Recognizing this connection, we can make others and further interpret a great talmudic crux, for the narrative of Rabbi Akiva’s redemption from heresy is followed in the text of Ḥagiga by the even more well known story of Elisha ben Abuya’s apostasy. This famous heretic, upon seeing a vision of the glorious being named Met ̣at ̣ron sitting at the right hand of God, concluded that there are “Two powers in heaven,” the arch-heresy of the Talmud.58
According to the Talmud:
Our Rabbis have taught: Four went into the Pardes, and who are they? Ben ʿAzzai and Ben Zoma, Aḥer, and Rabbi Akiva . . . Aḥer chopped down the shoots. Rabbi Akiva came out safely . . .
‘Aḥer chopped down the shoots’: Of him the verse says, “Do not let your mouth cause your flesh to sin” [Eccl 5:5]. What does this mean? He saw that Met ̣at ̣ron had been given permission [תושר] to sit and write the good deeds of Israel. He said, but it is taught that on high there will be no sitting, no conflict, no “back,”59 and no tiredness! Perhaps, G-d forbid, there are two powers [תויושר יתש]! They took Met ̣at ̣ron out and whipped him with sixty whips of fire. They said to him: “What is the reason that when you saw him, you did not get up before him?” He [Met ̣at ̣ron] was given permission to erase the good deeds of Aḥer. A voice came out from heaven and said: Return O backsliding ones [ Jer 3:14/22]—except for Aḥer.
He said, “Since that man has been driven out of that world, let him go out and enjoy himself in this world!” He went out to evil culture. He went and found a prostitute and solicited her. She said, “But aren’t you Elisha ben Abuya!?” He went and uprooted a radish on the Sabbath and gave it to her.
She said, “He is an other [Aḥer].” ( b. Ḥag. 15a)
This remarkable story, as can well be imagined, has excited much scholarly attention. Yehuda Liebes emphasizes correctly that it is impossible to see this as a narrative of a real Elisha who joined a heretical sect.60 Segal 58) Below I shall discuss a very different interpretation of this material by A. Goshen-Gottstein, The Sinner and the Amnesiac: The Rabbinic Invention of Elisha Ben Abuya and Eleazar Ben Arach (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000): 89-111. I hope to make good here a real lacuna in my earlier treatments, namely, as Goshen-Gottstein puts it himself, Boyarin having “curiously ignored” this text in my earlier publications.
59) See below for explanation of this term.
60) Y. Liebes, The Sin of Elisha: Four Who Entered Pardes and the Nature of Talmudic Mysticism (Jerusalem: Academon, 1990), 12 [Hebrew].
346
D. Boyarin / Journal for the Study of Judaism 41 (2010) 323-365
nicely observes that “in its present context [the story] is an etiology of heresy. It explains how certain people, who had special Met ̣at ̣ron traditions, risk the heretical designation of ‘two powers in heaven’.”61 This can be pushed a bit further. As J. Rendell Harris observed as early as 1917:
“We now begin to see that the controversy between Arius and Athanasius is not a mere struggle of an orthodox Church with an aggressive and
cancerous heresy: the heretic is the orthodox conservative, and the supposed orthodox champion is the real progressive.”62 The structural comparison with Christian etiologies of heresy and heresiarchs suggests that, like those, Aḥer represents older theological traditions which have been anathematized as heresy by the authors of the story.63 Almost certainly underlying Aḥer/Elisha’s vision of Met ̣at ̣ron is the same passage in Daniel that “misled” Rabbi Akiva, taking the “One like a Son of Man” as a separate person. The latter’s error was hermeneutical/theological, the former’s is visionary/theological, but the error is essentially precisely the same, the assumption that the second throne is for a second divine figure. Let me now argue for that conclusion.
The cause of Aḥer’s turn to heresy as we have it in the Bavli is very very puzzling. On the one hand, it is clear that it is the fact of Met ̣at ̣ron’s sitting that causes Aḥer to fall into error but on the other hand, his own speech about this seems incoherent, or nearly so, as he remarks that “but it is taught that on high there will be [no standing,]64 no sitting, no [jealousy], no conflict, no ‘back’ and no tiredness!”65 How is this list connected with the fact that Met ̣at ̣ron was sitting, other than the sitting itself, and what in it caused Aḥer to consider the possibility of Two Powers in Heaven? On the one hand, there are indications—at least in most
witnesses—that the sitting evoked thoughts of competition between God and Met ̣at ̣ron, but directly contradicting that is the suggestion that Met ̣at ̣ron sat because he was tired, which would certainly suggest his mor-61) Segal, Powers, 62.
