Encyclopaedia of Midrash: Biblical Interpretation in Formative Judaism

Citation preview

Encyclopaedia of Midrash

Encyclopaedia of Midrash Biblical Interpretation in Formative Judaism Volume I

Edited by

Jacob Neusner & Alan J. Avery-Peck Consulting Editors

William Scott Green & Guenter Sternberger

BRILL LEIDEN • BOSTON

2005

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication data are available on the Library of Congress website: catalog.loc.gov. LC control number: 2004058219

ISBN 9004 141669 © Copyright 2005 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. PRINTED IN THf. NETHERLANDS

Contents Preface ......................................................................................................................................

ix

"Art" in Midrashic Literature ................................................................................................

1

Church Fathers, Rabbinic Midrash and ..............................................................................

20

Dead Sea Scrolls, Biblical Interpretation in ........................................................................

40

Deuteronomy in Sifre to Deuteronomy..............................................................................

54

Esther in Esther Rabbah I ......................................................................................................

59

Exodus in Mekhilta Attributed to R. Ishmael

74

Genesis in Genesis Rabbah ....................................................................................................

88

Genesis Rabbah, Theology of ................................................................................................

105

Genres, Midrash and ..............................................................................................................

121

Hagiographa, Targums to ......................................................................................................

148

Halakhic Category Formations, Midrash and ....................................................................

173

Hellenistic Jewish Midrash, I: Beginnings ..........................................................................

199

Hellenistic Jewish Midrash II: Adopting the Allegoric Method. Aristobulus to philo ......................................................................................................................................

220

Hellenistic Jewish Midrash, III: Developed Non-Allegorical Forms. Josephus ............

232

Hermeneutics, A Critical Approach ......................................................................................

250

Hermeneutics, Techniques of Rabbinic Exegesis ..............................................................

268

Hermeneutics, Theology of ....................................................................................................

292

Josephus, Midrash in His Version of the Pentateuch ......................................................

316

Jubilees, Midrash in ................................................................................................................

333

Karaite Conception of the Biblical Narrator ......................................................................

350

Steven Fine

Adam Kamesar

Lawrence H. schiffman

Steven Fraade

jacob Neusner jacob Neusner jacob Neusner jacob Neusner Dalia Hoshen

josep Ribera-Florit jacob Neusner Folker Siegert

Folker Siegert Folker Siegert

Gary G. Porton

Rivka B. Kern-Ulmer

David Instone-Brewer Louis Feldman

Betsy Halpern-Amaru Meira Polliack

CONTENTS

V\

Lamentations in Lamentations Rabbati

374

Lamentations Rabbati, Theology of ....................................................................................

389

Language and Midrash

400

jacob Neusner jacob Neusner David Aaron

..........................................................................................................

Leviticus in Leviticus Rabbah

411

Leviticus in Sifra ......................................................................................................................

429

Leviticus Rabbah, Theology of ..............................................................................................

447

Liturgy, Midrash in ..................................................................................................................

463

Mekhilta deR. Simeon b. Yohai ............................................................................................

493

Midrash Tannaim ....................................................................................................................

510

Midrash, Definitions of ..........................................................................................................

520

New Testament Narrative as old Testament Midrash

534

Numbers in Sifre to Numbers

574

Oral Torah, Midrash and ........................................................................................................

585

Origins and Emergence of Midrash in Relation to the Hebrew Bible ..........................

595

Parable ......................................................................................................................................

612

Pentateuchal Targums as Midrash ......................................................................................

630

Pesiqta deRab Kahana, Synagogue Lections for Special Occasions in ..........................

646

Pesiqta deRab Kahana, Theology of ....................................................................................

663

Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities ......................................................................................

679

Qabbalah, Midrash and ..........................................................................................................

695

Rabbinic Midrash in Historical Context, the Fourth and Fifth Century Compilations ........................................................................................................................

709

Ruth in Ruth Rabbah ..............................................................................................................

737

Ruth Rabbah, Theology of ......................................................................................................

752

Samaritan Midrash .................................................................................................................. Alan D. Crown

762

jacob Neusner

Guenter Sternberger

jacob Neusner

Richard s. Sarason W. David Nelson

Herbert Basser

Gary G. Porton

Robert M. Price

jacob Neusner jacob Neusner

Timothy H. Lim

jacob Neusner Paul Flesher

jacob Neusner jacob Neusner

Daniel j. Harrington, S.j. Ithamar Gruenwald

jacob Neusner jacob Neusner

jacob Neusner

CONTENTS

Septuagint, Midrashic Traditions and

VB

..............................................................................

777

Sifra: Theology of ..................................................................................................................

803

Sifre to Deuteronomy, Theology of ....................................................................................

820

Sifre to Numbers, Theology of ............................................................................................

833

Song of Songs in Song of Songs Rabbah .......................................................................... Luis f. Giron Blanc Song of Songs Rabbah, Theology of ..................................................................................

857

Targum Jonathan of the Prophets I ..................................................................................

889

Targum Jonathan to the Prophets II-The Former Prophets ........................................

908

Targum, Conceptual Categories of ....................................................................................

927

Theological Foundations of Rabbinic Exegesis ................................................................

944

Theology of Rabbinic Midrash ............................................................................................

964

Women, Midrashic Constructions of ..................................................................................

979

Index of Ancient Sources .................................................................................................... Index of Subjects ....................................................................................................................

999 1061

Giuseppe Veltri

jacob Neusner jacob Neusner

jacob Neusner

jacob Neusner

Bruce D. Chilton

Bruce D. Chilton Etan Levine

Rivka B. Kern-Ulmer

jacob Neusner

judith R. Baskin

871

Preface The word "Midrash" in Hebrew corresponds to "biblical interpretation" in English and refers to the interpretation and application of Scripture in judaism. Interpretation of Scripture began even before Scripture came to closure, as the relationship of Chronicles to Samuel and Kings shows, and, from the promulgation of the Torah in the fifth century B.C.E., scriptural interpretation formed a principal medium of theological expression and religious inquiry for the various communities of judaism. In this encyclopaedia we provide a systematic account of biblical interpretation in judaism, from well before the second century B.C.E. through the end of the seventh century C.E. We cover interpretation of Scripture in a number of distinct Judaic canons but emphasize the Rabbinic one, which came to predominate and which defined the norm of judaism from antiquity to the present day. At the same time systematic entries by specialists describe how biblical interpretations produced in other communities of judaism related to Rabbinic Midrash. The scholars represented in these pages include most of the leading figures in the study of ancient judaism and its reading of Scripture. For the topics treated here, they set forth the state of the question at this time. The editors take pride in the excellence of the essays supplied by these exemplary scholars, who represent the principal academic centers and the viewpoints on the study of biblical interpretation in ancient judaism of North America, Europe, and the State of Israel. The alphabetical arrangement of the entries in this encyclopaedia does not immediately reveal how, in these pages, we fully cover the topic of Midrash. To display how we have defined and organized the topic Rabbinic Midrash in its larger diachronic and synchronic contexts, the following outline serves. We first provide a general introduction to Rabbinic Midrash and its traits, dealing with theoretical questions of definition, origins, theology, hermeneutics, language, feminist issues, Halakhic categories, parables, genre-criticism, Midrash in other than literary media (in art for example), Midrash and Qabbalah, Midrash and liturgy. In the second large unit of the encyclopaedia we address how Rabbinic Midrash reads specific biblical books, with special reference to Rabbinic documents focused on one or another of the books of Scripture. We proceed from the documentary reading of Midrash-compilations to the systematic presentation of the principal religious ideas, the theology of many of those same compilations. From theology we move on to the historical context in which Rabbinic Midrash took shape, so far as the state of scholarship makes possible such an account. From Rabbinic Midrash in its own terms and framework the collection turns to privileged translations of Scripture that form systematic interpretations of Scripture, Targumim that relate to Rabbinic judaism as well as others. Finally, we turn to the question, how do compilations of Midrash-interpretation of Scripture that came to closure prior to, or outside of, the framework of Rabbinic Midrashdocuments relate to the Rabbinic ones? Here we turn to Hellenistic jewish Midrash,josephus, Pseudo-Philo, jubilees, as well as to the New Testament, Karaite and Samaritan writings, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Here is a complete listing of the entries found in these volumes, systematically organized by topic:

x

PREFACE

General Introduction to Rabbinic Midrash and its Traits 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

6.

7.

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

Midrash, Definitions of-Gary G. Porton Origins and Emergence of Midrash in Relation to the Hebrew Bible-Timothy H. Lim Theology of Rabbinic Midrash-Jacob Neusner Hermeneutics, Techniques of Rabbinic Exegesis-Rivka Kern-Ulmer Hermeneutics, A Critical Account-Gary G. Porton Hermeneutics, Theology of-David Instone-Brewer Theological Foundations of Rabbinic Exegesis-Rivka Kern-Ulmer Language and Midrash-David Aaron Women, Midrashic Constructions of-Judith R. Baskin Halakhic Category Formations, Midrash and-Jacob Neusner Oral Torah, Midrash and-Jacob Neusner Parable-Jacob Neusner Genres, Midrash and -Dalia Hoshen "Art" in Midrashic Literature-Steven Fine Qabbalah, Midrash and-Ithamar Gruenwald Liturgy, Midrash in-Richard S. Sarason

Rabbinic Reading of Biblical Books 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

Genesis in Genesis Rabbah-Jacob Neusner Exodus in Mekhilta Attributed to R. Ishmael-Jacob Neusner Leviticus in Sifra-Guenter Sternberger Leviticus in Leviticus Rabbah-Jacob Neusner Numbers in Sifre to Numbers-jacob Neusner Deuteronomy in Sifre to Deuteronomy-Steven Fraade Lamentations in Lamentations Rabbati-Jacob Neusner Song of Songs in Song of Songs Rabbah-Luis Giron Blanc Esther in Esther Rabbah I-Jacob Neusner Ruth in Ruth Rabbah-Jacob Neusner Pesiqta deRab Kahana, Synagogue Lections for Special Occasions in-Jacob Neusner Mekhilta deR. Simeon b. Yohai-W. David Nelson Midrash Tannaim-Herbert Basser

The Theology of Rabbinic Midrash 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38.

Genesis Rabbah, Theology of-Jacob Neusner Pesiqta deRab Kahana, Theology of-Jacob Neusner Song of Songs Rabbah, Theology of-Jacob Neusner Leviticus Rabbah, Theology of-Jacob Neusner Lamentations Rabbati, Theology of-Jacob Neusner Ruth Rabbah, Theology of-Jacob Neusner Sifre to Deuteronomy, Theology of-Jacob Neusner Sifre to Numbers, Theology of-Jacob Neusner Sifra: Theology of-Jacob Neusner

XI

PREFACE

Rabbinic Midrash in Historical Context 39. Fourth and Fifth Century Midrash-Compilations-Jacob Neusner

Privileged Translations: The Targumim and Rabbinic Midrash 40. Targum Jonathan of the Prophets I-Bruce D. Chilton

41: Targum Jonathan to the Prophets II-The Former Prophets-Bruce D. Chilton 42. Targum, Conceptual Categories of-Etan Levine 43. Pentateuchal Targums as Midrash-Paul Flesher 44. Hagiographa, Targums to-Josep Ribera

Formative Rabbinic Midrash in Synchronic Context; Special Topics 45. Hellenistic Jewish Midrash, I: Beginnings-Folker Siegert 46. Hellenistic Jewish Midrash II: Adopting the Allegoric Method. Aristobulus to philoFolker Siegert 47. Hellenistic Jewish Midrash, III: Developed Non-Allegorical Forms. Josephus-Folker Siegert 48. Josephus, Midrash in His Version of the Pentateuch-Louis Feldman 49. Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities-Daniel J. Harrington 50. Jubilees, Midrash in-Betsy Halpern-Amaru 51. Church Fathers, Rabbinic Midrash and-Adam Kamesar 52. Septuagint, Midrashic Traditions and-Giuseppe Veltri 53. New Testament Narrative as old Testament Midrash-Robert Price 54. Karaite Conception of the Biblical Narrator-Meira Polliack 55. Samaritan Midrash-Alan Crown 56. Dead Sea Scrolls, Biblical Interpretation in-Lawrence H. Schiffman The editors express their thanks to the many colleagues who joined in this work and generously shared their learning and insight through this project. They not only gave us their best work, but they presented their entries on time and in excellent form. We also enjoyed the advantage of good counsel in locating the best people for each assignment and thank the two consulting editors, William Scott Green, University of Rochester, and Guenter Sternberger, University of Vienna, for their advice. Working with Brill is always a pleasure, and, however complex the task of production, Brill's editors and production staff never fail to produce a handsome and elegant book. For this we are grateful. JACOB NEUSNER

