I. Genesis and the Symposium
Elliot Kukla, NYT, March 18, 2023. "Ancient Judaism Recognized a Range of Genders. It’s Time We Did, Too."
In fact, Judaism sees us [transgenders] as so ancient that according to one fifth-century interpretation of the Bible, the very first human being, Adam, was actually an androgynos. This explains why Genesis says, “And God created humankind in the divine image, creating it in the image of God,” referring to Adam, the first person, with a singular pronoun. But then, the very same verse says: “creating them male and female.” (1:27). “Them,” in this ancient interpretation, also refers to Adam: a single person who is both male and female. In other words, in this reading of the creation story, the first human being is described with a singular “they” pronoun to express the multiplicity of their gender.
creating it in the image of God—
creating them male and female.
זכר ונקבה ברא אותם MALE AND FEMALE CREATED HE THEM — And further on (Genesis 2:21) it is said: “and He took one of his ribs etc.” (The two passages appear to be contradictory.) But according to a Midrashic explanation, He created him at first with two faces, and afterwards He divided him. But the real sense of the verse is: here it tells you that both of them were created on the sixth day, but it does not explain to you how their creation took place; this it explains to you in another place (Genesis Rabbah 8:1 and see Eruvin 18a) .
אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבָּרָא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶת אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס בְּרָאוֹ, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (בראשית ה, ב): זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בְּרָאָם. אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבָּרָא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶת אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, דְּיוּ פַּרְצוּפִים בְּרָאוֹ, וְנִסְּרוֹ וַעֲשָׂאוֹ גַּבִּים, גַּב לְכָאן וְגַב לְכָאן. אֲתִיבוּן לֵיהּ וְהָכְתִיב (בראשית ב, כא): וַיִּקַּח אַחַת מִצַּלְעֹתָיו, אֲמַר לְהוֹן מִתְּרֵין סִטְרוֹהִי, הֵיךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (שמות כו, כ): וּלְצֶלַע הַמִּשְׁכָּן, דִּמְתַרְגְּמִינַן וְלִסְטַר מַשְׁכְּנָא וגו'.
(1) ... Said R’ Yirmiyah ben Elazar: In the hour when the Holy One created the first human, He created him [as] an androgyne/androginos, as it is said, “male and female He created them”. Said R’ Shmuel bar Nachmani: In the hour when the Holy One created the first human, He created [for] him a double-face/di-prosopon/ du-par’tsufin, and sawed him and made him backs, a back here and a back [t]here, as it is said, “Back/achor and before/qedem You formed me” [Ps 139:5]. They objected to him: But it says, “He took one of his ribs/ts’la`ot . . . ” [Gn 2:21]! He said to them: [It means] “[one] of his sides/sit’rohi”, just as you would say, “And for the side/tsela` of the Tabernacle/ mishkan” [Ex 26:20], which they translate [in Aramaic] “for the side/seter”.
δεῖ δὲ πρῶτον ὑμᾶς μαθεῖν τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν καὶ τὰ παθήματα αὐτῆς. ἡ γὰρ πάλαι ἡμῶν φύσις οὐχ αὑτὴ ἦν ἥπερ νῦν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀλλοία. πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ τρία ἦν τὰ γένη τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, οὐχ ὥσπερ νῦν δύο, ἄρρεν καὶ θῆλυ, ἀλλὰ καὶ τρίτον προσῆν κοινὸν ὂν ἀμφοτέρων τούτων, οὗ νῦν ὄνομα λοιπόν, αὐτὸ δὲ ἠφάνισται· ἀνδρόγυνον γὰρ ἓν τότε μὲν ἦν καὶ εἶδος καὶ ὄνομα ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων κοινὸν τοῦ τε ἄρρενος καὶ θήλεος, νῦν δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἐν ὀνείδει ὄνομα κείμενον. ἔπειτα ὅλον ἦν ἑκάστου τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τὸ
εἶδος στρογγύλον, νῶτον καὶ
πλευρὰς κύκλῳ ἔχον, χεῖρας δὲ τέτταρας εἶχε, καὶ σκέλη τὰ ἴσα ταῖς χερσίν, καὶ πρόσωπα δύ᾽ ἐπ᾽ αὐχένι κυκλοτερεῖ, ὅμοια πάντῃ· κεφαλὴν δ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἀμφοτέροις τοῖς προσώποις ἐναντίοις κειμένοις μίαν, καὶ ὦτα τέτταρα, καὶ αἰδοῖα δύο, καὶ τἆλλα πάντα ὡς ἀπὸ τούτων ἄν τις εἰκάσειεν.
Plato Symposium 189d et seq. Aristophanes: "...In the first place, let me treat of the nature of man and what has happened to it; for the original human nature was not like the present, but different. The sexes were not two as they are now, but originally three in number; there was man, woman, and the union of the two, having a name corresponding to this double nature, which had once a real existence, but is now lost, and the word "Androgynous" is only preserved as a term of reproach. In the second place, the primeval man was round, his back and sides forming a circle; and he had four hands and four feet, one head with two faces....
Now the sexes were three, and such as I have described them... Terrible was their might and strength, and the thoughts of their hearts were great, and they made an attack upon the gods... Doubt reigned in the celestial councils. Should they kill them and annihilate the race with thunderbolts, as they had done the giants, then there would be an end of the sacrifices and worship which men offered to them; but, on the other hand, the gods could not suffer their insolence to be unrestrained.
At last, after a good deal of reflection, Zeus discovered a way. He said: "Methinks I have a plan which will humble their pride and improve their manners; men shall continue to exist, but I will cut them in two and then they will be diminished in strength and increased in numbers; this will have the advantage of making them more profitable to us. ... After the division the two parts of man, each desiring his other half, came together, and throwing their arms about one another, entwined in mutual embraces, longing to grow into one...
Each of us when separated, having one side only, like a flat fish, is but the indenture of a man, and he is always looking for his other half. Men who are a section of that double nature which was once called Androgynous are lovers of women; adulterers are generally of this breed, and also adulterous women who lust after men: the women who are a section of the woman do not care for men, but have female attachments; the female companions are of this sort. But they who are a section of the male follow the male, and while they are young, being slices of the original man, they hang about men and embrace them, and they are themselves the best of boys and youths, because they have the most manly nature.
II. The Seder and the Symposium
Background Question: Jewish (and Christian) sources often place Judaism in contrast with Greco-Roman culture. They portray the Greeks and Romans as barbaric, hedonistic, and uncultured and the Jews as more civilized and educated. Do the Jewish sources oversimplify or exaggerate?
Where does the Seder Come From?
The Torah gives the above Mitzvot for remembering Pesach, but doesn't prescribe the Seder. There was no fixed Seder format until about 150 CE. Earlier sources such as Philo, Josephus, and the New Testament reference Kiddush and Hallel but not the in depth Seder that later developed.
The Greco-Roman symposium (literally, drinking together) did have specified rules. Plato's Symposium is the most famous from the classical era. Xenophon has his own version of the Socratic symposium. Several centuries later, Hellenistic authors like Plutarch and Athenaeus set forth a specific format and specific practices that are proper for a symposium.