62) J. R. Harris, The Origin of the Prologue to St. John’s Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1917), 49.
63) For comparison to an actual observable historical instance within late ancient Christianity, see V. Burrus, The Making of a Heretic: Gender, Authority, and the Priscillianist Controversy (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1995).
64) Following several mss.
65) For discussion of the various recensions of this list, see Deutsch, Guardians of the Gate, 50-51, following in part Alexander, “3 Enoch and the Talmud.”
D. Boyarin / Journal for the Study of Judaism 41 (2010) 323-365
347
tality, not his divinity!66 Alexander suggests that the list has been imported from another text (which is not extant) in which it is asserted that “God and the angels are without body parts or passions. In rather Platonic fashion it defined the heavenly world as the negation of all that we know and experience here on earth.”67 We can build a bit further on this crucial insight. Michal Bar-Asher Siegal remarked of this list that it is hermeneutic in character as well as Platonic.68 Each of the elements in the list refers to a verse: thus, for standing, we find Num 12:5, where the verse reads:
“And YHWH came down on a column of cloud and stood in front of the
Tent.” Or for another striking example, when the verse of Job 25:2, “He makes peace in his heaven,” is taken to mean that there is conflict, תורחת
in heaven by the early midrash [ Sifre Bamidbar 42], using in this case exactly the same word as that which our text denies. Similarly we can find verses that suggest, imply, or actually impute, jealousy, tiredness, and sitting, of course.69 The crux, “back,” is now neatly solved as well. Referring to the back of God that Moses allegedly saw [Exod 33:23], the text denies the literal existence of that as well.70 Our statement comes, Maimonidean avant le figure, to indicate that these are all metaphorical and not literal statements, and no more. The original point of the statement was simply that God has no body and thus none of these characteristics that seem implied by the biblical text.
Alexander further remarks correctly that in the Bavli the implication of this text has been distorted and made to seem as if what we learn from it is that angels can’t sit. He suggests, moreover, that the version of Munich 95 which does not mention Met ̣at ̣ron as sitting at all is to be preferred as the oldest. He proposes that since the version of Munich 95 left the reason for Aḥer’s error unfathomable, later redactors “seized on the element הבישי [sitting] in the quotation . . . and interpreted it in the light of the 66) For all of these puzzlements, see Alexander, “3 Enoch and the Talmud,” 58. On this last point, cf. Fraenkel, Aggadic Narrative, 342, who quite cleverly makes sense of the whole list, from sitting through conflict to tiredness, but does not notice apparently that there is a built in contradiction in the list as he reads it. His interpretation of the conflict or competition as between different angels and not as rivalry with God quite misses the point in my opinion, as well.
67) Alexander, “3 Enoch and the Talmud,” 61.
68) Personal communication.
69) For tiredness, see God’s resting on the seventh day. God is, indeed, described as a
“jealous” God; see, for example Num 20:4.
70) Elliot Wolfson made a similar suggestion to me with respect to this element also.
348
D. Boyarin / Journal for the Study of Judaism 41 (2010) 323-365
idea that angels in heaven do not sit.”71 The bottom line of Alexander’s reconstruction is that the alleged earliest text is so cryptic as to be unintelligible and the later text-forms are incoherent.
In his article, Alexander has discussed too the connection between our passage and its parallel in 3 Enoch. Here is the text in his translation:72
Rabbi Ishmael said to me: The angel Met ̣at ̣ron, Prince of the Divine Presence, the glory of highest heaven, said to me:
At first I was sitting on a great throne at the door of the seventh palace, and I judged all the denizens of the heights, the familia of the Omnipresent, on the authority of the Holy One, blessed be he. I assigned greatness, roy-alty, rank, sovereignty, glory, praise, diadem, crown, and honour to all the Princes of Kingdoms, when I sat in the heavenly court. The Princes of Kingdoms stood beside me, to my right and to my left, by authority of the Holy One, blessed be he.