Bard College ALAN J. AVERY-PECK

College of the Holy Cross

"Art" in Midrashic Literature l "Art" is a category of thought that would have made no sense to Jews during the Greco-Roman period. 2 In fact, there was no distinctive word for "art" in the Hebrew language until the early twentieth century. Chaim Nahman Bialik used the term "pure art" (omanut tehorah) to refer to the fine arts, as did others in mandatory Palestine. 3 Eliezer Ben Yehuda, the celebrated "father of modern Hebrew," referred to the introduction of the noun omanut to refer to "art" in his monumental lexicon: "This word (omanut) was recently coined, and its usage has spread in the newspapers and in speech."4 Linguistically, the term omanut is derived from the Rabbinic Hebrew term umanut, which bears the sense of handicraft or skill.s It hearkens back to Song of Songs 7:2, "the work of a master's hand (oman)."6 Umanut

(umanuta in Palestinian Jewish Aramaic) is a term that late antique Jews would well have understood. Umanut is the work of an uman, a craftsman. An Aramaic inscription from a study house (or perhaps a synagogue) in Beth Shean (Scythopolis) includes Aramaic terms for both the artisan and his product: "Remembered for good, the artisan (umana) who made this work (avidata)."7 The pairing of "craftsmen" and "work" is reminiscent of the Targumic translation of the biblical malekhet makhshevet, "work in every skilled craft" (Exod. 36:33).8 Targum Neofiti, which dates to the fifth century, translates malekhet makhshevet as avidat beumanut, "[to do every] work with craftsmanship."9 To go one step further: the term umanut parallels the Greek tekhne, "craft." 10 In a Greek dedicatory inscription from the

1 The author dedicates this article to the memory ofpro£ Louis Ginzberg (1873-1953), on the fiftieth anniversary of his death. "R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says: Monuments (nefashot) are not built for the righteous. Their words are their memorial" (Y. Sheq. 2:7, 47a). I thank my colleague Seth Ward for his insightful comments on this manuscript. 2 On "art" in the English language, see The Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford, 1989), vol. 1, pp.657-659. 3 CN. Bialik, Kol Kitve C.N. Bialik (Tel Aviv, 1938), pp. 258-260, in Hebrew. 1 E. Ben Yehuda, A complete Dictionary of Ancient and Modern Hebrew (Jerusalem, 1980), vol. 1, p. 286, in Hebrew. S M.Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli, and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York, 1982), p. 27. 6 NJPS. Note that popularly used printed editions of Targum Onkelos translates u-veharoshet even in Exod. 31:5 and punctuates it as u-ve-omanut even. Compare A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic (Leiden, 1992), vol. 1, p. 145, u-ve-umanut.

7 J. Naveh, On Stone and Mosaic (Israel, 1978), pp. 78-79, in Hebrew; D. Bahat, "A Synagogue at Beth-Shean," in L.l. Levine, ed., Ancient Synagogues Revealed (Jerusalem, 1981), pp. 82-85. On the identification of this building as a study house, see S. Fine, This HOly Place: On the Sanctity of the Synagogue during the Greco-Roman Period (Notre Dame, 1997), pp. 100-101. 8 This term was used to describe fine craftsmanship in medieval Hebrew and applied to fine arts during the nineteenth century. See A. Holtzman, Aesthetics and National RevivalHebrew Literature Against the Visual Arts (Tel Aviv, 1999), in Hebrew. This phrase is still occasionally used to describe fine craftsmanship. See for example z. Yeivin, The Synagogue of Korazim: The 1962-1964, 1980-1987 Excavations (Jerusalem, 2000), p. 6, in Hebrew. 9 A. Dfez Macho, ed., Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinense Ms de la Biblioteca Vaticana (Madrid and Barcelona, 1968). 10 J.J. Pollitt, "Art, Ancient Attitudes to," in S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth, eds., The Oxford Classical Dictionary (3rd ed.: New York, 1996), p. 178.

2

"ART" IN MIDRASHIC LITERATURE

sixth century Beth Alpha synagogue mosaic, the artisans are referred to as tekhnitai, the word from which the English "technicians" derives.l1 I go through this philological exercise to emphasize that "art" in the sense intended in our post-Renaissance lexicon (with all of its associated pieties) would have been unknown to the ancients. Members of the Rabbinic community, 12 like most members of Greco-Roman society, might well have appreciated the well made and the expensive. A well-crafted table, a pitcher by the famous glass maker Ennion, I3 a tiara shaped as a "city of gold" 14 or a well constructed building were likely to have been prized by members of this community. IS When it came to the reli-

giously charged art of gentiles, however, the Jewish evaluation would invariably turn negative. A religious artifact, a statue, carving or relief of a god (or later Christian icons), were generally to be avoided. Jews (among them the Rabbis) were not innately "aniconic," "iconoclastic," or "iconophobic," as some scholars have suggested. 16 Jewish animus was directed against art considered idolatrous. I have elsewhere called this approach "anti-idolic."17 A number of studies appeared during the twentieth century that explored Jewish attitudes toward idolatry and idolatrous artifacts. 18 Similarly, parallels between imagery discovered in ancient synagogues, particularly the magnificent structure at Dura Europos,

II L. Roth-Gerson, Greek Inscriptions in the Synagogues in Eretz-Israel (Jerusalem, 1987), pp. 29-32, in Hebrew. On Jewish crafts in Greek inscriptions: pp. 164-165. 12 I use the phrase "Rabbinic community" to refer to the rabbis, their immediate social circles, and those who took them and their religious approach into account. This is a broader term than "Rabbinic class" used by L.l. Levine, The Rabbinic class of Roman Palestine (Jerusalem, 1989), which overstates in limiting the Rabbinic role in society, using the sociological term "class" imprecisely. 13 G. Lehrer-Jacobson, Ennion, A First Century Glassmaker (Ramat Aviv, 1979), in Hebrew; N. Avigad, Discoveringjerusalem (Nashville, 1980), pp. 107-108. 14 E.g., M. Kel. 11:8. See S.M. Paul, "Jerusalem-City of Gold," in Israel Explorationjoumal 17 (1967), pp. 257-263; idem, "Jerusalem of Gold-A Song and an Ancient Crown," in Biblical Archaeology Review 3, no. 4 (1977), pp. 38-40. In the Babylonian Talmud this tiara is referred to as a "Jerusalem of Gold." See B. Shabo 59a-b, B. Ned. 50a. On the use Roman jewelry fashions in Rabbinic culture, see U. Zevulun and Y. Olenik. Form and Function in the Talmudic Period (Tel Aviv, 1979), pp. 100-101, in Hebrew. 15 E.g., T. Suk. 4:6, and especially Y. Sheq. 5:7, 49b, Y. Pe. 8:9, 21b. 16 T.N.D. Mettinger, No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in its Ancient Near Eastern Context (Stockholm, 1995), p. 17. See especially D. Freedberg's discussion of "the myth of ani-

conism" in his The Power of Images: Studies in the History and Theory of Response (Chicago, 1989), pp. 54-81; M. Olin, The Nation Without Art (Omaha, 2001); K. Bland, The Artless jew: Medieval and Modem Affirmations and Denials of the Visual (Princeton, 2000). 17 Art and Identity in Latter Second Temple Period judaea: The Hasmonean Royal Tombs at Modi'in, The Twenty-fourth Annual Rabbi Louis Feinberg Memorial Lecture in Judaic Studies (Cincinnati, 2002), p. 16. 18 The most important of these were penned by E.E. urbach and Gerald J. Blidstein: E.E. Urbach, "The Rabbinical Laws of Idolatry in the Second and Third Centuries in Light of Archaeological and Historical Facts," in Israel Exploration journal 9, nos. 3-4 (1959), pp. 149165,229-245; G.J. Blidstein, Rabbinic Legislation on Idolatry-Tractate Abodah Zarah, Chapter I, Doctoral dissertation (New York: Yeshiva University, 1968), in Hebrew; idem, "The Tannaim and Plastic Art: Problems and Prospects," in Perspectives injewish Learning 5 (1973), pp. 1327; idem, "Prostration and Mosaics in Talmudic Law," in Bulletin of the Institute of jewish Studies 2 (1974), pp. 19-39; idem, "Nullification of Idolatry in Rabbinic Law, in PAAjR 41-42 (1975), pp. 1-44. See now Y.Z. Eliav, "Visiting the sculptural Environment: Shaping the Second Commandment," in Talmud Yerushalmi and Greco-Roman Culture (TUbingen, forthcoming), vol. 3, pp. 411-433. I return to this issue in brief in my forthcoming jewish Archaeology: Art and judaism during the Greco-Roman Period.

"ART" IN MIDRASHIC LITERATURE

and the writings of the Rabbis has been explored in great depth. Sources throughout the Rabbinic corpus and beyond have been marshaled in this process. joseph Gutmann has gone so far as to call these synagogues "The Illustrated Midrash."19 The research of c. Kraeling, E.L. sukenik,j. Gutmann, and a host of others has unearthed important parallels. 20 Here I will explore aspects of jewish visuality that have been less thoroughly discussed. I investigate selected discussions that relate to "art" in midrashic sources, setting positive statements side by side with the internal limits that jews set in constructing their unique aesthetically "anti-idolic" approach. The sources to be discussed are preserved in standard midrashic collections, midrash elsewhere in Rabbinic collections, liturgical texts (especially piyyut), and targum. These traditions stretch over a very long period, beginning with the Tannaitic midrashim, edited in Roman Palestine during the third

3

century and continuing to Byzantine and early Islamic period Palestinian documents that date to the seventh or eighth centuries. I focus upon three distinct, though interrelated contexts: We begin with "Projection: Biblical Beauty in Rabbinic Garb," a discussion of art and the Rabbinic imagination. In this section I show how Rabbinic literature projects the art of late antiquity into the biblical past, setting selected sources against the background of contemporaneous late antique archaeological remains. In "Art in the Service of the Divine," I focus on art and Rabbinic praxis, discussing ways that beauty functions within this context. Finally, in "Artisans in Midrashic Sources," I turn to attitudes toward artisans who produce figurative art and public architecture. In each of these sections I set midrashic traditions against the background of other genres of Rabbinic literature, contemporaneous archaeological remains, and the general Roman and Byzantine context.

Projection: Biblical Beauty in Rabbinic Garb

Occasionally midrashic sources project the visual art of the Roman period directly into the biblical reality. These sources are most important, because they tell us much about Rabbinic attitudes that are unrestricted by political, economic or other considerations. Projection of contemporary art into the biblical arena is well known in the wall paintings at Dura Europos, and in later mosaics, where Greco-Roman garb, furniture, archi-

tecture, poses, and even gods are projected into the biblical story.21 I deal with three groups of traditions. I begin by discussing the projection of Roman coins into biblical times, moving from there to Roman road markers that "led" to the biblically-ordained cities of refuge, and finally to Solomon's Throne and Mordecai's garments as imagined by Targum Sheni to Esther. Coins were invented during the seventh

19 "The Illustrated Midrash in the Dura Synagogue Paintings: A New Dimension for the Study ofJudaism," in PAAJR 50, pp. 91-104. 20 C.H. Kraeling, The Synagogue, with contributions by c.c. Torrey, C.B. Welles, and B. Geiger. (New Haven, 1956); E.L. Sukenik, Beit ha-Kneset shel Dura-Europos ve-Tsiyurav (Jerusalem, 1947). J. Gutmann catalogs the various approaches see his: "Early Synagogue and Jewish Catacomb Art and Its Relation to Christian Art," in ANRW 2.21.2 (1984), pp. 1313-

1342. Regarding Palestinian synagogues, see the summary statement by A. Shinan, "Synagogues in the Land of Israel: The Literature of the Ancient Synagogue and Synagogue Archaeology," in S. Fine, ed., Sacred Realm: The Emergence of the Synagogue in the Ancient World (New York, 1996), pp. 130-152 and the bibliography cited there. 21 See my "Liturgy and the Art of the Dura Europos Synagogue," in S. Fine and R. Langer, eds., Liturgy in the Life ofthe Synagogue, forthcoming.