The Classical Symposium
As in other cultures, the formal meal (where one hosted and entertained guests, and at which one “dined” rather than simply “ate”[1]) developed into a classical Greek social institution. The classical Greek banquet took place in the evening, and its diners would eat while reclining on couches arranged in a prescribed manner. Hosts would issue invitations (e.g., at Symposium 174a), which themselves also followed a specified format, at least in the Hellenistic era.[2]
Tabory 369:
הקדומה - אפלטון נתן לנו תיאור יפה של סימפוזיון מן הסוג הקדום בתארו סימפוזיון שהשתתף בו סוקרטס . אחרי הסעודה , דנו המסובים באהבה וכל אחד מן המסובים נשא נאום על אספקט אחר של הנושא " . היתה גם מטרה חינוכית לסימפוזיון כזה . אתינאיוס מספר שהכרתים נהגו , אחרי סעודתם , לשוחח על ענייני מדינה ועל מעשי גבורה כדי לעודד את הצעירים להיות גיבורים . צורה זאת קדומה בהרבה לאפלטון . כבר באיליאד מצאנו שעורכים דיונים אחרי הסעודה " . ברם , אפלטון הוא שהמציא את הסימפוזיון בצורה ספרותית . בן זמנו , קסנופון , התחרה אתו ונתן לנו תיאור של סימפוזיון אחר שהשתתף בו סוקרטס . בשני התיאורים , היסוד הדמיוני גדול בהם מן הניסיון לתאר סעודה שהתרחשה במציאות , אבל סעודות אלה יכלו להתקיים כפי שתוארו .
Since Plato, a literary species, the so-called Symposia, had developed in which a description was given of a banquet held by a few learned men who had met at a friend’s house to discuss scientific, philosophical, ethical, aesthetical, grammatical, dietetic and religious themes over a glass, and very often over a barrel of wine, after they had dined together. Plutarch, one of the most famous contributors to [this] literature, summarizes earlier practice and theory in the following manner: “A symposium is a communion of serious and mirthful entertainment, discourse and actions.” It is meant to further “a deeper insight into those points that were debated at table, for the remembrance of those pleasures which arise from meat and drink is not genteel and short-lived, but the subjects of philosophical queries and discussions remain always fresh after they have been imparted, and they are relished by those who were absent as well as by those who were present at dinner”. (Stein article.)
People held symposiums for various reasons: birthdays, victory celebrations, religious festival, or just to have a dinner party with their friends.
[1] Dennis Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early Christian World. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003, p. 13.
[2] Smith 23.
Over the centuries, various writers and thinkers in the Greco-Roman world further developed the sympotic theme both as a literary genre and as a social and intellectual institution. Literary accounts of symposia often employed stock characters, like the late-arriving guest, and stock topoi, like an argument among a symposium’s participants that triggers a philosophical conversation.[1] Different Athenian philosophical schools also employed the symposium as a setting and a structure for scholarly discourse on important subjects.[2] Centuries later, Plutarch and Athenaeus authored lengthy works detailing symposia they participated in, and presented specific structural guidelines, including topics of discussion that a proper symposium should follow.
[1] Dennis Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early Christian World. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003, p. 49.
[2] Smith, pp. 50-51.
The symposium that Plato presented became a popular archetype in Greek and Roman letters, both in literature and philosophical writings.[1] Over the centuries, different writers, thinkers, and communities employed the symposium format in a variety of directions. Greek thinkers and novelists often portrayed the symposium in an idealistic way, in an attempt to aggrandize Greek high culture and tradition, and dignity.[2] Other circles adopted, adapted, and subverted the format. Some, like Petronius, satirized the philosophical banquet for literary purposes or as a commentary on the social issues of their day.
[1] J.R. Morgan, “Petronius and Greek Literature.” In Jonathan Prag and Ian Repath, eds., Petronius: A Handbook, Malden, MA, 2009, p. 38.
[2] Jason König, Saints and Symposiasts: The Literature of Food and the Symposium in Greco-Roman and Early Christian Culture. Cambridge University Press, 2012, pp. 269-272.
The symposium meal likewise followed a prescribed “order.” Guests would enter the dining room, remove their shoes, recline, and wash their hands for the meal. The meal itself originally consisted of two courses, the δειπνον, or main meal, followed by the συμποσιον/convivium, or drinking party. In the Roman era, the banquets added an appetizer course at the beginning. After the δειπνον, servants would remove the dinner tables, sweep the floor and bring out water for another round of hand-washing. The symposiasts would then offer a libation of unmixed wine (in contrast to the well-mixed wine that the symposiasts themselves would drink) and sing a paean, or hymn, to a god, typically Zeus or Dionysus, or multiple deities and heroes.[1]
A symposium’s host would set the menu and the guest list, and seat the guests according to their social rank, beginning with the banquet’s “guest of honor” and following in rank to this guest’s right. At the outset, the participants would select a “symposiarch” to run the banquet’s proceedings, and to determine, for example, how big the portions of wine should be and how much water should be used to mix with it.[2] During the drinking party, guests typically played games, watched entertainers like flute-girls (as in Plato), as well as dancers and acrobats (as in Xenophon).[3]
While many accounts of symposia, like the Cena Trimalchionis, describe excessive drinking and other immoderate behavior, this was not necessarily the norm or an integral element of the symposium. In Plato’s Symposium 176e, the participants dismiss the flute-player so they can focus on their philosophical discourse. Plutarch later devoted a sympotic discussion to this very passage from Plato and asserted that an ideal symposium consists of serious discussion within a pleasurable setting.[4] Athenaeus, Pliny the Younger, and Cicero similarly describe banquets featuring scholarly conversation with appropriate entertainment and activities in the background.[5]
Adaptions in the Hellenistic and Roman Eras
Tabory, 369-371.
צורת ביניים - שלב ביניים בהתפתחות הצורה הסימפוזיונית אנחנו מוצאים במשתאות של פלוטרכוס (46-119 CE) . סימפוזיוניות שהתקיימו בהזדמנויות שונות . הוא מעיר שהנושאים המתאימים במיוחד לסימפוזיון הם אלה הלקוחים מן ההיסטוריה שאחדים מן הנושאים האלה מלמדים על הפילוסופיה ורבים מהם על הצדקות ; אחדים יוצרים התלהבות למעשי גבורה , אחרים למעשי חסד ונדיבות לב ....
למעשה , למרות דבריו אלה , רוב השיחות שלו נסבו על ענייני סעודה כגון סדר הישיבה ותפקידי מדריך הסעודה ; היין והפרחים בסעודה; האורחים והמוזיקה בסעודה ; ושאלות דומות . תכונה אחרת של הסימפוזיון הפלוטרכי היא , שלעתים קרובות נושא השיחה קשור למאורע שקרה כמסגרת הסעודה או למאכל שהוגש בה . שורשי תכונה זו מצויים כבר בסימפוזיון הסוקרטי המתואר על-ידי קסנופון. כאשר הביאו את הכוס השני ,סוקרטס העיר על חשיבות היין . אבל שם זה נשאר בגדר הערה ואילו אצל פלוטרכוס , דברים כאלה מהווים נושא מרכזי של השיחה
. נציין דוגמאות אחדות . ( א ) אחד האורחים שבא בתחילת הסעודה נעלב ויצא כשנדמה היה לו שלא הושב במקום הראוי לפי כבודו . דבר זה גרר אחריו שיחה ארוכה על המקומות החשובים וסדר החשיבות . ( ב ) עם סילוק השולחן העירו על הנוהג להשאיר עליו אוכל ולא להוציאו ריק , ועל מנהג אחר שלא לכבות את הנר ונושאים אלה שימשו לשיחה " . ( ג ) קול ההמון שנשמע מחוץ לבית בשעת הסעודה גרר אחריו דיון על השאלה : מדוע הקולות נשמעים יותר טוב בלילה מביום ?