But when Aher came to behold the vision of the Merkabah and set eyes on me, he was afraid and trembled before me. His soul was alarmed to the point of leaving him because of his fear, dread and terror of me, when he saw me seated upon a throne like a king, with ministering angels standing beside me like servants, and all the Princes of Kingdoms crowned with crowns surrounding me.
Then he opened his mouth and said: “There are indeed two powers in
heaven!” Immediately a heavenly voice came out from the presence of the Shekhinah and said: “Return, backsliding children—except for Aher!”
Then ʿAnafiʾel YHWH, the honoured, glorified, beloved, wonderful, terri-ble, and dreadful Prince came at the dispatch of the Holy One, blessed be he, and struck me with sixty lashes of fire and made me stand upon my feet.73
These two texts are clearly closely related. Most scholars from Urbach to Alexander to Goshen-Gottstein make the 3 Enoch version dependent on the Talmudic story, while a few dissent.74 I will file a brief here for the 71) Alexander, “3 Enoch and the Talmud,” 63.
72) Ibid., 54-66.
73) Ibid., 63-64.
74) The 3 Enoch version dependent on the Talmudic story: E. E. Urbach, “The Traditions About Merkabah Mysticism in the Tannaitic Period,” in Studies in Mysticism and Religion, Presented to Gershom G. Scholem (ed. E. E. Urbach, R. J. Z. Werblowsky, and C. Wirszubski; Jerusalem, Magnes Press, 1967), 1-28 [Hebrew]; Alexander, “3 Enoch and the Talmud”; Goshen-Gottstein, Sinner. Dissenters: C. Morray-Jones, “Hekhalot Literature and Talmudic Tradition”; Deutsch, Guardians of the Gate. See discussion below in body of the text.
D. Boyarin / Journal for the Study of Judaism 41 (2010) 323-365
349
dissent.75 The Enoch version, which is coherent and intelligible, is the source for the talmudic version which is not.76 Alexander argues that the text in 3 Enoch has been based, not only on the Bavli, but specifically on the latest recension of it. One would have to assume that an incompre-hensible text led to an incoherent one and out of the incoherent one, a brilliant redactor or rewriter produced the powerful coherent narrative of 3 Enoch. I propose rather that that perfectly coherent and powerful narrative that we find in 3 Enoch (without claiming necessarily that this is its original home) was the earlier form of this narrative, distorted in all of the recensions of the Talmud for a particular rabbinic ecclesiastical reason. I agree with Alexander that the purpose of the author of 3 Enoch was to validate Met ̣at ̣ron speculation while that of the Talmud was to delegiti-mate that very speculation; I simply disagree as to whose intervention came first. In the Enochic version of the story, Met ̣at ̣ron himself emphasizes that he was seated on a throne and judging on the authority of the Holy One. I think it highly likely that this statement of authority to sit is a marked allusion to the very enthronement scene in Dan 7 which has
been the pumping heart of the tradition. Aḥer’s confusion is occasioned precisely by this allusion which he gets too: Is it possible that the interpretation of those verses from Daniel so current in Israel and lately declared heretical is true?! Perhaps there are indeed Two Powers in Heaven (although, to be sure, in the Enochic version there isn’t even that moment of doubt: Aḥer simply declares that there are Two Powers in Heaven). In the talmudic version of the story which deliberately—in my view—obliterates the throne, all that is left is the sitting, so tame as, according to Alexander, to be explicable as “a posture, he has adopted, it seems, because he functions as the recording angel in the heavenly law court.”77 In short, I suggest that 75) This does not preclude the possibility of secondary “contamination” from talmudic sources in the tradition of 3 Enoch but it does suggest that the Merkava traditions, including this one about Met ̣at ̣ron, developed semi-independently of the talmudic tradition and engaged in various forms of interaction with that tradition. For a similar perspective, see Morray-Jones, “Hekhalot Literature and Talmudic Tradition,” 34-39.
76) Pace Alexander, “3 Enoch and the Talmud,” 65. There is, to be sure, yet another possibility, namely that the Enoch text preserves an earlier version of the talmudic text and that the version in the Talmud has been tampered with by later editors. This may indeed be the correct solution, but I’m not sure it would appreciably change my argument.