4

"ART" IN MIDRASHIC LITERATURE

century B.C.E. in western Asia Minor.22 Rabbinic traditions suggest, however, that coins were used by biblical figures beginning with Abraham. The rabbis considered minted coins with visual imagery struck onto their faces to be so obvious that they projected their existence back to biblical times. Many of these coins were decorated, we are told, with images. Thus we read in a baraita in B. B.Q. 97b: Our Rabbis taught: What is the coin of Jerusalem? David and Solomon on one side, And Jerusalem the holy city on the other.23 What is the coin of Abraham?24 An old man and an old woman on one side, And a young man and a young woman on the other. The authors of this tradition imagined that the biblical ancestors minted their own coins as a reflection of their sovereignty.25 Abraham is mentioned as a military leader by Josephus, a tradition that continued through Rabbinic sources. 26 As on our Rabbinic coins, Roman coin types sometimes bore images of more than one individual on a single face. Both images of two males and images of a male with a female side by side appearP On a bronze minted in Aelia Capitolina, for example, the busts of Septimus Severus and his wife Julia appears on one side, standing portraits of the Caesar and his wife clasping hands on the other. 28 22 N.J. Richardson, "Coinage, Greek," The Oxford Classical Dictionary, p. 356. 23 R. Rabbinowicz, Dikduqei Sofrim (New York, 1976), ad. loc., note ayin. 24 Ibid. 25 M.A. Levy, Geschichte der jiidischen Miinzen (Leipzig, 1862), p. 160, and Blidstein, Rabbinic Legislation on Idolatry, p. 247, discuss Rabbinic traditions of biblical coinage. 26 cf. L.H. Feldman, josephus' Interpretation of the Bible (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1998), pp. 234-237, esp. n. 29. 27 Y. Meshorer, City-Coins of Eretz-Israel and

The legend "Jerusalem the Holy" appears on First Revolt coins, and the facade of the Temple with the legend "for the redemption of Zion" appears on Bar Kokhba coins (which continued to be known to the rabbis for a considerable period after the war).29 They projected the existence of Jerusalem coins back to the ideal kingship of David and Solomon. This was done with none of the discomfort that the minters of the Jewish revolts had with "graven images." In the biblical golden age, the ideal coins of David and Solomon and of Father Abraham, like the broadly circulated currency of their own day, unproblematically bear the images of the ruler.30 This projection is applied to Mordecai and Esther Rabbah 10, 12. This text explicitly compares biblical currency to the Roman currency that it ultimately imitates: "Just as the currency of a king goes out throughout the land, the currency of Mordecai goes out. And what was his currency? Mordecai on one side, and Esther on the other."3l Genesis Rabbah 39, 11 contains an extensive discussion of "biblical" currency, based upon biblical references, with a wider selection of coins: 32 [And I will make you a great nation and I will bless you and I will make your name great .... (Gen. 12:2)] R. Berekiah said in the name of R. Helbo: "[It means that] his currency went out." There were four whose currency went out in the world:

the Decapolis in the Roman Period (Jerusalem, 1984), nos. 141, 172, 178, 201, 237, 243, 264, in Hebrew. 28 Ibid., no. 172. 29 E.g., Y. S. 1, 52d. 30 For a possible example of Rabbinic cognizance of the iconography of Roman coins, see S. Stern, "Dissonance and Misunderstanding in Jewish-Roman Relations," in M. Goodman, jews and Greeks in the Roman World (Oxford, 1998), pp. 242-245. 3l See also Targum Rishon to Esther 9:4. 32 See the comments of Theodor and Albeck, pp. 374-375.

"ART" IN MIDRASHIC LITERATURE

5

The name of Abraham will be "made great" by spreading it through currency, moneta-

a Latin loan word. 34 Similarly, the fame of Joshua, David, and Mordecai, this midrash tells us, was spread. Aside for the imagery of Abraham, which, like that described in B. B.Q. 97b, is derived directly from Roman coins, the imagery of the others is derived midrashically from biblical texts. That said, all of these images except "sackcloth" appear with regularity on Roman coin types. Wreaths and palm fronds appears on Hasmonian issues,35 and the ox plowing a furrow at the foundation of Aelia Capitolina appears on coinage of that city that seems to have been known to the Tannaitic rabbis. 36 David's tower hung with shields clearly parallels both Roman trophies (like those that appear on the }udaea Capta series) and images oftowers. 37 A coin ofTrajan (104-111 c.E.), for example, shows an ornamental triumphal arch topped with trophies bearing shields. 38 The use of "sackcloth" was clearly dictated by the significance of garments in expressing the central theme of the Book of Esther. Where in Esther 4:1 Mordecai "rent his clothes and put on sackcloth with ashes and went in to the midst of the city, and cried a loud and bitter cry," in 8:15, after defeating the evil Haman, "Mordecai went out from the presence of the king in royal apparel of blue and white and a great wreath of gold, and with a wrap of fine linen and purple, and the city of Shushan rejoiced and was glad." The rabbis' "biblical" currency, read through the filter of biblical texts, clearly reflects the numismatic context in which the rabbis lived. Significantly, the coins of Abrahamthe only coin types not derived from verses, represent human images. This tradition, like the B. B.Q. and Esther Rabbah sources we have discussed, is independent

'rl This verse refers to Joseph, from whom Joshua, being of the tribe of Ephraim, was descended. 14 A. Kohut, Aruch Completum (New York, 1955), vol. 5, p. 175, in Hebrew. 35 Y. Meshorer, A Treasury of Jewish Coins from the Persian Period to Bar-Kochba

(Jerusalem, 1997), pp. 38-39, in Hebrew. 36 Meshorer, City Coins, no. 2; S. Stem, "Dissonance and Misunderstanding," pp. 242245. 37 M. Price and B. Trell, Coins and Their Cities (London, 1977), figs. 499-522. 38 Ibid., fig. 506. See also figs. 122.

Abraham: [as it is written], "And I will make you a great nation and I will bless you and I will make your name great. ... " (Gen. 12:2). His currency went out. What is it? An old man and an old woman on one side, and a youth and a young woman on the other. Joshua: [as it is written], "So the Lord was with Joshua, and his fame was in all the land" (Josh. 6:27). His currency went out in the world. What is it? An ox on one side and a wild-ox on the other, corresponding to, "His firstling bullock, majesty is his, and his horns are the horns of a wild-ox;" Deut. 33:17).33 David: [as it is written], "And the fame of David went out into all the lands" (1 Chron. 14:17). His currency went out to every land. What is it? A staff and a sack on one side, and a tower on the other, corresponding to, "Thy neck is like the tower of David, built with turrets [on which hang a thousand bucklers, shields of mighty men" (Cant. 4:4). Mordecai, [as it is written], "For Mordecai was great in the king's house, and his fame went forth throughout all the provinces" (Est. 9:4). His currency went out. What is it? Sackcloth and ashes on one side and a golden wreath on the other (Est. 4:1, 8:15).

6

"ART" IN MIDRASHIC LITERATURE

of Scriptural warrant. The coins of Joshua, says Genesis Rabbah, contained representations of animals, and the other coins described are decorated with inanimate objects. It is possible that these biblicallyderived icons represent more strict attitudes by the author of the exegetical traditions in Genesis Rabbah. It is more likely, though, that our author was focused upon providing biblical precedent without any particular bias regarding human or animal forms. One tradition imagines Jews' setting up mile markers that differed little from sculpted Roman mile markers.39 The midrashic context for this discussion is the biblical city of refugee (Num. 35:6-15). According to a Byzantine period collection, Midrash Psalms,40 those who committed unintentional homicide were guided to the city with the help of sculpted markers-"Said R. Abin: 41 'At each and every mile there was a structure (burgan),42 and atop each structure a statue (tselem) with its hand pointing in the direction of the city of refuge."'43 The version in Y. Mak. 2:5, 31d, is more tentative, reading in place of "a statue with its hand pointing" simply "a kind of hand (ka-min yad)

would show them the way." "A kind of hand" is elsewhere used in Amoraic literature to avoid anthropomorphism. 44 Images of the divine hand appear in the Dura Europos synagogue wall paintings, and later in the Beth Alpha synagogue mosaic, and in relief on a marble synagogue screen from Khirbet Susiya. 45 While rabbis discuss in negative (or at least, belligerently tolerant) terms the presence of "idolatrous" sculpture in their midst, including in the principally Jewish city of Tiberias (e.g., Y. A.Z. 3:1, 42b-c)' the Midrash Psalms text actually assumes that sculpture in the round was set up under (proto-) Rabbinic auspices in compliance with a biblical commandment. The most lavish projection into the biblical past appears in a Byzantine period midrash in Aramaic, Targum Sheni to Esther. 46 This text describes the throne of Ahasveros in considerable detail. This throne, the Targum tells us, was constructed by Solomon, taken by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylonia, and inherited by the Persian kingY

19 See Blidstein, Rabbinic Legislation on Idolatry, pp. 246-447; "The Tannaim and Plastic Art," p. 23. 40 Ed. Buber, Ps. 25. 41 For possible identifications of this Amora, see C. Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, Babli and Yerushalmi (Tel Aviv, 1969), pp. 352, 385, in Hebrew. 42 See Kohut, Aruch Completum, vol. 2, pp. 184-185. 43 G. Blidstein, "The Tannaim and Plastic Art," p. 23. 44 E.g., Lev. R. 19,6, ed. M. Margaliot, 1: 436; Y. Sheq. 6, 50a; B. Ta. 25a. For a related phenomenon, see H. Fox, '''As If with a Finger'The Text History of an Expression Avoiding Anthropomorphism," in Tarbiz 49 (1980), pp. 278-291, in Hebrew. According to M. A.Z. 3:2, possession of a sculpted hand should also be forbidden. This text may refer to a very specific artifact, however, and not to all hands. 45 See Kraeling, The Synagogue, p. 57; E.L.

sukenik, The Ancient Synagogue of Beth Alpha (Jerusalem, 1932); G. Foerster, "Decorated Marble Chancel Screens in the Sixth Century Synagogues in Palestine and Their Relation to Christian Art and Architecture," in Actes du Xl e Congres International d'Archeologie Chretienne (Rome, 1989), vol. 2, pp. 1818-1820. 46 The Two Targums of Esther, ed. and tr. B. Grossfeld (Collegeville, 1991), pp. 19-21, 23-24, surveys scholarly opinion on the date of Targum Sheni. He suggests the early seventh century. See L. Blau, "Early Christian Archaeology from a Jewish Point of View," Hebrew Union College Annual 3 (1926), pp. 188-189. 47 The Targum Sheni to the Book of Esther: A Critical Edition Based on MS. Sassoon 282 with Critical Apparatus, ed. B. Grossfeld (Brooklyn, 1994), chap. 1. My translation generally follows Grossfeld, 1991, pp. 107-111. See L. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews (philadelphia, 1954), vol. 4, pp. 159ff., Kraeling, The Synagogue, pp. 157-159.