והנה דוגמאות אחדות למאכלים שהובאו לשולחן שהיוו אחר-כך נושא לדיון : ( א ) בשר לא טרי הביא לדיון על הגורמים המעודדים והמונעים את ריקבון הבשר " ובשר רך הביא לדיון על דברים המרכבים את
הבשר . ( ב ) פעם אחת , כשהביאו את היין לשולחן , התעורר ויכוח אם צריך לסנן את
היין לפני הבאתו לשולחן .
בתכונה אחת הסימפוזיון הפלוטרכי עדיין דומה לצורה הקדומה . כמו אצל סוקרטס , הסימפוזיון נערך
אחרי הסעודה - בשעת השתייה .
Plutarch set forth two requirements for a symposium worthy of the name, specifically that participants discuss suitable topics and that they undertake their discussions following a prescribed manner and format. Proper discussion topics, or συμποτικα, included those relating to the banquet itself, such as whether a host should pre-arrange where his guests sit[6] as well as unrelated topics of discussion, such as why the letter alpha comes first in the alphabet.[7] Plutarch further prescribes that sympotic discussions should be organized and useful, and that speakers should be entertaining, but also instructive, giving the group lessons on courage, charity, and proper behavior. He states that frivolity and drunkenness do not have a place at a proper symposium.[8]
[1] Smith 27-31. Plato, Symposium, 176a. Xenophon, Symposium, 2.1.
[2] Smith 33-34.
[3] Smith 33-36.
[4] Plutarch, Quaestiones Conviviales, 7.7.
[5] Smith, pp. 36-38. Ath. 5.186a, Pliny the Younger Ep. 3.5.13, and Cic. Sen. 13.45-14.46.
[6] Plutarch, Quaestiones Conviviales, 1.2.
[7] Plutarch, Quaestiones Conviviales, 9.2.
[8] Smith, pp. 53-54.
Tabory 371-372 on Athanaeus (late 100s - early 200s CE) The Deipnosophistae
בצורה מפותחת ומוגזמת ביותר אנחנו מוצאים את הסימפוזיון הספרותי ב"חכמי המשתה" של אתינאיוס שפעל בסביבות 200 לסה"נ . הקווים המאפיינים את הסימפוזיון של אתינאיוס הם : [ ; רובן הגדול של השיחות אינו מוסר דעות מקוריות של אומריהן אלא מצטט מסופרים ומשוררים קדומים מה שהם אמרו על הנושאים הנדונים . קו זה הוא בהתאם לאופיו הכללי של הספר , שמחברו הוא מלקט , ואינו משתדל
להיות מקורי .
כל השאלות , עד כמה שאני יודע , ללא יוצא מן הכלל , מתעוררות סביב דברים שמתרחשים בשעת הסעודה או בקשר למאכלים המובאים לשולחן . למשל : כשהעבדים מגישים את המנות , דמוקריטס מתחיל לצטט קטעים מתוך הספרות העתיקה על עבדים והלכות עבדים " . הבאת מים אחרונים לשולחן
עוררה דיון על נטילתכל הבאת מים אחרונים לשולחן עוררה דיון על נטילת
ידיים , על ההבדלים בין מים ראשונים למים אחרונים , ועל סבון ומגבות . אשר למאכלים , נציין כדוגמא קיצונית , שהבאת דגים לשולחן עוררה דיון על דגים שתפס רובם של הספר השביעי והשמיני .
הקו השלישי הוא חדש אצל אתינאיוס והוא שהשיחה מתקיימת ממש בשעת המאורע או כשהמאכלים נמצאים על השולחן . התפתחות זו היא טבעית מפאת סוגי הנושאים שנבחרו . אך אצל אתינאיוס גם קו זה מגיע להגזמה . מרוב שיחות - האוכל נשכח .
Tabory at pp. 374-375 submits that the textual discussions in the Haggadah are earlier, and parallel the classical-era symposia, and that the Pesach/Matza/Maror section is later, and parallels the turn toward discussing food in the Hellenistic-era symposia.
Petronius: The Cena Trimalchionis: The Lowbrow Parody of the Symposium
Gaius Petronius Arbiter was a Roman senator and courtier of the emperor Nero. His novel, the Satyricon, describes various adventures of the narrator, Encolpius, the most prominent of which is his participation in Trimalchio’s banquet. In depicting this banquet, Petronius takes the focus away from the philosophical discourse, instead emphasizing the lower cultural aspects of the dinner party. He presents a parody of the symposium, taking several Platonic motifs and standing them on their heads.
Despite this different focus, the reader understands that Petronius aims to evoke Plato’s Symposium and the literature that followed through both literal and subverted parallels. For example, seven speakers address Trimalchio’s banquet, just like in Plato’s Symposium (and like in Plutarch’s “Dinner of the Seven Wise Men"). While Socrates discusses the ascent of the soul, Petronius presents a recurring image of a descent into Hades.[1]
Unlike Plato’s symposiasts, Petronius’ speakers are as pedantic as Plato’s are insightful. As Morgan points out, Plato’s symposiasts present ideas on the nature of love that “[i]n some cases [are] so profound and poetic that they became part of the literary patrimony of antiquity.” By contrast, Petronius’ symposiasts, at best, toss around cliches and banalities, typified by Trimalchio’s buffoonery throughout the novel, and by Echion’s comment at Sat. 45.1, “What we haven’t got today, we’ll have tomorrow. That’s the way life goes.”[2]
Petronius further subverts sympotic conventions and pretensions through the exaggerated menu that he presents in almost excruciating detail, such as the pig that that is stuffed with sausages and puddings at Sat. 49. The novel’s final (extant) scene even presents the human body as edible when Eumolpus states that his heirs must eat his body in order to receive an inheritance. Sat. 141. Moreover, the vulgar character of the host Trimalchio himself, whose deepest and most insightful commentary relates to his digestive problems, is the antithesis of the philosopher-symposiarch (Sat. 47). Trimalchio’s very personage, a nouveau-riche merchant, and a former slave from the Levant (the second part of his name is related to the Hebrew melech) could not be more different from Agathon, the Symposium’s host. Agathon is a tragic poet and dramatist whom Plato, Aristophanes, and others portray as eloquent, cultured, and handsome.[3] Petronius further illustrates Trimalchio’s combination of boorishness and pretention through Trimalchio’s attempts to use elevated language and vocabulary (such as the word anathymiasis at Sat. 47.6) before reverting to his lower-class speech patterns.[4]
The reader encounters a most salient example of how Petronius both imitates and subverts Plato when the drunken Habinnas arrives at the banquet toward the end of the Cena (65.3). On the surface, Habinnas’ entrance parallels the sudden and noisy arrival of the inebriated Alcibiades at the end of the Symposium (212c-213b). While other literary symposia adopted the Alcibiades passage to create a stock motif of the late arriving guest, or ’ακλητος. As Averil Cameron has pointed out[5], however, Petronius turns this motif, and the Alcibiades passage itself, on its head.