77) Alexander, “3 Enoch and the Talmud,” 56. I, accordingly, could hardly disagree with Alexander more when he says, “The cause of Aher’s blasphemy may not have been what Met ̣at ̣ron was doing, but rather his glorious appearance,” ibid., 62. For another example of one holding Alexander’s view on this matter, see Idel, “Enoch,” 225, who totally elides the “sitting” which to my mind is the very crux of the matter.
350
D. Boyarin / Journal for the Study of Judaism 41 (2010) 323-365
the list of standing, sitting, necks, and tiredness is a kind of camouflage of the original issue which is thereby hidden in plain sight.
There is another support for this conclusion as well. The word translated “permission” would be much better translated as authority, power, or sovereignty, as it is the same word, תושר that appears in that very heretical thought of Aḥer’s “Perhaps (G-d forbid), there are Two Powers” [יתש
תויושר] and, indeed, bears close comparison with the Greek ἐξουσία too, as shown by Segal.78 Far better, I think, to translate “Two Sovereignties in Heaven.” The same word that is used to indicate the authority or sovereignty given Met ̣at ̣ron to sit and write the virtues of Israel [תושר] is used to indicate the name of the alleged heresy. I suggest, therefore, that it was the combination of sitting, suggesting the enthronement, and authority or sovereignty to sit and judge that is represented as both Aḥer’s mistake, bringing the talmudic text very very—and crucially—close to the 3 Enoch version, in which it is the fact of Met ̣at ̣ron’s enthronement which leads to the idea of Two Sovereignties.79 Both versions, 3 Enoch’s and the Talmud’s as I interpret it, go back to Dan 7:13, and the talmudic תושר is the equiv-alent in Hebrew of the ןטלש awarded the “One like a Son of Man,” where the Septuagint gives ἐξουσία. When Aḥer saw that sovereignty had been awarded to Met ̣at ̣ron to sit, it is no wonder that he concluded (even tentatively) that there are Two Sovereignties in Heaven, namely precisely God and that “One Like a Son of Man,” to whom sovereignty [ןטלש] had been awarded in Daniel. Whether called Met ̣at ̣ron or David, Enoch or Jesus, the second divine figure is the Son of Man. Locating this “heretical” interpretation right at the heart of the rabbinic academy and indeed among some of its leading figures strongly suggests that these views had been current in the very Jewish circles from which the Rabbis emerged and the views were eventually anathematized by them and driven out. Met ̣at ̣ron is scourged with sixty pulse of fire. As we learn from b. B. Meṣiʿa 47a, this practice [whatever it quite means in terms of realia] represents a particularly dire form of anathema or even excommunication. The dual inscription of excommunication in the narrative, that of Met ̣at ̣ron on the one hand and of his “devotee” on the other, suggests strongly to me that it is the belief in this figure as second divine person that is being anathema-78) See too Segal, Powers, 7 n. 8.
79) Indeed, it would be strange to find the word תושר here and claim that it is not connected with the תויושר יתש, which is, after all, only the plural of the exact same noun.
See Goshen-Gottstein, Sinner, 110, anticipating this point.
D. Boyarin / Journal for the Study of Judaism 41 (2010) 323-365
351
tized (although somehow the Rabbis seem unable to completely dispense with him—he was just too popular it would seem). I would take this
story as a further oblique recognition and allegorical representation of the fact that this “heresy” was once comfortably within “Judaism” and has only lately become Aḥer, “Other.”80
Following Alexander’s insight that the phrase “but it is taught that on high there will be [no standing,]81 no sitting, no [jealousy], no competition, no ‘back’ and no tiredness!” is an import into the text from another context entirely (albeit a very early import), the weak explanation for Elisha’s error given by the Talmud can be understood as part of the very process of camouflage of the real reason for Elisha’s “confusion,” which is identical to that of 3 Enoch. In the version in 3 Enoch, it is the sitting on a throne and with it the imputation of sovereignty that so discomfits Elisha that he becomes Aḥer, the Other one, the one who is Other to himself. This is the case in the Talmud’s version as well if we remove the
“import” from the text and reconstruct a proto-talmudic version, which would then read:
He saw that Met ̣at ̣ron had been given permission [תושר] to sit and write the good deeds of Israel. Perhaps, G-d forbid, there are two powers [תויושר יתש]!