... This is Solomon, the great king, who made his great royal throne cov-

"ART" IN MIDRASHIC LITERATURE

ered with fine gold from Ophir, overlaid with beryl stones, inlayed with marble, it was overlaid with samargel, carbuncle, diamonds and pearls and all kinds of precious ones. For no king was one made like it, or were any of the kings able to produce one similar to it. Now this was the workmanship of his throne: twelve lions of gold stood upon it, and opposite them were twelve eagles of gold, a lion opposite an eagle and an eagle opposite a lion, they were arranged opposite each other. The right paw of the golden lion [ ]. The sum of all the lions was seventy two. Now the top of the throne were the king's seat was located, was round. It had six steps, for it is written: then the king made a great throne of ivory, the throne had six steps" (I Kings 10:18). Thus on the first step lay a golden ox and opposite it lay a golden lamb. On the third step lay a golden panther and opposite it lay a golden suckling kid. On the fourth step lay a golden eagle and opposite it a golden peacock. On the fifth step lay a golden cat and opposite it a golden hen. On the sixth step lay a golden hawk and opposite it a golden bird. Now on the top of the throne stood a golden dove, grasping a golden hawk in its claw. So likewise will all the nations and (speakers of all) languages in the future be delivered into the hand of Israel. Now at the top of the throne was located a golden lamp stand set in proper order in its arrangement of its lamps (and) with pomegranates, (and) with its ornaments, (and) with its snuffers/ashpans (and) with its cups and with its lilies. Now at one side of the lampstand were standing seven golden branches, upon which were portrayed the seven Patriarchs of the world, and these are their names: Adam, Noah and the great Shem, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and Job among them. Now at the other side of the lampstand were standing seven

7

other branches, upon which were portrayed the seven pious ones of the world and these are their names: Levi, Qehat, Amram, Moses, Aaron (and) EIdad and Medad, as well as the prophet Haggai among them. Now at the top of the lampstand was a golden vessel filled with pure olive oil, whose light supplied the lights of the lampstand, and upon it were portrayed the high priest. From the large basis proceeded two golden clusters, upon which were depicted the two sons of Eli-Hophni and Pinchas. Now within the two golden clusters there proceeded from the large basin [ ] upon which were portrayed the two sons of Aaron-Nadav and Abihu-as well as two golden seats, one for the high priest and one for the deputy high priest. Towards the top of the throne were set seventy golden thrones, upon which sat the seventy (members of the) sanhedrin, dispensingjustice before King Solomon. Now two dolphins were on either side of King Solomon's two ears in order that he should not become frightened. Above the top of the throne were set twenty-four golden vines, which provided shade for King Solomon .... This amazing tradition builds upon biblical descriptions of Solomon's throne-themselves quite fantastic. In 1 Kings 10:18-20 and 2 Chron. 9:17-19 the throne is described. In the 1 Kings text we read: The king also made a great ivory throne, and overlaid it with the finest gold. The throne had six steps, and at the back of the throne was a calfs head, and on each side of the seat were arm rests and two lions standing beside the arm rests, while twelve lions stood there, one on each end of a step on the six steps. The like of it was never made in any kingdom. As the first expansion of this tradition, 2 Chron. 9:18 adds a golden footstool. The

8

"ART" IN MIDRASHIC LITERATURE

process of expansion continued up to and beyond our Targum Sheni text. The ever more ornate throne epitomizes the biblical notion that, "The like of it was never made in any kingdom." In the words of the Targum,48 Now when kings heard about the fame of the king's throne, they assembled themselves and all of them came together, prostrating themselves and throwing themselves before him, they said: "Such a throne was never made for any king, and no nation or people could design one like it." Now when the kings beheld the excellence of the throne, they paid respect to the One who created the whole world. Into the biblical frame, traditions drawn from classical Rabbinic literature are added. The thrones of the Sanhedrin, for example, are taken from T. Suk. 4:6. Similarly, the lamp stand is reminiscent of Rabbinic interpretation of the menorah. The Targum continues to describe how the throne moved from place to place, as well the astonishing movements of each of the animals on the throne: 49 the oxen lowed, the lions roared, the bears growled, the lambs bleated, the panthers screamed, the owls hooted, the cats mewed, the peacocks shrieked, the roosters crowed, the hawks screamed and the birds chirped .... The lions would sprinkle spices whenever King Solomon would ascend to sit on the king's throne.

48 Grossfeld, The Two Targums of Esther, p. 111. 49 Ibid., p. 112. 50 G. Brett, "The Automata in the Byzantine "Throne of Solomon," in Speculum, 29, no. 3 (1954), pp. 477-487, and especially E. Ville-

This is a superb example of Byzantine automata, of mechanized moving contrivances meant to enthrall the viewer. Actual working "thrones of Solomon" are known to have existed at the Byzantine court. 50 The rambling style of this Targumic presentation is not intended, I believe, to suggest the actual structure of the throne, but rather through accretion of traditions and compulsive overstatement to affirm its biblically-proclaimed glory. The portrayal of animals and biblical heroes is significant. No less than nineteen biblical figures are said to be portrayed. This interest in animals is by no means a late Byzantine innovation. In Pesikta deRav Kahana, a classical Amoraic midrash, the throne is described with "a golden scepter was suspended behind it, and a dove was at its top. A golden wreath was in the dove's mouth, and when he [solomon] sat under it on the seat [of the throne] the wreath would touch but not quite touch his head."51 This scepter is clearly drawn from Roman imperial iconography, where the emperor's scepter is topped with an eagle. In Targum Sheni this wreath is automated: "When the king ascended and sat down upon the royal throne, the great eagle would go around and take the royal wreath and place the wreath upon King Solomon's head .... "52 The visual themes of this midrash, as well as that of Targum Sheni, mesh well with imagery within late antique public contexts, and provides a Sitz im Leben for these texts. Bas reliefs of animals appear often in the Beth Shearim catacomb complex, including those where the tombs of rabbis are preva-

Patlagean, "Une Image de Salomon en Basileus Byzantin," in Revue des Etudes juives 121, nos. 1-2 (1962), pp. 9-33. 51 Ed. Mandelbaum (New York, 1962), 1:6, p.12.

52 Grossfeld, The Two Targums of Esther, p. 111.

"ART" IN MIDRASHIC LITERATURE

9

lent. 53 The same is true of Byzantine period synagogues, where, as in church decoration, all sorts of animals are to be found. Lions sculpted in the round and lions and birds as decorate elements of Torah shrines are particularly evocative. 54 The broad range of imagery at Chorazin provides a unique set of parallels to our text. Animals appear quite commonly, including hunting and prey scenes, a centaur, and a lioness suckling her young. Among the discoveries were a throne, apparently with reliefs of animals carved on the forward finials of its arm rests, a large sculpted lion, fragments of a lioness and apparently another lion and a panther.55 Ze'ev Yeivin proposes that the chair at Chorazin rested on a raised platform that was enclosed within an aedicula supported by two columns.56 This arrangement appears in the Beth Alpha mosaic, on the Nabratein Torah Shrine aedicule, and on the Torah shrine from the synagogue of En Samsam in the Golan Heights. 57 The eschatological image of predators and domesticated animals dwelling in peace not only influenced the Targum's depiction of Solomon's throne, but also the floor mosaic of the Meroth synagogue. There a sheep and a wolf face toward a footed fountain filled with drinking water. This rather standard iconography was Judaized through the addition of Is. 65:25: "the wolf and the lamb will graze together."5B

Unlike our Targum Sheni tradition, human figures are not noted in classical Rabbinic descriptions of the throne. One is nonetheless reminded of the numerous biblical figures at Dura Europos, and more to the point, of the images of Noah, his sons, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Aaron and Daniel in various Palestinian synagogue settings from Byzantine Palestine-not to mention the repetitive presence of images of biblical heroes in church contexts. The decoration of book bindings, service vessels, wall mosaics and church domes with repetitive human figures (be they prophets or saints) is ubiquitous in Christian settings. 59 Human imagery in the synagogue at Chorazin is extensive. This includes hunting and prey scenes, wine production, Medusa, Eros, ZeusSerapis, and the Rape of Ganymede, though I doubt that by this late date Jews were particularly cognizant of the sources of this imagery (any more than contemporary Christians were aware of origins when they used similar imagery, or most Americans are aware that July and August are named for Roman emperors or Thursday for a Norse god).60 Wreaths were very common among the decorations of Byzantine period synagogues and churches. The wreath had been adopted by Jews as early as the Hasmonean period. 61 At Qasrin for example, it appears on the lintel of the main portal, and at Chorazin

53 N. Avigad and B. Mazar, "Beth She'arim," in NEAEHL 1, pp. 236-248. 54 R. Hachlili, Ancient jewish Art and Archaeology in the Land of Israel (Leiden, 1988), pp. 278, 283, 321-340. 55 Z. Yeivin, The Synagogue of Korazim, pp. 53-54,56. 56 Z. Yeivin, "Reconstruction of the Southern Interior Wall of the Khorazin Synagogue," in Eretz-Israell8 (1985), pp. 274-275, and idem, "Ancient Chorazin Comes Back to Life," in Biblical Archaeology Review 12, no. 5 (1987), pp. 32-33; idem, The Synagogue ofKorazim, pp. 62-63. 57 R. Hachlili, Ancient jewish Art and Archaeology, pp. 294-295 and pI. 26.

58 Z. Ilan and E. Damati, Meroth: The Ancient jewish Village (Tel Aviv, 1987), pp. 78-80, in Hebrew. 59 K. Weitzmann, ed., Age of Spirituality: Late Antique and Early Christian Art, Third to Seventh Century (New York, 1979), pp. 396-669. 60 N.N. May, "The Decor of the Korazim Synagogue Reliefs," in Z. Yeivin, The Synagogue ofKorazim: The 1962-1964, 1980-1987 Excavations (Jerusalem, 2000), pp. 100-117, and English summary, pp. *52-*53. I deal with the question of interpreting "symbols" in my jewish Archeology. 61 Hachlili, Ancient jewish Art and Archaeology, p.318.

10

"ART" IN MIDRASHIC LITERATURE

wreaths appears eight times. 62 Wreaths are mentioned in Jewish liturgical texts with some frequency. While the zodiac does not appear in Targum Sheni, a Hebrew description of the throne has it that fine stones and pearls were set above Solomon's head to correspond to the signs of the zodiac. 63 The zodiac is a major theme, as we have seen, in synagogue mosaics. 64 These parallels are not to suggest that the Targumic traditions of Solomon's throne necessary influenced the synagogue art, or that the art necessarily influenced the Targum. My only claim is that the Targum, a product of the synagogue and study house,65 and ancient synagogue art share important themes and motifs. Unlike Josephus, who scorned Solomon's use of animal sculpture,66 the Targum Sheni, following on biblical and Rabbinic literature (and paralleling archaeological discoveries), delighted in this imagery. One wonders whether the opulence of the Targum is more than just a response to the richness of the biblical narrative and the Rabbinic tendency to expansive fantasy in imagining the heroic past. Perhaps this adaptation of Byzantine automata includes within it a response or reaction to Byzantine "thrones of Solomon" and to the general lavishness of christian art with which Jews

would certainly have been familiar in Christian Palestine. 67 The famous comment ascribed to justinian at the dedication of the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople rings in my ear: "Solomon, I have outdone yoU."68 A Byzantine context is clearly expressed in Targum Sheni's midrash on Est. 9:15. This verse translates: "Then Mordecai went out from the presence of the king in royal robes of blue and white, with a great golden crown and a mantle of fine linen and purple, while the city of Susa shouted and rejoiced." The Targum writes that Mordecai "wore a purple tunic, on which was the likeness of flying birds and fowl of the heaven was portrayed .... " It adds that

62 Ibid., p. 202; May, "The Decor of the Korazim Synagogue Reliefs," pp. 129-130. 63 Throne and Amphitheater of King Solomon, in A. Jellenek, ed., Bet ha-Midrasch (jerusalem, 1967), vol. 6, pp. 34-39. 64 The excavators of the Meroth synagogue suggest that the arch above the main portal of the synagogue was decorated with the signs of the zodiac. See Ilan and Damati, Meroth, pp.

66 See Ant. 8, 194-195; Fine, Art and judaism, pp. 35-36. 67 For a survey of Christian art in the Holy Land, see Y. Israeli and D. Mevorah, Cradle of Christianity (jerusalem, 2000). 68 In Narratio de structura temple S. Sophiae 27. R.j. Mainstone, Hagia Sophia: Architecture, Structure, and Liturgy of justinian's Great Church (New York, 1988), pp. 147-148, notes that an inscription in the nave of the Church of St. Polyeuctos in Constantanople (built 523-527) makes a similar claim. A Jewish response to the Hagia Sophia from the reign of Basil I (867-886) is preserved in B. Klar, ed., Megillat Ahimaaz: The Chronicle of Ahimaaz with aCollection of Poems from Byzantine Southern Italy (jerusalem, 1974), in Hebrew, p. 18, lines 3-17, and Klar's comments, pp. 143-144.

