into a discussion concerning minut is precisely because of the Zoroastrian features displayed in the story, suggesting that minut is at stake.
To be sure, the connection assumed between incest and minut in the talmudic story appears to engage the Pahlavi context in an even more significant way, as the Pahlavi texts explicitly compare the merit of xwēdōdah with the merit of turning away from heresy. Just as the conversion of an infidel to Zoroastrianism “wipes off every bad thought, every bad word, every bad deed,”Footnote 78 so does the performance of xwēdōdah for a Zoroastrian.Footnote 79 When read against this backdrop, the Babylonian Talmud seems to maintain the very same doctrinal connection between incest and conversion from heresy, but the message is diametrically opposed. Incest is indeed akin to heresy, as in both cases the ability to repent from sin is compromised.
Finally, I would like to suggest that the particular form of incest addressed in the talmudic story (namely, that of mother and son) can also be illuminated by the Pahlavi discourse of xwēdōdah. Several Pahlavi texts maintain that of all forms of xwēdōdah (father-daughter, mother-son, and brother-sister) the one performed between mother and son is considered the most righteous and meritorious. The following passage explains the superiority of mother-son incest by alluding to the fact that they are most closely connected, as the son comes directly from the mother's body:Footnote 80
ēn-iz paydāg kū
mard-ēw ka xwēdōdah ēk abāg burdār ud ēk abāg zahag-duxt, ān ī abāg burdār abar ōy ī did
radān gōwēnd ēd rāy čē-š ān ī az tan bē āmad nazdīktar
[This also is manifest: When a man practices one xwēdōdah with his mother, and one with his child-daughter, the one with (his) mother is superior to the other; the spiritual authorities say it is because he who has come from her body is nearer (to her).]Footnote 81
The following text also underscores the importance and significance of mother-son copulation in the Pahlavi tradition:
ud ān ī az pus ud mādar zāyēd brād-iz bawēd ham pidar ēd rāh ī wēš rāmišn ī niyāyišn ī urwāhm nē [ud agar] padiš ēč ziyān ī frāy az sūd ī nē-iz āhōg ī frāy az hučihr
[And if it is a child born from a son and his mother, he is also the father's brother. This is the road to more joy and bliss. And there is no harm from it greater than the benefits from it, nor any blemish greater than the beauty of it.]Footnote 82
It is illuminating to compare the significance of mother-son xwēdōdah in the Pahlavi sources with the Talmud's choice to focus on mother-son incest. In contrast to the Pahlavi sources, which view this type of xwēdōdah as the “greatest form of the greatest merit,” the Talmud views this type of relationship as one of the greatest sins possible, and associates it with minut. The expression the “lightest of light sins” attributed to the confessing sinner, although possibly rhetorical hyperbole, may also be a playful counterargument to the Zoroastrian doctrine.
Conclusions
Nearly a decade ago, Eli Ahdut devoted a short discussion in his article on Jewish-Zoroastrian polemics to a passage from b. Yebam. 97b containing enigmatic riddles pertaining to incestuous unions.Footnote 83 According to Ahdut, the riddles were intended as a polemical device against the Zoroastrian practice of xwēdōdah. While his interpretation of the riddles as a means of confrontation can be questioned,Footnote 84 I generally agree with him that the talmudic riddles, which are completely absent from Palestinian works, reflect awareness on the part of the Babylonian rabbis of the Zoroastrian doctrine of xwēdōdah.
The encounter of Rav Hisda and the confessor in b. ῾Abod. Zar. 17a provides us with yet another example of Babylonian rabbinic engagement with the doctrine of xwēdōdah. The playful and subtle connections demonstrated in this context suggest that the creators and redactors of the talmudic narrative were not only aware of the practice of xwēdōdah, but were also familiar with important aspects of Zoroastrian doctrinal discourse.
On the one hand, the passage can be read as a counternarrative or even a disguised polemic against the Zoroastrian practices of penitence and next-of-kin relations. On the other hand, the passage seems to engage certain aspects of the Zoroastrian model of penitence in a non-critical manner, applying this model to the encounter of Rav Hisda and the penitent. The story thus reveals a nuanced and multifaceted approach towards Zoroastrian doctrine that does not seem to fit neatly into the classifying rubrics of reception or resistance.
Regardless of the polemical or receptive nature of the passage, the fascinating Irano-talmudic connections displayed in this context reveal the fruitfulness of a contextual and synoptic study of the Babylonian Talmud against the backdrop of Pahlavi literature. Be the nature of the intercultural contact as it may, the talmudic passage can be significantly illuminated by its juxtaposition with the Zoroastrian notion of confession to a rad, the role of the rad in determining the penitential requirements for sins deserving death, the significance of incestuous relations in the Zoroastrian penitential system, the idea that xwēdōdah cancels a death sentence, and the fascinating connections between incest and heresy.