This reconstruction would make absolutely clear the good reason for
Elisha’s “error.” In the Talmud as we find it, this factor has been so modi-fied as to render the text nearly unintelligible. Such a state of affairs is only explicable, in my view, on the assumption that the clearer text has been muddied on purpose and Met ̣at ̣ron’s place on the throne next to YHWH left behind. I thus precisely reverse (a kind of reverse philology, as it were) the order of the events from Alexander’s reconstruction: The version in 3 Enoch is the oldest one extant (whether or not it originated in the tradition of that book or was imported from a common source
between the Bavli as we have it and 3 Enoch). It focused exactly on the 80) The position I am taking here bears comparison with W. Bauer, G. Krodel, and R. A.
Kraft, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (ed. G. Krodel; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), except that we must avoid entirely such absurd formulations as heresy precedes orthodoxy, as if there are real entities and not merely the constructions of particular politically powerful religious parties at particular historical moments. On the derivation of the name Aḥer, none of the explanations proffered so far are convincing to me including the most recent one of Goshen-Gottstein, Sinner, 64-69.
81) Following several mss.
352
D. Boyarin / Journal for the Study of Judaism 41 (2010) 323-365
question of the second throne which perfectly explains Aḥer’s reaction: There are two powers in heaven!
According to my reconstruction a text very like this underlies the Talmud’s version as well: Met ̣at ̣ron had been given תושר to sit and write, and Elisha concluded quite plausibly that there are תויושר יתש. In order to suppress any such possibility—much as it did in the case of Rabbi Akiva discussed above—, the Bavli imported the “Platonic” text about sitting and standing and necks and tiredness and thus obliterated the throne, making Aḥer’s response a barely intelligible reaction to a contradiction between a tradition that angels don’t sit and Met ̣at ̣ron’s sitting. It is not clear in any case how this contradiction about the postures of angels would lead Aḥer to conclude (or even speculate) that there are Two Powers in Heaven, whereas finding Met ̣at ̣ron on a Godly throne with sovereignty surely would do that. To my mind, an interpretation such as mine that regards the sitting as the crux of the matter from the beginning to the end of the tradition (however attenuated and blurred in the talmudic versions—on purpose I warrant) is superior to hypotheses that submit that the sitting motif was born ex nihilo in a later redaction of the Talmud.82 Quite the opposite: The version in Munich 95 that doesn’t mention sitting seems to me to be a fairly simple sort of scribal error, the omission of a word, and nothing else; this is particularly attractive as a philological suggestion since the words “to write” בתכמל and “to sit”
בתימל differ in but one letter, easily allowing a haplography. As Prof. Lieberman, OBM used to say: every scribal error is a lectio difficilior.83
The “sitting” is indeed the crux, as it invokes the Dan 7 passage as interpreted midrashically together with Ps 110:1, e.g., in Mark 14:62 with the
“Son of Man” sitting at the right hand of God, the source of Rabbi Akiva’s “error” as well. The ascription to Met ̣at ̣ron in this text of both judicial and scribal roles, precisely those given to the Son of Man as early as the Parables, strongly support this connection as well, although to be sure, these roles are not extant in the 3 Enoch text. The talmudic text cannot, in my view, be isolated or insulated from the Enoch tradition as represented in 3 Enoch; it is engaged in a massive struggle, as it itself seems to under-82) Pace Deutsch, Guardians of the Gate, 66-67, but Deutsch’s view is already a big step forward.
83) This renders Alexander’s redactional theory considerably less “inescapable,” than Morray-Jones, “Hekhalot Literature and Talmudic Tradition,” 23 imagines and to which Deutsch, Guardians of the Gate, 54 assents.