47-48.

65 A.D. York, "The Targum in the Synagogue and School," in journal for the study of judaism 10, no. 1 (1979), pp. 74-86; S. Fine, "'Their Faces Shine with the Brightness of the Firmament:' Study Houses and Synagogues in the Targumim to the Pentateuch," in F.W. Knobloch, ed. (Bethesda, 2002), pp. 63-92.

a Median sword hung on his loin (drooping) into a golden ring, on which was engraved the image of the city of jerusalem; on the handle of the sword was portrayed the mascot of the Median province, which will fall first; it was portrayed in colors and made for kings; above it was a large wreath of Macedonian gold; above the wreath, frontlet phylactery (totafan) overlaid with gold, so that all the peoples, nations and tongues will see that Mordecai is a Jew ...

"ART" IN MIDRASHIC LITERATURE

The image ofjustinian in the wall mosaic of the Church of San Vitale in Ravenna immediately comes to mind. The expensive garments and golden crown of the emperor cannot be far from the imagination of our story teller, who could readily see such images on Byzantine coins of the period. 69 Emperors in armor and bearing swords appear on some coins. Byzantine period garments decorated with birds are extant in sizable numbers?O I have found no parallel for the golden ring "engraved the image of the city of Jerusalem"-except, perhaps, for mementos of Christian pilgrimage to the Holy Land, such as finger rings that bear images of the Holy Sepulcher and flasks bearing images of other Christian holy sites.71 Mordecai's wreath is typical of the period. The fact that it is made of "Macedonian gold" quietly connects this Jewish hero with Alexander the Great, the archetypical Hellenistic ruler for Jew and Greek alike. The golden phylactery is unique to this Targumic tradition. It's presence is an attempt to Judaize this distinctly non-Jewish clothing ensemble. This use of head phylacteries to exemplify the identity of the Jewish ruler

11

fits well with a Rabbinic comment on Deut. 28:10: "And all the peoples of the earth shall see that you are called by the name of the Lord; and they shall be afraid of you." ... Said R. Eliezer the Greater: These are the head phylactery. This comment appears in B. Meg. 16b, the focus of which is the Esther story.72 The centrality of Tefillin as markers of Jewish identity is expressed by Jerome in his comment on Gal. 4:22 to the effect that "the Jews feared to appear in the cities because they attracted attention; probably they were recognized by the tefillah."73 Our Targum passage represents a turn about of this situation. Rather than shame, as Jerome projects it, the Tefillin are a sign of Jewish power projected both into the biblical past of a diaspora community and into the eschatological future. One wonders whether it is accidental that in the place in which Jews wore the head phylactery, numismatic images of Justinian II and later emperors show a crown topped by a crossF4

"Art" as Divine Service Rabbinic literature shows considerable concern that artifacts used in ritual contexts be beautiful. This category came to be called hiddur mitzvah, literally, "beautification of the commandment" in medieval sources,

and refers to the desire to go "beyond the call of duty" in acquiring and preparing the implements necessary to fulfill divine commandments. 75 The exegetical locus for this notion is Exod. 15:2, the magnificent

69 I mention, for example, coins of Justin II (571-572) and Constans II (641-668), excavated in the Hammath Tiberias synagogue. See N. Amitai-Preiss, in M. Dothan, ed., Hammath Tiberias: Late Synagogues (Jerusalem, 2000), pp. 95-96. 70 A. Muthesius, Byzantine silk Weaving AD 400 to AD 1200 (Vienna, 1997), pI. l4, 34, 23, 50, 51,67,85,87,90,91. 71 G. Vikan, Byzantine Pilgrimage Art (Washington, 1982); idem, "Byzantine Pilgrims' Art," in L. Safran, ed., Heaven on Earth: Art and the Church

in Byzantium (University Park), pp. 229-266. 72 See parallels in B. Ber. 6a, 57a, B. Sot. 17b, B. Men. 35b, B. Hul. 89a. 73 Blau, "phylacteries," inJewish Encyclopedia (New York, 1905), vol. 10, p. 27. 74 H.C. Evans and W.D. Wixom, eds., The Glory of Byzantium: Art and Culture of the Middle Byzantine Era, A.D. 843-1261 (New York, 1997), pp. 213-217, esp. cat. no. 147. 75 "Hiddur Mitsvah," in S.Y. Zevin, ed., Talmudic Encyclopedia (Jerusalem, 1957), vol. 8, pp. 271-284, in Hebrew.

12

"ART" IN MIDRASHIC LITERATURE

"Song at the Sea." Exod. 15:2 is translated by NJPS: "This is my God, and I will enshrine (or, alternately, 'glorify') him, my father's God, and I will exalt him." The word translated "enshrine" or "glorify," ve-anvehu, appears only once in the Bible, hence its interpretation is quite opaque/ 6 Our homilist (with the alternate translation offered by the new NJPS) assumed that the root is naeh, "beauty."77 The verse is thus translated: "This is my God, I will beautify him." The first place in which this approach appears is a Tannaitic midrash on Exodus, the Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael. There we read: 7s

The list of artifacts is adjusted to various circumstances in the Rabbinic corpus. In b. Shabo 133b the shofar, is added to the list, as is the writing of a Torah scroll "with fine (naeh) ink and a fine pen by a skilled scribe, and he should wrap it in beautiful silks."79 other Tannaitic sources suggest that scrolls were wrapped in fine embroidered cloths (M. Kel. 28:4) that were adorned with bells

that "make noise" (T. Kel., B. Mes. 1:13, and parallels). While hiddur mitzvah was a positive value in Rabbinic sources, this as yet unarticulated category did not supercede other values considered more essential. Thus, a Torah scroll should be made of the finest materials by the best scribe available. Its wrappings could be beautified as well. A tradition preserved in Byzantine period collections has it that when the Jews of Alexandria attempted to beautify the manuscript of their scrolls by writing the Tetragrammaton in golden letters, the rabbis are said to have disallowed the innovation. so One is reminded of the practice revealed in the Qumran library to write the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew script in places in which the remainder of the manuscript was written in Hebrew square script.8! The rabbis considered each Torah scroll to be a facsimile of the scroll received by Moses.S 2 Any diversion from standard production and writing procedures, therefore, was unacceptable. Gold and silver plating of ram's horns (shofar) was permitted, provided the gold did not affect the sound. s3 For the Tannaim, lulav bunches could not be bound with materials not derived from the palm (though the rabbis did discuss the possibility that bunches bound with gold bands existed in Second Temple times).84 According to M. Meg. 4:8, refillin may not be made round,

76 See]. Goldin, The Song at the Sea (philadelphia, 1990), p. 113. 77 Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, p. 865. 78 Shirata 3, ed. J .Z. Lauterbach (philadelphia, 1976),2:25. 79 B. Naz. 2b. See the discussion of versions and manuscript traditions in E.Z. Melamed, Halachic Midrashim of the Tannaim in the Babylonian Talmud (Jerusalem, 1988), p. 110, no. 83, in Hebrew. 80 Sof. 1:8 and parallels discussed by J.P. Siegel, "The Alexandrians in Jerusalem and their Torah Scroll with Gold Tetragrammata,"

in Israel Exploration}ournal 22 (1972), p. 39. 8! E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis and Assen/Maastricht, 1992), p. 220. 82 S. Fine, "'The Torah that Moses Commanded Us:' Scripture and Authority in Rabbinic Judaism," in Review and Expositor 95, no. 4 (1998), pp. 523-532. 83 M. R.H. 3:3-4; T. R.H. 2:4, and S. lieberman, Tosefta Ki-fshutah (New York, 1955-1988), ad.loc. 84 M. Suk. 3:8, T. Suk. 2:10, and Lieberman, rosefta Ki-fshutah, ad. loc.

"I will glorify him" (Exod. 15:2). Says R. Ishmael: "And is it possible for flesh and blood to glorify his creator? "Rather, I will glorify him through commandments (mitsvot). I will make before him a beautiful (naeh) lulav, a beautiful sukkah, beautiful fringes, and beautiful phylacteries .... "

"ART" IN MIDRASHIC LITERATURE

nor may they be plated with gold. Later traditions consider the form and color of the tefillin to be "laws from Moses at Sinai" (Y. Meg. 1:11, 71d; 4:1, 75c; B. Shabo 28b, 62a, 79b; B. Ned. 37b; B. Men. 32a-b, 35a-b). The Mishnah explains that gold is forbidden because golden tefillin were worn by heretics (minim).85 The Mekhilta further explores the meaning of ve-anvehu, pairing the notion of beautifying God with a common Rabbinic identification of the Temple as God's naveh, his habitation.86 The two possibilities offered by NjPS are assumed by the rabbis: R. Yose the son of the Damascene says: "I will make before him a beautiful Temple, for naveh denotes the Temple .... " The rabbis remembered the beauty of the Temple as a developing phenomenon, an attitude that accords with reality. With no concern for the direct inspiration in Roman public architecture, a baraita preserved in B. Suk. SIb could claim that: "Whoever did not see jerusalem in its glory never saw a beautiful city. Whoever has never seen the Temple as it stood never saw a beautiful building," and another in B. B.B. 4a could state: "whoever has never seen the Temple of Herod has never seen a beautiful building" (B. Suk. SIb). While unarticulated,

85 For discussion of this term and the relevant bibliography, see my "Between Texts and Archaeology: Nabratein and Jacob of Kefar Nevoraia in Rabbinic Literature," in E.M. and c.L. Meyers, eds., Ancient Synagogue Excavations at En-Nabratein, Upper Galilee, 1980-81 (forthcoming). 86 See Goldin, The Song at the Sea, p. 115; H. Orlinsky, ed., Notes on the New Translation of the Torah (philadelphia, 1970), p. 170. 87 See, for example, the descriptions in M. Middot. 88 War 5,184-227; Ant. 15. These texts were discussed most recently by L.I. Levine, "Josephus' Description of the Jerusalem Temple:

13

appreciation of the Temple's physical splendor is implicit in the glowing Tannaitic presentations of the Temple's architecture. 87 It squares nicely with the massive remains of Herod's Temple, josephus's descriptions,88 and positive evaluations by a number of Roman authors. These include Pliny the Elder, who called jerusalem "the most famous city of the east."89 Rabbinic sources contain a number of descriptions of golden vessels donated by individuals to the Temple. These include a golden vine and lamp that were suspended above the entrance to the shrine and a golden tablet inscribed with the trial by water of the accused wife (that is said to have reflected sparks of sunlight) given by Queen Helena of Adiabene (M. Yom. 3:9-10, T. Kip. 2:3-4). It also describes gold covered horns of wreathed oxen that M. Bik. 3:3 recalls pulled wagons of first fruits to jerusalem, perhaps carrying silver and gold baskets brought by the wealthy and donated together with the fruits (M. Bik. 3:8). Donation by individuals, including a certain Ben Gamla who replaced the two wooden lots used in the scapegoat ceremony of Yom Kippur with golden lots (M. Yom. 3:9), M. Yom. 3:10 provides a list of donors to the Temple. These are Ben Qatin, who made twelve spigots for the brazen laver and made other improvements, Queen Helene of Adiabene, her son King Monobases, who

War, Antiquities and Other Sources," in

F. Parente andJ. Sievers, eds.,josephus and the

History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith (Leiden, 1994), pp. 233-246. 89 Pliny, Natural History 5, 70, in M. Stern, ed., Greek and Latin Authors on jews andjudaism, (Jerusalem, 1980), vol. 1, pp. 469, 471; idem, "Jerusalem, the Most Famous of the Cities of the East (Pliny, Natural History Y, 70)," in A. Oppenheimer, U. Rappaport, and M. Stern, eds., jerusalem in the Second Temple Period: Abraham Schalit Memorial Volume (Jerusalem, 1980), pp, 257-270, in Hebrew. See Fine, Art and judaism, p. 15.