For one thing, Alcibiades was from an aristocratic family, and became one of the most celebrated Athenian statesmen, military leaders, and orators. When he joins the Symposium, he fits right in with several others of Athens’s best and brightest, including Aristophanes and Socrates himself. In contrast, the Habinnas is a boorish stonemason and, like his good friend Trimalchio, his only civic role is as a sevir. Sevirs were generally rich freedmen and/or foreigners who served as town councilors and benefactors of the local emperor cult, but society did not hold them in high regard. Habinnas’s name, like Trimalchio’s, suggests a Semitic origin: Harry Schnur asserted that the name stemmed from the Hebrew אבן [6], and reflected Habinnas’s trade as a stonemason.
Compare both Alcibiades and Habinnas to Eliyahu
[1] Morgan, pp. 38-40, König, p. 276.
[2] Morgan, pp. 38-40.
[3] See, generally, W. Rhys Roberts. “Aristophanes and Agathon.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 20 (1900), pp. 44-56; Chris Emlyn-Jones, “The Dramatic Poet and His Audience: Agathon and Socrates in Plato’s ‘Symposium’” In Hermes, Vol. 132, No. 4 (2003), pp. 389-405.
[4] Victoria Rimell, “Letting the Page Run On: Poetics, Rhetoric, and Noise in the Satyrica.” In In J. Prag and I. Repath, eds., Petronius: A Handbook, Malden, MA, 2009, p. 69.
[5] Averil Cameron, “Petronius and Plato.” In The Classical Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Nov. 1969), pp. 367-370.
[6] Theodor Gaster found this assertion unconvincing. ”The Name ‘Habinnas.” The Classical Weekly, Vol. 48. No. 4 (Jan. 24, 1955), p. 53.
The Seder: A Rabbinic Variation of the Symposium?
At Sat. 31.2, a servant comments to Encolpius that “vinum dominicum ministatoris gratia est.” This adage, which translators have variously rendered into English as, “the butler’s gratitude is meted through his master’s wine,” “the master’s wine will prove the servant’s gratitude,” and “the master’s wine is the waiter’s gift”[1] also appears in the Babylonian Talmud, Bava Kama 92b (חמרא למריה טיבותא לשקייה). Trimalchio’s servant employs the phrase to tell Encolpius and friends that he will generously pour them wine in return for their help in saving him from a flogging. In contrast, the Rabbis interpreted the phrase as a reference to Moses’ transfer of authority to Joshua in Numbers 27:18-20 and Deuteronomy 34:9.[2] In the same way that the rabbinic reading of this adage radically diverges from its use in Petronius, the rabbinic variation on the symposium radically diverges from Trimalchio’s banquet.
[1] Howard Jacobson, “A Note on Petronius Sat. 31.2.” Classical Philology, Vol. 66, No. 3 (Jul. 1971), p. 184.
[2] Prof. Katzoff notes on Petronius 31. See also Jacobson, p. 183-186.
יוסף תבורי - פסח דורות : פרקים בתולדות ליל הסדר: 2002 עמוד: 367-8
ראינו שקיימות שתי צורות של הגדה בליל הפסח , הקדומה "מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח" והמאוחרת , המסבירה את משמעות המאכלים , שנוספה על הראשונה . במסגרת סעיף זה נשתדל לעמוד על הסיבות והגורמים לשינוי זה . סיבה ברורה להרחבת ההגדה מצויה בחורבן ובביטול הקרבן . מתקבל על הדעת שכל זמן שהקריבו קרבן פסח , הסעודה עמדה במרכז הערב . אך ביטול הקרבן המעיט את ערכה של הסעודה וחייב הדגשת מצוות אחרות הקשורות באותו ערב , ובייחוד - העמדת מצוות סיפור יציאת מצרים במוקד הערב . היה בכוחו של סיפור זה גם לעודד את העם ולהזכיר לו , שכשם שהקב"ה גאלם ממצרים , כן עתיד הוא לגאול אותם מחדש . ר' עקיבא , כשהוסיף לברכת הגאולה "כן ה' אלקנו ואלקי אבותינו יגיענו למועדים ולרגלים אחרים הבאים לקראתינו לשלום , שמחים בבנין עירך וששים בעבודתך ונאכל שם מן הזבחים ומן הפסחים" ( מ' פסחים י : ו ) קשר את הגאולה הראשונה עם הגאולה העתידה . ייתכן
שאף ניצל את ההזדמנות לעודד תקוות משיחיות ממשיות.
אולם , החורבן וביטול הקרבן מסבירים את הצורך להרחבת ההגדה אבל הם אינם מסבירים מדוע
ההרחבה קיבלה צורה של הסברת המאכלים .
לפתרון בעיה זו אני מציע לעיין בתולדות הסימפוזיון הספרותי היווני והרומאי והשפעתו .
Siegfried Stein's View: The Similarities (Siegfried Stein, 1957 article Symposia Literature and the Pesach Haggadah)
היוונים והרומאים נהגו , אחרי סעודותיהם , לשתות יין ולשוחח על נושאים מנושאים שונים . נוהג זה הוליד ספרות שלמה המתארת שיחות כאלה הספרות הסימפוזיונית . כבר ש' שטיין העיר , שיש להתחשב בהשפעת ספרות זו על יצירת ההגדה של פסח . בתוך ההגדה של פסח יש קטע סימפוזיוני כזה " , מעשה ברבי אליעזר וכו , "' המתאר את מסיבת הזקנים בבני ברק " . שטיין הביא הקבלות רבות של מנהגים המצויים בסעודות יהודיות ובסעודות יווניות-רומיות . נציין כמה דוגמאות : הישיבה בהסיבה נהוגה בשתי החברות \ הוא מקביל את הקידוש לנוהג לפתוח את הערב בניסוך יין לאלים תוך שירת שבח לאל ; השמש המכין את השולחן ומשרת את המסובים מצוי גם במקורות יהודיים וגם בנוכריים ; מנהגי הסטורנליה הכוללים : שוויון העבדים עם האדונים , מתנות המשפחה , ומשחקי אגוזים , מוצאים הקבלות .במקורות תנאיים ; ועוד
As a number of scholars have explored[1] over the past several decades, the rabbinic Passover Seder bears significant parallels to the Greco-Roman symposium. Like the symposium, and as its name suggests, the Seder follows a specified and prescribed “order” consisting of rules governing all aspects of the meal. These rules included reclining, presenting particular foods on the table before the meal, eating specified foods at various stages of the dinner, hand-washing (Why do we call it Netilas Yadayim?) [2] , and ritually drinking wine at certain points in the meal. Additionally, the rabbinic Haggadah not only specifies a discussion topic, but even introduces it with a set of questions (and also prescribes a script for the discussion to follow).