D. Boyarin / Journal for the Study of Judaism 41 (2010) 323-365
353
stand, with such highly ancient and well-rooted elements of Jewish religi-osity as the second Throne, and a second divine person who absorbs the translated Enoch. It is simply, then, not the case that the so-called pseudepigraphic literature had no legs in later Judaism and was only preserved within Christian circles.84 This is a highly contested question, of course, and I am staking out a strong position on this contested question. I would propose that these apocalyptic traditions remained vital among Jews without making any absolutely clear distinction between the Rabbis and other Jews on this point, imagining that alongside of other developments within late-ancient Jewish culture, various forms of apocalyptic writing also continued and developed new forms, interacting in differing ways with other streams of rabbinic and para-rabbinic tradition including those that sought to suppress those apocalyptic traditions.85
The Enoch text is at as much pain to clarify that Met ̣at ̣ron worship does not constitute a theological assertion of Two Powers as the Bavli is.86
Alon Goshen-Gottstein is accordingly fully correct in his conclusion that the whipping of Met ̣at ̣ron is not a punishment of the angel but a demonstration to Aḥer that Met ̣at ̣ron is not an independent power but a subor-dinate one.87 Adducing parallels from other rabbinic texts, he shows how various angelic figures are humiliated when there is a danger that humans might think them second and coequal divinities.88 Those talmudic witnesses that gloss this as a punishment to Met ̣at ̣ron for not standing up when Elisha got there, must then represent secondary, late interventions in the text which have simply misunderstood it as a punishment, and, indeed, are only found in the later witnesses to the text.89 These late text forms cannot, then, almost by definition be the source of 3 Enoch, which clearly did understand what the whipping of Met ̣at ̣ron meant. Even the notion that Met ̣at ̣ron was indemnified for this humiliation via a retaliation 84) See on this point also Idel, “Meṭaṭron,” 30.
85) Important in this regard is Morray-Jones, “Hekhalot Literature and Talmudic Tradition.” I take no, absolutely no position on the question of mystical or hermeneutical experience.
86) Cf. Deutsch, Guardians of the Gate, 72.
87) Goshen-Gottstein, Sinner, 106.
88) See already S. Lieberman, “Meṭaṭron, the Meaning of His Name and His Functions,”
in Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism (ed. I. Gruenwald; AGJU 14; Leiden: Brill, 1980), 235-41, at 239.
89) See on this very point, Fraenkel, Aggadic Narrative, 344 n. 107, with whom I totally agree here. This late text form, which Alexander considered the basis for the 3 Enoch text, apparently only takes shape in the late middle ages.
354
D. Boyarin / Journal for the Study of Judaism 41 (2010) 323-365
against Aḥer for having caused it, which is found in all the versions of the talmudic text, seems secondary to the sanguine narration by the angel himself of his having been whipped to debunk Elisha’s erroneous conclusion.
Goshen-Gottstein has argued with some force that the “perhaps” of the Talmud is intelligible as part of a fixed form in which an authority says
“Perhaps, G-d forbid, x is the case” and then is disabused of his erroneous notion. According to his complete rereading of the entire text, Elisha ben Abuya did not sin at all but merely made a momentary error of judgment which was immediately corrected as in the typical form of talmudic stories that include, “Perhaps G-d forbid . . .”90 Although his comparison to the talmudic topos is a brilliant insight that cannot be gainsaid (and one that completely discredits notions of this formula simply having been added by later, overly pious glossators), its implication can, nonetheless, be overturned in the following fashion: As part of his strategy in shifting the story from pro-Met ̣at ̣ron to anti-Met ̣at ̣ron as it were, the redactor of the Bavli used the existing topic of “Perhaps G-d forbid,” in order to produce a powerful refutation of the Two Powers thesis: Even the “heretic”
didn’t quite believe what he saw and thought. As Goshen-Gottstein himself realizes this adaptation of that topos is, in any case, not at all a perfect or even very good fit for the Met ̣at ̣ron narrative. The pattern is always one in which the pious speaker expresses a fear that something untoward or shocking is true and is then disabused of this notion and thus comforted, ending with a pious declaration on his part.91 Almost the exact opposite happens here! Either we must accept this as a parody of the usual formula 90) Goshen-Gottstein, Sinner, 107-10.
91) Goshen-Gottstein, Sinner, 108. Here is a typical example of the topos: א דומע ונ ףד םיחספ תכסמ ילבב דומלת
.םכל הדיגאו ופסאה רמאיו וינב לא בקעי ארקיו +טמ תישארב+ :שיקל ןב ןועמש יבר רמאד
יתטמב שי םולשו סח אמש :רמא .הניכש ונממ הקלתסנו ,ןימיה ץק וינבל תולגל בקעי שקיב
עמש :וינב ול ורמא .ושע ונממ אציש קחצי יבאו ,לאעמשי ונממ אציש םהרבאכ ,לוספ