14

"ART" IN MIDRASHIC LITERATURE

gave gold handles for the vessels of Yom Kippur, and Nicanor of Alexandria, who gave doors of Corinthian bronze that shined as brightly as gold. 90 These donations were typical of Roman euergetism, of individuals benefacting the community and thus gaining communal position. 91 M. Yom. 3:10 makes this euergetic impulse clear in reference to the donors listed: "they were remembered with praise."92 An ossuary was discovered in a tomb on Mt. Scopus in 1902 contains the following Greek inscription: "bones of the sons of Nicanor the Alexandrian, who made the doors."93 Nicanor's euergetism was so greatly esteemed that its influence continued at least a generation beyond his lifetime-to be remembered by the rabbis centuries later. The continual upgrading of the Temple furnishings throughout the Second Temple period is a theme that appears a number of times in Rabbinic sources. The gates of the Temple, including Nicanor's bronze gate, were at some point replaced with golden ones, as were the scapegoat lots and the handles of the Yom Kippur vessels (M. Yom. 3:10,T. Kip. 2:4). Similarly, in B. Men. 28b we are presented with a sense of the Temple vessels being upgraded as time went on:

They said to him: "Is this proof? "They had iron poles, and they covered them with wood. "They became more wealthy, and made them of silver. "They became even more wealthy, and made them of gold." At the same time, the Mekhilta, and other sources, were alert that Deuteronomic prohibitions against Jews' building alternate temples to the Temple of Jerusalem, the Samaritan temple on Mt. Gerizim 94 and the temple of Onias in Egypt being the prime examples in recent memory (M. Men. 13:10; Y. Yom. 6:3, 43c-d; B. Men. 109a-llOa; B. Meg. lOa). The Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael, commenting on Exod. 20:20, "gods of silver and gold do not make for yourselves," forbids the placement of cherubs like those in the Tabernacle and in Solomon's Temple in "synagogues and study houses."95 Other texts forbid the construction of whole buildings model of the Temple. 96 A baraita preserved in B. R.H. 24a-b (and parallels) makes this point: 97

R. Yose b. R.Judah says: "One may not make [the menorah] of wood as the Hasmonean dynasty did."

Our rabbis taught: No one may make a building in the form of the shrine, an exedra98 in place of the entrance hall, a courtyard in place of the court, a table in place of the table (of the bread of the Presence), a menorah in place of the menorah,

90 On Corinthian bronze, see D.M.Jacobson and M.P. Weitzman, "What Was Corinthian Bronze?" in Americanjoumal of Archaeology 96, no. 2 (1992), pp. 237-248. 91 On this neologism, see A.j.S. Spawforth, "Euergetism," in The Oxford Classical Dictionary, p.566. 92 Following the Kaufmann manuscript (A 50). See also M. Mid. 1:4, 2:3, 6, M. Sheq. 6:3, M. Sot. 1:5, M. Neg. 14:8, T. Kip. 2:4, and Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-fshutah, vol. 4, pp. 760-76l. 93 See E. Schiirer, The History of the jewish People in the Age ofjesus Christ, revised English

version, ed. G. Vermes et. al. (Edinburgh, 1979), vol. 2, pp. 57-58, n. 170. 94 See B. Yom. 69a; Megillat Ta'anit, ed. B.Z. Lurie (Jerusalem, 1964), pp. 164-170. 95 Ba-Hodesh 10, ed. Lauterbach 2: 283. 96 Discussed in This Holy place, pp. 47-49. '17 Following the Vilna edition. See R. Rabbinowicz, Dikduqei Sofrim (New York, 1976), ad loc.; B. A.Z. 43a, B. Men. 28b; Midrash haGadol to Exod. 20:20 (ed. M. Margulies. 2nd ed. Jerusalem, 1967). 9H S. Krauss, Griechische und lateinische Lehnworter im Talmud, Midrasch und Targum (Berlin, 1898-1899), pp. 44-45.

"ART" IN MIDRASHIC LITERATURE

but one may make (a menorah) with five, six or eight (branches). Even of other metals (you shall not make a menorah). The concern of these traditions is to maintain the uniqueness of the Temple, partic-

15

ularly as the increasingly holy synagogue was ascribed with Temple-like qualities. The balance between the synagogue as a beautiful "holy place" or "small temple" and overstepping the Deuteronomic prohibition against alternate temples was well understood by the Rabbis.

Artisans in Midrashic Sources The rabbis were generally positive towards craftsmen, with little of the explicit condescension found in Ben Sira and in the Greco-Roman context. 99 They nevertheless were quite ambivalent in their evaluation of the powers of artisans when their creations seem to infringe upon divine prerogatives. This ambivalence is expressed in aggadic traditions in the Mekhilta of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yohai that both treats human portraiture as normal and suggests an ambivalence toward the work of the artisan. The midrash comments on Exod. 15:11: "who is like thee, 0 Lord, among the gods? who is like thee, majestic in holiness, terrible in glorious deeds, doing wonders?"IOO " ... doing wonders" (Exod.15:12). The attributes of flesh and blood are not like the attributes of God. Flesh and blood, when he creates an image (?r ?wra) begins from its head or its foot or from one of its limbs. But God, blessed be he, when he creates an image, creates it all at once. For it is said: "for he is the former (YW?r) of all things" {Jer. 10:15}. And it says: "there is no artisan (?wr) like our God" (1 Sam. 2:2), there is no artisan like God.

99 Sira 11-12; Fine, Art and judaism, pp. 11-15. On craftsmen in Rabbinic literature, see M. Ayali, Workers and Craftsmen: Their Labor and Their Status in Rabbinic Literature (Israel, 1987), in Hebrew.

Another example: "who does wonders" (Exod. 15:12). The attributes of flesh and blood are not like the attributes of God. Flesh and blood goes to a maker of images ('wsh 5lamim) and says to him: Make me a likeness of my father. He (the craftsman) says to him: Bring me your father and place him before me, or bring me his picture {'qwnyn} and I will make one like it. But he who spoke and the world was created is not so. He gives this man a son resembling his father from a drop of water (semen). The starting place of this tradition, Exod. 15:11, sets up the comparison between man and God. Citation of Jer. 10:16 deepens the polemical underpinnings of the Mekhilta here. Jer. 1O:14b-15 contrasts God as creator to the maker of idols: . .. every founder is put to shame by his idols; for his images are false, and there is no breath in them. They are worthless, a work of delusion; at the time of their punishment they shall

100 Mekhilta of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yohai, be-Shalah 15:11, ed. J.N. Epstein and E.Z. Melammed (Jerusalem, 1955), pp. 93-94; Urbach, "The Rabbinical Laws," p.237.

16

"ART" IN MIDRASHIC LITERATURE

perish. Not like these is he who is the portion of Jacob, for he is the former of all things, and Israel is the tribe of his inheritance; the Lord of hosts is his name.

A useful vantage point from which to view Rabbinic attitudes toward artisans, and the relationship of artisans to donors, is the image of Bezalel in Rabbinic thought. With

Josephus, the rabbis praise Bezalel, and Aheliab, the builders of the biblical Tabernacle, for their artistry. lOS The personality of Bezalel is not well developed in Tannaitic and classical midrashim. In fact, his name appears nowhere in the Mishnah, Tosefta, or in the Tannaitic midrashim (including the two Mekhiltas on Exodus!). Palestinian sources from the Byzantine period, perhaps coincidentally the period when major synagogue construction projects were being undertaken throughout Palestine, explore this character more fully. They focus upon the ambiguous relationship between Bezalel and Moses that is set out in Scripture. In Exod. 31:1-6 and 35:30-36, God Himself presents Bezalel as his choice to be the principle builder of the divinely-designed Tabernacle. 106 In Exod. 31:3 and 35:31, Bezalel is described as having been "filled with the spirit of God, with ability and intelligence, with knowledge and all craftsmanship, to devise artistic designs, to work in gold, silver, and bronze, in cutting stones for setting, and in carving wood, for work in every craft." Bezalel's name is indicative of his status. Bezalel ben Uri translates as "in the shadow of God, son of Light" (Exod. 31:2,35:30). Bezalel, together with his assistant Oholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan" (Exod. 31:6) "made" of the Tabernacle appurtenances (e.g., Exod. 37:1.). Bezalel's workmanship fulfills a series of divine commands to Moses to make the vessels. Exod. 25:9, 25:40, 26:30 and Num. 8:4 all treat Moses as the earthly patron of the Tabernacle. In Exod. 25:40, Moses is

101 Reunion des musees nationaux et Ie departement des Antiquites egyptiennes du Musee du Louvre, Portraits de l'Egypte romaine: Paris, Musee du Louvre, 5 octobre 1998-4 janvier 1999 (Paris, 1998). 102 Ant. 19,357. See also Ant. 15, 23-30, and compare J. Gutmann, "The Second Commandment and the Image in Judaism," in j. Gutmann, ed., Beauty in Holiness: Studies in Jewish Customs and Ceremonial Art (New York, 1970), p. 12.

103 See the parallel to this text in the Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Shirata 8, Ed. Lauterbach 2: 65 and Urbach, "The Rabbinical Laws," p. 237. 101 j.N. Epstein, "Additional fragments of the Jerushalmi," in Tarbiz 3, no. 1 (1931), p. 20, in Hebrew. 105 Ant. 3, 104-106; idem, pp. 8, 76-78. fine, Art and Judaism, pp. 12-13. 106 C. Houtmann, Exodus (Leuven, 1993), vol. 3, pp. 323, 355.

Still, the Mekhilta does not portray the artisan as an idolater or his craft as idolatry, but merely as a craftsmen whose inferiority to the divine requires reiteration. Portraits of family members were not uncommon in the Roman world. Examples have been discovered in Egypt. 10l The rabbis clearly knew of the existence of such domestic portraiture, perhaps also among the Jews.102 Our traditions do not hint that they are dealing with a gentile contextbut, rather, with the limitations of an artistwhether Jew or gentile. A version in B. Ber. lOa explicitly discusses human figures drawn on walls. l03 More significantly, a Genizah fragment of Y. A.Z. 3:3, 42d suggests that Jews who were close to the Tiberian rabbis in third century Palestine had figurative wall paintings and mosaics:104 In the days of R. Yohanan they permitted images on the walls, and he did not stop them. In the days of R. Abun they permitted images on mosaics, and he did not stop them.

"ART" IN MIDRASHIC LITERATURE

17

commanded: "And see (ur'eh) and make (ve'aseh) them after the pattern which is being shown you (asher atah mareh) on the mountain." Moses was commanded to fabricate the Tabernacle according to the divinely ordained plan. The actual craftsmanship was carried out by Bezalel. This relationship is emphasized throughout the Exodus narrative, and particularly in the description of the finished Tabernacle in Exod. 39-40. In 39:43, Moses receives the completed Tabernacle, "And Moses sawall the work, and behold, they had done it; as the Lord had commanded, so had they done it. And Moses blessed them." From this point on, Moses' role in the Tabernacle is central, as he assembled and dedicated it. The issue of who "made" the Tabernacle is complicated in the Books of Chronicles. In 1 Chron. 21:29 and 2 Chron. 1:3 we hear of" ... the tabernacle [2 Chron.: "of witness"] of the Lord, which Moses [2 Chron.: the servant of the Lord] had made ('asah) in the wilderness." 2 Chronicles describes Bezalel's craftsmanship in similar terms. 2 Chron. 1:5 mentions that "the bronze altar that Bezalel the son of Uri, son of Hur, had made ('asah)" was in the Tent of Meeting in Jerusalem. Through the use of this verb, Moses' role in the construction of the Tabernacle is also subtly compared to that of Solomon in building the Temple (and vice versa). We read in 2 Chron. 5:1: "Thus all the work that Solomon did ('asah) for the house of the Lord was finished."107 Rabbinic literature explored roles of Bezalel and Moses as "makers" of the Tabernacle and its vessels in a number of ways. In the Baraita de-Melekhet ha-Mishkan, the locus for Rabbinic discussion of the con-

struction of the Tabernacle, Bezalel's name appears only two times. Still, the overlapping roles of Moses and Bezalel are treated without any sense of competition. lOS This is expressed in the Baraita's discussion of the menorah. Chapter nine opens: "The menorah that Moses made in the desert was wrought from hammered gold .... " The next chapter opens unproblematically with the question: "How did Bezalel make the menorah?" Seder alam Rabbah brings the two phrases from Chronicles together. This Tannaitic chronology recalls "... the tabernacle that Moses made in the desert, and the bronze altar that Bezalel made .... "109 Similarly, classical midrashim suggest no difficulties with Bezalel's status as builder of the Tabernacle. lIo That Bezalel actually fulfilled Moses' oft repeated divine charge to "make" the Tabernacle, and Chronicles attributes the altar to Bezalel (and not to Moses) set up for Byzantine period midrashim a kind of competition between these two figures. Dissonance is created between the towering image of Moses as the recipient of God's command and the divinely-gifted artisan, Bezalel (titled Bezalel umana, "Bezalel the artisan," in the targum to Song of Songs 7:2).111 This perceived dissonance is in line with Greco-Roman attitudes toward craftsmen. As Alison Burford notes, "No matter how useful or how beautiful the object, how essential to the physical or spiritual needs of the individual or community for whom it was made-be it hunting-knife, defense tower, or gold and ivory cult statue-the maker was in no way admirable."112 Some particularly famous Greek and Roman artisans and architects are known by name, though these are clearly the exception.