As Stein points out, the Hebrew Bible contains more than twenty passages containing laws governing the observance of Passover, but aside from the somewhat vague duty to teach the story of the Exodus to the next generation, there are no Biblical laws requiring Jews to engage in a holiday meal, let alone a meal that meets any specific parameters.[3] Instead, the holiday’s rituals focused on the sacrificial elements of the festival, though it is notable that non-priests were permitted to perform the Passover sacrifice.[4] Sources from the Second Temple period also do not evidence a prescribed or formulaic Seder, and only mention the recitation of the Kiddush and the Hallel, as well as “elementary questions and answers in connection with the rites of the festival.” Indeed, both Philo and the Book of Jubilees discuss Passover at length, but do not describe a formulaic, ritual Passover banquet.[5] Notably, however, Philo does mention a Passover gathering centered on the paschal sacrifice, and contrasts its prayers and hymns with the indulgences of “other festive banquets.[6] In another work[7], Philo contrasts the licentiousness and frivolity of the Greco-Roman banquet (specifically including the Socratic symposia that Plato and Xenophon describe) with the sincere, orderly, and chaste holiday banquets of the Therapeutae. Based on these passages, Stein convincingly asserts that if a Passover banquet with fixed rituals existed at this time, thinkers like Philo surely would have expounded on its philosophical and other virtues.[8]
[1] Siegfried Stein, “The Influence of Symposia Literature on the Literary Form of the Pesah Haggadah.” In Journal of Jewish Studies, Vol. 8, No. 1. (1957), pp. 13-44; Baruch Bokser, The Origins of the Seder. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984, pp. 50-66. Joseph Tabory, The Passover Ritual Throughout the Generations (Hebrew). Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1996, pp. 367-377; Joshua Kulp, “The Origins of the Seder and Haggadah.” In Currents in Biblical Research, Vol. 4, No. 1, (2005), pp. 109-134.
[2] Stein at p. 16 posits that the term netilat yadayim stems from a Greek term. Athenaeus, Deipnosophists, 9.75 ff. mentions the terms “κατὰ χειρὸς ὕδωρ” and “κατὰ χειρῶν λαβόντες.”
[3] Stein, pp. 13-14.
[4] Kulp., pp. 112-113.
[5] Stein, pp. 20-21. Jewish Hellenistic works do, however, mention symposium-like banquets in other contexts. The Letter of Aristeas, for example, describes a series of festive meals in honor of the translation of the Torah into Greek. These meals, eaten while reclining, feature prayers over food and philosophical discussions. Philo, in De Vita Contemplativa 48ff. contrasts the licentiousness and frivolity of the Greco-Roman banquet (including its discussion portion) with the sincere, orderly, and chaste holiday banquets of the Therapeutae.
[6] Philo, De Specialibus Legibus, 2:145-148.
[7] Philo, De Vita Contemplativa, 40-82.
[8] Stein p. 15.
These facts lead Stein to explore how the Passover rituals developed as the holiday evolved from a biblical one to a rabbinic festival. He cautions not to read too much into common but universal elements, like the recital of hymns. Nevertheless, he does argue that the literary form of the symposium strongly influenced the rabbis as they developed the Seder.[1] Toward this end, he points out that Athenaeus’ survey of sympotic banquets references a number of elements also present in the Haggadah, including reclining, ritual hand-washing, and the prominent roles of wine, lettuce and haroset-type dishes. Moreover, he finds sympotic parallels to the story of Rabbi Eliezer’s all-night, reclining discussion with his colleagues on the Exodus, most notably comparing the rooster’s crow that ends Plato’s Symposium at 223c with the rabbis’ students informing them that they must stop their discussion in order to recite the morning Shema.[2] Similarly, he asserts that the Nishmat prayer follows the structure and the content of a Greek logos basilikos, blessing the “King of Kings” instead of a basileus or emperor.[3] Stein concludes[4] that the Haggadah constitutes “a rabbinic contribution” to the sympotic genre as well as a “challenge” to the sympotic model.
Baruch Bokser's View: The Differences - 1984 book The Origins of the Seder
Bokser interprets the similarities between the symposium and the Seder somewhat differently than Stein did. While noting the parallels between the two banquets, Bokser underlines their differences. In doing so, he argues that these differences are a better measure of the Seder’s character and concludes that the Rabbis intentionally created these distinctions to make clear to a participant that the Seder was not a mere symposium. In his analysis, Seder elements like the כל דיכפין principle, and the אפיקומן prohibition against revelry after the meal (’επικομιον) drew bright-line distinctions between the two.[1]
More globally, Bokser places the Seder in the context of the rabbis’ general project of reorganizing biblical religion into post-חורבן.Jewish religious practice. In the absence of the Temple cult and the Paschal sacrifice, a different way to mark the holiday was needed, and a communal meal was a fitting substitute, particularly because even the biblical Passover was more of a home-centered holiday than the other biblical festivals.[2] Bokser further points out that there was already a tradition of holding communal meals on the Sabbath and festivals in various Jewish communities, including the Pharisees, the Qumran community, and among the Alexandrian Theraputae that Philo describes, At these meals, participants would discuss Scripture and/or sing hymns and prayers. As neither the Qumranites nor the Theraputae centered their religious life on the Jerusalem Temple even while it stood, they therefore presented a model that the Rabbis could follow in their time.[3]
For these reasons, Bokser maintains that the rabbis, like Philo (and also like Clement of Alexandria[4] regarding Christian banquets), aimed to distinguish the Seder from the symposium. He points out that the rabbinic Seder is a requirement for all Jews, while only elites participated in gentile symposia. He also asserts that each of the Seder’s four cups of wine, as well as the various foods that participants eat, are connected to a specific ritual, blessing, or hymn. Finally, he notes that the rabbis prohibited ending the Seder with an אפיקומן, namely the “’επικομιον” festivities that followed sympotic meals, often at other locations.[5]
[1] Bokser, pp. 62-66.
[2] Bokser, p. 54, p. 61.
[3] Bokser, pp. 54-57.
[4] Bokser, pp. 65-66. Clement of Alexandria, Paidagogos, 2:4:40-44.
[5] Bokser, pp..62-65.
Tabory's critique of Stein: Parallel, Not an Influence
P. 369
ברם , אע"פ ששטיין מציין שיש להבחין בין מנהגים כלליים השייכים לסעודה ובין דברים השייכים במיוחד לצורה הסימפוזיונית , הוא אינו מנצל את ההבחנה הזאת כראוי . גם כשהוא מתייחס לצד הרוחני של הערב , הוא אינו מייחד את דבריו לסימפוזיון אלא מביא הקבלות גם מכללי הרטוריקה , אע"פ שמסתבר , שיש להבדיל בין הרטוריקה המיועדת לכלל הרחב והשיחה הסימפוזיונית המיועדת לציבור המצומצם , המורכב , אולי , ברובו מבני המשפחה , המסב בשעת סעודה . אולם , גם בהקבלותיו החשובות כגון הנוהג לשאול שאלות כפתיחה לדיון , ולנוהג לדבר על מאכלים שהובאו לשולחן , אין הוא מעמיד את
הדברים באור היסטורי ולכן אין אנו יכולים לעמוד על השתלשלות ההגדה .