107 See also 1 Kings 14:26, 2 Kings. 24:13, 25:16, 1 Chron. 18:8, 6:13, 7:7, 12:9. 108 Baraita de-Melekhet ha-Mishkan, ed. R. Kirschner (Cincinnati, 1991), chaps. 9-10, and the apparatus to 10:1. 109 Seder alam Rabbah 14, p. 61 and note 10.

110 E.g., Genesis Rabbah 97, 8 (ed. Theodor and Albeck, p. 1209), which mentions "Bezalel, who made the holy Tabernacle." 111 Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, 4a, p. 136. 112 A. Burford, Craftsmen in Greek and Roman Society (Ithaca, 1974), p. 13.

18

"ART" IN MIDRASHIC LITERATURE

Bezalel was a similar exception, for he was chosen by God for the project. The generally accepted inferior status of the artisan created difficulty for the authors our Byzantine period traditions (and for Josephus before them) with the divinely chosen and esteemed Bezalel. Several Rabbinic traditions that are preserved in Byzantine period collections suggest that tridents were discomforted by Bezalel's prominent role. A tradition in Midrash Tanhuma attempts to resolve this dilemma, arguing that Moses really did "make" the menorah.1l3 According to this tradition, after having failed to create a menorah based upon a pattern shown him by God, Moses threw an ingot of gold into a fire. Through divine intervention a fully formed menorah came out. Moses' assumed artistic lacking provides a rationale for the biblically-ordained role of Bezalel as artisan of the Tabernacle and its implements. Thus we read in Midrash Tanhuma {and parallels):Jl4 R. Levi son of Rabbi says: A pure menorah came down from heaven. For the Holy One, blessed be he, said to Moses, "And you will make a menorah of pure gold" (Exod. 25:31). Moses said to him: 'How shall we make it?' He said to him: "of beaten work [shall the menorah be made]" (ibid.). Nevertheless, Moses still found difficulty with it, and when he came down he forgot its construction. He went up and said: "Master of the universe, I have forgotten how to make it!" The Holy One, blessed be he, showed Moses again, but he still had difficulty.

1lJ Be-ha'alotkha 3; ed. S. Buber, Be-ha'alotkha 4; Houtman, Exodus, vol. 3, p. 403.

114 Midrash Tanhuma, Be-ha'alotkha 6; Midrash Tanhuma, ed. S. Buber, Be-ha'alotkha

He [God] said to him: Look and make (it), and finally he took a coin of gold and showed him its construction. Still, he [Moses] found its construction difficult. So he [God] said to him: "See it and make it" (Exod. 25:40) and finally he [God] took a menorah of fire and showed him its construction. Yet, in spite of all this, it caused Moses difficulty. Said the Holy One, blessed be he, to him: "Go to Bezalel and he will make it." He went down to Bezalel, and the latter immediately constructed it. Immediately Moses began to wonder, saying: "To me it was shown many times by the Holy One, blessed be he, yet I found it hard to make, and you who did not see it constructed it with your own intelligence! Bezalel, you stood in the shadow of God (beze/'el) when the Holy One, blessed be he, showed me its construction! ... This midrash solves the dilemma of Bezalel's artistic acuity and seeming superiority over Moses through interpretation of his name. Bezalel is subservient to Moses, this midrash suggests, because he stood in God's shadow when God showed Moses the fiery menorah. Bezalel's special skills are set in the shadow of Moses' revelation. Moses' difficulty in constructing the vessels is based in an additional issue of biblical exegesis. Anyone who has tried to draw or fabricate the Tabernacle artifacts based solely upon the biblical descriptions knows that the biblical text assumes the reader can visualize the object that is described based upon pre-existing knowledge. These

11; Numbers Rabbah 15:10. On Bezalel in Rabbinic sources, see L. Ginzberg, Legends of theJews (Philadelphia, 1954), vol. 3, pp. 154-161, esp. note 338.

"ART" IN MIDRASHIC LITERATURE

word pictures are in no way complete, but rather are schematic verbal renderings. The descriptions must have been clear to the original audience, who could visualize the artifacts in terms of their own material culture.l15 For later generations, this context was lost, and the text became quite opaque. This opacity was acknowledged by the rabbis when they imagined that God needed to show Moses a fiery model of the menorah drawn by the divine finger as a guide. Dissatisfied with any sense of parity between Bezalel and Moses, Exodus Rabbah 35:3 sets an explicit hierarchical relationship between Moses's position and that of Bezalel: ... did Moses make the Tabernacle? Behold, it is written: Bezalel and Oholiab and every able man in whose mind the Lord had put ability made [the Tabernacle] (Exod. 36:1). Rather, Moses taught, and Bezalel acted. Moses "made" the Tabernacle as its patron, while Bezalel was in essence Moses' employee. This lexical distinction is fortified by the fact that in late antiquity the Hebrew 'asah and the Aramaic cognate 'avad both bear the sense of both benefaction and active "making" (as does the Greek cognate poieo). Yannai, a sixth century synagogue poet, states this relationship firmly in a poem on the construction of the Tabernacle in which Bezalel is never mentioned: 116

115 B. Jacob, The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus (Hoboken, 1992), pp. 763, 781, makes this point about the Pentateuchal description of the Tabernacle. See C. Meyers, The Tabernacle Menorah: A Synthetic study of a Symbol from the Biblical Cult (Missoula, 1976) and compare to R. Hachlili, The Menorah, The Ancient SevenArmed Candelabrum: Origin, Form and Significance,

19

Happy is the faithful [servant ne'eman, Moses], who is truly the artisan (ha'oman), To hear and to see, to cause to be done and to do. understanding of all the work of the structure he (God) directed, And he (God) agreed to all that was done. You commanded him, "and make the Tabernacle," And he supported and caused it to be done, just as he did every deed. Know that anyone who supports something, it is named after him; all that he supported is called after him. The Tabernacle is called the Tabernacle that Moses made .... The attitude described by Yannai is paralleled in dedicatory inscriptions from Palestinian synagogues. of the more than one hundred extant inscriptions, only three artisans appear. Marianos and his son Hanina appear in two mosaics, as the artisans of the Beth Alpha synagogue mosaics and of a second synagogue mosaic (perhaps Samaritan) in neighboring Beth Shean. ll7 The Beth Alpha inscription reads: May the craftsmen who carried out this work, Marianos and his son Hanina, be held in remembrance. In the Aramaic inscription from Beth Shean that we discussed above the artisans are

(Leiden, Boston, and Koln, 2001), pp. 7-40. 116 Piyyut to Exod. 26:1, ed. Rabinovitz, 1: 330. Exodus Rabbah 35:3; Tanhuma Nasa 13, Midrash Tanhuma, ed. S. Buber, Naso 20. See J. Yahalom, "Synagogue Inscriptions in Palestine-A Stylistic Classification," in Immanuel 10 (1980), p. 53. 117 Roth-Gerson, Greek Inscriptions, pp. 29-30,33.

20

CHURCH FATHERS, RABBINIC MIDRASH AND

praised anonymously, and in a Greek inscription, probably a dedicatory text, appears on the pilaster capital from Tiberias: "The Gracious God, be with Abraham the marble worker."118 Significantly, in every other Jewish dedicatory inscription from the land of Israel, whether in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, the focus is upon the donor who "made" the gift or "strengthened" the synagogue. Like Moses in Yannai's poem, it is the local donors who "made"

the synagogue-not the workmen. Bezalel, like the local artisans who constructed most of the anonymous synagogues, study houses and other communal structures in Byzantine Palestine, is merely the artisan. This Rabbinic image of Bezalel thus resolves the status of the biblical builder vis-a-vis that of the patron in ways that are consistent with the mores of most synagogue communities in the land of Israel during the Byzantine period.

Conclusion While no ancient rabbi would understand the modern conception of art, and certainly not of" art for art's sake," rabbis would certainly have appreciated the arts of their times and places. The rabbis fully participated in the arts of their times. Their imaginary biblical coins, mile markers, and the throne of Solomon express how fully they knew, and integrated, the material culture of the Roman and Byzantine periods into their visions of the biblical past. This becomes particularly apparent when these texts are compared with contemporaneous material culture in the land of Israel. The sources discussed suggest that within the

Rabbinic community attitudes toward art followed patterns well known from the general context. We have seen this both in terms of the beautification of Jewish ritual contexts (during the medieval period called hiddur mitzvah), and in terms of Rabbinic attitudes toward painters and architectural artisans. These contexts suggest a lively interplay between Jewish values of "antiidolism" and a desire to create beauty in the spirit of "this is my God, I will glorify him." STEVEN FINE

University of Cincinnati

church Fathers, Rabbinic Midrash and The deSignation "church Fathers" is usually understood nowadays in a broad sense to refer to Christian writers from subapostolic times until the age ofJohn of Damascus (ca. 651-750) in the East and of Isidore of Seville (died 636) in the West, whether they technically qualify for the appellation "Father of the Church" or not. The patristic sources most relevant for the study of

1lH

Ibid., pp. 58-60.

Rabbinic midrash, however, derive from the golden age of biblical scholarship, that is, the period from Origen (ca. 185-254) to Theodoret (ca. 393-466), and it will not be possible to discuss the later era here. For our purposes, the term midrash will also be best understood in a broad sense, as indicating the post-biblicalJewish exegetical tradition more generally. Indeed, what

CHURCH FATHERS, RABBINIC MIDRASH AND

21

we call midrash, and in particular Rabbinic midrash, would have been designated by the Fathers by the more inclusive term deuterosis, a Greek word also used by Latin writers in transliteration. This term, while it does not mean midrash, is for practical purposes a near equivalent to it in patristic usage. Strictly speaking, deuterosis is a translation of mishnah. The verb ()£1J'tEp6w is attested in the Septuagint as the translation for ilJO, and means "to repeat," "to do a second time," and the noun ()EU'tEPW(}"U; is also attested, but neither word is used in any technical sense. Now, in a few early Christian texts, deuterosis may be used to designate a portion of the Pentateuchallaw that is "secondary," of inferior rank, and no longer valid. l However, much more common is the use of the term as it occurs in Origen and in later Fathers to mean the Jewish unwritten tradition in the broad sense. This use of the term is of Jewish origin, as the Fathers indicate in many passages, although it is not attested in JudeoHellenistic literature. 2 It represents the translation of mishnah, not in the sense that we usually understand it, but as it appears to be employed in an early stratum of Rabbinic tradition. For as W. Bacher has shown, there is ample evidence in Rabbinic literature that the term mishnah was employed at one time to indicate the entirety of the oral tradition, in a way that miqra indicates the entirety of the written tradition. In this sense, mishnah includes midrash, halakhot, and aggadot. In confirmation of the Rabbinic evidence Bacher refers to the use of deutersosis in patristic literature, where it is applied to the entire breadth of the

oral tradition, both halakhic and aggadic. 3 Consequently, it is likely that the term deuterosis came to be used by Greek speaking Jews in the second century (after Josephus and before Origen) to refer to mishnah in the broad sense, and maintained that meaning. It is perfectly natural, therefore, that there are a few cases in patristic literature where deuterosis appears to refer to mishnah in the more restricted and usual sense, that is, halakhic teaching with an authority independent of Scripture. 4 For this meaning is subsumed within the wider sense of the word. However, for the most part the Fathers are interested in Jewish tradition only in so far as it constitutes interpretation of the biblical text. For this reason one may speak of a near equivalence, for practical purposes, of midrash and deuterosis. In fact, in Eusebius, the deuterotai are defined as "interpreters of Scripture" (Praep. ev. 11.5.3: e;llYTl'tal 'to)V 1tap' au'to'i~ [Sc. 'to'i~ 'E!}paiot~] ypaq>wv; cf. 12.1.4.). of course, none of this means that the Fathers do not refer to Jewish and Rabbinic midrash with other terminology, such as 1tapa()oO"l~ ("tradition"), eplJllvEia ("interpretation"), narratio ("story"), or the like. Critical research on the subject of the Church Fathers and midrash has been undertaken since the days of the Wissenschaft des }udentums in the nineteenth century. Primarily Jewish scholars, trained for the first time in Greek and Latin philology, sought to illuminate the field of Rabbinic literature by reference to the contemporary literature produced by the Fathers of the Chruch. 5 In particular, there were attempts to scour patristic literature in