P. 373
יש אמנם הקבלות בין הצורה הקדומה של ההגדה , הדרשה על יציאת מצרים , לבין הצורה הקדומה של הסימפוזיון ... גם בנושא שנבחר יש דמיון-מה בין ההגדה ובין הסימפוזיון הקדום .
...
שלוש המסורות האלה התייחסו לעניינים נכבדים שהיו מעניני דיומא , אף-על-פי שלא התייחסו לסעודה עצמה . אחת - ארמי אבר אבי - עמדה על הגולה בניכר והישיבה בארץ ;שנייה - עבדים היינו - על עבדות וחירות ; ושלישית עובדי ע"ז היו אבותינו - על העבודה לאלילים והעבודה לאל אמת . גם
בסימפוזיונים של אפלטון וקסנופון בחרו בנושאים חשובים תוך ניסיון
.לעמוד על שאלות פילוסופיות ובעיות החיים
ברם , כשאנו נותנים את דעתנו לצדדים שווים בתרבויות שונות , עלינו לזכור שיש שלוש דרכים עיקריות שבהן אפשר להסביר את ההקבלה : ( א ) שניהם ינקו ממקור משותף ) ; ב ) אחד הושפע מן השני או שאל ממנו ) ; ג ) שניהם הם פרי התפתחות טבעית עצמאית ואין ביניהם זיקה . דרך אחרונה זו ראויה למקום נכבד יותר במחקר ההשוואתי - בייחוד לאור העובדה שגילו תופעות דומות בחברות פרימיטיביות בארצות רחוקות זו מזו .... כבר משפחת בתראל חשבה לשאת ולתת עם אליעזר אחרי הסעודה ודבריו של עבד אברהם "לא אוכל עד אם דברתי דברי" ( בראשית כד : לג ) מציינים התנהגות יוצאת דופן . '
Kevin's analysis of the two views: (I lean toward Stein)
However, Bokser’s emphasis on these distinctions also undermines his argument. As Kulp suggests, the Rabbis may have determined to design these specific distinguishing elements precisely because the two ritual banquets had so many similarities.[1] Bokser also does not distinguish between a festive Greco-Roman banquet (or a banquet like Trimalchio’s, for that matter) and the literary or philosophical symposium that featured more religious and intellectual content, and less frivolity. Indeed, Plutarch drew the same distinctions between serious symposia and frivolous banquets that Bokser and Philo before him drew between Jewish ritual meals and the symposium. Moreover, like at the Seder, participants in the philosophical or literary symposia that Plutarch describes adhered to a rigid format, performed libations and other religious rituals – including a Kiddush-like opening libation -- and sang the praises of their gods.[2]
Notwithstanding Philo’s critique of Plato’s Symposium, its participants clearly took its rituals and particularly its discussion very seriously. Athenaeus even notes that some symposia – like the rabbinic Seder -- had an educational component where participants would discuss matters of state and stories of heroism in order to inspire the children in attendance.[3]
Further, as Tabory asserts, even though the end of the Temple cult required new Passover rituals, the Rabbis did not need to adopt a ceremonial banquet featuring scholarly discussions about historical events and symbolic foods as a substitute ritual.[4] Nevertheless, in designing the Seder ritual, the Rabbis undeniably employed both the structural and the literary format of the symposium.[5] They could have designed a rite with far fewer similarities to the Greco-Roman banquet. Instead, however, like in other iterations of the widespread and centuries-long tradition of sympotic banquets, the Rabbis adapted and supplemented the format for their specific religious and national purposes.
[1] Kulp, p. 118.
[2] Stein, pp. 25-26.
[3] Tabory, p. 369. Athenaeus, 4:341.
[4] Tabory, p. 367.
[5] See, most recently, Smith, pp. 147-150 and 170-171. Smith also explores in some detail the banquet described in Ben Sira at pp. 134-144.
Conclusion
The classical symposium, which Plato and Xenophon most prominently depict, featured a defined structure as well as important literary and philosophical components. Over the centuries that followed these Socratic symposia, the symposium became a major cultural institution throughout the Mediterranean world. Writers, thinkers, and religious leaders alike tailored sympotic structures and motifs for their own philosophical, literary, or religious purposes.
Petronius and the Rabbis took the symposium in radically different directions. Petronius used the structure to compose an entertaining literary variation that satirized his contemporary Roman society. The Rabbis adopted the format as part of their project to redesign the Passover ritual for a world without the Jerusalem Temple. Petronius’ Cena Trimalchionis has remained a staple of popular culture for almost two millennia, most notably in our time in the form of Fellini’s 1969 film. The rabbinic Seder has also continuously endured until the present time. In many ways, it represents the longest-running iteration of the symposium, and indeed the only iteration one that remains widely practiced. To whatever extent the Rabbis intended to adopt, to adapt, or to depart from the classical symposium, they succeeded in preserving the format for far longer than Socrates could have imagined.
:
Richard Hidary, Prof. at YU, : https://thegemara.com/how-is-the-passover-seder-different-from-all-other-symposia/index.html#fnref-1872-7. This article is a reworked excerpt from Richard Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (Cambridge University Press, 2018), 68-73.
Both the Roman symposium and the Rabbis’ Passover meal, Baruch Bokser, in 1984 book The Origins of the Seder observes, include “the use of waiters to bring in the food, reclining at the meal, dipping the food, hors d’oeuvres, the use of wine before, during, and after the meal, being festive, the pedagogic use of questions and intellectual discussion, singing and praise to God, and games to keep children awake.” Parallels with Mishna and Tosefta Pesachim Ch 10.
Stein also notes:
-Washing of hands - technical term "didonai 'udor kata cheiron" = netilat mayim al yadayim
-Reclining while eating and leaning to left side
-Use of lettuce = chazeret
-Hillel's sandwich (?)
Since Plato, a literary species, the so-called Symposia, had developed in which a description was given of a banquet held by a few learned men who had met at a friend’s house to discuss scientific, philosophical, ethical, aesthetical, grammatical, dietetic and religious themes over a glass, and very often over a barrel of wine, after they had dined together. Plutarch, one of the most famous contributors to [this] literature, summarizes earlier practice and theory in the following manner: “A symposium is a communion of serious and mirthful entertainment, discourse and actions.” It is meant to further “a deeper insight into those points that were debated at table, for the remembrance of those pleasures which arise from meat and drink is not genteel and short-lived, but the subjects of philosophical queries and discussions remain always fresh after they have been imparted, and they are relished by those who were absent as well as by those who were present at dinner”.
People held symposiums for various reasons: birthdays, victory celebrations, religious festival, or just to have a dinner party with their friends.
(ח) כיצד סדר הסעודה אורחין נכנסין ויושבין על גבי ספסלים וע"ג קתדראות עד שיכנסו כולן נכנסו כולן ונתנו להם לידים כל אחד ואחד נוטל ידו אחת מזגו להם את הכוס אחד ואחד מברך לעצמו הביאו להם פרפריות כל אחד ואחד מברך לעצמו עלו והסיבו נתנו להם לידים אע"פ שנוטל ידו אחת נותן לשתי ידיו מזגו להם את הכוס אע"פ שבירך על הראשונה מברך על השניה הביאו לפניהם פרפריות אע"פ שבירך על הראשונה מברך על השניה ואחד מברך לכולן [הביאו לאחד] שלש פרפריות אין [לו] רשות ליכנס רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר מנהג גדול היה בירושלים פורסין מטפחות על גבי פתח בזמן שהמטפחות פרוסים אורחין נכנסין נסתלקו אין רשות לאורחין ליכנס ועוד מנהג אחר היה בירושלים מוסר סעודה לטבח נתקלקל דבר בסעודה עונשין את הטבח הכל לפי כבוד בעה"ב והכל לפי האורחין.