1 On this usage, see H. Bietenhard, "Deuterosis," in Reallexikon {iir Antike und Christentum (1957), vol. 3, cols. 843-846. , For patristic attestation of deuterosis as a Jewish term, see Origen, Comm. in Cant. pro!. (GCS 33, p. 62); Jerome, Ep. 18(B).20; Augustine, Contr. adv. leg. 2.2; Theodoret, Interpret. in I Tim. 1:3-4. I Bacher, Die Agada der Tannaiten, 12

(Strassburg, 1903), pp. 475-489; cf.J.N. Epstein, Mavo le-nosach ha-mishnah l (Jerusalem, 2000), pp. 694, 698, 804. 'I For these instances, see Bietenhard, "Deuterosis," cols. 846-847. 5 For summaries of the history of research, see E. Lamirande, "Etude bibliographique sur les Peres de I'Eglise et l'Aggadah," in Vigiliae Christianae 21 (1967), pp. 1-11; J.R. Baskin,

22

CHURCH FATHERS, RABBINIC MIDRASH AND

search of lost Jewish lore and to understand difficult Rabbinic texts by reference to a historical context that could be illustrated by the aid of patristic sources. Much of the early research focussed on the collection of parallels that served to illustrate the connections between the two bodies of literature. More recent scholars have introduced greater caution in the determination of what constitutes a valid parallel. One may also note a shift in the general orientation of research since the Second world War. Works such as jesus et Israel (1948) by J. Isaac and especially, for the Rabbinic-patristic age, Verus Israel (1948) by M. Simon, led to a change of emphasis. There developed a greater interest in the historical issue of Jewish-Christian relations. The literary questions relating to the presence of midrashic themes and methods in patristic texts came to be treated within the broader context of the historical relationships between Jews and Christians. This is especially perceptible in the important work of N. de Lange, Origen and theJews (1976). De Lange took a positive view both of the extent of actual contact between Origen and the rabbis and of the nature of the relationship between them. This position has sometimes been challenged, but the primary questions concerning the subject of the Fathers and midrash have nevertheless often been framed in terms of Jewish-Christian relations: How much actual contact was there between rabbis and Fathers, and how influential was that contact? One may see this most clearly from two recent surveys of the subject as a whole by W. Horbury and G. Sternberger. Horbury takes the view that

there was important contact between the two parties, and, as he puts it, significant "covergence." Sternberger, on the other hand, takes a minimalist approach, and is skeptical about the reality and the consequence of "exegetical contacts between Christians and Jews."6 Nevertheless, the topic of the Church Fathers and Rabbinic midrash need not, and will not be considered here as a sub-topic within the greater area of the history of Jewish-Christian relations. That the patristic writings contain significant testimonia about Jewish and Rabbinic exegetical traditions and activities is a literary fact. These testimonia, regardless of whether they are to be explained as the result of direct or indirect contact, intimate or casual relations, have much to tell us about the nature of Rabbinic exegesis and about Rabbinic civilization more generally. This is not only because they contain material unattested in the Rabbinic corpus or because they allow us to assign dates to material that is attested, or because they may help us appreciate the perhaps polemical context of many a Rabbinic comment. Rather, the patristic testimonia offer an outside perspective on the very nature of the rabbis' exegetical assumptions and procedures. Although the theological outlook of the Fathers is not impartial, this fact is not always relevant to an effective use of the patristic material. As Jerome indicates to Rufinus, it is possible to distinguish between matters of faith and matters of erudition (Adv. RUf. 1.13). Consequently, the fathers, especially from the time of Origen onwards, often simply play the role of Greco-Latin scholars of texts,

"Rabbinic-Patristic Exegetical Contacts in Late Antiquity: A Bibliographical Reappraisal," in W.S. Green, ed., Approaches to Ancient Judaism (Atlanta, 1985), vol. 5, pp. 53-80. 6 Horbury,jews and Christians in Contact and Controversy (Edinburgh, 1998), pp. 200-225; cf. pp. 25-27; Sternberger, "Exegetical Contacts between Christians and Jews in the Roman

Empire," in M. sceb0, ed., Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation (Gottingen, 1996), vol. 1.1, pp. 569-586. It is the same basic issue that is addressed recently by E. Kessler, "The Exegetical Encounter between the Greek Church fathers and the Palestinian Rabbis," in Studia Patristica 34 (2001), pp. 395-412.

CHURCH FATHERS, RABBINIC MIDRASH AND

and in this role in particular they can lend helpful insights on the origin and character of Rabbinic exegetical methods and techniques. The questions of what exactly were the relations between the rabbis and the Fathers, or how influential was the jewish or Rabbinic material within the exegetical or theological system of a given Father, need not come to the fore. The following survey is organized in four rubrics suggested by differences not only in historical period, language, and geography, but also in relationship and approach to the jewish/Rabbinic midrashic tradition: (I) The western Fathers before Origen; (II) The Syriac Fathers, especially of the fourth century; (III) The Alexandrian and Palestinian Fathers from Origen to Cyril of Alexandria (died 444); (IV) The Antiochene Fathers from Eusebius of Emesa (ca. 300-359) to julian of Eclanum (ca. 385-454) and Theodoret. Many of the early western Fathers share with the Syriac authors a more spontaneous use of jewish/Rabbinic midrash and midrashic methods, in that there was in these circles a certain continuity with jewish antecedents. Origen, however, while certainly an heir of the judeo-Christian tradition, introduced systematic Greek methods into the study of the Bible on an unprecedented scale, and

23

his influence proved to be decisive. He was, as jerome would put it in the preface to his translation of Origen's Homilies on Ezekiel, citing the view of Didymus the Blind, "the foremost teacher of the churches after the Apostles." Origen's introduction of scientific methods led to a more detached approach to jewish exegesis, and consequently a more theoretical evaluation of midrashic material. This aspect of his scholarship was refined by his successors, especially jerome. Indeed, it is the critical yet to a surprising degree respectful approach found among the Alexandrian and Palestinian Fathers, as well as the impressive quantity of references to Rabbinic exegesis in their writings, that constitutes the outstanding feature of patristic use of midrash. It is therefore natural that the segment devoted to these Fathers will be the most extensive. Finally, the Antiochene exegetical movement is often best understood as a reaction to Alexandrian tendencies, and it is no different with respect to the present topic. In fact, the differences in attitude to Rabbinic midrash may probably be regarded as an additional proof of the divergence between the Alexandrian and Antiochene "schools," a divergence that some have attempted to de-emphaSize.

The Western fathers before Origen

of the writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers, especially the Didache and the Epistle ofBarnabas contain midrashic matter. In the former, what may be regarded as something of a derashah on the Ten Commandments is found in chapters 2-3. The Epistle of Barnabas also contains much midrashic exegesis, largely of a halakhic nature. Both

of these writings emerge from a judeoChristian setting and indeed may be based on pre-existing jewish texts. 7 The use of midrashic methods is therefore in full continuity with jewish and judeo-Christian precedents. The first apologists produced a different type of literature, because in contrast to

7 On midrashic procedure in these two writings, see D. Flusser,judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem, 1988), pp. 494-508 (on the Didache); G. Alon, "Ha-halakha be-

iggeret Bar-Naba," in Tarbiz 11 (1939-1940), pp. 23-38; L.W. Barnard, Studies in Church History and Patristics (Thessaloniki, 1978), pp. 54-58.

24

CHURCH FATHERS, RABBINIC MIDRASH AND

the Apostolic Fathers, they wrote for an external audience. The apologists do not take the Bible or the teachings of the Church for granted, but elucidate them in a public Greco-Latin context. One of them, justin Martyr (died ca. 165), is of special importance, because he openly discusses the jewish exegetical tradition as an external witness. Although he too, ironically enough, is largely in tune with it as regards methodology.s In the Dialog with Trypho justin describes his conversation with a jewish refugee from the Bar Kokhba war and makes constant reference to jewish interpretations, usually ascribing them to "your teachers" (in Greek, didaskaloi). Since the appearance of an important study by A.H. Goldfahn in 1873, scholars have debated the extent and the depth of justin's knowledge of post-biblicaljewish lore, and of aggadah in particular. 9 While discussion will surely continue, it can hardly be denied that the Dialog represents one of the most important patristic witnesses to Rabbinic midrashic traditions before the time of Origen, and it is therefore appropriate to mention a few aspects of its testimony. In the first place, justin seems aware of some of the general features of jewish exegetical culture of the early Rabbinic period. In Dialog 70.5, he refers, in an obvious reference to the jewish teachers, to those who "think they bow the very letters of Scripture." This reference derives from the word grammatikoi in Is. 33:18, just cited by justin, but it would be a particularly apt satirical jibe directed at the exegetical method of Aqiba. 1o Equally sardonic

would be justin's characterization of possible tampering with the text of Scripture by the jewish teachers (Le., by the later Greek translators, such as Aquila) as "more frightful than the making of the [golden] calf" (Dial. 73.6). This would be an appropriate response to the Rabbinic view, preserved in the minor tractate Soferim 1:7, according to which the day the Septuagint was made was similar to the day of the making of the [golden] calf. That justin was aware of Rabbinic criticism of the Septuagint is clear from his immediately preceding comments (Dial. 68.7; 71.1). These playful yet satirical remarks not only fit the historical context but are also perfectly in line with the tradition of the Greek dialog. justin also accuses the jewish teachers of concern with minute, trivial details, such as the presence of only female, but not male, camels in a given passage of Scripture (Dial. 112.4; the passage is Gen. 32:15). A treatment of just this problem is preserved in Gen. Rabbah 76.7. Because much of the Dialog is about the correct interpretations of biblical prophecies, it is natural that justin would show awareness of contemporary jewish exegesis of prophetic texts. Thus, he knows that the jewish interpreters applied Psalm 24 to Solomon (Dial. 36.2; cf. B. Shabo 30a), and identified the son of Isaiah 7:14 with Hezekiah (Dial. 43.8; 67.1; cf. Exod. Rabbah 18.5). More impressive is his discussion of exegetical difficulties, such as that in Gen. 1:26. With whom is God speaking when he says, "Let us make man according to our image"? In Dialog 62.2-3, justin first mentions two views of the jewish teachers, viz.,

8 On this, see A. Harnack, "judentum und judenchristentum in justins Dialog mit Trypho," in Texte und Untersuchungen 39.1 (1913), pp. 70-73. Goldfahn, "justinus Martyr und die Agada," in Monatsschrift fur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 22 (1873), pp. 49-60, 104-115, 145-153, 193-202,257-269. Also important is the annotated translation of the

Dialog by A. Lukyn Williams (London, 1930). For recent differing evaluations, see A. Rudolf, "Denn wir sindjenes Volk . .. " (Bonn, 1999), pp. 59-60; D. Rokeah, Justin Martyr and the Jews (Leiden, 2002), pp. 29-42. 10 For Aqiba's method as portrayed in Rabbinic literature, see B. Men. 29b. This passage of course also has a playful element.