(8) What is the order of a meal? .[Not specifically discussing Pesach here.] Guests come in and sit down on top of benches and on top of soft seats until all [guests] come in. [After] all [guests] came in, and they (i.e. the servants) have given them [water to wash] hands, every one of them washes one hand. [When] they (i.e. the servants) poured them a cup [of wine], each one [of the guests] makes a Beracha (blessing) [for the wine] himself. [When] they (i.e. the servants) brought them appetizers each one [of the guests] makes a Beracha [for the appetizers] himself. [After the guests] have gotten up [from their temporary seats, moved to the main eating hall] and reclined [on sofas], they [i.e. the servants] gave them [water to wash their] hands [again]. Even though he already washed one hand, [still] he [has to] wash both of his hands [again]. [After] they (i.e. the servants) poured them a cup [of wine again], even though he already made a Beracha on the first [cup of wine], he makes [another] Beracha on the second [cup of wine]. [After] they (i.e. the servants) brought in front of them [more] appetizers, even though he [already] made a Beracha on the first [set of appetizers], he makes a [new] Beracha on the second [set of appetizers], but [this time] one [person] makes a Beracha for all of them. [A person] who comes [late] after three appetizers [have been served] does not have permission to enter [the dining hall]. Rebbi Shimon Ben Gamliel says, “There was a great custom in Yerushalayim (Jerusalem). They (i.e. house owners) would hang a towel above the door. While the towel is hanging guests can come in. [After] the towel has been removed guests are not permitted to come in [anymore]. And there was another custom in Yerushalayim. They (i.e. house owners) would give over [the responsibility for] a meal to a butcher (i.e. a caterer). If something went wrong during the meal they would punish the butcher [monetarily]. Everything according to the honor of the owner (i.e. the host) and everything according to the honor of the guests.”
(ב) מָזְגוּ לוֹ כוֹס רִאשׁוֹן, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַיּוֹם, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַיָּיִן. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַיַּיִן, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַיּוֹם:
(ג) הֵבִיאוּ לְפָנָיו, מְטַבֵּל בַּחֲזֶרֶת, עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לְפַרְפֶּרֶת הַפַּת. הֵבִיאוּ לְפָנָיו מַצָּה וַחֲזֶרֶת וַחֲרֹסֶת וּשְׁנֵי תַבְשִׁילִין, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין חֲרֹסֶת מִצְוָה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק אוֹמֵר, מִצְוָה. וּבַמִּקְדָּשׁ הָיוּ מְבִיאִים לְפָנָיו גּוּפוֹ שֶׁל פָּסַח:
(ד) מָזְגוּ לוֹ כוֹס שֵׁנִי, וְכָאן הַבֵּן שׁוֹאֵל אָבִיו, וְאִם אֵין דַּעַת בַּבֵּן, אָבִיו מְלַמְּדוֹ, מַה נִּשְׁתַּנָּה הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה מִכָּל הַלֵּילוֹת, שֶׁבְּכָל הַלֵּילוֹת אָנוּ אוֹכְלִין חָמֵץ וּמַצָּה, הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה כֻלּוֹ מַצָּה. שֶׁבְּכָל הַלֵּילוֹת אָנוּ אוֹכְלִין שְׁאָר יְרָקוֹת, הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה מָרוֹר. שֶׁבְּכָל הַלֵּילוֹת אָנוּ אוֹכְלִין בָּשָׂר צָלִי, שָׁלוּק, וּמְבֻשָּׁל, הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה כֻלּוֹ צָלִי. שֶׁבְּכָל הַלֵּילוֹת אָנוּ מַטְבִּילִין פַּעַם אַחַת, הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה שְׁתֵּי פְעָמִים. וּלְפִי דַעְתּוֹ שֶׁל בֵּן, אָבִיו מְלַמְּדוֹ. מַתְחִיל בִּגְנוּת וּמְסַיֵּם בְּשֶׁבַח, וְדוֹרֵשׁ מֵאֲרַמִּי אוֹבֵד אָבִי, עַד שֶׁיִּגְמֹר כֹּל הַפָּרָשָׁה כֻלָּהּ:
(2) The tanna describes the beginning of the Passover seder. The attendants poured the wine of the first cup for the leader of the seder. Beit Shammai say: One recites the blessing over the sanctification of the day, i.e., the kiddush for the Festival: Who blesses Israel and the Festivals, and thereafter he recites the blessing over the wine: Who creates fruit of the vine. And Beit Hillel say: One recites the blessing over the wine and thereafter recites the blessing over the day.
(3) The attendants brought vegetables before the leader of the seder prior to the meal, if there were no other vegetables on the table. He dips the ḥazeret into water or vinegar, to taste some food before he reaches the dessert of the bread, i.e., the bitter herbs, which were eaten after the matza. They brought before him matza and ḥazeret and ḥaroset, and at least two cooked dishes in honor of the Festival. The tanna comments that this was the practice, although eating ḥaroset is not a mitzva but merely a custom. Rabbi Eliezer ben Tzadok says: Actually, it is a mitzva to eat ḥaroset. And in the period when the Temple stood and they offered the Paschal lamb, they brought before him the body of the Paschal lamb.
(4) The attendants poured the second cup for the leader of the seder, and here the son asks his father the questions about the differences between Passover night and a regular night. And if the son does not have the intelligence to ask questions on his own, his father teaches him the questions. The mishna lists the questions: Why is this night different from all other nights? As on all other nights we eat leavened bread and matza as preferred; on this night all our bread is matza. As on all other nights we eat other vegetables; on this night we eat bitter herbs. The mishna continues its list of the questions. When the Temple was standing one would ask: As on all other nights we eat either roasted, stewed, or cooked meat, but on this night all the meat is the roasted meat of the Paschal lamb. The final question was asked even after the destruction of the Temple: As on all other nights we dip the vegetables in a liquid during the meal only once; however, on this night we dip twice. And according to the intelligence and the ability of the son, his father teaches him about the Exodus. When teaching his son about the Exodus. He begins with the Jewish people’s disgrace and concludes with their glory. And he expounds from the passage: “An Aramean tried to destroy my father” (Deuteronomy 26:5), the declaration one recites when presenting his first fruits at the Temple, until he concludes explaining the entire section.
Kiddush and Opening Libation
Syposium 176: Socrates took his place on the couch, and supped with the rest; and then libations were offered, and after a hymn had been sung to the god, and there had been the usual ceremonies, they were about to commence drinking,
Plutarch, Questiones Conviviales: Guests at a banquet used to sing the first song together praising Bacchus and describing his power. At the end of the banquet they would recite a paean, and offer a sacrifice to Zeus, other gods, and the muses. (Like Hallel, Nishmat etc?)
Simple questions, often relating to history and food
Plutarch, a contemporary of the five Sages in the Haggadah who reclined in Bene Brak, says that the “questions [at a symposium] should be easy, the problems known, the interrogations plain and familiar, not intricate and dark, so that they may neither vex the unlearned nor frighten them...The discourse should be like wine, common to all of which everyone may equally participate.” (Stein, p.19-20). According to Gellius, the questions were not too serious; they may deal with a point touching an ancient history. Macrobius says that he who wishes to be a pleasant questioner should ask easy questions and be sure that the subject had been thoroughly studied by the other person. Many symposia questions deal with diet and food:
-are different sorts of food or one single dish eaten at one meal more easily digestible?
-Does the sea or land afford better food?
-Why are hunger allayed by drinking, but thirst increased by eating?
-Why do the Pythagoreans forbid fish more than other foods?
- * Do Jews abstain from pork because they worship the pig or because they have an antipathy to pigs? *
Compare this with the Ma Nishtana - simple questions designed to appeal to all participants in the meal, and centered around food.
"Ohhhh Yeah, we're gonna have a party. All. Night. Long."
The Haggadah tells the story of Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Joshua, Rabbi Elazar the son of Azaryah, Rabbi Akiba and Rabbi Tarfon, who were reclining at Bene Berak and were talking about the Exodus from Egypt that entire night, until their pupils came and said to them: “Our masters, the time for the morning Shema has arrived.”
This reflects elements of the symposia literature
- motif of including the names of the participants, the place, the subject of discussion and the occasion. Macrobius (early 5 th century C.E.) relates: During the Saturnalia, distinguished members of the aristocracy and other scholars assembled at the house of Vettius Praetextatus to celebrate the festive time [of Saturnalia] solemnly by a discourse befitting freemen. [The host explained] the origin of the cult and the cause of the festival (Stein, pp. 33-34)
- Sometimes, the symposium lasted until dawn. As early as in Plato’s Symposium (4 th century B.C.E.), the crowing of the rooster reminds the guests to go home. Socrates, on that occasion, went on to the Lyceum (a gymnasium where philosophers also taught) (Stein, p. 34).
But notice the difference - Jews finish their symposium and go to daven. Greeks finish and go home (to sleep?)
Contrasts: Solemnity
Philo of Alexandria contrasts the frivolity and immorality (of Greek symposiums with more simple, serious, and sincere Jewish banquets. Discusses the Shavuot banquet of one Jewish community known as the Therapeutae (similar to the Essenes / Dead Sea community). Interestingly, Philo notes that their banquets concluded with disciplined communal singing.
On the Contemplative Life 57: Now of the banquets among the Greeks the two most celebrated and most remarkable are those at which Socrates also was present, the one in the house of Callias, when, after Autolycus had gained the crown of victory, he gave a feast in honour of the event, and the other in the house of Agathon, which was thought worthy of being commemorated by men who were imbued with the true spirit of philosophy both in their dispositions and in their discourses, Plato and Xenophon, for they recorded them as events worthy to be had in perpetual recollection, looking upon it that future generations would take them as models for a well managed arrangement of future banquets; (58) but nevertheless even these, if compared with the banquets of the men of our time who have embraced the contemplative system of life, will appear ridiculous. Each description, indeed, has its own pleasures, but the recorded by Xenophon is the one the delights of which are most in accordance with human nature, for female harp-players, and dancers, and conjurors, and jugglers, and men who do ridiculous things, who pride themselves much on their powers of jesting and of amusing others, and many other species of more cheerful relaxation, are brought forward at it.
On the Contemplative Life 75: These, then, are the first circumstances of the feast; but after the guests have sat down to the table in the order which I have been describing, and when those who minister to them are all standing around in order, ready to wait upon them, and when there is nothing to drink, some one will say ... but even more so than before, so that no one ventures to mutter, or even to breathe at all hard, and then some one looks out some passage in the sacred scriptures, or explains some difficulty which is proposed by some one else, without any thoughts of display on his own part, for he is not aiming at reputation for cleverness and eloquence, but is only desirous to see some points more accurately, and is content when he has thus seen them himself not to bear ill will to others, who, even if they did not perceive the truth with equal acuteness, have at all events an equal desire of learning.
(ח) וְאֵין מַפְטִירִין אַחַר הַפֶּסַח אֲפִיקוֹמָן.
(8) One does not conclude after the Paschal lamb with an afikoman.
Contrasts: The Afikoman
Hidary, citing S Lieberman and H. Albeck: To be clear, the rabbis differentiated the Passover meal from some of the more frivolous and indulgent aspects of the symposium by forbidding after-dinner drunken revelry at neighbors’ homes—this is the original meaning of the prohibition against having afikomen (dessert/after-party) after the Passover sacrifice.
The Afikoman
The Mishnah explicitly forbids “completing the Pesach seder with an afikoman” (Pesachim 10:8).But in today’s parlance we always consummate the seder meal with the eating of what we call “the afikoman”–a piece of matzah. How on earth can we explain this? What does the Greek term “afikoman” mean?
To the Talmudist Rav it was clear: “Afikoman” is the Greek custom of going around from house to house on the night of a celebration. This procession (“komon”) held after (“epi”) the formal symposium, involved dropping in at friends’ homes and probably joining them for dessert. However, on seder night in the days of the Temple, one was allowed to eat only with one’s pre-arranged dinner partners (havurah) who had subscribed to the sacrifice of that Pesach lamb in advance. The lamb was offered in their name and no one could join their dinner gathering as an afterthought.
Therefore, on Pesach the Rabbis forbade the Greek practice of a post-symposium procession from group to group, an “afikoman”that might lead people to eat from a Pesach sacrifice not meant for them.
So how, we may ask, did the Greek “epikomon” become today’s matzah? The Talmudists Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan understood the word “afikoman” to mean “dessert.” They read the Mishnah this way: “It is forbidden to eat afikoman (i.e., dessert) after eating the Pesach lamb” since that is the last and most important item on the menu, and its aftertaste should remain in our mouth all night.
Later the term afikoman was applied to the special dessert that was mandated at the seder –matzah eaten in lieu of the bite of Pesach lamb that concluded the meal in Temple times.
Reprinted with permission from A Different Night: The Family Participation Haggadah, published by the Shalom Hartman Institute.
Hidary's Conclusion:
The creators of the Mishnaic Haggadah structured it as a work of Greco-Roman rhetorical oratory, the most common and effective means of persuasion available in their culture, precisely in order to achieve the liturgical goal of a heartfelt Hallel. Through a combination of the three classical modes of persuasion21 – logos (the telling of the history of the Exodus and the expounding of verses), pathos (feeling the suffering of slavery and the joy of redemption), and ethos (citations from the Bible and from sages like Rabban Gamaliel) – the audience experiences the magnitude of the Exodus at a personal level and so cannot help but break into a song of gratitude.
And so, although the style of this oration and so much of the ceremony of the night appears just like any other Roman drinking party—its content and goal make this symposium very different from all other symposia. More than a drinking party that happened to include fun intellectual discussion, the Rabbinic Passover meal incorporates food, drink, oratory, and song all in the service of a deep appreciation of the freedom we enjoy through God’s mighty hand.